20020612Decision Memo.pdf

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 -p
RE:STAFF REVIEW OF INTERCONNECTI N 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)(l).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).
DECISION MEMORANDUM l JUNE 12,2001
THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS
1.Potlatch TelephoneCompany,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 Applicationincluded 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,Owest 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 previouslyapprovedby this Commission.
5.Potlatch TelephoneCompany,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 previouslyapprovedby this Commission.
6.Owest 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.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2 JUNE 12,2001
9.Owest 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 previouslyapproved 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 previouslyapproved 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 art
WH:i:udmemos/inten dec memo 6 12 02
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3 JUNE 12,2001