20040819Letter from Legal Staff.pdf

o.--1\./
C\ ,- ,..
,.,
;. i
; """-
fLED
uTI
~ '" ;
2001'll\UG I 9 At1 to:
STATE OF IDAHO
l;j LIt
' ''-"""
~A'U "t.. t . It;) C UI"lf'H SSIB1N
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
August 10, 2004
Joseph McNeal dba PageData
WaveSent, LLC
6610 Overland Road
Boise, ill 83709
see: QWE-T-O3-
for Response
William J. Batt
Batt & Fisher LLP
PO Box 1308
Boise, ill 83701
Re: Status ofPUC Case Nos. QWE-O3-, GNR-O4-, and GNR-O4-
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to inquire about the status of negotiations in two proceedings: 1) the
complaint case QWE- T -03-25 and the consolidated Petitions for Arbitration in cases
GNR-04-5 and GNR-04-6. In Case No. QWE-03-, PageData filed a "formal"
complaint alleging that Qwest is not in compliance with the reciprocal compensation provisions
of its current Interconnection Agreement with PageData. As I mentioned last week in our
conference call, the complaint case was "on hold" pending negotiations in the consolidated
Petitions discussed below.
In Case Nos. GNR-04-5 and GNR-04-, PageData and WaveSent, respectively, filed
Petitions requesting that the Commission arbitrate unresolved interconnection issues between
themselves and Qwest. In their Petitions PageData and WaveSent raised more than 30
unresolved interconnection issues. The Pagers also indicate that they wish to adopt terms and
conditions from other Interconnection Agreements under Section 252(i). On June 18 , 2004
Qwest filed a Response to the consolidated Petitions noting the parties were engaged in
negotiations "toward a new Interconnection Agreement that would resolve the issues raised in
the Petitions and the amendment." Qwest Response at 5. In the meantime, the FCC has issued a
new "All or Nothing" rule under Section 252(i).
Contracts & Administrative Law Division, Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-0074, Telephone: [phone], FAX: [phone], E-mail: Ipuc(Qipuc.state.id.
Located at 472 West Washington St., Boise, Idaho 83702
Joseph McNeal
Bill Batt
August 10 2004
Page 2
Given the apparent impasse in negotiating a settlement for the Petitions, are the parties still
interested in pursuing further negotiations? If not, is the record sufficient for the Commission to
issue a decision in the QWE-03-25 complaint case?
Turning to the consolidated Petitions, do the Pagers still want to pursue arbitration, and if so
what are the specific issues in dispute? Or, do the Pagers desire to avoid arbitration and simply
adopt an existing Interconnection Agreement under the FCC's new "All or Nothing" rule? See
Second Report and Order Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local
Exchange Carriers CC Docket No. 01-338 (July 13, 2004) (codified at 47 R. 9 51.809
(effective Aug. 13 2004)). Given the passage of time or the change of positions, should the old
Petitions be withdrawn and new Petitions filed?
I would appreciate your responses in writing to my inquiry by August 17, 2004. If you believe a
meeting of the parties would be helpful to discuss the current status of the cases, please let me
know no later than August 13 , 2004. Otherwise, I will assume that the parties will advise me in
writing by August 17.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 334-0312.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Howell, II
Deputy Attorney General
cc: Wayne Hart
Vld/L:Batt db