Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20150120_4571.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER REDFORD COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSION SECRETARY LEGAL WORKING FILE FROM:CAROLEE HALL DATE:JANUARY 12,2015 RE:APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO AMEND THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN QVEST CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK QC (“CENTURYLINK”)F/K/A U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS,INC.,AND CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS,INC.(“CRICKET”);CASE NO.QWE-T-00-20. BACKGROUND Under the provision of the federal TeLecommunications Act of 1996,interconnection agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval.47 U.S.C.§252(e)(1).The commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only if it finds that the agreement: (I)discriminates against a 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.S.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 “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 511.” 47 C.F.R.§51.3. CURRENT APPLICATION CenturyLink and Cricket submitted an amended Interconnection Agreement between the parties in Case No.QWE-T-0O-20.According to the Company,the original Agreement was approved by this Commission on January 26,2001.See Order No.28618.This amendment is to DECISION MEMORANDUM -I -JANUARY 12,2014 provide for the changes that came about with the FCC’s issuance of its Triennial Review Order and Triennial Review Remand Order (“TRO/TRRO”).The revisions are reflected in Attachment I to this interconnection agreement amendment. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the 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 Agreement merits the Commission’s approval. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission agree? udmemos/InLerconnectiort/wirelcss and pacinEIQWE-T-OO-20 CENTURYLENK and Cricket TRO and TRRO amendments DECISION MEMORANDUM -2-JANUARY 12,2014