20031229Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION 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