29116.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
QWEST CORPORATION AND MCLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e). (PRIOR CASE NO. QWE-T-00-7)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. QWE-T-02-17

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

NOTICE OF MODIFIED
PROCEDURE

NOTICE OF INTERVENTION
DEADLINE

NOTICE OF COMMENT
DEADLINE

ORDER NO. 29116

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
QWEST CORPORATION AND ESCHELON TELECOM, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e). (PRIOR CASE NO. QWE-T-00-13)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
QWEST CORPORATION AND COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e). (PRIOR CASE NO. USW-T-99-3)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
On August 21, 2002, Qwest Corporation filed six negotiated agreements with the Commission that it had previously made with McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (three agreements), Eschelon Telecom, Inc. (one agreement) and Covad Communications Company (two agreements). Qwest filed these agreements under the case numbers from previously approved interconnection agreements, see Case Nos. QWE-T-00-7, QWE-T-00-13 and USW-T-99-23.
Similar and identical unfiled agreements have raised questions about Qwest’s compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in several states. Currently, there are proceedings in Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico examining these issues. Qwest has also filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) requesting that it rule on the scope and duty to file and obtain prior approval of certain types of negotiated contractual arrangements under 47 U.S.C. § 252. The FCC requested comments on the question posed by the Qwest filing and has the matter under advisement.
Qwest requests that the Commission expeditiously approve these new agreements so that any active provisions that relate to 47 U.S.C. § 251(b) or (c) are made available to other CLECs under § 252(i).
After reviewing this matter the Commission shall consolidate these Applications and associated case numbers into one proceeding with the Case No. QWE-T-02-17. The Commission also finds that because these Applications raise important issues they should not be summarily approved. Accordingly, the Commission shall process this case by Modified Procedure under the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. See IDAPA 31.01.01.201-.204.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
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). Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(4) the Commission has 90 days after the filing of an agreement that is adopted by negotiation by the parties to approve or reject it. Qwest filed these agreements on August 21, 2002.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that Qwest Corporation has filed six negotiated agreements under the case numbers of existing interconnection agreements between itself and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc., Eschelon Telecom, Inc. and Covad Communications Company. These agreements were previously unfiled with the Commission but due to Qwest's new filing policy are now being submitted for the Commission’s review and approval.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that Qwest does not believe these contractual arrangements filed now with the Commission fall within the filing requirements of Section 252, but acknowledge that the standards of what should be filed “have not been clearly defined.” Thus, Qwest states it has implemented a new policy and is now “broadly filing all contracts, agreements or letters of understanding between Qwest Corporation and CLECs that create obligations to meet the requirements of Section 251(b) or (c) on a going forward basis.” Qwest also states that “provisions that settle past carrier-specific disputes, that do not relate to Section 251, or that are no longer in effect are not subject to Section 251(i) and this offering.”
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that Qwest claims the filed agreements are all of the “currently effective agreements with CLECs in Idaho that were entered into prior to adoption of the new policy…that relate to Section 251(b) or (c) services on an on-going basis that have not been terminated or superseded by agreement, commission order, or otherwise.” Qwest states that its decision to file these agreements does not bind the Commission with respect to the question of whether Qwest failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 251 and 252. However, the Company believes that it has acted in good faith and that penalties are not appropriate.
NOTICE OF INTERVENTION DEADLINE
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that persons desiring to intervene in this matter must file a Petition to Intervene with the Commission pursuant to this Commission’s Rules of Procedure 72 and 73, IDAPA 31.01.01.072 and -.073 within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Qwest, McLeodUSA, Eschelon and Covad shall be made parties to this case by our Order; thus, they shall not be required to file petitions to intervene.
NOTICE OF MODIFIED PROCEDURE
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission has determined that the public interest may not require a formal hearing in this matter and will proceed 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.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission may not hold a hearing in this proceeding unless it receives written protests or comments opposing the use of Modified Procedure and stating why Modified Procedure should not be used. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.203.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that any person or party desiring to state a position on this Application may file a written comment in support or opposition with the Commission on or before twenty-eight (28) days of the service date of this Order. The comment must contain a statement of reasons supporting the comment. Persons desiring a hearing must specifically request a hearing in their written comments. Any person or party desiring to file written reply comments in response to any filed comments shall do so on or before fourteen (14) days after expiration of the initial comment period.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that written comments concerning these consolidated Applications shall be mailed to the Commission and the Applicant at the addresses reflected below:
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074

Street Address for Express Mail:

472 W. Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702-5983 Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: [e-mail]

Lauraine Harding
Senior Manager, Interconnect Negotiation
McLeodUSA
6400 C Street SW, Box 3177
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-3177
E-mail: [e-mail]

Dennis Ahlers, Senior Attorney
Eschelon Telecom, Inc.
730 Second Avenue, South Suite 1200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
E-mail: [e-mail]

Brad Sonnenberg
Covad Communications Company
3420 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95051
E-mail: [e-mail] Written comments and reply comments should contain the case caption and case number shown on the first page of this document. Persons desiring to submit comments via e-mail may do so by accessing the Commission’s homepage located at www.puc.state.id.us under the “Comments and Questions” icon. Once at the “Comments and Questions” icon, fill in the case number as it appears on the front of this document, and enter your comments. These comments must also be sent to the Applicant at the e-mail addresses listed above.
O R D E R
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the foregoing scheduling be adopted.
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:QWET0217_jh
Qwest entered these agreements with these Companies between April 19, 2000 and March 1, 2002.
The Iowa Department of Commerce Utilities Board found that certain agreements between Qwest and Covad and McLeodUSA were interconnection agreements. In re AT&T Corporation v. Qwest Corporation, Docket No. FCU-02-2 (issued May 29, 2002).

NOTICE OF APPLICATION
NOTICE OF MODIFIED PROCEDURE
NOTICE OF INTERVENTION DEADLINE
NOTICE OF COMMENT DEADLINE
ORDER NO. 29116 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 19, 2002