20140404final_order_no_33013.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
April 4,2014
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF CUSTER TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE,)CASE NO.CUS-T-09-02
INC.FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT )
TO ITS INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT )
WITH ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS,LLC )
AND ID HOLDING,LLC PURSUANT TO 47 )
U.S.C.§252(e))
_________________________________________________________________________________________
)
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF QWEST CORPORATION DBA )CASE NO.QWE-T-14-01
CENTURYLINK QC FOR APPROVAL OF )
ITS INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT )
WITH BCN TELECOM,INC.PURSUANT TO )ORDER NO.33013
47 U.S.C.§252(e))
In these cases,the Commission is asked to approve an amendment to the
Interconnection Agreement between Custer Telephone Cooperative,Inc.and AlItel
Communications.LLC and ID Holding,LLC;and the Interconnection Agreement between
Qwest Corporation dba CenturyLink QC and BCN Telecom,Inc.With this Order,the
Commission approves the amendment and Interconnection Agreement.
BACKGROUND
Under the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“the Act”),
interconnection agreements,including amendments thereto,must be submitted to the
Commission for approval.47 U.S.C.§252(e)(l).The Commission may reject an agreement
adopted by negotiations only if it 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 U.S.C.§252(e)(2)(A).
As the Commission noted in Order No.28427,companies voluntarily entering into
interconnection agreements “may negotiate terms,prices and conditions that do not comply with
either the FCC rules or with the provision of Section 25 1(b)or (c)”Order No.28427 at 11
(emphasis in original).This comports with the FCC’s statement that “a state commission shall
have authority to approve an interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation even if the terms
of the agreement do not comply with the requirements of [Part 51].”47 C.F.R.§51.3.
ORDERNO.33013 1
THE APPLICATIONS
I.Custer Telephone Cooperative.Inc.and Ailtel Communications,LLC and ID
Holding,LLC.Case No.CUS-T-09-02.On March 12,2014,Custer submitted an Application
for approval of an amendment to the negotiated Agreement with Alitel,initially approved by the
Commission on September 3,2009.See Order No.30895.In the Application,Custer states that
New Cingular Wireless PCS,LLC dba AT&T Mobility is the successor in interest to Alitel under
the Agreement.
Therefore,the parties request Commission approval to amend the Agreement to
substitute Alitel with AT&T Mobility and to provide for bill-and-keep compensation for intra
MTA traffic between the parties.
2.Qwest Corporation dba CenturyLink OC and BCN Telecom,Inc.,Case No.OWE
T-14-01.On March 21,2014,CenturyLink and BCN filed their joint Application for an
Interconnection Agreement.In the Application,the parties state that this joint filing contains
rates,terms and conditions for interconnecting their networks.
According to the parties,the terms of the Interconnection Agreement were reached
through voluntary negotiation without resort to mediation.This filing also includes Exhibit B
(Service Performance Indicators)and Exhibit K (Performance Assurance Plan)as required by
this Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reviewed the Applications and does not find any terms or conditions that it
considers to be discriminatory or contrary to the public interest.Staff believes that the
amendment and Interconnection Agreement are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of
this Commission,the Idaho Legislature,and the federal Telecommunications Act.Accordingly,
Staff recommended the Commission approve the amendment and Interconnection Agreement.
COMMISSION DECISION
Under the terms of the Telecommunications Act,interconnection agreements,
including amendments thereto,must be submitted to the Commission for approval.47 U.S.C.§
252(e)(1).However,the Commission’s review is limited.The Commission may reject an
agreement adopted by negotiation if it finds that the agreement discriminates against a
telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement or implementation of the agreement is
not consistent with the public interest,convenience and necessity.Id.
ORDERNO.33013 2
Based upon our review of the Applications and the Staff’s recommendation,the
Commission finds that the amendment and Interconnection Agreement are consistent with the
public interest,convenience and necessity and do not discriminate.Therefore,the Commission
finds that the amendment and Interconnection Agreement should be approved.Approval of the
Agreements does not negate the responsibility of either party to these Agreements to obtain a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity if they are offering local exchange services or to
comply with Idaho Code §62-604 and 62-606 if they are providing other non-basic local
telecommunications services as defined by Idaho Code §62-603.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amendment to the Interconnection Agreement
between Custer Telephone Cooperative,Inc.and Ailtel Communications,LLC and ID Holding,
LLC,Case No.CUS-T-09-02,is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest
Corporation dba CenturyLink QC and BCN Telecom,Inc.,Case No.QWE-T-14-01,is approved.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order)may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21)days of the
service date of this Order.Within seven (7)days after any person has petitioned for
reconsideration,any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration.See Idaho Code §61-
626 and 62-6 19.
ORDERNO.33013 3
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of April 2014.
PAUL KJELLANDERP SIDENT
MACK A.REORD,SIONER
/i i 71 vi.
‘1
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
ic•/
Jean D.Jeweil
Commission Secretary
O:CUS-T-09-O2QWE-T-14-01 np
ORDER NO.33013 4