20060925_1667.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:CAROLEE HALL
DATE:SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
RE:APPLICATION FOR APPROV AL OF TYPE 1 AND TYPE 11 PAGING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN QWEST CORPORATION AND CLARK
COMMUNICATIONS, INc. ("CLARK"). CASE NO. QWE-06-20.
BACKGROUND
Under the provision of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, interconnection
agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.C. ~ 252(e)(1). 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 ofthe agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and
necessity. 47 U.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 251 (b) or (c).
Order No. 28427 at 11 (emphasis in original). This comports with the FCC's statement that "
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.
CURRENT APPLI CA TI 0 N
Qwest Corporation and Clark. Case No. QWE- T -06-. Qwest initially filed its
Application on August 30 2006. After review, Staff and Qwest worked to correct the filing so
that it would comport with paging services and not reflect the standard interconnection
agreements that the Company most often files. On September 7 , 2006, Qwest resubmitted the
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 1 -SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
revised Application with the agreed upon changes. Qwest states that the revised Agreement was
jointly entered into between Qwest and Clark and provides for both companies to interconnect
their facilities for the purpose of delivering land to pager traffic.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the revised Application and does not find any terms or conditions that
it considers to be discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff believes that the
Agreement is consistent with the public interest as identified in the pro-competitive policies of
this Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Accordingly, Staff believes that the revised Agreement merits the Commission s approval.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to accept and approve this Interconnection Agreement?
; "-" ,
#...f 'IJ4/'X
( Sa-to, ee 'aH----1\/
i:udmemos/QWETO6.20 Clark Com Paging I & II
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 2 -SEPTEMBER 12, 2006