HomeMy WebLinkAbout28072.doc BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN STATES, INC. FOR INTRALATA EQUAL ACCESS AND CARRIER PRESUBSCRIPTION IN THE SERVING TERRITORY OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
)
)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. GNR-T-94-5
ORDER NO. 28072
On April 22, 1999, U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) filed its Application for approval of an intrastate, intraLATA toll dialing parity plan. U S WEST’s filing was prompted by an order issued by the Federal Communications Commission, Order No. FCC 99-54, requiring all local exchange carriers that had not yet filed dialing parity plans to submit such plans to their state commissions no later than April 22, 1999. Under the FCC’s order, state commissions have only until June 22, 1999, to review and approve the implementation plans, and the local carriers are required to implement intraLATA dialing parity within 30 days of the state’s approval of the plan.
On April 23, 1999, the Commission issued a Notice of Application, Notice of Settlement Conference and Notice of Modified Procedure for the purpose of reviewing U S WEST’s dialing parity implementation plan. The Notice provided a 25-day period in which written comments could be filed and also scheduled a settlement conference to resolve the issues identified in written comments. During the comment period provided in the Notice, written comments were filed by the Commission Staff, AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. and MCI Communications, and Idahoans for a Competitive Edge in Telecommunications, Inc. The settlement conference was held May 26, 1999.
THE WRITTEN COMMENTS AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Several issues and recommendations for changes to U S WEST’s intraLATA dialing parity plan were identified by the written comments. The issues related primarily to customer notification and recovery of implementation costs for U S WEST. After issues regarding the notice U S WEST sends to its customers were resolved, the Commission approved the customer notification as presented. Tr. p. 7.
Three issues were resolved by the Commission at the close of the settlement conference. U S WEST proposed to charge $5.00 for each selection of either an interLATA or intraLATA preferred interexchange carrier (PIC) selection made by a customer, resulting in a $10.00 charge when a customer simultaneously changes his intraLATA and interLATA carriers. The Commission determined that only one charge of $5.00 is appropriate when a customer simultaneously selects his interLATA and intraLATA carriers. Tr. p. 40. The Commission finds that $5.00 is the appropriate charge until U S WEST comes forward and demonstrates that a higher charge is warranted on a cost basis. Second, the Commission determined to leave unchanged a provision in U S WEST’s plan providing that directory assistance calls that are accessed by dialing 1+ an area code need not be eligible for presubscription. Id. Third, the Commission declined an invitation to review and revise the script U S WEST representatives will use when contacted by new customers. The Commission reminded the parties that the script must be competitively neutral and unbiased. Id. These issues, having been determined at the settlement conference on the record, do not require further discussion in this Order.
Additional issues were resolved by the Commission Staff, U S WEST and AT&T in a stipulation filed by the parties on June 3, 1999. The stipulation results in some changes to particular provisions of U S WEST’s plan, including the time period for a one-time waiver of the PIC change charge (90 days rather than 120 days), a provision for U S WEST to process PIC changes in no more than five business days, certain cost recovery issues, and a provision for U S WEST to give AT&T notice of the date that U S WEST mails its customer notification. Regarding cost recovery, U S WEST’s plan proposes to apply what it calls an equal access network reconfiguration charge (EANRC) upon implementation of toll dialing parity. As modified by the parties in their stipulation, the EANRC will apply to total intraLATA originating minutes of use and the cost recovery period will be three years. The stipulation also provides for U S WEST to report total implementation costs to the Commission within one year of implementation. A cost recovery docket will be opened to review specific costs and allow for a true-up of the EANRC in the event that recovery by U S WEST is too high or too low.
We approve the stipulation of U S WEST, AT&T, and the Commission Staff to revise particular provisions of U S WEST’s intraLATA dialing parity plan. The Commission appreciates the efforts of the parties to agree to modifications to U S WEST’s plan, particularly in light of the limited time for the Commission to review and approve the implementation plan. With regard to the cost recovery issues, the Commission approves the plan as modified in the stipulation, including the provision for U S WEST to apply the EANRC upon implementation of toll dialing parity. However, the Commission is not making a determination in this Order that the EANRC as proposed by U S WEST is the correct amount to recover all costs during the three-year cost recovery period. The final determination on the level of the EANRC will be made in the cost recovery docket to be opened within the next year, after U S WEST provides its cost report to the Commission. In that report and that case, U S WEST should be prepared to separately identify the implementation costs for its operations in northern Idaho and southern Idaho.
AUTOMATIC PIC FREEZE
The one issue not resolved during the settlement conference involves a provision in U S WEST’s plan to automatically extend a customer’s request to “freeze” his pre-selected toll carrier. To prevent unauthorized switching of a customer’s interLATA toll carrier, U S WEST accepts instructions from customers to allow future changes in the PIC selection only if U S WEST is contacted by the customer. In its dialing parity plan, U S WEST proposes to automatically extend a customer’s interLATA PIC freeze instructions to the customer’s intraLATA service. AT&T and MCI, as well as the Commission Staff, objected to this provision in U S WEST’s plan. At U S WEST’s request, the Commission allowed the parties an opportunity to provide additional briefing on the question whether U S WEST should automatically apply a customer’s interLATA PIC freeze instruction to the customer’s intraLATA service. U S WEST filed memoranda in support of its position, while AT&T filed memoranda arguing against the automatic extension of the interLATA PIC freeze.
It appears that recently effective rules promulgated by the FCC leave little discretion for dialing parity implementation plans on this issue. In a report and order released December 23, 1998 and effective April 27, 1999, the FCC directly addressed the question of a LEC automatically extending a customer’s interLATA PIC freeze to his intraLATA service. The FCC’s rules provide as follows:
All local exchange carriers who offer preferred carrier freezes must comply with the provisions of this section
***
(c) preferred carrier freeze procedures…must clearly distinguish among telecommunications service (e.g., local exchange, intraLATA/intrastate toll, interLATA/interstate toll, and international toll) subject to a preferred carrier freeze. The carrier offering the freeze must obtain separate authorization for each service for which a preferred carrier freeze is requested.
In the Matter of Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Policies on Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long-Distance Carriers, FCC 98-334, CC Docket No. 94-129 (FCC Second Report and Order). The rule leaves little doubt that a dialing parity plan cannot automatically extend the customer’s interLATA PIC freeze without obtaining separate authorization from the customer.
U S WEST argues that the FCC rules do not apply to U S WEST’s dialing parity plan because “[t]he FCC’s rules have prospective effect only. No portion of the FCC order or rules purports to invalidate existing PIC freezes.” Memorandum of U S WEST in Support of PIC Freeze Extension, p. 4. U S WEST also concedes, however, that “it is true that Idaho customers have not explicitly authorized an ‘intraLATA PIC freeze.’” Memorandum of U S WEST, p. 6.
U S WEST’s argument would have validity if its dialing parity plan, including the automatic PIC freeze extension, were fully implemented when the FCC issued its Second Report and Order. But U S WEST’s plan is yet to be implemented and customers have not yet authorized any intraLATA PIC freezes. Thus, allowing the automatic extension would violate the FCC’s current requirement that carriers “obtain separate authorization for each service for which a preferred carrier freeze is requested.”
It can be argued, and U S WEST does so, that the FCC simply is wrong about the anti-competitive effect of a PIC freeze. U S WEST contends that “its Idaho toll dialing parity plan provision for the extension of the PIC freeze comports with customer expectations and provides customers with the protection they requested.” Reply Comments of U S WEST Regarding PIC Freeze, p. 9. It may well be that the customers who have requested an interLATA PIC freeze desire the same protection for their intraLATA service. If so, those customers should be notified that their interLATA PIC freeze will not automatically apply to their intraLATA service. In its reply comments, U S WEST stated its willingness to provide a post card notification to customers with existing PIC freezes to “advise customers of the PIC freeze extension.” Reply Comments, p. 5. The notification proposed by U S WEST should inform affected customers that their interLATA PIC freeze will not be extended automatically to intraLATA, and that those customers must contact the Company to direct a freeze for their intraLATA service. As U S WEST proposes, it should work with the Commission Staff to develop appropriate language for the notice.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that U S WEST’s Idaho intraLATA Toll Dialing Parity Implementation Plan is approved as modified by the Commission in this Order and the record at the settlement conference. U S WEST is required to implement its plan within 30 days of the date of this Order.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. GNR T 94 5 may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter decided in this order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. GNR T 94 5. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of June 1999.
DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
vld/O:GNR-T-94-5_ws9
A more detailed summary of the procedural history of this case is set forth in Commission Order No. 27759 issued October 9, 1998, and Order No. 27965 issued March 15, 1999.
ORDER NO. 28072 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 22, 1999