19910429.docx

Minutes of Decision Meeting
April 29, 1991 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance:
Commissioners Joe Miller, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith; staff members Mike Gilmore, Tom Faull, Belinda Anderson, Randy Lobb, Don Howell, Syd Lansing, Madonna Faunce, Eileen Benner, Jack Taylor, Pat Corpus, Lori Mann, Scott Woodbury, Stephanie Miller, Tonya Clark and Myrna Walters.
**Also in attendance were members of the media and the public at large as well as Dan Poole, Mary Hobson, Jim Wozniak and Pat Stewart of U S West.
Commissioner Miller convened the regular Monday decision meeting.  Said for some of those who have never attended a decision meeting before, might explain our procedures so they will have some idea of what we are doing.
Commission has a regular weekly meeting of this nature called decision meeting.  Prior to the meeting an agenda is prepared of items requiring some decision on behalf of the Commission.  It is a meeting in which the commissioner deliberate or discuss matters before us and having gotten to us either through a prior hearing or less formally through decision memos on matters that have not had prior evidentiary hearing.  It is a public meeting.  This is not a public comment meeting at which time commissioners take comments from the public.  The commissioners deliberate what has been submitted.  You may see us confer with Commission staff as advisors during a meeting of this nature.  We are pleased that there apparently is some matter of interest.  This is not a time where we would take comments from the public.  That is the nature of the way these meetings go.
Suggest that we go with the usual format and take up Regulated Carrier Agenda first.
Commissioner Nelson said he would move approval.  Asked Tonya Clark if it wouldn't be a time to ask them if they have customers out of their region.  These are local people and they have of course applied for statewide authority that they will never use.
Tonya Clark said staff can do that.  Was reading old transcript and it was staff asking for statewide as opposed to the applicant, in the past.

**Did approve Regulated Carrier Agenda.
-2-
2.  Scott Woodbury's April 23, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. INT-G-91-3  Amalgamated/IGC Contract.
Scott Woodbury was asked - were you saying here that the alternative was to use 1989 as the base?
Scott Woodbury said the contract that preceded this was okayed in '89 and it was effective only for the '90 separated process so those are the only other figures he has.  They did use natural gas in their operating process and that is why it is increased in '90.  They indicate that unless they are able to use the '88 base period, their incremental useage will be de minimis and their savings would not be sufficient to justify the use of natural gas.
Commissioner Miller asked what the alternative was?
Scott Woodbury said to require 1990 as the base period.
Commissioner Miller said - is there any reason we would want to do that?
Scott Woodbury said we want to encourage use of natural gas and '90 would be split with the coal market.
Commissioner Nelson asked if there had been any analysis that coal is cheaper?
Scott Woodbury said we never get hard analysis numbers from them.  Amalgamated doesn't wish to share their comparative costs with IGC.
Commissioner Nelson said he would move approval of this.
Other commissioners concurred.
3.  Petition for Reconsideration in IPC-E-90-20 (Idaho Power Company Application for Approval of an Interconnection Tariff for Non-Utility Generation-Schedule 72).
Commissioner Miller asked Scott Woodbury if he had talked to the parties?
Scott Woodbury said he would ask that this matter be deferred - staff is looking into it.
**Do have 28 days from April 19 to consider this.  
Commissioner Smith said she would like the staff analysis on this.
Commissioner Miller said interconnection costs are not in avoided cost.
-3-
Scott Woodbury said staff is researching the '170 record.
Would reserve the right to continue it further.  Am trying to defer it with Arkoosh's consent.
**Held at this time.
4.  Lori Mann's April 26, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  ACLU's Petition for Reconsideration of Caller-ID Order; Case No. USW-T-91-2.
Commissioner Miller said petition is timely filed and properly served, so it appears to be procedurally correct.  Don't know the best way to go about discussing this.  Made list of points raised.
Asked other commissioners if they want to discuss it?
Commissioner Nelson said procedurally before we get started, can parties comment?
It appears we got no comments from staff other than in the decision memo.
Commissioner Miller said his impression was the petition is filed, parties can file cross petition, but there is not necessarily a requirement for comment.
Mike Gilmore said after the 7 days, Commission can consider it.
Commissioner Smith said there is a big difference between cross petition and response.  There are probably people out there if we took up reconsideration who wouldn't feel a need to cross petition.
Mike Gilmore said you have 7 days to tell the Commission it is not even worth reconsidering.
Commissioner Miller said the fact that somebody in the case didn't respond to the petition for reconsideration, it is not to be held against them.
Commissioner Nelson said it appears staff has taken a position in the decision memo without filing comments.
Commissioner Miller said he wasn't sure that that is not appropriate.  Said at this stage we need advice.
Commissioner Smith said staff is giving us advice.
-4-
Commissioner Nelson suggested going forward.
Commissioner Miller said the first topic that is the core of this is:  the assertion that Caller ID is "intrinsically intertwined" with and inseparable from the transmission of voice communication and is therefore part of basic local exchange service.  You can't have voice communications in a Signalling Seven environment without Caller ID being there if a party chooses to subscribe to it.  The argument is you can't separate one from the other so that you have to consider the Caller ID technology as part of basic local service, since they are so intertwined.
Commissioner Nelson asked how this was any different from anyother enhanced service?  You have to make the phone call for anything like that to work.
Commissioner Miller said with Caller ID, the technology that makes it possible makes the call possible whereas with voice messaging that is not true.  It is the signal that makes the call possible and when you add on that, it is all one deal.  Difference is voice messaging depends on basic local service but the argument for Caller ID is you can't have the phone call without Signalling System Seven.
Commissioner Smith said it sounds like a factual question.
Commissioner Miller said in the central offices that are equipped with SS7, that is the thing that makes the signalling associated with calling work.  It is the new signalling technology.
Bev Barker said the argument should be rephrased to say if the company has installed SS7 and is using it to transmit calls, then it is transmitted with the phone call and is not separated.  If it isn't upgraded to SS7, they are not using it and are not transmitting Caller ID.
Commissioner Miller said if the enduser doesn't subscribe to it, he won't receive but its transmitted.
Commissioner Nelson asked how is this difference from voice messaging?
Bev Barker said telephone system will operate without it.  The technology that provides basic service is not necessarily the technology that makes custom calling possible.
-5-
Commissioner Nelson asked - if that is all true, would it cause us to change our mind on Caller ID?
Commissioner Smith said - still have to come back to the language of the statute and still think that that changes the fact that when the legislature said what basic local service was, that they intended to include this.  Just don't think that was part of what the law said, basic local exchange services are subject to regulation.
Commissioner Miller asked - do you think this service was envisioned?
Commissioner Smith said - think decision made was based on the perception of telephone service was what people were familiar with.  That is what they wanted to make sure there was oversight of.  Knew they contemplated new services but no one knew what they would be.  Thought they were protecting residential and business of having reasonably-priced access to a phone.  So what they would have done about Caller ID, don't know.  Caller ID is outside that.
Commissioner Miller said he thought Commission should be very careful in implementing what legislative intent was and whether or not it is good or bad.  Thought we should follow the language of the statute and still think that is generally the right approach.  If you step back from the language of the statute, it is a question of who gets to consider this type of decision.  It is appropriate for this to be in the realm of the company or public decisions.  The debate about the language of the statute is that.  Think our experience so far to date, given the large amount of public interest and the breadth and depth of feeling of this service, there is a public perception that a public body should decide this.  A large part of the opposition is not to the content, think there is a strong public sentiment about this.  The public sentiment needs to be reckoned with.  Wonder if purpose of the statute was to make these ... you almost wonder if that is really occurring.  Maybe everyone would be better off if there wasn't this jurisdictional uncertainty and regulatory rules would be clearer.
Commissioner Nelson asked what the next step was?
Mike Gilmore commented the legislative language is not uniform throughout the statute.
-6-
Commissioner Smith said subscribers to Title 62 may not have basic local service.  Want to preserve the ability of complaint but couldn't call it basic local service because those customers don't have it.  Think it is for those customers who have 6 lines or more and want to complain about their services and the only way they could do that is put that language in.
Mike Gilmore said you have a core group of customers with basic local exchange, does that section not allow them to complain about non-local basic service?
Commissioner Smith said their ability to come to us is preserved.
Mike Gilmore said that would go to whether or not a service is available.
Commissioner Nelson said our ability to deal with it depends on which service it is.
Commissioner Miller said that is really the third point - whether Sections 615 or 616 gives the Commission jurisdiction to determine terms and conditions.  Agree that 616 was complaint mechanism for those who subscribe to Title 62 that complain about local exchange service which is not basic by definition because they have 6 lines or more.
Commissioner Smith quoted from the statute.  
Commissioner Miller said he had never thought that 616 got us as far as others have.  There is the other argument that even if Caller ID is not part of basic, then blocking is.  Theory is they do implicate quality of basic exchange service and they are not available from anyone but monopoly-provider.  That has some appeal to it.  Have had a hard time finding in the statute an idea that just because it is provided by a monopoly makes it subject to regulation in this new scheme.
Commissioner Smith said whether or not there is competition is not asked in the statute.
Commissioner Nelson said competition was not part of the statute.
Commissioner Miller said he had a hard time getting there under the monopoly theory.  Think perhaps the better point is that if we have jurisdiction under Section 302, to describe personal safety requirements and that section
-7-
applies in this circumstance then we are not really limited to safety.  We could consider anyother issue having to do with public comfort and convenience which I interpreted to be the old words for public interest concerns.  If we have the jurisdiction to define based on safety concerns we wouldn't be limited to safety concerns.  We should go into consideration of public interest issues.
Commissioner Smith said her bottom line is until the conclusion of the trial when we know something, we don't have any basis on which to make any kind of decision.  That was basically our bottom line.   Before that we have allegations, we have supposed factual situations but until the conclusion of the trial and we get the report, we really don't know what happened and what the best rule is.
Commissioner Nelson said that was right and he was not sure about comfort and convenience.  Dialing extra 3 digits is not an inconvenience and wouldn't say that until the end of the trial period.
Commissioner Smith said dial codes will change.  It is a change - whether it is convenient, don't know.  
Commissioner Miller said he agreed that at this point in our lives this is only a trial and the purpose of the trial is:  is the company to acquire information on marketing questions, is it a service the public wants, etc., but it is also an opportunity for us to find out similar kinds of things - whether the public believes the service is more intrusive than its worth; whether the public has a perception that greater blocking options ought to be available.  I have viewed this as a trial and it may be at the end of the trial you could conclude a lot of things.  Could come to the conclusion that per line blocking should be available to the entire public or to those who have already expressed a desire, or even in theory that per line blocking should be available, all kinds of things you could conclude at the end of the trial.
Commissioner Smith said she was hoping U. S. West would conclude no one was buying it, but ACLU did such a good job, that won't happen.
Commissioner Miller said he did learn at Regional Oversight that 62,000 calls were blocked.  Think it would be good to get to the end of the trial and then decide.  The difficulty we have is we may get to the end of the trial and not be able to decide.  If we have put ourselves in a position where we don't assert adequate jurisdiction, could get to the end of the trial and think it should be configured
-8-
differently and not have that capability.  Do think that the Commission has made every effort to let this trial be rolled out the way the company wanted to try it.  But getting to the sixth point, again that is a factual matter that we don't have any evidence on at this time, whether this individual screening or per-line blocking is a good system or not.  Am starting to be worried about that.
Commissioner Smith said it seemed a little bit arbitrary and inconvenient, but it would be helpful to have the input from people to be out there saying whats to be, what not to be, etc.
Commissioner Miller said for the purpose of a trial, it made sense to him that we were creating a safety net to not get hurt.  But whether it is a viable alternative, especially statewide, it would be very difficult to administer.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought there were allegations without backup.  Can't see it is something that needs attention right away.
Commissioner Miller said he thought it was an area that needs investigation and he is uncomfortable that that is going to be a workable system over time.  We have already been over that ground.  There are two questions that haven't been before the Commission:  (1) Whether this service violates privacy guarantee under our state and federal constitutions.  At this point am not sure the Commission is the right place to adjudicate constitutional questions.  If there had been a determination by a proper jurisdictional body that something was institutional then we should not permit it to happen if that decision had been made.  But the determination of constitutionality of anything seems to be a jurisdictional decision.  For us to independently make some determination that this is institutional and it has to cease at 2 o'clock this afternoon would be difficult.
Commissioner Smith asked - how do you deal with issues that come up for the first time on reconsideration?
Commissioner Miller asked Mike Gilmore how to proceed on new issues introduced for the first time in a petition for reconsideration.
Mike Gilmore said he thought it was legal to take them up.  Statute speaks to taking up things that have happened since the first case.  They have been brought to their attention since the first go around.
-9-
Commissioner Smith asked about constitutional issues?
Mike Gilmore said he thought you could consider them under reconsideration but there are far overriding considerations to not take that up.
Commissioner Miller said that was his feeling on the constitutional issue.  Although it is a fascinating question, think we are the wrong guys for it.
Commissioner Smith said - deny reconsideration on Roman Numeral IV.
Commissioner Miller said in his mind the trace and trap issue is different from constitutional issue.  That is clearly a jurisdiction activity.  It seems to him there are a lot of circumstances where Commission looks to other bodies of law for determination of whether conduct of activities of a utility are permissible or non-permissable.  Example is:  the case of the cooperative trucking association that wanted to be a trucking company and we looked at another statute.  That is an example where we have looked at other law to determine whether something can be done by a public utility.
Commissioner Nelson commented that was quite a bit different, though.  There are other officers of the state that can carry out a criminal statute.
Commissioner Miller said his point is we do go beyond the public utility law in a number of circumstances.  We look at tax law and make changes in rates under consideration of tax law.  We look at PURPA.  We look at other bodies of law.  The mere fact that wire tap is not a utility statute does not mean we can't look at it.
Commissioner Nelson said he would guess the bottom line is he was not going to be comfortable interpreting that statute when we have someone in the next block who can act on that.  Don't mind asking him.
Commissioner Miller asked about granting reconsideration or asking AG whether the service as offered by the company or the customer-owned device is a trap and trace device.
Commissioner Nelson suggested tabling the vote on reconsideration until we get that opinion.
Commissioner Smith said there is a big difference in filing a brief and asking for an opinion.  Those are two
-10-
different things.  Don't know how you direct which one you get or if we would have control over what we would get and when we would get it.
Mike Gilmore said he is under a statute to answer.
Commissioner Smith said perhaps if we told him our reconsideration was hanging in the balance, could we speed him up?
Commissioner Miller said he understood the desire to get the best input we can, whether it comes from the AG, or whoever, would like to here from all these people but don't want to elevate one above the others, for credibility you would attach to opinions from people submitting things to us.  Would like AG's analysis to stand on the same footing as company's, or staff, or anybody.  
Commissioner Nelson said he wants to throw this question in the AG's lap.
Commissioner Miller said he thought it was the Commission's to decide but we should hear from as m any people as we can and then make the decision and if some party disagrees there is a clear remedy to get it from the Supreme Court.
Commissioner Nelson said if we decide it is our jurisdiction and it is trace and trap, what is our next step?
Commissioner Miller said the next step would be to determine whether or not it could be cured through per-line blocking, and if not order company to discontinue the service or file bond and take to appeal.  We may well come to the conclusion that is not a trap and trace device.  At this point the legal analysis is not complete.
Lori Mann spoke to other states opinions.  
Commissioner Smith said jurisdictions have gone both ways on these.  
Lori Mann reviewed South Carolina's ruling.
Commissioner Smith said she thought that procedure was much cleaner.  A better forum is a court that deals with it all the time.
Commissioner Miller asked what court deals with Caller ID as trace and trap?
-11-
Commissioner Smith said the courts deal with all kinds of devices.  All they would have to do is have a description of Caller ID and we could say this is like this or it is not like anything we have been.
Commissioner Nelson quoted from 61-701.  Said to him criminal statutes are vested with AG and people of that ilk.
Lori Man said Commission doesn't bring any actions.
Commissioner Nelson asked then why are we being asked to interpret the statute?
Commissioner Miller said we would not enforce the criminal law.  We would not prosecute people for crimes, but at the same time, if you came to the conclusion that the service was not legal, then regardless of criminal actions, you could say it cannot be offered in the state unless the statute is changed.  That is what is going on in Washington.  They are clarifying the trace and trap statute.  In the trucking case we concluded that it would be illegal for a trucking cooperative to operate as a trucking company and denied their application for authority.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought commissioners had articulated their differences.  Don't see the statutes on co-ops as being criminal statutes.
Lori Mann clarified the Pennsylvania and South Carolina cases.
Commissioner Miller also spoke to the opinions in those cases.  Commented Commissioners had discussed this as much as they could discuss it.
Took break.
Commissioner Miller said Commission has given this a thorough discussion, so he would not suggest going through the petition for reconsideration and determining which if any of the issues we want to grant reconsideration on.
The decisions that the Commission makes here are preliminary.  Final decision is embodied in an order that is prepared after this meeting.  So although it is unlikely that this decision will change as the order is prepared, the theory for decision may appear slightly different than at the meeting and it is not unheard of that a decision could change.  Wanted to make that distinction with care.  Final decisions are set out in an order.  
-12-
First question is:  the argument that Caller ID is "intrinsically intertwined" with and inseparable form the transmission of voice communication and should be considered as part of basic local exchange service.
Commissioner Nelson said he would not grant reconsideration on that issue.
Commissioner Smith said she was trying to get in her mind the difference between first section and second section.  Guess the first one that raised all those factual issues that you are talking about, made her wonder if we had a record to find anything on how the service was offered.
Commissioner Miller said given the procedural way this has transpired, we have never had a hearing record on this system - SS7 - how the technology works, etc., to what extent is it "intrinsically intertwined"?  Argument is similar to that argued by staff in the decision memo as well.  Would be inclined to grant reconsideration on that general issue to create the factual record that would make possible a review of our decision.  Am afraid if our decision was reviewed as is, it would be remanded for factual decision.  Would grant reconsideration on that general area no matter how we articulated it.
Commissioner Smith said she would go along with that for the purpose of developing a record and to see if it is under the definition.
**Grant reconsideration on Issue I.
Commissioner Miller said in his mind, the next issue has been decided.  Decision on that point should stand or fail as it is now.
Deny reconsideration on what was in effect for Subsection II of the petition.
Skipping around just a little bit, would suggest we not reconsider our decision on the basis of alleged constitutional violations urged at Pages 16 and 17 of the Petition.
All Commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Miller asked - then what do we want to do with the assertions that per line blocking ordered by the Commission for individuals is arbitrary, unfair and not working?
-13-
Commissioner Nelson said he thought we already determined to take a look at that at the end of the trial so would deny reconsideration on that.
Commissioner Smith said she thought Commission made it clear that the last decision was adequate for the trial period and think that is the decision she would stick with.  We did say U. S. West was going to file a report and we will reassess the decision.  Think for the trial period, in her opinion, what Commission has done is reasonable and adequate and we will have another proceeding to hear what worked, what didn't work, whatever ideas they have at that time.  Am not willing to reconsider for the trial period those options.  Think we are on solid ground on that decision.
Commissioner Miller said he concurred - we have made a commitment to the company, it would be inappropriate to change that in the middle of the trial, what we agreed to at the start.  But when the trial is over, we can look at it anew to see what we think is the best solution for permanent offering.  Don't even have an allegation of anyone suffering personally.  It would be unfair for us to change in the middle of the trial but should make it clear that when trial period is over we will re-evaluate information presented to us.
Agreed.
Trace and Trap.
Commissioner Smith said it was her preference that someone with expertise make the decision.
Commissioner Nelson said he would move to grant reconsideration on this for the purpose of getting an AG's opinion on whether this service violates the Statute - 18-6720 and in the event he decided that it would, get a brief from U. S. West as to why they don't agree.  So for that limited purpose, would grant reconsideration.
Commissioner Smith said this is a question that she believes needs to be answered.  Don't know whether we are the right people to decide that.  Would have preferred going to District Court for a declaratory ruling on this question.  Second best choice would be an AG's opinion but recognizing that AG is not the court it is only his opinion.  If you are not happy with it, could still go to District Court.
-14-
Commissioner Nelson asked - would you invite the AG to take action?
Asked Mike Gilmore what his opinion was?
Mike Gilmore said he thought it was a prosecuting attorney matter, not the AG.  Thought past AG's office would not second guess prosecuting attorney's office - current one has not had opportunity.
Lori Mann asked - can you limit reconsideration to just getting something from one party and not allow parties to the case to respond?
Commissioner Nelson said to give U. S. West chance to respond if they don't like the AG opinion.
Lori Mann asked - what about other parties?
COmmissioner Miller said he parted company with other commissioners at this point.  It would have been nice if it had been raised somewhere else.  Maybe we are not the ideal body, but the fact of the matter is it is before us and think it is a issue we can decide.  Seems to him the best solution is for us to decide the best we can and then undoubtedly let the Supreme Court resolve it.  Just getting an Ag's opinion adds an unnecessary level of proceeding to it.  Would be happy to have AG submit brief along with everybody else and we could decide who is defendable.
Commissioner Smith said we are all voting for reconsideration and we could fight about how later.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought it should be looked at but by someone else.
Commissioner Miller said for you to accomplish what you want is to deny reconsideration with a suggestion that an AG's opinion be sought by someone, whether staff or ACLU or somebody?
Commissioner Nelson said that did reflect what he thought should be done.
Commissioner Miller said no matter what the AG opinion, you think action should be somewhere else?
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't see himself making independent decisions based on that decision.  
-15-
Commissioner Miller asked Commissioner Nelson what his basic thought was on how he would proceed?  Is the question significant enough to want an answer by somebody, somewhere?
Commissioner Smith said she did.  Said when she read the statute, it is directed to the customer using the device and don't know what jurisdiction we have over that area.  Have question of whether this is something we should answer.  If the illegality is on the party not the company, it is further removed from us.  Consider if the utility was engaged in an illegal activity.  
Commissioner Miller asked - does that bring you out at saying we should not grant reconsideration because we are not the right people to answer the question and the people asking should ask the District Court?
Commissioner Smith said yes.
Commissioner Nelson said he agreed with Commissioner Smith that we are not the right forum.
Commissioner Miller said regardless of whether the trap and trace device, where it is, whether it is subscriber-owned equipment or transmittal of the technology of the signals, the whole thing, taken as a whole is a unit of service, taken as a whole, is one thing.  Neither of them are any good without the other.  Together they are something that some people think is worthwhile and if some part of that system is not permitted by Idaho law, then regardless of which part it is, then any person providing any part of the system should not be providing that.
Commissioner Smith said the information that is being passed along could be used for a legitimate purpose.  If Caller ID is trace and trap, why isn't ANI?
Commissioner Miller said in review:  we have two votes against reconsideration for different reasons and one for reconsideration - two to one.  
Commissioner Smith commented there is a separate filing for intervenor funding.
Lori Mann said that can be ruled on after the case is closed.
Commissioner Miller said will defer intervenor funding for the time being.
-16-
Lori Mann asked about ICC complaint being served as summons on U. S. West.
**Commissioners asked that it be put on the agenda for next week's decision meeting.
Extra Item - PPL Security Issuance.  (Terri Carlock's April 29, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  Pacificorp Issuance and Sale of Up to and Including 3,500,000 Additional Shares of Common Stock - PAC-S-91-2.
Approved.
Item 5 - Lynn Anderson's April 23, 1991 Decision Memorandum re:  U. S. West Transmittal No. 91-5-SC - Implementing a $10.00 Charge for Call Trace and Lynn Anderson's April 26, 1991 Decision Memorandum on the same Subject.
Commissioner Smith said Call Trace seemed different to her than Caller ID, in that you already have something providing that.
Commissioner Nelson said he had real questions in his mind about the charge, whether after first call, caller should be told he is being tracked, if 3 is sufficient to turning him in, etc.
Commissioner Miller said his suggestion would be that from a procedural point of view, rather than trying to decide this on decision memos, that we should make this a formal case and ask the company to file testimony first on the point of why they think it is a Title 62 service and then on the point of if it is 62, what the terms and conditions ought to be.
Commissioner Nelson said he was hesitant that on every new offering we are going to have a formal case but he does have questions on propriety of this since it is already being done.
Commissioner Miller said his idea comes out of fairness to the company.  Given the unsatisfactory way we handled Caller ID, decision meetings without hearings, ought to have a more formal handle on this.
Commissioner Smith said she was just wondering if there was room to have a workshop on this.
-17-
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't know if we should set this for hearing but start with modified procedure to get comments from staff and company on if it is built into the rates why are they now going to charge?
Commissioner Miller said the factual matters don't seem to be that complex, so probably written comments would do it.
Discussed suspending the filing.
**Dan Poole of U. S. West said:  Commission can do as it sees fit, apparently Commission can start something on their own motion on something company feels is Title 62.  Want to make sure Commissioners are aware of the May 17 implementation date.
Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Poole if the company would voluntarily defer putting this into service until Commission decides?
Mr. Poole responded he would have to confer with his bosses.  Said he was very troubled that everytime U S West offers a new service, Commission is going to embark on this type of procedure.
Commissioner Smith explained why the Commission is looking at this.  It is different from a new offering.
Mr. Poole said there are two distinct services.
Commissioner Smith asked for clarification of the offering.  Said it is a change - want to look at it.
Mr. Poole said he thought the burden rests with someone else to say it is not a Title 62 offering.
Commissioner Miller said company has to admit that within the limits of the Commission obligation, have not attempted to make the offering of new services difficult.  Said Mr. Poole has expressed concern when company does not have opportunity to respond.  This is fairer to the company for Commission to do it this way.  That is why he is suggesting that we do it this way.  Don't think you can have it both ways.  We want company to give Commission their side of it but at the same time, when questions are raised, we have to address them.  Asked Dan Poole about the burden of proof.  Because of determination of Title 62?  Didn't Commission decide in CP center case that Commission doesn't have burden of proof on substantive matters.  Thought Commission initiating proceeding put burden of proof on them.  Getting back to the point that unless we stay introduction of service, company is going to introduce it.
-18-
Mr. Poole said he was not saying that, don't think it is stayed unless you do something.  Would like to talk to the client on this.  Company thinks it is clearly Title 62 service.
Commissioner Miller said Commission will prepare the order staying the offering unless Mr. Poole gets back to us saying it will be suspended.
Eileen Benner asked if a stay would affect manual at this point?
Dan Poole said company would not withdraw that service.
Lynn Anderson said would only need to stay the charge, not the service.  It is changing the way it is offered and going from manual to electronic.
Commissioner Nelson said there are some questions in his mind on the service.
Commissioner Miller said one thing that may distinguish this from other services is that there isn't a sign-up campaign, etc.  Lori Mann is to prepared an order opening a formal case and to what extent we will stay all or part of the filing (or just the charge) may not even have to come to that after Mr. Poole talks to his client.
**Clarification on decision on SS7.  Get facts on how it works.  We don't have any factual evidence on overriding way this thing works.  Don't have enough information to make that decision.  Will have factual hearing.
Meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Signatures on next page .................
-19-
        DATED at Boise, Idaho this       day of July, 1991.

PRESIDENT

COMMISSIONER

COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Commission Secretary
mjw
0042M