KAJ/tcg 12/9/2002
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Bell Telephone Company for Arbitration of Advice Letter No. 57 Filed by Vycera Communications, Inc. f/k/as Genesis Communications International, Inc. Regarding Vycera's Request to Adopt the Interconnection Agreement between AT&T Communications of California, Inc. and Pacific Bell Telephone Company.
Application 02-09-018
(Filed September 18, 2002)
1. Background
On September 18, 2002, Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific) filed an application for arbitration with Vycera Communications, Inc. (Vycera) pursuant to the Commission's Rules relating to Section 252(i) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (Act). On August 30, 2002, Vycera filed Advice Letter No. 57 requesting to adopt the interconnection agreement between Pacific and AT&T Communications of California Inc. (AT&T Agreement).
Pacific filed for arbitration for two reasons. First, because at the time of the request Vycera had not obtained limited facilities-based certification as a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC), it could only legally exercise the resale portion of the AT&T Agreement. Second, Vycera did not agree with Pacific that a CLEC may not opt into provisions relating to reciprocal compensation (and legitimately related terms in an existing ICA) after the FCC's ISP Remand Order.1
On October 8, 2002, Vycera filed its Response to Pacific's application.
In the period between Pacific's Response and the filing of post-hearing briefs, one issue was settled. At the time that Vycera filed its Advice Letter asking to opt in to the AT&T agreement, Vycera had not yet obtained limited facilities-based certification as a CLEC. Pacific acknowledges that Vycera obtained limited facilities-based certification on October 3, 2002 so that issue is moot.
The only issue to be resolved is whether Vycera may opt into provisions relating to reciprocal compensation (and legitimately related terms) in an existing interconnection agreement after the FCC's ISP Remand Order.
An informal telephonic Initial Arbitration Meeting (IAM) was held on October 17, 2002. In the conference call, parties acknowledged that there were no disputed factual issues, so arbitration hearings would not be necessary. Parties agreed to a schedule for the remainder of the proceeding. Concurrent briefs were filed and served on October 25, 2002. The Draft Arbitrator's Report (DAR) was filed on November 12, 2002 disposing of the contested issue. Comments on the DAR were filed on November 22, 2002, by Pacific and Vycera. The comments have been taken into account as appropriate in finalizing the Arbitrator's Report, as set forth herein. This Final Arbitrator's Report (FAR) was filed and served on December 9, 2002.
1 See In the Matters of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [and] Inter-Carrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, CC Docket Nos. 96-98 and 99-68, Order on Remand and Report and Order, FCC No. 01-131 (rel. Apr. 27, 2001), which was remanded in WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, No. 01-1218 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
