uswt9810et al.whccc.doc

CHERI C. COPSEY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 5142

Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W WASHINGTON
BOISE ID 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF FIRSTEL, INC. AND U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e). )
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. USW-T-98-10

STAFF COMMENTS
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND AVISTA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. DBA ONE EIGHTY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. USW-T-98-19

STAFF COMMENTS
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND CCCID, INC. DBA CONNECT! FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. USW-T-99-2

STAFF COMMENTS

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND DSLNET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WIRELINE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e). )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. USW-T-99-19

STAFF COMMENTS
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND PATHNET, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESALE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e). )
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. USW-T-99-29

STAFF COMMENTS

COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its Attorney of record, Cheri C. Copsey, Deputy Attorney General, and in response to the Notice of Amendments to Existing Interconnection Agreements and Notice of Modified Procedure, issued in Order No. 28370 on May 5, 2000, submits the following comments.

BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2000, April 21, 2000, and April 12, 2000, in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, U S WEST Communications, Inc. filed five Joint Applications for approval of amendments to five previously approved interconnection agreements. The existing interconnection agreements are between U S WEST and FirsTel, Inc., U S WEST and Avista Communications, Inc. dba One Eighty Communications, Inc., U S WEST and CCCID, Inc. dba Connect!, U S WEST and DSLnet Communications, LLC, and U S WEST and Pathnet, Inc. for review and approval. The Joint Applications state that the amendments were reached through voluntary negotiations without resort to mediation or arbitration and are submitted for the Commission’s approval pursuant to Section 252(e) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The parties requested the Commission approve the agreement without a hearing or intervention by other parties.
Under the terms of the 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 negotiation only if it finds that the agreement discriminates against a telecommunication carrier not a party to the agreement or implementation of the agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C. §  252 (e)(2)(A). If the Commission does not act to approve or reject the agreement within 90 days after its submission, the agreement is deemed approved. 47 U.S.C. §  252 (e)(4). The Commission’s decision is not reviewable by the state courts. Id.

BACKGROUND
FirsTel. The Commission approved FirsTel’s existing interconnection agreement on September 28, 1998. Order No. 27753. According to the Joint Application, the amendment incorporates pre-existing combinations of unbundled network elements in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision in Docket No. 96-98 issued November 5, 1999. See In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98 (Nov. 5, 1999).
Avista. Avista’s existing interconnection agreement was approved by the Commission on December 18, 1998. Order No. 27827. According to the Joint Application, the amendment incorporates pre-existing combinations of unbundled network elements in accordance with the FCC’s decision in Docket No. 96-98 issued November 5, 1999. See In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98 (Nov. 5, 1999).
Connect!. On March 3, 1999, the Commission approved Connect!’s existing interconnection agreement. Order No. 27954. According to the Joint Application, the amendment modifies Section 8, Collocation, of Connect!’s existing interconnection agreement by adding terms and conditions regarding Cageless Physical Collocation and deletes Section 3 in its entirety and replaces it with new termination language.
DSLnet. DSLnet’s existing wireline agreement was approved by the Commission on October 19, 1999. Order No.28180. According to the Joint Application, the amendment incorporates pre-existing combinations of unbundled network elements in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission’s decision in Docket No. 96-98 issued November 5, 1999. See In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98 (Nov. 5, 1999). In addition, the allows DSLnet to place orders for unbundled dedicated interoffice transport (UDIT), asymmetric digital subscriber loop (ADSL) and line conditioning in the form of load coil and bridge tap removals.
Pathnet. The Commission approved Pathnet’s interconnection agreement on February 9, 2000. Order No. 28280. According to the Joint Application, the amendment incorporates language that was inadvertently omitted from the agreement. More specifically, the parties amended the Pathnet agreement by adding a new Section (A)1.8. That language is as follows:

This Agreement sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which USW agrees to provide (a) services for resale and (b) certain UNEs, ancillary functions and additional features to Pathnet, all for the sole purpose of providing Telecommunications Services. The Agreement also sets forth the terms, conditions and reciprocal compensation for the exchange of Exchange Service (EAS/Local) and Exchange Access traffic between USW and Pathnet, Jointly Provided Switch Access (InterLATA and IntraLATA presubscribed/dial around) traffic and Special Access between USW, Pathnet and Interexchange Carrier (IXC) for purposes of offering Telecommunications Services.

STAFF ANALYSIS
Each of the amendments adds provisions concerning access to and pricing of certain network elements or imposes conditions for collocation not included in the original agreements. Most of the amendments were negotiated to comply with federal regulatory decisions issued since the negotiations for the original contract were concluded. All of these terms are available to other companies. Therefore, Staff does not find these terms to be discriminatory. Because most of the new terms enlarge the options available to competitive companies, Idaho customers gain. Therefore, Staff concurs with claims that the amendments are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of the Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and with the public interest.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission approve these amendments to these five interconnection agreements as filed.

DATED at Boise, Idaho, this day of May 2000.

____________________________________
Cheri C. Copsey
Deputy Attorney General

Technical Staff: Wayne Hart

CCC:WH:gdk:i:umisc/comments/uswt9810et al.whccc

STAFF COMMENTS 4 MAY 26, 2000