ORDER NO. 96-024

ENTERED JAN 25 1996

THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC COPY

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

UM 96

DISPOSITION: AMENDMENT GRANTED

On July 6, 1995, OGC Telecomm, Ltd. (OGC), applied for an amendment to a certificate of authority to provide telecommunication service in Oregon. On August 3, 1995, GTE Northwest, Incorporated, filed a protest to the application.

On December 12, 1995, Allen Scott, an Administrative Law Judge for the Commission, presided over a hearing in Salem. The following appearances were entered:

For OGC:

Jack Pestaner and Mike Huebsch, authorized representatives

 

For GTE Northwest:

Timothy J. O'Connell, Attorney at Law

 

For PUC Staff:

Kimberly R. Cobrain, Assistant Attorney General

 

Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

The application is to provide shared telecommunications services (STS) in Hillsboro, Oregon. OGC holds a certificate to provide STS services to two other sites near the area involved in this application.

The location sought to be served consists of two sites serving a single business user. The two sites are separated by a public road. The main address is:

3188 NW Alloclek Drive
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124

Applicant provided a legal description of the two sites, as well as a map of the area. They are attached as Appendix A and incorporated in this order.

During the pendancy of this matter, OGC amended its application to provide the following provisions:

1. OGC will serve the new area with an on-site PBX.
2. The separate system will have its own local trunking provided by a local exchange carrier.
3. Long distance and data service can be interconnected under OGC Telecomm's CAP authority.
4. Calling between OGC Telecomm's AmberGlen customers in the new site will be passed off to the local exchange carrier.

Based on the amendments described above, GTE withdrew its protest to the application. PUC staff at hearing expressed no opposition to the application.

OPINION

ORS 759.005(2)(f) provides the following definition:

"Shared telecommunications service" means the provision of telecommunications and information management services and equipment to a user group located in discrete premises in building complexes, campuses, or high-rise buildings, by a commercial shared services provider or by a users' association, through privately owned customer premises equipment and associated data processing and information management services and includes the provision of connections to local exchange telecommunications service.

The Commission's Rule, OAR 860-32-001(7), provides that shared telecommunications service:

(a) Means the provision of telecommunications and information management services and equipment:

(A) To a user group comprised of one person or association served by a single telecommunication system;

(B) Located in a single building or in several buildings on contiguous property;

(C) By a commercial shared services provider or by a users' association;

(D) Through privately owned customer premises equipment and the associated data processing and information management services.

(b) Includes connection to the local exchange telecommunications service.

The Commission concludes that the present application meets these provisions. The user of the service is one commercial entity. It thus meets the definition of "user group" set out in the statute and rule. The physical premises also meets the requirements in that it is in "several buildings on contiguous property." As we noted in Order No. 86-1159 (AR 131), "a provider may service con-tiguous properties separated by a public right-of-way, . . ." Applicant has provided a legal description of the property to be served. Finally, the service will be provided by a single telecommunications system in keeping with the requirements in the rule.

No other issue was raised during the proceeding. The Commission concludes that the application should be granted.

Name of the Entity

During the proceeding, it became clear that some confusion exists as to the name of the applicant. In its original application for a certificate, the entity described itself as OGC Telecomm, Inc. However, the record in this case establishes that that name was in error. The entity involved is properly known as OGC Telecomm, Ltd. It does business as OGI Telecomm. The Commission concludes that the entity involved has not changed and that the correct name is OGC Telecomm, Ltd. We note, however, that even in the application before us now the business name of the applicant was described as OGI Telecomm, Ltd. We suggest that the applicant consistently use the name that accurately characterizes it.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The application for amendment of the certificate meets the requirements of our policy.

2. The application should be granted.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the application for amendment of the certificate by OGC Telecomm, Ltd., as described in this order, is granted.

Made, entered, and effective____________________________________.

A party may request rehearing or reconsideration of this order within 60 days from the date of service pursuant to ORS 756.561. A party may appeal this order pursuant to ORS 756.580.

13/UM96