6. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code Section 311(g) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on the draft decision on April 20, 2000, and reply comments were filed on April 25, 2000. We have taken parties comments into account, as appropriate, in finalizing this order.

Findings of Fact

1. D.98-10-057 as modified by D.99-07-047, requires Pacific to make certain reciprocal compensation payments pursuant to interconnection agreements it has negotiated.

2. The obligations of Pacific and GTEC to pay reciprocal compensation to CLCs for ISP-bound traffic remains a disputed issue since Pacific and GTEC have filed complaints regarding the relevant Commission decisions in U.S. District Court.

3. Pacific has six interconnection agreements that Pacific executed prior to D.98-10-057 wherein CLECs are claiming reciprocal compensation payments for ISP traffic.

4. Over three-fourths of the "local" traffic passed to Pacific by CLECs for the month of July 1999 was ISP-bound traffic.

5. The ultimate quantification of the amounts of money involved in the ISP dispute will become more complex and litigious absent a Commission order requiring carriers to identify and maintain records of all ISP-bound traffic and the reciprocal compensation revenues received pursuant to the applicable Interconnection Agreements.

Conclusions of Law

1. The motion of Pacific should be granted, in part, to require CLECs to establish a memorandum account for reciprocal compensation received for ISP traffic as directed in the order below.

2. The condition proposed by the Coalition that Pacific pay reciprocal compensation claimed to be due carriers under prior contracts should not be adopted since it would inappropriately link this proceeding with disputes that arose in prior contracts outside of the scope of this proceeding.

3. Pacific and GTEC each should book contingent amounts due to carriers for ISP traffic Pacific and GTEC terminate to ISPs as a condition of Pacific's motion being granted.

4. The additional conditions proposed by Pacific involving the posting of security and making the payments subject to refund should be rejected since they are issues more properly addressed by the reviewing court.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The motion of Pacific Bell (Pacific) is granted, in part, for an order requiring competitive local carriers (CLECs) to establish and maintain a memorandum account for all disputed payments made by Pacific pursuant to the arbitrated interconnection agreements.

2. The order requiring the CLECs to maintain memorandum accounts of ISP payments shall also apply to the CLECs' interconnection agreements with GTE California Incorporated (GTEC).

3. Pacific and GTEC shall, likewise track traffic they terminate to ISPs and establish and maintain a memorandum account for the associated reciprocal compensation payments they receive from CLECs pursuant to the applicable Interconnection Agreements.

4. To the extent that Pac-West and MFS/Worldcom are already subject to separate orders in other proceedings requiring memorandum accounting for ISP payments by Pacific, they shall be exempted from the requirements of this generic order that would be duplicative.

5. Pacific's request for a Commission order making disputed ISP payments subject to refund is denied. Pacific's request for a Commission order requiring the posting of security by CLCs with a credit rating below BBB is also denied.

This order is effective today.

Dated May 4, 2000, at San Francisco, California.

Commissioners

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page