HomeMy WebLinkAbout19990607Order No 28065.doc
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PROJECT MUTUAL TELEPHONE COOPERA-TIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF ITS PLAN TO IMPLEMENT INTRASTATE, INTRALATA DIALING PARITY. )
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. PRJ-T-99-1
ORDER NO. 28065
)
On April 22, 1999, Project Mutual Telephone Cooperative Association, Inc. (Project Mutual) filed an Application with the Commission for an Order approving its intrastate, intraLATA toll dialing parity implementation plan. Because the Commission is required to review toll dialing parity implementation plans on a very concise schedule, the Commission determined that the public interest may not require a formal hearing and proceeded under Modified Procedure pursuant to Rules 201 through 204 of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.201 through -.204. Order No. 28028. In that order, the Commission scheduled a settlement conference. Id. An amended Notice of Settlement Conference was issued on May 6, 1999, setting the settlement conference for May 26, 1999.
Pursuant to Order No. 28028, only Staff and AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. filed comments on May 18, 1999. The settlement conference was held May 26, 1999. At the settlement conference, settlement was reached among the parties, placed on the record and approved by the Commission pursuant to Commission Rule 274 (IDAPA 31.01.01.274). Tr. pp. 27-30.
Based on the comments filed by AT&T and the Staff, the settlement placed on the record, the law and the Application and implementation plan, the Commission approves the Application and the dialing parity plan as modified below. The Commission further orders a limited suspension of the dialing parity obligations imposed by Section 251(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as described below.
BACKGROUND
Following the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, many states challenged the jurisdictional authority of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in certain matters. In 1997, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FCC had exceeded its authority when it promulgated rules to implement various sections of the Act. Among other things, the Eighth Circuit held that the FCC lacked jurisdiction to promulgate its dialing parity rules 47 CFR §51.205-51.217. The FCC appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On January 25, 1999, the United States Supreme Court reversed, in part, the Eighth Circuit and held, inter alia, that the FCC has jurisdiction to implement the Act’s local competition provisions, including those rules addressing dialing parity. AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999).
In response, the FCC issued FCC Order 99-54 revising the schedule for implementation of dialing parity. Order 99-54 established new deadlines for all local exchange carriers (“LECs”) to implement intraLATA dialing parity. Specifically, all local exchange carriers are required to submit dialing parity plans to the respective state commissions by April 22, 1999. State commissions were given until June 22, 1999, to review and approve those plans. Approved intraLATA toll dialing parity plans were directed to be implemented within thirty (30) days of approval.
Toll dialing parity, also referred to as “1 plus equal access” or carrier presubscription, allows a customer to pre-select a carrier for intrastate, intraLATA toll calls and then access his chosen carrier simply by dialing 1 plus the telephone number. Without dialing parity, a customer wishing to use a specific toll carrier may be required to dial a series of numbers before dialing the telephone number. Upon implementation of toll dialing parity, customers will be able to presubscribe to a carrier for both their interLATA and intraLATA toll calls. This means that originating customers will be able to dial toll calls without having to use any extra digits or access codes (other than the prefatory 1 or 0). This is often referred to as full 2-PIC capability. In addition, originating customers will continue to be able to use “dial-around” 101-XXXX to route their specific calls to a carrier other than their presubscribed carrier if they so choose.
PROJECT MUTUALS DIALING PARITY PLAN
Project Mutual is a mutual company, owned by its customers, that offers interexchange service in the Idaho exchanges of Minidoka, Norland, Oakley, Paul, and Rupert (within the southern Idaho LATA – see 47 CFR § 51.213). Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3), Project Mutual submitted an intraLATA toll dialing parity plan for Commission approval. Project Mutual proposed the following implementation schedule:
Notification to Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) July 1, 1999
Informational letter sent to customers August 1, 1999
Deadline for PIC change request September 15, 1999
IntraLATA Conversion date September 16, 1999
Free PIC change grace period ends September 15, 1999
In docket No. 99-54, the FCC established an implementation schedule that requires all intraLATA toll dialing parity plans be fully implemented with cut-over dates no later than July 22, 1999. Project Mutual cannot meet the implementation schedule ordered by the FCC. Therefore, Project Mutual requested the Commission suspend or modify its dialing parity obligations pursuant to the Commission’s authority under 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2).
A. Customer Notification
In its plan, Project Mutual proposes to contact all carriers currently offering interLATA toll service to customers in the Project Mutual exchanges and request the carriers indicate whether they intend to offer intraLATA service. The request will be mailed July 1, 1999. Any other carrier that requests to offer intraLATA service will be added to the list of available intraLATA carriers.
Project Mutual proposes that on August 1, 1999, a notice be sent to customers as a bill insert to inform them of the coming opportunity they will have to choose an intraLATA long distance carrier and listing all carriers that have indicated they intend to offer intraLATA service. Project Mutual included a copy of the customer notice and contended the notice is competitively neutral. Customers who respond to the customer notification before September 15, 1999, choosing an intraLATA carrier will have their intraLATA presubscription choice programmed into the switch on the cut-over date of September 16, 1999. Project Mutual’s implementation plan gives its customers a 45-day “grace period” during which they can select or change their intraLATA PIC free of charge. Thereafter, each intraLATA PIC change will result in a five dollar ($5.00) PIC change fee.
B. Customers Who Do Not Actively Choose An IntraLATA Toll Carrier.
Project Mutual proposes to default those customers who do not actively choose a carrier during the selection period to their current intraLATA toll carrier. Project Mutuals proposed customer notification explains that this will be the case. Project Mutual proposes that new customers who do not designate an intraLATA toll carrier will have to dial around using 101-XXXX carrier access codes until they choose their presubscribed carrier(s).
C. Cost Recovery
Project Mutual proposes that incremental expenses relating to toll dialing parity implementation (Equal Access Recovery Charges) will be recovered through a one-time surcharge imposed on the participating intraLATA IXC companies.
AT&T COMMENTS
AT&T generally opposes any change to the FCC Order 99-54 implementation schedule and argues that July 22, 1999, is the latest date by which full dialing parity must be implemented. In addition, AT&T urges the Commission to order Project Mutual to send customers notice in a separate mailing, written on neutral letterhead and sent first-class mail. AT&T requests the Commission to order Project Mutual to allow customers a one-hundred twenty (120) day “grace period” during which the customers can select or change their intraLATA toll carrier.
Finally, AT&T requests that where a customer chooses to simultaneously change or select both an intraLATA and interLATA carrier, only one PIC charge should apply.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommended the final Order be made effective June 22, 1999. Staff also recommended that the Commission exercise its authority granted by Idaho Code § 62-615 and 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2) and modify the FCC requirement for a July 22, 1999, cut-over for Project Mutual. Staff asserts that such a modification is necessary for Project Mutual to “avoid imposing a requirement that is technically infeasible” and that modification is clearly “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Moreover, Staff stated that the proposed September 16, 1999, cut-over date is adequate.
Staff also found that Project Mutual’s proposed IXC notification process was adequate and recommended approval. Given that Project Mutual is a mutual company, owned by its customer/members, Staff also recommended the Commission approve Project Mutual’s proposed customer notification.
Finally, Staff recommends the Commission generally approve Project Mutual’s proposed method of recovery for dialing parity costs. Staff stated it cannot ascertain what the amounts will be until those costs are incurred and submitted by Project Mutual in a separate tariff filing. Staff also recommended that Project Mutual include any waived PIC change charges in its cost recovery.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
At the settlement conference, AT&T, Staff and Project Mutual agreed to settle their differences. After negotiations, each party made certain concessions and agreed that Project Mutual’s dialing parity plan, including the implementation schedule, should be approved as filed with the following specific changes to the proposed plan:
1. Postage associated with including the customer notification as a bill insert will be excluded from Project Mutual’s Equal Access Recovery Charges.
2. Customers will have a ninety (90) day “grace period” within which to change or select their intraLATA PIC free of charge.
3. Project Mutual will process all PIC change requests within five (5) business days.
4. Waived PIC charges will be billed to the participating carrier as a one time bulk bill and not recovered from the end user.
5. The customer notice will be written on neutral letterhead with Project Mutual’s logo on the envelope.
Tr. pp. 4-9.
The parties could not agree that where a customer chooses to simultaneously change or select both an intraLATA and interLATA carrier, only one PIC charge should apply. AT&T still maintained that only one PIC charge should apply and Project Mutual maintained that the Commission had no authority to order what amounted to an interstate tariff change. Tr. pp. 7-9.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission finds that it has authority to approve and order modifications to Project Mutual’s dialing parity plan pursuant to Idaho Code § 62-615(1), 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b)(3) and 251(f)(2) and 47 CFR §§ 51.205-51.217. The Commission finds that it approved those modifications offered by the parties at the settlement conference as described above. Tr. pp. 27-30. With respect to AT&T’s request that where a customer chooses to simultaneously change or select both an intraLATA and interLATA carrier, only one PIC charge should apply, the Commission finds that it does not have to reach the issue because PIC changes related to interLATA toll are not necessary to the dialing parity plan for intraLATA toll. Tr. p. 28.
The Commission further finds that the dialing parity plan, as modified by settlement and described above, is in the public interest, competitively neutral, and consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Moreover, the Commission finds that although according to its plan, Project Mutual will begin its implementation of dialing parity in July 1999, it will not complete the programmed cut-over until September 16, 1999 – outside the date for final cut-over established in FCC Docket No. 96-98 by order dated March 23, 1999. Therefore, the Commission finds that pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2) modification of the implementation schedule is appropriate to “avoid imposing a requirement that is technically infeasible” and modification is “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Therefore, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code § 62-615(1) and 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2), the Commission orders a limited suspension of Project Mutual’s dialing parity obligations to allow Project Mutual to follow its proposed implementation schedule. Finally, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to make this order final effective June 22, 1999.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Project Mutual’s dialing parity plan is approved as modified by settlement of the parties and as more fully described above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Project Mutual’s dialing parity obligations are suspended as described above for the limited purpose to allow Project Mutual to follow its proposed implementation schedule.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER effective June 22, 1999. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. PRJ-T-99-1 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 or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. PRJ-T-99-1. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross petition for reconsideration in response to issues raised in the petition for reconsideration. See section 61 626, Idaho Code.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho, this day of April 2003.
DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
O:prjt991_cc2.doc
Idaho Code 62 615 Authority to implement the telecommunications act Suspension of obligations of rural carriers Promulgation of rules or procedures.
(1) The commission shall have full power and authority to implement the federal telecommunications act of 1996, including, but not limited to, the power to establish unbundled network element charges in accordance with the act.
ORDER NO. 28065 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 7, 1999