20040802Final Order on Remand No 29555.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 2, 2004
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROBERT RYDER DBA RADIO PAGING
SERVICE, JOSEPH B. McNEAL DBA SUPREME COURT
PAGED AT A AND INTERPAGE OF IDAHO,DOCKET NO. 29175
AND TEL-CAR, INC.
Petitioners/Appellants,
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IPUC CASE NO. USW-99-
Respondent on Appeal
and
QWEST CORPORATION,
Respondent/Respondent on Appeal.ORDER NO. 29555
On February 13, 2004, the Parties in this appeal filed a Stipulated Motion with the
Idaho Supreme Court to suspend the appeal and temporarily remand this matter back to the
Public Utilities Commission. At that time, the Parties maintained there was good cause to
suspend the appeal, primarily so they could consider a recent decision issued by the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In that decision the Circuit Court
vacated orders of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that the Idaho Commission
had relied upon when it issued the underlying orders in this appeal. The Parties asserted in their
Stipulated Motion that remanding the matter would allow: (1) the Commission to reconsider its
orders in light of the recent Circuit Court opinion; (2) the FCC to address the two
telecommunication issues on remand from the Circuit Court; and (3) the Parties another
opportunity to settle the appeal. On March 8 , 2004, the Court suspended the appeal and
remanded the matter back to the Commission.
Following the Court's remand, negotiations to settle or narrow the issues on appeal
were unsuccessful.In addition, the FCC has not issued any orders addressing the two
telecommunications issues discussed in the Circuit Court's opinion. Given this state of events
ORDER NO. 29555
the Commission issued Order No. 29491 on May 11 , 2004, directing the Petitioners (collectively
referred to as "the Pagers ) and Qwest Corporation to file supplemental briefs addressing the
transit traffic and wide area calling issues. The Parties also moved the Supreme Court to
continue the suspended appeal. On June 7, 2004, the Supreme Court granted the Stipulated
Motion to continue the suspension.
On May 28, 2004, Qwest Corporation filed its supplemental brief on remand
pursuant to Order No. 29491. On June 8, 2004, the Pagers filed their supplemental reply brief.
On July 8, 2004, Qwest filed Objections to the Pagers reply brief and a Motion to Strike portions
of the reply brief and several attachments to the Pagers ' brief. On July 12 , 2004, the Pagers filed
an Answer to Qwest's Objections and Motion to Strike.
Having reviewed the record, the Circuit Court decision, the supplemental briefs and
the subsequent pleadings, the Commission issues this Order on Remand. As explained in greater
detail below, the Commission grants in part and denies in part the Pagers' request for additional
compensation. Accordingly, the Commission amends and clarifies its prior Order Nos. 29064
and 29140 regarding the issues of transit traffic and wide area calling pursuant to Idaho Code
61-624.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Initial Complaint and Liability Phase
The procedural history of this case is set out in detail in Order Nos. 29064 (R. at 789-
92) and 29140 (R. at 863-68) but the pertinent points are summarized here. This case was
initiated in September 1999 when PageData2 and Radio Paging Service filed a Joint Petition for a
Declaratory Order against Qwest's predecessor , U S WEST Communications.3 The three Pagers
alleged that Qwest had violated provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 as
well as the FCC's implementing regulations and orders by improperly charged them for certain
telecommunications services and facilities used to deliver telephone calls to the Pagers. Because
the Pagers sought specific relief from Qwest's conduct and billing practices , the Commission
processed the Petition as a "complaint."
1 On July 9 2004, the Parties filed a Second Stipulated Motion to continue the suspension until August 2 2004. The
Court subsequently granted this Motion.
2 In June 1998 the owner of PageData, Joseph McNeal, purchased the assets of another paging company called
InterPage. Order No. 29140 at n. 3; Tr. at 150, 208.
3 In January 2000, Tel-Car, Inc. petitioned to intervene. The Commission granted intervention in February 2000.
ORDER NO. 29555
In the first part of this two-part case (called the "Liability Phase ), the Commission
found that the Pagers were partially entitled to relief. In Order No. 28601 issued in December
2000, the Commission found that Qwest had inappropriately billed the Pagers for certain services
and facilities. In compliance with the FCC'Local Competition Order the Commission found
that effective November 1 , 1996, Qwest was prohibited from charging the Pagers for
transmitting Qwest-originated traffic to the Pagers (with two exceptions discussed in greater
detail below). The Commission s orders in the Liability Phase were final orders and no appeal
was taken by either Qwest or the Pagers.
B. The Credit Phase
Having determined that the Pagers were due refunds, the Commission instituted the
second part of this case known as the "Credit Phase." The Commission ordered the parties to
exchange relevant information and attempt to settle the amount of the refund or billing credit
owed each Pager. When Qwest and the Pagers were unable to settle the amounts owed each
Pager, the Commission appointed a Hearing Examiner to conduct an evidentiary hearing and
issue a Proposed Order. The hearing was held in July 2001.
The Hearing Examiner recommended that the Pagers were entitled to refunds but less
than the amounts they claimed. The Examiner found that some of the Qwest services and
facilities provided to the Pager were used for non-paging services such as two-way voice service
cellular telephone service, data service, and long-distance service. Proposed Order at 3 , 6, 10-11.
Refunds were not due for these non-paging services. In addition, the Examiner determined that
refunds were not due for Qwest's delivery of "transit traffic" originated by other carriers and
wide area calling" arrangements that allow Qwest customers to call the Pagers ' toll-free.
Proposed Order at 14-, 17-, Order No. 29140 at 4. Finally, the Examiner recommended that
Qwest offered the better evidence regarding the billing and payment information used to
calculate the actual refunds. In December 2001 , the Pagers filed exceptions to the Proposed
Order.
After reviewing the Hearing Examiner s Proposed Order, the evidentiary record and
the Pagers ' exceptions , the Commission issued a lengthy order affirming and expanding on the
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 First Report and
Order 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom., Competitive Telecommunications
Ass n v. FCC 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997) and Iowa Utilities Ed. v. FCC 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), aff'd in
part and remanded, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Ed.525 U.S. 366, 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999).
ORDER NO. 29555
Examiner s proposed findings of fact. Order No. 29064 (July 17, 2002). The Pagers Petitioned
for Reconsideration and raised more than 35 points of contention. In September 2002, the
Commission granted reconsideration so that it could review the numerous issues raised by the
Pagers.
In November 2002 the Commission issued its final Order on Reconsideration
No. 29140 (R. at 863-913). On reconsideration the Commission determined that refunds were
not due for: (1) non-paging services and facilities; (2) "transit traffic" from non-Qwest carriers;
and (3) "wide area calling" services and facilities provided by Qwest that effectively allowed
Qwest customers to call the Pagers toll-free. Order Nos. 29064 at 3-4; 29140 at 23-41. The
Commission affirmed its prior order but did increase the amount of billing credit owed each
Pager. In December 2002, the Petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal, R. at 928-32.
C. Remand Issues Before the Commission
As previously mentioned, Qwest, the Pagers and this Commission filed a Stipulated
Motion to remand this matter to the Commission so that the Parties could consider the D.
Circuit Court Opinion of Mountain Communications v. Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), 355 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2004).In Mountain Communications the Circuit Court
overturned two FCC decisions. The Circuit Court concluded that the FCC's decision to allow
Qwest to charge the pager for "wide area calling" arrangements was arbitrary and capricious and
remanded the case to the FCC. The other issue discussed in the Circuit Court's Opinion was
transit traffic." These issues are the same two issues that were remanded to this Commission
for further consideration.
As a preliminary matter, the FCC'TSR Order and Local Competition Order
prohibit local exchange carriers (LECs) like Qwest from charging for facilities used to deliver
LEC-originated traffic, in addition to prohibiting charges for the traffic itself. TSR Order at ~ 25.
The TSR Order also provided that as of the effective date of the Local Competition Order a LEC
must cease charging pagers for terminating LEC-originated traffic and must provide that traffic
5 After the Notice of Appeal was filed, the Parties agreed to participate in the appellate settlement process.
January 2003 , the Court issued an order staying the appeal pending settlement negotiations. Following unsuccessful
negotiations, the Supreme Court reinstated the appeal in November 2003 with the Pagers ' opening brief due in
February 2004.
TSR Wireless v. US WEST, Memorandum Opinion and Order 15 FCC Rcd 11166 (2000), aff'd sub nom. Qwest
Corporation v. FCC 252 F.3d 462 (D.c. Cir. 2001).
ORDER NO. 29555
to a pager without charge. Id. ~~ 3-28; Order No. 29140 at 5, 23. Despite these prohibitions, the
FCC also determined in the TSR Order that pagers "are required to pay for 'transit traffic. ", TSR
Order 15 FCC Rcd at 11177 n. 70. Later FCC decisions also allowed LECs to charge pagers for
wide area calling" arrangements or services.
1. Transit Traffic. Transit traffic are calls that originate from a carrier other than the
interconnecting LEC (in this case Qwest) but nonetheless are carried over Qwest's network to
the paging carrier s network. Order No. 29140 at 23 quoting TSR Order at n. 70 (emphasis
added). In other words, traffic that originates on a non-Qwest network and is transported over
the Qwest network to a pager s network may incur charges. An Idaho specific example would
be a call from a Silver Star Telephone customer in Driggs would traverse or transit the Qwest
network to reach PageData s paging terminal in Idaho Falls. PageData would then "page" its
customer by sending a radio signal. Based upon the TSR Order and other FCC decisions, the
Commission found that Qwest was permitted to charge the Pagers for transit traffic originated by
third-party carriers. See also Qwest Corporation v. FCC 252 F.3d 462, 468 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
(the FCC requires pagers to pay for transit traffic). The Commission found that 24% of the
Pagers ' traffic was properly classified as transit traffic. Consequently, Qwest offset the refund
credits owed to the Pagers. Order No. 29140 at
2. Wide Area Calling. In addition to charging for transit traffic, the TSR Order and
other FCC decisions held that LECs may charge pagers for LEC services and facilities not
necessary for interconnection and the delivery of LEC-originated traffic to pagers. For example
wide area calling" generally refers to an arrangement or service "that allows a paging carrier to
subsidize the cost of calls from (Qwest'sJ customers to a paging carrier s customer, when the
caller and the paging company are located in different local calling areas." Order No. 29140
5. Normally telephone calls from one local calling area to another local calling area are assessed
toll" or long-distance charges. By using various facility arrangements and services, paging
carriers can create networks so that it would appear to Qwest callers that their calls to a paging
company located in a different local calling area will be toll-free, or will not be assessed a toll
charge. Id. at 37; Mountain Communications I 17 FCC Rcd 2091 at ~~ 3 , 13 (Feb. 4, 2002);
Mountain Communications II 17 FCC Rcd 15135 at ~~ 4-6 (July 25 2002).
In the underlying proceeding, the Commission found that PageData and Tel-Car had
configured their paging systems in a manner that constituted wide area calling arrangements.
ORDER NO. 29555
Order No. 29140 at 37. Consequently, the Commission determined that the two Pagers were not
entitled to a refund for wide area calling charges. Order Nos. 29064 at 25-28; 29140 at 36-41.
THE FCC DECISION AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OPINION
Mountain Communications is a paging carrier serving customers in three Colorado
local calling areas. Like the present case, Qwest is the predominate provider of local service
within each of the three Colorado calling areas. Although Mountain serves in all three areas, it
has a single point of interconnection (POI) with Qwest in one of the three areas as permitted by
federal law. Mountain Communications v. FCC 355 F.3d 644, 645 (D.C. Cir. 2004) citing
C. 9 251(c)(2)(b)(LECs must provide interconnection facilities with other carriers "at any
technically feasible point within the (incumbent LEC'sJ network"). As mentioned above
normally a call from one local calling area to another local calling area is considered a toll call.
Thus, a Qwest call from the two local calling areas to Mountain s POI in the third calling area
would normally be considered a toll call. A Qwest customer making such a call normally would
be charged for a toll call. Conversely, a Qwest call originating in the local calling area where
Mountain s POI is located, would be considered a local call and normally transported without
charge. In the Mountain case, Qwest charged the pager for wide area calling arrangements for
Qwest calls made from the two local calling areas into Mountain s POI in the third area. Qwest
also charged Mountain for transit traffic.
1. The FCC Decision. Mountain filed a complaint with the FCC arguing that the
FCC's regulation at 47 C.R. 9 51.703(b) bars Qwest from assessing wide area charges for
Qwest-originated traffic. This FCC regulation provides that a "LEC may not assess charges on
any other telecommunications carrier for telecommunications traffic that originates on the LEC'
network." Mountain asserted that because its "local" paging area 7 encompasses all three Qwest
local calling areas, Qwest is not permitted to charge Mountain for Qwest-originated traffic or for
facilities Qwest uses to deliver its traffic to Mountain s single-POI. Mountain Communications
17 FCC Rcd 2091 at ~~ 8-, 12-13; see also TSR Order at ~ 32. Mountain also insisted that
Qwest should be prohibited from charging for transit traffic.
7 As a commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) provider, Mountain s local paging area is defined by the FCC as a
major trading area (MTA). For purposes of our Idaho case, the MTA encompasses the entire Boise LATA, i., all
of southern Idaho.
ORDER NO. 29555
The FCC rejected Mountain s wide area calling argument. The FCC observed that
Qwest may charge its customers a toll charge when the customer calls Mountain s POI located in
another calling area. When Mountain requested dedicated toll facilities from each Qwest calling
area to Mountain s POI, it "effectively entered into such (a wide area calling) arrangement with
Qwest." Mountain Communications I 17 FCC Rcd at ~ 13. These dedicated facilities allowed
Mountain to "buy-down" the cost of toll calls "to make it appear to (Qwest's customers) that
they have made a local call rather than a toll call.Id. at ~ 11. The FCC also decided that "wide
area calling services are not necessary for interconnection" to the pager. Id.; Mountain
Communications II 1 7 FCC Rcd 15135 at ~~ 5-
The FCC also determined Qwest may lawfully charge Mountain for transit traffic.
allowing Qwest to charge for transit traffic, the FCC relied upon its TSR Order and other paging
orders. TSR Order at ~ 19 n. 70; TexCom v. Bell Atlantic, Memorandum Opinion and Order
FCC Rcd 21493 at ~~ 4-6 (Nov. 28, 2001), reconsid. denied 17 FCC Rcd 6275 at ~ 4 (March 27
2002). The FCC noted that Mountain could seek reimbursement from the carrier that originated
the transit traffic. Mountain Communications II 17 FCC Rcd 15135 at ~ 2 n. 30.
2. The Circuit Court Opinion On appeal, the Circuit Court held that the FCC's wide
area calling decision is at odds with the FCC's own regulation and with the TSR Order. The
Court observed that while the facts of the TSR Order and Mountain are identical, the results of
the two cases "are opposite.Mountain Communications v. FCC 355 F.3d at 646. Thus, the
Court easily concluded that the FCC'Mountain decision is "logically inconsistent with (the
FCC's) TSR decision.Id. at 647. The Court also found the FCC decision "seemingly comes
into direct conflict with its own regulation" at 47 C.F .R. 9 51.703 (b), which prohibits LECs from
levying charges for traffic that originate on their own networks.Id.355 P.3d at 648.
Consequently, the Court rather easily concluded that the FCC's decision on this issue is arbitrary
and capricious. The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case to the FCC. Id. at 649.
After dealing with wide area calling, the Court turned to the transit traffic issue. The
Circuit Court observed that the FCC allowed Qwest to charge Mountain for transit traffic "but
indicated that Mountain could seek reimbursement from the originating carrier for whatever
charges (Mountain) paid to Qwest." Id. Mountain argued that this decision does not follow the
standard practice of charging the cost of calls to the network of the party initiating the call.
Mountain insisted that the prospects for reimbursement from the originating carrier of the transit
ORDER NO. 29555
traffic was illusory, because Qwest never provided the calling information to Mountain. Without
such information, Mountain maintained it was impossible to seek reimbursement. Id.
The Court did not reach the merits of this argument because Qwest advised the Court
that it would provide Mountain with the originating carrier information. The Court observed that
the FCC
suggested that Mountain was essentiall y correct in claiming that the
originating carrier should bear all (of the transit traffic) costs. At oral
argument, Qwest's counsel obviated any need for us to decide this issue by
indicating that Qwest would provide Mountain with the information
necessary so that Mountain could charge the originating carrier for
reimbursement. Under those circumstances, Mountain dropped that part of
its petition.
Id. (emphasis original). See also Order No. 29491 at 5-
REMAND PROCEEDINGS
Given the Circuit Court's ruling on wide area calling, Qwest's concession on transit
traffic, the lack of any FCC orders on remand and the unfruitful settlement negotiations, the
Commission issued Order No. 29491 directing the Pagers and Qwest to provide supplemental
briefing regarding the two telecommunications issues. Order No. 29491 at 7. The Commission
noted that it was undisputed that Qwest need not absorb transit traffic costs. What the Circuit
Court opinion did not answer was whether Qwest should charge the originating carrier for transit
traffic, or whether Qwest could provide the call detail to the Pagers who could in turn seek
reimbursement from the originating carriers. Id. at 7. The Parties were directed to address the
following pertinent questions:
Wide Area Calling
1. For each Pager, provide the total amount of wide area calling
charges (e., 800, FX, DID , etc.) assessed by Qwest. Describe
with specificity the exact wide area calling service (if any) that each
Pager utilized.
2. Did any of the Pagers voluntarily enter into a "buy-down
agreement" with Qwest so that Qwest would not assess toll charges
on its customers' calls to a Pager located in another local calling
area? See 355 F.3d at 648.
ORDER NO. 29555
Transit Traffic
1. Describe in detail the call data provided to Qwest by the originating
carrier of transit traffic.
2. Given Qwest's offer at the Circuit Court's oral argument to provide
transit traffic data to Mountain, is Qwest in a position to provide
transit traffic data to the Pagers in this case?
3. If such transit traffic data is no longer available, is it appropriate to
credit the Pagers for transit traffic?
4. What was the amount of transit traffic charged to each Pager during
the relevant time periods?
Order No. 29491 at 7-This Order also directed Qwest to prepare exhibits showing the
amount of charges it assessed each Pager individually for wide area calling and transit traffic.
addition to the refund/credit calculations Qwest was directed to include an itemization of
interest through July 1 , 2004. Id. Once Qwest filed its supplemental brief and calculations, then
the Pagers were to file their supplemental brief replying to Qwest's brief and the calculations.
Id. at 8.
In compliance with the Commission s directives, Qwest filed its supplemental brief
and calculations on May 26, 2004.9 The Pagers filed their timely supplemental reply brief on
June 8, 2004. The Pagers' reply brief included seven "exhibits" and an appendix with 13 more
exhibits.
A. Qwest's Motion to Strike
On July 8, 2004, Qwest filed Objections to the Pagers' brief and a Motion to Strike.
Qwest argued the Pagers' brief went far beyond simply addressing the wide area calling and
transit traffic issues. Qwest asserted the Pagers were attempting to reopen or re-argue issues
already decided and beyond the scope of the remand and the Commission s Order No. 29491.
Qwest further asserted the Pagers' supplemental brief introduced "new evidence not in the
record" and makes "arguments based on facts that are not before the Commission in this case.
Motion to Strike at 3. Qwest moved to strike those portions of the Pagers' supplemental brief
8 One other question asked whether cost recovery mechanisms for creating Qwest's local calling areas contemplated
transit traffic. The Parties offered no pertinent information in response to this question.
9 On May 27, Qwest filed a "corrected" response to the Commission s Order.
ORDER NO. 29555
that address issues beyond the scope of the two issues identified in Order No. 29491 and strike
attachments to the brief that are not in the record.
Qwest also moved to strike in its entirety the 57-page appendix to the Pagers' brief
prepared by Joseph McNeal, the owner of Page Data. Qwest raised more than 20 specific points
of contention with the appendix. The Company urged the Commission to strike the McNeal
appendix because: (1) it is non-responsive to the two issues on remand and beyond the scope of
the remand proceeding; (2) it addresses several issues that are beyond the scope of the
underlying proceeding or the appeal itself; (3) it is in practical terms a second legal brief but
does not appear to be sponsored by the Pagers' attorney ; and (4) Mr. McNeal is not an attorney
and cannot represent the two other pagers. Motion to Strike at 9 citing Commission Rule 43
(Representation of Parties), IDAP A 31.01.01.043.
On July 12, 2004, the Pagers filed an Answer to Qwest's Objections and the Motion
to Strike. In their Answer, the Pagers asserted that most of the attachments to the supplemental
brief and the appendix are either exhibits previously admitted or are documents already in the
record. The Pagers acknowledged that "exhibit A
" "
exhibit E 10 and Mr. McNeal's appendix
are not contained in the record of this proceeding. Pagers Answer at 2.
As to the unsigned appendix, the Pagers maintained it was prepared by Mr. McNeal
and it was "fully incorporated by reference into 'the Pagers' Reply (briefJ as stated at page 3
thereof.
'"
Id. at 2. The Pagers contend that much of the information in Mr. McNeal's appendix
is contained in the record but acknowledged that some of the information is not. Id. The Pagers
suggested that the "Commission is obviously able to separate the wheat from the chaff and
determine the relevance of the points made" in the appendix. Id. at 3-
Commission Findings: After reviewing the supplemental briefs, the vanous
attached documents, the Motion to Strike and the Answer, we grant in part and deny in part
Qwest's Motion to Strike.Motion to Strike is reviewed under the abuse of discretion
standard. Perry v. Magic Valley Reg 'I Med. Ctr.134 Idaho 46 995 P.2d 816 820 (2000).
The test for determining an abuse of discretion is based upon a three-part inquiry: (1) whether
the Commission correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the Commission
acted within the outer boundaries of discretion and consistently with applicable legal standards;
10 "Exhibits" A and E are not "admitted" exhibits but are documents that were attached to the Pagers supplemental
brief. They are not currently in the record on appeal.
ORDER NO. 29555
and (3) whether the Commission reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Sun Valley
Shopping Ctr. v. Idaho Power Company, 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993 , 1000 (1991).
1. The Pagers Brief.We partially grant the Motion to Strike for two primary
reasons. First, portions of the brief and appendix are beyond the scope of the remand issues.
is evident in the three Stipulated Motions filed with the Supreme Court, the Parties requested that
this matter be remanded to the Commission. The Parties stipulated that it was appropriate to
remand so the Commission could "reconsider its Orders in light of the recent (D.) Circuit
Court opinion.Stipulated Motion to Suspend Appeal and Remand to the Administrative
Agency at 3, 4. The only telecommunications issues discussed in the Mountain Communications
opinion are wide area calling and transit traffic. Moreover, in the Supreme Court's order issued
March 8, 2004, the Court granted the Parties' Stipulated Motion to allow "the Public Utilities
Commission to review their decision in this case in light of the above (D.) Circuit Court
opinion.Sup. Ct. Order 29175 (March 8, 2004). Thus, it is apparent that the Parties only
contemplated addressing the issues of wide area calling and transit traffic on remand. Moreover
the Supreme Court's order granted the remand to review the Circuit Court's opinion.
Second, our Order No. 29491 directed the parties to address several questions all
focused on wide area calling or transit traffic. Order No. 29491 at 7-8. It was neither our intent
then or now to expand the scope of reconsideration beyond the two issues in the Court's opinion
nor entertain new arguments or re-arguments on other issues.
We first examine the "exhibits" that accompanied the Pagers' supplemental brief.
the 11 attachments to the Pagers' brief, two were Circuit Court slip opinions addressing transit
traffic and two were copies of transcript pages or excerpts from a previous Pager brief. Of the
seven other "exhibits " three were actual exhibits already admitted (B, F, G) and two other
exhibits" are documents already included in the record on appeal (C and D). These documents
are appropriate and relevant and are not stricken.
Pager "exhibit" A is a diagram purportedly showing the "Configuration of PageData
Paging System." Qwest maintains this diagram "does not even remotely factually represent the
(PageDatallnterPage) network during the time period in question in this case." Motion to Strike
at n. 24. Although we agree with Qwest's basic premise that this diagram does not accurately
portray the PageDatalinterPage network during most of the refund period, it does show four
paging terminals (POls) and the current configuration. We shall allow it to remain in the record
ORDER NO. 29555
but accord it little weight. We also note that Qwest submitted a diagram with its brief purporting
to show PageDataiinterPage facilities leased from Qwest as of July 1998.
Finally, "exhibit" E is a letter dated April 30, 2004 on Qwest letterhead to Joseph
McNeal concerning what appears to be the elimination of analog private line service by Qwest
on June 15 , 2004. A proper foundation for this hyper-technical letter has not been made and it
clearly falls well beyond PageData s refund window: November 1 , 1996 to September 10, 1999.
Order No. 29140 at 5. Consequently, we strike this "exhibit."
2. The Appendix We next turn to the McNeal appendix. The Pagers ' reply brief
notes that the McNeal appendix is "attached and incorporated" as an "overview analysis
prepared by Joseph McNeal on behalf of PageData.Pagers Answer to Motion to Strike at 3.
Consequently, Qwest's fears that the McN eal appendix applies to the other two pagers is
unfounded. Nevertheless, we agree with Qwest that there are several portions of the appendix
that are beyond the scope of our reconsideration on remand. More specifically, some portions of
the appendix and its 13 attachments are re-arguing issues that are not subject to reconsideration
introducing new arguments and/or evidence, or are issues in other PUC proceedings involving
Mr. McNeal. Mr. McNeal is a pro se litigant in three other PUC proceedings involving disputes
with Qwest. Two issues present in these other proceedings have been included in the appendix.
Thus, we find it is appropriate to strike portions of the appendix including: Table 1 (pp. 3-4);
800 numbers
(p.
8); reciprocal compensation (p. 14); and section 252(i) interconnection
agreements (pp. 15-18). These topics are outside the scope of the remand. While other parts of
the appendix (and the reply brief) stray beyond the scope of the remand, we are not inclined to
attempt to surgically remove bits and pieces. However, we will exercise our ability "to separate
the wheat from the chaff' as we evaluate the relevance and weight to be accorded the arguments
in the brief and the appendix.
Turning next to the "exhibits" attached to the appendix, we find it appropriate to
strike "exhibits" 1 , 2, 8-13. The interconnection agreements in 1 and 2 are not relevant and
beyond the scope of remand. The diagrams and text in exhibits 10-13 are redundant to the
Pagers
' "
exhibit" A and do not accurately portray PageDatallnterPage s network during the
majority of the refund period. "Exhibits" 8-9 present new evidence about old arguments beyond
the scope of remand. The remaining "exhibits" attached to the appendix are either admitted
exhibits (5-7) or are already contained in the record on appeal (3-4). We now turn to the merits.
ORDER NO. 29555
B. Wide Area Calling
1. Qwest.In response to the Commission s wide area calling questions Qwest
stated that both PageData and Tel-Car utilized wide area calling services. PageData and Tel-Car
utilized both "non-local Type 1 facilities" and PageData also ordered 500 toll-free "800"
numbers to route traffic to its facilities. Qwest Brief at 3-4. Qwest maintained it did not provide
any wide area calling services to Radio Paging and the Pagers do not contest this assertion. Id.
5. Qwest stated that PageData used two non-local Type 1 wide area calling arrangement
between: (1) Qwest's central offices located in Meridian and Payette; and (2) Qwest's central
offices in Twin Falls and Hailey. These facilities measured 48 miles and 68 miles, respectively.
Id. at 3-4. Qwest also asserted that Tel-Car utilized Type 1 dedicated facilities extending
between Twin Falls and Hailey. Id. at 4-
Qwest argued that additional refunds for wide area calling were not appropriate
because both PageData (and its predecessor InterPage) and Tel-Car "voluntarily entered into toll
buy-down agreement by ordering the wide-calling services from Qwest's tariff/price lists.Id.
5. Qwest quoted extensively from Order No. 29064 where the Commission found that PageData
and Tel-Car were properly charged for ordering facilities that constituted wide area calling
arrangements. Qwest calculated the refund value for wide area calling (with interest to July 1
2004) to be $10 607 for PageData and $3 909 for Tel-Car.
2. The Pagers. For their part, the Pagers asserted that PageData and Tel-Car are
entitled to additional refunds in accordance with the holding in the D.C. Circuit's Mountain
Communications decision.The Pagers maintained the Mountain Communications decision
made it absolutely clear that Qwest could not charge (the Pagers) for transportation of Qwest-
originated traffic. . . even if the traffic was across local calling areas established for business and
retail customers.Pagers Brief at They insisted that neither PageData nor Tel-Car
voluntarily" entered into any wide area calling arrangement. Id. at 11. Despite Qwest's
arguments to the contrary, the Pagers observed that the concept of "construction agreement" for
the acquisition of wide area calling facilities was specifically overruled by the Circuit Court. Id.
at 2, 12.
Commission Findings: Although Qwest continues to argue that it is entitled to
charge the Pagers for wide area calling arrangements, the Circuit Court in Mountain
Communications overruled this line of reasoning. In particular, the Court recognized that the
ORDER NO. 29555
FCC regulation found at 47 C.R. 9 51.703(b) "unequivocally prohibits LECs from levying
charges for traffic originating on their networks, and, by its own terms, admits of no exceptions.
Mountain Communications 355 F.3d at 648 quoting MCIMetro Access Transmission Services
Bellsouth Telecommunications 352 F.3d 872 881 (4th Cir. 2003). The Court went on to observe
that the federal Telecommunications Act obligates Qwest to interconnect its facilities at a single
technically feasible" POI for pagers. Id. at 649. In other words, Qwest cannot charge the
Pagers for traffic originating on Qwest's network and transported to the point of interconnection
with the Pagers. MCIMetro 352 F.3d at 881. The two types of wide area calling arrangements
discussed above transports traffic originating on Qwest's network (as well as transit traffic) to
the Pagers. Based upon the facts of this case, Qwest may not charge the Pagers for wide area
calling services or facilities. However, as the FCC noted in the TSR Order Section 51. 703(b)
does not prevent Qwest from charging its own end-user customers for calling a pager s POI
located in a different local calling area. TSR Order at ~ 31.
Qwest apparently appreciates its dilemma gIven the holding
Communications. Qwest did not attempt to distinguish the holding
of Mountain
of Mountain
Communications from the present case. Based upon our application of the facts in our case to
the holding of Mountain Communications we find that PageData and Tel-Car are entitled to an
additional refund for wide area calling charges assessed by Qwest. The calculations of these
additional refunds are discussed below.
C. Transit Traffic
1. Qwest.In response to the Commission s transit traffic questions, Qwest stated
that there is no existing data which identifies the originating carrier of the transit traffic in this
case nor the amount of traffic pertaining to individual carriers. Qwest Brief at 6. Consequently,
Qwest is not in a position to provide transit traffic data to the Pagers.Id. at 7. Despite the lack
of data, Qwest insisted it is inappropriate to credit the Pagers for the 24% transit traffic for three
reasons. First, Qwest argued that the Pagers ' position has always been that Qwest was itself the
originating carrier of the transit traffic and thus the identity of the initiating carrier is
irrelevant." Qwest insisted the Pagers never asserted that Qwest must supply originating carrier
data.
Second, Qwest asserted the Pagers are not entitled to additional refunds or credits
because "the Pagers were charged for transit traffic in accordance with the law existing at the
ORDER NO. 29555
time. The FCC has repeatedly ruled that LECs may charge pagIng companies for
interconnection facilities to the extent that those facilities carry traffic.Id. (footnote omitted).
Qwest argued that until the Circuit Court issued its Mountain Communications opinion, the FCC
had repeated and consistently held that LECs may charge paging carriers for transit traffic. 1
Finally, Qwest disclosed it is working to develop a "records product" that if successful, would
make transit calling information available for purchase by paging companies. Assuming that the
product can be developed, Qwest intends to sell the service "to interconnecting carriers that wish
to purchase it." Id. at 8. Thus, such a service would not be made available to pagers for free.
the Pagers want to seek reimbursement from the originating carrier, then the Pagers can purchase
the "records service.
As directed by the Commission, Qwest calculated the amount of transit traffic at
issue for each of the three Pagers with interest through July 1 , 2004. The calculated refund
credits for each carrier would be: Radio Paging - $15 311; Tel-Car - $15 362; and PageData
(including InterPage) - $35 701.
2. The Pagers The Pagers insisted they are entitled to a full refund for transit traffic.
They argued it would be inequitable for Qwest to charge the Pagers for transit traffic, while at
the same time not providing the Pagers with the necessary third-party information. Pagers Brief
at 13. Just as Qwest offered at the Circuit Court's oral argument to provide the necessary
information to Mountain, the Pagers here assert they are entitled to equal treatment and to
receive the calling data. Mountain Communications 355 F.3d at 649. The Pagers insisted that it
would be discriminatory for Qwest to provide the calling information to Mountain but not
provide similar information to the Pagers. 47 U.C. 9251(c)(2)(D).
Commission Findings: The issue of transit traffic was vigorously contested in this
case. As the Circuit Court noted, Qwest incurs costs for switching and routing calls originating
with other carriers, and transported over Qwest's network to paging carriers. In its Mountain
decision, the FCC allowed Qwest to charge for transit traffic "but indicated that (the Pagers)
could seek reimbursement from the originating carrier for whatever charges it paid to Qwest."
Id. at 649. In other words, Qwest has a choice: it can either charge the Pagers and provide
calling information so that they may seek reimbursement; or it could charge the originating
carrier. Id. Although the Circuit Court never reached the merits of this dilemma, it is plain in
11 In a footnote, Qwest lists most if not all the FCC Orders cited by the Commission in its prior Orders.
ORDER NO. 29555
the Court's analysis and ours that Qwest cannot have it both ways. Qwest's statement that the
transit traffic calling data "does not exist " provides only one choice.
Qwest's arguments on why the Pagers should not receive refunds for transit traffic
are unpersuasive. We agree with the Pagers that it is inequitable to offer the calling data to
Mountain but not to other similarly situated carriers. On remand, we find it reasonable for Qwest
to provide either refunds or the calling data. Because Qwest has no data to give, we are left with
no choice but to order Qwest to refund the transit traffic charges to the Pagers. Qwest's reliance
upon the FCC orders is unavailing. While we recognize that the FCC and our prior Order both
validated" Qwest charging the Pagers for transit traffic, even the FCC recognized in Mountain
that the Pagers could seek reimbursement from the originating carrier provided Mountain was
given the necessary data to identify such carriers. Mountain Communications 355 F.3d at 649
citing Mountain Communications II 17 FCC Rcd at 15137 n. 13. We infer this lack of data
prompted Qwest to develop a service to record the transit data.
CALCULATIONS OF THE REFUNDS
Having determined that the Pagers are due additional refunds/credits for wide area
calling and transit traffic, we turn to the calculation of these additional refunds. Order No. 29491
directed Qwest to prepare exhibit(s) showing the amount of transit traffic charged to each pager
and the amount of charges for wide area calling (if any). These calculations were also to include
appropriate interest calculated up to July 1 , 2004. Order No. 29491 at 7-8. Once Qwest filed its
calculations
, "
then the Pagers will have an opportunity to respond to the questions and reply to
Qwest's information/calculations.Id. at 8.
Pursuant to the Commission s directive Qwest calculated the refund amounts at
issue for wide area calling and transit traffic. Starting with the refund credits issued each pager
in November 2002 pursuant to Reconsideration Order No. 29140 (R. at 916), Qwest calculated
the amounts at issue as shown in the table below.
The Pagers maintained that they "are entitled to a refund of all sums that they paid to
Qwest during the time periods relevant to this proceeding." Pagers Brief at 3 (emphasis added).
In addition, PageData now seeks a larger refund than it initially requested at the evidentiary
hearing. Although Radio Paging did not seek any refunds for wide area calling, it asserted that it
was due additional credit for transit traffic. Id. at 16. Radio Paging requested a refund totaling
$57 309.16 (without interest).
ORDER NO. 29555
The Pagers asserted Tel-Car is owed a total of $67 098.07. Id. They maintained that
Tel-Car is entitled to reimbursement for wide area calling totaling $21 749.07. This amount
the sum of $4 174.35 "for what Qwest characterized as 'l non-local'" and $17 574.72 for
mobile charges.Id. at 10 citing Qwest Exh. 202 p. 8 and pp. 24-, respectively. The Pagers
argued again on remand that Tel-Car is entitled to reimbursement for its mobile telephone
services and facilities because "mobile services were part of the Tel-Car paging system, utilized
to deliver paging traffic to its point of (inter)connection.Id. at 11. These amounts should be
added to the $45 349 shown on Exhibit 105. Thus, Tel-Car asserted that it should receive a total
refund of $67 098., not including interest. Id. at 16.
In the Credit Phase of this case, PageData argued it was entitled to a refund of
approximately $240 756.03. In the Pagers' response to Qwest's wide area calling and transit
traffic calculations PageData asserted that it is now entitled to even a greater refund than
previously requested. Pagers Brief at 7, 16. Relying upon an attachment to Qwest's post-
hearing reply brief, PageData insisted that the starting point for its refund is $245 628.51. Added
to this figure is an additional $14 926.80 "for the T-llines and the frame relay," which results in
a total refund of $260 555.31. Id. at 16. The table below shows the refund positions of Qwest
and the Pagers.
REFUND CALCULATIONS/REQUESTS
WEST PAGERS
(includes interest)(without interest)
Radio Paging $ 42 105 (Nov. 2002 Amount)
(Wide Area Calling)
$ 15.311 (Transit Traffic)
TOT AL $ 57 416 $ 57 309.
Tel-Car $ 33 512 (Nov. 2002 Amount)$ 45 349.(Exh. 105)
$ 3 909 (Wide Area Calling)174.35 (Wide Area Calling)
$ 15.362 (Transit Traffic)$ 17.574.(Mobile)
TOTAL $ 52 783 $ 67 098.
PageData $ 55 486 (Nov. 2002 Amount)$245 628.(Qwest, Exh. 5)
$ 10 607 (Wide Area Calling)$ 14.926.(T-, Frame Relay)
$ 35.701 (Transit Traffic)
TOT AL $101 794 $260 555.
ORDER NO. 29555
Commission Findings: At the outset, we reaffirm the findings in our previous
Orders that Qwest presented the better evidence regarding the billing and payment information
necessary to calculate refunds.12 Order No. 29064 at 19-23; Order No. 29140 at 35-, 44-46.
We also reaffirm that the refund credits should be limited to paging charges and not allowed for
non-paging services. Order No. 29064 at 22; Order No. 29140 at 34-36.
1. Radio Paging. For Radio Paging, Qwest calculates the refund for transit traffic
(with interest) would be $15 331.13 We adopt Qwest's calculations and further find that Radio
Paging s appropriate total refund with interest as of July 1 , 2004 is $57 416. We also observe
that this amount is comparable to Radio Paging s request of$57 309.16 (without interest).
2. Tel-Car.Tel-Car seeks a total refund in the amount of $67 098.07. Pagers Brief
at 16. This amount is the sum of $45 349 shown on Pager Exhibit 105 , plus $4 174.14 in wide
area calling charges, and $17 574.72 for a refund of its mobile cellular charges. Id. For its part
Qwest starts at the amount ordered by the Commission in Order No. 29140 of $33 512 in
November 2002. To this amount Qwest adds $3 909 for the wide area calling refund and
$15 362 for the transit traffic refund, or a total refund of$52 783.
We adopt Qwest's calculations for the refund owed to Tel-Car. We again reject Tel-
Car s argument that it is entitled to a refund for its cellular services for several reasons. First, as
we noted above, the scope of the issues to be examined in this remand were narrow and specific.
What Tel-Car attempts to do is to re-argue the cellular service issue. This issue was previously
decided and is beyond the scope of this remand. As we have consistently held, the Pagers are
not entitled to a refund for non-paging services. Tel-Car again argues that it was using its mobile
cellular facilities for paging. Pagers Brief at 10. However, as the Commission noted in Order
No. 29140
Tel-Car has not pointed to any evidence in the record that supports its
position that it should be compensated for mobile service. Qwest did not
apply a credit for mobile service because the USOC for this service was a
non-paging code. As the Commission found in its Credit Order
, "
Tel-Car
witness, Mr. Casper, said that his Company provides one-way paging, two-
way answering services, and cellular services . Tr. at 131. He testified that
some of his circuits are utilized to provide paging and non-paging services.
12 Consistent with our adjustments in this Order for wide area calling and transit traffic.
13 As previously mentioned, Radio Paging had no wide area calling charges.
14 This figure appears in Qwest's calculations.
ORDER NO. 29555
Tr. at 147." Order No. 29064 at 21 (emphasis added). Given this admission
we find it was incumbent upon Tel-Car to provide evidence regarding the
usage ratio between one-way paging and non-paging traffic over the (alleged)
joint use circuits. Tel-Car did not provide any such evidence.
Order No. 29140 at 35 (emphasis original).
We find Tel-Car is due additional refunds for wide area calling and transit charges
totaling $52 783, plus an additional one month's interest to August 1 , 2004. After subtracting
the requested mobile services refund, Tel-Car s proposed refund of $49 523.35 (without interest)
is comparable to Qwest's calculated refund of$52 783 (with interest).
3. PageData Based upon our review of the pleadings and the evidentiary record, we
find that PageData has overstated its claimed refund. We also reject PageData s refund
calculations for several reasons. First, in the Credit Phase evidentiary hearing, PageData sought
a refund of $240 756.03. Tr. at 154. This amount was the combined refund request for both
PageData ($52 282.47) and InterPage ($188,473.56). Tr. at 154, 496. Now on remand
PageData asserts it is owed $245 628.51 as shown in Qwest's post-hearing brief on "exhibit" 5.
To this amount PageData adds for the first time $14 926.80 for T-l and frame relay charges. It
now seeks a total refund (without interest) of $260 555.31. We find the request for a larger
refund unreasonable. The law of the case compels use of the original request. Arguing for the
additional $14 926 is clearly beyond the scope of the remand. Second, PageData has not cited
and we have not found any basis for the calculation of the $14 926 attributed to T -1 lines and
frame relay charges.
Third, in Order No. 29064, the Commission found unpersuaSlve the Pagers
argument that they were entitled to a full credit for all charges. Order No. 29064 at 22. The
Commission adopted its Hearing Examiner s proposed findings that the Pagers
presented scant evidence to support their claim that all their bills from Qwest
were for interconnection for the purpose of receiving one-way paging traffic
from Qwest. Bare assertions that their bills were not credible given the other
kinds of businesses they operated across the same networks (some of which
were for two-way traffic), nor was it credible to believe that they had no
business operations needs for other telecommunications services from Qwest.
Qwest's exhibits, in contrast, took each billing element and assigned it to
interconnection or other types of service based on logical categorizations.
Moreover, months before hearings, Qwest provided the detailed billing
15 "Exhibit" 5 is not an admitted exhibit but was attached to Qwest's post-hearing brief.
ORDER NO. 29555
elements for each month of the reimbursement period involved. (The Pagers)
. . . made no effort to show that specific billing elements detailed for them by
Qwest and included in Exhibits 201 , 202 and 203 (were) incorrectly assigned
to non-interconnection use.
Order No. 29064 at 22-23 and Order No. 29140 at 35-quoting Proposed Order at 11-12.
Fourth, PageData s argument that it is entitled to a recovery of all its payments (even
without the additional $14 926) is a re-argument beyond the scope of the issues on remand. As
both the Hearing Examiner and the Commission found below: "it was reasonable and
appropriate to exclude from the calculation of the credits those Qwest charges for non-paging
services and facilities.Order No. 29140 at 33; Order No. 29064 at 23; Proposed Order at 3.
We found in Order No. 29064 PageData (and its predecessor InterPage) provided one-way
paging, long-distance services , signal traffic, e-mails, data, two-way mobile service, private line
service, 800 service, and plain old telephone service (POTS). Tr. at 148, 199, 352 499-500. Mr.
McNeal also testified that all his traffic, paging and non-paging alike, travels over the same
facilities "that's available to us at no charge." Tr. at 199. There is no compelling reason to alter
this previous finding.
At this juncture, a review of PageData and InterPage s networks would be helpful.
Mr. McNeal of PageData purchased InterPage in June 1998. Tr. at 150, 208. At the time
InterPage and PageData had five points of interconnection (POls): Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Twin
Falls, Meridian, and Boise. Tr. at 164; Pagers Exh. 111 at p. 10. As Mr. McNeal testified at the
evidentiary hearing, he attempted on or about September 1 , 1998, to take advantage of the
Telecommunications Act's single POI entitlement (47 D.C. 9 251(c)(2)(B)) and the FCC'
regulation 51.703(b) that prohibits Qwest from charging for delivery of its traffic to the pagers.
Tr. at 504; Pagers Exhibit 111 at p. 10. What appears undisputed is that for the first 22 months
of the 34-month refund period (Order No. 29140 at 5), PageDatallnterPage had at least four (if
not five) POls scattered throughout Qwest's southern Idaho service area. Pursuant to FCC
regulation 51. 703(b), facilities transporting Qwest local traffic to these POls should have been
without charge to the Pagers. However, charges for facilities used by PageDatallnterPage
connect parts of their networks on the paging side of the POls (such as connecting the multiple
POls together), are, costs appropriately borne by the Pagers. Qwest Corporation v. FCC 252
3d 462 468 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
ORDER NO. 29555
Mr. McNeal testified that InterPage leased lines connecting its paging terminals (i.
the POls) to Boise. Tr. at 164, 195. He stated that "there was a lease line that went from Idaho
Falls to Pocatello, from Pocatello to Twin Falls, from Twin Falls into Boise, and so if you made
a phone call into. . . Idaho Falls, then it would travel along that network back to Boise.Tr. at
195. PageData s August 29, 1998 letter to Qwest explains that the pager s "network sends
TMPP packets between the paging terminals." Exh. 111 at p. 10. In other words, for at least 22
months, the Qwest facilities that transported traffic among the POls was appropriately charged to
InterPage. Order No. 29140 at 44.
Taking account of the non-paging services, the inter-POI facilities, the 22 months of
the 34-month period with multiple POls, the majority of the paging payments ($188,473.56)
were attributed to InterPage, Qwest's better calculating evidence , and the less weight attributed
to Mr. McNeal's explanation of exhibits 109 and 122, we find there is substantial and competent
evidence to reject PageData s calculations and adopt Qwest's calculations. Accordingly, we find
that PageData/InterPage should receive a total refund credit of $101 794.
In summary, we find Radio Paging is due a refund credit of$57,416, Tel-Car is due a
refund credit of $52 783 and PageData is due a refund credit of $101 794 as of July 1 , 2004.
Given the fact that the parties requested that the remand be continued until August 2, we further
find it is appropriate for Qwest to include one additional month of interest up to August 1 , 2004.
Because the refunds have been substantially increased from those credits originally
calculated by Qwest in July 2002, it is possible that the refund credits might exceed the amounts
the Pagers owe Qwest, if any. If the refunds afforded to PageData and Radio Paging exceed the
amounts they owe Qwest, then Qwest shall provide them with cash reimbursement within
days of the service date of this Order.
One other refund issue remains to be addressed. When the Commission issued its
initial Credit Order No. 29064 in July 2002, we were unaware that Tel-Car was in bankruptcy. It
was not until the Pagers filed their Petition for Reconsideration in August 2002 that we were
advised that Tel-Car became a Chapter 7 debtor effective in January 2002. R. at 848. Given this
circumstance, Qwest suggested in its credit notice of November 29, 2002 that "any credit due
Tel-Car in this case is due, if at all, to the bankruptcy estate of Tel-Car, Inc." R. at 926. Qwest
concluded that disposition of any credit or refund owed to Tel-Car "is properly a matter for the
Bankruptcy Court.Id. We agree. Consequently, we find that it is appropriate for Qwest to
ORDER NO. 29555
tender any refund that is due to Tel-Car s estate to the Bankruptcy Court subject to any right of
set-off that the Court may order. We believe that the Bankruptcy Court is the appropriate forum
to determine whether Qwest has any right to set-off.
CONCLUSION
The Commission finds on remand that the Pagers are entitled to additional refunds or
credits for transit traffic and wide area calling arrangements. The Commission further finds that
there is substantial and competent evidence to support its findings regarding the continued
exclusion of non-paging services and the calculations of the appropriate refunds/credits for each
Pager. Consequently, the Commission amends its Order Nos. 29064 and 29140 to conform to
the decisions reached in this Order regarding transit traffic and wide area calling.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commission grants in part and denies in part the
Pagers' requests for additional compensation. The Commission s Order Nos. 29064 and 29140
are amended to reflect the changes contained in this Order regarding transit traffic and wide area
calling. See Idaho Code 9 61-624. As of July 1 , 2004, Radio Paging is due a refund of $57,416
and PageData is due a refund of $101 794.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Qwest's Motion to Strike is granted in part and
denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Qwest recalculate the refund amounts due the
three Pagers to reflect the one-month of additional interest from July 1 to August 1 , 2004. Qwest
shall file this updated credit information with the Commission and the Pagers within 10 days
from the service date of this Order.
ORDER NO. 29555
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Qwest issue the respective additional billing
credits and/or refunds to PageData and Radio Paging no later than 21 days from the service date
of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Qwest issue the $52 783 refund to the bankruptcy
estate of Tel-Car, Inc. (plus one additional month of interest) and shall file said refund with the
appropriate Bankruptcy Court within 21 days from the service date of this Order.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON REMAND. Any party aggrieved by this Order may
appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho
Appellate Rules.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this ;Z. Ad
day of August 2004.
ARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
Commissioner Hansen Out of the Office
DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~1DJe D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
bls/O: USWT9924 dh
ORDER NO. 29555