19990720Decision Memo.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
DON HOWELL
STEPHANIE MILLER
TONYA CLARK
RON LAW
JOE CUSICK
DOUG COOLEY
LYNN ANDERSON
CAROL COOPER
WORKING FILE

FROM:

DATE: JULY 20, 1999

RE: CASE NO. INL-T-99-1; MOTION BY INLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY FOR ORDER SUSPENDING ITS DIALING PARITY DEADLINE

Inland Telephone Company on March 18, 1999, filed an Application for approval of an intrastate, intraLATA toll dialing parity plan. Inland serves approximately 2,300 customers in the state of Washington and approximately 325 customers in the Lenore and Leon exchanges in north Idaho. On April 7, 1999, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure to process Inland’s Application. During the comment period provided in the Notice, written comments were filed by the Commission Staff and U S WEST Communications, Inc.
U S WEST in its comments objected to a provision of Inland’s dialing parity plan. Noting that Inland in its plan expects “that U S WEST will operate as the default carrier for intraLATA traffic which originates in the Idaho exchanges of Leon and Lenore,” U S WEST stated that that provision is not acceptable to U S WEST. U S WEST stated that it “does not choose to act as the default carrier for intraLATA calls originating in Inland’s Idaho exchanges, nor does it choose to be considered for selection as an intraLATA carrier for Inland’s local customers once they have the option to select intraLATA carriers.”
On June 29, 1999, Inland filed a Motion to Suspend its dialing parity deadline. In its Motion, Inland states that “it recently discovered that U S WEST does not have sufficient trunking capacity to accommodate intraLATA equal access from Inland’s Lenore exchange,” but that U S WEST anticipates that this lack of facilities will be relieved in January 2000. Inland states that until U S WEST installs additional trunking facilities, intraLATA equal access for Inland’s Lenore exchange is technically infeasible. Inland thus requested an Order from the Commission suspending its obligation to provide intraLATA equal access for the Lenore exchange until March 31, 2000. In subsequent correspondence with Staff, Inland stated that although technical feasibility is not an issue in the Leon exchange, “early implementation in Leon will be economically burdensome and will benefit only approximately 35 customers.” Accordingly, Inland stated it “would not object to an order that suspended the implementation deadline for both exchanges until March 18, 2000.” Inland states that a suspension Order is specifically authorized by Section 251(f)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. See 47 U.S.C.§ 251(f)(2).
Section 251(f)(2) provides that a local exchange carrier with fewer than 2% of the nation’s subscriber lines may petition a state commission for suspension or modification of a requirement contained in (b) or (c) of Section 251. The dialing parity requirement is contained in Section 251(b). The state commission is required to grant a Petition for Suspension of a requirement if a state commission determines that such suspension is necessary to avoid imposing a requirement that is technically infeasible and is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2). Inland’s Motion represents that it is a local exchange carrier with fewer than 2% of the nation’s subscriber lines, that meeting the dialing parity implementation plan for Lenore is technically infeasible until March 2000. Inland thus asks the Commission to find that granting the Motion for a Suspension is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.

Commission Decision
Should the Motion by Inland Telephone Company for a suspension of its dialing parity deadline for its Idaho exchange until March 31, 2000, be granted?

vld/M: INL-T-99-1_ws

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1