20020617_162.html

DECISION MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER HANSEN JEAN JEWELL DON HOWELL JOHN HAMMOND RANDY LOBB JOE CUSICK CAROLEE HALL DOUG COOLEY BIRDELLE BROWN LYNN ANDERSON LOU ANN WESTERFIELD RON LAW TONYA CLARK GENE FADNESS WORKING FILE FROM: WAYNE HART DATE: JUNE 12, 2002 RE: STAFF REVIEW OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS: CASE NOS. POT-T-02-1, SPR-T-01-1 (2 APPLICATIONS), GTE-T-97-7, GTE-T-97-6/SPS-T-97-2, VZN-T-01-7, VZN-T-02-3, VZN-T-02-5, POT-T-02-2, USW-T-97-11 (ALSO USW-T-97-15), USW-T-99-4, USW-T-99-22,QWE-T-00-13, QWE-T-02-3, QWE-T-02-5, QWE-T-02-7, AND QWE-T-02-9. BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, interconnection agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1). The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only if it finds that the agreement: (1) discriminates against telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (2) implementation of the agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(2)(A). THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS 1. Potlatch Telephone Company, Inc. (TDS Telecommunications Corporation) and Sprint PCS (Case No. POT-T-02-1). This is a new wireless interconnection agreement. It is similar to other wireless interconnection agreements the Commission has approved. 2. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., and Qwest Corporation (Case No. SPR-T-01-1) . Two Applications, both dated April 22, 2002, requested approval of amendments to this agreement. One Application included an amendment addressing the DC Power Reduction Procedure, while the other included amendments addressing Advice Adoption, Amendment Language, Collocation Cancellation and Collocation Decommissioning issues. 3. Verizon and Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Case Nos. GTE-T-97-6 and SPS-T-97-2); Verizon and AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (Case No. GTE-T-97-7); Qwest and Nextel West (Case No. USW-T-99-4); and, Qwest and NPCR/Nextel Partners (Case No. USW-T-99-22). These four Applications involve an amendment implementing the Federal Communications Commission's decision on reciprocal compensation (FCC 01-131). 4. Verizon and DSLnet Communications LLC (Case No. VZN-T-02-3); Verizon and DMJ Communications, Inc. (Case No. VZN-T-02-5). These two cases seek approval of new wireline interconnection agreements. The agreements contain terms and conditions similar to those in other Verizon agreements previously approved by this Commission. 5. Potlatch Telephone Company, Inc. (TDS Telecommunications Corporation) and Verizon Wireless (Case No. POT-T-02-2). This is a new wireless interconnection agreement. It is similar to other wireless interconnection agreements previously approved by this Commission. 6. Qwest and Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (Case No. USW-T-97-11 and USW-T-97-15). (Verizon Wireless is also the successor to New Vector/Airtouch.) This is an amendment to two existing Type 2 wireless interconnection agreements adding terms for single point of presence. 7. Qwest and Eschelon Telecom, Inc. (Case No. QWE-T-00-13). This is an amendment to an existing wireline interconnection agreement adding terms for collocation decommissioning. 8. Qwest and ICG Telecom Group, Inc. (Case No. QWE-T-02-3). This is an amendment to an existing wireline interconnection agreement adding terms for single point of presence. 9. Qwest and KMC Telecom V, Inc. (Case No. QWE-T-02-5). Qwest and Premiere Network Services, Inc. (Case No. QWE-T-02-7); and, Qwest and Centel Communications, Inc. (Case No. QWE-T-02-9). These three cases seek approval of new interconnection agreements based upon Qwest's Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions (SGAT). STAFF ANALYSIS The Staff has reviewed these Applications and did not find any terms and conditions that it considers to be discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. All contain terms and conditions that are similar to those contained in previously approved amendments or agreements. Staff believes that the Agreements and Amendments are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of this Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the federal Telecommunications Act. Accordingly, Staff believes that the Agreements and Amendments to previously approved interconnection agreements merit the Commission's approval. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission approve the Applications for Approval of the Interconnection Agreements and Amendments listed above? ________________________ Wayne Hart WH:i:udmemos/intcn dec memo 6_12_02