20000831Comments.doc

JOHN R. HAMMOND
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 5470

Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W WASHINGTON
BOISE ID 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND NEXTEL WEST CORPORATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252 (e). )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GNR-T-00-24

COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its Attorney of record, John R. Hammond, Deputy Attorney General, and submits the following comments. In Order No. 28475, issued on August 10, 2000, the Commission requested that interested persons submit written comments concerning the parties’ interconnection agreement.
On August 3, 2000, TDS Telecommunications Corporation (an agent for Potlatch Telephone Company, Inc. and Troy Telephone Company, Inc.) and Nextel West Corporation filed a Joint Application requesting approval of an interconnection agreement. The Joint Application states that the agreement was reached through voluntary negotiations without resort to mediation or arbitration and is submitted for approval pursuant to Section 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The Parties filing also indicates that TDS is not waiving its rural exemption under 47 U.S.C.
§ 251(f) and that no part of their Agreement implicates 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). Staff contacted TDS and requested a clarification as to the application of 47 U.S.C. § 251, and the Commission’s role in regards to 47 U.S.C. § 252(e) to this specific agreement. TDS indicated the Agreement was executed in accordance with the provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 251(a) and 47 U.S.C. § 251(b), and accordingly, submitted to the Commission in compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 252(e). TDS indicated it would provide the Commission written clarification of this issue.

STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff reviewed the terms and conditions of the Agreement and does not find any of the terms or conditions to be discriminatory. This Agreement is similar to the agreement between TDS and U S Cellular approved by this Commission on August 29. Therefore, Staff does not find these terms to be discriminatory. Because the Agreement is the result of voluntary negotiations and is not discriminatory, Staff concurs with the company’s claim that the Agreement is consistent with the pro-competitive policies of the Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Accordingly, it is consistent with the public interest.
The Staff is somewhat perplexed about the agreement’s terms that it is not waiving its right to a rural exemption under 47 U.S.C. § 251(f) and that the requirements of § 251(c) do not have to be met. Accordingly, Staff requested written clarification on this issue which will clearly evidence the parties’ intentions with regard to this agreement and the codes’ application to it.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission review TDS’s written clarification before approving this Agreement.

DATED at Boise, Idaho, this day of August 2000.

________________________
John R. Hammond
Deputy Attorney General

Technical Staff: Wayne Hart

WH:JH:gdk:i:umisc/comments/gnrt0024.jhwh
STAFF COMMENTS 2 AUGUST 31, 2000