BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION In the Matter of the Petition of ) Inland Telephone Company For ) Suspension and/or Modification of the ) DOCKET UT-980346 Requirements of Subsection 251(b)(3) ) of the Communications Act of 1934, as ) ORDER GRANTING PETITION Amended, Relating to Dialing Parity, ) and Suspension of Enforcement. ) ............................................................... ) BACKGROUND By amended petition filed December 2, 1998, Inland Telephone Company (“Inland”) seeks, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2), suspension and/or modification of the dialing parity requirements set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3). In passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Pub. L. No. 104 -104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). The Act is comprised of amendments to the Communications Act of 1934, which are codified in scattered sections of Title 47 of the United States Code., Congress imposed on all local exchange carriers the “duty to provide dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3). The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted rules implementing dialing parity. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.205 - 51.215. These rules, however, were vacated to the extent they apply to intraLATA telecommunications traffic. California v. Federal Comm. Comm’n, 124 F.3d 934, 944 (8th Cir. 1997). Inland is a rural telecommunications company under 47 U.S.C. § 153(37) and is a local exchange carrier with fewer than 2 percent of the nation’s subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide. As such, Inland may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of the requirements of sections 251(b) and (c) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2). None of Inland’s exchanges currently is converted to interLATA equal access. Inland has not received a bona fide request for equal access from a qualified interexchange carrier. DISCUSSION In its amended petition, Inland states that it would be unduly economically burdensome for Inland to be required to convert to interLATA equal access by February 8, 1999, or to implement interstate intraLATA equal access dialing parity before implementing interLATA (interstate and intrastate) equal access. Inland further states that requiring it to convert to interLATA equal access in the absence of a bona fide request potentially would jeopardize favorable cost recovery. In addition, under the FCC’s prior policies, a minimum of 180 days was required for interLATA equal access conversion procedures, and Inland believes that the Act may not supersede these requirements. Inland believes that it could implement interLATA equal access and intraLATA equal access dialing parity on or before May 31, 1999. Given this timeline, Inland believes it would need until January 15, 1999 to file for approval by the Commission an appropriate plan for providing interstate intraLATA dialing parity. The timelines for filing a plan and implementing interLATA equal access and intraLATA equal access dialing parity set forth in Inland’s amended petition would result in implementation of dialing parity much sooner than the timeline set forth in Inland’s original petition filed on August 12, 1998. In the original petition, Inland had requested suspension or modification of the dialing parity requirements until Inland received a bona fide request for interLATA equal access from an qualified interexchange carrier. Following Inland’s receipt of the bona fide request, Inland would file a plan for approval by the Commission for interstate intraLATA toll dialing parity within 90 days. Inland then would have 270 days following the Commission’s approval of the plan in which to implement interLATA and interstate intraLATA dialing parity. Under Inland’s original petition, it was possible that Inland never would be required to implement dialing parity. The Commission has received comments from customers requesting that Inland implement dialing parity. Staff notes that, with the exception of Inland, all telecommunications companies have either agreed to provide, or have been ordered to provide, intraLATA dialing parity by February 8, 1999. The Commission Staff is mindful that requiring Inland to provide dialing parity absent a bona fide request from a qualified interexchange carrier could be economically burdensome to Inland. However, Staff believes that it is in the public interest for all local exchange companies to provide dialing parity. While Staff does not believe that the timelines set forth in the original petition were in the public interest, Staff believes the timelines set forth in the amended petition strike a reasonable balance between the concerns of the company and interest of its customers to have a choice of carriers. Staff also believes it would be more efficient for Inland to implement interLATA equal access and intraLATA equal access dialing parity at the same time. Staff believes this approach is consistent with the grounds for suspension or modification set forth in 47 C.F.R § 251(f)(2). In light of the foregoing considerations, Staff believes that granting Inland’s petition would be in the public interest. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Commission is an agency of the state of Washington vested by statute with the authority to regulate the rates, rules, regulations, practices, accounts, securities, and transfers of public service companies, including telecommunications companies. 2. Section 251(b)(3) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), imposes on all local exchange carriers the duty to provide dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service. 3. The FCC has adopted rules for interstate, intraLATA toll dialing parity requirements of all local exchange carriers. 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.209 - 51.215. 4. Inland Telephone Company is engaged in the business of furnishing telecommunications services, including, but not limited to, basic local exchange service within the state of Washington. 5. Inland Telephone Company is a rural telecommunications company as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 153(37). Inland is a local exchange carrier with fewer than 2 percent of the nation’s subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide. 6. Inland Telephone Company filed a petition seeking suspension and/or modification of the requirements of Section 251(b)(3) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.209 - 51.215, and suspension of enforcement of those requirements. 7. Under Section 251(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2), a local exchange carrier with less than two percent of the nations subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide may petition a state commission for suspension or modification of the requirements set forth in Section 251(b) or (c) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over Inland Telephone Company and the subject matter of this petition under RCW 80.01.040(3) and 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2). 2. The amended petition is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The amended petition reasonably balances the interests of the company with the interests of its customers. 3. The petition meets the requirements set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2). ORDER THE COMMISSION ORDERS That the petition by Inland Telephone Company for temporary suspension and/or modification of the requirements of 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3) and 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.209 - 51.215 and suspension of enforcement of those provisions, as set forth in the petition, should be granted. Inland Telephone shall submit a plan for approval by the Commission for providing interstate intraLATA dialing parity no later than January 15, 1999. Inland Telephone shall implement interLATA equal access and intraLATA equal access dialing parity on or before May 31, 1999. DATED at Olympia, Washington and effective this 9th day of December, 1998. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ANNE LEVINSON, Chair RICHARD HEMSTAD, Commissioner