19930212.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
February 12, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Eileen Benner, Randy Lobb, Gary Richardson, Jim Long, Syd Lansing, Birdelle Brown and Myrna Walters.
**Also in attendance were Mary Hobson and Jim Wozniak of U. S. West and Walt Sorg of GTE.
Items from the February 12, 1993 Decision Meeting Agenda were discussed as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated 2-12-93.
Approved.
2.  Commission Review and Discussion of Comments in Physical Collocation Proceeding - Case No. GNR-T-93-3; 31.4401.9301.
Commissioner Smith complimented Don Howell for his excellent overview of comments received in this case.
Commissioner Miller - chairman of this case - started discussion.  Asked if we had received word from the FCC on our petition?
Don Howell said he called them.  They have not made a decision on our request.  Probably will not make the decision until the 16th.
Commissioner Miller said that means we should probably conclude what we want to do.  Thought we should proceed on the assumption we need to decide something.  Have received all the comments.  Before getting to the philosophical dispute of whether physical is better than virtual, there are some preliminary topics that may influence whether we get to that at all, but should be considered.  Used the discussion guide attached to the decision memo.   
Said he didn't buy either of AT&T's jurisdictional ideas.  Said staff rebuttal is correct.  On the relationship between expanded interconnection and local competition, thought Don Howell's observation about interstate interlata traffic was correct and also if you assume expanded interconnection is a part of local exchange competition, seems to him the risk is GTE is attempting to protect their monopoly.  It is the election of GTE, not AT&T.  Don't buy their arguments.
Other Commissioners agreed.
-2-
On the question of whether we have provided adequate notice and adequate opportunity to be heard and for deliberation, seems to him the test for that is how we feel about it.  Do we think we have enough information, if not, we can end it on that basis.
Commissioner Nelson said while he feels he doesn't have the information for an informed decision on this, hate to be pre-empted from making that decision.  In a perfect world, we would have more time.
Commissioner Miller said for a variety of reasons - number 1 is the shortness of time, inclination is to deny the petition for rulemaking and let the federal rule go into effect and one factor in that is the shortness of time.  Thought parts of the U. S. West comments were instructive in the sense that the way the FCC has defined physical and virtual collocation is such that there isn't much sense in fooling around with virtual and allow physical.  Said as he understood it even if we thought we had the expertise, one of our options isn't to redefine those types of connections.  You cannot redefine them, only choose between them.  Thought that was persuasive.
Commissioner Smith said that was one of the things she thought was persuasive also.  Had a question - are all costs then assigned to interstate jurisdiction?  If you are letting the federal rule take effect, the cost should be borne by interstate.  This is like 800 capability and we all pay for that.
Don Howell said part of this docket is a separations docket and he anticipates that when tariffs are filed by the one tier companies on the 16th, those aren't effective immediately.  They are effective after that and during that time there will be a lot of pushing and tugging about how those costs are assigned.  One of the concerns is cost shifting to the interstate side.
Eileen Benner said states have concerns as to how this is going to line up.  There is a lot of useage, different circuit equipment, it is not clear what will happen when relative useage changes.  Hope those are questions to be addressed as part of the proceedings.
Commissioner Smith said - so it is irrelevant here then.  We have no way to protect ourselves.
Eileen Benner said she thought not.
Commissioner Smith questioned FCC allowing virtual if there isn't rule for physical.
-3-
Don Howell said that is one of the factors that doesn't disappear on the 16th.  Reviewed reserving space.
Said if you had 10 interconnectors, since you are doing it all first come, first serve basis, there will be times they won't get physical connections.
Commissioner Miller said he thought MCI had a reasonable point about creating incentives for LECs to negotiate toward virtual.  But in the absence of that solution, there is the possibility that interconnection would be hard.  It wouldn't rule out virtual and in fact encourages negotiations.
Said where he was coming out is he didn't have serious problems with the federal rule for a variety of reasons.
Commissioner Nelson said - might have definition with collocation but that is not negotiable.  
Commissioner Miller said given the shortness of time to consider this and appearance of reasonableness of federal rule and in short term it affects only one company in Idaho since U. S. West is going to comply with federal rule, don't see a strong need for us to try to assert a different rule than the federal.
Commissioner Nelson asked how this would affect building of a new building?
Eileen Benner said she didn't know how strongly you have to plan for future connections.  Don't think it is defined.
Don Howell said they can take their own long term plans into consideration after they receive a request.  Filing scheme in federal docket, the bigger ones, had to be tariffed on the 16th.  Every other office, could be a central office, serving wire center, remote were excluded.  After this initial filing then Tier I companies on a requested basis would then file additional tariffs for additional offices that interconnectors decide to connect with in the future.  Will see how the requests drive the market.
Commissioner Nelson said his question is, if the company builds a new building and asks carriers if they want space and they build a bigger building, and no one shows up, who pays for that?
Don Howell said he didn't think there is a requirement to build a certain size building.  Focus in FCC dockt is allowing personal access and room to work around in the area.  It is real small stuff.  Thought one of the reasons
-4-
that FCC made virtual so onerous and they agreed to physical, there is a dispute resolution in their order that they would have to settle disputes and it could be over 10s of thousands of offices.  But in Idaho, only have 3 or 4 offices.  Would be easier to duke it out here than at the FCC.
Commissioner Miller said he wasn't sure if Idaho could adopt a rule different from the federal rule that would say we favor physical but we will settle disputes on virtual.
Don Howell said that is a good question but think they open the door when they allow states to reserve pre-emptions -  that you can allow yourself to be rolled in.  Whether somebody would object, just to where you bring the cable into the building, there is going to be opportunity for tons of disputes.
Commissioner Miller said FCC set this up because it is an alternative to having to resolve all sorts of legitimate interconnection requests.
Don Howell asked if the order should say - deny the petition for rulemaking simply because we don't have an opportunity to do it, or what?
Commissioner Miller said to him it is a balance between (1) the fact that the federal policy is not unreasonable, and the fact that the way the two are defined -  physical versus virtual and (2) we don't have a choice to redefine, only have choice between the two, makes physical more attractive.  (3)  That we haven't had a great deal of time to decide that a state policy would be clearly preferable to federal policy.
Commissioner Smith said she thought this would be an evolutionary thing.  Further questions will come up.
Commissioner Miller said 10 years ago in the first round when the big debate was competition and access charges, states tried to defend monopolies.  In 10 years, state lost.  Can't build policies to protect monopolies and the other part of it is the world hasn't come to an end.  Even though a lot of benefits have been paid for by subscriber line charges, there have been benefits.
Commissioner Nelson said due in part to increased transmission.
Commissioner Miller said he thought this time - don't see us going through the same battle as interexchange competition.
-5-
Commissioner Smith said it just seemed a lot of times it starts out with problems but shifts to something people can live with.  Real battle is when you are fighting for dollars.  That will be the big battle.
Eileen Benner asked about putting something in the order about that concern.
Commissioner Smith said she thought it would be a good idea to put that in.
Commissioner Miller said there are huge problems.  What would happen to minutes of use if AT&T decides to collocate everywhere?  The rate design to prevent bypass is where all the work will be.
Commissioner Smith asked - do we want to skirt around AT&T's jurisdictional arguments?
Commissioner Miller said maybe we can convince them to stop making those stupid arguments.
Discussed AT&T's jurisdictional arguments.
Don Howell asked - what do you want to do about the FCC extension request?
Discussed withdrawing it. Tell them we couldn't wait for them.
Commissioner Miller said he did want to say we should thank all the parties for making a good effort.  Everyone should be thanked for doing that.  Put that in the order.
Even though shortness of time is one of the rationales for denying the petition, think he would come to the same conclusion 30 days from now unless something very drastic came up.
Commissioner Smith said she wouldn't withdraw.  Our reconsideration time would run.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 4th day of March, 1993.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0142M