20001229Application.pdf

+6?>
RECEIVED
rILEB
20t0 0E[ 29 PYI 3: 5lr
u,, J,ttfd Ji'1f* i8u' o*
ts$
17933 N.W. Evergreen Pkwy
P.O. Box 'l 1O0
Beaverton, OR 97076
December 21,2000
Ms. Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise,Idaho 83720
/zN-Tot'ot
Re: Adoption of AT&T Wireless Services Inc.A/erizon Northwest Inc., fMaGTE Northwest
Incorporated (Verizon) Interconnection Agreement by Washington RSA No. 8 Limited
Partnership
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing with the Commission under Section 252(i) of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 are the original and seven copies of Washington RSA No. 8 Limited Partnership's
adoption of the arbitrated Interconnection Agreement between Verizon Northwest Inc.
("Verizon") Wa GTE Northwest Incorporated and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. ("Terms").
The enclosure includes an adoption letter signed by both Verizon and Washington RSA No. 8
Limited Partnership which is self-explanatory, and which sets forth the manner in which the
Terms will be applied in Washington RSA No. 8 Limited Partnership's case.
As the enclosed letter explains, Verizon is not voluntarily entering the Terms with
Washington RSA No. 8 Limited Partnership and does not waive any rights and remedies it
has concerning its position as to the illegality or unreasonableness of the Terms. Verizon
contends that certain provisions of the Terms may be void or unenforceable as a result of the
United States Eighth Circuit court of Appeals July and October,1997 decisions, the Supreme
Court of the United States' decision of January 25,1999 and the remand of the pricing rules
to the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any modification to the underlyrng
Terms shall automatically apply to Washington RSA No. 8 Limited Parhrership. Verizon is
preserving its legal positions in every respect as to the Terms in the hands of Washington
RSA No. 8 Limited Partnership, as well as in the hands of AT&T Wireless Services Inc.
Ms. Jean D. Jewell
December 27,2000
Page2
All parties to Cause are being served with a copy of this letter. If they would like a copy of
the adoption agreement, they should contact Renee Willer at 5031645-7909.
Sincerely,
Director-Regulatory & Governmental Affairs
c: Mr. Donald J. Evans - Fletcher, Heald, & Hildreth
Scott Miles - Verizon
Steven J. Pitterle
Director - Negotiations
Network Services
NECEIVED
riLED
2000 0tC 29 pH 3; Sh
rl,rri,0 [,ULiLiC
JTIL ITI ES CO}iI.iISSIOH
Network Servlces
600 Hidden Ridge HQEo3B67
P.O. Box 152092
lrving, Texas 75038
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
steve. pitterle@verizon. com
m
r:!
December 6,2000
Mr. John Coonan
Washington RSA No. 8 Limited Partnership
c/o lnland Cellular Telephone Company
103 S. Second Street
Roslyn, WA 98941
Dear Mr. Coonan:
Verizon Northwest lnc.,fMa GTE Northwest Incorporated ("Verizon"), has received
your letter stating that, under Section 252(i) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the
"Act"), Washington RSA No. 8 Limited Partnership ("WA 8 LP") wishes to adopt the
terms of the Interconnection Agreement between AT&T Wireless Services Inc.
("AT&T") and Verizon that was approved by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (the
"Commission") as an effective agreement in the State of Idaho in Docket No. GTE-T-99-
3 (the "Terms").I I understand WA 8 LP has a copy of the Terms. Please note the
following with respect to WA 8 LP's adoption of the Terms.
1. By WA 8 LP's countersignature on this letter, WA 8 LP hereby represents and
agrees to the following three points:
(A) WA 8 LP adopts (and agrees to be bound by) the Terms of the AT&T
agreement for interconnection with Verizon as it is in effect on the date
hereof after giving effect to operation of law, and in applyng the Terms,
agrees that WA 8 LP shall be substituted in place of AT&T Wireless
Services Inc. and AT&T in the Terms wherever appropriate.
(B) WA 8 LP requests that notice to WA 8 LP as may be required under the
Terms shall be provided as follows:
To : Washington RSA No. 8 Limited Partnership
c/o Inland Cellular Telephone Company
Attention: Mr. John Coonan
' These "agreements" are not agreements in the generally accepted understanding of that term. Verizon was
required to accept these agreements, which were required to reflect then-effective FCC rules and other
applicable law.
252SIN,DOC
2.
103 S. Second Street
Roslyn, WA 98941
Telephone number: 509 I 649 -2211
FAX numb er: 509 I 649-3300
And to:
Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth
Attn: Mr. Donald J. Evans, Esq.
1300 N. 17th Street, 1lth Floor
Arlington, YA22209
Telephone number: 7 03 I 812-0430
FAX numb er : 7 03 I 812-0486
(C) WA 8 LP represents and warrants that it is a FCC-licensed provider of
two-way wireless service, and that its adoption of the Terms will cover
services in the State of Idaho only.
WA 8 LP's adoption of the AT&T agreement Terms shall become effective upon
the date of filing of this adoption letter with the Commission (which filing
Verizon will promptly make upon receipt of an original of this letter
countersigned by WA 8 LP) and remain in effect no longer than the date the
AT&T agreement Terms are terminated or expire. The AT&T agreement is
currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2001.
As the Terms are being adopted by you pursuant to your statutory rights under
section 252(1), Verizon does not provide the Terms to you as either a voluntary or
negotiated agreement. The filing and performance by Verizon of the Terms does
not in any way constitute a waiver by Verizon of any position as to the Terms or a
portion thereof, nor does it constitute a waiver by Verizon of all rights and
remedies it may have to seek review of the Terms, or to seek review in any way of
any provisions included in these Terms as a result of WA 8 LP's 252(i) election.
On January 25,1999, the Supreme Court of the United States ("Court") issued its
decision on the appeals of the Eighth Circuit's decision in lowa Utilities Board.
Specifically, the Supreme Court modified several of the FCC's and the Eighth
Circuit's rulings regarding unbundled network elements and pricing requirements
under the Act. AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board,l l9 S. Ct.72l (1999). Certain
provisions of the Terms may be void or unenforceable as a result of the Court's
decision of January 25,1999, the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals'
recent decision in Docket No. 96-3321 regarding the FCC's pricing rules, and the
current appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the FCC's new UNE rules.
Moreover, nothing herein shall be construed as or is intended to be a concession or
admission by Verizon that any provision in the Terms complies with the rights and
duties imposed by the Act, the decisions of the FCC and the Commissions, the
decisions of the courts, or other law, and Verizon expressly reseryes its full right to
assert and pursue claims arising from or related to the Terms.
3.
4.
252SIN.DOC
Verizon reserves the right to deny WA 8 LP's adoption and/or application of the
Terms, in whole or in part, at any time:
when the costs of providing the Terms to WA 8 LP are greater than the
costs of providing them to AT&T;
if the provision of the Terms to WA 8 LP is not technically
and./or
to the extent that Verizon otherwise is not required to make the Terms
available to WA 8 LP under applicable law.
As noted above, pursuant to Rule 809, the FCC gave ILECs the ability to deny
252(i) adoptions in those instances where the cost of providing the service to the
requesting carrier is higher than that incurred to serve the initial carrier or there is
a technical incompatibility issue. The issue of reciprocal compensation for traffic
destined for the Internet falls within this exception. Verizon never intended for
Internet traffic passing through a telecommunications carrier to be included within
the definition of local traffic and subject to the corresponding obligation of
reciprocal compensation. Whatever doubt any party may have had with respect to
this issue was removed by the Declaratory Ruling that the Federal
Communications Commission (the "FCC") released on February 26,1999 which,
among other things, "conclude[d] . . . that ISP-bound traffic is non-local interstate
traffrc."2 The FCC also reaffirmed that "section 251(bX5) of the Act and [the
FCC] rules promulgated pursuant to that provision concern inter-carrier
compensation for interconnected,local telecommunications traffic."3 Based on the
FCC's Declaratory Ruling (among other things), it is clear that Internet traffic is
not local traffic. Despite the foregoing, some forums have required reciprocal
compensation to be paid. This produces the situation where the cost of providing
the service is not cost based. With this in mind, Verizon opposes, and reserves
the right to deny, the adoption and./or the application of the provisions of the
Terms that might be interpreted to characterize tiaffic destined for Internet as
local traffic or requiring the payment of reciprocal compensation. However,
Verizon shall, in any case, comply with the requirement of applicable law with
respect to this issue.
Should WA 8 LP attempt to apply the Terms in a manner that conflicts with
paragraphs 3-6 above, Verizon reserves its rights to seek appropriate legal and/or
equitable relief.
2 Declaratory Ruling in FCC CC Docket No. 96-98 and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No.
99-68 (rel. February 26,1999), frt. 87. The D.C. Circuit Court has recently asked the FCC to explain more
fully it's reasoning in aniving at this conclusion in the Declaratory Ruling, but it has not rejected the
conclusion. The FCC, moreover, has publicly since reiterated the correctness of its conclusion.3Id. (emphasis in original).
(a)
o)
(c)
7.
252SrN.DOC
Please sign this letter on the space provided below.
Sincerely,
VERIZON NOR [NC., F/IVA GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED
teven J. Pi
Network Services
Reviewed and countersigned as to points A, B, and C of paragraph l:
WASHINGTON RSA No. 8 LMITED PARTNERSHIP
Gregory A. Maras. Secretary
nfH'iTfu"?el I ul ar Tel ephone company, Itr s Geberal Parther
c: R:'Ragsdale - Verizon
252SIN.DOC