STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the very same Amendment, between SBC and other carriers, in dockets 03-0451, 03-0453 and several other dockets, based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under this subsection if it finds that: (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. In the Verified Statements in 03-0451 and 03-0453, Staff has concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, the Amendment to the Agreement should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Also in those dockets, Staff has concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. Staff has represented that the Amendment in this docket is uniform in nature, and that the Amendment here is identical in substance to the previously mentioned dockets. Staff also represent that it cannot conceive of a situation in which its recommendation for approval would change. There are no contested issue in this docket. Moreover, no party has contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. In the Verified Statements in 03-0451 and 03-0453, Staff recommended that the Commission require SBC to file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Agreement is approved, with the Office of the Chief Clerk, a verified statement that the approved Amendment to the Agreement is the same as the Amendment filed in this Docket with the Verified Petition. Staff also recommended that the Chief Clerk place the Amendment on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." These recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted in this proceeding.
STAFF’S POSITION. Staff reviewed the Agreement based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection (a) if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Since this Agreement is based solely on the needs and interest of these parties, 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. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends that the Commission approve this agreement. In addition, Staff recommends that the Commission require SBC Illinois to file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Agreement is approved, with the Office of the Chief Clerk, a verified statement that the approved agreement is the same as the one as the Agreement filed in this docket with the Verified Petition. Staff also recommends that the Chief Clerk place the agreement on the Commission's web site under Interconnection Agreements. Staff's recommendations are reasonable and should be adopted.
STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Amendment, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx averred that it meets the standards set forth in the Act and that it is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, it should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff also recommended that the Commission require Verizon to modify its tariffs to reference the Amendment for each service affected. Also, the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted. Staff further notes, for the sake of accuracy, that the correct name of Madison River’s d/b/a is not on the Petition or on the Amendment. At the hearing, Staff requested that the Administrative Law Judge include in this Order the fact that the correct d/b/a for Madison River Communications LLC is Gallatin River Integrated Communications Solutions. This request is reasonable and it was granted.
STAFF’S POSITION. Staff contends that the 11-State Plan is against the public interest because it does not provide for Tier 2 payments to be made to the State. Staff’s concern is not alleviated by Ameritech’s statement that even for CLECs under the 11-State Plan, Ameritech would still continue to make Tier 2 payments to the state because the Remedy Plan Order requires Ameritech to make payments for all CLECs doing business in Illinois. Under that premise, Staff claims that Petitioners are required to operate under the various provisions of the Illinois Remedy Plan unless they specifically agree to the provision(s) of another remedy plan. Staff also maintains that the 11-State Plan is ambiguous with regard to its relationship with state law. Ameritech’s description of how the 11-State Plan would operate is of little value, Staff suggests, since it does not find applicable in this situation the well settled principle that a court can cure defective draftsmanship in an action for damages by supplying missing words through extrinsic evidence. Staff claims that such an action would be a material change in the contract and would allow the Agreement to effectively execute an “end run” around what the Commission intended to be put in place in Illinois. Moreover, Staff contends that Ameritech’s explanation of the 11-State Plan’s operation is in conflict with Section 2.1 of the 11-State Plan. Section 2.1, Staff argues, prohibits Ameritech from interpreting the Agreement in exactly the manner that Ameritech does so. Section 2.1 of the 11-State Plan, according to Staff, states that the payments under this plan “shall be the sole and exclusive remedy of CLEC” and shall be in lieu of any other damages CLEC might otherwise seek. Staff finds this language contradictory to what the Commission has approved in the Illinois Remedy Plan since Staff believes that it would preclude any Tier 2 payments.
STAFF’S POSITION. Staff said in its Verified Statement that it was unable to offer an opinion regarding the rates, terms, and conditions of the LWC Agreement because it had not been submitted to the Commission for approval. Staff added that they did not know the extent to which, if at all, the LWC Agreement and the Amendment were interrelated, and therefore could not form an opinion as to whether the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest under Section 252(e)(2). Staff noted that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has encouraged commercial negotiations of the type manifested by the LWC Agreement in this docket. It explained that the FCC considers it desirable to end eight years of litigation regarding the implementation of Sections 251 and 252; the FCC also considers it important to return certainty to the wholesale telecommunications market; it recognizes that disruptions in the wholesale market would similarly disrupt the retail market; and the 60 days authorized by the USTA II1 decision for the FCC to develop new rules is inadequate. Staff concluded that, since the requisite findings necessary for approval of the Amendment cannot be based upon the filing, the proper course would be for the Commission to decline to act and allow the Amendment to go into effect 90 days after filing, pursuant to Section 252(e)(4). It explained that the Commission would not be required to make findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the LWC Agreement, nor would it have to offer an opinion whether the LWC Agreement complies with applicable federal or state law. Moreover, the Commission would be able to take such investigative or enforcement measures as it determines are warranted, as the law requires, or as public interest demands, in the event that Joint Petitioners’ failure to seek approval of the LWC Agreement violates state or federal law.
STAFF’S POSITION. Staff reviewed the Agreement based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection (a) if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Agreement be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxx. Xx. Xxx stated that the Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Act and is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that the Agreement does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the Agreement and that the implementation of the Agreement would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. No party contended that this Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. In addition, Staff recommends that the Commission require Ameritech to file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Agreement is approved, with the Office of the Chief Clerk, a verified statement that the approved agreement is the same as the one as the Agreement filed in this docket with the Verified Petition. Staff also recommends that the Chief Clerk place the agreement on the Commission's web site under Interconnection Agreements. Staff's recommendations are reasonable and should be adopted.
STAFF’S POSITION. Staff asserts that a petitioner in an administrative proceeding has the burden of proof, and relief will be denied if he fails to sustain that burden. (Hamwi x. Xxxxxx, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1088, 1092-93; 702 N.E.2d 593; 234 Ill. Dec. 253 (1st Dist. 1998)) Indeed, Staff continues, the Illinois Supreme Court has gone so far as to state, “courts have uniformly imposed on administrative agencies the customary common-law rule that the moving party has the burden of proof.” (Xxxxx x. Xxxx. of Commerce and Community Affairs, 84 Ill. 2d 42, 53; 416 N.E.2d 1082 (1981)) Staff maintains that this is entirely consistent with Commission practice. In Commission proceedings, Xxxxx argues that parties seeking relief must demonstrate that they are entitled to the relief sought. (See Chicago and Eastern Illinois Ry. Co. v.
STAFF’S POSITION. Staff explains that a remedy plan is intended to provide incentives to incumbent carriers like Ameritech to provide a sufficient level of service to the public. In a remedy plan, that level of service is ensured through the potential liability at risk (i.e. potential payments it would make under a remedy plan for providing service in breach of a performance measure standard). Staff states that the public interest is protected by the potential liability inherent in a remedy plan,6 not the actual performance Ameritech provides under the current remedy plans. Just because Ameritech may be meeting more than 90% of its performance measure standards does not, according to Staff, mean that the remedy plans are providing sufficient incentive. Staff notes that Ameritech is currently making changes to its OSS to improve its wholesale service performance so as to gain long distance approval in all five Ameritech states. This approval requires Ameritech to demonstrate to the state commission that its wholesale service is adequate, which Staff states is directly linked to the improvements shown in Table 1 in Xx. Xxx’x testimony. Staff, however, finds Table 1 misleading because it is the continued future performance that a remedy plan is intended to ensure, and not the current performance that is reflected in the table. Future performance, Staff points out, is motivated by potential liability. Common sense dictates, Staff opines, that if the potential liability increases, the motivation increases for Ameritech to make changes to continue to comply with the performance measures in the future. If a remedy plan places at risk a potential liability that is less than what the Commission had ordered in the Illinois Remedy Plan, then Staff argues that the pressure to provide sufficient wholesale service in the future is less 5 Ameritech’s responses to Staff’s data requests have been placed in the record through Staff’s Motion to Compel. 6 Application by Bell Atlantic New York for Authorization Under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in the State of New York, CC Docket 99-295, FCC 99-404, para. 433 (rel. December 22, 1999) than what the Commission ordered. Therefore, Staff maintains that a reduction in potential liability is against the public interest, since the public has an interest in the potential liability at risk approved by the Commission to ensure sufficient future wholesale service. Staff maintains that the Remedy Plan Order...
STAFF’S POSITION. Staff reviewed the agreement based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection (a) if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against a Telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Agreement be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx stated that the Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Act and is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that the Agreement does not discriminate against a Telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the Agreement and that the implementation of the Agreement would not be inconsistent with public interest, convenience or necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. No party contended that this Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff recommends that the Commission require Ameritech to, within five days of the date upon which the Agreement is approved, modify its tariffs to reference the Negotiated Agreement. Staff states that this requirement is consistent with the Commission's orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and it allows interested parties access to the Agreement. Staff recommends that such reference be included in the following section of Ameritech's tariffs: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (I.C.C. No. 21, Section 19.15). In addition, Staff recommends that the Commission require Ameritech to file a copy of the approved Agreement within five (5) days from the date upon which the Agreement is approved, with the Office of the Chief Clerk, in a separate binder. Staff's recommendations regarding implementation of the Agreement are reasonable and should be adopted.
STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Supplemental Petition and followed up with the IC in regard to the length of the extension requested and obtaining accurate lead times for projects. IC agreed informally with Staff on a shorter twelve (12) month extension. Staff believes it is fair and reasonable to recommend that the Commission grant a time extension for twelve (12) months, to and including September 23, 2025, for IC to complete the work, or provide a more definite lead time of materials and/or crews becoming available for the project. The Township/County should be granted an identical time extension to complete the associated road work as the road construction and signal work need to be coordinated.
