2000816_ws.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
RON LAW
LOUANN WESTERFIELD
TONYA CLARK
DON HOWELL
DAVE SCHUNKE
RANDY LOBB
JOE CUSICK
CAROLEE HALL
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE:
AUGUST 16, 2000 RE: CASE NO. GTE-T-00-07; GTE’S TARIFF ADVICE NO. 00-05; PROPOSED TARIFF FOR COLLOCATION SERVICES

On April 28, 2000, GTE Northwest Incorporated (GTE) filed Tariff Advice No. 00-05 seeking approval of a collocation tariff to be effective May 29, 2000. The Commission issued Order No. 28378 on May 16, 2000, suspending the proposed effective date for up to 90 days, and providing for a modified procedure with a 45-day comment period. Written comments were filed by Staff, AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. and GTE. Both AT&T and Staff recommended the Commission reject GTE’s collocation tariff. AT&T argued the Commission should reject the tariff because it “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’s comments discussed specific collocation requirements that AT&T believes are not addressed or that are addressed improperly in GTE’s proposed tariff.
Staff in its comments identified several reasons for the Commission to reject GTE’s proposed tariff, stating initially that there simply is no legal authority for GTE to file a collocation tariff. Staff stated that nothing in the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 or state law authorize the filing of a collocation tariff that merely sets forth optional terms for competitive carriers.
In its comments, GTE argued the Commission should approve its tariff or, “at a minimum, schedule an evidentiary hearing to address GTE’s tariff, if the Commission continues to have lingering concerns.”
At its decision meeting on August 3, 2000, the Commission considered whether to schedule at an evidentiary hearing on GTE’s proposed collocation tariff. The period of suspension for the tariff currently expires on August 29, 2000. In order to allow parties time to complete discovery and prepare testimony for a hearing, it is necessary to extend the period of suspension. By its authority set forth in Idaho Code § 61-622, the Commission may suspend the proposed tariff for a period of thirty (30) days plus five (5) months from the initially proposed effective date (May 29, 2000), which would allow for a suspension until November 29, 2000. The Commission can suspend for an additional 60 days “after a showing of good cause on the record.” Staff is concerned that a suspension only to November 29, 2000, is not sufficient time to complete discovery and prepare testimony on all of the issues involved in GTE’s collocation tariff.
Staff again recommends that GTE’s collocation tariff be rejected as inappropriate for lack of legal authority for its filing. In the alternative, Staff recommends the Commission suspend the proposed effective date for an additional 60 days beyond November 29, 2000, to allow the parties more time to review the issues.
Commission Decision
Should GTE’s proposed collocation tariff be rejected, or in the alternative, should the Commission grant an additional 60 days to the period of suspension, until January 29, 2001, and establish a procedural schedule?

vld/M:GTE-T-00-07_ws

DECISION MEMORANDUM 2