Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020909_262.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER SMITH CO MMISSI 0 NER HANSEN JEAN JEWELL DON HOWELL JOHN HAMMOND WELDON STUTZMAN LISA NORDSTROM RANDY LOBB JOE CUSICK CAROLEE HALL DOUG COOLEY BIRDELLE BROWN LYNN ANDERSON LOU ANN WESTERFIELD RON LAW TONYA CLARK GENE FADNESS WORKING FILE FROM:JOHN HAMMOND DATE:SEPTEMBER 6, 2002 RE:REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING QWEST INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS: CASE NOS. USW-99-3 (2 AMENDMENTS), QWE-00-13 (1 AMENDMENT), QWE- T -00- 7 (3 AMENDMENTS). On August 21 , 2002, Qwest Corporation filed six negotiated agreements with the Commission that it had previously made with McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (three agreements), Eschelon Telecom, Inc. (one agreement) and Covad Communications Company (two agreements). Qwest has filed these agreements in order to amend existing interconnection agreements contained in Case Nos. QWE-00-, QWE-OO-13 and USW- 99-23. Qwest requests that the Commission approve these agreements as amendments to these interconnection agreements as soon as reasonably practicable. BACKGROUND The negotiated agreements, filed as amendments to existing interconnection agreements, have been of great interest in several states. Currently, there are proceedings in DECISION MEMORANDUM Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico involving similar or the same agreements with these carriers and whether they should be filed as interconnection agreements.l Qwest has also filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") requesting that it rule on the scope and duty to file and obtain prior approval of certain types of negotiated contractual arrangements under 47 u.S.C. ~ 252. The FCC subsequently requested comments on the question posed by the Qwest filing. In its filing, Qwest claims it does not believe these contractual arrangements fall within the filing requirements of Section 252, but also acknowledges that the standards of what should be filed "have not been clearly defined." Qwest indicated it had implemented a new policy and is now "broadly filing all contracts, agreements or letters of understanding between Qwest Corporation and CLECs that create obligations to meet the requirements of Section 251 (b) or (c) on a going forward basis.In regards to agreements entered into prior to the implementation of the new policy, Qwest indicated it is filing these contractual arrangements now as a "sign of its good faith. Qwest claimed the filed agreements are all of "currently effective agreements with CLECs in Idaho that were entered into prior to adoption of the new policy. . that relate to Section 251(b) or (c) services on an on-going basis that have not been terminated or superceded by agreement, commission order, or otherwise. Qwest requested the Commission "simply approve those prOVlSlons relating Section 251 (b) or (c) services under its Section 252( e) procedures, and Qwest will make all the going forward provisions related to Section 251(b) or (c) available under Section 251(i)." Qwest claims "Provisions that settle past carrier-specific disputes, that do not relate to Section 251, or that are no longer in effect are not subject to Section 251(i) and this offering. The agreements submitted by Qwest included portions that had been redacted. Qwest claimed these portions included "confidential settlement amounts relating to settlement of historical disputes between Qwest and the particular CLEC, confidential billing and bank account numbers and facility locations, which relate solely to the specific CLEC and do not relate to Section 251 (b) or (c) services. 1 Only Iowa has issued on Order concerning this question. The Iowa Department of Commerce Utilities Board found that certain agreements between Qwest and Covad and McLeod were interconnection agreements. In re AT&T Corporation v. Qwest Corporation Docket No. FCU-02-2 (issued May 29, 2002). DECISION MEMORANDUM TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996. Under the provisions 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 ifit finds that the agreement: (1) discriminates against 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.c. ~ 252(e)(2)(A). Pursuant to 47 U.C. ~ 252(e)(4) if the Commission does not act to approve or reject the agreement within 90 days after its filing by the parties of that matter that was adopted by negotiation it shall be deemed approved. Qwest filed these agreements on August 21 2002. Accordingly, the Commission has until November 20 2002 to approve or reject them. PROCEDURE TO PROCESS THESE AGREEMENTS Because these previously unfiled agreements raise similar issues Staff recommends that they be consolidated and processed together. As a matter of course the Commission Staff has been processing interconnection agreements and amendments to them similar to tariff advices in order to expedite their review and approval by the Commission. However, because this case involves agreements that have created great controversy before several state commissions and the FCC, Staff believes that review of them should be at least accomplished by using Modified Procedure under the Commission s Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the Commission issue a Notice of Applications and Notice of Modified Procedure for these consolidated cases. Staff also recommends that in this Notice the Commission establish a 21-day period for interested persons and parties to file petitions to intervene into this matter. Staff recommends that Qwest, McleodUSA, Eschelon and Covad be made parties to this case automatically by virtue of Qwest filing the agreements with the Commission. Staff also recommends that the comments establish an initial period of 28 days for interested persons and parties to submit written comments.After this period expires Staff recommends that the Commission establish a 14-day period for interested persons and parties to file written reply comments. DECISION MEMORANDUM COMMISSION DECISION 1. Does the Commission wish to consolidate these cases and process them in one proceeding? 2. Does the Commission wish to issue a Notice and Request for Comments of these Qwest filings, and consider them in accordance with Modified Procedure? 3. Does the Commission wish to set an intervention deadline? 4. Does the Commission wish to use a 28-day comment period and 14-day reply comment period. M:QWETOO13 QWETOO7 _USWT9923jh DECISION MEMORANDUM