20240808Final_Order_No_36288.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 8,2024
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES CONMUSSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) CASE NO. QWE-T 24-01
OF QWEST CORPORATION DBA )
CENTURYLINK QC FOR APPROVAL OF )
THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT )
WITH CUSTER TELEPHONE ) ORDER N0. 36288
COOPERATIVE,INC.DBA CUSTERTEL )
WIRELESS FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO )
On May 31, 2024, Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink QC ("CenturyLink") applied to
the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") seeking approval of an Interconnection
Agreement ("Agreement") between CenturyLink and Custer Telephone Cooperative, Inc. dba
CusterTel Wireless for the State of Idaho ("CusterTel Wireless") ("Application"). CenturyLink
stated that the parties reached this Agreement voluntarily. The Agreement proposes pricing,
conditions, and other terms pertaining to local interconnection as well as the exchange of local
traffic between the parties within the State of Idaho.
BACKGROUND
The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act") permits incumbent local exchange
carriers to voluntarily negotiate with a requesting telecommunications carrier for interconnection,
services, or network support. 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). Under the Act, interconnection agreements,
including any amendments to them,must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.S.C.
§ 252(e)(1). The Commission may reject a voluntarily negotiated agreement only if it finds that:
(1)the agreement discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement;
or (2) implementing the agreement is inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and
necessity. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(2)(A). Companies voluntarily entering into interconnection
agreements"may negotiate terms,prices and conditions that do not comply with either the [Federal
Communications Commission] rules or with the provisions of Section 251(b) or (c)." Order No.
28427 at 11. This comports with the Federal Communications Commission's rule 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.
ORDER NO. 36288 1

THE APPLICATION
CenturyLink stated that the Agreement complied with the requirements of the Act and did
not violate the pro-competitive policies of this Commission and the Federal Communications
Commission. CenturyLink further asserted that because the Agreement "was reached through
voluntary negotiations, it does not raise issues requiring a hearing and does not concern other
parties not a party to the negotiations."Application at 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reviewed the Application and Agreement and believed CenturyLink's request is not
discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff also believed the Agreement is consistent
with the pro-competitive policies of this Commission, Title 62 of the Idaho Code, and the Act.
Accordingly, Staff recommended Commission approval of the Agreement.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
Under the Act, interconnection agreements must be submitted to the Commission for
approval. 47 U.S.C. §252(e)(1). The Commission's review is limited. The Commission may reject
an agreement adopted by negotiation only if the Commission finds that the agreement would
discriminate against nonparty telecommunications carriers or that implementing it would be
inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
Based upon our review of the record, the Commission finds the Agreement does not
discriminate against nonparty telecommunications carriers, and that implementing it would be
consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Therefore, the Commission finds
that the Application should be approved. Our approval of the Agreement does not negate either
parry's responsibility to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity if they offer
local exchange services, or to comply with Idaho Code§§ 62-604 and 62-606 if they provide other
non-basic local telecommunications services as defined by Idaho Code § 62-603.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is granted, and the Agreement is
approved.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order about any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration.Idaho Code §§ 61-626 and 62-619.
ORDER NO. 36288 2

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 8t' day of
August 2024.
ERI DER ON, PRESIDENT
/I- 9��
JO R. HAMMOND, JR., COMMISSIONER
G
EDWARD LODGE, COM I IONER
ATTEST:
AO.. a,,,
M i arri -S c
Commission Secretary
IALegal\TELEC0M\QWET2401_Final md.docx
ORDER NO. 36288 3