28490.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED’S TARIFF ADVICE NO. 00-05 FOR APPROVAL OF ITS COLLOCATION SERVICES. )
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GTE-T-00-7

ORDER NO.  28490

On April 28, 2000, GTE Northwest Incorporated filed Tariff Advice No. 00-05 seeking approval of a collocation tariff effective May 29, 2000. The tariff provides the terms, conditions and prices for elements that make up GTE’s collocation services. The Commission issued Order No. 28378 on May 16, 2000, suspending the proposed effective date for up to 90 days and providing for a 45-day comment period. Timely comments were provided by Staff, AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. (AT&T) and GTE.
Both AT&T and Staff recommended the Commission reject GTE’s proposed collocation tariff. AT&T stated the tariff “does not include numerous provisions required by federal law, it contains provisions that are inconsistent with the federal law and it contains provisions that are simply discriminatory.” AT&T discussed specific collocation requirements that it believes are not addressed or that are addressed improperly in GTE’s proposed tariff. For example, AT&T noted that GTE’s tariff is silent on what premises will be made available to competitive local exchange carriers for collocation. AT&T also noted that the tariff allows GTE the right to remove or refuse use of a competitor’s equipment in the event the equipment does not comply with a specific safety standard. AT&T contends that although GTE may take reasonable security measures relating to safety standards, there is no legal basis for GTE to unilaterally remove equipment. AT&T also argued GTE’s restriction on a competitor’s access to its facilities is unacceptable and contrary to law. These and other alleged violations of federal requirements for collocation resulted in AT&T’s conclusion “that there is no basis for this Commission to permit such an unlawful tariff to go into effect, even on an interim basis.”
Staff in its comments identified several reasons for the Commission to reject GTE’s proposed tariff. First, Staff stated there is no legal authority for GTE to file a collocation tariff. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires an incumbent local exchange carrier to provide interconnection, including collocation, to competing carriers, but nothing in the Act authorizes the filing of a collocation tariff with state commissions. Staff also contends State law does not authorize the filing of a collocation tariff that merely sets forth optional terms for competitive carriers. Finally, Staff argued that the approval of GTE’s collocation tariff would serve no legitimate purpose, since GTE is free to provide its proposed terms at any time to a competitive carrier requesting interconnection and collocation. Staff stated that Commission approval of the collocation terms as a tariff “may cloak the terms with an appearance of formality that could hinder open negotiations between GTE and a competitor.”
In its comments, GTE argued the Commission should approve its tariff because (1) no carrier would be harmed by allowing the tariff to go into effect, (2) the tariff provides an optional, expeditious means for carriers to obtain new types of physical collocation ordered by the Federal Communications Commission, and (3) the tariff provides an alternative to the inter-company contract negotiation and arbitration process. GTE notes that its tariff would provide alternative choices to carriers without compelling them to accept the terms and conditions set forth in the tariff. GTE contends the proposed tariff “reduces the administrative burden for GTE and the collocating carriers by clearly identifying the rates, terms and conditions under which physical collocation services are offered.”
The Commission will not address the substantive concerns raised by AT&T regarding the tariff because the Commission is not convinced optional collocation terms are properly submitted as a tariff. The federal Telecom Act requires GTE, as an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), to allow interconnection with competing carriers consistent with the requirements of the Act. Section 252 of the Act sets forth the means, through negotiation, mediation and arbitration, for competitors to reach interconnection agreements with incumbent companies. Once reached, interconnection agreements must be submitted to state commissions for approval. See 47 USC 252(e). Nothing in the Act or in related regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, however, authorizes or directs the filing of a collocation tariff with state commissions.
In short, it simply is not necessary for GTE to file a collocation tariff. As described by GTE, the proposed collocation tariff “would provide alternative choices to carriers, without compelling them to accept the terms and conditions set forth in the tariff.” Comments of GTE, p. 1. Even were the tariff on file with the Commission, GTE would not be required to provide the terms and services in the proposed tariff to a carrier seeking interconnection. In addition, GTE at any time can provide to requesting carriers its proposed terms for collocation, even without a tariff on file with the Commission. Accepting the tariff thus serves no real purpose, and may prove confusing for carriers requesting interconnection with GTE.
In sum, the Commission regards GTE’s Tariff Advice No. 00-05 as not appropriate for filing with the Commission. The Commission by this Order therefore rejects the tariff and dismisses this case, but nonetheless expects GTE, pursuant to its representations, to make its collocation terms available to companies seeking interconnection with GTE.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tariff Advice No. 00-05 submitted by GTE Northwest Incorporated is rejected and this case is closed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. 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 August 2000.

DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary

vld/O:GTE-T-00-7_ws2
ORDER NO. 28490 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 29, 2000