20150202_4584.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FELE
FROM:CAROLEE HALL
DATE:FEBRUARY 2,2015
RE:APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE
TYPE 2 WIRELESS INVTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
QWEST 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)(l).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 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 51].”
47 C.F.R.§51.3.
CURRENT APPLICATION
CenturyLink and Cricket submitted Amendment No.2 to the Type 2 wireless
interconnection agreement between the Companies.The original Interconnection Agreement
DECISION MEMORANDUM -I -FEBRUARY 2,2015
between the parties was approved by this Commission on January 26,2001,in Case No.QWE
1-00-20.See Order No.28618.This amendment provides for Bill and Keep provisions as set
forth in the Federal Communications Commission’s Docket No.01-95,in the Matter of
Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime.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 discriminaton’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?
/
eHa
udmcrnns!lrnerconneccion/wireless and paing;QWE-T-OO-2O CENTURYLINK and CriclcL AMENDMENT NO 2 TO TYPE 2 WIRELE55
Bill and Keep
DECISION MEMORANDUM -2 -FEBRUARY 2,2015