20030828Order No 29328.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 28, 2003
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND MCIMETRO
TRANSMISSION SERVICES LLC FOR
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT
TO 47 U.e. ~ 252(e).
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND XO IDAHO,
INe. FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO 47 U.e. ~ 252(e).
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND IDACOMM
INe. FOR APPROV AL OF AN
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT
TO 47 U.e. ~ 252(e).
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION AND REGAL
DIVERSIFIED, INC. DBA REGAL TELEPHONE
COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF AN
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT
TO 47 U.C. ~ 252(e)
) CASE NO. QWE- T -02-
) CASE NO. QWE-02-
) CASE NO. QWE-03-
) CASE NO. QWE-03-
) ORDER NO. 29328
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.C. ~ 252(e)(1). The
Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only if it 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 U.C. ~ 252(e)(2)(A). As the Commission 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. 29328
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.
~ 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. Owest Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC (Case No.
OWE- T -02-22)In this Application, the parties request that the Commission approve an
amendment to an existing interconnection agreement. This amendment adds terms and conditions
regarding Collocation Available Inventory.
2. Qwest Corporation and XO Idaho, Inc. (Case No. OWE- T -02-. In this amendment
terms and conditions are added for Collocation Transfer of Responsibility.
Owest Corporation and IDACOMM, Inc. (Case No. OWE-03-18)In this
Application, the parties request that the Commission approve an interconnection agreement. The
agreement is referred to as Qwest's Third Revision of a Statement of Generally Available Terms for
interconnection or SGA T.
4. Owest Corporation and Regal Diversified, Inc. dba Regal Telephone Company (Case
No. QWE- T -03-16). In this Application, the parties request that the Commission approve a resale
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.C. ~ 252 (e)(1). The Commission s review is
limited, however. The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiation only if it
ORDER NO. 29328
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 Staffs
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 ifthey 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.
ORDER.
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 previously approved
interconnection agreement between Qwest Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission
Services LLC, Case No. QWE-02-, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendment to a previously approved
interconnection agreement between Qwest Corporation and XO Idaho, Inc., Case No. QWE- T-
02-, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the interconnection agreement between Qwest
Corporation and IDACOMM, Inc., Case No. QWE-03-, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the interconnection agreement between Qwest
Corporation and Regal Diversified, Inc., DBA Regal Telephone Company, Case No. QWE- T -03-
, 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-
02-, QWE-02-, QWE-03-18 and QWE-03-16 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 NO. 29328
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 J... 7 ~
day of August 2003.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
O:QWET0316 - QWET0318 - QWET0202 - QWET0222
ORDER NO. 29328