ALJ/HSY/tcg Date of Issuance 7/30/2010
Decision 10-07-036 July 29, 2010
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Request for Arbitration of Verizon California Inc. Pursuant to Section 252(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to Affirm Verizon's Denial of Blue Rooster Telecom, Inc.'s Request to Adopt the Interconnection Agreement between Blue Casa Communications, Inc. and Verizon California Inc. Because a Reasonable Period of Time Has Elapsed. |
Application 10-04-029 (Filed April 23, 2010) |
DECISION AFFIRMING FINAL ARBITRATOR'S REPORT
We affirm the Final Arbitrator's Report determining that Blue Rooster Telecom, Inc. is not entitled to adopt the existing interconnection agreement between Blue Casa Communications, Inc. and Verizon California Inc., or to commence operations under that agreement pending resolution of the parties' interconnection dispute. This proceeding is closed.
I. Background
Blue Rooster Telecom, Inc. (Blue Rooster) is a newly-certified competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC). On March 30, 2010, Blue Rooster submitted an advice letter seeking to adopt the existing interconnection agreement between Blue Casa Communications, Inc. (Blue Casa) and Verizon California Inc. (Verizon). Verizon denied Blue Rooster's request on the basis that the Blue Casa agreement is almost seven years old (dated August 15, 2004), the Blue Casa agreement itself is an adoption of an earlier agreement between Pac-West Telecomm Inc. (Pac-West) and Verizon (dated May 29, 2003) that has since been amended, the original term of the agreement has expired and the agreement is terminable upon 90 days' written notice so CLECs currently operating under it do so under this "evergreen" term, the agreement does not reflect existing law including two Federal Communications Commission (FCC) orders (dated 2004 and 2008) clarifying how carriers should be compensated for internet service provider traffic, and it does not reflect the seven years of business developments that are reflected in Verizon's more recent interconnection agreements.
Blue Rooster maintains that the Blue Casa agreement should be available to it because other CLECs are currently operating under it, so that Blue Rooster would be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage if it is not allowed to adopt it. Blue Rooster asserts that Verizon has not met the requirements of Resolution ALJ-181 because it has not specified the provisions in the Blue Casa agreement to which it objects. Blue Rooster asserts that, if this matter nevertheless proceeds to arbitration, the Commission should order Verizon to honor the adoption of the terms of the Blue Casa agreement to which it does not object, and implement the terms of the Blue Casa agreement to which it does object subject to retroactive true-up, pursuant to Rule 7.3.2 of Resolution ALJ-181.
At the initial arbitration meeting conducted on May 28, 2010, the arbitrator determined that this dispute does not raise any disputed issues of material fact that require hearing, and set the time for filing concurrent briefs on the legal issues of (1) whether Blue Rooster is entitled to adopt the previously-approved interconnection agreement between Verizon and Blue Casa, and, if not, (2) whether Blue Rooster is entitled to commence operations pursuant to an order requiring Verizon to honor all of the provisions of that Verizon/Blue Casa interconnection agreement to which Verizon does not have an actual, good faith objection, pursuant to Rule 7.3.2 of Resolution ALJ-181. The parties filed concurrent opening briefs on June 9 and concurrent reply briefs on June 16, 2010, when the arbitration proceeding was submitted.
The Draft Arbitrator's Report was filed on June 18, 2010. Blue Rooster and Verizon filed comments on June 28, 2010. The Final Arbitrator's Report was filed on July 12, 2010.
