29047.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND METROCALL,
INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT
TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-10

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND ESCHELON
TELECOM, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. QWE-T-00-13
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC. AND FUZION
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT
TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. VZN-T-01-6

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC. AND ONE
EIGHTY NETWORKS, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF
AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e). )
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. VZN-T-02-6

ORDER NO. 29047

In these cases the Commission is asked to approve new interconnection agreements and amendments to previously approved interconnection agreements.
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). As the Commission recently 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 provisions with Section 251(b) or (c).” Order No. 28427 at 11 (emphasis original). This comports with the FCC’s statement that “a state commission shall have authority to approve an interconnection 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 CURRENT APPLICATIONS
The Commission has been asked to approve two new interconnection agreements and two amendments to existing interconnection agreements. The new agreements and amendments are discussed in greater detail below.
1. Qwest Corporation and Metrocall, Inc. (Case No. QWE-T-02-10). In this Application the parties request that the Commission approve a paging interconnection agreement.
2. Qwest Corporation and Eschelon Telecom, Inc. (Case No. QWE-T-00-13). In this Application the parties request that the Commission approve an amendment to the existing interconnection agreement. This amendment adds terms and conditions for calculating local usage charges associated with UNE-E switching.
3. Verizon Northwest, Inc. and Fuzion Wireless Communications, Inc. (Case No. VZN-T-01-6). In this Application the parties request that the Commission approve an amendment to the existing interconnection agreement. The amendment addresses compensation for Internet Service Providers (ISP).
4. Verizon Northwest, Inc. and One Eighty Networks, Inc. (Case No.VZN-T-02-6). In this Application the parties request that the Commission approve a wireline interconnection agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff has reviewed these Applications and did not find any terms and conditions to be discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff believes that these new agreements and amendments to interconnection agreements are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of this Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the federal Telecommunications Act. Accordingly, Staff believes that the Applications merit the Commission’s approval.
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)(1). The Commission’s review is limited, however. The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiation only if it finds that the agreement discriminates against a telecommunication 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, the Staff’s recommendation and on the fact no other person commented on these Applications, the Commission finds that the new agreements and amendments to previously approved interconnection agreements are consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity and do not discriminate. Therefore, the Commission finds that these Applications should be approved. However, approval of these new agreements and amendments to previously approved agreements does not negate the responsibility of any of the parties to these agreements to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity if they are offering local exchange services or complying with Idaho Code §§ 62-604 and 62-606 if they are providing other non-basic local telecommunications services as defined by Idaho Code § 62-603.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the new interconnection agreements and amendments to interconnection agreements discussed above are approved. Terms of the agreements that are not already in effect shall be effective as of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the interconnection agreement between Qwest Corporation and Metrocall, Inc., Case No. QWE-T-02-10, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendment to a previously approved interconnection agreement between Qwest Corporation and Eschelon Telecom, Inc., Case No. QWE-T-00-13, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendment to the interconnection agreement between Verizon Northwest, Inc. and Fuzion Wireless Communications, Inc., Case No. VZN-T-01-6, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the interconnection agreement between Verizon Northwest, Inc. and One Eighty Networks, Inc., Case No. VZN-T-02-6, is approved.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in these Case Nos. QWE-T-02-10, QWE-T-00-13, VZN-T-01-6 and VZN-T-02-6 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 these cases. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code §§ 61-626 and 62-619.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho, this
day of June 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:QWET0210_QWET0013_VZNT016_VZNT026_jh

ORDER NO. 29047 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 10, 2002