20010405Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
DON HOWELL
JOHN HAMMOND
RANDY LOBB
JOE CUSICK
CAROLEE HALL
WAYNE HART
BIRDELLE BROWN
LYNN ANDERSON
BEV BARKER
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
RON LAW
GENE FADNESS
TONYA CLARK
WORKING FILE
FROM:DOUG COOLEY
DATE:APRIL 5,2001
RE:STAFF REVIEW OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS AND
AMENDMENTS TO INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS;CASE
NOS.FRE-T-01-01,USW-T-97-16&SPR-T-97-3,USW-T-00-10,VZN-T-01-3,
QWE-T-01-4,QWE-T-01-5,QWE-T-01-6,AND QWE-T-01-7.
BACKGROUND
Under the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,interconnection
agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval.47 U.S.C.§252(e)(l).The
Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only if it finds that the agreement:(1)
discriminates against telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement;or (2)implementation
of the agreement is not consistent with the public interest,convenience and necessity.47 U.S.C.
§252(e)(2)(A).As the Commission recently noted in Order No.28427,companies voluntarily
entering into interconnection agreements "may negotiate terms,prices and conditions that do not
comply with either the FCC rules or with the provisions with Section 251(b)or (c)."Order No.28427
at 11 (emphasis original).This comports with the FCC's statement that,"a state commission shall
DECISION MEMORANDUM 1 APRIL 5,2001
have authorityto approve an interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation even if the terms of the
agreement do not comply with the requirements of [Part 51]."47 C.F.R.§51.3.
THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS
The Commission has been asked to approve six interconnection agreements and three
amendments to existing interconnection agreements.These agreements are discussed in greater detail
below.
1.Fremont Telcom and Edge Wireless,LLC (Case No.FRE-T-01-1).In this case,the
parties have requested that the Commission approve a wireless interconnection agreement.The parties
have adopted the same agreement reached between Fremont Telcom and United States Cellular Corp.
2.Owest Corporation and Sprint Communications Company,Inc.(Case No.USW-T-97-16
re-opened).In this Application,the parties request that the Commission approve a 911 Waiver
Amendment.Sprint introduces a new product that will carry only one-way internet-bound data traffic
and will not carry voice calls that may terminate at a 911 service.
3.Owest Corporation and Ionex Communications North,Inc.(Case No.USW-T-00-10
re-opened).In this Application,the parties request that the Commission approve the Second and Third
Amendments to an existing wireline interconnection agreement.The amendment modifies the
arrangement Line Sharing.
4.Verizon Northwest,Inc.and Direct2Internet Corporation (Case No.VZN-T-01-3)
In this case,the parties request that the Commission approve a wireline interconnection agreement.The
terms and conditions of this agreement are similar to those previouslyapproved by the Commission.
5.Qwest Corporation and Preferred Carrier Services,Inc.(Case No.QWE-T-01-04).In
this case,the parties request that the Commission approve a wireline resale interconnection agreement.
The terms and conditions of this agreement are similar to those previouslyapproved by the
Commission.
6.Qwest Corporation and Essex Communications,Inc.dba eLEC Communications (Case
No.QWE-T-01-5).In this case,the parties request that the Commission approve a wireline
interconnection agreement.The terms and conditions of this agreement are similar to those previously
approved by the Commission.
7.Qwest Corporation and Telephone Company of Central Florida (Case No.QWE-T-01-
06)In this case,the parties request that the Commission approve a wireline interconnection
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2 APRIL 5,2001
agreement.The terms and conditions of this agreement are similar to those previously approved by the
Commission.
8.Owest Corporation and Digital Telecommunications,Inc.(Case No.QWE-T-01-07).
In this case,the parties request that the Commission approve a wireline resale interconnection
agreement.The terms and conditions of this agreement are similar to those previouslyapproved by the
Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Staff has reviewed these Applications and did not find that any terms and conditions
are discriminatory or contrary to the public interest.Staff believes that the Agreements are consistent
with the pro-competitive policies of this Commission,the Idaho Legislature,and the federal
Telecommunications Act.Accordingly,Staff believes that the Agreementsmerit the Commission's
approval.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission approve the Applications for Approval of the Interconnection
Agreements listed above?
g Cojey
DC:jo/udmemos/inendecmemo6
DECISIONMEMORANDUM 3 APRIL 5,2001