20051202Frontier response staff 2nd request.pdf

JtQ~!! ~f.
ECE\'JED
" ;'~' '
rj n.) 0: \
(. L.i
Triad Center, Suitel60
Salt Lake City, UT 84180
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
j '
F U . \ C ~
;." ':---Ci\-,'~"\Sc.:.\Oil- \ : !
;.- :-) ""-
-' i 1,' ~
December 1 , 2005
Mrs. Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702
RE: Case No. CTC-05-, In the matter of the investigation to determine whether it is
reasonable for Frontier Communications ofldaho to Provide telecommunications
service to customers located in the Tamarack Resort
Mrs. Jewell
Please find enclosed the original and 3 copies of Frontier Communications ofldaho
responses to the Second production request of the Commission staff in the above
referenced matter. Also enclosed is the certificate of service for these responses to
parties of interest in this docket.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
December 1,2005
- :r::CE!\/ED
! i r::
, ,
l\UO'"" I-OJ I
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COM~J~~Jf.l~LlC
'ill_! T:ES COI1;'I!SS!OIJ
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION
TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS
REASONABLE FOR FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS OF IDAHO TO
PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS LOCATED IN
THE TAMARACK RESORT.
CASE NO. CTC- T -05-
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
OF IDAHO RESPONSE TO THE
SECOND PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION
ST AFF
Following are Frontier Communications ofIdaho (Frontier) responses to the request of
the Commission staff dated November 4 2005.
Request No.5: Has Frontier made a request for interconnection with Tamarack? If so
have Frontier and Tamarack entered into negotiation for an interconnection agreement? If they
have not yet entered into such negotiations, why not?
Response: Frontier did hold preliminary discussions with Tamarack. Tamarack
representatives indicated that they would require Frontier to pay approximately $100.00 per line
per month to utilize Tamarack's outside plant facilities. This price, plus the costs discussed in
response 8 below, led Frontier to determine that it could not provide affordably priced service to
Tamarack's residents through this method. Further discussions were considered unlikely to
change this determination, so no further discussions occurred.
Also, Frontier has concerns regarding responsibility for outage repairs, customer complaints, and
possibly other issues that make interconnection with Tamarack's facilities problematic.
Request No.6: If Frontier has not yet made a request for interconnection with Tamarack
does the Company intend to do so? If not, why not?
Response:See response to No 5.
Request No.7: Is it technically Feasible for Frontier s network to interconnect or translate
with Tamarack's network?
Response: Yes. Since Frontier has never made interconnections of this type in the past
additional issues with administration, service activations, and repair, are unknown at this time.
Frontier s preferred method of interconnection would be GR-303 direct interface for voice
services and a co-located router for data services at the Tamarack switching center.
Request No.8: Ifthe response to Request No.7 is positive, please provide an estimate
with appropriate documentation, of the overall cost of investment that would be necessary to
accomplish such interconnection.
Response: GR-303 Software and Hardware would be added to Frontier , Donnelly Central
Office. Budgetary quotes from the vendor are:
$66 120 Hardware and Software loaded costs650 Northern Telecom Engineering and Installation
$3,000 Frontier engineering and labor
$77 770 Total
A Cisco 7206 Router would be placed at the Tamarack switch location to provide High Speed
Internet service.
$32 130
$1.000
$33 130
Loaded Material
Frontier engineering and labor
Total
Request No.9: How does Frontier anticipate recovering its investment costs if it
interconnects with the Tamarack network?
Response: Frontier would expect to cover its investment costs pursuant to its Idaho tariff.
Frontiers Idaho tariff; schedule A-, sec AI , non-recurring facilities charges, grants each
customer a line extension allowance of $2 560.00. All non-recurring facilities charges in excess
of this allowance would be due from the connecting customers.
Request No. 10: Please provide an estimate, with appropriate documentation, of any rate
increase to Frontier s customers outside of the Tamarack service area that may be needed to
recover its investment costs of providing services to customers in the Tamarack service area.
Response: Frontier does not anticipate that it would request a general rate increase for
customers outside ofthe Tamarack service area to cover costs of investments or operations in
Tamarack. Frontier would expect to recover its costs from the customers receiving service in the
Tamarack Resort.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS REASONABLE FOR
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF IDAHO TO
PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE TO
CUSTOMERS LOCATED IN THE TAMARACK
RESORT
CASE No. CTC-O5-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this filing dated December 1 2005
by Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho. DBA Frontier Communications of
Idaho, was this day sent by overnight mail via UPS, to the following:
Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
101 Capital Blvd , Suite 1900
Boise , 10 83702-5958
Shelby Weimer
Tamarack Video & Telecom
960 Broadway Ave , Ste. 100
Boise , 10, 83706
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
2019 N. 1ih St.
Boise, 10 83702
DATED this 1st Day of December, 2005
Citizens Communications Company