20020906Order No 29110.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. FOR
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. SPR-T-01-1

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND NEW EDGE
NETWORKS FOR APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. USW-T-99-23
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND BIG SKY
TELECOM, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT
TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-13

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND NOW
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF
AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e). )
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-15

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC. AND SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. FOR
APPROVAL OF AN INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. VZN-T-02-9

ORDER NO. 29110
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 of 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 three amendments to existing interconnection agreements. These matters are discussed in greater detail below.
Qwest Corporation and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Case No. SPR-T-01-1). This is an amendment to an existing wireline interconnection agreement adding terms for unbundled network element combinations.
Qwest Corporation and New Edge Networks. (Case No. USW-T-99-23). This Application involves an amendment to an existing agreement adding terms for the conversion of private lines to unbundled loops.
Qwest Corporation and Big Sky Telecom, Inc. (Case No. QWE-T-02-13). This Application is for a new agreement based upon Qwest’s Statement of Generally Available Terms (SGAT). This agreement is based upon the current SGAT, which includes the new, lower rates proposed by Qwest in its 271 filing.
Qwest Corporation and NOW Communications, Inc. (Case No. QWE-T-02-15). This Application is for a new wireline agreement and includes terms and conditions similar to those in previously approved agreements.
Verizon Northwest, Inc. and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Case No. VZN-T-02-9). This is a new wireline interconnection agreement. It includes terms and conditions similar to previously approved agreements.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff reviewed these Applications and did not find any terms and conditions that it considers to be discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. With the exception of the Qwest/Big Sky agreement, all contain terms and conditions that are similar to those contained in previously approved amendments or agreements.
The Qwest/Big Sky agreement is the first agreement presented to the Commission that includes the reduced rates proposed by Qwest in its 271 Application. The Commission has not thoroughly reviewed these rates and only views them as interim rates. There remains an open docket in Case No. QWE-T-01-11 to examine these rates. Staff does not necessarily object to the rates in this agreement, but recommends that any Commission approval of an agreement including these interim rates also include language that clarifies that approval of the agreement does not imply the Commission has adequately reviewed the rates and has not verified that the interim rates meet TELRIC standards.
Based on the condition discussed above, 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 previously approved interconnection agreements 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 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, the Staff’s recommendation and on the fact no other person commented on these Applications, the Commission finds that the new interconnection 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, Commission approval of the Qwest/Big Sky Telecom Interconnection Agreement is not a finding that the interim rates contained within it meet TELRIC standards. That is a question that will be answered at a later time. Finally, approval of these new interconnection agreements and amendments 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 amendment to the interconnection agreement between Qwest Corporation and Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Case No. SPR-T-01-1, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendment to the interconnection agreement between Qwest Corporation and New Edge Networks, Case No. USW-T-99-23, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the interconnection agreement between Qwest Corporation and Big Sky Telecom, Inc., Case No. QWE-T-02-13, is approved. Commission approval of this interconnection agreement is not a finding that the interim rates contained within it comply with TELRIC standards.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the interconnection agreement between Qwest Corporation and NOW Communications, Inc., Case No. QWE-T-02-15, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the interconnection agreement between Verizon Northwest Inc. and Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Case No. VZN-T-02-9, 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. SPR-T-01-1, USW-T-99-23, QWE-T-02-13, QWE-T-02-15 and VZN-T-02-9 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 September 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:SPRT0101_USWT9923_QWET0213_0215_VZNT0209_jh

ORDER NO. 29110 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 6, 2002