Application of MoKan Dial, Inc. for Approval )
of a Traffic Termination Agreement under ) Case
No. TK-2005-0231
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 )
This order approves the Interconnection Agreement executed by the parties and filed by MoKan Dial, Inc.[1]
On January 12, 2005, MoKan Dial filed an application
with the Commission for approval of an Interconnection Agreement with ALLTEL
Communications, Inc. The Agreement was
filed pursuant to Section 252(e)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[2] The agreement provides for compensation for
the termination of traffic originated by each party that terminates to the
other party through the facilities of another local exchange carrier. MoKan Dial has a certificate of service
authority to provide basic local exchange telecommunications services in
Although ALLTEL is a party to the Agreement, it did not join in the application. On January 13, the Commission issued an order making ALLTEL a party in this case and directing any party wishing to request a hearing to do so no later than February 2. No requests for hearing were filed.
The Staff of the Commission filed a memorandum and recommendation on February 7, recommending that the Agreement be approved.
Under Section 252(e) of the Act, any interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation must be submitted to the Commission for approval. The Commission may reject an agreement if it finds that the agreement is discriminatory or that it is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.
The Staff memorandum recommends that the Agreement be approved and notes that the Agreement meets the limited requirements of the Act in that it is not discriminatory toward nonparties and is not against the public interest. Staff recommends that the Commission direct the parties to submit any further modifications or amendments to the Commission for approval.
The Missouri Public Service Commission, having considered all of the competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, makes the following findings of fact.
The Commission has considered the application, the
supporting documentation, and Staff's recommendation. Based upon that review, the Commission
concludes that the Agreement meets the requirements of the Act in that it does
not discriminate against a nonparty carrier and implementation of the Agreement
is not inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. The Commission finds that approval of the
Agreement should be conditioned upon the parties submitting any modifications
or amendments to the Commission for approval pursuant to the procedure set out
below.
The Commission has a duty to review all resale and interconnection agreements, whether arrived at through negotiation or arbitration, as mandated by the Act.[3] In order for the Commission's role of review and approval to be effective, the Commission must also review and approve or recognize modifications to these agreements. The Commission has a further duty to make a copy of every resale and interconnection agreement available for public inspection.[4] This duty is in keeping with the Commission's practice under its own rules of requiring telecommunications companies to keep their rate schedules on file with the Commission.[5]
The parties to each resale or interconnection agreement must maintain a complete and current copy of the agreement, together with all modifications, in the Commission's offices. Any proposed modification must be submitted for Commission approval or recognition, whether the modification arises through negotiation, arbitration, or by means of alternative dispute resolution procedures.
Modifications to an agreement must be submitted to
the Staff for review. When approved or
recognized, the modified pages will be substituted in the agreement, which
should contain the number of the page being replaced in the lower right‑hand
corner. Staff will date‑stamp the
pages when they are inserted into the agreement. The official record of the original agreement
and all the modifications made will be maintained in the Commission's
The Commission does not intend to conduct a full proceeding each time the parties agree to a modification. Where a proposed modification is identical to a provision that has been approved by the Commission in another agreement, the Commission will take notice of the modification once Staff has verified that the provision is an approved provision and has prepared a recommendation. Where a proposed modification is not contained in another approved agreement, Staff will review the modification and its effects and prepare a recommendation advising the Commission whether the modification should be approved. The Commission may approve the modification based on the Staff recommendation. If the Commission chooses not to approve the modification, the Commission will establish a case, give notice to interested parties and permit responses. The Commission may conduct a hearing if it is deemed necessary.
The Missouri Public Service Commission has arrived at the following conclusions of law.
The Commission, under the provisions of Section 252(e)(1) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,[6] is required to review negotiated interconnection agreements. It may only reject a negotiated agreement upon a finding that its implementation would be discriminatory to a nonparty or inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.[7] Based upon its review of the Agreement between MoKan Dial and ALLTEL and its findings of fact, the Commission concludes that the Agreement is neither discriminatory nor inconsistent with the public interest and should be approved.
The Commission notes that prior to providing
telecommunications services in
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. That the Interconnection Agreement between MoKan Dial, Inc., and ALLTEL Communications, Inc., filed on January 12, 2005, is approved.
2. That any changes or modifications to this Agreement shall be filed with the Commission pursuant to the procedure outlined in this order.
3. That this order shall become effective on February 27, 2005.
4. That this case may be closed on February 28, 2005.
( S E A L )
Ronald D. Pridgin, Regulatory Law
Judge, by delegation of authority pursuant
to Section 386.240, RSMo 2000.
Dated
at
on this 17th day of February, 2005.
[1] Although MoKan Dial refers to the agreement as a “traffic termination agreement,” the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mentions only interconnection agreements.
[2] See 47 U.S.C. § 251, et seq.
[3] 47 U.S.C. § 252.
[4] 47 U.S.C. § 252(h).
[5] 4 CSR 240‑3.545.
[6] 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1).
[7] 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(2)(A).