20021018McIntyre Rebuttal.pdf

Mary S. Hobson, ISB #2142
Steel Rives LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise,ID 83702-5958
Telephoce: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Stephanie L. Boyett-Colgan
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street, 47th Floor
Denver,CO 80202-1984
Telephone:[phone]
Facsimile:[phone]
Attorneys Representing Qwest Corporation
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION,J
CITIZEN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
COMPANY OF IDAHO, CENTURY TEL OF 1
IDAHO, CENTURY TEL OF THE GEM )
STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE COMPANY )
And ILLUMINET, INC.)
Complainants
vs.
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Respondent
REBDTTAL TESTIMONY OF
SCOTT A. MCINTYRE
QWEST CORPORATION
OCTOBER 10, 2002
1 IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2
3 Q.
A.
Q.
A.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, TITLE, AND ADDRESS.
4
5
6
7
8
My name is Scott A.McIntyre.I work for Qwest
Corporation as a Director for Product and Market Issues.
My work address is 1600 Bell Plaza, Seattle, Washington.
HAVE YOU PRRVIOUSLY PROVIDED TESTIMONY IN THIS
PROCEEDING?
9
10
Yes,I filed Direct testimony in this proceeding on
September 27, 2002.
12 PURPOSE
13
14 Q.
A.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The purpose of my testimony is to respond to the Direct
testimonies filed on September 27,2002 by Citizens
Telecommunications Company of Idaho ('*CitizensU) ,
Electric Lightwave Inc.("ELI"),Idaho Telephone
Association ("ITA"),and Illuminet,Inc.
("Complainants") in opposition to the application of new
Signaling System 7 ("SS7") rate elements introduced by
Qwest on June 1, 2001. Mr.Paul Florack filed testimony
on behalf of Illuminet and Mr. F. Wayne Lafferty filed
on behalf of Citizens,ELI, ITA,and Illuminet,Inc. I
will address the issues raised by the Complainants in
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-l-
October IS, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
the testimony that follows and demonstrate that
Complainants should be required to comply with the terms
of the Catalog.
4
5 BACKGRODND
6
7 Q.
8
WHAT IS THE ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP BETh'EEN THE
COMPLAINANTS IN THIS CASE?
9 A.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mr. Lafferty describes Citizens and the ITA members as
incumbent local exchange carriers'and ELI2 as a
competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") operating in
Idaho. Mr.Lafferty also indicates that several ITA
members have CLEC subsidiaries or operations in Idaho.
(Lafferty, Pages 10, 11).He alleges that Illuminet is
the SS7 service provider "agentfl for these companies in
Idaho.(Lafferty, Page 1)Mr. Florack,on the other
hand,indicates that Illuminet is the SS7 provider for
mcertainfl of the Co-Complainants in this proceeding.
(Florack, Page 8, Lines 28-29)
’ Citizens also operates as a CLEC and has an approved Interconnection
Agreement with Qwest in Idaho.
' Interestingly, although Mr. Lafferty's (and Mr. Florack's) testimony
primarily positions his allegations from the CLEC ~perspective, ELI is the
only Idaho CLEC participating in this proceeding.
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-2-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
a finished service from Qwest's Idaho Access
Service Catalog.
3) CLECs and wireless providers may purchase SS7
from a third party provider.
Q.WOULD YOU PLEASE REVIEW THE OPTIONS INDEPENDENT LOCAL
EXCI-U+NGE CARRIERS ("ILECS") HAVE- TO OBTAIN SS7?
A.Yes.As also explained in my Direct Testimony, ILECs
also have three options:
.1) ILECs may choose to purchase SS7 from Qwest via a
negotiated SS7 Infrastructure Sharing Agreement
("ISA").
2) Just like CLECs and wireless providers, ILECs may
purchase SS7 as a finished service from Qwest
through Qwest's Idaho Access Service Catalog.
3) Just like CLECs and wireless providers, ILECs may
purchase SS7 from a third party provider, such as
Illuminet.
Q.HOW ARE TRE COMPLAINANTS IN THIS CASE OBTAINING
SIGNALING?
A.Mr. Lafferty represents that Illuminet is the SS7 service
provider for its clients,Citizens,ELI,and ITA.
(Lafferty, Page 1, Lines 14, 15)Illuminet is the only
' Further references to ITA in this testimony is limited to those memixrs
serviced by Illuminet, i.e. Fremont Telcom, and Farmers Mutual.
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-4-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Q.
9
10
11
12 A.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
signaling customer of Qwest.None of Illuminet's
carrier/customers are signaling customers of Qwest.
Illuminet obtains SS7 from Qwest through the Access
Services Catalog.
VOICE/DATA "TRAFFIC" VS. SIGNALING "MESSAGES"
THROUGHOUT THEIR RESPECTIVE TESTIMONIES,THE
COMPLAINANTS IN THIS PROCEEDING CONFUSE SIGNALING
"MESSAGES" WITH VOICE AND DATA "TRAFFIC."WOULD YOU
PLEASE CLARIFY?
Yes. As I explained in my Direct Testimony,ntrafficO
consists of voice and data calls transported over the
public switched telecommunications network.Signaling
wmessagesfl occur over a special signaling network fully
separate from the public voice switched network that
carries the actual call.Complainants,by their own
admission,recognize the separateness of the networks.
Illuminet is a non-common carrier and, as such, does not
carry any end user traffic of its own or of its own
carrier customers.Illuminet carries SS7 messages only.
(Florack p. 2, Lines l-3.)
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-5.
Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Complainants fail to make the distinction between
signaling Umessagesfl and voice/data ntraffic,M rather
they use these terms interchangeably.It is critical
for the Commission to understand the difference between
signaling "messages" and voice and data "trafficfl as it
wades through the misleading and misdirected allegations
of the Complainants.For example,Complainants propose
that Qwest separate signaling messages by call type.
(Florack, Page 22, Lines l-11; Lafferty, Page 33, Lines
15-16.)However,signaling messages apply without
regard to the nature of the underlying voice/data
traffic.There is no reason to separate messages by
call type because signaling charges apply to all types
of voice/data traffic.
The Complainants in this case also discuss various
forms of billing arrangements and agreements.
(Lafferty,Pages 20-23; Florack, Page 27, Lines 18-25.)
This is another example of where the complainants are
confusing a signaling Vmessagefl with voice/data
Utraffic.m It is pointless to get into ,a discussion on
how meet point billing or bill-and-keep compensation
mechanisms should or should not be applied in
relationship to this case, as those mechanisms are
billing instruments concerning voice and data "traffic“
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-6-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
rather than signaling ‘\messages. n There is a clear
distinction between voice/data "traffic" and signaling
nmessages. n
Q.COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE TI-IAT CERTAIN SIGNALING MESSAGES ARE
"NON-CHARGEABLE" WITH RESPECT TO TRE SS7 RATES CONTAINED
IN QWEST'S ACCESS CATALOG.IS THAT A VALID ALLEGATION?
A. No.Complainants allege that Qwest cannot charge
Illuminet its SS7 rates in the Access Services Catalog
for signaling associated with local and RAS end-user
traffic,jointly provided exchange access traffic,
intraMTA wireless traffic,and toll traffic exchanged
between Qwest and other carriers (Lafferty, Page 4,
Lines 2-7; Florack,Page 13,Lines 2-9.) Complainants
assert that the voice/data traffic and the signaling
messages are inextricably intertwined and therefore the
underlying nature of the voice/data traffic should
govern how charges are assessed, rather than applying
the ss7 rates in the Access Services Catalog to
Illuminet.(Florack, Page 19,Lines 14-25; Lafferty,
Pages 19-22.)
As I have previously stated, the voice/data traffic
network is separate from the signaling network and the
nature of the underlying call does not govern how
charges are assessed.There are separate costs and
L+
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-7-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
a
pricing for both.Charges for signaling should be
assessed to carriers and third party SS7 providers that
generate the costs associated with provisioning
signaling service,regardless of the type of end user
services being provisioned.To do otherwise would
result in discrimination among carriers.
Q.QWEST ASSESSES CHARGES FOR SS7 MESSAGES REGARDLESS OF
WHERE THE SIGNAL OR UNDERLYING CALL ORIGINATES, IS THAT
9 CORRECT?
10
11
12
13
14
15
A.Yes,Qwest assesses a SS7 message charge for every
message that traverses the SS7 customer's link without
regard to origination or termination of the message. In
other words,what customers pay for is the connectivity
to terminate messages to Qwest and to receive messages
from Qwest.
16
17
la
19
20
Q.HAVE THE COMPLAINANTS IN THIS CASE DISPUTED THAT THERE
ARE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISIONING OF SS7?
21
22
23
24
A. No.This is clear not only from their ~Complaint, but
also from their testimony.For example,Mr. Florack
states on Page 24 of his testimony,"At least
conceptually,Qwest should have apportioned its SS~
SS7 CHARGES
QWE-T-02-11
October la, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-a-
Qwest Corporation
1 A.Mr. Lafferty alleges that Qwest is violating the FCC's
2 Order by not separately identifying and billing SS~
3
4
5
6
7
a
9 install metering or other equipment necessary to measure
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
charges associated with local, EAS,and wireless traffic
from ss7 charges associated with interstate and
intrastate toll traffic.Contrary to Mr.Lafferty's
assertion,Qwest is K in violation of the FCC's SS7
Order.
In commenting on the need for incumbent LECs to
third party usage of signaling facilities,the FCC
stated:
Although we encourage actions that would promote
disaggregation and unbundling of SS7 services, we
will not require incumbent LECs to implement such an
approach and incur the associated equipment costs of
doing so.The record indicates that, as a general
matter,the costs of mandating the installation of
metering equipment may well exceed the benefits of
doing so.'
Consistent with the FCC's Order, Qwest determined
that the cost of implementing equipment to reach the
level of detail suggested by the Complainants as
necessary to accurately bill SS7 is unwarranted.Qwest
uses the Percent Interstate Usage ("PIU") methodology to
jurisdictionalize signaling messages, which is in full
compliance with the FCC's Order.Mr.Lafferty's
' ' FCC First Report and Order, Access Charge Ref&m Docket, CC Docket No.
96-262,12 FCC Red Page 15982, lj252, released May 1.6, 1997.
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-lO-
Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
allegations that Qwest is in violation of the FCC's
Order on this matter are inaccurate and misleading.
Q. MR.FLOMCK MAINTAINS THAT THERE IS A POTENTIALs FOR
QWEST TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN CUSTOMERS WREN CHARGING
FOR SS7.WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?
A.In his testimony,Mr.Florack alleges "there is a
potential for anti-competitive and discriminatory
treatment by Qwest in the way Illuminet and its
carrier/customers are charged for SS7 signaling messages
by Qwest associated with non-chargeable traffic,
particularly local traffic,versus how Qwest may charge
its own direct connect ss7 signaling customers.V
(Florack,Page 16,Lines 14-18)It is not
discriminatory or anti-competitive for an ILEC to
directly connect with Qwest through a SS7 Infrastructure
Sharing Agreement for the purchase of SS7, or for a CLEC
or wireless provider to directly connect and purchase
ss7 out of its Interconnection Agreement.The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act"),which was
designed to foster competition,allows Qwest to enter
into ss7 Infrastructure Sharing Agreements and
Interconnection Agreements with ILECs and CLECs or
wireless providers respectively.The fact that
Illuminet is not a telecommunications carrier and cannot
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-ll-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I.0 Q.
11
12
13 A.
14
15
16
17
18 Q.
19
20 A.
21
22
23
enter into one of those agreements does not mean that
Illuminet is being treated in a discriminatory or anti-
competitive manner.Furthermore, Mr.Florack's
allegations that Qwest may discriminate in favor of
customers that connect directly to its SSI network by
not charging them are outrageous.If Mr.Florack has
any evidence that supports such allegations,he should
produce it and not merely speculate about the
possibility.
DO SS7 INFRASTRUCTURE SRARING AGREEMF,NTS AVAILARLE TO
INDEPENDENT LOCAL EXCRANGE CARRIERS INCLUDE SIGNALING
MESSAGE CHARGES RELATED TO LOCAL EXCRANGE/EAS TRAFFIC?
N O .Qualifying ILECs may enter into a SS7 ISA with
Qwest pursuant to Section 259 of the Act.An ISA
includes charges for Links and Ports, but no signaling
message charges because the parties to the Agreement
"share'!infrastructure.
DOES TRE USE OF ISAs SINGLE OUT ILECs FOR SPECIAL
TREATMENT?
Yes.To the extent that ILECs receive unique treatment,
this treatment is sanctioned by the Act.Section 259 of
the Act specifically requires incumbent local exchange
carriers to make their infrastructure available to
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-12-
Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
qualifying independent local exchange carriers.6 The Act
specifically does not extend this infrastructure sharing
requirement to CLECs.Although I am somewhat
speculating, it is my guess that Congress may have
wanted to provide a vehicle to preserve local inter-
company arrangements that provided end user customer
benefit like ILEC/RBOC EAS arrangements.
However,it is a mistake to think that the status
of the purchaser of a service does not ordinarily affect
the services and prices the purchasers pay for service
in the telecommunications industry.For example, CLECs
pay different prices than resellers,UNE-P purchasers
pay different rates from resellers,interexchange
carriers ("IX&.?") pay different rates than CLECs for
access to the RBOC's network to place calls.In fact,
there are many examples where the status of the
purchaser affects the price and terms.The fact that
the Act provides for Section 259 agreements underscores
that distinguishing between ILECs and others who may
wish to use parts of the network is permissible.
' In order to qualify, the carrier must lack economies of scale or scope
and offer telephone exchange service, exchange access, and any other
service that is included in universal service, to all consumers without
preference throughout the service area for which such carrier has been
designated as an eligible telecommunications carr<er under Section 214(e)
of the Act.
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-13-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.ON PAGE 11, LINES l-8, MR. FLOPACK ALLEGES THAT QWEST IS
SHIFTING ITS SSI COSTS TO ILLUMINET'S CARRIER/CUSTOMERS
DUE TO ITS "INABILITY TO DISAGGREGATE AND BILL FOR SSI
ON ONLY CERTAIN TYPES OF CALLS.“PLEASE COMMENT.
A, Mr.Florack seems to imply that if the signaling
messages were disaggregated,it would somehow change the
manner in which Qwest assesses its signaling charges.
It would not.As explained above,signaling costs are
incurred on every type of voice/data call.
Qwest is not inappropriately shifting costs to
anyone.Qwest's restructure of SS7 results in the party
generating the cost to Qwest's SS7 network p.aying for
that cost.Prior to the restructure,interexchange
carriers paid a disproportionate amount of signaling
costs.With the restructure,each SS7 customer pays for
the cost it generates,resulting in a more fair and
equitable allocation,
Furthermore,Illuminet's carrier/customers are not
Qwest's signaling customers.They purchase SS7 from
Illuminet.Illuminet is Qwest's customer and Illuminet
is the customer being billed for the SS7 service.How
Illuminet charges its customers is irrelevant in this
proceeding.
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-14-
Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
Q.COULD QWEST SEPAMTE SIGNALING MESSAGES BY CALL TYPE AS
MR.FLORACK SUGGESTS ON PAGE 22,LINES l-11 OF HIS
TESTIMONY AND MR.LAFFERTY PROPOSES ON PAGE 33, LINES
15-16 OF HIS TESTIMONY?
5
6
7
8
9
A.There is no reason to separate messages by call type
because signaling charges apply to all types of calls.
Whether or not Qwest can separate signaling messages
based on voice/data call type is irrelevant as I have
indicated previously.This is just another smokescreen
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
on the part of the Complainants to confuse the issue.
If Qwest were to separate signaling charges by call.
tme,it would be inefficient and lead to additional
costs that would require increased rates.Furthermore,
the FCC does not require Qwest to implement metering
equipment that would separate signals by call type.
Q.DO YOU AGREE WITH MR.LAFFERTY THAT QWEST IS DOUBLE
RECOVERING SIGNALING COSTS UNDER THE NEW SS7 RATE
18 STRUCTURE?
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.No.Mr. Lafferty alleges that the costs associated with
SS7 message signaling associated with originating and
terminating EAS traffic is included in the local
exchange rate.(Lafferty, Page 17, Lines 2-6)However,
Mr.Lafferty offers no factual support for this
allegation.Certainly no evidence .has y been presented
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-15-
Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
here about what SS7 costs were recovered in any prior
EAS case.To my understanding,based on discussions
with Qwest's Idaho Policy and Law representatives,all
that the Commission determined in a typical EAS decision
was whether EAS should be granted and what rate impact,
if any,would be experienced by retail customers if a
former toll route was converted to local service.The
costs of SS7 signaling were not discussed in any detail,
if at all,in those dockets.
The fact that only retail rates for end user local
11
12
13
14
15
exchange customers were affected by this Commission-%
EAS orders is significant.Third party SS7 providers
were not parties to those cases,and I do not believe
that Illuminet can claim the Commission made any
decision about their rates in those cases.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Further,as this Commission knows,retail service
prices have never been directly tied to the cost of
providing a service.Thus,there can be no showing of
which SS7 costs,if any, were "recovered" in any given
EAS case.It is impossible for Mr.Lafferty to
affirmatively claim and prove that there is "double
recovery"of those costs.
Q. MR.LAPPERTY STATES OW PAGE I7, LIWES 17-19, TBAT QWEST
24 CLAIMS IT "SIMULTAWEOUSLY LOWERED IXC ACCESS RATES BY AW
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-16-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE HALF OF THE DOUBLE RECOVERY...."DID
QWEST MARE ANY SUCH STATEMENT?
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
A.Absolutely not.Qwest denies there is any double
recovery.In response to ITA data request Number 49,
Qwest stated that it reduced the end office local
switching,carrier common line and tandem switching rate
elements as part of the signaling restructure.
Confidential ~Attachment A to that response demonstrates
that the reductions equaled the revenue increase
expected from the SS~ restructure.See Confidential
Exhibit 504.
12
13
Q.ARE THE CONCERNS VOICED BY COMPLAINANTS THAT Tl-lE NEW SS7
RATE STRUCTURE WILL INCREASE THEIR BUSINESS COSTS VALID
14 SUPPORT FOR AN ARGUMENT OF AWIX-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR ON
15 TBE PART OF QWEST?
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. No.From Illuminet's perspective, Mr. Florack indicates
it is simply going to pass through these costs to its
customers.(Florack, Page 26, Lines 6-9) Mr. Florack
claims that Illuminet supports the concept of unbundling
(Florack, Page 27,Lines 12-13) and claims Illuminet is
not trying to avoid paying the costs it imposes on
Qwest's network (Florack, Page 24, Lines 21-23).HOW
can he then claim that assessing these charges is anti-
competitive?
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-17-
Qwest Corporation
4
5 Q.
6
?
8 A.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
is to be consistent, it should not balk at paying
message-sensitive charges associated with network usage,
rather than trying to prolong subsidization of its use
of the network by other companies.
MR.LAFFERTY CLAIMS THAT THE SS7 RESTRUCTURE REVERSES
THE COMMISSION'S DECISION REGARDING EAS PRICING.
(LAFFERTY, PAGE 16, LINES 5-14) DO you AGREE?
No. Mr.Lafferty argues that introduction of usage-
sensitive rates for SS7 results in re-instituting usage-
sensitive pricing for EAS traffic that is now priced on
a flat-rated basis.That is simply not the case.The
EAS rate structure,which concerns voice/data traffic,
has not changed.Flat rate local exchange customers
still enjoy expanded local calling as part of their
flat-rated local service.Measured service customers,
of course,pay for any local call on an incremental
basis once they have used their monthly minute
allowance.
The relevant price change here is not for RAS
calling,it is for SS7 signaling.And Illuminet is the
only party in this case that purchases SS7 signaling
from Qwest,Since Illuminet deals in signaling
messages,not voice/data traffic,the EAS decision that
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-19-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3 Q.
4
5
6
7
8 A.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 Q.
22
23
expanded the local calling areas of local exchange
customers does not affect Illuminet.
BUT ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT WHEN EAS WAS IMPLEMENTED, THE
ILECs DID NOT FACE A PER MESSAGE SS7 CHARGE ASSOCIATED
WITH AN EAS CALL AND NOW THEY DO TO THE EXTENT, AS
ALLEGED, THAT ILLUMINF,T PASSES ON THE PER MESSAGE CHARGE
TO ITS CARRIER/CUSTOMERS?
No.ILECs who purchase SS7 from third party providers
like Illuminet may experience an increase in what they
pay i3 their ss7 provider as a result of Qwest
restructuring its Access Services Catalog if the
contract between Illuminet and its carrier/customers
directs Illuminet to pass through its SS7 costs to its
carrier/customers.Of course,they may experience
increases and decreases in aw number of expenses
associated with their operations.Illuminet's
carrier/customers need to make the business decision as
to whether Illuminet's contractural obligation to pass
through its ss7 costs justifies looking for other
alternatives for acquiring SS7.
IS THERE A SIGNALING OPTION POR ILECs THAT DOES NOT
INCLUDE SIGNALING MESSAGE CHARGES RELATED TO LOCAL
EXCHANGE/EAS TRAFFIC?
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-2o-
Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.Yes.To the extent that the ILECs in this case wish to
return to an arrangement that is more similar in expense
to what they experienced when EAS was originally
implemented,the ISA may be the answer.However, I
emphasize that this is their business decision,since
they may have other compelling reasons to want to
continue with Illuminet.
Q.MR. LAFFERTY STATES THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF SS7 MESSAGE
RATES IS A CHANGE IN "LONG STANDING REGULATORY POLICY
AND INDUSTRY PRACTICES IN THE STATE OF IDAHO."
(LAFFERTY,PAGE 3,LINES 7-8.)ISN'T THIS A
MISC~CTERIZATION?
A.Yes.In his testimony, Mr.Lafferty alleges that Qwest
"should not be allowed to change public policy in the
state of Idaho (or anywhere else) without providing the
Commission an opportunity to properly investigate the
implications of the changes."Significantly, Mr.
Lafferty does not enumerate the -long standing
regulatory policy and industry practices" he alleges are
being violated.Certainly there is nothing in Idaho
statute or regulation that would suggest that Qwest
cannot charge users of its network for that use.In
fact,in Idaho,the only time the Commission regulates
the level of that charge for Qwest ,is when the service
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-2l-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
provided is "basic local exchanqe .service" as that term
is defined in Idaho Code §62-603(l) or when CLECs are
seeking unbundled network elements and the Commission is
asked to set total element lonq run incremental costs
for those elements.The provision of SS7 to a third
party does not fall within one of these categories. To
put it bluntly,there is no Commission policy or
industry practice on this subject in Idaho.What does
signal an attempted policy shift here is the effort of
the Complainants to persuade this Commission to take
jurisdiction over a dispute about the application of
charqes for a derequlated service.
Q-IS MR.LAFFERTY'S CONTENTION THAT THE SS7 SIGNALING
CHARGES ARE "REGULATED" UNDER TITLE 62 ACCURATE?
A.No.The services Qwest offers under its Access Services
Cataloq are derequlated under Title 62 in Southern
Idaho.Qwest is not required to obtain Commission
approval prior to implementing any Access Services
Catalog revision.Nor does the Commission requlate the
level of charges for services offered under Title 62.
Q. MR.LAFFERTY ALLEGES THAT QWEST ENGAGED IN A "CLEAR AND
UNWAR-ED SUBSIDY OF UNREGULATED IXC TWGFIC BY
REGULATED INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS."
(LAFFERTY, PAGE 17, LINES 18-20) PLEASE COMMENT.
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-22-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
Q.ON PAGES 19 AND 20 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. FLORACIZ ALLEGES
THAT ILLUMINET IS AN AGENT OF ITS CARRIER/CUSTOMERS FOR
3 THE PURCHASE OF SS7. IS HE CORRECT?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.NO.Illuminet is not an agent of its carrier/customers
for SS7.In response to Qwest's Interrogatory Number
40,Citizens and ELI both stated that the Letters of
Agency (LOA) authorized Illuminet to use their point
codes.See Exhibits 505 and 506.The LOAs, however, go
no further.The LOAs provide no additional
authorization to Illuminet for the purchase of signaling
on their behalf.See Exhibits 507 and 508.
Q. DO COMPLAINANTS FAIRLY CWCTERIZE THE SCOPE OF
13 ILLUMINET'S ADTHORITY G-ED IN THE LOAs?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A.No.Mr.Florack would like Qwest to expand. the
authority provided under the Letters of Agency (LOA) to
allow Illuminet to take advantage of the billing
arrangements its customers have with Qwest for
voice/data traffic,such as ELI's Interconnection
Agreement.
Q.WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR STATING TBAT COMPLAINANTS HAVE
MISCBARACTERIZED TBE SCOPE OF ILLUMINEiT'S AUTHORITY?
22
23
24
A.As Mr. Lafferty correctly points out in Lines 18-19 on
Page 11 of his testimony,the LOA was initiated by
Qwest.Qwest witness Joe Craig explained in his Direct
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-24-
Qwest Corporation
1 Testimony that Qwest requires proof from Illuminet that
2 its customers have authorized its use of their point
3 codes.(Qwest only requires LOAs from its third party
4 provider signaling customers.)In actuality,Qwest
5 never requested Illuminet provide proof it was
6 authorized to purchase SSI services for its
7 carrier/customers.Illuminet has never negotiated with
8 Qwest for signaling services, nor does Illuminet have an
9 Interconnection Agreement with Qwest.Illuminet
10 purchases SS7 services from Qwest's Access Services
11 Catalog,and as stated elsewhere,Qwest does not
12 ~negotiate the terms of its Catalog.At no time has
13 Illuminet negotiated with Qwest, on behalf of ELI or any
14 other CLEC or wireless provider,SS7 message rates as
15 part of an Interconnection Agreement.Rather,
16 Illuminet's customer,ELI,negotiated its own
17 Interconnection Agreement with Qwest and elected to
18 purchase SS7 from Illuminet rather than out of its
19 Interconnection Agreement.
20 Q.DOES MR.LAFFERTY MAINTAIN TRAT TRR LOA'S ADTHORIZE
21 ILLIJMINRT TO PURCIDGE ss7 SERVICES THROUGH
22 INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS?
23 A.Yes.For example, in Mr.Lafferty's testimony at Page
24 11,Lines 11-19, he states:
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-25-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1 A.Yes,Qwest has an Interconnection Agreement with ELI,'
2
3
however,ELI chose to purchase ss7 from Illuminet,
rather than Qwest.As a result,terms of the ELI
4
5
6
7
Interconnection Agreement and other billing arrangements
such as reciprocal compensation or bill-and-keep, do not
apply.Illuminet's Co-Complainants are not Qwest's
customers for SS7 services.
8
9
Q.DOES MR.LAFFERTY CLAIM THAT SIGNALING ASSOCIATED WITH
LOCAL SERVICE SHODLD BE COVERED BY THE TERMS OF CLECS'
10 (SUCH AS ELI) INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS?
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.Yes. Mr.Lafferty refers several times in his testimony
to the fact that he believes ELI's Interconnection
Agreement should apply for signaling associated with
local calls rather than the SS7 rates which appear in
the Access Services Catalog.
Q.DOES ELI'S INTERCONNFCTION AGREEMENT WITH QWEST CONTAIN
A SIGNALING PROVISION?
18
19
20
21
22
A.Yes.Section (E)l5 provides the signaling provision.
It provides the terms and conditions, rate elements and
ordering information.The signaling charges, including
per message usage charges,are set fo,rth in part I of
the Agreement.See Exhibit 509.
' Qwest also has an Interconnection Agreement with.,the CLEC affiliate of
Citizens,not a party to this case.
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-27-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
DO THE SIGNALING RATES SET FORTH IN PART I OF ELI'S
INTERCONlJECTION AGREEMENT APPLY IN THIS CASE,AS MR.
LAFFERTY CONTENDS?
No.As stated previously,ELI has chosen not to
purchase SS7 from its Interconnection Agreement with
Qwest, but from Illuminet instead.
DOES THE ELI INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT ALLOW ILLUMIIiET
TO ACT AS ELI'S AGENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SS7 SERVICES?
No.Section (A)3.23 of ELI's Interconnection Agreement
with Qwest excludes third party beneficiaries.
Specifically,third parties are afforded no "remedy,
claim,liability,reimbursement,cause of action, or
other privilege."See Exhibit 510.
DOES ILLUMINET'S ATTEMPT TO UTILIZE ITS
CARRIER/CUSTOMERSt INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS POSE
PROBLEMS UNDER THE ACT?
Yes.Conveying authority to Illuminet as ELI describes
in Mr.Lafferty's testimony (Lafferty, Page 11, Lines
11-19) is contrary to the intents and purposes of the
Act.In order to do so,the Commission would have to
carve out a special class of customer simply to
circumvent application of a valid Catalog.As indicated
elsewhere in this testimony,Illuminet is not entitled
to Section 251 Interconnection Agreement status.
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-28-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Furthermore,granting Illuminet this status would force
Qwest to discriminate between customers in the same
class,i.e.those other customers purchasing out of the
Catalog.That would be inequitable.
ELI cannot circumvent the Act by simply claiming
that Illuminet is acting on its behalf for the purpose
of purchasing signaling services.The fact of the
matter is that Qwest does not have a relationship with
ELI for SS7 services and Illuminet is not authorized to
purchase SS7 on its behalf from the Interconnection
Agreement.
ALLEGED BY MR. FLORACK?
Yes,there are several additional reasons that Mr.
Florack's agency allegations should be dismissed.Mr.
Florack is apparently making the assumption that just
because a CLEC or wireless provider has an
Interconnection Agreement with Qwest, it must purchase
SS7 signaling out of that Interconnection Agreement.
This is certainly an option, but as stated earlier in
this testimony,as well as in my Direct Testimony, CLECs
and wireless providers may also purchase signaling as a
finished service out of Qwest's Access Services Catalog,
or from a third party provider such as Illuminet.
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-29.
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 Q.
16
17
18
19
20 A.In addition to the fact that Illuminet's
21
22
23
carrier/customers are not Qwest's customers for SS7
services,as explained above,there is no need to go
through all of the gyrations suggested by Mr. Florack,
Additionally,Mr. Florack overlooks the fact that
Illuminet is Qwest's customer.Illuminet's customers,
such as Complainants ELI,Citizens and the ITA in this
case,are not Qwest's customers for SS7 service.They
have chosen to purchase SS7 from Illuminet,and thus
Qwest has no relationship with them regarding SS7.
CLECs such as ELI certainly have the option of having an
SS7 relationship with Qwest by purchasing SS7 out of
their Interconnection Agreements,but are under no
obligation to do so.For Illuminet to infer that Qwest
should utilize the Interconnection Agreement to Bills a
CLEC or wireless provider for a service they have not
ordered from Qwest out of that Agreement is
inappropriate.
MR.FLORACK SUGGESTS A COMPLEX PROCESS BY WEIGH QWEST
EAY IDEETIFY ILLUMIEET'S CLEC CARRIER/CUSTOMERS SO TBAT
CEARGES MAY BE ASSESSED DIRECTLY TO THOSE CLECS THROUGH
THEIR RESPECTIVE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMFsNTS.PLEASE
COMMENT.
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-3o-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
as the existing options available to CLECs are fully
sufficient to allow accurate billing for SS7.
Q.SHOULD INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS BE A CONSIDERATION IN
THIS CASE?
A. No.In this case,Illuminet is Qwest's customer for SS7
services. - not ELI or Citizens or ITA.Illuminet is not
a CLEC or a wireless provider;therefore, it cannot
purchase out of an Interconnection Agreement.
Furthermore,Illuminet is not an agent of its customers
and,as such,cannot stand in the shoes of its customers
for the purpose of purchases signaling out of an
interconnection agreement.
Illuminet and other third party signaling providers
purchase services out of Qwest's Access Services
Catalog.Because Illuminet purchases out of the
Catalog,it is required to pay Catalog rates.ELI has
chosen not to purchase S.57 out of its Interconnection
Agreements.Thus,the Interconnection Agreements are
not applicable.
Q.THE COMPLAINANTS IN THIS CASE DISCUSS VARIOUS FORMS OF
BILLING ARRANGEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS.(E.G., MR.
LAFFERTY ON PAGES 20-23 AND MR.FLORACE ON PAGE 21,
LINES 18-25.)IS THIS APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION?
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-3l-
Qwest Corporation
1 A.This statement is simply another smokescreen designed to
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
confuse the central issue in this proceeding.Illuminet
is not acting on Qwest's behalf as a signaling
aggregator.Illuminet's customers in this case are ELI,
Citizens and the ITA.Illuminet offers no perceivable
benefit to Qwest.If Illuminet was not in business, SS~
messages would still set up and take down,calls would
still be completed,and end USe?X would still have
telephone service.Illuminet is,to be very frank, in
the business to make money and it has done so in the
past by capitalizing on a rate structure that allowed it
to use the SS7 network without being appropriately
charged.Illuminet has utilized Qwest's signaling
network without paying rates commensurate for services
received.There is no benefit to Qwest in that.
REVENUE NRUTRALITY
Q. DO TRE COMPLAINANTS CONFUSE THE ISSUE OF REVRWUR
NEUT~ITY ASSOCIATED WITH QWEST's RESTRUCTURE OF ITS
SS7 UTES?
A.Yes.Mr.Lafferty confuses the issue of revenue
neutrality for Qwest overall with the issue of revenue
neutrality for a particular customer:Qwest has made no
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-33-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
claim that the establishment of discrete SS7 rates would
be revenue neutral with respect to individual customers.
The rate impacts felt by individual customers is
determined by how they connect with Qwest and by what
services they purchase.The overall bill will go up for
some customers and down for others.(At this point in
time,Illuminet has not and is not paying Qwest for SS7
services rendered.)
Qwest also can make no claim as to the effect of
customers changing their network connections as a result
of business decisions they may make as a result of these
changes.Qwest does, however,attest that the revenues
generated by the new rate elements have been offset by
reductions in switching rate elements,i.e.,local
switching and tandem switching, as well as carrier
common line minutes of use rates.Qwest is not double
billing for these rate elements and is not double
recovering any costs.The revenue neutral nature of
Qwest's action in Idaho is consistent with the revenue
neutral filing at the federal level. The data request
responses provided by Qwest'clearly show the SS7 Access
Services Catalog revisions were revenue neutral, which I
have described above.
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-34-
Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
Q.IS THE SS7 RESTRUCTURE REVENUE NEUTML WITHIN THE STATE
OF IDAHO?(LAFFERTY, PAGE 17, LINES 12-14)
A.Yes.Qwest utilized Idaho-specific demand in its
revenue neutral calculation.Qwest demonstrated this to
Complainants in its response to ITA Request No. 49,
specifically Confidential Attachment A to that response.
The SS7 restructure is revenue neutral.
8
9 ACCESS CATALOG
10
11
12
13
Q. MR.FLORACK PROVIDES A DESCRIPTION OF QWEST'S SOUTHERN
IDAHO ACCESS CATALOG.~FLORACK, PAGE 14, LINES~.~~~E.)
IS HIS DESCRIPTION ACCURATE?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A.No.Qwest's Access Services Catalog applies to Carrier
Common Line,Switched Access,Expanded Interconnection
Service,and other xniscellaneous cervices (emphasis
added) .'Qwest's SS7 product is not an uexchange access"
product (i.e., toll).Qwest specifically denied this
allegation by Complainants in its response to data
request Number 28.(See Exhibit 511.)Qwest's SS7
product is an "access"product,meaning that it
facilitates "accessfl into Qwest's SS7 network.
8 see,for example, Qwest's response to 1'rA 01.049.
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-35.
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1 Q.WHY IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR SS7 CHARGES TO APPEAR IN
2
3 A.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18
19
20
QWEST'S ACCESS SERVICES CATALOG?
The FCC defined SS7 as an access service (in Part 69
rules)and it CAlaS therefore implemented in the FCC
Access Services Tariff,and similarly implemented in the
Southern Idaho Access Services Catalog.The Catalog
contains services that are offered on a wholesale rather
than a retail basis.Non-exchange access (non-toll)
services such as DSl and DS3 are also available through
the Idaho Access Services Catalog.Feature Group
services are billed via access minutes of use rates for
all traffic that goes over the trunks regardless of
whether it is local,EAS,intraLATA/intrastate or
interLATA/intrastate. The Idaho Access Services Catalog
is not limited to toll providers, nor their provision of
toll services,as Mr. Florack interprets.
THE COMPLAINANTS PROTEST THAT QWEST, IN ESTABLISHING THE
SS7 CHARGES,DID NOT NEGOTIATE THE NEZW SS7 CHARGES WITH
ELIIO PRIOR ~0 I&~PLEMENTATION. (LAFFERTY, PAGE 24, LINES
4-7 )SHOULD QWEST HAVE DONE SO?
' Qwest Corporation Access Services Catalog, Section 1, Page I, Effective
9-21-01.
lo In his testimony,Mr. Lafferty indicated he references the
InterConnection Agreement between U S WEST and ELI to %*help illustrate the
implications of Qwest's new SST message signaling ~charges for CLECs."
(Lafferty, Footnote 4.)
QWE-T-02-11 McIntyre, (Reb)-36-
October 18, 2002 Qwest Corporation
1 A.
2
3
4
5
6
No.Illuminet purchases SS7 services out of the Access
Services Catalog.The catalog sets out standard
pricing; it is not negotiated with carriers.Qwest
negotiated ss7 rates with ELI as part of the
Interconnection Agreement negotiations.However,
because ELI chose to purchase SS7 services from a third
I
El
9
10
11
12
13
14
party,i.e.,Illuminet,rather than from its
Interconnection Agreement,these negotiated rates do not
v+y.
The Complainants'testimony in this proceeding is
filled with misleading allegations and assertions
designed to camouflage the true issue at hand.
Illuminet has been benefiting from an outdated and
archaic rate structure and has shared that benefit with
15
16
17
its carrier/customers.Illuminet is now faced with
paying charges aligned with services received.It's as
simple as that.
18
19 CONCLUSION
20
21 Qs WOULD YOU PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY7
22 A.
23
24
Yes.Illuminet is Qwest's customer for the purchase of
ss7.Illuminet provides SS7 services to certain of the
other Complainants in this case.'Qwest lawfully
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-3?-
Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I.9
20 Q.
21 A.
revised its Catalog to establish discrete SS7 rate
elements to ensure that the customers using SS7 services
were paying for them.Illuminet should not be allowed
to circumvent these charges.
Billing arrangements and Interconnection Agreements
Qwest may have with CLECs and wireless providers have
absolutely no bearing in this proceeding, as ELI, the
only Idaho CLEC participating in this proceeding, chose
not to purchase SS7 services out of its Interconnection
Agreement.Instead,ELI chose to purchase SSX from
Illuminet and Illuminet. is not a party to the billing
arrangements and Interconnection Agreement between ELI
and Qwest.Illuminet has purchased SS7 services out of
Qwest's Access Services Catalog,the charges within that
Catalog are valid,and Illuminet should be required to
pay for signaling services provided by Qwest and denied
any refund.The Commission should find that the
application of Qwest's Idaho Access Services Catalog is
fair and equitable.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
Yea.
QWE-T-02-11
October 18, 2002
McIntyre, (Reb)-38.
Qwest Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mary S. Hobson, ISB #2142
Steel Rives LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise,ID 83702-5958
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Stephanie L. Boyett-Colgan
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street, 47th Floor
Denver,CO 80202-1984
Telephone:[phone]
Facsimile:[phone]
Attorneys Representing Qwest Corporation
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION,1
CITIZEN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) CASE NO. QWE-i-02-11 '~,
COMPANY OF IDAHO, CENTURY TEL OF )
IDAHO, CENTURY TEL OF THE GEM 1
STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE COMPANY )
And ILLUNINET, INC.)
Complainants
vs.
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Respoudent
EXHIBITS TO THE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF
SCOTT A. MCINTYRE
QWEST CORPOUTION
OCTOBER 18, 2002
EXHIBIT NO. 503
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
Conley Ward ISB #1683
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
277 North 6th Street, Suite 200
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
BEl?ORE TJ3E IDAElO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCL4TION,
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPAl& OF IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF
IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF m GEM STATE,
POTLATCH TELEPHONE COMPANY and
ILLUMINET, INC.
Complainants
vs.
QWEST COMMXlNICAtiONS, INC.,= ~-~ :
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
COIvPMANT, IDAHO TELEPHONE
ASSOCATION’S RESPONSES TO
RESPONDENT’S FIRST SET OF
INI’ERROGATORIES A N D RBQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
.I
Respondent. :
Idaho Telephone Association (“ITA”), by and through its attorneys of record Givens
Pursley LLP, hereby submits the following responses to Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories
and Request for Production of Documents.All answers were prepared by Conley Ward, attorney
for the ITA.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify each member of ITA and describe whether each
member operates as an ILEC or as a CLEC in the state of Idaho.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Silver Star Telephone Compsny,‘Inc.
(ILEC); Cohm>bine Telephone Company, Inc., d/b/a Teton Telecom (ILEC); Project Mutual
Telephone Cooperative Association, Inc. (ILEC & CLEC); Custer- Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
(ILEC); Mud Lake Telephone Cooperative Association, Inc. (ILEC); Fremont Telcom Co.
COMPLAINANTS’ WSCOVER~ RI%QUESTS TO RESPONDENT- 1
Exhibit 503
Case No. QWE-T-02-l I
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corpwation
@EC); Farmers Mutual Telephone Company, Ltd. (ILEC); Inland Telephone Company (ILEC);
Filer Mutual Telephone (&EC); Midvale Telephone Exchange, Inc. (ILEC); Direct
Communications Rockland, Inc. (ILEC); Rural Telephone Company @EC); Albion Telephone
Company &EC); and Cambridge Telephone Company (ALEC).
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:To the extent that any ITA member operates as both an
ILEC and a CLEC please identify each corporate entity operating within Idaho and explain
which entity(s) operate as lLEC’s and which as CLECs.
RJCSPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Project Mutual’s ILK and CLEC
operations are conducted by one entity. II-I addition, the following companies have CLEC
affiliates or sister companies operating in Idaho: Fremont Telcom (Fretel Communications,
LLC), Cambridge Telephone (CTC Telecom, Inc.), and Midvale.Telephone(Rural Network
Services, Inc.)...‘~ ~~.~. ,=~.? ~~,T
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:For each ITA member explain how it provides SS7
signaling to it end use customers.
RJLSPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Fremont Telcom uses Illuminet for SS7
services. Farmers Mutual uses Ilhnninet for its wireless traffic only. Filer Mutual uses Qwest.
Iuland Telephone is located in northern Idaho and is therefore not relevant to this proceeding.
All other ITA members use Syringa Networks LLC for SS7 signaling.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Referencing paragraph 17 of the Complaint, identify each
CLEC referenced therein and identify the exact provision in each interconuection agreement that
is alleged violated.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: The ITA does not kuow how many
interconnection agreements exist between Qwest aud Idaho CLECs, nor is it privy to the
COMPLAINANTS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO RESPONDENT- 2 . . ,,,*
language included in those contracts, all of which are presumably in Qwest’s possession.With
respect to interconnection agreements with ITA members or affiliates, the ITA believes that
direct or indirect billing for SS7 signaling for local or EAS calls is a violation of paragraphs 5.1
and 5.4.1.1 of the attached intercomiection agreements between Qwest and Project Ivlutual
Telephone Cooperative Association, Inc. (Exhibit A), CTC Telecom, Inc. (Exhibit B), and Rural
Network Services, Inc. (Exhibit C). To the extent that similar provisions are contained in other
intercomection agreements between Qwest and Idaho CLECs, the ITA believes that direct or
indirect billing for SS7 signaling for local or EAS calls is likewise a violation of those
agreements.
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REOUEST FOR PRODU~CTION NO. 1: Produce each document ITA intends to offer
in evidence at the hearing in this case.
RFSPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: The Complainants will file
with the Commission, aud serve upon Qwest, their pre-filed testimony and exhibits they intend to
offer at hearing on this matter, their rebmt.al/responsive testimony and exhibits required in light
of Qwest’s pre-filed testimony and any hearing exhibits that s~~pport the allegations contained in
the Complaint that initiated this proceeding. In addition, please see the attached contracts
identified in Response to Interrogatory No. 4 (above).
Respectfully submitted this 6th day of September 2002.
GIVBNS PURSLEY LLP
COMPLAINANTS’ DISCOVERV REQUESTS TO RESPONDENT- 3
EXHIBIT NO. 504
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-02-11
ITA, et al. 01-049
INTER”ENOR:IDAflO TELEPHOIiE ASSOC, CITIZEIiS TEL!3COM co OF ID, CENTURYTEL
OF ID, CENT"RYTEL OF THE GE?, STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE CO and ILLLMINET,
INC.
REQ"EST NO:049
Did Qwest reduce its access rates and revenues in Idaho when it unbundled SSI
signaling from its existing access rates? If so,identify which rate elements
were reduced, how Cyest selected the rate elements to be reduced, and how
Quest calculated the reductions (including, but not limited to, the demand
calculations used by Quest).
Qwest reduced the end office local switching, cm~?~!er comon'lin~~,,and ~~a~~em --: ~:
switching rate elements.'rhese elemental w&r& sFle?ted because <lle"$ign+ling ~,'-I.
before unbundling was recovered on a minute of use-basis and redking the%
elements was appropriate from that respect: -'.
Please see Confidential Attachment A which is the pricing spreadsheet that
was used to calculate revenue neutrality.
Confidential Attachment A will be provided upon execution of an
appropriate protective agreement.
Respondent:Herb Ruprecht
Case No. QWE-T-02-11
ATTACHMENT A
TO EXHIBIT 504 OF S. MCINTYRE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
CONFIDENTIAL
EXHIBIT NO. 505
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
EXHIBIT NO. 506
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
EXHIBIT NO. 507
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
G, .,
TO:..L&WEST
FROM:aTlzENscoMMuNIcAnoNs .
IlAm o!i-2749 -,-:
SuBk LEI-l-ER OF ACZ?X!Y-
Thig leua will remain in efE&tutil rchnded in witins by CZlZENS COMMUNI~~ATIO~.
Exhibit SO7
Case No. QWE-T-02-, ,
S. Mclntyx; QWW Corporation
TOZ
FROM:
l3Al-E
SUBJZ
NETWORKENGE’EEFUNG
S6OO HcadQumemDr.
Phoo, l-e%as 7sazs
469-36s 3ooo
FAXZ 469d65.4059
USWEST
CITIZENS COhMUNICATIONS
01-0441
LElTER OF AGENCY
CITlZENS COMMUNLlTIONS is authorizing ILLUMD-JET KI conducr all negotiations
id issue or$crs hr ISU? TRUNWG for poht mdes lhted below in all US WEST L.ATAh.POm CODES
~8~~~Oul;i~~~O~,21~~.W3,2ib~XIW, 218it35.005; 218~.fJO6,2tik.~7,
@33SJlO&3 qfL2wJo9,21g+35.011., ~,
This letrcr will remain in e&ct w.6.l rescinded in ->l:itig by Cm S
,OMMUNICA~ON S.
,
Sinwrely. aeven C. Hutfield.
SienatureOn File
RaGz.02
EXHIBIT NO. 508
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
Mdhg h&remfkmk ‘@wwc, ;a=.*c&w.: ,7n+*“cwe
sir ELfCTRiC “,#muwr, WasN”gccm W6Uomi ~76Jccd ~ax!36al.9~.589~~.~.~.~~~~ . . ...” . . . . . . . . ...” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...” . ..-......................-..” .,..............-..- -
m-w74097KIS.alb194
2w2.a202
zts-242-2-O I
C1054lS-098
oos-ols~099
2Taam-2012L!-l~?fMQ2
-aos-ot1.w2
09s-oll.193
WS4WO96m.m-o97
ws.w%w8.
c45.08w10
Exhibit 508
Case No. QWE-T-02-l I
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
EXHIBIT NO. 509
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
LOCAL INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
AND
ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVEJNC.
FOR
IDAHO
June 22, 2milhd/Eli-Idahe-IinaLdm
CDS4,30612-0162/C
Page i
Exhibit SO9
Case No. QWE-T-02-, ,
S. Mclnty~e; @vest Corporation
Part I- Rates
CLASS - Selective Cdl
Re@zticm
CIASS - Ancfl~cus call
Rejection
Call Palk (store &
lMllW2)
h&sage Waiting
h-diilion Lvv
1.2w 12.5w P.U.C. Oregon No. 26, Section 10,
0. 14
l.ZS3,S 12.503~~P.U.C. Oregm No. 26, Ssction 10,
p. 14
0.0335~m-z Iowa Tatitl No. 5, Section 10, p. 8
0.0356~8.5F Iowa Twiti No. 5, S&ion 10, p 10
EXHIBIT NO. 510
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
Part AGeneral Terms
Denver, CO 80202
ELI
Government and Industry Affairs
4400 N.E. 77th Avenue
Vancouver WA, 98662
Each Party shall inform the other of any changes in the above addresses.
(A)3.22 Responsibility of Each Party
Each Party is an independent contractor, and has and hereby retains the right to
exercise full control of and supervision over its own performance of its
obligations under this Agreement and retains full control over the employment,
direction, compensation and discharge of all employees assisting in the
performance of such obligations.Each Party will be solely responsible for all
matters relating to payment of such employees, including compliance with social
security taxes, withholding taxes and all other regulations governing suchmatters. Each Party will be solely responsible for proper handling, storage,; .,:a;: :,i:c !Q <y “~tr$ficwK dhd~&#&al & its &J+&$jen~e 61 all (I) s&&n&$ sr f&~~& Ihat it,.-J :,..! ~,J ~!;or its oontractore or agents bring to, create or ‘assume controF%WrF~ at work..; ,,*~ ;.k, t focatidns &, (fi)~%vaste ‘resulting ~therefrom or’othetiise generdied in&&Tnectionr:;, : 3,’ . 3 with itc or% i%htractors’ or ‘ageYft& activitiesat’the work locatiohs:~Subject to
’ the lirmitabons~oh cliabilify andM%pt as otherwise, provided <in: this Agreement;.I ~*each~~Party shall be responsible?;for (i) its .own acts and perfomTance of all
oblig~ation~~imposed by’ applicable law in connection with. its activities, legalstatus land :property, real or personal and, (ii) the acts of itsown%ffiliates,~% i.::y f.i@J emplciyees;!; agents and contraofdrs during, the performance of fFr%It Partys-<::): : T .,~‘$$obligations hereunder.“‘!’.!.~,,.. ~~%!.,v.
.;.(A)3.23 No Third Party Beneficiaries
This Agreement does not provide and shall not be construed to provide third
parties with any remedy, claim, liability, reimbursement, cause of action, or other
privilege.
(A)3.24 Referenced Documents
All references to Sections shall be deemed to be references to Sections of thisAgreement unless the context shall otherwise require. Whenever any provision
of this Agreement refers to a technical reference, technical publication, ELI
practice, USW practice, any publication of telecommunications industry
administrative or technical standards, or any other document specificallyincorporated into this Agreement, it will be deemed to be a reference to the most
recent version or edition (including any amendments, supplements, addenda, or
successors) of such document that is in effect, and will include the most recent
version or edition (including any amendments, supplements, addenda, or
successors) of each document incorporated by reference in such a technical
reference, technical publication, ELI practice, USW practice, or publication ofindustry standards.The existing configuration of either Party’s network may not
EXHIBIT NO. 511
CASE NO. QWE-T-02-11
S. McIntyre; Qwest Corporation
Idaho
Case No. QWF-T-02-11
ITA, et al. 01-028
1NTER”ENOR:ID?xHO TRLEWONE ASSOC, CITIZENS TELECON CO OF ID, CENT"RYTEL
OF ID, CENTURYTEL OF THE GRM STATE,POTLATCH TELEPHONR CO and ILL"MINET,
INC.
REQ"EST NO:028
Does Quest consider the offering of access to its SS7 facilities under the
Service Catalog to be "exchange access"as that term is defined in 47 U.S.C.
s 153(161?
Qwest objec,ts~to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad,
and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.Q.uest also abjec-ts to this request as it calls for a legal
conclusion., Notwithscanding~these objections, west answers no.
Respondent:. Don Lewis, ,,Man+e~r
Exhibits, 1
CaseNo.QWE-T-02-11
S. Mclnty~e;Qwest Corpxation
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 181h day of October, 2002, I served QWEST
CORPORATION’S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF SCOTT A. MCINTYRE as follows:
Ms. Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
jiewell~vuc.state.id.us
Conley Ward
Givens Parsley
277 North @’ Street-Suite 200
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]
Morgan W. Richards
Moffatt Thomas
101 Sooth Capitol Boulevard - 10’ Floor
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]
Thomas J. Moorman
Kraskin, Lesse & Cosson LLP
2 120 L Street NW - Suite 520
Washington DC 20037
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Clay Stugis
Moss Adams LLP
601 West Riverside - Suite 1800
Spokane, WA 99201-0663
Ted Hankins, Director
State Government Relations
P.O. Box 4065
Monroe, LA 71211-4065
Gail Long, Manager
External Relations
P.O. Box 1566
Oregon City, OR 97045-1566
[X] Hand Delivery
u U. S. Mail
u Overnight Delivery
u Facsimile
u Email
[z] Hand Delivery
u U. S. Mail
u Overnight Del&q
u Facsimile
u Email
m Hand Delivery
U U. S. Mail
U Overoiiht Delivery
U Facsimile
U Email
U H a n d Deliwry
m] U. S. Mail
U Overnight Delivev
U Facsimile
[L] Email
U H a n d Delivq
[z] U. S. Mail
U Overnight Delivery
U Facsimile
U H a n d Delivq
[x] U. S. Mail
U Overnight Delivery
U Facsimile
U Hand Delivery
[x] U. S. Mail
[A Overnight Delivery
U Facsimile
QWEST CORPORATION3 DIRECX TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH CRAIG AND
SCOT-I A. MCINTYRE - Pa@ 1
soise-l47508., co~91644mls2
Richard Wolf
Illuminet, Inc.
4501 lntelco Loop SE
P.O. Box 2909
Olympia, WA 98507
Lance Tade
Citizens Telecommunications
4 Triad Center - Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84180
F. Wayoe Lafferty
LKAM Services, Inc.
2940 Cedar Ridge Drive
McKinney, TX 75070
L] Hand Delivery
[L] U. S. Mail
u Overnight Delivery
u Facsimile
m Hand Delivery
[A] U. S. Mail
u Overnight Delivery
[A Facsimile
U Hand Delivery
w] U. S. Mail
U Overnight Delivery
u Facsimile
Brandi L. Gearhart, PLS
Legal Secretary to Mary S. Hobson
Steel Rives LLP
QWEST COPZORATION’S DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH CRAIG AND
SCOTT A. MCINTm - Page 2
Boise-l475os.~ ow29,64ooos2