Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030902Wood Direct and Exhibits -- Nextel.pdfORIGINAL McDEVITT & MILLER, LLP Dean J. Miller (ISB No. 1968) 420 West Bannock Street O. Box 2564-83701 Boise, Idaho 83702 Phone (208) 343-7500 Facsimile (208) 336-6912 joe~mcdevitt-miller.com BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P. Philip R. Schenkenberg (MN #260551) 2200 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Phone (651) 808-6578 Facsimile (651) 808-6450 psc h enken berg~ bri ggs. com r,,r,":qr- i , \j ,:.! ro' ..-,. . , ,"0, , ;_:,. '-"'1'" ,-.., nil "", I ,,",-..)'' "-.,- ! ': ," , ; i~1'. C' ""('('I('~JLi i iLi i ;:...~ 'i.)! II 11,)..;1001 Attorneys For NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Case No. GNR-03- Case No. GNR-03- DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DON J. WOOD FOR NPCR, INC. D/B/AiNEXTEL PARTNERS PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. My name is Don 1. Wood. I am a principal in the firm of Wood &Wood, an economic and financial consulting firm. My business address is 4625 Alexander Drive, Suite 125 Alpharetta, Georgia 30022. WHAT ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AT WOOD & WOOD? I provide to consulting clients economic and regulatory analysis of the telecommunications cable, and related convergence industries with an emphasis on economic policy, competitive market development, and cost-of-service issues. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE. I received a BBA in Finance with distinction from Emory University and an MBA with concentrations in Finance and Microeconomics from the College of William and Mary. My telecommunications experience includes employment at both a Regional Bell Operating Company ("RBOC") and an Interexchange Carrier ("IXC" Specifically, I was employed in the local exchange industry by BellSouth Services, Inc. in its Pricing and Economics, Service Cost Division. My responsibilities included performing cost analyses of new and existing services preparing documentation for filings with state regulatory commissions and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), developing methodology and computer models for use by other analysts, and performing special assembly cost studies. Wood, Di NPCR, Inc, Page 1 I was employed in the interexchange industry by MCI Telecommunications Corporation, as Manager of Regulatory Analysis for the Southern Division. In this capacity I was responsible for the development and implementation of regulatory policy for operations in the southern U. S. I then served as a Manager in MCI's Economic Analysis and Regulatory Affairs Organization, where I participated in the development of regulatory policy for national issues. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TESTIMONY BEFORE STATE REGULATORY COMMISSIONS? Yes. I have testified on telecommunications issues before the regulatory commissions of thirty-five states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. I have also presented testimony regarding telecommunications issues in state, federal, and overseas courts, before alternative dispute resolution tribunals, and at the FCC. A listing of my previous testimony is attached to my testimony as Exhibit 101. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE APPLICATION OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE MECHANISMS AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS? Yes. In the course of my professional experience, I have addressed issues regarding the design, implementation, and ongoing administration of universal service support mechanisms. I have also performed extensive analyses ofthe costs of service, including but not limited to network costs, incurred by telecommunications carriers to provide local exchange services and have specifically addressed the issue of how costs may vary among and between geographic areas. I was involved in the review and analysis of both the Wood, OJ NPCR, Inc, Page 2 Hatfield/HAl cost model and the Benchmark Cost Proxy Model ("BCPM") considered by the FCC in CC Docket No. 96-, and have presented testimony regarding the relative merits of both cost models on numerous occasions. More recently, I have analyzed the applications of a number of carriers seeking designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier ("ETC"), including applications to be granted ETC status in areas serviced by both non-rural and rural Incumbent Local Exchange Companies ("ILECs ). To date, I have presented testimony regarding such applications in Alabama (decided by the FCC), Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Indiana Texas, and West Virginia. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? I have been asked by NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners ("Nextel Partners ) to address the public interest aspect of its application for ETC designation in Idaho within the areas set forth in Attachment 1 to its Application. WHAT QUESTIONS ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN THIS PROCEEDING? The areas identified in Attachment 1 to Nextel Partners' Application are served by rural telephone companies ("RTCs ), so there are two relevant questions: (1) Has Nextel Partners committed to offer and advertise the nine supported services throughout the proposed service area?, and (2) Is the designation ofNextel Partners as an ETC in the public interest? Wood, OJ NPCR, Inc, Page 3 HAVE THESE QUESTIONS BEEN THE FOCUS OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE OTHER STATE REGULATORS IN WHICH YOU PARTICIPATED? Yes. Because the criteria for designation of ETCs are set forth in Section 214 of the Communications Act, these questions have been, as they must be, the focus of the review made by the regulators in each case (state regulatory bodies where they had jurisdiction, the FCC where they did not). The state regulatory commissions, as well as the FCC, must apply the federal law to determine the eligibility of petitioners. In direct contrast, the rural ILECs in these proceedings have sought to significantly broaden the scope of review and have attempted to put competition on trial. While such attempts have rarely been successful, they have often become distractions that unnecessarily consume the time and resources of all involved. Put directly, the purpose of this proceeding is not as many rural LECs argue, to answer the question "Is the introduction of competition for basic telecommunications services in rural areas in the public interest?" That question has been answered and the policy direction has been set on a federal level by both Congress and the FCC. The questions to be addressed here concern the facts ofNextel Partners Application. BASED UPON YOUR REVIEW OF THE COMPANY AND ITS APPLICATION, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE DESIGNATION OF NEXTEL PARTNERS AS AN ETC AND THE COMPETITIVE ENTRY MADE POSSIBLE BY SUCH A DESIGNATION WILL PROVIDE BENEFITS TO END USERS? Yes. These competitive benefits have both a short term and long term component. Wood, OJ NPCR, Inc, Page 4 End users will benefit in the short term from a choice of suppliers that represent different technologies, and can choose the technology that best meets their needs. They can also select from a much broader array of service and pricing plans, and again can choose the plan that best meets their individual needs. Over the longer term, consumers will benefit as competitive market forces act to make all providers, including the ILECs, more efficient and responsive to customer needs. I fully support the FCC's (discussed below) conclusion that the entry of an additional ETC into a rural area can be expected to create the following benefits: "(to) provide incentives to the incumbent to implement new operating efficiencies, lower prices , and offer better service to its customers." Conversely, the FCC has found "no merit" in arguments that the designation of an additional ETC in a rural area will reduce investment incentives increase prices, or reduce the service quality of the ILEC. The short-term benefits of competitive entry, including lower prices, new service offerings, the availability of different technology, and the ability to diversify among suppliers, are important; but while they are important components of any public interest determination, they do not tell the whole story. In my experience, the long-term economic benefits of competition represent an equally important source of potential gain for consumers of telecommunications services in rural areas and for rural economic development. In a recent order, the FCC refers to the provision of "customer choice innovative services, and new technologies" as benefits of competitive ETC designation in a rural area, and also explicitly notes that "competition will result not only in the deployment of new facilities and technologies, but will also provide an incentive to the incumbent rural telephone companies to improve their existing network to remain competitive (emphasis Wood, OJ NPCR, lnc, Page 5 added). I The FCC went on to conclude that" competition may provide incentives to the incumbent to implement new operating efficiencies lower prices, and offer better service to its customers " (emphasis added). DO YOU HAVE ANY DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH THE IMP ACT OF COMPETITIVE ENTRY IN RURAL AREAS? Yes. While competitive entry is important in urban and suburban areas, in my experience the existence of competitive alternatives in rural areas is even more important for at least two reasons: 1. The existence of competitive options for telecommunications services particularly the availability of wireless service, is important for rural economic development. When making investment and relocation decisions, companies consider the availability of telecommunications services in an area. Reliable voice services, data services, and wireless services with sufficient coverage all playa role in this process. In order to compete with their urban and suburban counterparts to attract investment and jobs rural areas need for these services to be available. 2. The availability of affordable and high-quality wireless service is extremely important in rural areas for health and safety reasons. Reliable mobile communications have a level of importance for people who live and work in rural areas that people living in urban areas often fail to appreciate. The availability Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Wyoming, CC Docket No. 96-, Released December 26, 2000, paragraph 17. Id. paragraph 22. Wood, OJ NPCR, Inc, Page 6 of even the highest quality wireline service is no substitute for a mobile service with broad geographic coverage, simply because the wireline service is often physically not there when needed. In an area where fields being worked are far from the road, and where wireline phones along the roadway are few and far between, the availability of wireless communication can literally save a life. HAS NEXTEL PARTNERS COMMITTED TO OFFER AND ADVERTISE THE NINE SUPPORTED SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE PROPOSED SERVICE AREA? Yes. Nextel Partners made that commitment in its Application. As described in more detail by Nextel Partners witness Scott Peabody, the Company stands ready and willing to meet this commitment. WILL NEXTEL PARTNERS OFFER SERVICES THAT PROVIDE BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS? Yes. As described in the Application, Nextel Partners will provide the residents and businesses in the specified are with important options. End users will be able to choose the technology - wireline or wireless - that best meets their individual needs. End users will also be able to choose from among rate plans that will allow them to more closely match the service that they receive (and pay for) with their calling patterns and frequency. Last, but certainly not least, end users will have greater access to the personal and public safety benefits of wireless service. Wood, OJ NPCR, Inc. Page 7 IS THERE SOME FACT OR ISSUE THAT IS SPECIFIC TO NEXTEL PARTNERS , OR THE SERVICE AREAS WITHIN WHICH IT SEEKS ETC STATUS IN IDAHO, THAT WOULD OUTWEIGH THOSE BENEFITS? No. Nextel Partners' desire to serve - and its commitment to do so - fully complies with the service obligations set forth in the Act and is consistent with that of other carriers that have been designated as an ETC in areas served by rural ILECs. YOU STATED THAT IN THE OTHER STATE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH YOU HA P ARTICIP A TED, THE RURAL LECS HAVE SOUGHT TO IMPROPERLY BROADEN THE SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDING. PLEASE EXPLAIN. In these other state proceedings, rural ILECs have asked state regulators to weigh the benefits and costs of permitting competitive entry into rural areas (specifically areas of low line density) and the benefits and costs of granting ETC status to more than one carrier in such an area. These questions are simply not relevant to the designation of an ETc. To the contrary, the relevant questions here are specific to Nextel Partners' showings in its Application. As far as the public interest issue is concerned, it is the interests of the public - the consumers of telecommunications services - that must be considered. The interests of individual carriers, or categories of carriers, is not a significant element ofthe public interest determination. This is consistent with the FCC's stated principle of "competitive neutrality in the operation of any rural universal service mechanism. The FCC and Fifth Circuit Court have been clear that the purpose of the federal universal service mechanism is to protect rural consumers of telecommunications services; its purpose is not to protect incumbent Wood, Oi NPCR, Inc, Page 8 LECs: The Act does not guarantee all local telephone service providers a sufficient return on investment; quite the contrary, it is intended to introduce competition into the market. Competition necessarily brings the risk that some telephone service providers will be unable to compete. The Act only promises universal service, and that is a goal that requires sufficient funding of customers not providers. So long as there is sufficient and competitively neutral funding to enable all customers to receive basic telecommunications services, the FCC has satisfied the Act and is not further required to ensure sufficient funding of every local telephone provider as well (emphasis in original). This Commission will need to be watchful for efforts to re-litigate the FCC's decisions regarding the operation of the federal universal service mechanism in rural areas. The LECs typically ask state regulators to effectively set aside certain portions - but not others - of the FCC's Orders, and engage in a process of second guessing both Congress and the FCC regarding (1) the benefits of competitive entry, and (2) the most effective means of ensuring that consumers in rural areas have access to basic telecommunications services at reasonable rates. FOR WHAT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN IDAHO IS NEXTEL PARTNERS SEEKING ETC DESIGNATION? As set forth in its Application, Nextel Partners is seeking designation as an ETC throughout each of the designated areas listed in Attachment 1. For the areas served by Albion Telephone, Filer Mutual Telephone, Farmers Mutual Telephone, Mud Lake Telephone Cooperative, and Project Mutual Telephone, the designated area is the entire study area of Alenco Communications, Inc. v. FCC 201 F.3d at 620, cited in Fourteenth Report and Order at ~ 27. Wood, Oi NPCR, Inc, Page 9 the RTC. For the twelve exchanges served by Citizens, Nextel Partners is requesting designation throughout the area covered by those wire centers. Nextel Partners is seeking a conditional designation in the Citizens exchanges pending approval of its petition for a redefinition of Citizens' service area. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THIS "REDEFINITION" OF THE CITIZENS SERVICE AREA IS NECESSARY. The service area of Citizens in Idaho is, as it is in most other states, comprised on non- contiguous exchanges; put simply, Citizens serves several small areas scattered around the state rather than one large area. Nextel Partners does not serve all of these widely disbursed areas. , for ETC purposes, Citizens' service area remains defined as the totality of all of these non-contiguous exchanges, no CETC, including but not limited to Nextel Partners could be designated as an ETC in any of the exchanges. The provision for service area redefinition" set forth in 47 C.R. 9 54.207 is intended to avoid such an outcome by permitting the Citizens service area to be "redefined" at a level that is more disaggregated than "all exchanges served by Citizens in Idaho. WILL THERE BE AN IMP ACT ON CITIZENS IF THE PROPOSED "SERVICE AREA REDEFINITION" IS GRANTED? No. The "redefinition" term is a misnomer that has led to confusion in similar proceedings and warrants some explanation. In reality, no service area is actually being "redefined. Wood, OJ NPCR, Inc, Page 10 From the point of view of Citizens, the company s service area will be unchanged the "redefinition" request. IfNextel Partners' request is granted, the process will be entirely transparent to Citizens. Citizens will not be required to operate in a different manner and its receipt of federal USF support will not change in any way. To put a fairly fine point on it as a practical matter Citizens need not even know about the "redefinition" that Nextel partners requests, because Citizens won t be affected. The impact of a service area "redefinition" process is quite different for a CETC such as Nextel Partners. Without the ability to qualify as an ETC for the more refined service area, a CETC cannot compete on a equal footing with the ILEC and may not be able to provide the supported services in a given area at all. Of course, for a CETC such as Nextel Partners the "redefinition" is actually the creation of, not a change to, its ETC service area. In summary, Nextel Partners is asking that it be permitted to define a service area in Idaho that it can serve as an ETC. The requested area includes some, but not all, ofthe exchanges served by Citizens. If this request is granted, Nextel Partners will be able to service the area as an ETC, public benefits will be realized, and Citizens will be unaffected. If the request is not granted, Nextel Partners will not be able to serve the area as an ETC public benefits will not be realized, and Citizens will still be unaffected. ARE THERE ANY STATED CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED WHEN EVALUATING A REQUEST FOR SERVICE AREA "REDEFINITION" Yes. The Joint Board has recommended that three criteria be applied by the FCC and state commissions when determining if a request for a service area "redefinition" should be granted: (1) the Commission must conclude that the redefinition will not impose any Wood, OJ NPCR, Inc, Page 11 significant administrative burden on the ILEC, (2) the Commission must conclude that the competitor is not engaging in selective market entry, or "cream skimming 4 and (3) the Commission must conclude that the ILEC's status as a rural carrier will not be affected. IS THERE ANY REASON, BASED ON THESE CRITERIA, THAT NEXTEL PARTNERS' REQUEST FOR SERVICE AREA "REDEFINITION" SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED? No. As already discussed, the redefinition process will have no material affect on the way that Citizens does business; the "redefinition" will not impose any administrative burdens and will not affect Citizens' status as a rural carrier in any way. The potential for "cream skimming" is ultimately moot because Citizens has already disaggregated USF support to the wire center level. Nextel Partners is likewise seeking "redefinition" at the wire center level, meaning that it is mathematically impossible for Nextel partners to receive per-line support for the area it serves that is based on the average cost of a larger geographic area. support and the areas of market entry are at disaggregated to the same level, the potential for cream skimming" - to the extent it ever actually existed, is eliminated. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL CRITERIA BY WHICH TO EV ALUA TE A REQUEST FOR SERVICE AREA "REDEFINITION" In a recent decision the FCC made clear that a CETC serving only a part of an ILEC study area, does not in and of itself amount to "cream skimming.Memorandum Opinion and Order Docket No. 96-, released November 27 2002 (DA 02-3181 , paragraphs 27- Wood, Di NPCR, Inc, Page 12 No. In similar proceedings in other states, ILECs have argued that the requested redefinition" process is unnecessary. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that they are not actually arguing that "redefinition" is unnecessary, but rather that the designation ofthe CETC is unnecessary. This is not particularly surprising; from the point of view of an incumbent monopoly provider, competitive entry into its home market is likely to appear unnecessary," at least to its own business plan. Competition has (1) the potential to cause the incumbent to lose customers, (2) the potential to bring to light any ILEC network or operational inefficiencies, or (3) the potential to cause the ILEC to accelerate investment. ILECs have an incentive to limit competitive entry, and delaying or preventing a CETC designation is one means of achieving this end. By extension, if a failure to "redefine" the service area means that a potential competitor will not be designated as an ETC, the ultimate goal of limiting competition is served. IS THE DESIGNATION OF NEXTEL PARTNERS AS AN ETC IN THE AREAS SERVED BY THE RTCS IN PUBLIC INTEREST? Yes. Nextel Partners will provide customer alternatives in terms of pricing and technology. The operation ofNextel Partners as an ETC can be expected to benefit consumers directly (through pricing, convenience, and public safety opportunities) and indirectly (as an important part of rural economic development). IS THE CONDITIONAL DESIGNATION OF NEXTEL PARTNERS AS AN ETC IN THE LISTED CITIZENS WIRE CENTERS, PENDING A SERVICE AREA "REDEFINITION" IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? Wood, Oi NPCR, Inc, Page 13 Yes. "Redefinition" at the wire center level will permit Nextel Partners to operate as an ETC in these areas, while having no impact on the operation of Citizens or the USF support it receives. The disaggregation of support at the wire center level , coupled with the commitment ofNextel Partners to serve throughout each wire center area, means that cream skimming" is impossible. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY? Yes. Wood, Oi NPCR, Inc, Page 14 Vita of Don J. Wood 4625 Alexander Drive, Suite 125, Alpharetta, Georgia 30022 Voice 770.475.9971, Facsimile 770.475.9972 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT Don J. Wood is a principal in the firm of Wood & Wood. He provides economic and regulatory analysis services in telecommunications, cable, IP, and related convergence industries specializing in economic policy related to the development of competitive markets and cost of service issues. In addition, Mr. Wood advises industry associations on regulatory and economic policy, and assists investors in their evaluation of investment opportunities in the telecommunications industry. The scope of his work has included landline and wireless voice communications, data services, and emerging technologies. As a consultant, Mr. Wood has assisted his clients in responding to the challenges and business opportunities of the industry both before and subsequent to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Prior to his work as a consultant, Mr. Wood was employed in a management capacity at a major Local Exchange Company and an Interexchange Carrier. In each capacity he has been directly involved in both the development and implementation of regulatory policy and business strategy. As a part of his regulatory practice, Mr. Wood has presented testimony before the administrative regulatory bodies of thirty-four states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and has prepared comments and testimony for filing with the Federal Communications Commission. The subject matter of his testimony has ranged from broad policy issues to detailed cost analysis. Mr. Wood has also presented testimony in state, federal, and overseas courts regarding business plans and strategies, competition policy, and cost of service issues. He has presented studies of the damages incurred by plaintiffs and has provided rebuttal testimony to damage calculations performed by others. Mr. Wood has also testified in alternative dispute resolution proceedings conducted pursuant to both AAA and CPR rules. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No. 101 , page 1 of 18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood PREVIOUS INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT Klick, Kent & Allen/FTI Consulting, Inc. Regional Director. GDS Associates, Inc. Senior Project Manager. MCI Telecommunications Corporation Manager of Regulatory Analysis, Southeast Division. Manager, Corporate Economic Analysis and Regulatory Affairs. BellSouth Services, Inc Staff Manager. EDUCATION Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. BBA in Finance, with Distinction. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va. MBA, with concentrations in Finance and Microeconomics. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No. 101 , page 2 of 18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood TESTIMONY - STATE REGULATORY COMMISSIONS: Alabama Public Service Commission Docket No. 19356, Phase III: Alabama Public Service Commission vs. All Telephone Companies Operating in Alabama, and Docket 21455: AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc. Applicant, Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Limited IntraLA T A Telecommunications Service in the State of Alabama. Docket No. 20895: In Re: Petition for Approval to Introduce Business Line Termination for MCI's 800 Service. Docket No.2 1071: In Re: Petition by South Central Bell for Introduction of Bidirectional Measured Service. Docket No. 21067: In Re: Petition by South Central Bell to Offer Dial Back-Up Service and 2400 BPS Central Office Data Set for Use with PulseLink Public Packet Switching Network Service. Docket No. 21378: In Re: Petition by South Central Bell for Approval of Tariff Revisions to Restructure ESSX and Digital ESSX Service. Docket No. 21865: In Re: Petition by South Central Bell for Approval of Tariff Revisions to Introduce Network Services to be Offered as a Part of Open Network Architecture. Docket No. 25703: In Re: In the Matter of the Interconnection Agreement Between AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc. and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Pursuant to 47 c. ~ 252. Docket No. 25704: In Re: Petition by AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc. for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of a Proposed Agreement with GTE South Incorporated and CONTEL of the South, Inc. Concerning Interconnection and Resale under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 25835: In Re: Petition for Approval of a Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions Pursuant to ~252(t) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Notification of Intention to File a ~271 Petition for In-Region InterLATA Authority with the Federal Communications Commission Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 26029: In Re: Generic Proceeding - Consideration of TELRIC Studies. Docket No. 25980: Implementation of the Universal Support Requirements of Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 2709 I: Petition for Arbitration by ITC'DeltaCom Communications, Inc. with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 27821: Generic Proceeding to Establish Prices for Interconnection Services and Unbundled Network Elements. Docket Nos. 27989 and 15957: BellSouth "Full Circle" Promotion and Generic Proceeding Considering the Promulgation of Telephone Rules Governing Promotions. Case Nos. GNR-O3-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No. 101 , page 3 of18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Arkansas Public Service Commission Docket No. 92-337-R: In the Matter of the Application for a Rule Limiting Collocation for Special Access to Virtual or Physical Collocation at the Option of the Local Exchange Carrier. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Rulemaking 00-02-005: Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission s Own Motion into Reciprocal Compensation for Telephone Traffic Transmitted to Internet Service Provider Modems. Application Nos. 01-02-024, 01-02-035, 02-02-031 , 02-02-032, 02-02-034, 02-03-002: Applications for the Commission to Reexamine the Recurring Costs and Prices of Unbundled Network element Costs Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph II ofD.99-11-050. Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado Docket No. 96A-345T: In the Matter of the Interconnection Contract Negotiations Between AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc., and US West Communications, Inc., Pursuant to 47 D. Section 252. Docket No. 96A-366T: In the Matter of the Petition of MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, Inc., for Arbitration Pursuant to 47 U.c. 9 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Establish an Interconnection Agreement with US West Communications, Inc. (consolidated). Docket No. 96S-257T: In Re: The Investigation and Suspension of Tariff Sheets Filed by US West Communications, Inc., with Advice Letter No. 2608 Regarding Proposed Rate Changes. Docket No. 98F- I46T: Colorado Payphone Association, Complainant, v. US West Communications, Inc. Respondent. Docket No. 02A-276T: In the Matter ofthe Application of Wiggins Telephone Association for Approval of its Disaggregation Plan Docket No. 02A-444T: In the Matter ofNECC's Application to Redefine the Service Area of Eastern Slope Rural Telephone Association, Inc.. Great Plains Communications, Inc., Plains Coop Telephone Association, Inc., and Sunflower Telephone Co., Inc. State of Connecticut, Department of Utility Control Docket 91-12- I 9: DPUC Review of Intrastate Telecommunications Services Open to Competition (Comments). Docket No. 94-07-02: Development of the Assumptions, Tests, Analysis, and Review to Govern Telecommunications Service Reclassifications in Light of the Eight Criteria Set Forth in Section 6 of Public Act 94-83 (Comments). Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No.1 01 , page 4 of 18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Delaware Public Service Commission Docket No. 93-3IT: In the Matter of the Application of The Diamond State Telephone Company for Establishment of Rules and Rates for the Provision of IntelliLinQ-PRl and IntelliLinQ-BRl. Docket No. 41: In the Matter of the Development of Regulations for the Implementation of the Telecommunications Technology Investment Act. Docket No. 96-324: In the Matter of the Application of Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc. for Approval of its Statement of Terms and Conditions Under Section 252(t) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Phase II). Docket no. 02-001: In the Matter of the Inquiry into Verizon Delaware Inc.'s Compliance with the Conditions Set Forth in 47 U.c. ~ 271(c). Florida Public Service Commission Docket No. 881257- TL: In Re: Proposed Tariff by Southern Bell to Introduce New Features for Digital ESSX Service, and to Provide Structural Changes for both ESSX Service and Digital ESSX Service. Docket No. 880812-TP: In Re: Investigation into Equal Access Exchange Areas (EAEAs), Toll Monopoly Areas (TMAs), 1+ Restriction to the Local Exchange Companies (LECs), and Elimination of the Access Discount. Docket No. 890 I 83- TL: In Re: Generic Investigation into the Operations of Alternate Access Vendors. Docket No. 870347-TI: In Re: Petition of AT&T Communications of the Southern States for Commission Forbearance from Earnings Regulation and Waiver of Rule 25-4.495(1) and 25-24.480 (1) (b), F.A.C., for a trial period. Docket No. 900708- TL: In Re: Investigation of Methodology to Account for Access Charges in Local Exchange Company (LEe) Toll Pricing. Docket No. 900633- TL: In Re: Development of Local Exchange Company Cost of Service Study Methodology. Docket No.9 I 0757- TP: In Re: Investigation into the Regulatory Safeguards Required to Prevent Cross- Subsidization by Telephone Companies. Docket No. 920260- TL: In Re: Petition of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company for Rate Stabilization, Implementation Orders, and Other Relief. Docket No. 950985- TP: In Re: Resolution of Petitions to establish 1995 rates, terms, and conditions for interconnection involving local exchange companies and alternative local exchange companies pursuant to Section 364.162, Florida Statutes. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No. 101 , page 5 of 18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Docket No. 960846- TP: In Re: Petition by MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc. for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of a proposed agreement with BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Concerning Interconnection and Resale Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Docket No. 960833- TP: In Re: Petition by AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of a Proposed Agreement with BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Concerning Interconnection and Resale Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (consolidated). Docket No. 960847- TP and 960980- TP: In Re: Petition by AT&T Communications of the Southern States Inc., MCI Telecommunications Corporation, MCI Metro Access Transmission Service, Inc., for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of a Proposed Agreement with GTE Florida Incorporated Inc. Concerning Interconnection and Resale Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (consolidated). Docket No. 961230- TP: In Re: Petition by MCI Telecommunications Corporation for Arbitration with United Telephone Company of Florida and Central Telephone Company of Florida Concerning Interconnection Rates, Terms, and Conditions, Pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. 960786- TL: In Re: Consideration of BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc.'s Entry Into InterLA T A Services Pursuant to Section 271 ofthe Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket Nos. 960833-, 960846- TP, 960757- TP, and 971140- TP: Investigation to develop permanent rates for certain unbundled network elements. Docket No. 980696- TP: In Re: Determination of the cost of basic local telecommunications service pursuant to Section 364.025 Florida Statutes. Docket No. 990750- TP: Petition by ITC"DeltaCom Communications, Inc., d/b/a! ITC"DeltaCom, for arbitration of certain unresolved issues in interconnection negotiations between ITC"DeltaCom and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Docket No. 991605-TP: Petition of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. for Arbitration of the Interconnection Agreement Between Time Warner Telecom of Florida, L.P., pursuant to Section 252 (b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Georgia Public Service Commission Docket No. 3882-U: In Re: Investigation into Incentive Telephone Regulation in Georgia. Docket No. 3883-U: In Re: Investigation into the Level and Structure ofIntrastate Access Charges. Docket No. 3921-U: In Re: Compliance and Implementation of Senate Bill 524. Docket No. 3905-U: In Re: Southern Bell Rule Nisi. Docket No. 3995-U: In Re: IntraLA T A Toll Competition. Docket No. 4018-U: In Re: Review of Open Network Architecture (aNA) (Comments). Docket No. 5258-U: In Re: Petition of BellSouth Telecommunications for Consideration and Approval of its "Georgians FIRST" (Price Caps) Proposal. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No.1 01 , page 6 of 18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Docket No. 5825-U: In Re: The Creation of a Universal Access Fund as Required by the Telecommunications Competition and Development Act of 1995. Docket No. 680I-U: In Re: Interconnection Negotiations Between BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc., Pursuant to Sections 251-252 and 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 6865-U: In Re: Petition by MCI for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of Proposed Agreement with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Concerning Interconnection and Resale Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 7253-U: In Re: BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.'s Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions Under Section 252 (t) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 706 I -U: In Re: Review of Cost Studies and Methodologies for Interconnection and Unbundling of BellSouth Telecommunications Services. Docket No. 10692-U: In Re: Generic Proceeding to Establish Long-Term Pricing Policies for Unbundled Network Elements. Docket No. 1O854-U: In Re: Petition for Arbitration ofITC1'DeltaCom Communications , Inc. with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Public Utilities Commission of Hawaii Docket No. 7702: In the Matter of Instituting a Proceeding on Communications, Including an Investigation of the Communications Infrastructure of the State of Hawaii. Iowa Utilities Board Docket No. RPU-95-10. Docket No. RPU-95-I I. State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas Docket No. 00-GIMT-I054-GlT: In the Matter of a General Investigation to Determine Whether Reciprocal Compensation Should Be Paid for Traffic to an Internet Service Provider. Kentucky Public Service Commission Administrative Case No.1 032 I: In the Matter of the Tariff Filing of South Central Bell Telephone Company to Establish and Offer Pulselink Service. Administrative Case No. 323: In the Matter of An Inquiry into IntraLA T A Toll Competition, An Appropriate Compensation Scheme for Completion ofIntraLA T A Calls by Interexchange Carriers, and W A TS Jurisdictionality. Case Nos. GNR-O3-8 & GNR-O3- Exhibit No. 101 , page? of18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Phase IA: Determination of whether intraLA T A toll competition is in the public interest. Phase IB: Determination of a method of implementing intraLA T A competition. Rehearing on issue of Imputation. Administrative Case No. 90-256, Phase II: In the Matter of A Review of the Rates and Charges and Incentive Regulation Plan of South Central Bell Telephone Company. Administrative Case No. 336: In the Matter of an Investigation into the Elimination of Switched Access Service Discounts and Adoption of Time of Day Switch Access Service Rates. Administrative Case No. 91-250: In the Matter of South Central Bell Telephone Company s Proposed Area Calling Service Tariff. Administrative Case No. 96-431: In Re: Petition by MCI for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of a Proposed Agreement with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Concerning Interconnection and Resale Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Administrative Case No. 96-478: In Re: The Petition by AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc. for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of a Proposed Agreement with GTE South Incorporated Concerning Interconnection and Resale Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Administrative Case No. 96-482: In Re: The Interconnection Agreement Negotiations Between AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc. and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Pursuant to 47 C. ~ 252. Administrative Case No. 360: In the Matter of: An Inquiry into Universal Service and Funding Issues. Administrative Case No. 96-608: In the Matter of: Investigation Concerning the Provision ofInterLA TA Services by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Administrative Case No. 382: An Inquiry into the Development of Deaveraged Rates for Unbundled Network Elements. Louisiana Public Service Commission Docket No. 17970: In Re: Investigation of the Revenue Requirements, Rate Structures, Charges, Services Rate of Return, and Construction Program of AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc., in its Louisiana Operations. Docket No. U-17949: In the Matter of an Investigation of the Revenue Requirements, Rate Structures Charges, Services, Rate of Return, and Construction Program of South Central Bell Telephone Company, Its Louisiana Intrastate Operations, The Appropriate Level of Access Charges, and All Matters Relevant to the Rates and Service Rendered by the Company. Subdocket A (SCB Earnings Phase) Subdocket B (Generic Competition Phase) Case Nos. GNR-O3-8 & GNR-O3- Exhibit No, 101 , page 8 of18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Docket No. 189 I 3-U: In Re: South Central Bell's Request for Approval of Tariff Revisions to Restructure ESSX and Digital ESSX Service. Docket No. U-18851: In Re: Petition for Elimination of Disparity in Access Tariff Rates. Docket No. U-22022: In Re: Review and Consideration of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.'s TSLRIC and LRIC Cost Studies Submitted Pursuant to Sections 901 (C) and 1001 (E) of the Regulations for Competition in the Local Telecommunications Market as Adopted by General Order Dated March 15, 1996 in Order to Determine the Cost of Interconnection Services and Unbundled Network Components Establish Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory, Cost Based Tariffed Rates and Docket No. 22093: In Re: Review and Consideration of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.'s Tariff Filing of April I , 1996, Filed Pursuant to Section 90 I and 100 I of the Regulations for Competition in the Local Telecommunications Market Which Tariff Introduces Interconnection and Unbundled Services and Establishes the Rates, Terms and Conditions for Such Service Offerings (consolidated). Docket No. 22 145: In the Matter of Interconnection Agreement Negotiations Between AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc. and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Pursuant to C. ~ 252. Docket No. U-22252: In Re: Consideration and Review ofBST's Preapplication Compliance with Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, including but not limited to the fourteen requirements set forth in Section 271 (c) (2) (b) in order to verify compliance with section 271 and provide a recommendation to the FCC regarding BST's application to provide interLATA services originating in- region. Docket No. 20883 Subdocket A: In Re: Submission of the Louisiana Public Service Commission Forward Looking Cost Study to the FCC for Purposes of Calculating Federal Universal Service Support. Docket No. 24206: In Re: Petition for Arbitration ofITC"'DeltaCom Communications , Inc. with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 22632: In Re: BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Filing of New Cost Studies for Providing Access Line Service for Customer Provided Public Telephones and Smartline Service for Public Telephone Access. Docket No. Docket No. 24714-A: In Re: Final Deaveraging of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. UNE Rates Pursuant to FCC 96-45 Ninth Report and Order and Order on Eighteenth Order on Reconsideration Released November 2, 1999. Public Service Commission of Maryland Case 8584, Phase II: In the Matter of the Application ofMFS Intelenet of Maryland, Inc. for Authority Provide and Resell Local Exchange and Intrastate Telecommunications Services in Areas Served by C&P Telephone Company of Maryland. Case 8715: In the Matter of the Inquiry into Alternative Forms of Regulating Telephone Companies. Case 8731: In the Matter of the Petitions for Approval of Agreements and Arbitration of Unresolved Issues Arising Under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Case Nos. GNR-O3-8 & GNR-O3- Exhibit No. 101 page 9 of18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J, Wood Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy U./D.T.E. 97088/97-18 (Phase II): Investigation by the Department of Telecommunications & Energy on its own motion regarding (1) implementation of section 276 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 relative to public interest payphones, (2) Entry and Exit Barriers for the Payphone Marketplace, (3) New England Telephone and Telegraph Compnay d/b/a NYNEX's Public Access Smart-Pay Service, and (4) the rate policy for operator service providers. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission PUC Docket No. PT6153/AM-02-686, OAH Docket No. 3-2500-14980-2: In the Matter of Petition of Midwest Wireless Communications, LLC for Designation as an Eligible Communications carrier under 47 US.c. 92I4(e)(2). PUC Docket No. PT-6I82, 6181/M-02-1503: In the Matter ofRCC Minnesota, Inc. and Wireless Alliance LLC for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier under 47 US.C. 9214(e)(2). Mississippi Public Service Commission Docket No. U-5086: In Re: MCI Telecommunications Corporation s Metered Use Service Option D (Prism I) and Option E (Prism II). Docket No. 0-5112: In Re: MCI Telecommunications Corporation s Metered Use Option H (800 Service). Docket No. U-5318: In Re: Petition of MCI for Approval of MCI's Provision of Service to a Specific Commercial Banking Customers for Intrastate Interexchange Telecommunications Service. Docket 89-UN-5453: In Re: Notice and Application of South Central Bell Telephone Company for Adoption and Implementation of a Rate Stabilization Plan for its Mississippi Operations. Docket No. 90-UA-0280: In Re: Order of the Mississippi Public Service Commission Initiating Hearings Concerning (1) IntraLA T A Competition in the Telecommunications Industry and (2) Payment Compensation by Interexchange Carriers and Resellers to Local Exchange Companies in Addition to Access Charges. Docket No. 92-UA-0227: In Re: Order Implementing IntraLA TA Competition. Docket No. 96-AD-0559: In Re: In the Matter of the Interconnection Agreement Negotiations Between AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc. and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Pursuant to 47 U.C. 9252. Docket No. 98-AD-035: Universal Service. Docket No. 97-AD-544: In Re: Generic Proceeding to Establish Permanent Prices for BellSouth Interconnection and Unbundled Network Elements. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No. 101 , page 10 of 18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Public Service Commission of the State of Montana Docket No. D2000.124: In the Matter of Touch America, Inc.s Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 of the Terms and Conditions of Interconnection with Qwest Corporation, f/k/a US West Communications, Inc. Docket No. D2000.89: In the Matter of Qwest Corporation s Application to Establish Rates for Interconnection, Unbundled Network Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale Services. Nebraska Public Service Commission Docket No. C-1385: In the Matter of a Petition for Arbitration of an Interconnection Agreement Between AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc., and US West Communications, Inc. New York Public Service Commission Case No. 28425: Proceeding on Motion of the Commission as to the Impact of the Modification of Final Judgement and the Federal Communications Commission s Docket 78-72 on the Provision of Toll Service in New York State. North Carolina Public Utilities Commission Docket No. P-lOO, Sub 72: In the Matter of the Petition of AT&T to Amend Commission Rules Governing Regulation ofInterexchange Carriers (Comments). Docket No. P-I4I , Sub 19: In the Matter of the Application ofMCI Telecommunications Corporation to Provide InterLA T A Facilities-Based Telecommunications Services (Comments). Docket No. P-, Sub 1013: In the Matter of Application of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. for, and Election of, Price Regulation. Docket Nos. P- 7 , Sub 825 and P-l 0, Sub 479: In the Matter of Petition of Carolina Telephone and Telegraph and Central Telephone Company for Approval of a Price Regulation Plan Pursuant to G.S. 62- 133. Docket No. P-, Sub 277: In the Matter of Application of GTE South Incorporated for and Election of Price Regulation. Docket No. P-141, Sub 29: In the Matter of: Petition ofMCI Telecommunications Corporation for Arbitration of Interconnection with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Petition of AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. for Arbitration ofInterconnection with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (consolidated). Docket No. P-141 , Sub 30: In the Matter of: Petition ofMCI Telecommunications Corporation for Arbitration of Interconnection with General Telephone Company of North Carolina, Inc., Petition of AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. for Arbitration ofInterconnection with General Telephone Company of North Carolina, Inc. (consolidated). Case Nos. GNR-O3-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No. 101 , page 11 of18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Docket No. P-1O0, Sub 133b: Re: In the Matter of Establishment of Universal Support Mechanisms Pursuant to Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. P-l 00, Sub I33d: Re: Proceeding to Determine Permanent Pricing for Unbundled Network Elements. Docket No. P-I00, Sub 84b: Re: In the Matter of Petition of North Carolina Payphone Association for Review of Local Exchange Company Tariffs for Basic Pay phone Services (Comments). Docket No. P-561, Sub 10: BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Complainant, v. US LEC of North Carolina, LLC, and Metacomm, LLC, Respondents. Docket No. P-472, Sub 15: In the Matter of the Interconnection Agreement Between BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and Time Warner Telecom of North Carolina, loP. Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of i 996. Docket Nos. P-, Sub 995; P-, Sub 633: ALEc., Inc. v. Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company and Central Telephone Company. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Case No. 93-487- TP-AL T: In the Matter of the Application of The Ohio Bell Telephone Company for Approval of an Alternative Form of Regulation. Oklahoma Corporation Commission Cause No. PUD 01448: In the Matter of the Application for an Order Limiting Collocation for Special Access to Virtual or Physical Collocation at the Option of the Local Exchange Carrier. Public Utility Commission of Oregon Docket No. UT 119: In the Matter of an Investigation into Tariffs Filed by US West Communications, Inc" United Telephone of the Northwest, Pacific Telecom, Inc., and GTE Northwest, Inc. in Accordance with ORS 759.185(4). Docket No. ARB 3: In the Matter of the Petition of AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. for Arbitration ofInterconnection Rates, Terms, and Conditions Pursuant to 47 U.C. ~ 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. ARB 6: In the Matter of the Petition of MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. for Arbitration ofInterconnection Rates, Terms, and Conditions Pursuant to 47 US.C. ~ 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (consolidated). Docket No. ARB 9: In the Matter of the Petition of an Interconnection Agreement Between MCIMetro Access Transportation Services, Inc. and GTE Northwest Incorporated, Pursuant to 47 D.C. Section 252. Docket No. UT- 125: In the Matter of the Application of US West Communications, Inc. for an Increase in Revenues. Case Nos, GNR-03-8 & GNR-O3- Exhibit No, 101 , page 12 of18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission Docket No. 1-00910010: In Re: Generic Investigation into the Current Provision ofInterLA TA Toll Service. Docket No. P-00930715: In Re: The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania s Petition and Plan for Alternative Form of Regulation under Chapter 30. Docket No. R-00943008: In Re: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania Inc. (Investigation of Proposed Promotional Offerings Tariff). Docket No. M-00940587: In Re: Investigation pursuant to Section 3005 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa, C. S. 93005, and the Commission s Opinion and Order at Docket No. P-930715 , to establish standards and safeguards for competitive services, with particular emphasis in the areas of cost allocations, cost studies unbundling, and imputation, and to consider generic issues for future rulemaking. South Carolina Public Service Commission Docket No. 90-626-C: In Re: Generic Proceeding to Consider Intrastate Incentive Regulation. Docket No. 90-321-C: In Re: Petition of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company for Revisions to its Access Service Tariff Nos. E2 and E16. Docket No. 88-472-C: In Re: Petition of AT&T of the Southern States, Inc., Requesting the Commission to Initiate an Investigation Concerning the Level and Structure ofIntrastate Carrier Common Line (CCL) Access Charges. Docket No. 92-163-C: In Re: Position of Certain Participating South Carolina Local Exchange Companies for Approval of an Expanded Area Calling (EAC) Plan. Docket No. 92-182-C: In Re: Application ofMCI Telecommunications Corporation, AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc., and Sprint Communications Company, L.P., to Provide IntraLA T A Telecommunications Services. Docket No. 95- 720-C: In Re: Application of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company for Approval of an Alternative Regulation Plan. Docket No. 96-358-C: In Re: Interconnection Agreement Negotiations Between AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Pursuant to 47 U.c. 9252. Docket No. 96-375-C: In Re: Interconnection Agreement Negotiations Between AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. and GTE South Incorporated Pursuant to 47 U.C. 9252. Docket No. 97-10 l-C: In Re: Entry of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. into the InterLA T A Toll Market. Docket No. 97-374-C: In Re: Proceeding to Review BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Cost for Unbundled Network Elements. Docket No. 97-239-C: Intrastate Universal Service Fund. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No. 101 , page 13 of 18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Docket No. 97-124-C: BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Revisions to its General Subscriber Services Tariff and Access Service Tariff to Comply with the FCC's Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 1999-268-C: Petition of Myrtle Beach Telephone, LLC, for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Establish an Interconnection Agreement with Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Docket No. 1999-259-C: Petition for Arbitration of ITC"DeltaCom Communications, Inc. with BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 2001-65-C: Generic Proceeding to Establish Prices for BellSouth's Interconnection Services Unbundled Network Elements and Other Related Elements and Services. Tennessee Public Service Commission Docket No. 90-05953: In Re: Earnings Investigation of South Central Bell Telephone Company. Docket Nos. 89-11065, 89-1 1735 89-12677: AT&T Communications of the South Central States, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, US Sprint Communications Company -- Application for Limited IntraLATA Telecommunications Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Docket No. 91-07501: South Central Bell Telephone Company s Application to Reflect Changes in its Switched Access Service Tariff to Limit Use of the 700 Access Code. Tennessee Regulatory Authority Docket No. 96-01152: In Re: Petition by AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc. for Arbitration under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Docket No. 96-01271: In Re: Petition by MCI Telecommunications Corporation for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of a Proposed Agreement with BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Concerning Interconnection and Resale Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (consolidated). Docket No. 96-01262: In Re: Interconnection Agreement Negotiations Between AT&T of the South Central States, Inc. and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Pursuant to 47 U.C. 9 252. Docket No. 97-01262: Proceeding to Establish Permanent Prices for Interconnection and Unbundled Network Elements. Docket No. 97-00888: Universal Service Generic Contested Case. Docket No. 99-00430: Petition for Arbitration of ITC"DeltaCom Communications, Inc. with BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc. pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 97-00409: In Re: All Telephone Companies Tariff Filings Regarding Reclassification of Pay Telephone Service as Required by Federal Communications Commission Docket No. 96- 128. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-O3- Exhibit No. 101 , page 14 of18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Public Utility Commission of Texas Docket No. 12879: Application of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company for Expanded Interconnection for Special Access Services and Switched Transport Services and Unbundling of Special Access DS I and DS3 Services Pursuant to P. U. C. Subst. R. 23.26. Docket No. 18082: Complaint of Time Warner Communications against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Docket No. 21982: Proceeding to Examine Reciprocal Compensation Pursuant to Section 252 ofthe Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Docket No. 23396: Joint Petition of CoServ, LLC d/b/a CoServ Communications and Multitechnology Services, LP d/b/a CoServ Broadband Services for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms Conditions, and Related Arrangements with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Docket No. 24015: Consolidated Complaints and Requests of Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution Regarding Inter-Carrier Compensation for FX- Type Traffic Against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. State of Vermont Public Service Board Docket No. 6533: Application of Verizon New England Inc. d/b/a Verizon Vermont for a Favorable Recommendation to Offer InterLA TA Services Under 47 U.c. 271. Virl!;inia State Corporation Commission Case No. PUC920043: Application of Virginia Metrotel, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide InterLA T A Interexchange Telecommunications Services. Case No. PUC920029: Ex Parte: In the Matter of Evaluating the Experimental Plan for Alternative Regulation of Virginia Telephone Companies. Case No. PUC930035: Application of Conte I of Virginia, Inc. d/b/a GTE Virginia to implement community calling plans in various GTE Virginia exchanges within the Richmond and Lynchburg LA TAs. Case No. PUC930036: Ex Parte : In the Matter of Investigating Telephone Regulatory Methods Pursuant to Virginia Code ~ 56-235., & Etc. Washinl!;ton Utilities and Transportation Commission Docket Nos. UT-941464, UT-941465, UT-950146, and UT-950265 (Consolidated): Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Complainant, vs. US West Communications, Inc., Respondent; TCG Seattle and Digital Direct of Seattle, Inc., Complainant, vs. US West Communications, Inc., Respondent; TCG Seattle, Complainant, vs. GTE Northwest Inc., Respondent; Electric Lightwave, Inc., vs. GTE Northwest, Inc., Respondent. , Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No. 101 , page 15 of18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood Docket No. UT-950200: In the Matter of the Request of US West Communications, Inc. for an Increase in its Rates and Charges. Docket No. UT-000883: In the Matter of the Petition ofU S West Communications, Inc. for Competitive Classification. Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case No. 02-l453-PC: Highland cellular, Inc. Petition for consent and approval to be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier in the areas served by Citizens Telecommunications Company of West Virginia. Public Service Commission of Wyoming Docket No. 70000- TR-95-238: In the Matter of the General Rate/Price Case Application of US West Communications, Inc. (Phase I). Docket No. PSC-96-32: In the Matter of Proposed Rule Regarding Total Service Long Run Incremental Cost (TSLRIC) Studies. Docket No. 70000- TR-98-420: In the Matter of the Application of US West Communications, Inc. for authority to implement price ceilings in conjunction with its proposed Wyoming Price Regulation Plan for essential and noncompetitive telecommunications services (Phase III). Docket No. 70000- TR-99-480: In the Matter of the Application of US West Communications, Inc. for authority to implement price ceilings in conjunction with its proposed Wyoming Price Regulation Plan for essential and noncompetitive telecommunications services (Phase IV). Docket No. 70000- TR-00-556: In the Matter of the Filing by US West Communications, Inc. for Authority to File its TSLRIC 2000 Annual Input Filing and Docket No. 70000- TR-00-570: In the Matter of the Application of US West Communications, Inc. for Authority to File its 2000 Annual TSLRIC Study Filing. Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia Formal Case No. 814, Phase IV: In the Matter of the Investigation into the Impact of the AT&T Divestiture and Decisions of the Federal Communications Commission on Bell Atlantic - Washington, D. C. Inc.'s Jurisdictional Rates. Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board Case No. 98-Q-000 1: In Re: Payphone Tariffs. Docket No.: JRT-200I-AR-0002: In the Matter ofInterconnection Rates, Terms and Conditions between WoridNet Telecommunications, Inc. and Puerto Rico Telephone Company. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No.1 01 , page 16 of 18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood COMMENTS/DECLARA TIONS - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CC Docket No. 92-91: In the Matter of Open Network Architecture Tariffs of Bell Operating Companies. CC Docket No. 93-162: Local Exchange Carriers' Rates, Tenus, and Conditions for Expanded Interconnection for Special Access. CC Docket No. 91-141: Common Carrier Bureau Inquiry into Local Exchange Company Tenu and Volume Discount Plans for Special Access. CC Docket No. 94-97: Review of Virtual Expanded Interconnection Service Tariffs. CC Docket No. 94-128: Open Network Architecture Tariffs of US West Communications, Inc. CC Docket No. 94-, Phase II: Investigation of Cost Issues, Virtual Expanded Interconnection Service Tariffs. CC Docket No. 96-98: In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 CC Docket No. 97-231: Application by BellSouth to Provide In-Region InterLA T A Services CC Docket No. 98-121: Application by BellSouth to Provide In-Region InterLA T A Services CCB/CPD No. 99-27: In the Matter of Petition of North Carolina Payphone Association for Expedited Review of, and/or Declaratory Ruling Concerning, Local Exchange Company Tariffs for Basic Payphone Services. CC Docket No. 96-128: In the Matter of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CCB/CPD No. 99-31: Oklahoma Independent Telephone Companies Petition for Declaratary Ruling (consolidated). CCB/CPD No. 00-1: In the Matter of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission Order Directing Filings. CC Docket No. 99-68: In the Matter of Inter-Carrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic File No. EB-OI-MD-020: In the Matter of Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Complainant v. Time Warner Telecom, Inc. Defendant. Request by the American Public Communications Council that the Commission Issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Update the Dial-Around Compensation Rate File Nos. EB-02-MD-018-030: In the Matter of Communications Vending Corp. of Arizona, et. aI. Complainants, v. Citizens Communications Co. f/k/a Citizens Utilities Co. and Citizens Telecommunications Co., et. aI., Defendants. CC Docket No. 96-45: In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Cellular South License, Inc., RCC Holdings, Inc., Petitions for designation as an Eligible Telecommunications carrier in the State of Alabama. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No. 101 , page 17 of 18 NPCR, lnG, d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood REPRESENT A TIVE TESTIMONY - STATE, FEDERAL, AND OVERSEAS COURTS Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania Shared Communications Services of 1800-80 JFK Boulevard, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Bell Atlantic Properties Inc., Defendant. Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings Office of Customer Protection (OCP) Investigation of Axces, Inc. for Continuing Violations of PUC Substantive Rule 926.130, Selection of Telecommunications Utilities, Pursuant to Procedural Rules 22.246 Administrative Penalties. United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division Brian Wesley Jeffcoat, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Time Warner Entertainment - AdvancelNewhouse Partnership, Defendant. High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance Commercial List No. 229 of 1999: Cable and Wireless HKT International Limited, Plaintiffv. New World Telephone Limited, Defendant. REPRESENTATIVE TESTIMONY - PRIVATE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS American Arbitration Association Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Claimant vs. Time Warner Telecom, Respondent. CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc., Claimant vs. BellSouth Telecommunications Inc., Respondent. Case Nos. GNR-03-8 & GNR-03- Exhibit No.1 01 , page 18 of 18 NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Witness: Don J. Wood CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 2 2003 I caused to be served true and correct copies of the foregoing Direct Testimony ofDonJ. Wood by the methodes) indicated, upon: Sean P. Farrell, General Counsel IA T COMMUNICA TrONS, INc. 703 Pier Avenue, Suite B; PMB 813 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 sfarrell cgJcleartalk. net Attorney for LA T Communications Inc. Molly O'Leary RICHARDSON &: O'LEARY 99 East State Street, Suite 200 O. Box 1849 Eagle, Idaho 83616 moll ycgJrichardso nandoleary. com Attorney for LA T Communications Inc. Conley E. Ward, Jr. GIVENS PURSLEY, LLP 227 North 6th Street, Suite 200 O. Box 2720 Boise, Idaho 83701~ 2720 cewcgJgi venspursley. com Attorney for Idaho dephone Association Clay Sturgis, Senior Manager Moss ADAMS LLP 601 Riverside, Suite 1800 Spokane, Washington 99201~0063 clayscgJmossadams.com Attorney for Idaho dephone Association Morgan W. Richards MOFFAT THOMAS BARRETI ROCK &: FIELDS 101 So. Capitol Blvd., 10th Floor O. Box 829 Boise, Idaho 83701 mwr(iYmoffatt.com Attorneys for Citizens Telecommunications of Idaho Lance A. T ade, Manager State Government Affairs CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF IDAHO 4 Triad Center, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84180 ItadecgJczn.com Attorney for Citizens Telecommunications of Idaho ~' 4-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Hand Delivered Federal Express S. Mail Telecopy Hand Delivered Federal Express S. Mail Telecopy Hand Delivered Federal Express S. Mail Telecopy Hand Delivered Federal Express S. Mail Telecopy Hand Delivered Federal Express S. Mail Telecopy Hand Delivered Federal Express S, Mail Telecopy Mary S. Hobson STOEL RIVES LLPrV 101 So. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900 0 Boise, Idaho 83702 mshobsoncgJstoel.com Attorneys for ~west Corporation Robert M. Nielsen ATTORNEY AT LAw ~ P.O. Box 706 0 Rupert, Idaho 83350 Attorney for Project Mutual dephone Cooperative Association Inc. Charles H. Creason, Jr. . President &: General Manager PROJECT MUTUAL TELEPHONE COOP. 507 G Street O. Box 366 Rubert, Idaho 83350 ccreasoncgJpmt.coop John Hammond, Deputy AG ID PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 472 West Wasington Street O. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720~007 4 ihammoncgJpuc.sta te.id. us Commission Staff Hand Delivered Federal Express S. Mail Telecopy Hand Delivered Federal Express S, Mail Telecopy Hand Delivered Federal Express r::.S, Mail Telecopy Hand Delivered 0 Federal Express 0S, Mail Telecopy Email '-'