20110412Qwest Communications Reply Comments.pdf

April 12,2011
VIA HAD DELIVRY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983
Mar S. Hobson
Attorney & Counselor
999 Main, SlUte n03
Boise, il 83702
208-385-8666
RECEIVED
2011 APR 12 PH 4: 43
RE: Docket No. GNR-T-ll-Ol
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for :fling with this Commission are an original and seven (7) copies of the
Reply Comments of Qwest Communications Company LLC (QCC) and Qwest
Corporation.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Ver trly yours,
~~
Enclosure
Mar S. Hobson (ISB. No. 2142)
999 Main, Suite 1103
Boise, ID 83702
Tel: [phone]
mary.hobson(fgwest.com
RECEIVED
2011 APR 12 PH 4: 44
Lisa A. Anderl
Associate General Counsel, Qwest
1600 7th Avenue, Room 1506
Seattle, W A 98191
Tel: [phone]
lisa.anderl(fqwest.com
Attorneys for Qwest Communications Company LLC
and Qwest Corporation
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN INESTIGATION
OF AN APPROPRITE CERTIFICATION
PROCESS FOR TELECOMMUICATIONS
COMPANIES THAT DO NOT PROVIDE
BASIC LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE
Case No. GNR-T-I1-01
REPLY COMMENTS OF QWEST
COMMICATIONS COMPANY LLC
and QWEST CORPORATION
Qwest Communcations Corporation (now Qwest Communications Company
LLC) (QCC) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest) fie the following comments in reply to
those fied by the varous paries in the above-referenced docket.
1. QCC Supports the Recommendation of the IPUC Staff Concerning Companies
with Existing CPCNs.
QCC's initial comments point out a number of practical and legal considerations
that support QCC maintaining a CLEC CPCN despite not curently having basic local
exchange customers. As stated in those comments, the Commission has adequate
- 1 -Reply Comments of
QCC and Qwest
authority under state and federal law to issue CPCNs toQCC and similarly situated
companies. QCC therefore supports the second recommendation contained in StafFs
Comments that CPCN s should be kept in place for companes that already have them. i
QCC fuher supports Staffs recommendations in so far as they promote party between
companes in such areas as rules compliance, regulatory fees, :fling requirements and
similar IPUC requirements.
2. Qwest Corporation Does Not Require a CLEC CPCN to Enter Into Negotiations
for an Interconnection Agreement.
Some paries :fling initial comments in this docket indicated that certain
incumbent local exchange carers (ILECs), including Qwest Corporation (Qwest),
require CLECs to obtain a state commission CPCN prior to negotiating an
interconnection agreement (ICA). 2 In the case of Qwest, at least, this is not accurate.
No pary commenting in this docket has stated that Qwest refused to negotiate an
ICA without a CPCN. Furher, Qwest is not aware of any company that has made a
complaint to the IPUC concerning such conduct. The misunderstanding seems to arse
from some information posted on Qwest s website that has been attached to the
comments of 360Networks(USA) Inc. as pages 1-9 of its Exhibit A. These pages are
included under the topic, "Getting Stared as a CLEC" and provide a "Checklist."
The :frst of the "CLEC Responsibilities" provided on the Checklist is to "obtain
ceri:fcation as a telecommuncations provider enabling you to do business as a CLEC."
The electronic Checklist provides a link, which if followed, allows the prospective CLEC
to obtain more information. Included there is a furter link to the IPUC website if the
CLEC is interested in Idaho. Finally the ''Timeframe Suggested" is listed on the
Checklist as "before negotiations."
The language does not create a condition precedent to ICA negotiations with
Qwest. Rather it places the responsibility on the CLEC to obtain more information about
what is required on a state-speci:fcbasis to do business as a CLEC. The timeframe is
listed as a "suggestion." The Qwest website is intended to provide a broad outline for
1 Staff
Comments, p. 8 (March 28, 2011).2 See e.g., Comments of 360Networks(USA) Inc., p. 2 (March 28, 2011).
- 2 -Reply Comments of
QCC and Qwest
CLECs who are "getting stared" in any state in Qwest tertory; it does not claim to list
Qwest requirements for an ICA. Qwest does not require proof that a CPCN has been
obtained prior to initiating negotiations.
Nevereless the advice that a CLEC obtain "certi:fcation as a
telecommunications provider" early in the process could prove to be valuable to the
CLEC. Some state commissions have rejected negotiated ICAs where the CLEC has not
obtained appropriate state certi:fcation.3 The Qwest webpage emphasizes that it is the
CLECs' responsibilty to deterine what is required to do business in the state in par to
avoid such results.
Qwest respectfully suggests that regardless of how the IPUC decides to proceed
on the question of ceri:fcation of companes that are not curently providing basic local
exchange serice, it should not rely on a misinterpretation of Qwests website provisions
or a misunderstading of its policies as a basis for decision.
Dated this¡i~y of April, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
v4
Mar S. obson (ISB. No. 2142)
999 n. Suite 1103
Boise, ID 83702
Lisa A. Ander!
Associate General Counsel, Qwest
Attorneys for Qwest Communications
Company LLC and Qwest Corporation
3 See e.g., Report and Order Rejecting Interconnection Agreement, In the Matter of the Interconnection
Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Greenjy Networks, Inc. d//a Clearfy Communications,
Docket No. 09-049-11, Uta Public Servce Commission, May 11, 2009.
- 3 -Reply Comments of
QCC and Qwest