ORDER NO. 97-193

ENTERED MAY 30 1997

This is an electronic copy.

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

ARB 9

DISPOSITION: RECONSIDERATION DENIED

On April 7, 1997, MCImetro Transmission Services (MCImetro) filed a petition with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (Commission) to reconsider portions of its Order No. 97-038 (February 3, 1997), issued in this docket. MCImetro requests that the Commission reconsider its decision that requires MCImetro to obtain written authorization from the customer before GTE is required to disclose customer proprietary network information (CPNI) to MCImetro. On April 28, 1997, GTE Northwest Incorporated (GTE) responded.

In Order No. 97-038, we noted that the Federal Communications Commission has a docket pending to clarify the CPNI provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act). See CC Docket 96-115. We concluded that, until the FCC issues its rules, MCImetro must provide a written authorization to GTE prior to disclosure of CPNI.

MCImetro claims that this requirement impairs the ability of Oregon consumers to choose a new telecommunications carrier. It asserts that the decision also burdens competitors by placing an obligation on them that is not placed on GTE. Further, MCImetro states that the Act does not require written authorization for initiating, billing, and collecting for telecommunications service. Finally, the MCImetro argues that the Commission decision is inconsistent with the requirement that GTE provide MCImetro with service that is at least equal in quality to that which it provides itself.

GTE responds that the Act requires an affirmative written request by the customer before CPNI may be disclosed. GTE also asserts that MCImetro proposal would put GTE at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, GTE claims that MCImetro is requesting access to data that GTE has spent considerable resources collecting. It claims that MCImetro should not be allowed to obtain for free information that GTE had to develop at substantial expense.

As we said in Order No. 96-038, Appendix at 22, this is a legal dispute over the interpretation of § 222(c) of the Act. The matter is the subject of a rulemaking proceeding before the FCC. We also noted that GTE had agreed to comply with FCC's final order regarding the release of CPNI.

We see no reason to depart from our prior decision in this docket. MCImetro has provided no legal, factual, or policy arguments that were not raised at the hearing. Furthermore, the FCC docket was initiated on May 17, 1996. The final rules should be imminent. MCImetro has provided no explanation why it cannot wait until the FCC rules are issued.

The application for reconsideration is denied.

Made, entered, and effective ________________________. 

A party may appeal this order to a court pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6).