20050822_1302.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:CAROLEE HALL
DATE:AUGUST 16, 2005
RE:APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF INTERCONNECTION AND
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT FOR COMMERCIAL
MOBILE RADIO SERVICES BETWEEN CITIZENS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF IDAHO ("FRONTIER"
AND CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ("CRICKET"
CASE NO. CTC-05-
BACKGROUND
Under the provision of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, interconnection
agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.C. ~ 252(e)(I). The
Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only ifit 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.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 "
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.R. ~ 51.3.
CURRENT APPLICATION
Frontier and Cricket filed Case No. CTC-05-3 on August 12, 2005. The Application
states that the parties have mutually agreed, through voluntary negotiations, to interconnect their
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 1 -AUGUST 16, 2005
networks thereby providing customers with increased choices among local telecommunications
services. The Agreement sets forth the terms, conditions and pricing under which Frontier will
offer and provide to Cricket, interconnection facilities for the purpose of delivering
telecommunication services to customers.
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 wish to accept and approve this Interconnection Agreement?
i:udmemos/interconnection agreements/CTC- T -05-3 Frontier and Cricket Communications
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 2-AUGUST 16, 2005