GTET007_ws2_comments.doc

WELDON B. STUTZMAN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 3283

Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W WASHINGTON
BOISE ID 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

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

COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF

COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its Attorney of record Weldon B. Stutzman, Deputy Attorney General, and submits the following comments for the Commission’s consideration in Case No. GTET00-7.
On April 28, 2000, GTE filed its 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 of May 29, 2000 for up to 90 days. The Commission provided a 45-day comment period.
Staff recommends that the Commission reject GTE’s proposed tariff advice for several reasons. First, there is no direct legal authority for GTE to file a collocation tariff, nor does GTE make any attempt to identify any. As an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), GTE is required to allow interconnection with other competing carriers consistent with the requirements of Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 252 of the Act describes the means for companies—through negotiation, mediation and arbitration—to reach interconnection agreements, which must then be approved by a state commission. Section 252(f) provides authority for a Bell Operating Company to file statements of generally available terms, which contain terms for collocation and interconnection, but GTE is not a Bell Operating Company. Thus, the Telecom Act requires GTE to negotiate for collocation and interconnection, but nothing in the Act specifically authorizes the filing of a collocation tariff with state commissions.
Nor is it apparent that state laws authorize GTE’s collocation tariff. The statutes describing the Commission’s authority over rates and charges are for regulation of retail rates charged to individual end-user customers. See e.g., Idaho Code (( 61-301, 307, 313. GTE’s collocation tariff sets forth optional terms for competitive carriers to collocate and interconnect with GTE. A competitor is free to reject the terms and negotiate or request arbitration to reach acceptable collocation terms. When GTE filed its collocation tariff in Oregon, the Public Utility Commission of Oregon rejected it. In Order No. 00-292 entered June 2, 2000, the Oregon Commission stated,
… that GTE’s tariff filing should be permanently suspended because it does not meet the criteria of a tariff. As GTE has characterized it, the tariff is not mandatory but optional. It therefore amounts merely to a general offer of prices, terms, and conditions that telecommunications carriers may elect to include in their interconnection agreements with GTE.

Oregon Public Utility Commission Order No. 00-292, p. 2.

Finally, it is not clear what legitimate purpose is furthered by accepting GTE’s collocation terms as a filed tariff. GTE at any time can provide its proposed collocation terms to a requesting carrier without it being a tariff. Commission approval of the proposed collocation terms as a tariff may cloak the terms with an appearance of formality that could hinder open negotiations between GTE and a competitor.
Staff recommends that GTE’s Tariff Advice No. 00-05 be dismissed.

DATED at Boise, Idaho, this day of July 2000.

____________________________________
Weldon B. Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Technical Staff: Carolee Hall

WS:gdk/umisc/comments/GTE-T-00-07_ws2_comments

STAFF COMMENTS 2 JULY 17, 2000