2000602_cc.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
RON LAW
TONYA CLARK
LYNN ANDERSON
DON HOWELL
STEPHANIE MILLER
RANDY LOBB
JOE CUSICK
WAYNE HART
WORKING FILE

FROM: CHERI C. COPSEY

DATE: JUNE 2, 2000

RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATIONS OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND FIRSTEL, INC., AVISTA COMMUNICATIONS OF IDAHO, INC., CCCID, INC. DBA CONNECT!, DSLNET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, AND PATHNET, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e); CASE NOS. USW-T-98-10; USW-T-98-19, USW-T-99-02, USW-T-99-19, USWT9924, USW-T-99-29.

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 agreements without a hearing or intervention by other parties.
On May 5, 2000, the Commission issued a Notice of Amendments to Existing Interconnection Agreements and Modified Procedure. Order No. 28370. Comments were due May 26, 2000. Only Staff filed comments which recommended approval of each Joint Application.
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 of Idaho, 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.
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 amendment 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
The Staff found that each of the amendments added provisions concerning access to and pricing of certain network elements or imposes conditions for collocation not included in the original agreements. Staff also noted that 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 did 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 concurred 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 recommended the Commission approve these amendments to these five interconnection agreements as filed.
Commission Decision:
Should the Joint Applications of U S WEST, FirsTel, Inc., Avista Communications of Idaho, Inc., CCCID, Inc. DBA Connect!, DSLnet Communications, LLC, and Pathnet, Inc .for approval of certain amendments to their interconnection agreements be approved?

Cheri C. Copsey

Staff: Wayne Hart

M:usw_interconnect_amends_cc

DECISION MEMORANDUM 4