Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040830_921.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER HANSEN COMMISSION SECRETARY LEGAL WORKING FILE FROM:DOUG COOLEY DATE:AUGUST 25, 2004 RE:STAFF REVIEW OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS; CASE NOS. QWE-02-22 AND VZN-04-09. BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, interconnection agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.C. ~ 252(e)(I). The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only if it finds that the agreement: (1) discriminates against 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.C. ~ 252(e)(2)(A). As the Commission recently 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 provisions with Section 251(b) or (c)." Order No. 28427 at 11 (emphasis original). This comports with the FCC' 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.R. ~ 51.3. THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS The Commission has been asked to approve one interconnection agreement and one amendment to an existing interconnection agreement. The items are discussed in greater detail below. DECISION MEMORANDUM AUGUST 25, 2004 1. Verizon Northwest Inc. and Verizon Avenue Corp. (Case No. VZN-04-09t In this Application, the parties request that the Commission approve an agreement similar to other agreements entered into by Verizon Northwest. The agreement also includes Amendment #1 which reflects TRO implementation. 2. Qwest Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC (Case No. QWE- T -02-22t In this case, the parties request that the Commission approve an amendment to an existing agreement. With this filing, the parties add terms and conditions that are included in a Master Service Agreement filed by both Qwest and MCImetro during August 2004. ST AFF ANALYSIS Staffhas reviewed the Applications and did not find that any terms or conditions are discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff believes that the agreements are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of this Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the federal Telecommunications Act. Accordingly, Staff believes that the agreements merit the Commission approval. Although Staff believes the Qwest / MCI amendment should be approved, this does raise the issue of what filing requirements apply to the Master Service Agreement. Nationally, there has been debate regarding appropriate filing requirements and Staff recommends that the Commission issue a Notice that this Master Service Agreement has been filed in Idaho and seek comments regarding its regulatory treatment. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission approve the Application for interconnection and amendment to existing interconnection agreements? Does the Commission wish to issue a Notice and establish a comment period regarding the Master Service Agreement between Qwest and MCImetro? '" ~70o1e udmemos/dcooley/intcn dec memo 37 DECISION MEMORANDUM AUGUST 25, 2004