20050819Decision memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEG AL
FROM:DONOVAN E. WALKER
DATE:AUGUST 19, 2005
SUBJECT:KMC DATA, LLC AND KMC TELECOM V, INC.S APPLICATIONS
FOR APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF QWESTIMCIMETRO
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT CASE NOS. KMC-05-1 AND
KMD- T -05-
On January 24, 2005, KMC Data, LLC and KMC Telecom V, Inc. (the Companies)
filed identical Applications with the Commission for the adoption of the Qwest/MCIMetro
Interconnection Agreement pursuant to 47 U.C. ~ 252(i). Applications at
p.
1. The
Applications state that the Companies "notified Qwest by letter of its intent to adopt the
MClmetro Agreement, but has been unable to reach agreement with Qwest with regard to certain
terms for the adopted agreement." Id.
In the ensuing line of correspondence between the Companies' representative and
Commission Staff through March 31 , 2005 , the Companies notified Staff that: (1) they were
continuing to negotiate with Qwest, (2) if the negotiations were not successful, they would send
Qwest a "formal" request for negotiations to start the 135/160 clock under the federal Act to
petition for arbitration, and (3) the current Applications for adoption of the MCIMetro
Agreement should be held in abeyance. (See Attached e-mail correspondence).
Staff subsequently has not had any contact from Companies. The Companies did not
respond to Staffs request for updated information and status in July 2005. Likewise the
Companies did not respond to Staff s notification that they would be asking for this case to be
dismissed. Id.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that both cases be dismissed without prejudice.
COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission wish to dismiss these two cases without prejudice?
2. Does the Commission wish to continue holding these matters in abeyance
maintaining the status quo?
3. Does the Commission wish to take some other action?
M:KMCTO501 KMDTO501 dw
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 1
Donovan Walker
From:Carolee Hall
. Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:50 AM
To: Donovan Walker; 'virginia.tate~kmctelecom.com ; Brenda Sorrell; Carolee Hall
Subject: KMC-05-01 and KMD-05-
Importance: High
Donovan
Would you please prepare a decision memo for the Commission asking that these cases be dismisse
without prejudice?
I have contacted Ms. Tate numerous times trying to get resolution with these cases. My last contact gave
the Company until Friday, July IS, 2005 to update Staff as to the current positions of the Companies.
I have not received any response from her or the Company, as such I believe it is time to ask the
Commission to dismiss these cases and should Qwest and the companies come td a meeting of the
min , then they certainly can refJe.
Thanks muc
Carolee
8/18/2005
Page 1 of 1
Donovan Walker
From:Carolee Hall
Sent: Monday, July 11 , 2005 7:44 AM
To: 'Virginia. Tate~kmctelecom.com
Cc: Donovan Walker; Brenda Sorrell; Carolee Hall
Subject: Case Number(s) KMC-05-01 and KMD-05-
Importance: High
Dear Ms. Tate,
In January of 2005, the Company filed two cases seeking to adopt Qwest/MCI interconnection
agreements. Through many e-mails it was determined that KMC/KMD would make a formal request for
beyance until such time as Qwest and KM C/KMD could come to a mutual agreement. That was in
Marc
To date I have not heard back from you and must ask that you update the current position of the
companies or withdraw these filings. If I do not hear from you by Friday, July 15, 2005, I will ask our
Attorney to pursue a dismissal of these filings.
Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. To expedite this matter you may respond to this e-
mail directing Staff as to what the Company s intent is.
Thank you
Carolee Ha
208-334- 0364
8/18/2005
Page 1 of 4
Donovan Walker
... ..
""W,""..,,'~,." .
"".
""M.
"'" ... ""'""""'".,.....",..",..,...
"M."","w.
,,,,...-.. .. ,.... -~~.. .... _""".".."'._.'-'_..._'""'""-.
M",WJ,W.
,.. ", ."" ".""....".",...'..""","."... "..',,"""'~""""'
W'~'
"""""""'" """"
From:Carolee Hall
Sent: Thursday, March 31 , 20054:33 PM
To: 'Tate, VirginiaCc: Weldon Stutzman; Donovan Walker; Joe Cusick
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on ICA Adoption
Thanks Virginia
I will take this as a formal request for abeyance while you and Qwest work things out. Should they agree, then we
certainly can move forward, but for now this will (subject to check with my attorney) work to stop the clock.
Just give me an update when you hear one way or the other.
Carolee
-----
Original Message-----
From: Tate, Virginia (mailto:Virginia.Tate(9)kmctelecom.com)
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 3:24
To: Carolee Hall
Cc: Johnson, Marva
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on lCA Adoption
Carolee
This is where we stand. I have sent Qwest a redlined version of their template interconnection agreement
and deleted the UNE section and pricing, since we don t want to agree to their interpretation of the TRO
and since we don t even need to purchase UNEs in Idaho. I can t imagine that they would force us to take
their UNE attachment since we aren t purchasing UNEs, yet that was their verbal position on this a few
weeks ago. I have also offered to them as an alternative that we enter into a Master Traffic Exchange
Agreement. This is a standard agreement among telecom carriers where there is simply an exchange of
traffic which is what we have in Idaho. They have told me they will get back to me in the next few days. In
the event, they refuse both options, I will have to send them a formal request for negotiations which will
start the 135-160 day clock to file for arbitration. For your purposes, I realize that the clock is ticking on the
application to opt-in that we filed. I would suggest that we hold that in abeyance if need be. I'll let you know
Qwest's response. I imagine that I'll hear from them at the beginning of the week. Thanks and let me know
if you need anything else. Virginia Tate for KMC Telecom.
Office: [phone]
........ . ............... ,,~............ ................ ........ '...... ... ... . ..... ....... ...................'.......
From: Carolee Hall (mailto:Carolee.Hall(9)puc.idaho.gov)
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 12:29
To: Tate, Virginia; Donovan Walker
Cc: Johnson, Marva; Pifer, Raymond
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on lCA AdoptionImportance: High
Hi Virginia
4/4/2005
Page 2 of 4
I haven t heard from you since the 24th of February and must impress upon you that the regulatory clock is
ticking. As you can see we left this matter where both parties were negotiating - where are we now?
I must have a response in writing from you or the company no later than Friday, April 1 , 2005 . This
response must indicate what the companies have agreed to, or requesting that the Applications be
withdrawn. If nothing else, we must stop the clock as time is running out on this. As you know we only
have 90 days in which to act upon Interconnection Agreements.
If you have any questions regarding this, please give me a call!
Thanks Virginia
Carolee
-----
Original Message-----
From: Tate, Virginia (mailto:Virginia.Tate(9)kmctelecom.comJ
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:32
To: Carolee Hall
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on rCA Adoption
Carolee
KMC definitely does not want to opt-into any agreement where Qwest has imposed its interpretation
of the TRO. Therefore, we have decided that perhaps we could adopt an interconnection
agreement without a UNE attachment which basically would be an interconnect and transport
agreement. We don t need UNEs. That way a TRO amendment would be unnecessary. We would
still reserve our right to negotiate a UNE amendment in the future if we need one. I just left Steve
Dea at Qwest a message to this effect. We ll see what their response is. This would seem to be
suitable to both parties though. I'll let you know what he says. Virginia
Office: [phone]
..'.." ""
N"","' ,.. -- .
"""'~'
~~.W~~'__."N
'",."'"
_'__'N
~-~..
w..
,...
m."
..",""",,".-.
. N.W' .w"w.
----....
From: Carolee Hall (mailto:Carolee.Hall(9)puc.idaho.govJ
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:44
To: Tate, Virginia
Cc: Carolee Hall
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on rCA Adoption
Importance: High
Virginia
We are becoming pressed for time on our end. Would you please advise as to what your clients
wishes are on this matter. Again, I will need a response no later than Friday (2/25) morning.
Thank you
Carolee
-----
Orig i na I Message-----
From: Tate, Virginia (mailto:Virginia.Tate(9)kmctelecom.comJ
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:05
To: Carolee Hall
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on rCA Adoption
4/4/2005
Page 3 of 4
Thanks Carolee, I'll review. Virginia
Office: [phone]
'm.",...,'m.
....
Pm.''P"
""""
""""m.p..mm.
-'"'""". ....... ... .._--"...........
m.".."",,w.
... ........'.....""'. ...., ".,_..,...... '..""_.."..
From: Carolee Hall (mailto:Carolee.Hall(Q)puc.idaho.govJ
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:19
To: Tate, Virginia
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on lCA Adoption
Please see attached -
-----
Original Message-----
From: Tate, Virginia (mailto:Virginia.Tate(Q)kmctelecom.comJ
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 9:46
To: Carolee Hall
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on lCA Adoption
We really just wanted to opt-into an existing agreement and not go through the entire
252 negotiation of a new ICA. We simply don It have the resources for that.
should be able to adopt an existing ICA and not be force fed Qwest's TRO
amendment. We re basically being told by Qwest to take their TRO amendment or
forget it. Virginia
Office: [phone]
..., .,. ..
," L.... ..
,...
From: Carolee Hall (mailto:Carolee.Hall(Q)puc.idaho.govJ
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:39 AM
To: Tate, Virginia
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on lCA Adoption
Well the Telecom Act gives ALL CLECs the ability to enter into negotiations and if
Qwest does not enter into voluntary negotiations , then the CLECs may petition the
Commission for mediation and arbitration.....Take a look at Section 252 of the Act. Did
you do any of these?
Thanks Carolee
-----
Original Message-----
From: Tate, Virginia (mailto:Virginia.Tate(Q)kmctelecom.comJ
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 9:32 AM
To: Carolee Hall
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on lCA Adoption
. .
Carolee
ll check, but I doubt we tried to 'negotiate on this point given our past
experience with Qwest. Given that we have no leverage on our own for force
Qwest to be reasonable, we would need the assistance of the PSG to help gain
some leverage. They re in a position to be able to say Itake it or leave it' and
unless we get the PSG behind us we can t make them budge. Virginia
4/4/2005
Page 4 of 4
Office: [phone]
From: Carolee Hall (mailto:Carolee.Hall(Qjpuc.idaho.govJ
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:07 AM
To: Tate, Virginia
Cc: Carolee Hall
Subject: RE: Qwest Response on lCA Adoption
Importance: High
Virginia
I note that the Company requested to adopt Qwest/MCl's agreement and where
Qwest recited the law according to their interpretations, however, I do not see
where the Company (or you) responded to Qwest's response. Was there ever
any further negotiations that transpired? Did you/Company ever request
arbitration? Do you have any further documentation that followed Qwest'
denial?
Thanks much
Carolee
-----
Original Message-----
From: Tate, Virginia (mailto:Virginia.Tate(Qjkmctelecom.comJ
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 8:34 AM
To: Carolee Hall
Subject: Qwest Response on lCA Adoption
Carolee
Attached is Qwest's response to KMC's request to adopt the MCIICA in
Idaho. Denise Smith and Karly Baraga are our outside counsel who
made the request. Please confirm receipt. Thanks. Virginia
Office: [phone]
4/4/2005