20030627MCImetro Petition to Intervene.pdf

ORIGINAL
r2JJ
Dean 1. Miller (ISB No. 1968)
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2565-83701
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
'\i~ \::.. 1..,,:.1
~ -
11 ::-:: I'Il.. L. .
:~\
l.J
2003 JUH 21 Pr1 I: 59
UTIL\':c.S" UJ;;rf~iSS ION
Attorneys for MC/metro Access Transmission Services LLC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IPUC RESPONSE TO
FCC ORDER ON REVIEW OF SECTION 251
UNBUNDLING OBLIGATIONS OF
INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE
CARRIERS (CC DOCKET NO. 01-338)
NINE-MONTH REVIEW ON ECONOMIC
AND OPERATIONAL IMPAIRMENT
REGARDING ACCESS TO SPECIFIC UNES
CASE NO. GNR-03-
PETITION TO INTERVENE
Pursuant to the Idaho Public Utility Commission s ("Commission ) rules of Procedure 72
and 73 , IDAPA 31.01.01.072 and -073 , MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC ("MCI"
a competitive local exchange carrier providing local exchange service in Idaho, hereby petitions
intervene in this proceeding.
As ofthe date of filing this pleading, the FCC has not issued its written order in its
Triennial Review proceeding that has spawned this docket. . Nonetheless, MCI has a direct and
substantial interest in this proceeding. MCI is authorized to provide and does provide competitive
local exchange service in Idaho, and is a purchaser of unbundled network elements. Accordingly
MCI has a direct and substantial interest in proceedings addressing the availability, terms and
prices of network elements.
All pleadings, papers and other documents should be served upon:
MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES LLC PETITION TO INTERVENE-
Dean J. Miller (ISB No, 1968)
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2565-83701
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]l2
Participation by MCI will not unduly broaden the issues herein.
In order to expedite consideration of this matter, MCI advises the Commission of the
following views of this and the related proceeding:
MCI supports a multi-state inquiry or investigation. This would provide a forum for the
development of facts that are common across the region. Such a process would make more
efficient use of parties' and state commissions ' resources , enhance judicial economy, and generate
active participation by the broadest group of stakeholders. Moreover, this type of process would
comport with due process requirements and ensure that all parties have a fair and meaningful
opportunity to participate.
As the Commission is aware, for many of the same reasons listed above, Qwest
recommended that a collaborative process be used by the Commission in its Section 271
proceeding. As a participant in that collaborative, MCI found the process to be both useful and
effective. Most important, using a collaborative process permitted the parties to develop a more
thorough and extensive record than would have been possible had the states, conducted each
proceeding on its own.
While there will certainly be issues that will need to be handled on a state-specific basis
there are broad areas of discovery and fact-finding (aSS for example) that will apply uniformly to
all states in the Qwest region.
MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES LLC PETITION TO INTERVENE-
MCI has put together the following comprehensive list of information it believes the
Commission will need in order to make the findings required by the FCC's Triennial Review
Order. In Order to help clarify why such information will be helpful to the Commission, MCI has
divided its list into several groups of information.
OSS Information:
Current ILEC OSS capabilities to support automated, flow-through processes for
Pre-ordering, Ordering, Provisioning, Maintenance/Repair and Billing for voice-
grade UNE loops on a) all-copper facilities; b) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using
IDLC and c) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using UDLC or NGDLC.
Current ILEC OSS capabilities to support automated, flow-through processes for
Pre-ordering, Ordering, Provisioning, Maintenance/Repair and Billing for DSL-
capable UNE loops on a) all-copper facilities; b) hybrid fiber-copper facilities
using IDLC; and c) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using UDLC or NGDLC.
Current ILEC OSS capabilities to support automated, flow-through processes for
Pre-ordering, Ordering, Provisioning, Maintenance/Repair and Billing for line-split
UNE loops on a) all-copper facilities; b) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using IDLC;
and c) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using UDLC or NGDLc.
Planned ILEC OSS capabilities to support automated, flow-through processes for
Pre-ordering, Ordering, Provisioning, Maintenance/Repair and Billing for voice-
grade UNE loops on a) all-copper facilities; b) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using
IDLC; and c) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using UDLC or NGDLC.
Planned ILEC OSS capabilities to support automated, flow-through processes for
Pre-ordering, Ordering, Provisioning, Maintenance/Repair and Billing for DSL-
capable UNE loops on a) all-copper facilities; b) hybrid fiber-copper facilities
using IDLC; and c) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using UDLC or NGDLC.
Planned ILEC ass capabilities to support automated, flow-through processes for
Pre-ordering, Ordering, Provisioning, Maintenance/Repair and Billing for line-split
UNE loops on a) all-copper facilities; b) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using IDLC;
and c) hybrid fiber-copper facilities using UDLC or NGDLC.
Current and planned capabilities of ILEC OSS to scale any automated flow-through
processes in questions 1-6 for current and future customer chum rates to and from
UNE-P based services.
If the ILEC OSS in questions 1-3 are not currently fully automated whether flow-
through, manual and semi-mechanized processes are available to CLECs.
Current and planned ILEC capabilities to support single-order migration from a)
ILEC to CLEC; b) CLEC to ILEC; and c) CLEC to CLEC, for adding/dropping
voice only, data only and voice plus data.
Availability of CLEC direct, real-time, read-only access to all data in all ILEC OSS
(including what some ILECs have called back-office systems) related to loop and
transport facilities.
10.
MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES LLC PETITION TO INTERVENE-
12.
13.
Adequacy and scalability of ILEC bulk hot cut processes for a) initial transition
from UNE-P to UNE-L; and b) real-time migrations and new installations.
Fall-out rates for all ILEC automated, flow-through processes.
Estimates of cost and time required to upgrade ILEC OSS to be fully automated
and flow-through and the price for manual and semi-mechanized CLEC use in the
meantime.
Parity of ILEC OSS for ILEC-affiliate transactions versus CLEC transactions.
11.
14.
Economic Information:
1. ILECs ' variable costs and marginal costs for local , long distance and broadband services
individually and as part of a bundled offering.
2. Market demand elasticity for local, long distance and broadband services, individually and
as part of a bundled offering.
3. ILEC digital loop carrier equipment costs, broken down into a) equipment capital costs;
and b) EF &1 (Engineered, Furnished and Installed) costs.
4. ILEC cost of capital and capital structure, including differential costs of capital for
different service types.
5. On an individual central office, end office, and serving wire center basis a) forecasts of
demand for circuit switching and b) current capacity utilization for the major switch
components, (i., processors, line cards, trunk cards).
6. On an individual central office, end office, and serving wire center basis recent history of
line growth/line loss for a) primary voice lines; b) additional voice lines; c) broadband/data
lines.
7. Expected wholesale demand for a) UNE loops; b) UNE-P; and c) resale.
8, ILEC contracts to lease long distance transport capacity and/or procure minutes of use,
9. Constraints (if any) on ILEC ability to a) reduce prices in relation to some measure of cost
(e., price floor based on TSLRIC); b) target price reductions to geographic areas; c)
target price reductions to types of customers (including individual customers).
10. ILECs' current and planned unbundling of local voice service , long distance voice service
and/or data/broadband Internet access.
11. Any risk of stranded capacity on ILECs' existing network.
Loop Information:
1. On an individual central office, end office, and serving wire center basis, information about
the ILEC local loop plant such as a) total loops in service; b) number of loops that are all-
copper, hybrid fiber-copper, all-fiber; c) if the loop is provisioned using DLC, type ofDLC
(IDLC , UDLC , NGDLC), d) copper feeder plant that has been/will be retired; e) dark fiber
in the loop plant
2, On an individual central office, end office, and serving wire center basis, information about
current in-service quantities by a) customer type (residential, business); and b) service type
(e., residence measured, residence flat rate, business measured, Centrex lines, PBX
trunks, etc.
MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES LLC PETITION TO INTERVENE-4
3. On an individual central office, end office, and serving wire center basis, current in-service
quantities for UNE loops for a) total 4-wire loops, b) total 2-wire voice grade loops and c)
DSL-capable loops.
4. On an individual central office, end office, and serving wire center basis, current in-service
quantities for UNE-P based services by a) residential customers and b) business customers.
5. On an individual central office, end office, and serving wire center basis, the current total
number of UNE loops per day that can be provisioned by the ILEC.
6. For each ILEC central office, end office, and serving wire center, the CLL! (Common
Language Location Identifier), the V &H (vertical and horizontal) coordinates, and the
street address.
7. For each central office and by telephone number, the type of loop plant used to serve that
particular telephone number, including specifics on the type ofloop plant (e., all copper
UDLC, fiber fed ILDC, etc)
8. Plans to upgrade the loop plant by installing additional a) hybrid fiber-copper loops and b)
all-fiber loops
9. Plans to use copper feeder plant that has been replaced with fiber-feeder plant for the
reinforcement to meet growth needs on shorter all-copper feeder routes.
Collocation Information:
Collocation rates, terms and conditions are/should be controlled by tariffs or
interconnection agreement in a UNE loop environment.
The current non-recurring and monthly recurring charges for a physical collocation
space of representative size sufficient to support all equipment needed in a UNE
loop environment.
On an individual central office, end office, and serving wire center basis, a) total
collocation space; b) total collocation space currently occupied by carriers; c)
names of carriers currently occupying collocation space; d) collocation space held
by carriers who are currently in bankruptcy proceedings; e) collocation space
occupied by CLECs no longer operating; and f) total collocation space available for
carrIers.
Restrictions on the type of equipment that can be placed in collocation space.
Economic issues:
When does facilities-based investment make economic and policy sense?
What economic, technological, pricing, or marketing factors go into a decision to
invest in switching facilities?
What are the carrier impacts of premature (forced) removal oflocal switching as an
unbundled network element?
What are the customer impacts to premature removal of switching as an unbundled
network element?
Should a Commission monitor or oversee CLEC facilities-based investment?
If the answer to Question No.5 above is in the affirmative, how does a
Commission monitor or oversee CLEC facilities-based investment?
What is the proper geographic or other area in which impairment is analyzed?
MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES LLC PETITION TO INTERVENE-
10.
11.
12.
13.
Should impairment be determined per switch, per region, or on some other basis?
How will the Commission and the ILEC/CLECs track changes in impairment status
for particular COs?
What are the cost drivers that affect CLEC deployment of switching facilities?
How do operational impairment issues affect the economic analysis?
How does the evolution of new technologies (e., packet switching) affect the
CLEC decision to deploy switching facilities?
How is "impairment defined from an economic perspective for switching
facilities?
Operational Issues:
What are the dynamics of a competitive local telecommunications market
including customer chum CLEC to CLEC CLEC to ILEC, ILEC to CLEC
migrations, over various service delivery methods?
How do the dynamics of a competitive, facilities-based local telephone market
affect the operational issues? For example, what new processes, procedures, and
OSS systems need to be deployed to allow CLECs to communicate with each other
on a real-time electronic basis and ensure the smooth migration of customers
among different providers with different service delivery methods?
How does the fact that CLEC networks are designed differently from ILEC
networks affect the operational issues?
What ILEC systems and processes need to be altered to accommodate a dynamic
facilities-based local telecommunications competition?
What CLEC systems and processes need to be altered to accommodate a dynamic
facilities-based local telecommunications competition?
What industry-wide systems and processes need to be altered to accommodate a
dynamic facilities-based competition, including but not limited to, updates to E911
number portability issues, directory listings, white pages, and customer service
records?
What are the implications of various digital loop carrier technologies on CLECs
ability to utilize the full functionality of the ILECs' loop facilities on an unbundled
basis or otherwise?
How can the CLEC means of gaining access to the unbundled loop plant be made
more efficient/commercially viable?
What changes need to be made to ILEC collocation tariffs/processes?
What changes need to be made to ILEC enhanced extended loop tariffs or product
offerings?
How will CLECs be able to use the ILECs' loop plant to provide DSL/IP-based
services?
Where and how do interconnection trunks need to be augmented or established?
What additional interconnection arrangements need to be established or augmented
to ensure call completion between all local exchange carriers (CLECs, SBC
independent LECs, etc.
10.
11.
12.
13.
MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES LLC PETITION TO INTERVENE-
MCI recommends that the Commission be flexible as it approaches the process of
implementing the Triennial Review decision in Idaho. Until the FCC issues its written order, the
parties and the Commission are simply offering best-guesses as to what the appropriate process
should be. The Commission will be in a better position to refine and determine the process once
all have had an opportunity to review the text ofthe FCC's decision.
WHEREFORE, MCI respectfully requests that this petition be granted and that MCI be
accorded party status will full right of participation.
Dated this t'K't h day of June, 2003.
MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC
By:
MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES LLC PETITION TO INTERVENE-