20040831Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:DOUG COOLEY
DATE:AUGUST 25, 2004
RE:STAFF REVIEW OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS;
CASE NOS. QWE-02-22 AND VZN-04-09.
BACKGROUND
Under the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, interconnection
agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.C. ~ 252(e)(I). 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.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'
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.R. ~ 51.3.
THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS
The Commission has been asked to approve one interconnection agreement and one
amendment to an existing interconnection agreement. The items are discussed in greater detail
below.
DECISION MEMORANDUM AUGUST 25, 2004
1. Verizon Northwest Inc. and Verizon Avenue Corp. (Case No. VZN-04-09t In this
Application, the parties request that the Commission approve an agreement similar to other
agreements entered into by Verizon Northwest. The agreement also includes Amendment #1 which
reflects TRO implementation.
2. Qwest Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC (Case No.
QWE- T -02-22t In this case, the parties request that the Commission approve an amendment to an
existing agreement. With this filing, the parties add terms and conditions that are included in a
Master Service Agreement filed by both Qwest and MCImetro during August 2004.
ST AFF ANALYSIS
Staffhas reviewed the Applications and did not find that any terms or conditions are
discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff believes that the agreements are consistent
with the pro-competitive policies of this Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the federal
Telecommunications Act. Accordingly, Staff believes that the agreements merit the Commission
approval. Although Staff believes the Qwest / MCI amendment should be approved, this does raise
the issue of what filing requirements apply to the Master Service Agreement. Nationally, there has
been debate regarding appropriate filing requirements and Staff recommends that the Commission
issue a Notice that this Master Service Agreement has been filed in Idaho and seek comments
regarding its regulatory treatment.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission approve the Application for interconnection and amendment to
existing interconnection agreements?
Does the Commission wish to issue a Notice and establish a comment period regarding
the Master Service Agreement between Qwest and MCImetro?
'"
~70o1e
udmemos/dcooley/intcn dec memo 37
DECISION MEMORANDUM AUGUST 25, 2004