During Tuesday’s continuation of the Nov. 19 special business meeting, Alepuyo ruled, “I anticipate having a written decision in about seven days.”
Alepuyo told the parties concerned, “I wanted to review not just what has been filed in this docket but also to get legal counsel review. I was hoping to have the legal counsel’s report or at least his advice so that I could make a decision this morning with regards to this issue.”
Alepuyo said the legal counsel requested more time to make the review.
Rather than wait for another meeting, Alepuyo said she would take the matter under advisement, pending the legal counsel’s review and then issue a written order that would be filed to the parties.
She informed the parties that she would issue the order via email.
The two parties, IT&E and GTA found this acceptable.
Alepuyo said she deferred on making a decision on account of the legal questions raised that she would like addressed before she could make a decision.
She said one of the parties raised issues that the commission should be cognizant of.
IT&E legal counsel Steven Carrara said they filed a request for a re-hearing. “We just made some arguments. We would like to present some arguments to the commission and become a party to the action.”
He said, “We just asked an opportunity to be heard.”
According to hearing examiner Harry M. Boertzel’s report, IT&E was asserting that GTA’s request for interconnection was not a bona fide request because GTA did not yet possess authority to provide intrastate service in the CNMI; that it needed a certificate of public convenience and necessity before its request could be considered “bona fide.”
Until GTA possess the certificate, IT&E also asserts it is not authorized and cannot provide telephone exchange or exchange access service in the CNMI.
IT&E also argued that allowing a would-be competitor entrant to trigger the 120-day clock in §251(f)(1) to determine whether to lift IT&E rural exemption before it is even authorized to provide service would be illogical and would undermine the very protections that §251(f) is intended to confer upon rural providers.
Anticipating significant resources to be spent on issues that may necessitate bringing over experts from off island, IT&E also sees irreparable harm to the company.
GTA’s request should not be considered bona fide until it possesses a non-contingent certificate to provide service, the report stated IT&E’s argument.
Boertzel, in his report, said the CPUC’s issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on Oct. 27 to GTA and the latter’s subsequent renewal of request for interconnection services on Nov. 16 rendered IT&E’s arguments moot.
Based on CPUC’s Oct. 27 order, GTA’s certification is consistent with the public interest and it possesses financial, technical, and managerial resources and abilities to provide the services for which it seeks certification.
GTA made an initial request for interconnection on Aug. 19 to IT&E and served on the commission on Aug. 25, 2011. On Nov. 16, GTA served IT&E and Boertzel with a renewed request for interconnection services.
Under §251(f)(1) of the Telecom Act of 1996, upon a determination that a request is bona fide, it will trigger a new 120-day clock that the inquiry must be conducted.
This, according to Boertzel’s report, rendered IT&E’s concerns moot on the shortened timeline would violate its right to due process in the inquiry.
The CPUC also made it known to the parties concerned that there is a possibility for the 120-day clock to be suspended on account of the expiry of the CPUC’s authority to act under PL 17-34:3 with no additional commissioners appointed or confirmed.
