Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout990430_cc.doc April 30, 1999 Conley Ward Givens Pursley LLP P.O. Box 2720 Boise, Idaho 83701 RE: Discovery Request to Teton and Fremont -- GNR-T-99-4 Dear Conley: Enclosed are discovery requests for Teton and Fremont. They are in response to the dialing parity plans filed by both companies and in response to your representation that additional hardware is necessary to make both companies two-pic capable. As you know, originally we understood that only a software upgrade was necessary. The discovery is limited to establishing that compliance with the deadlines set forth in the FCC order cannot be met by these two LECs because the equipment simply will not be ready. I want Staff to be able to file comments based on more than a mere assertion in each company plan. If Staff can state in its comments that it believes the deadlines imposed by the FCC cannot be met based on its review of discovery, it will make the Commission’s order more defensible. As you know, 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2) clearly authorizes the Commission to suspend those obligations for rural companies like Teton and Fremont where compliance is “technically infeasible.” Clearly, needing hardware and software upgrades to become two-pic capable, where those upgrades cannot be obtained before the deadline, make compliance “technically infeasible.” Therefore, I anticipate Staff will probably recommend “suspension” of the dialing parity obligations imposed by 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3) if the upgrades cannot be obtained in time. We tried to make the questions straightforward and easy to answer. Because the two companies share a switch, I anticipate that only one will need to respond. If you have any questions, please contact me at 334-0314. Sincerely yours, Cheri C. Copsey Deputy Attorney General L:gnrt994_cc_conley.doc