Common use of Public Interest Clause in Contracts

Public Interest. The second issue that needs to be addressed by the Commission in approving or rejecting a negotiated agreement under Section 252(e)(2)(A) is whether it is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I recommend that the Commission examine the agreement on the basis of economic efficiency, equity, past Commission orders, and state and federal law to determine if the agreement is consistent with the public interest. Nothing in this Agreement leads me to the conclusion that the Agreement is inequitable, inconsistent with past Commission Orders, or in violation of state or federal law. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission approve this Agreement. II IMPLEMENTATION In order to implement the SBC ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION Agreement, the Commission should require SBC ILLINOIS to, within five (5) days from the date the Agreement is approved, modify its tariffs to reference the negotiated Agreement for each service affected. Such a requirement is consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and allows interested parties access to the Agreement. The following sections of SBC ILLINOIS' tariffs should reference the SBC ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION Agreement: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 16 Section 18). Also, in order to assure that the implementation of the Agreement is in public interest, SBC ILLINOIS should implement the Agreement by filing a verified statement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five (5) days of approval by the Commission, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified petition; the Chief Clerk should place the Agreement on the Commission’s web site under Interconnection Agreements.

Public Interest. The second issue that needs to must be addressed by the Commission in approving or rejecting a negotiated agreement under Section 252(e)(2)(A) is whether it is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I recommend that the Commission examine the agreement on the basis of economic efficiency, equity, past Commission orders, and state and federal law to determine if the agreement is consistent with the public interest. Nothing In previous dockets, Staff took the position that negotiated agreements should be considered economically efficient if the services are priced at or above their Long Run Service Incremental Costs (“LRSICs”). Requiring that a service be priced at or above its LRSIC ensures that the service is not being subsidized and complies with the Commission’s pricing policy. All of the services in this Agreement agreement are priced at or above their respective LRSICs. Therefore, this agreement should not be considered economically inefficient. I have no reason to conclude that this agreement is contrary to the public interest and nothing in this agreement leads me to the conclusion that the Agreement agreement is inequitable, inconsistent with past Commission Orders, or in violation of state or federal law. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission approve this Agreementthe agreement subject to the implementation requirements of the next section. II IMPLEMENTATION In order to implement the SBC ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION AgreementAMERITECH ILLINOIS-RHYTHMS agreement, the Commission should require SBC AMERITECH ILLINOIS to, within five (5) days from the date the Agreement agreement is approved, modify its tariffs to reference the negotiated Agreement agreement for each service affectedservice. Such a requirement is consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and allows interested parties access to the Agreementagreement. The following sections section of SBC ILLINOIS' the tariffs maintained by AMERITECH ILLINOIS should reference the SBC ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION AgreementAMERITECH ILLINOIS-RHYTHMS agreement: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 16 21 Section 1819.15). AlsoFurthermore, in order to assure that the implementation of the Agreement is in the public interest, SBC AMERITECH ILLINOIS should implement the Agreement agreement by filing a verified statement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five (5) days of approval by the Commission, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified petition; the Chief Clerk should place the Agreement on the Commission’s web site under Interconnection Agreements. Such a requirement is also consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets.

Public Interest. The second issue that needs to must be addressed by the Commission in approving or rejecting a negotiated agreement under Section 252(e)(2)(A) is whether it is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I recommend that the Commission examine the agreement on the basis of economic efficiency, equity, past Commission orders, and state and federal law to determine if the agreement is consistent with the public interest. Nothing In previous dockets, Staff took the position that negotiated agreements should be considered economically efficient if the services are priced at or above their Long Run Service Incremental Costs (“LRSICs”). Requiring that a service be priced at or above its LRSIC ensures that the service is not being subsidized and complies with the Commission’s pricing policy. All of the services in this Agreement agreement are priced at or above their respective LRSICs. Therefore, this agreement should not be considered economically inefficient. I have no reason to conclude that this agreement is contrary to the public interest and nothing in this agreement leads me to the conclusion that the Agreement agreement is inequitable, inconsistent with past Commission Orders, or in violation of state or federal law. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission approve this Agreementthe agreement subject to the implementation requirements of the next section. II IMPLEMENTATION In order to implement the SBC ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION AgreementGALLATIN RIVER-NCPR agreement, the Commission should require SBC ILLINOIS GALLATIN RIVER to, within five (5) days from the date the Agreement agreement is approved, modify its tariffs to reference the negotiated Agreement agreement for each service affectedservice. Such a requirement is consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and allows interested parties access to the Agreementagreement. The following sections section of SBC ILLINOIS' GALLATIN RIVER’s tariffs should reference the SBC ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION AgreementGALLATIN RIVER-NCPR agreement: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 2 Section 16 Section 18). AlsoIn addition, in order to assure that the implementation of the Agreement is in public interest, SBC ILLINOIS GALLATIN RIVER should implement the Agreement by filing a verified statement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five (55 ) days of approval by the Commission, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified petition; the Chief Clerk should place the Agreement on the Commission’s web site under Interconnection Agreements.

Public Interest. The second issue that needs to must be addressed by the Commission in approving or rejecting a negotiated agreement under Section 252(e)(2)(A) is whether it is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I recommend that the Commission examine the agreement on the basis of economic efficiency, equity, past Commission orders, and state and federal law to determine if the agreement is consistent with the public interest. Nothing Several provisions contained in this interconnection agreement address issues that are currently before the Commission. Rates and terms for DSL and Line sharing are being disputed in Docket 00-0393; Non-recurring charges are being investigated in 98-0396; Collocation terms and rates are being investigated in docket 99-0615; Dark Fiber provisioning in being investigated in Docket 00-0538/00-0539; and Shared Transport and the UNE-Platform are being investigated in Docket 00-0700. Because these investigations are ongoing, it is unclear if these terms and conditions will comply with the Commission’s final orders on these subjects. However, Section 21 of this Interconnection Agreement provides that, in the event of any change in the regulatory environment that affects this agreement, the parties will expend diligent efforts to adjust or amend this agreement to comply with any prevailing law, judgment, or regulatory orders. In previous dockets, Staff took the position that negotiated agreements should be considered economically efficient if the services are priced at or above their Long Run Service Incremental Costs (“LRSICs”). Requiring that a service be priced at or above its LRSIC ensures that the service is not being subsidized and complies with the Commission’s pricing policy. All of the services in this agreement are priced at or above their respective LRSICs. Therefore, this agreement should not be considered economically inefficient. I have no reason to conclude that this agreement is contrary to the public interest and nothing in this agreement leads me to the conclusion that the Agreement agreement is inequitable, inconsistent with past Commission Orders, or in violation of state or federal law. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission approve this Agreementthe agreement subject to the implementation requirements of the next section. II IMPLEMENTATION In order to implement the SBC ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION AgreementAMERITECH ILLINOIS-TELICOR agreement, the Commission should require SBC AMERITECH ILLINOIS to, within five (5) days from the date the Agreement agreement is approved, modify its tariffs to reference the negotiated Agreement agreement for each service affectedservice. Such a requirement is consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and allows interested parties access to the Agreementagreement. The following sections section of SBC AMERITECH ILLINOIS' ’ tariffs should reference the SBC ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION AgreementAMERITECH ILLINOIS-TELICOR agreement: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 16 21 Section 1819.15). AlsoFurthermore, in order to assure that the implementation of the Agreement is in the public interest, SBC AMERITECH ILLINOIS should implement the Agreement agreement by filing a verified statement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five (5) days of approval by the Commission, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified petition; the Chief Clerk should place the Agreement on the Commission’s web site under Interconnection Agreements. Such a requirement is also consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets.

Public Interest. The second issue that needs to must be addressed by the Commission in approving or rejecting a negotiated agreement under Section 252(e)(2)(A) is whether it is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I recommend that the Commission examine the agreement on the basis of economic efficiency, equity, past Commission orders, and state and federal law to determine if the agreement is consistent with the public interest. Nothing In previous dockets, Staff took the position that negotiated agreements should be considered economically efficient if the services are priced at or above their Long Run Service Incremental Costs (“LRSICs”). Requiring that a service be priced at or above its LRSIC ensures that the service is not being subsidized and complies with the Commission’s pricing policy. All of the services in this Agreement agreement are priced at or above their respective LRSICs. Therefore, this agreement should not be considered economically inefficient. I have no reason to conclude that this agreement is contrary to the public interest and nothing in this agreement leads me to the conclusion that the Agreement agreement is inequitable, inconsistent with past Commission Orders, or in violation of state or federal law. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission approve this Agreementthe agreement subject to the implementation requirements of the next section. II IMPLEMENTATION In order to implement the SBC AMERITECH ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION Agreement-PREMIERE agreement, the Commission should require SBC AMERITECH ILLINOIS to, within five (5) days from the date the Agreement agreement is approved, modify its tariffs to reference the negotiated Agreement agreement for each service affectedservice. Such a requirement is consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and allows interested parties access to the Agreementagreement. The following sections section of SBC AMERITECH ILLINOIS' ’ tariffs should reference the SBC ILLINOIS -IBFA ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FARM BUREAU CONNECTION AgreementAMERITECH ILLINOIS-PREMIERE agreement: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 16 21 Section 1819.15). AlsoFurthermore, in order to assure that the implementation of the Agreement is in the public interest, SBC AMERITECH ILLINOIS should implement the Agreement agreement by filing a verified statement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five (5) days of approval by the Commission, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified petition; the Chief Clerk should place the Agreement on the Commission’s web site under Interconnection Agreements. Such a requirement is also consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets.