20170119final_order_no_33699.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 19, 2017
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
POTLATCH TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC.
FOR APPROVAL OF ITS
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH
TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
) CASE NO. POT-T-16-02
)
)
)
)
-------------------) IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
NORTHWEST INC. FOR APPROVAL OF ITS
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH
ONVOY SPECTRUM, LLC, PURSUANT TO 47
)
) CASE NO. VZN-T-16-01
)
)
) ORDER NO. 33699
-------'"----"-__L_------------)
On December 27, 2016, Potlatch Telephone Company, Inc. ("Potlatch"), through its
agent TDS Telecommunications Corporation, applied to the Commission for an Order approving
its Interconnection Agreement with Teleport Communications America, LLC ("TCAL").
On December 20, 2016, Frontier Communications Northwest Inc. ("Frontier")
applied to the Commission for an Order approving its Interconnection Agreement with Onvoy
Spectrum, LLC ("Onvoy").
With this Order, the Commission approves the Interconnection Agreements.
BACKGROUND
Under the prov1s1ons 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 a 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). As the Commission noted in Order No.
28427, companies voluntarily entering into interconnection agreements "may negotiate terms,
prices and conditions that do not comply with either the FCC rules or with the provision of
Section 251(b) or (c)." Order No. 28427 at 11 (emphasis in original). This comports with the
FCC's statement that "a state commission shall have authority to approve an interconnection
ORDER NO. 33699 1
agreement adopted by negotiation even if the terms of the agreement do not comply with the
requirements of[Part 51]." 47 C.F.R. § 51.3.
THE APPLICATIONS
1. Potlatch and TCAL, Case No. POT-T-16-02. In its Application, Potlatch asks the
Commission to approve its Interconnection Agreement with TCAL. The Interconnection
Agreement states it was negotiated by the parties, and it establishes terms and conditions for
interconnection, number portability, ancillary services, and pricing.
2. Frontier and Onvoy, Case No. VZN-T-16-01. In its Application, Frontier asks the
Commission to approve its Interconnection Agreement with Onvoy. The Interconnection
Agreement states it was negotiated by the parties, and it establishes terms and conditions for
transport and termination of traffic, collocation, and other ancillary services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reviewed the Applications and Interconnection Agreements and believes their
terms and conditions are not discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff also believes
the Applications and Agreements are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of this
Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Accordingly, Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Applications.
COMMISSION DECISION
Under the terms of the Telecommunications Act, interconnection agreements must be
submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(l). The Commission's review is
limited. The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiation only if it finds that
the agreement discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement or
implementation of the agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and
necessity. Id.
Based upon our review of the Applications and the Staffs recommendation, the
Commission finds that the Interconnection Agreements are consistent with the public interest,
convenience and necessity and do not discriminate. Therefore, the Commission finds that the
Applications should be approved. Our approval of the Applications does not negate the parties'
responsibility to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity if they offer local
exchange services, or to comply with Idaho Code §§ 62-604 and 62-606 if they provide other
non-basic local telecommunications services as defined by Idaho Code § 62-603.
ORDER NO. 33699 2
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Interconnection Agreement between Potlatch
and TCAL, Case No. POT-T-16-02, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Interconnection Agreement between Frontier
and Onvoy, Case No. VZN-T-16-01, is approved.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any
matter decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for
reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-
626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of January 2017.
ATTEST:
Commission Secretary
bls/O:POT-T-16-02 VZN-T-16-01
ORDER NO. 33699
ERIC ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER
3