EXHIBIT 10.51 INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT
Published on July 8, 1997
STATE OF ALASKA
THE ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Sam Cotten, Chairman
Don Schroer
Alyce A. Hanley
Dwight D. Ornquist
Tim Cook
In the Matter of the Petition by GCI )
COMMUNICATION CORP. for Arbitration ) U-96-89
under Section 252 of the Telecom- )
munications Act of 1996 with the ) ORDER NO. 9
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE d/b/a )
ANCHORAGE TELEPHONE UTILITY a/k/a )
ATU TELECOMMUNICATIONS for the )
Purpose of Instituting Local Exchange )
COMPETITION )
- ----------------------------------------
ORDER APPROVING ARBITRATED INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT AS RESOLVED AND MODIFIED BY ORDER U-96-89(8)
BY THE COMMISSION:
INTRODUCTION
By Order U-96-89(i) , dated September 17, 1996, the Commission established
arbitration procedures to consider the petition for arbitration filed by GCI
COMMUNICATION CORP. (GCICC) under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 (The Act).(1) In its petition, GCICC requested arbitration with the
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE d/b/a ANCHORAGE TELEPHONE UTILITY a/k/a ATU
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (ATU) for the purpose of instituting local exchange
competition. In that Order the Commission also determined that the primary
arbitrator's recommended decision would be presented to the Commission by
December 1,
______________
(1) 47 U.S.C. 151 ET SEQ. as amended by The Act.
1996. The Commission determined that it could accept, reject, or modify the
recommended decision as part of the arbitration process.
On December 16, 1996, the Commission issued Order U-96-89(8) (2) resolving
all open issues subject to arbitration.(3) On January 6, 1997, GCICC, ATU, and
AT&T Alascom filed comments on Order U-96-89(8).
DISCUSSION
Before this Commission is the issue of whether the arbitrated
interconnection agreement as decided in Order U-96-9(8) should be approved or
rejected. The limited grounds for rejection are clearly set out in Section
252(e) of The Act:
The State commission may only reject . . . an agreement (or any
portion thereof) adopted by arbitration . . . if it finds that the
agreement does not meet the requirements of section 251, including the
regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to section 251, or
the standards set forth in subsection (d) of this section.
47 U.S.C. 252(e)(2)(B).
The Commission observes that all issues addressed in the arbitrated
interconnection agreement, SUPRA, as resolved and accepted by Order U-96-89(8)
were open issues subject to arbitration by the Commission pursuant to the
standards and requirements of Sections 251 and 252
__________________
(2) The Commission notes that in Order U-96-89(8) at page 23, the reference
to the date that GCICC had filed its Intrastate Access Proposal was in error.
The Order stated that it was filed on December 21, 1996, but the actual filing
date was December 11, 1996.
(3) The Commission notes that an "Interconnection Agreement" was filed
December 3, 1996, by GCICC as an appendix to its Discussion of Identified
Issues. On December 12, 1996, GCICC filed an ERRATA AS TO INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT that made corrections to Exhibits A and N of the Interconnection
Agreement. GCICC represented that the corrected pages had been discussed with,
and reviewed by, ATU.
-2-
of The Act. The Commission also observes that it has received no requests for
reconsideration of Order U-96-89(8).
In light of the comments filed January 6, 1997, as well as review of The
Act and the conclusions set out in Order U-96-89(8), the Commission finds no
reason to reconsider that decision. Therefore, the arbitrated interconnection
agreement in this proceeding, as modified and accepted by Order U-96-89(8), is
approved.(4)
The Commission finds that the arbitrated interconnection agreement, as
modified and accepted by Order U-96-89(8), is in compliance with Section 252(e)
of The Act, subject to the understanding that all prices in the arbitrated
interconnection agreement are temporary in nature and will require a full study
based upon a cost methodology to be determined by this Commission at a later
date.
_________________
(4) The parties were telephonically notified of this decision on
January 14, 1997.
-3-
ORDER
THE COMMISSION FURTHER ORDERS, That, the arbitrated interconnection
agreement in this proceeding, modified and accepted by Order U-96-89(8), is
approved.(5)
DATED AND EFFECTIVE at Anchorage, Alaska, this 14th day of January, 1997.
BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION
________________
(5) The Commission notes that GCICC's "Interconnection Agreement"
referenced above was not signed by the parties, nor does it contain the
amendments referenced by GCICC's ERRATA or the modifications articulated by the
Commission in Order U-96-89(8). The parties are required to submit a signed
interconnection agreement that reflects the ERRATA and the Commission's
decisions so that the interconnection agreement decided in this proceeding is
contained in a single document.
-4-