Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031229Decision Memo.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER SMITH CO MMISSI 0 NER HANSEN COMMISSION SECRETARY COMMISSION STAFF LEGAL WORKING FILE FROM:WAYNE HART DATE:DECEMBER 26, 2003 RE:STAFF REVIEW OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO CASE NOS. USW-99-3; QWE-00-20; QWE-02-1; QWE-02-2; QWE-02-12; QWE-03-27. BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 , interconnection agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 US.c. ~ 252(e)(I). The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only ifit 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 US.C. ~ 252(e)(2)(A). THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS 1. Qwest and Covad Communications Company (Case No. USW-99-3).This application is for an amendment to an existing interconnection agreement replacing the previous terms for joint testing with revised terms. 2. Qwest and Arch Wireless Operating Company (Case No. USW-00-20).This application is for an amendment to an existing paging interconnection agreement extending the term of the agreement and including language dealing with changes that result from regulatory or legal proceedings. DECISION MEMORANDUM - 1 -DECEMBER 26, 2003 3. Qwest and VarTec Telecom, Inc. (Case No. QWE-02-1).This application is for an amendment to update the rates in Appendix A to include recent changes in Qwest's SGA rates. 4. Qwest and XO Idaho, Inc. (Case No. QWE-02-2).This application is for an amendment to update the rates in Appendix A to include recent changes in Qwest's SGAT rates. 5. Qwest and Excel Telecommunications, Inc. (Case No. QWE-02-12).This application is for an amendment to update the rates in Appendix A to include recent changes in Qwest's SGAT rates. 6. Qwest and Robe4rt Ryder dba Radio Paging Service (Case No. QWE- T -03-27). This is a new Type 1 and Type 2 Paging agreement. The terms are similar to other paging agreements previously approved by the Commission STAFF ANALYSIS 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. 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 of 1996. Accordingly, Staff believes that the Agreements and Amendments to previously approved interconnection agreements merit the Commission approval. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission wish to approve the Applications for Approval of the Interconnection Agreements and Amendments listed ab ve? WH:interconnenction agreement dm 12 DECISION MEMORANDUM - 2 -DECEMBER 26, 2003