DATE:	February 17, 2005
TO:	Director, Division of the Commission Clerk & Administrative Services (Bayó)
FROM:	Division of Competitive Markets & Enforcement (Watts, McCoy) Office of the General Counsel (Rockette-Gray)
RE:	Docket No. 050111-TP – Joint petition of MCG Capital Corporation, IDS Telcom Corp. and IDS Telcom LLC for approval for name change and transfer of CLEC Certificate No. 5228 from IDS Telcom LLC to IDS Telcom Corp.; for waiver of Rule 25-4.118, F.A.C., Local, Local Toll, or Toll Provider Selection in connection with the sale of customer-based and other assets from IDS Telcom LLC to IDS Telcom Corp.; and for acknowledgment of registration of IDS Telcom Corp. as intrastate interexchange telecommunications company effective February 8, 2005.
AGENDA:	03/01/05 – Regular Agenda – Proposed Agency Action – Interested Persons May Participate
CRITICAL DATES:		None
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:		None
FILE NAME AND LOCATION:		S:\PSC\CMP\WP\050111.RCM.DOC

 

Case Background

On February 8, 2005, the Commission received a petition from MCG Capital Corporation, IDS Telcom Corp. and IDS Telcom LLC requesting approval for a name change and transfer of competitive local exchange telecommunications company (CLEC) Certificate No. 5228 of IDS Telcom LLC (Old IDS) to IDS Telcom Corp. (New IDS); and for New IDS to register with the Commission as an interexchange telecommunications company (IXC).  In addition, the petition requested waivers of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, due to the transfer of assets and customers (local and long distance) of Old IDS to New IDS.

The Commission is vested with jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Sections 364.02, 364.336, 364.337, 364.345 and 364.603, Florida Statutes.

Discussion of Issues

 

Issue 1:  Should the Commission approve the name change and transfer of Certificate No. 5228 from IDS Telcom LLC to IDS Telcom Corp.?

Recommendation:   Yes.  (McCoy)

Staff Analysis:  

Pursuant to Rule 364.345 (2), Florida Statutes, a telecommunications company may not sell, assign, or transfer its certificate or any portion thereof without (a) a determination by the commission that the proposed sale, assignment, or transfer is in the public interest; and (b) the approval of the Commission.

 

After a review of the petition, the proposed transaction would not adversely affect the services currently provided by Old IDS since New IDS would continue to provide services without interruption. Further, New IDS will continue to provide service with the same rates, terms, and conditions of service as the services those customers currently receive.

 

Staff believes that in this instance it is in the public interest to grant the name change and transfer of Certificate No. 5228 from IDS Telcom LLC to IDS Telcom Corp.

Issue 2:  

Should the Commission approve the waiver of the carrier selection requirements of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, in the transfer of long distance customers from IDS Telcom LLC to IDS Telcom Corp.?

Recommendation:  

Yes.  (McCoy, Watts)

Staff Analysis:  

Pursuant to Rule 25-4.118(1), Florida Administrative Code, a customer’s carrier cannot be changed without the customer’s authorization. Rule 25-4.118(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a carrier shall submit a change request only if one of the following has occurred:

(a) The provider has a letter of agency (LOA) . . . from the customer requesting the change;

(b) The provider has received a customer-initiated call for service . . . ;

(c) A firm that is independent and unaffiliated with the provider . . . has verified the customer’s requested change . . .

Pursuant to Rule 25-24.490, Florida Administrative Code, Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, is incorporated into Chapter 25-24, and applies to IXCs.

Rule 25-24.455(4), Florida Administrative Code, states in part:

An interexchange company may petition for a waiver of any provision of this Part.  The Commission may grant a waiver to the extent that it determines that it is consistent with the public interest to do so.  The commission may grant the petition in whole or part, may limit the waiver to certain geographic areas and/or may impose reasonable alternative regulatory requirements on the petitioning company.

New IDS has attested that it will provide for a seamless transition while ensuring that the affected customers understand available choices with the least amount of disruption to the customers.  Staff has reviewed the notice that will be sent to Old IDS’s customers and found it to be adequate.  The customers should not experience any interruption of service, rate increase, or switching fees. 

Staff believes that in this instance it is in the public interest to waive the carrier selection requirements of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code.  If prior authorization is required in this event, customers may fail to respond to a request for authorization, neglect to select another carrier, and lose their long distance service.  Furthermore, staff believes that granting this waiver will avoid unnecessary slamming complaints during this transition.

Further, Old IDS does not have any outstanding IXC regulatory assessment fees, penalties or interest, and has stated it intends to pay its 2005 regulatory assessment fees within 60 days of the issuance of the Consummating Order.

Therefore, staff recommends that the carrier selection requirements in Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, be waived in this instance.

Issue 3:  

Should the Commission approve the waiver of the carrier selection requirements of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, in the transfer of local customers from IDS Telcom LLC to IDS Telcom Corp.?

Recommendation:  

Yes.  (McCoy, Watts)

Staff Analysis:  

Pursuant to Rule 25-4.118(1), Florida Administrative Code, a customer’s carrier cannot be changed without the customer’s authorization. Rule 25-4.118(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a carrier shall submit a change request only if one of the following has occurred:

(a) The provider has a letter of agency (LOA) . . . from the customer requesting the change;

(b) The provider has received a customer-initiated call for service . . . ;

(c) A firm that is independent and unaffiliated with the provider . . . has verified the customer’s requested change . . .

Pursuant to Rule 25-24.845, Florida Administrative Code, Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, is incorporated into Chapter 25-24, and applies to CLECs.

Section 364.337(2), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part:

A certificated competitive local exchange telecommunications company may petition the commission for a waiver of some or all of the requirements of this chapter, except ss. 364.16, 364.336, and subsections (1) and (5).  The commission may grant such petition if determined to be in the public interest.

The authority for Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, is found in Section 364.603, Florida Statutes, which is a section the Commission is authorized to waive.

New IDS has attested that it will provide for a seamless transition while ensuring that the affected customers understand available choices with the least amount of disruption to the customers.  Staff has reviewed the notice that will be sent to Old IDS’s customers and found it to be adequate.  The customers should not experience any interruption of service, rate increase, or switching fees.

Staff believes that in this instance it is in the public interest to waive the carrier selection requirements of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code.  If prior authorization is required in this event, customers may fail to respond to a request for authorization, neglect to select another carrier, and lose their long distance service.  Furthermore, staff believes that granting this waiver will avoid unnecessary slamming complaints during this transition.

Further, Old IDS does not have any outstanding CLEC regulatory assessment fees, penalties or interest, and has stated it intends to pay its 2005 regulatory assessment fees within 60 days of the issuance of the Consummating Order.

Therefore, staff recommends that the carrier selection requirements in Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, be waived in this instance.

Issue 4:  

Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation:  

If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.  (Rockette-Gray)

Staff Analysis:  

At the conclusion of the protest period, if no protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.