20030507Reconsideration.pdf

;r.S' I
STGEL
~~,
HECEIVEO
f" C1- ILl_.
"",.,
101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suile 1900
Boise. Idaho 83702
main 208.389.9000
2003 MAY -6 PM 4: 57 rax 208.389.9040
www.sloel.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW IUt'ii;) (U,.:LIL.;
UTiliTIES C0I1MISSION
May 6 2003
MARY S. HOBSON
Direct [phone]
mshohson0stoel.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise ID 83702-5983
RE:Docket No. QWE-O2-
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing with this Commission is an original and seven (7) copies of Qwest'
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
Attachment E to the Petition is considered confidential and proprietary and is being filed under
separate cover with this Commission. Copies of the confidential attachment will be provided to
the parties who have executed the Protective Agreement.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours~~t!h~
~; '
4~bson
:blg
Enclosurescc: Service List
Oregon
Washington
California
Boise-156515.10029164-00082
U I a h
Idaho
~.~, ..
Mary S. Hobson (ISB #2142)
Stoel Rives LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mshobson~stoe1.com
RECEIVED 0FiLED
20G3 MA Y -6 PM~: 57
iU"':"J r-'l.iL.LlC
UTiLIT iES CO/"IMISSION
Stephanie Boyett-Colgan
Qwest Service Corporation
1801 California Street - 47th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
scolgan~qwest.com
Charles W. Steese
Steese & Evans, P.
6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1820
Denver, CO 80111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
csteese~s-elaw. com
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY OF IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF
IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM
STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE
COMPANY and ILLUMINET, INC.
CASE NO.: QWE-02-
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 29219
(Oral Argument Requested)
Complainants
QWEST CORPORATION
Respondent.
I The Complaint names Qwest Communications, Inc. as the Respondent, but the proper party is Qwest Corporation.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page I
Boise-156542.10029164-00082
INTRODUCTION
Qwest, Corporation ("Qwest"), pursuant to Idaho Code g61-626 and Commission rule of
procedure 331 , I.D.A.P.A 31.01.01.331 , respectfully requests that the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission ) reconsider its decision in this matter as set forth in Order No.
29219 ("Order
).
Qwest contends that the Order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous and not in
conformity with law. Qwest has attached a document that identities each of these errors. See
Attachment A.
Due to the highly interrelated nature of the numerous errors of fact and law, Qwest has
endeavored to group them into themes that will be the focus of this Petition: (1) the Commission
committed a manifest error of law by retaining jurisdiction over all aspects of the complaint
particularly as it relates to the rates for SS7 signaling used in the provision of intraLATA toll
traffic; (2) assuming the Commission had jurisdiction to reach Complainants' issues as they
relate to SS7 messaging charges associated with intraLATA toll traffic, the Commission erred in
finding those charges unreasonable and improper; and (3) Qwest has uncovered new and
additional evidence that (a) Illuminet was fully aware of the content and import of the Idaho
Access Service Catalog ("Catalog ) for months before it was filed; (b) before filing the Catalog,
Qwest informed Illuminet that it was not acting as an "agent" of its customers; and (c) Qwest
provided a copy of the Catalog to Illuminet before filing it with the Commission. Despite these
facts, Illuminet ordered SS7 services out of the Catalog and waited for over one year to file the
instant complaint. As such, Illuminet should be estopped from complaining about payment of
historical charges under the Catalog.
Qwest does not discuss all of its legal arguments in this Petition for Reconsideration beyond listing them in
Attachment A. If reconsideration is granted, Qwest will develop a supplemental factual record, the nature of which
is reflected in the affidavits of Mr. Linse, Ms. Kuder, and Ms. Kaufman-Prentice and will seek additional
opportunity to brief the Commission and present oral argument.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 2
Boise-156542.10029164-00082
Qwest therefore respectfully requests that the Commission grant reconsideration; order a
supplemental evidentiary hearing; evaluate whether Illuminet's was acting as an agent for its
customers; and evaluate the evidence on the issues assigned as errors of fact on Attachment A
including whether Illuminet knew of the terms of the Catalog in advance.Qwest also
respectfully requests the Commission find it is wit~out jurisdiction to regulate signaling over any
type of toll traffic pursuant to Title 62, based upon the legal authorities presented in this Petition
as well as evidence to be presented at the supplemental evidentiary hearing that will clarify the
application of the jurisdictional statutes. Finally, Qwest respectfully requests that the
Commission permit additional briefing on the issues identified as errors of law on Attachment A
as well as any other legal issues that might arise as a result of the supplemental hearing.
To the extent the Commission grants Qwest's requested reconsideration , the Commission
should vacate the Order, especially the provisions that require: Qwest to "withdraw the revisions
it made to its Access Catalog effective June 1 2001 , and refile it only after providing the means
to identify the interLATA toll traffic properly subject to the SS7 message charges. . . .
; "
Qwest
may not collect from Complainants" for certain services purchased from the Catalog ; and that
the Commission has jurisdiction over (all aspects ofJ the Complaint."
II.LEGAL STANDARD APPLICABLE TO THIS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Commission rule of procedure 331 , I.D.A.P.A 31.01.01.331 , and Idaho Code g 61-626
provide that the Commission has the authority to grant Qwest the relief it seeks. Specifically:
Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground
or grounds why the petitioner contends that the order or rule is
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the
law, and a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or
argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.
* * *
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 3
Boise-156542.10029164-00082
The petition or cross-petition must state whether the petitioner or
cross-petitioner requests reconsideration by evidentiary hearing,
written briefs, comments or interrogatories.
The Commission may grant reconsideration by rehearing if it intends to take additional evidence
or oral argument. In re PacifiCorp dba Utah Power Light Co. 2002 WL 2005754, *3 (Idaho
UC.Reconsideration provides an opportunity for an aggrieved party to bring to the
Commission s attention any question previously determined or omitted in a matter. Likewise
reconsideration provides the Commission with an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission.
Id.See e., In re U WEST Communications, Inc.167 P.UR. 4th 576, 1996 WL 131168
(Idaho P.Ue.) (new evidence taken on reconsideration); In re Packsaddle Dev. Corp.1996 WL
303808, *3 (Idaho P.) (new evidence taken on reconsideration).
Qwest requests that the Commission grant reconsideration by evidentiary hearing on four
topics that, although not well developed in the record to this point, appeared central to the
Commission s Order. First, the Commission should consider the history of deployment of SS7
technology in Idaho and how those facts establish whether SS7 was ever a Title 61 service
subject to the Commission s jurisdiction. Second, the Commission should consider how the
operation of Qwest's FCC-approved tariff at the interstate level demonstrates the appropriateness
of the SS7 message charges for intraLATA toll. Third, the Commission should consider the
history of Qwest's interactions with Illuminet before Qwest filed the Catalog, which history will
directly conflict with the Commission s finding that Qwest acted "unilaterally" and without
discussion" of the signaling charges with affected customers. Order at p. 16. Fourth, the
Commission should evaluate whether Illuminet truly held itself out as an "agent" of its
customers.
The purpose of an application for rehearing is to afford parties an opportunity to allow
the Commission to rectify any manifest error before the matter is appealed. Washington Water
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 4
Boise-156542.10029164-00082
Power Co. v. Kootenai Env t! Alliance 99 Idaho 875 , 878 , 591 P 2d. 122, 125 (1979). Qwest
respectfully requests that the Commission grant rehearing to take additional evidence as
described here and more fully in the affidavits of Ms. Char Kuder (Attachment B), Ms. Julie
Kaufman-Prentice (Attachment C) 3 and Mr. Philip Linse (Attachment D). This will allow the
Commission to rectify mistakes of fact and law that underlie Order No. 29219. In addition
Qwest asks that the Commission reconsider whether it has jurisdiction over Qwest's provision
and sale ofSS7 services that underlie toll calls.
Given the substantial factual and legal issues presented in this Petition, Qwest filed its
Motion to Stay on May 5 , 2003, respectfully requesting that the Commission stay the effect of
the Order pending reconsideration and, if necessary, appeal.
III.LEGAL ARGUMENT
The Commission Lacks Jurisdiction to Set De Facto Rates for the Si2nalin2
Associated With Toll Calls.
The Commission s Order is contradictory insofar as it claims jurisdiction over disputes
involving toll traffic.The Commission recognizes it "cannot set prices for . . . particular
service(sJ" - specifically toll servIces - yet the Commission claims to have jurisdictional
authority over a dispute about proper "application of those charges.Order at p. 6. Based on
this purported jurisdiction, the Commission found Qwest's "SS7 message charges. . . unfair and
unreasonable.Order at p. 11. Finding a rate "unfair and unreasonable" is tantamount to setting
the rate. A rate is either beyond the scope of the Commission or it is not. The Commission
cannot have it both ways.
Ms. Kaufman-Prentice s affidavit was submitted as Attachment A to Qwest's Motion for Stay filed May 5
2003. An additional copy is filed as an attachment to Qwest's Petition as a convenience to the Commission.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 5
Boise-156542.10029164-00082
The law is clear that the Commission does not have this authority. Specifically, in 1989
U S WEST Communications, Inc. ("U S WEST") utilized Idaho Code g 62-604 to exclude all of
its services, other than basic local exchange services, from regulation pursuant to Title 61 , Idaho
Code, and to make them subject to Chapter 6, Title 62, Idaho Code. Once US WEST's Title 62
election became effective, the Commission no longer had the jurisdictional authority to (1) set
the rates for services other than basic local exchange service or (2) control the Company s level
of earnings. No one disputes this central tenet. The Commission should therefore reconsider
and modify its decision as a matter of law insofar as it negated Qwest's ability to charge Catalog
rates for SS7 messaging involved with originating or terminating a toll call. See Order at pp. 15-
16 (mid-span meet billing) and p. 18 (originating toll traffic).
SS7. especially insofar as it is necessary to send/receive toll calls. is a
service offered under Title 62. Idaho Code.
The Commission attempts to extend its jurisdiction by claiming that "any
telecommunications service that was subject to regulation under Title 61 before July 2l , 1988
can be reviewed by the Commission. . . .Order at p. 7. As a result, the Commission held that
(u)ntil Qwest filed its revised Access Catalog, SS7 signaling was not separated from the traffic
with which it was associated, including local traffic. . .. Qwest's unilateral decision to unbundle
local traffic did not by itself convert that component of local services into an unregulated Title 62
service outside the reach of the Commission.Order at pp. 8. Qwest is prepared to present
new evidence that (1) Qwest has always charged wholesale customers for SS7 signaling
separately even for local transmission, and (2) Qwest never offered SS7 signaling as a service
before July 21 , 1988 and therefore is a Title 62 service outside of Commission purview.
This case concerns changes to Qwest's Catalog effective June 1 , 2001; specifically, per-
message charges for the signaling that pass over the Qwest SS7 network. Prior to June 2001
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 6
Boise-156542.1 0029164-00082
Illuminet purchased facilities from Qwest for the purpose of provisioning SS7 signaling (Tr. 226
(Florack)). Illuminet purchased links and ports out of the Qwest Catalog. These links and ports
were used for all call types, local, EAS, wireless, and toll. The rates for these links and ports
were not intertwined with the underlying service.This is an undisputed point, but the
Commission s Order appears to have overlooked its ramifications.
New evidence presented with this Petition shows the Commission never regulated SS7 as
a Title 61 service, and when SS7 was introduced wholesale customers always purchased it
separately from the services it supported. While the transition from Title 61 to Title 62 occurred
in 1989, SS7 was first introduced in Idaho in the early 1990's. Linse Affidavit at ~~f7-8. SS7 was
first used in a market trial on February 18, 1991. SS7 was first offered as a new Title 62 service
in Qwest's Access Service Catalog in 1993.Linse Affidavit at ~~9-1 O.Even then other
companies, such as the Complainants in this case, did not use SS7 as a means of setting up calls
that originated from or terminated to Qwest. Linse Affidavit at ~12. The Complainants began to
deploy SS7 over the years that followed. Companies who wanted to deploy SS7 purchased
signaling as separate service from the Access Service Catalog.These companies bought new
connections - links and ports to Qwest's SS7 network - and sent and received SS7 messages
over this new network. Indeed, Illuminet's witness, Paul Florack, testified
, "
Of course, the SS7
network is separate in the sense that it is composed of switches and transmission facilities, which
are used solely for signaling and which carry no end user traffic.Tr. 245. All of these
purchases, which made access to that signaling network possible, were made from the Qwest
Title 62 Access Services Catalog - the very Catalog at issue and the very Title that precludes the
Commission from regulating rates.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 7
Boise-156542.10029164-00082
What changed with the June 1 , 2001 Access Services Catalog reVISIOn was not a
separation of SS7 signaling from the underlying traffic as the Order states Order at p. , but
rather the addition of usage charges to the existing facilities charges for all customers who used
the network. Linse Affidavit at 1115-16. The record is clear that Qwest has always imposed
usage charges for SS7 signaling. The only difference being that before June 1 2001 , one subset
of users - interexchange carriers - paid for SS7 usage in the form of per minute access charges.
Tr. 398.
These new facts establish that SS7 is, by necessity, a Title 62 service. These new facts
establish SS7 has always had its own rate structure, and has always been sold to wholesale
customers separately from the underlying service.These new facts establish that the
Commission s Order is nothing more than an attempt to set rates for a service over which it has
no jurisdictional authority.The Commission should grant reconsideration, and order a
supplemental hearing to hear evidence on this important subject.
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over these SS7 messaj!es where
they support toll traffic.
The Commission s Order recognizes it does not have authority to regulate servIces
associated with toll calls Order at p. , yet then finds it has the ability to set SS7 rates because to
find otherwise could "leave injured parties with no remedy.Order at p. In fact
conspicuously absent from the Order is language that the Commission has such jurisdiction over
signaling associated with toll traffic.Instead, the Order appears to rest entirely on the
determination that the Commission retains jurisdiction over local exchange service: "First, as
There is nothing in the record that demonstrates Complainants lacked other forums in which to bring their
claims. It goes without saying that if the Commission does not have jurisdiction, parties with disputes would not
have a remedy at the Commission. However, it does not follow that to the extent any of the Complainants had a
legal theory why Qwest should not be allowed to charge for SS7 messages that use its network they could not seek
remedy from a court of competent jurisdiction.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 8
Boise-156542.10029164-00082
already noted, a large part of the Complainants ' issues relate to Qwest's pricing and billing for
signaling separately from the local calls with which they are associated. The Commission in its
review of those issues is not constrained by statute.Order at p.
The law is clear that the Commission cannot confer jurisdiction on itself unless
specifically authorized by statute:
As a general rule, administrative authorities are tribunals of limited
jurisdiction and their jurisdiction is entirely dependent upon the
statutes reposing power in them and. they cannot confer it on
themselves, although they may determine whether they have it.
the provisions of the statute are not met and compliance is not had
with the statutes, no jurisdiction exists.
Kootenai 99 Idaho at 879. The Commission acknowledges it has no statutory authority to set
rates for toll traffic. Yet that is exactly what it did when it found the rates for Qwest's SS7
services unjust and unreasonable.
The obvious limitation on the Commission s jurisdiction is entirely overlooked in the
Order. The Commission recognized that "even under Title 62 regulation, the Commission
regulates the price, terms and conditions by which Qwest offers basic local exchange service.
Even assuming that the Legislature ceded jurisdiction to the Commission over SS7 message
charges associated with basic local exchange service traffic, the Order offers no explanation how
the Commission moved from local service to seize jurisdiction over intraLA T A toll or switched
access servIces.
The Order does not comply with section 62-614's requirement that the
Commission resolve any Qwest/ILEC dispute "in accordance with
applicable provisions of law.
The Commission s Order acknowledges Qwest's position that - going forward - the only
SS7 message charges that would be imposed related to intraLATA toll traffic, a Title 62 service
over which the Commission lacks regulatory jurisdiction. Order at p. 5. Nonetheless, rather
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 9
Boise-156542.10029164-00082
than addressing the Commission s authority to enter an order that requires Qwest to forego
charging all customers for use of its SS7 network in connection with intraLATA toll, the Order
states
, "
the Commission need not address each argument on jurisdiction made by Qwest because
it seems this case is precisely the kind of dispute the legislature intended be brought to the
Commission for resolution under Idaho Code g 62-614.This statement reveals that the
Commission failed to distinguish between its jurisdiction to hear a dispute, and its jurisdiction to
grant the relief requested.
Under section 62-614, the Commission has jurisdiction to hear a Qwest/ILEC dispute, but
it must resolve any such dispute
, "
in accordance with applicable provisions of law." Section 62-
614 does not expand the Commission s jurisdiction over Title 62 products and services, nor does
it grant powers previously withheld from the Commission such as retroactive ratemaking. In re
Cant'! Tel. Co. of the West Idaho PUC Case No. U-1037-, Order No. 19539, 1985 Ida. PUC
LEXIS 53; Utah Power Light Co. v. Idaho Pub. Uti!. Comm '107 Idaho 47, 49, 685 P.
276 278 (1984). Thus, by relying on section 62-614 for entry of Order 29219, the Commission
not only took jurisdiction over a dispute outside of its purview, but also attempted to grant relief
outside of the authority accorded the Commission under statute.The Order contains no
discussion of the Commission s authority to order withdrawal of Qwest' s Title 62 Catalog, other
than to note that "a large part of the Complainants' issues relate to Qwest's pricing and billing
for signaling separately from the. . . calls with which they are associated.Order at p. 6. This
rationale, of course, makes Qwest's point. The Complaint is about Qwest's rates - rates over
which the Commission has no jurisdiction.
Even if section 62-605(5) otherwise applies. the Commission does not
have the authority to reeulate the price of a Title 62 service.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 10
Boise-156542.10029164-00082
The only other basis upon which the Commission could retain jurisdiction is section 62-
605(5), which provides the Commission with "continuing authority to review the quality of such
service, its general availability, and terms and conditions under which it is offered.
Conspicuously absent from this list of Commission control is the "price" or "price structure" of a
Title 62 service. Despite an acknowledged lack of ability to set rates, that is exactly what the
Order does. The Order makes plain that the Commission viewed the level of cost recovery for
SS7 as the primary reason the SS7 message charges were "improper.Order at p. 22. Indeed
the Commission concluded "Qwest unilaterally imposed message charges on traffic for which it
was already being compensated, including for the signaling component." Id. The Commission
concluded this amounted to "double recovery.Order at p.
The Order dwells on the level of Qwest's charges for SS7 signaling as evidenced by
discussion of the offset Qwest took to switched access charges when it instigated per-message
charges on SS7 signaling. Specifically, "Qwest improperly assumed that all signaling charges at
the state level may be offset by reductions in switched access charges.Order at p. 10. Qwest
made no such assumption. The record is clear that Qwest never suggested its restructure of SS7
signaling charges would be revenue neutral to every customer. Tr. 419. To the contrary, the
restructure was intended to make SS7 usage charges more fair by requiring all users of Qwest'
SS7 network to pay for the usage, not just interexchange carriers. Tr. 394 and 419.
The Commission s statement that "Qwest implemented SS7 message charges that are
already recovered in customer rates on local traffic, including EAS traffic, or pursuant to existing
inter-carrier traffic agreements Order at p. , is not only unsupported by any cost evidence
but demonstrates the Commission used an inappropriate standard of review for these SS7
message charges. From its inception, SS7 has been a price de-regulated Title 62 service and
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 11
Boise-156542.1 0029164-00082
even under section 62-605(5) the Commission cannot regulate any Title 62 service prices, unless
it truly "claws back" the service into Title 61 and sets prices itself under its traditional
ratemaking authority. However, that authority is limited to services that were once offered under
Title 61. The Order does not attempt to and could not claw back SS7 because, as set forth above
SS7 was never regulated under Title 61.
The relief granted in the Order not only improperly price regulates a Title 62 service, it
completely eliminates Qwest's recovery ofSS7 message costs. Requiring Qwest to withdraw the
Catalog not only means Qwest cannot charge Complainants for SS7 messages, it means Qwest
cannot charge its eight other SS7 customers currently purchasing SS7 from the Access Services
Catalog, including IXCs who actually did enjoy a reduction in their SS7 charges as a result of the
price restructure. See Affidavit of Julie Kaufman Prentise at -,r-,r3- 7. The record in this case does
not justify this harsh result.
The Commission s power to establish rates for unbundled network
elements does not justify the entry of Order No. 29219.
The Commission also speculates that powers granted by the Telecommunications Act of
1996 and Idaho Code g 62-615(1) to set the prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) may
empower the Commission to hear Complainants ' case and grant the requested relief:
It is reasonable to conclude the Commission s jurisdiction over
UNE charges under the Telecommunications Act goes beyond
merely accepting a price proposed by Qwest, and is broad enough
to reach questions of implementation.
Order at p. n. 1. Qwest does not dispute that the Commission has authority to set UNE prices.
Indeed, the Commission has already done just that with respect to a myriad of UNEs, including
unbundled signaling, through its approval of Qwest's SGAT. However, there is no statutory
connection between UNE rates and Title 62 rates. The two are completely different legally and
factually.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 12
Boise-156542.1 0029164-00082
Complainants acknowledge as much.The record in this case makes clear the
Complainants are not purchasing SS7 as a UNE. Instead, they are relying on one of the other
options contemplated in SGAT g 7.2.2.1 - use of a third party signaling provider. Wayne
Lafferty, testifying on behalf of ELI, admitted that ELI's interconnection agreement would allow
purchase of SS7 as a UNE, but dismissed this as "an option that ELI feels is not required"
because it is purchasing SS7 from a third party provider. Tr. 124-125.This position is
understandable given that ELI's interconnection agreement provides for per-message charges for
signaling messages using Qwest's SS7 network.S Nevertheless, given that Complainants
themselves recognize that UNE pricing are not relevant to their claims, the Commission cannot
rely on UNE pricing authority to resolve the disputes.
Conclusion of the Jurisdictional Section.
Idaho law makes plain that the Commission is without jurisdiction to set rates for a Title
62 service. Nonetheless, that is the net effect of Commission Order No. 29219. As a result, the
Commission should reconsider its decision as a matter of law. In addition, however, Qwest has
presented new evidence that establishes it is physically impossible for the Commission to have
regulated SS7 before July 21 , 1988. As such, SS7 was never a Title 61 service and, as a result
the Commission cannot "claw back" SS7 to regulate it now.These new facts justify
reconsideration via a supplemental evidentiary hearing. This will allow the Commission to
carefully consider whether it has the jurisdiction required to issue the Order. Qwest is confident
that once these new facts are evaluated, the Commission will recognize it must modify the Order.
See Exhibit 509 (ELI's Local Interconnection Agreement, ~(E)15.3.2); Tr. 448.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
Even If The Commission Has Jurisdiction Over SS7 Char2es Associated
With Toll Traffic. New Evidence Will Demonstrate That The Commission
Erroneously Concluded That Qwest's SS7 Char2es Were Improper And
Violation Of Existin2 Inter-carrier A2reements.
From its inception, SS7 has been a price de-regulated Title 62 service. This fact not only
impacts the question of the Commission s jurisdiction, but also underscores the errors in the
Order s evaluation of the propriety ofthe SS7 message charges associated with toll traffic.
The Order erroneously concludes that "the Idaho Commission has been able to spread the
recovery of SS7 expenses across all intrastate services, including basic local rates, intraLATA
toll, enhanced features and intrastate access in the same manner as switching and transmission
expenses.Order at p. 12. This simply cannot be true in light of the fact that the last time the
Commission set rates for intraLA T A toll, enhanced features and intrastate access prices was in
docket U-1000-70 filed in November, 1983.6 The Commission concluded that docket with Order
No. 18872 in May 1984, nearly seven years prior to the time the Company first incurred SS7
investment expenses in Idaho. Linse Affidavit at ~~ 3 & 8-9. Indeed, when US WEST made its
Title 62 election, after which time it alone was responsible for recovery of its costs for all
services except basic local exchange service, U S WEST had not yet started to deploy SS7 in its
network.
Based on the foregoing chronology, the notion that the Commission has put in place cost-
recovery mechanisms for SS7 expenses associated with intraLATA toll in rates is completely
contrary to fact and cannot be used as a justification for entering Order No. 29219. Likewise, the
notion that Qwest's SS7 message charges are prohibited because they constitute "double
In Case No. USW-96-, the Commission set rates for basic local exchange services only. All investment
and expenses associated with services provided to other customers (including customers purchasing products and
services from the Access Services Catalog) were excluded from the Commission s ratemaking consideration. See
Case No. USW -96-5 Order No. 27100 at p. 34: "the Commission is required to establish procedures for allocating
the costs between the Title 61 and Title 62 operations of the Company pursuant to Idaho Code 9 61-622A." (August
, 1997).
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 14
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
recovery" of costs otherwise recovered in some Commission-sanctioned inter-carrier agreement
is unsupported by the existing record and will be further refuted by the evidence presented at
rehearing.
Similarly, the Commission appears to have been misled by Complainants to believe that
the imposition of message charges associated with Qwest-originated toll and meet-point billed
traffic was unprecedented.This erroneous assumption formed part of the rationale for the
decision that Qwest should not be permitted to impose SS7 signaling charges on intraLATA toll
unless it terminated with Qwest. Order at p. 18. The affidavit of Ms. Kuder demonstrates
however, that under Qwest's interstate tariff, which the FCC has specifically approved, Illuminet
pays message charges associated with calls traversing a mid-span meet and for Qwest-originated
toll calls. Kuder Affidavit at ~ 3. If the Commission grants reconsideration and allows Qwest to
present additional evidence, Qwest will demonstrate that its implementation of the Access
Services Catalog SS7 message charges, as they relate to intraLATA toll, is entirely consistent
with the FCC's approval of such charges for interstate toll.
New Evidence Establishes That Qwest Did Not Act "Unilaterally" In Its
Submission Of The Idaho Catalo2~ To The Contrary. Illuminet Was
Provided An Advance COpy Of The Catalo2 And Informed They Would Not
Be Treated As An "A2ent" If They Purchased from the Catalo2. The
Commission Should Therefore Estop Illuminet From Complainin2 About
Historical Rates Flowin2 From Its Decision To Order Out Of The Catalo2
And Then Wait for Over One Year To Complain.
Newly discovered evidence Justifies reconsideration.
Since hearing in this case, Qwest has uncovered a multitude of new, additional evidence
that bears on the issues in this case justifying reconsideration and the taking of additional
evidence. In its conclusion, the Commission found that:
The Commission cites with approval Complainants' testimony that "a telecommunications carrier is never
allowed under existing arrangements to charge other companies for the costs associated with the obligation of that
carrier s own intrastate toll.Order at p.
, PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
Qwest unilaterally imposed message charges on traffic for which
it was already being fully compensated, including for the signaling
component. In addition, Qwest (1) unilaterally changed payment
terms by which companies traditionally and by agreement
exchange telecommunications traffic. . . .
Order at p. 22 (emphasis added). Further, the Commission criticized Qwest for failing to discuss
the signaling issues that revolve around the exchange of traffic stating, "that discussion should
have occurred prior to Qwest's implementation of new signaling charges.Order at p. 16. As a
result, the Commission ordered that Qwest's "Access Catalog revisions (be) withdrawn.Id.
a result, the Commission held that "Qwest may not collect from Complainants for those
charges." In fact, in rendering its decision the Commission repeatedly found that Qwest acted
unilaterally.Order at pp. , 18, & 19.
Both the Commission s Order and questions from Commissioners during the hearing
suggest that the Commission denies Qwest the ability to recover historical revenue because it
acted "unilaterally," without discussion and without the knowledge of Illuminet or its customers.
This concept is fundamentally incorrect.
Illuminet was fully aware of the terms of the federal tariff and, as such, the Idaho Catalog
for at least eight months before its filing in May 2001. Newly discovered evidence not presented
at the hearing make this plain. Specifically, after Qwest filed its FCC tariff to modify rates for
SS7 signaling, Illuminet purchased and paid for SS7 services from that tariff. Kuder Affidavit
~~3 & 9. These include payment for messages traversing a mid-span meet and associated with
Qwest originated toll calls. Kuder Affidavit at ~3.8 Illuminet's purchases from Qwest's federal
This fact is critical because the Commission assumes that "(u)ntil Qwest revised its Access Catalog and
attempted to apply separate signaling charges to the ILECs for meet point billed traffic, everyone assumed traffic
exchanged between LECs by that arrangement included the associated signaling.Order at p. 16. Ms. Kuder
statement that Illuminet has paid (and continues to pay) for signaling messages necessary to complete meet point
billed traffic shows this factual assumption by the Commission is simply incorrect. It also shows the FCC has
approved of the very billing mechanism the Commission strikes down as unsupportable. The same is true for Qwest
originated toll where Illuminet has paid for signaling messages associated with such calls under the FCC tariff since
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 16
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
tariff raised questions that prompted a series of meetings between Qwest and Illuminet. Kuder
Affidavit at ~9-10. For example, on November 22 2000, Mr. F. Terry Kremian, Executive Voice
President and COO of Illuminet, sent Beth Halvorsen, Vice President Wholesale Markets a letter
requesting a meeting to discuss several issues related to SS7 message charges. Specifically: "
behalf of Illuminet, this letter is to request a meeting with you. . . to discuss the outstanding
issues related to the appropriateness of Qwest's charges to Illuminet for . . . (SS7) messaging.
As you are aware, these issues have been the subject of on-going discussions between our two
companies. . ..Illuminet attached a "white paper" to this November 2000 letter that set forth
several concerns-- many of which Illuminet raised with this Commission. Kuder Affidavit at ~9.
After this November 2000 meeting, Qwest and Illuminet held a series of meetings
wherein Illuminet complained about Qwest's tariffed rates.Kuder Affidavit at ~10.For
example, Illuminet argued that the terms of the agreements between Qwest and Illuminet's
customers should govern the rates. Kuder Affidavit at ~1 O.During these same meetings
Illuminet asked questions about how it could obtain SS7 services at different rates from those set
forth in the tariff. Kuder Affidavit at ~1 O( c). Qwest informed Illuminet that if it wanted to obtain
the benefits of agreements with its customers, it should not order out of the tariff. Kuder
Affidavit at ~1 O( c). Instead, Qwest informed Illuminet that there were forms and procedures for
acting as an agent of another carrier. Kuder Affidavit at ~10(a). Qwest made Illuminet fully
aware that ifit ordered services from Qwest's tariff it would be charged the rates contained in the
tariff. Kuder Affidavit at ~10(c). Again, because Illuminet had purchased SS7 services via the
federal tariff in the past, and because the state tariffs/catalogs were modeled after the federal
it was modified in May 2000. See Order at p. 18, where again, the Commission assumes that Qwest made the
unilateral decision to charge for signaling associated with Qwest originated calls. The FCC has specifically
approved of this methodology and parties, such as Illuminet, have paid and continue to pay those charges.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 17
Boise-lS6S42.10029164-00082
tariff, Illuminet knew exactly what Qwest intended to do. Kuder Affidavit at ~1 O( d). There was
nothing "unilateral" about Qwest's conduct.
Nonetheless, just to ensure that Illuminet was on notice of each state tariff, Qwest
provided the tariff filings to Illuminet before submitting them with state commissions. Kuder
Affidavit at ~10(d). Thus, before filing the Idaho Catalog, Qwest provided Illuminet with an
advance copy. Kuder Affidavit at ~10(d). Despite taking all of these precautions, Illuminet
ordered SS7 services out of the Idaho Catalog. Despite all of these precautions, Illuminet signed
up new customers to purchase SS7 services from it in Idaho premised on the services obtained
from Qwest via the Idaho Catalog. Linse Affidavit at ~13. Despite all of these precautions
Illuminet waited for over one year to complain about the rates in the Idaho Catalog. The net
effect of Illuminet's delay was Qwest billing and collecting over $1.5 million from other carriers
pursuant to the Catalog for the provision of SS7 services. Kaufman-Prentice Affidavit at ~4.
The new facts establish that Illuminet should be estopped from complaining about charges for
historical purchases under the tariff.
The doctrine of quasi estoppel applies when a party who has a duty to speak fails to do so
and thereby produces an unconscionable advantage for himself, or a disadvantage for another.
KTVB v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 282, 486 P.2d 992, 995 (1971); City of Sand point
Sand point Indep. Highway Dist.126 Idaho 145 , 151 , 879 P.2d 1078, 1084 (1994). Quasi
estoppel requires that "the person against whom it is sought to be applied (here IlluminetJ has
previously taken an inconsistent position, with knowledge of the facts and his rights, to the
detriment ofthe person seeking application of the doctrine.KTVB 94 Idaho at 282 486 P.2d at
995. Quasi estoppel does not require concealment or misrepresentation of existing facts by one
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 18
Boise-IS6S42.1 0029164-00082
party or actual reliance by the other. Evans v. Idaho State Tax Comm
~,
97 Idaho 148, 540 P.
810 (1975).
The defense of quasi estoppel applies "when it would be unconscionable to allow a party
to assert a right which is inconsistent with a prior position.Willig v. State, Dep t of Health and
Welfare 127 Idaho 259, 261 899 P.2d 969 971 (Idaho 1995). This can occur when a party who
has a duty to speak fails to do so. See Lupis v. Peoples Mortg. Co
~,
107 Idaho 489, 491 , 690 P.2d
944, 946 (1984) (quasi estoppel may arise when a party who has a duty to speak fails to do so).
Quasi-estoppel will also be invoked when the plaintiff knowingly takes actions that are
inconsistent with a previous posture to the detriment of the defendant. See Callenders
Beckman 120 Idaho 169, 175, 814 P.2d 429, 435 (Ct. App. 1985) (by entering into partnership
agreements, plaintiff affirmed that partnership did not recognize wage claims and was barred
from asserting those claims through doctrine of quasi estoppel).
The doctrine of quasi estoppel applies to this case. The new evidence shows that while
Illuminet voiced concern about Qwest's Catalog and the rate structure therein, Illuminet
proceeded to order SS7 services out of the Catalog and failed to complain for over one year. The
net effect was Qwest billing and collecting over $1.5 million from other carriers. Illuminet has
now asked, and the Commission s Order granted, a request to withdraw all June 1 , 2001
revisions to the Catalog. This inexcusable delay will leave Qwest with no viable means by
which to recover for SS7 signaling charges, even those that Illuminet and this Commission
recognize as unquestionably legitimate.Given that Illuminet had an advance copy of the
Catalog, advance warning of how Qwest would bill under the Catalog, foreknowledge that if
Illuminet ordered from the Catalog it could not claim agent status, and knew that Qwest was
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERA nON OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 19
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
permanently changing its rate structure for SS7 signaling, Illuminet should be estopped from
complaining about historical charges under the Catalog.
Newly discovered evidence also shows that Illuminet is not an "al!ent"
capable of relyinl! upon Qwest'al!reements with Illuminet'
customers.
Central to Illuminet's claim is that it is ordering SS7 services from Qwest as an "agent"
of its customers. By making this claim, Illuminet argues it should not be bound by the strict
rates, terms and conditions set forth in the Idaho Catalog, but instead it should be subject to
provisions in separate agreements between Qwest and Illuminet's customers.While the
Commission does not make an express finding that Illuminet is acting as an agent of its
customers, the Order specifically refers to inter alia inter-carrier arrangements (Order at p.
14), "Commission approved arrangements (!d.
),
meet point billing arrangements (Order at p.
15), and that "Qwest is attempting to change existing arrangements.Order at p. 16. Given that
Illuminet is the only Complainant to purchase SS7 services from the Idaho Catalog, the "other
arrangements" the Commission is referring to must be agreements between Qwest and
Illuminet's customers. Thus, the Commission must have tacitly agreed with Illuminet's agency
argument. There is no set of law or facts that justify such a conclusion. Qwest's new evidence
makes this that much more plain and justifies reconsideration through a supplemental evidentiary
hearing.
Evidence from the initial hearinl! demonstrates Illuminet is notan al!ent purchasinl! SS7 services under its customers
al!reements with Qwest.
As an initial matter, evidence from the initial hearing establishes that the "other
arrangements" are legally and factually separate from Illuminet's purchase of SS7 from the
Catalog.In choosing to purchase SS7 from Illuminet, Illuminet's customers chose not to
purchase SS7 through these agreements. ELI admitted as much: Wayne Lafferty admitted that
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 20
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
ELI's interconnection agreement would allow purchase of SS7 as a UNE, but dismissed this as
an option that ELI feels is not required" because it is purchasing . SS7 from a third party
provider. Tr. 124-125. The same is true of Citizens. This is understandable because Illuminet
aggregates SS7 signaling messages for other companies. Tr. 262. This allows Citizens ' to
provision one set of links from its California switch to Illuminet.If Citizens did not use
Illuminet, it would have had to purchase a separate set of links to Qwest's STPs in three Qwest
LATAs, the Idaho LATA being one of the three. Linse Affidavit at ~13.This type of
architecture allows Citizens to access Qwest's STP without having to provision its own links to
each STP.Id. Thus, using Illuminet saves Citizens the necessity of having to install direct links
from its switch to each Qwest STP.
In addition, however, Illuminet has admitted purchasing SS7 through the Catalog. E.g.,
Complaint ~11. Even more telling, Illuminet's contracts with its own customers do not identify
Illuminet as purchasing SS7 services as an agent of the customer. See Confidential Attachment
Illuminet did not enter its customer agreements into evidence, but at least one of its
agreements was disclosed in discovery. That contract has an integration clause, which states that
the written terms constitute the entire agreement between the parties. Id. at SK. Discussing the
attached agreement and any other relevant contracts at the supplemental hearing would help the
Commission assess whether Illuminet held itself out to its customers as their agent. Qwest has
reason to believe this is not the case, and new evidence produced in a supplemental hearing will
make this point plain. Thus, Qwest requests a supplemental evidentiary hearing to present
evidence about whether agreements between Illuminet and its customers establish that Illuminet
was acting as their agent when ordering SS7 via the tariff.
See Exhibit 509 (ELI's Local Interconnection Agreement, section (E)15.3.2); Tr. 448.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 21
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
The law establishes the same thing.Agency is a relationship resulting from 'the
manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and
subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act." Herbst v. Bothof Dairies, Inc.110
Idaho 971 , 973 , 719 P.2d 1231 , 1234 (App. 1986), quoting, Restatement (2nd) of Agency gl , at 7
(1958); see also Bailey v. Ness 109 Idaho 495 , 497, 708 P.2d 900, 902 (1985). Illuminet's
contracts with its customers (as referenced above) negate any possibility of showing consent to
agency.
Even if Illuminet is an aeent of its customers. that aeency is
irrelevant to Illumiilet's purchase of SS7 services.
When the facts and law are studied closely, it is also apparent that the doctrine of
agency" has no applicability to this case. A finding that Illuminet is an "agent" does not aide in
analysis of the case. The core of Illuminet's argument is its request that the Commission find
that a different contract (its customers' agreements with Qwest) governs Illuminet's purchase of
SS7 services. Illuminet's only stated basis for this position is Paragraph 11 of the Complaint:
Illuminet, as the agent of its carrier customers, has the right under
its contracts to pass these charges on to its client companies
pursuant to the terms of their contractual relationships.
Complaint at ~11. It is hornbook law that agency is a fiduciary relationship. State v. Compton
92 Idaho 739, 740-, 450 P.2d 79, 80-81 (1969) (citing Restatement (2nd) of Agency, ggl-3). It
is contractual principles, not agency principles, that the Commission must evaluate in this case.
Normally, to claim rights under a contract, the claimant must have had a meeting of the
minds with the other contracting parties. Restatement (2nd) of Contracts, g 17 , cmt c.Thomas
Schmelzer 118 Idaho 353 , 356, 796 P.2d 1026, 1029 (App. 1990). Obviously, Illuminet had no
meeting of the minds with Qwest in the creation of agreements between Qwest and Illuminet'
customers. Thus, Illuminet is not in privity of contract with Qwest other than through purchase
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 22
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
of SS7 services from the Idaho Catalog. The exceptions to privity of contract are (1) assignment
and (2) third party (intended) beneficiary status. E.g.Restatement (2nd) of Contracts, g 317
(defining assignment of contract rights); Adkison Corp. v. American Bldg. Co.107 Idaho 406
409, 690 P.2d 341 , 344 (1984) (third-party beneficiary theory). Illuminet has not argued either
of these doctrines, and it is patently obvious that neither ofthese doctrines apply in this case.
Illuminet is not a third-party beneficiary. To claim third party beneficiary status
, "
the
contract itself must express an intent to benefit the third party.Adkison.107 Idaho at 409 690
2d at 344. Qwest's agreements with Illuminet customers state that no persons other than the
named contract party shall benefit from those agreements. For example, Qwest's interconnection
agreement with ELI states:
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.
Exhibit 510 at g(A)3.23. Thus, Illuminet cannot be a third party beneficiary.
Although the entire agreement is not a part of the record, Qwest's interconnection
agreement with ELI, approved by this Commission on October 11 , 2000 10 also states that neither
ELI nor Qwest "may transfer (whether by operation of law or otherwise) this Agreement (or any
rights or obligations hereunder) to a third party without the prior written consent of the other
Party.See Attachment F at f (A)3.12.. Thus, Illuminet is not an assignee under these
contracts either.Moreover, even if Illuminet were an agent acting under the terms of its
customers' interconnection agreements , agent status would not allow Illuminet to escape the
obligations of its principals ' third party agreements.The contracts between Qwest and
Illuminet's customers do not indicate that the parties intended to allow unilateral modification
Case No. USW - T -00-In the Matter of the Joint Application of Qwest Corporation FKA US WEST
Communications, Inc. and Electric Lightwave, Inc. for Approval of a Wireline Interconnection Agreement Pursuant
to 47 USCS 252 (e), Order No. 28535 (Oct. 11 2000).
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 23
Boise-IS6S42.0029164-00082
upon formation of a principal-agent relationship with a third-party.To the contrary, the
agreements expressly require all amendments to be stated and signed in writing. Id. at g (A)3.26.
In essence then, despite the non-assignment clause, Illuminet s position is its customers have
assigned their rights to purchase SS7 through their customers ' agreements with Qwest to
Illuminet.
It is axiomatic that an assignee to a contract stands in the shoes of the assignor. Building
Concepts Ltd.v. Pickering, 114 Idaho 640, 644, 759 P.2d 931 , 935 (App. 1988) (generally,
assignee "stands in the shoes of the assignor
);
Childs v. Neitzel 26 Idaho 116, 127, 141 P. 77
81 (1914). In Childs the assignee of water contracts attempted to enforce provisions in the
contract without complying with other obligations in the contract.The Court held "the
(assignor J could not have enforced the collection of the deferred payments and interest thereon
without complying with the terms thereof... and neither the mortgagee nor the assignee could
acquire any greater rights. .. than the (assignor J.Id. The assignee "stands in the shoes" of the
assignor of a contract with respect to both rights and obligations. Id. Accordingly, as an
assignee-agent, Illuminet would be subject to the same obligations that the agreements impose on
Illuminet's "principals.
One of the obligations imposed for a CLEC to buy SS7 under an interconnection
agreement is that each CLEC must have a dedicated facility to connect to each Qwest's STP.
See Hearing Exhibit 1 at p. 1 (requires "dedicated facility
);
Hearing Exhibit 509 at geE) 15.2.2
transport facilities must exist from ELI's Point of Presence or Signaling Point of Interface
(SPOI) to the identified USW STP location); Id. at g(E)15.2.4.3 ("facility must be exclusively
used for the transmission of network signaling control data ). The entire reason why CLECs and
ILECs use Illuminet is to avoid the requirement to use dedicated facilities as set forth in their
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 24
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
contracts. Illuminet admits that it aggregates SS7 services for all of its customers over a single
facility. Tr. 262. Such aggregation is an essential feature of Illuminet's "economies of scale" in
its SS7 network. Complaint at ~9. This is exactly what is forbidden in the agreements between
Qwest's and Illuminet's customers. Thus , Illuminet's customers cannot obtain from Qwest via
their contracts what they are obtaining from Illuminet. Nor can Illuminet claim beneficiary
status under a contract yet refuse to comply with the all of the terms of the contract.
The central tenet of Illuminet's argument - that it is acting as an agent and therefore able
to claim rights under different agreements with Qwest - "hasn t a leg to stand on." The facts do
not justify it. No legal theories justify it. It is clear that the Commission s substantive decision
rested in large part on this essential conclusion. As such, the Order is fatally flawed and should
be modified.
Qwest's new evidence demonstrates Illuminet is not an a2ent.
To put this matter to rest once and for all, however, Qwest has uncovered new evidence
that demonstrates Illuminet knew it was not acting as an agent. In the months leading up the
May 2001 filing of the Idaho Catalog, Qwest and Illuminet had a series of meetings and
discussions. Kuder Affidavit at ~1 O. In those meetings, Qwest informed Illuminet that if it were
transacting as the agent of its customers, then Illuminet would have to use a different order form
and follow different procedures than it had in the past. Kuder Affidavit at ~10(a). Qwest
described its agency process to Illuminet in detail. Kuder Affidavit at ~10(a). Despite all of this
advance warning, Illuminet still utilized its original procedures, and purchased SS7 services from
the tariff. Kuder Affidavit at ~3. Qwest can only surmise that Illuminet did so because it knew
its customers would then have to purchase dedicated links to each Qwest STP thereby rendering
moot the need for Illuminet's services. The Commission should grant reconsideration to allow
presentation of detailed evidence on this subject.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 25
Boise-IS6S42.0029164-00082
IV.CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Qwest respectfully requests that the Commission grant
reconsideration by providing an opportunity for a supplemental evidentiary hearing. Qwest also
respectfully requests that the Commission grant reconsideration to modify its decision that it has
jurisdiction over all aspects of this dispute.The Commission s enabling legislation make
abundantly plain that the Commission is without jurisdiction to set rates for SS7 signaling
associated with toll calls.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of May, 2003
At~h
Mary S. bson
Stoel Rives, LLP
Stephanie Boyett-Colgan
Qwest Service Corporation
Charles W. Steese
Steese & Evans, P.
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 26
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 6th day of May, 2003 , I served the PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 as follows:
Ms. Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
iiewell(q)puc.state.id.
LX") Hand DeliveryL-J u. S. MailL-J Overnight DeliveryL-J FacsimileL-J Email
Weldon Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ill 83702
Executed Protective Agreement
LXJ Hand DeliveryL-J u. S. MailL-J Overnight DeliveryL-J FacsimileL-J Email
Stephanie Boyett-Colgan
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street - 47th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
scolgan(q)uswestcom
Executed Protective Agreement
L-J Hand Delivery
LXJ U. S. MailL-J Overnight DeliveryL-J FacsimileL-J Email
F. Wayne Lafferty
LKAM Services, Inc.
2940 Cedar Ridge Drive
McKinney, TX 75070
Executed Protective Agreement
L-J Hand Delivery
LXJ u. S. MailL-J Overnight DeliveryL-J FacsimileL-J Email
Thomas J. Moorman
Kraskin, Lesse & Cosson LLP
2120 L Street NW - Suite 520
Washington DC 20037
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
tmoorman(q)klctele.com
Executed Protective Agreement
L-J Hand Delivery
LXJ U. S. MailL-J Overnight DeliveryL-J FacsimileL-J Email
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 27
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
Morgan W. Richards
Moffatt Thomas
101 South Capitol Boulevard - 10tll Floor
Boise, ill 83701
mwrvpmoffatt.com
Executed Protective Agreement
LllJ Hand Delivery
L-:I u. S. MailL-:I Overnight DeliveryL-:I Facsimile
L-:I Email
Charles W. Steese
Steese & Evans, P.
6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1820
Denver, CO 80111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
csteeseCtp,s-elaw.com
Executed Protective Agreement
L-:I Hand Delivery
LXJ u. S. MailL-:I Overnight DeliveryL-:I FacsimileL-:I Emai1
Clay Sturgis.
Moss Adams LLP
601 West Riverside - Suite 1800
Spokane, W A 99201-0663
Executed Protective Agreement
L-:I Hand Delivery .
LXJ u. S. MailL-:I Overnight Delivery
L-:I FacsimileL-:I Email
Lance Tade
Citizens Telecommunications
4 Triad Center - Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84180
Executed Protective Agreement
L-:I Hand Delivery
LXJ U. S. MailL-:I Overnight Delivery
L-:I FacsimileL-:I Email
Conley Ward
Givens Pursley
277 North 6th Street - Suite 200
O. Box 2720
Boise, ill 83701
cewvpgivenspursley. com
Executed Protective Agreement
LXJ Hand Delivery
L-:I u. S. MailL-:I Overnight Delivery
L-:I FacsimileL-:I Email
Richard Wolf
Illuminet, Inc.
4501 Intelco Loop SE
O. Box 2909
Olympia, W A 98507
Executed Protective Agreement
L-:I Hand DeliveryXJ u. S. MailL-:I Overnight DeliveryL-:I Facsimile
L-:I Email
~~~
Brandi L. Gearhart, PLS
Legal Secretary to Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 29219 - Page 28
Boise-IS6S42.10029164-00082
ATTACHMENT A
to Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 29219
QWEST'S ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
PERTAINING TO ORDER NO. 29219
QWEST'S ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR PERTAINING TO ORDER NO. 29219
Errors of Fact:
Qwest failed to take into account existing rates or arrangements by which it was already
being compensated for call messages crossing its SS7 network when it implemented the
disputed changes to it Title 62 Access Services Catalog. Order at p.
Qwest's new SS7 messages charges result in double recovery for the Company.
Order at p.
. The implication that Illuminet meets the definition of "telephone corporation" set forth in
Idaho Code g 62-603(14) and is therefore permitted to file a complaint under Idaho Code
g 62-614. Order at p. 4. See alternatively, Errors of Law, item 3.
The implications that SS7 technology represents a "telecommunications service" and that
it was subject to regulation under Title 61 before July 1988. Order at p.
Until Qwest filed its revised Access Catalog, SS7 signaling was not separated from the
traffic with which it was associated, including local traffic. Order at p. 7 SS7 signaling
was not created as an "unbundled" component until Qwest filed its Access Catalog
revisions in June 2001. Order at p. 14.
Qwest made a "unilateral" decision to "unbundle signaling from local traffic" and that
this unbundling is the basis for Qwest's claim that SS7 is a Title 62 service. Order at pp.
Most of the out-of-band network signaling messages subject to the FCC's jurisdiction
were "generated by interexchange carriers.Order at p.
There are "traditional arrangements for paying signaling costs associated with traffic" at
the intrastate level that are not the same as at the interstate level. Order at p.
The apparent assumption that at the interstate level third party SS7 providers like
Illuminet do not pay SS7 message charges, including those associated with Qwest-
originated traffic and meet-point billed traffic. Order at p. 10.
10.The apparent assumption that Qwest's restructuring of the SS7 message charges was
intended to be revenue neutral to each customer or class of customers. Order at p. 10.
11.Qwest had "no basis" to impose SS7 message charges on intrastate traffic and offset
those charges with reductions in switched access. Order at p. 10.
12.There are a "variety of arrangements" already in place that "were intended to compensate
Qwest for its signaling costs" and that through these arrangements SS7 message charges
are already recovered. Order at p. 11.
Boise-IS6S13.20029164-00004
13.
14.
15.
20.
21.
The Idaho Commission has been able to spread the recovery for SS7 expenses across all
intrastate services, including intraLA T A toll, enhanced features and intrastate access.
Orderatp.12.
All of Qwest's SS7 signaling costs associated with a intraLATA toll call that is subject to
a joint access or meet-point-billing arrangement are recovered from the IXC carrying the
call. Order at p. 15.
The implication that Qwest did not communicate with its SS7 customer (in this case
Illuminet) about how signaling would be charged on a meet-point billed call. Order at
pp.
15-16. Qwest did not discuss the changes to its SS7 signaling charges prior to
implementing them. Order at p. 16.
16.Everyone assumed traffic exchanged between LECs by a meet-point billed arrangement
included the associated signaling and Qwest acted "unilaterally" to change that
arrangement. Order at p. , 18 & 22.
17.ELI is an ILEC and the terms of its interconnection agreement with Qwest are not
relevant. Order at p. In.
18.Qwest failed to consider the various types of traffic comprising the intrastate domain and
acted hastily in implementing the new charges. Order at p. 16.
19.Illuminet did not ask to receive "new SS7 message services" under Qwest's Access
Catalog. Order at p. 18.
A telecommunications carrier is never allowed under existing arrangements to charge
other companies for the costs associated with the origination of that carrier s local
customers intrastate toll traffic. Order at p. 18.
The assumption that under "traditional pricing principles" if a Qwest local customer
places a toll call Qwest collects the revenue from the call and compensates any other
carriers for their costs of transporting and terminating the call, together with the
assumption that the manner in which switched access charges are imposed reflects how
SS7 costs are incurred. Order at p. 18.
22.Qwest does not dispute Complainants characterization of the pre-existing arrangement for
exchanging intraLA T A toll traffic. Order at p. 18.
23.The implication that LECs that use a third party SS7 provider are providing their own
SS7 capability and should be treated as stand alone companies. Order at p. 19.
24.That there is some evidence in the record to support a conclusion that Illuminet acted as
an agent for their carrier customers in the purchase of SS7 signaling services from Qwest.
Boise-IS6S13.0029164-00004
Errors of Law:
The Commission considered the level of Qwest's recovery ofSS7 costs in deciding
whether Qwest's SS7 per-message charges were appropriate. Order p., 2.
Idaho Code g62-614 is a broad grant of authority to the Commission to resolve disputes
between incumbent telephone companies, like Qwest, and any other telephone service
provider. Order at p. 4 (emphasis added).
A complainant need not be a telephone corporation to bring a complaint under Idaho
Code g 62-614. See alternatively, Errors of Fact, item 3.
Illuminet provides "telecommunications services" to ILECs and CLECs. Order at p.
SS7 is a "telecommunications service Order at p.
Illuminet and other non- ILEC Complainants are proper parties to file a complaint under
Idaho Code g 62-614. Order at p.
The Commission may take jurisdiction over a service offered in its Title 62 Access
Services Catalog if complaining parties could otherwise be without a remedy. Order at
Idaho Code g 62-614 confers jurisdiction on the Commission to resolve the issues raised
in the Complaint. Order at p.
The Commission s jurisdiction over UNE charges under the Telecommunications Act is
broad enough to reach the issues raised in the Complaint. Order at p. In.
The Commission has jurisdiction over "most if not all the claims" raised under Idaho
Code g 62-605(5). Order at p.
10.Qwest was limited to changes in SS7 message charges that could be offset by changes in
switched access charges. Order at p. 10.
11.The approach approved by the FCC for Qwest to create new SS7 message charges
associated with interstate traffic was not appropriate for intrastate toll. Order at p. 11.
12.Qwest's SS7 message charges are "unfair and unreasonable Order at p. 11.
13.The way SS7 charges apply under the Catalog to Illuminet presents significant issues of
discriminatory or anti-competitive conduct. Order at p. 19.
14.That limiting the availability of infrastructure sharing agreements to ILECs represents
unlawful discrimination. Order at p.
Boise-lS6513.20029164-00004
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
The suggestion that Qwest's Access Services Catalog violates Qwest's duty to provide
nondiscriminatory access to network elements under section 251 (c) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Order at pp. 19-20.
The suggestion that Qwest's Access Services Catalog violates Idaho Code g 62-609(2).
Order at p. 20.
The implication, expressed throughout the Order, that that Illuminet is entitled to rely on
enforce, and reap the benefits of any and all agreements, pre-existing arrangements or
traditional pricing policies that any of its individual customers may have with Qwest
under the law of agency or any other legally cognizable theory.
That Qwest acted unilaterally in implementation of the Catalog. Order at p. , 18 & 22.
That the facts justify a conclusion that Qwest must withdraw the June 2001 revisions to
its Catalog. Order at p. 23.
That Qwest must wait to collect for SS7 services until it can properly identify the
intraLATA toll traffic "properly subject to the SS7 message charges" consistent with
Order No. 29219. Orderatp.23.
That the filed rate doctrine and/or the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking do not
prohibit the Commission from granting relief to Illuminet for SS7 message charges billed
under Idaho Access Services Catalog. Order at pp. 20-22.
Boise-IS6S13.20029164-00004
. !
ATTACHMENT B
to Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 29219
AFFIDAVIT OF CHARMIAN ("CHAR") A. KUDER
Mary S. Hobson (ISB #2142)
Stoel Rives LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mshobson (Q! stoel.com
Stephanie Boyett-Colgan
Qwest Service Corporation
1801 California Street - 4ih Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
scolgan (Q!qwestcom
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY OF IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF
IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM
STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE
COMPANY and ILLUMINET, INC.
CASE NO.: QWE-02-
AFFIDA VIT OF CHARMIAN ("CHAR"
A. KUDER
Complainants
QWEST CORPORATION 1
Res ondent.
State of Colorado
) ss.
County of Denver
1. My name is Charmian A. Kuder and I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein. Between 1969 and 2002, I worked for Qwest Corporation or a
predecessor thereto. During my 33 years, I held a number of positions with the company.
From 1983 forward, I was a member of the Wholesale Organization.
1 The Complaint names Qwest Communications, Inc. as the Respondent, but the proper party is
Qwest Corporation.
2. Between 1996 and 2002, I was Product Manager responsible, or at least
partially responsible, for developing products associated with switched access and
signaling. This included both unbundled signaling as contemplated by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as modifications to Qwest's (early on U S
WEST's) wholesale tariffs for use and purchase of its signaling network.3. The purpose of my affidavit is to make several historical points plain.
First, Qwest filed a federal tariff that the FCC specifically approved. Second, Illuminet
purchases and pays for signaling services out of the amended federal tariff; this includes
payment for messages associated with calls traversing a mid-span meet and Qwest
originated toll calls. Third, Qwest held a series of meetings with Illuminet between the
time of the federal filing in May 2000 and the time of the state filing in Idaho (June 2001)
to discuss Illuminet's purchase of services under the federal tariff. Fourth , Qwest filed
identical tariffs in several states including Idaho to implement the exact same rate
structure as the FCC had approved. Fifth, Qwest met with Illuminet over a period of
many months before these state tariffs were filed; explained its plan to file identical
tariffs in the states; informed Illuminet about its plans to file the tariffs; informed
Illuminet it was not purchasing services as an "agent" for its customers; described agency
requirements and processes to Illuminet; and explained how Illuminet should proceed if it
wanted to qualify as an agent and purchase as such. I understand that Illuminet continued
utilizing its existing ordering processes and thereby ignored much of the advice given by
Qwest.4. On March 27, 1996, the FCC approved a tariff filing made by Ameritech
concerning rates for unbundled signaling. On May 7, 1997, the FCC issued an additional
decision announcing that Price Cap LECs (such as U S WEST) may offer Message Rate
Structure for SS7, similar to Ameritech.
5. Between November 1996 and May 15, 1997, U S WEST participated in a
series of meetings with Illuminet wherein Illuminet agreed it was not a CLEC, and that
Illuminet states it will be billed for signaling via the access tariff. See Exhibit
Specifically: "US West (sic) agrees to accept Illuminet's orders for connectivity to local
STP pairs for intraLATA service, and to process those requests under US West normal
methods of operation. These links will be billed under existing tariff rates." The same
letter stated that Illuminet understood U S WEST was modifying its tariffto charge ISUP
rates as contemplated by the FCC, and the parties "will work to reconcile the billing to
reflect services rendered.Id.
6. From 1997 forward, the Product Team, of which I was a part, spent
considerable time and effort developing a business case to ensure that transitioning to a
Message Rate Structure for SS7 made economic sense. The business case evolved over a
period of many months. During this process, Qwest through myself and/or my supervisor
Lorel Ferrin, attended industry meetings focused on the means by which BOCs could
transition to a Message Rate Structure for SS7. These included Bellcore meetings. There
is much documentation evidencing this work that I do not attach to this affidavit, but that
could be presented to the Commission on rehearing.
7. IlluminetlHewlitt Packard developed software called AMAT7 for the
specific purpose of measuring individual signaling messages. Implementation of the
Message Rate Structure for SS7 was delayed because AMA T7 was not recording
messages properly. Illuminet was well aware that Qwest (then U S WEST) was in the
process of implementing AMA T7. There is much documentation evidencing this work
that I do not attach to this affidavit, but that could be presented to the Commission on
rehearing.
8. On July 22, 1999, U S WEST filed an Expedited Petition of U S WEST
Communications with the FCC seeking approval of a proposed rate structure for SS7
signaling services. This Petition was unopposed. On December 22, 1999, the FCC
approved the Petition stating, among other things, "(u)nder the proposed rate structure,
individual signaling rate elements would be charged on a per-message basis, regardless of
the duration of the call that the signaling sets up." U S WEST Petition to Establish Part
69 Rate Elements for SS7 Signaling, FCC DA 991474 (Dec. 22, 1999). In May 2000,
Qwest filed a federal tariff to implement the rate structure approved by the FCC in
December 1999.
9. After Qwest filed the amended FCC tariff, Illuminet continued to purchase
SS7 services from the tariff. The billing attendant to these purchases prompted a series of
meetings with Illuminet many of which I attended personally. For example,
November 22, 2000, Mr. F. Terry Kremian, Executive Vice President and COO of
Illuminet, sent Beth Halvorsen, Vice President Wholesale Markets a letter requesting a
meeting to discuss several issues related to SS7 message charges. Specifically:
On behalf Illuminet, this letter is to request a meeting with you. . . to
discuss the outstanding issues related to the appropriateness of Qwest
charges to Illuminet for . . . (SS7) messaging. As you are aware, these
issues have been the subject of on-going discussions between our two
companIes. . . .
See Exhibit 2. Illuminet attached a "white paper" to its letter explaining the differences
of view it had with Qwest's methodology. Thus, as early as calendar year 2000 llluminet
acknowledged understanding Qwest's billing methodology. This is many months before
Qwest filed its Idaho Catalog and over 18 months before Illuminet filed its complaint in
Idaho.
10. Qwest and Illuminet continued to hold a series of meetings that I believe
generally occurred once per month. I attended most if not all of those meetings. In those
meetings, Illuminet always addressed Qwest's tariffed rates. For example, llluminet
argued that the terms of the agreements between Qwest and Illuminet's signaling
customers should govern the rates. Qwest informed Illuminet that that was an incorrect
view. Specifically:
12.
Qwest informed Illuminet that there were forms and procedures for
acting as an agent of another carrier. Those procedures were
described in detail to llluminet.
CLEC interconnection qualifications and ordering processes were
explained to llluminet.
Qwest informed Illuminet that services ordered from an access
tariff would be billed tariffed rates. llluminet was specifically
informed that if it wanted to operate under the terms and
conditions of a signaling customer s agreement that was separate
from the tariff, then ordering directly out of the tariff was the
wrong way to proceed.
In these meetings, Qwest also agreed to make llluminet aware of
each state tariff in advance of filing it with the affected state
commission. Thus, as with all other states, I understand that Qwest
provided the Idaho Catalog to Illuminet before filing it in May
2001. Given that the Idaho tariff (as with all of the state tariffs)
mirrored the federal tariff that Illuminet had purchased services
under, Illuminet knew full well the import of the filing from the
very beginning.
This concludes my affidavit.
DATED This day of , 2003.
~--- ~~~
Char Kuder
State of Colorado
) ss.
County of Denver
On this 5th day of May, 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said State, personally appeared Char Kuder, known or identified to me to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknow ledged to me that she executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official
seal the day and year in this certificate first above written.
'-IU ~1 j ;J Ww/~
Name
Notary Public for:
()
LtH-d
My commission expires:
'-1Uav.k !P I cflM/7
net
May 15, 1997
Lorel Ferrin
US West Communications
1801 Californ ia Street, suite 2130
Denver, Colorado 80202
Dear Lore!;
I am writing to confirm ILLUMINET's understanding of the agreements reached during today
conference call regarding ILLUMINET's connection to the US West network.
By means of this letter, ILLUMINET is withdrawing our request for negotiations under "The Act"
Sections 251 and 252 as stated in our letter of April 15, 1997.
In exchange for this withdrawal , ILLUMINET understands that US West agrees to the following:
1. US West agrees to accept ILLUMINET's orders for connectivity to local STP pairs for intra-
LATA service, and to process these requests under US West normal mr::thods of operation.These links will be billed !Jnder existing tariff rates.
2) US West is in the process of developing a product that will allow ISUP with no voice aimed at
CLECs who will connect to the US West network with their own facilities, thereby not putting
any minutes of use on the US West network, but using US West SS7 equipment to pass the
ISUP messaging. This product will be priced separately from other SS7 products. Once thisproduct is fully developed , ILLUMINET and US West will work to reconcile the billing to reflect
services rendered. This will allow ILLUMINET to continue to provide trunk signaling service
for its CLEC clients without any delay.
If you are in agreement of this understanding, please sign and return one copy of this letter.
Sincerely,
cc: Rebekah Keating
George Strom
Sylvia Lesse
it.85()() West IJOt!1 Stre!'t SlIite bOO O,'!'rl,,"d I'drk 1-:5 (;62/0
..../'--1" .. / /(.//J/)"j c/ t/'V
net'"
November 22 2000
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Beth Halvorson
Vice President, Wholesale Major Markets
Owest
200 S. Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55042
Dear Ms. Halvorson:
On behalf of ILLUMINET, this letter is written to request a meeting with you and the necessary legal
iepresentatives of Qwest to discuss the outstanding issues related to the appropriateness of Qwest's
charges to ILLUMINET for Signaling System No.7 (S87) messaging. As you are aware , these issues
have been the subject of on~going discussions between our two companies and , in fact, Qwest's SS7
message charges are also the subject of a continuing dispute between our companies. Moreover, as
Owest is also undoubtedly aware , the Owest SS7 message charges that have been received by
ILLUMINET are substantial. These charges, in turn, directly impact ILLUMINET's competitive position
as an alternative S87 provider in the Qwest service areas.
PItY
I ytJ "
'..,
Accordingly, in order to facilitate the requested discussions, ILLUMINET has prepared the enclosed
position paper that describes the regulatory construct that ILLUMINET believes should be followed in
determining when SS7 message charges should be assessed. ILLUMINET has also authorized its
Washington, D.C. counsel to forward a copy of this position paper to Owest representatives also
located in Washington, D.C.
vl-O~
Because Qwest is well aware of the issues that need to be addressed concerning this matter
ILLUMINET requests that Qwest provide its response to this letter by December 1 2000, and that the
response include the earliest dates possible that the necessary representatives of Qwest can meet
with their ILLUMINET counterparts. Again , ILLUMINET stresses that it fully expects Qwest's prompt
attention to this issue in light of our discussions and the impact that the Owest 887 message charges
has on ILLUMINET's competitive position.
ILLUMINET looks forward to your response.
Very truly yours
J ~W~;W
F. Terry K(Jmian
Executive Vice President & COO
cc: D. Nicol , ILLUMINET
P. Florak, ILLUMINET
R. Wolf, ILLUMINET
D. Cosson, T. Moorman, Kraskin , Lesse & Cosson , LLP
Vicki Boone, Qwest
Brian Ashby, Owest
Dave Hahn, Owest
t:~ \ Char Kudar, Owest
'P'.#- - Kirk Andrews, Qwest
Enclosure .J501 Ili/'-!"" Loop Sf. O. Box 2'J(J'J
.:,
Oh-l1ll'i.l. \VA 'i1i50~_.........IKR'fil ~~)I:_:tI'J
1#A~~\fi3~J~~93
POLICY POSITION PAPER ON THE PROPER APPLICATION
OF SS7 MESSAGE CHARGES
ISSUE:What SS7 message charges are applicable to, and what
information should be provided to support charges for,
interstate interexchange toll traffic, local, and Extended Area
Service traffic that is originated by a customer/carrier of
Illuminet and terminated by a Bell Operating Company, and
vice versa?
SUMMARY OF POSITION
The fact that a provider of a competitive Signaling System No.7 ("SS7") network (such
as Illuminet) has interconnected its network with that provided by a Bell Operating Company
BOe") via that BOC's interstate access service tariff does not authorize that BOC to charge
. ~~
improperly for SS7 message charges that fall outside of the interstate access charge model. of'f~tlJ
Rather, the assessment of SS7 message charges by the BOC or an Illuminet carrier/customer yf" ~
should be detennined by applying the tenns and conditions of the agreement associated with the
\(fJ
D1J
specific jurisdictional class of traffic associated with the voice and/or data traffic between the
BOC and the Illuminet carrier/customer (i., the interconnection arrangements for local service ~uf';
and/or "EAS" traffic or the access tariff for interexchange toll traffic). To ensure the proper
application of these agreements, the entity assessing SS7 message charges should also provide
sufficient detail to pennit the company receiving such charges to verify independently that such
charges are assessed in compliance with the proper agreement Moreover, to the extent that the
affected carriers agree and the BOC is able to properly and accurately provide billing infonnation
relative to each Illuminet customer/carrier being billed, Illuminet would be willing to discuss
clearinghouse mechanisms for the efficient exchange of payments for SS7 message charges.
DISCUSSION
Illuminet is a provider of SS7 services for a variety of customers/carriers including
lnterexchange Carriers ("IXCs ), Competitive Local Exchange Carriers ("CLEC"), Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers ("ILECs ) and Commercial Mobile Radio Service providers ("CMRS
Providers ). Illuminet deployed its network to provide a competitive alternative to the SS7
services of other providers, including the BOCs. Illuminet has achieved nationwide connectivity
of its SS7 network with other providers, including the SS7 networks of the BOCs. . In order'to
ensure proper connectivity with limited delays on behalf of its customer/carriers, Illuminet
arranged connectivity with the BOCs via their respective interstate access service tariffed
offerings, and, in fact, has arranged for connectivity with Qwest Corporation ("Qwest")(formerly
US WEST Communications) through its F.C. Tariff No. 1.
For purposes of this paper, it is assumed that facilities and port charges required to
connect the BOC's SS7 network \vith that operated by Illuminet will continue to be assessed by
~~~. ~
In light of recent developments in SS7 teclmology (primarily the ability to measure SS7 \ L JJ
V/J (
.iJ usage) an~ the desire to provide unbundled access, Qwest has introduced new SS7 rate elements ;;,NI
that are bIlled on a per-message basis. Illuminet has been informed by various BOCs that these
~ ~ /
~ r
I\~,
new charges are intended to provide recovery on a revenue-neutral basis of the costs associated~
~~r !'J ~I with discrete SS7 functions previously bundled within the BOCs ' minute-of-use charges applie a-rr' to IXCs and other access customers associated with the underlying voice and/or data traffic.
Since Illuminet does not carry the underlying voice or data traffic, these charges were not
previously billed to or through illuminet. Notwithstanding claimed "revenue-neutrality,
Illuminet has experienced an inappropriate increase of charges from Qwest directly as a result of
tf1these new SS7 message charges, particularly given the fact that the majority of Illuminet's SS7
' _
l1J
messaging is related to local and/or EAS traffic being generated by its CLEC, !LEC and CMRS JcfI..!t1\)GJ"
Provider customers.
u"v
A. Record Detail is Required to Verify Accuracy of Charges
Based on its review of the new SS7 rate element charges, illuminet continues to question
whether those charges have, in fact, been properly assessed. illuminet agrees that the SS7
message charges related to interstate telephone toll service should properly follow the "access
charge" model developed by the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission" or the
FCC"). Under this model, llluminet would expect Qwest to bill SS7 -related charges for the
originating or tenninating functions that Qwest perfonns on an interstate toll call that is
originated by an end user ofIlluminet's IXC customer. In these instances, Illuminet is providing
the various SS7 network functionalities on behalf of the IXC prior to that IXC carrying the voice
and/or data traffic of the end user at issue.2 However, because Qwest has provided insufficient
information to llluminet associated with the new SS7 message charges, Illuminet is not able to
. verify the charges it has received from Qwest.
While llluminet continues its investigation to ensure proper application of charges by
. Qwest, the accuracy of such charges cannot be determined until Qwest is able to provide
disaggregated billing information by point code, by jurisdiction or by any other method by which
the accuracy of the billed charges can be determined. Only in this manner can Illuminet or any of
its carner/customers receiving such charges be assured that the charges by Qwest are properly
assessed under the applicable agreement between Qwest and the Illuminet carrier/customer.
the BOC pursuant to its interstate access tariff. However, Illuminet recognizes that other types of
. arrangements may exist for connectivity since the passage of the 1996 revisions to the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"
Similarly, where the BOC is the intraLATA and/or interLATA toll provider for
the voice and/or data traffic, Illuminet would expect that its CLEC and/or ITC customers would
assess the BaC similar SS7 message charges.
Because of the lack of carrier-specific infonnation required to verify Qwest's charges,
Illuminet is concerned that SS? message charges are being assessed by Qwest pursuant to its
interstate access tariff on local and/or EAS traffic where the related voice and/or data traffic is
being originated by a Qwest customer as well as tenninated to a Qwest customer. In these
instances, the voice and/or data traffic at issue is not "telephone toll service" nor is the S8?
messaging associated with that traffic "exchange access" as those tenus are used in the Act, and
as applied in the interstate access charge environment. Therefore, this traffic and the associated
SS? message charges are not properly subject to Qwest's interstate access tariffs.
B. Additional Record Detail will also Allow Proper
Application of Existing Agreements
Even assuming that the necessary detail is being provided for proper billing and bill
verification, the question still remains regarding what charges can be assessed by Qwest to
llluminet for SS? messages where the related voice and/or data traffic is jurisdictionally local
and/or EAS, and where the voice and/or data traffic is exchanged between Qwest and an
llluminet customer/carrier i.e., either the CLEC, the ILEC or the CMRS Provider. Based on its
review, Illuminet believes that the only logical conclusion is that billing for SS7 message
charges for local and EAS traffic is determined by the arrangements between Illuminet'
customers/carriers and Qwest.
illuminet provides its S8? services for the benefit of its customers/carriers, and has no
relationship with Qwest other than that which established its connectivity for exchange access
services. It is, therefore, incorrect to assume (as apparently some carriers have) that the "payor
of all SS7 message charges is Illuminet under the FCC's access charge model. As discussed
above, the SS7 messaging associated with local and/or EAS is not "exchange access" as that term
is defmed under the Act. Moreover, llluminet has not entered into any agreements with or
purchased tariffed services from Qwest with respect to charges forSS7 messages associated with
. local and EAS traffic. Rather, the only privity of contract that exists for this type of traffic is
between Qwest and the Illuminet customer/carrier. Accordingly, it is those arrangements that are
the proper focus for determining whether SS7 message charges are appropriate for the exchange
oflocal and/or EAS traffic, and, if so, how and when such charges should be assessed by either
Qwest or the Illuminet customer/carrier.
Illuminet is aware of three billing arrangements that may have been included .in the
agreements that carriers have entered into with the various BOCs for the exchange of properly
defmed local traffic and/or EAS. Under the first arrangement, the carriers agree to a "Bill and
Keep" arrangement for both the actual local and/or EAS voice and data traffic that is exchanged
as well as the S8? messages associated with that traffic. In these instances, Illuminet would not
expect to be billed S8? message charges from the BOc. Nor would Illuminet expect that its
customers/carriers would bill the BOC directly or authorize Illuminet to bill the BOC on their
behalf.
The second type of arrangement is where the BOC and the Illuminet carrier/customer
have entered into a "minute of use" arrangement for the underlying voice/data traffic pursuant to
Section 251 (b)(5) of the Act, but have not stated a specific rate for theSS7 signaling associated
with the exchange of the properly-defined local voice and data traffic. In these instances
illuminet would expect that the charges associated with the SS7 messages for this traffic would
be part of (i,, bundled with) the minute of use "reciprocal compensation" rate that the BOC and
the illuminet customer/carrier agreed to pursuant to Section 251 (b )(5) of the Act. Thus, Illuminet
would not expect to be billed charges for SS7 messages associated with the local traffic
tenninated by the BOC that is delivered to it by an Illumipet customer/carrier. Likewise,
Illuminet would not expect that its customers/carriers would charge the BOC separately for the
SS7 messages associated with the local traffic tenninated by them.
c~"
Finally, llluminet is aware of interconnection agreements entered into pursuant to Section
251(b)(5) of the Act that have a separate, yet reciprocal, rate for SS7 signaling associated with
the exchange of properly-derIDed local voice and data traffic. In these instances, where an
Illuminet customer/carrier terminates local traffic from the BOC, the Illuminet customer/carrier
would assess the proper SS7 message .charges to the BOC. Illuminet would expect to receive
SS7 message charges only where the Illuminet customer/carrier has specifically authorized the
BOC to pass through its SS7 message charges to Illuminet for those charges applicable to that
llluminet customer/carrier s originated local traffic to the BOC.3 In these instances, however
llluminet would be willing to enter into proper billing and collection arrangements with the
applicable carriers in an effort to create a more efficient clearinghouse for the payment of
applicable SS7 message charges.
CONCLUSION
While other arrangements between a BOC (and other ~ECs) and an llluminet
. customer/carrier may be in existence, Qwest should not confuse the fact that illuminet has
, interconnected its competitive SS7 signaling network with Qwest via Qwest's interstate access
service tariff as a vehicle to charge improperly for traffic that falls outside of the FCC's access
charge mode1. The lack of bill detail provided by Qwest required for Illuminet to verify the
Qwest SS7 message billing only serves to highlight and exacerbate the problem.
To date, however, Illuminet is not aware of any such authorization being
provided by an Illuminet carrier/customerto a BOC.
In any event, Illumine!' s role , even where the access charge model applies, is as the
underlying provider of the SS7 signaling network for the IXC, or a CLEC , !LEC or CMRS
Provider. Thus. the assessment of the charges by Qwest are detennined by applying the terms
and conditions of underlying agreement that addresses the specific jurisdictional class of traffic
associated with the voice and/or data traffic between Qwest and the illuminet carrier/customer
, the interconnection arrangements or access tariff. This conclusion properly reflects the value
to the entity whose end users generate the underlying voice and/or data traffic of having that
traffic earned over the network in the most efficient manner. Moreover, to the extent that the
affected carriers agree and Qwest is able to properly and accurately provide billing information
relative to each Illuminet customer/carrier being billed, llIuminet would be willing to discuss
clearinghouse mechanisms for the efficient exchange of payments for SS7 message charges.
ATTACHMENT C
to Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 29219
AFFIDAVIT OF JULIE KAUFMAN-PRENTICE
Mary S. Hobson (ISB #2142)
Stoel Rives LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mshobson~stoel.com
Stephanie Boyett-Colgan
Qwest Service Corporation
1801 California Street - 4ih Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
scolgan~qwest.com
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION;
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY OF IDAHO, CEN)'UR YTEL OF
IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM
STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE
COMPANY and ILL UMlNET, IN C.
CASE NO.: QWE-O2-
AFFIDAVIT OF
JULIE KAUFMAN-PRENTICE
Complainants
QWEST CORPORA TION
Res ondent.
State of Arizona
) ss.
County of Maricopa
1. I am employed by Qwest Corporation (Qwest) as a Director of Customer Service
and give this affidavit from my personal knowledge and from review of the business records of
Qwest and its predecessor company, U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST).2. I have job responsibilities for several customer service areas, which include
managing the billing for SS7 tariff/catalog products purchased by Qwest wholesale customers.
I The Complaint names Qwest Communications, Inc. as the Respondent, but the proper party is
Qwest Corporation.
AFFIDAVIT OF JULIE KAUFMAN,:"PRENTICE Page 1
Boise-l 56276.1 0029164-00004
ATTACHMENT D
to Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 29219
AFFIDAVIT OF PHILIP LINSE
Mary S. Hobson (ISB #2142)
Stoel Rives LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mshobson~stoel.com
Stephanie Boyett-Colgan
Qwest Service Corporation
1801 California Street - 4ih Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
scolgan~qwest.com
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY OF IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF
IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM
STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE
COMP ANY and ILLUMINET, INC.
CASE NO.: QWE-02-
AFFIDAVIT OF PHILIP LINSE
Complainants
QWEST CORPORATION 1
Respondent.
State of
County of
) ss.
1. I am employed by Qwest Corporation (Qwest) as a Director, Technical
Regulatory in Qwest's Local Network Organization and give this affidavit from my personal
knowledge and from review of the network records of Qwest and its predecessor company, U S
WEST Communications, Inc.(U S WEST).
1 The Complaint names Qwest Communications, Inc. as the Respondent, but the proper party is
Qwest Corporation.AFFIDA VIT OF PHILIP LINSE Page 1
Boise-156360.1 0029164-00004
2. In 1989, U S WEST approved the initial plan to provide Common Channel
Signaling/Signaling System 7 in its network. Also in 1989 Qwest filed for a waiver to provide
out of band signaling across LATA boundaries.
3. In the first quarter of 1990, U S WEST issued Network Disclosure ("ND") No.
, a copy of which is attached to this Affidavit as Attachment A, disclosing Common Channel
Signaling - System 7 (SS7) Protocol and identifying switches in eleven U S WEST states in
which the technology would be deployed. When this ND was issued, U S WEST had not yet
deployed SS7 technology in its fourteen-state region. ND 30 indicated that U S WEST intended
to deploy SS7 in the Boise Main switch, the only Idaho location identified, in the fourth quarter
of 1990. ND 30 did not disclose the locations of the Signaling Transfer Points, (STPs) used to
operate the SS7 network, but none had been deployed in Idaho.
4. ND 36 identified the locations of a Custom Local Area Signaling Services
(CLASS) features market trial for fourth quarter 1990. CLASS depends on the presence of SS7
in the central office switch. Two Boise switches and several switches in North Dakota were
identified as locations for the market trial in ND 36. A copy ofND 36 is attached as Attachment
5. On July 13 , 1990, Judge Harold Green ruled on US WEST's February, 1989
Signaling Point of Interface (SPOI) filing forcing US WEST to place STPs in every LATA.6. In third quarter 1990 ND 46 identified Common Channel Signaling call setup to
Interexchange carriers using the Signaling System 7 (SS7) Protocol. This ND identified the
locations of6 Signal Transfer Point (STP) pairs to be deployed in the first quarter of 1991. The
locations were identified as Denver, Omaha, Phoenix , Portland, Minneapolis, and Seattle. A
copy ofND 46 is attached as Attachment 7. In ND 52 issued the end of fourth quarter 1990, U S WEST disclosed its intent to
offer a new interface and clarify the market trial location identified in ND 36. ND 52 clarified
that the market trial would be limited to three switches located in Boise, Idaho. A copy ofND
52 is attached as Attachment D.8. On February 18, 1991 US WEST began its market trial of CLASS services in
Boise. This was offered via the initial deployment ofSTPs in Seattle Washington.
first time.
In the fourth quarter of 1992, STPs were deployed in the Idaho network for the
10. On April 30, 1993, U S WEST's Idaho Vice President, Barbara Wilson, sent
Transmittal No. 93-PL to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, transmitting changes to the U
S WEST Access Service Catalog introducing Common Channel Signaling Access Capability and
SS7 out-of -band signaling. (Attachment E). With the introduction ofthis service, customers
(such as other telecommunications corporations) would be able to obtain access to US WEST'
services requiring Common Channel Signaling and SS7. These changes became effective June
, 1993.
AFFIDA VIT OF PHILIP LINSE Page 2
Boise-\56360.\0029\64-00004
11. With the introduction of SS7 as an optional feature, in U S WEST's Access
Services Catalog, telephone corporations and other users were able to interconnect with U S
WEST using SS7 signaling for the first time.
12. However, not all companies were prepared for US WEST to provide them with
SS7 signaling in 1993 when the product was initially offered. US WEST's business records
disclose that Illuminet (a.k.a. Verisign) first connected with the Company s SS7 network on or
about May of 1998.
13. Illuminet aggregates SS7 signaling messages for other companies. Illuminate, for
example, provides signaling to a Citizens' California switch with signaling to Qwest's STP pairs
in three Qwest LA T As, the Idaho LATA being one of the three. This type of architecture allows
Citizens to access Qwest's STP without having to provision its own links to each STP.
However, for US WEST/Qwest to properly direct messages through Illuminates' network, U S
WEST/Qwest must be advised when the customers of these companies begin using SS7
technology to set up calls. The Company s records show that, for example, Citizens
Telecommunications Company ofldaho began exchanging SS7 messages with Qwest on or
about March of2001 , Project Mutual on or about February of 1995, Syringa on or about May of
2002 and Electric Lightwave Company on or about April of 1999.
14. Prior to converting to SS7, the companies who exchanged traffic with US WESTI
Qwest would have used in-band signaling that traveled over the same trunks used to transmit the
actual voice or data communication. Until SS7 was introduced in the network, access to
signaling was not sold as a separate service.
15. Prior to June of2001 , monthly recurring charges were assessed on the entrance
facilities, direct link transport facilities, multiplexing and Signal Transfer Point ports that the
customer ordered to access US WEST's SS7 network. In addition, nonrecurring charges was to
assessed per first and additional link per order
16. In June 2001 , Qwest revised the Idaho Access Services Catalog to introduce
message charges in addition to the facilities charges that had been in place since SS7 was
introduced as a service in 1993. With the introduction of the message charges, facilities charges
were unchanged but Qwest reduced the tandem switching, local switching and carrier common
line elements of its switched access charges. With this change the usage costs of the SS7
network were spread to all users instead of being covered only by interexchange carriers.
17.This concludes my affidavit.
AFFIDAVIT OF PHILIP LINSE Page 3
Boise-156360.10029164-00004
DATED This 5th day of May, 2003.
,? /-:,
/;7'
. //
::!jCC;;/
t(name of witness)
Stateof \6fCAc
) ss.
County of ~\f(A \)a
On this 5th day of May, 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared Philip A. Linse, known or identified to me to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he
executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the
day and year in this certificate first above writt~)1
/"\
( I 1 ~r1
~ \..\!
O-X lV
Notary Public for a'((t
DONNA GOLDMAN Residing at 100 V\J f'JIi(\t(r0! ~'Je..L;~
STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: 4 /5 / D L\
NOTARY PUBLIC
AFFIDA VIT OF PHILIP LINSE Page 4
Boise-156360.1 0029164-00004
MAY 06 2003 14: 48 FR I D POL I CY AND LAW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040
NETWORKS C S U E N No.
InrOrrr1.i.1tlon lor Customer Premises Equipment Manul;)(;!ur(~r~ und Enh.mced ServicEs P!()Vlf ,r:;
Common Channel Signaling-Signaling
System 7 (857) Protocol
Disclosure Date:February 1, 1990
Summary:In conjunction with ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) and
CLASS (Common Loc:al.AIea Signaling Services)1 U 5 WEST plans to
offer the Common Channel Signaling network utilizing the Signaling
Sy!Hem 7 (557) protocol for intralata call setup.
Locations:See attached
Timing of Deployment: See attached
Pricing:Additional CCS/SS7 dependent services will be offered 3rd Quarter
1990, after tariff approval.
Interface Requirements:The sigt\aling protocol for commot'l channel signaling can be found in
the following Bellcore Technical References:
TR-TSY~OOOO64 Lata Switching Systems Generic
Requirements, Section 6.
Supplement 1
Bell Communications Research
Specification of Signaling System
Number 7
Revision 1
Revision 2
Revision 3
Switching System Requirements for Call
Control Using the ISDN User Part
TR4TSV-OOO905 Common Channel Sigrtaling Network
Specification
These documents can be obtained by writing or calling:
TR-NPL4000246
825.
465~
TR-TSY-OOO31?
497.
97.
80,
177.
40.
80-
Attachment A
to Affidavit of Philip Linse
Bell Communications Research, lnc.
Customer Services
60New England Avenue
Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196
[phone] (see reverse)
'7n '...r TonOCOCO,.""T&: roT ~&:'nlC"n--TH,",TU~"""""""
"......"'" , "....""'.."" ".
, ""T"""
,..,...""." ".."
ora"
MAY 06 2003 14: 48 FR I D POL I CY AND LAW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040 P .
Network Disclosure News #30, cont.
Additional Information: Any customer premises equipment vendor manufacturer or
enhanced ser\Tices provider desiring additional technical infonnation
in conjunction with the SS7 protocol may write to:
Ron Woldeit
Manager - CCS Network Planning
1600 Bell Plaza, Room 2813
Seattle, WA 98191
Cn ...:r TonOCOCOf)'7To': r.T 11~1::./"'IC"'CT'U"TVr-r"HVcr1T n"""y y..-..,..,..", H.T OT""'T .--"...... ~..." "TV
MAY 06 2003 14: 48 FR I D POL I CY AND LAW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040
NetwDrk DJscIDliiure News 1t30
CCS-SS7
Attachment, Page 1
CCS~SS7 Network Disclosure
The following list represents us WEST's current CCS~SS7 deployment plans in 1990. This list is
subject to change.
AIUZONA
~Uia CU..Swih:h Typr Cenerie OUI!Deer Valley Nonh DRVY AZNODSO 5ESS 5ES 4Q90New Rilier NWRV AZMARS1 5RSM 5ES 4Q90
Me5i1 M..in ceo MESAAZMACCO MESS lAElO 4Q90Mesa Main 050 MESAAZMADSO 5ESS 4Q90Phoenix OlT PHNXAZMAOJT DMS-2/)O BCS 30 4Q90Phoenix Cactus PHNXAZCACca lAESS lAElO 4Q90PhQi!lIix East PHNXAZEACC;O 1 AESS lAE10 4Q510Phoenix Greenway PHNXAZGRCC:O 1 AESS Atilt 4Q90Pltcenix Main CGO PHNXAZMACCO lAESS lAE1O 4Q90Phoenix Main CGl PHNXAZMACC1 lMSS tAEI0 4QJOPhoenix Nttnh eeo PHNXAZNOCCO lAESS tAilO 4Q!JOPhoenix Nonh eCl PHNXAZNOCCl A55 lAE10 4QJOPhoenix NOrth DSl PHNXAZNODSl 3ESs SE6 4QJOPhoenix Nonheasl PHNXAZNECCO lAESS lAE10 4Q!1OPhoenix Southeast PHNXAZSECGO lAE55 tAEIO 4Q90Phoenbt. 5unnyslope P HNXAZSya:;O lAE55 lAE10 4~OScottsdale Main SCDLAZMACCO lAEss IAElO 4Q9OSwttsdale Thunderbird SCDLAZI'HCGa IAES5
Tempe Main DSO,TEMP AZMADSO OMS-l00 OCS 30 4Q9OTl!mp~ Mc:Cllntod: ceo TEMP AZMCCCO IAESS lAEI0 4Q9OTempI!. McC1intDC1c DSO TEMP AZMCDSO 3E55 5E5 4QJOTuclion MilinCCO TCSNAZMACGO lAESS MEIO 4C,90Tu~on Main DSl TCSNAZM,A..I)Sl 5E:SS SES 4Q90
COLORADO
Office CLlI SWilCh Typll!CeJ1l!rI(o.ailAuroraA URRCOMADSO 5ESS SES
. lakewood Training Cl!ntl!.r LKWDCOTCRSI 50RM 5E5 4Q908culderBLDRCOMADSO5ESS5E54.Q90Colorado Springs Main CGO CLSPCOMACGO lAESS lAEIO 4Q90
Colorado 5prings Main DSO CLSPCOMA 050 5E:SS SES 4QS10Denver DNVRCOM AO2T DM5-200 BCS 30 4Q90Denver OJ!DNVRCOMAO3T OMS-200 BC5 30 4Q90Denver Capito! Hill CGO DNVRCOCHCGO 1 AESS lAE10 4Q9()~nvl!r Capitol Hill CGl DNVRCOCHCGl t AESS lAEI0 4Q90D~nvl!r Clutis Park DNVRCOCPCGO lAESS lAE10 '\Q90Denver Dry Cre2k CGO DNVRCODCCC::O lAESS lAElO 41;190DenVEr Dtv Creek D5O DNVRCODCDSO 3,ESS 4Q90DeliVer City & Cour\ty DNVRCOPNRSl 5RSM 4Qo)QDenver Curtis Park DNVRCOCPRS1 5RSM SE5 4Q90Denver Social Sl!rvit:e.s DNVRCOHXR51 5RSM 3E:5 4QJODenVf!r SoQtheast ONVRCOSERS1 3RSM 5E5 4oQIJODenver Sullivan DNVRCOSLRSl 5RSM 5E5 '\Q')ODenver Tech Center DNVRCarCR51 3RSM 4Q90Non:hglenl1 NCLNCOMARS1 5RSM 5ES 4Q90Dl!I"tver East ceo DNVRCOEACGO lAESS '11\E10 4Q90DenVl!r Ea,t CGl DNVRCOEACGl lAESS lAE10 4Q9ODenver Main CGO DNVRCOMAcc:a 1 AESS lAElO 4Q90Denwr MCl.1n CG2 DNVRCOM i\CC2 t A~SS lAElO 4Q90Denvl!.r Main DSO DNVRCOMADSO .5ESS 5E5 4Q90
Office sched uled for conve~io" to a SESS in 1990. Switch generic will be 5E6.
f7n . r s;.(H;"CQCQn7 T F;. r\ 11~~/n/cnCIu~rw~n~~u U~~T TC"~..1'o. ~r.T "'T "7T r'r.r.'7 "'.,. ,. ru
MRY 06 2003 14: 49 FR I D POL I CY RND LRW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040
Network Disclo51.tN New:; #30
C CS-SS7
COLORADO Cont.Atl:achment, Page 1
Denver SuDivan DNVRCOSLCCO tAESS lAElO 4Q9OEnglewood Aberdl!en ENWDCOABCCO lAESS lAE:10 4Q90NonhglennNCLNCOMACCO1 AESS lAE10 4Q90
IDAHO
otficle CLU Switch Type Generic DateBoise Main ceo BOISIDMAceo lAESS lAEtO 4Q90
IOWA
Offke CLLI Switch Type Cenllric DatI!Council Bluffs CNBLlAWACGO lAESS lAElO 2Q90
Davfi!l'IjXlrt DVNPIAEA17f 5E5S 5E4.2 lQ90Des Moines DESMrAD118T SESS lQ90
MINNESOTAOffkt ctu SwU&!h Type Ceneric DoneBloomington Cedar BL TNMNCE8SE 1 AESS lAJ;:lO 3 Q!IOBloomington Normandale at. TNMNN083E lAESS lAE10 3Q!i10DuluthDL TIlMNME12T 5ESS lQ90Duluth Calumet DL THMNCA62M 3RSM SES 1090Dulutll Carlton CRTOMNCI3RS3 3R5M lQ90~lutn Cloq\.!~t CLQTMNCARSO 5RSM tQ90Duluth Douglas DL THMND062M .3RSM tQ90Dulurh Endion DL THMNFSRS7 5RSM 5ES 1090
Duluth HamJrxk.DL THMNHE72M 5RSM SE5 tQ90Dull.lth Hunters Par\(DLTHMNWARS7 5RSM 5ES 1090Duluth Kenwood DL THMNCSRS7 3RSM 5E5 1090Duluth Lakeside DL THMNLARS3 5RSM 5E5 lQ90Duluth Pike Lake DL THMNPI.,.RS7 5RSM 5E5 1Q90Duluth Proctor DL.1'HMNDPRS6 5RSM 5E5 lQ90Mi"f\eapoli5 Downtown ceo MPLSMNOTJ4E lAES5 tAEIO 3Q90Minneapolis Downtowf\ Cel MPLSMNDTJ7E 1 AESS lAE1O 3Q9OMinneapolis Downtown eCl MPl.SMNDT12T 33S 5f6 4Q9OMh'll\l!i\polis ~wntown CC3 MPLSMNDT62C 3ESS 5E6 3Q90MinneapoliJ Downtown CC4 MPLSMNDT1GT 5ESS 5E5 lQ90Minneapolis Hopkins HPKNMNHO93E 1 AESS lAE10 3Q90Minneapol~ Wayzata WYZTMNW A47E lESS 4Q90Owaton/la OWTNMNOWIZf 5E5 lQ90ChatfieldCTFDMNCH8675RSM5ESlQ90St. Charles STCHMNSCRS9 5RSM 5E5 lQ90Rcche'5ter ROCHMNR0C6T t AESS 7.AE10 lQ905t. Paul Mapll!:wood DSO !VI('WOMNMADSO 3ESS 3(290St. Paul Beech STPLM NUERSI\"50RM 5E5 3Q9OSt. Paul Beech STPLMNBERSC SORM 5E5 3Q9051. Paul Cottage Grove crevMNcDRS3 5RSM 3Q90St. Paul Eagan ~ACNMNLDRSA 30RM 5E5 3(290St. Paul MaplewQQ.:t MPWDMNZHRSA 30RM 5ES 3Q9051. Paul Marltet STPLMNMK2.9E tAESS lAE10'4Q90St. PauL Rice SHVWMNRU8E 1AIi.5S lA.El0 IIQ90
MQNTANA
Of lie I! CLt.Swlt~h Type Ceneric:DatI!OHling:s West BLNCMTWEO1T 5E$lQ90SMpherdSHPHMTMARSl3R5M5E51Q90Grat Fans GRFLMTMAO3T 3ESS 5E5 1Q90MissoulaMSSLMTMAO3't 3ESS 5E5 lQ90HelenaHLNAMTMAOJT5ESS5E3lQ90Helenil East EHLNMTMARS1 5RSM 5E5 lQ90Helena North HLNAMTNOR51 ~R5M lQ90SE8RASKA
"'Office scheduled for colwersion to a 5ESS in 1990. Switch gene-fie will be 5E6-
cn '...J TonOCOCO,..,.,.T':: AT
.-.::""
.-".-.",....,-"..,.......""..,." .U""""TY
.................,.......,....................",.....".....
MAY 06 2003 14: 49 FR I D POL I CY AND LAW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040
Network Discl05U~ News '30
Cc;.SS7
Attachment, Page 3Offic~CLL!switch Type Generic D~te
Omilha U3T OMAHNENW03T 5ESS 6/90Omaha Bellevue OMAHNEBECCO lESS 9/90Omaha Douglas OMAHNEN WDSO 5ESS 515 &/90Omaha rort OMA,HNEFO49A IAESS 1 AE10 &/90Omahil Fowler OMAHNEFWDSO 5ESS SE5 &/90Bennington. BCTNNECORSt 3RSM SF.;6/90GretnaGRETNENWR513RSM5IS6/90Omaha I/:ard OMAHNEIZCGO tAESS 1AEI0 6/90
Omaha o~ St.OMAHNEOSDSO 5ESS 5R5 6/90OmOlha 78th St.OMAHNE:7837A.1 AESS 1AE10 6/90Omaha 54m St.OM AHNE84DSo OM5-l00 BCS 28 6/90Omaha 84th St.OMAHNt:MHRSA.RSC BCS 28 6/90SpringfieldSPFDNENWRS2R5CBCS 2S 6/90YalleyVLL YNENWRS3 RSC BCS 28 6/90Omaha 90th St,OMAHNE90Cc;O I AESS lAE10 6190Omaha USth St.OMAHNECEDSO 5ESS SES 6/90Omaha 15l!ith St.OMAHNEHA89A.1ESS
....
8/90
NORTH DAKOTA
Office CLL!Swilo;h Type C~l1eric D.1teFargoFA RGNDBCl2T SlOSS SE5 lQ90CasseltonCSL TNDBCRS3 SRSM 5105 lQJO
SOUTH DAKOTA
Offjc~ClLl Switch Type C~l1eric Date
Rapid City RPCYSDCOO9T 5ESS SE4.lQ90Bla!:lduwk aUiKSDCORSl 5RSM SE4.2 lQ90HermosaHRMSSDCOR515RSM5h4,.1000Hill CEty HLCYSDCORSI 5RSM SEU lQ!10LeadLEADSDCORSI5RSM5E"'.1Q90Rapid Valley IiPVYSDCORSt 5RSM SE4.1Q90Spo!'I1msh SPRFSDCORSI SRSM SE:4.lQ90Watwidc:WRWKSDCORSI 5RSM SEU lQ90WhitewoodWHWDSDCORSl5RSM5E:4~2 lQ90Sioux Falls SXFLSDCcmT 5ESS 5E5 lQ90ArlingtonARTNSDCORSl5RSM5E5lQ90Cel'lterville DNVI..SDCORSI 3RSM 5ES lQ90Harri~bt.1~HRBGSDCORS1 3RSM 5E5 lQ90HudsonHDSNSDeER5t5RSMSES1 (290~dis(1n MDSNSDCORS1 5RSM 5ES lQ90Sioux FilUs 5E SXFLSDSERSt 3RSM SES 1 QIJOSioux Falls SW SXFLSDSWRS 1 3RSM SE5 1Q90TeaTEA-SDCORSI 3RSM 5€S lQ90
WASHINGTON
Office CLLI Switch Type Generic:Dal~
Bel1evue Ql!!ncourt BLLVWACtDSO 3ESS 5ES 4Q90Bel!evue Sherwoo.:l OlLVWASHCGO l.o\ESS lAE10 4Q90Olympiil Whitehall OL YM A.O2D50 3ESS 5E5 4Q90Olympia Evergreen OLYMWAEVRSO 5R5M 4Q90Steamboat5TDYWASTRSl5RSM3E54Q90ReMonRNTNW AOICCO lAESS lAE10 4Q90Seattle A STTLW AO6C9T DMS-200 UC5 30 41;290Seattle 4E STTLW A0302T .:lESS 4E14 4Q90Seilttle Atwatl!r SITL W AOSCCO lAESS IA-EtO 4.QlJOSeanleCampU5 DSO SiTL W ACADSO SESS 5E:5 4Q90Seattle Cherrv 5iTLWACH-I3A.lAESS 1 ""Eta 4Q90w A,5HINGTON Cont.
Office elLl Swit(h Typt CI:!Jt~rjc;:Dab~
Office sch~d uled for convcr:;ion to Q 5ESS in 1990. Switch generic wW be SE5.
an 'TQnQCQCQn'7T~ r.T IIC~lnlcnCIur.T~~nn~U U~~T T~~"~ UJ T7 ~ 77 cnn7 ~7 U~W
MAY 06 2003 14: 49 FR I D POL I CY AND LAW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040 P. 1
~eattJ~ Eil5t 51TL W AO3CCO lAESS
Seanle Lakeview SITL W ALADSO 5ESS
Seattle Main ceo STIL W AO6CCO lAESS
Seattle Main CG3 51T1. W AO6CC3 lAESS
Seattle Main DS4 SITl W A06DS4 .5ESS
Seattl!! Sunset 5Tfl W ASUDSO .5ESS
SpClII;ilne KeY51one SPKNW AKYCGO 1 AESS
Spokane Walnut SPKNWA,WA92C MESS
Taccmll Faw.;elt TACMWAfA2JA lAESS
Ti1ccrna Waverly 7 TACMWAWVDSO 5ESS
TDcoma Fawcett TACMWAFAR50 5RSM
Tacoma Waverly 2 "rACMWAWARSO 5RSM
Weyco Corp. Hdq.FDWYW AI0RSO 5RSM
Ta~oma SkylinLJ TACMWASY7SA tAESS
Vancouver Orchard ORCHWAOICCO lAESS
V..n(:Cl1,\\Ier Oxford VANCWAO169C lAESS
WYOMINCi
OfficII CLU Switch Typll
C;\sper CSPRWYMAD3T SESS
Cheyenne CHYNWYMAO2T t AESS
Network Di5clo5ure News #30
Ccs.SS7
Attachment. Page 4IAEtO 40903E5 4Q9OlAE10 4090lAEI0 4Q905E6 4090SE5 4(290lAE10 4Q90tAElD 4Q90lAE10 4Q905E6 4Q905E6 ~~O5E6 4C2905E6 4~0lAE10 4Q90lAE1O 4Q90lAE10 4090
,. '
Generic
3E5
1 AEI0
DatI!
lQ90
lQ90
) n r'(TQ()QCOCQn7T'" "1 IIC~lnIC~CIUAT~~n~~u u~~r Te"""',,", 'UJ '7'7 "7T rr"Y7 '::'7 H-'1V
MAY 06 2003 14: 49 FR I D POL I CY AND LAW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040
** 80 '30Vd IV~O~ **
N~twurk Disdosure News 1#30
CCS.SS7
Attao:nmel'lt. PageS
CCS-SS7 Network Disclosure
Basic CCS-S57 intralata call setup functionality is available in the following generics:
JAESS
lAElO, lAEll
Supports TR.TSY-OOO317, "Call Control Using the Integrated SetVic~ Digital Network User Part
(ISDNUP)"
SE4.2, 5E5. SE6
Supports TR-TSY-OOO317
, "
Call Control Using the Integrated Services Digital Network U5er Part
(ISDNUP)"
RM~100F
BCS 28, BCS 30
Supports TR-TSY.OOO317
, "
Call Control Using the Integrated Services Digital Network User Part
(ISDNUP)"
!;;!n '..-J TQnQC;QCQ()7TF: (IT IICf:/nlcnCIUt"lT'I-I"InrY:i1.J u-.-::rr rt;;";:J"~~"" 'U.,J '7'7"7T Cf\f\"7 ~7 'lfJ~** TOTAL PAGE. 12 **
MAY 01 2003 15: 46 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES
- '
llJ:WEST-
S C U R E No. 36
Infcun:11FJrI lor CII::tQl11cr PIl~rlll"'i~:=' lqulpm,;111 IJ1:1I1Ur,I!.:tUIVI$ ;:nd LrIII;tIlCt~(1 ~;'~rVIC(~~: F'r(,vl(h~r'
...,
Custom Local Area SignaliJ.\g Services
(CLASS) Feature-Calling N ante Delivery,
Calling Numb er Delivery
Disclosure Date: April 16, 1990
Location:
u S WEST today announeed its intent to offer a new interface which
allows the delivery of the calling party's name to the terminating end
office using the multiple data message format. This interface is of-
fered in conjunction wifh anot1ier CLASS Feature, Calling Number
Delivery, announced February 1, 1990.
A market trial win begin in the following areas October 1990;
BoiSE. 10 BOIS1DMADSO eMS 100/200
So1se. ID' BOISIDWICCO tARSS
CIanci Folks, NO CDFItNDBC7'1G DMS 1.00/200
. EmeIado, ND CFABNDBCBS5 RSCEmerado. ND CFABND'IJC8S1 RSCGrafton, NO GFrNNDBAlW RSCND MANVNDBC1& RSC
Reynokis, ND R'lNLNDDCRSS RSC
Thompson, ND 11:IsNNDBCRSS RSC
S UAURaxy:
It An additional RSC will be placed at this laatfon.
TimiI18 of Deployment: Upon successful completion of the Market Trial, the initial offering
will be in Boise, ID and Grand Forks, ND. Future offerings will be
based on customer demand tlttoughout U S WEST's 14-sta.te area.
Pricing:The catalog price list will be available in October 1990.
Intedac~ Requirements:Northern Telecom s document NIS 5107-, Issue 2.: DMS 100 Switch to
Customer Premises Equipment ~gna1ing Interface for CLASS and
CLASSPLUS Services describes the interface specifications for Calling
Name Delivery. Currently this doc:wnent is available at no charge bycontacting:
Attachment B
to Affidavit of Philip Linse
Jeffery 1.. Rea
Northern Telecom, Ine.
5S75 DTC Parkway, Suite 150
~wood., CO 80111 OR CAll.: (303) SSQ-S600
(over)
MAY 01 2003 15: 46 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES
~ "-::"
, US WEST NetwOrk DiscloSure News #36, cont.
BeUcare Techniad References
CLASS Feature-Ca1Ung Number De1lvery
Plua the fint revl5ion
CLA$ Feature CiaJling Number Ddivery Blocking
SPCS Cus~omer Pranbes Equipment )),.ta Interface
T R - TSY -G)O()31
TR ~ T5Y -000391
TR..m-OOOO30
$23.00
$12.00
$33.
$2S. 00
Bel1core Technical References can be obtained by contacting:
Bell Commmtications Research, Inc.
Customer ServiCai
60 New England Avenue
Piscataway,NJ 08854-4196 OR CALL 1-80D-S21-CORE
Additional Information: .AJ\.y customer premises equipment vendor lmanufacturer or en...
hanced services provider desiring additional technical information
in conjunction with this new interface provided by U S WEST may
write to:
J. Ballard
Manager-Network Planning
1600 Seventh Avenue, Room 2813
Seattle, WA 98191
MAY 01 2003 15: 46 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES
pO .
No. D I S C L 0
Inl0rITl,III:1t) reI' Cl1'~I!)lih!" Pr.:fl1t~C'i Fqulpm!'11 r\i1.lnli:,iGIIJll'r~; ,HId F: nl"I,Hh:,,(j ::;(~""'I';'::: 1,IO,llckl:
Common Channel Signaling-Signaling
System 7 (887) Protocol-INTERLATA Call
Setup
SummaL')':
September 4, 1990
U S WEST plans to offer Common Channel Signaling Call Setup to
Interexchange Carriers (IXC) using the Signaling System "l Protocol.
The provision of IXC CaD Setup' assumes the IXC has interconnected.
to the U 5 WEST Network at the Signaling Transfer Point (STP) senf-
ins the LATA in which the JXC wishes to use Technical Reference 394
capabilities. (The U 5 WEST local STP au information is included.
on page 4 of the attachment.)
Disclosure Date:
LOC!ation:See attached
Timing of Deployment: See attached
Pridng:Tariff approval is expected in March 1991.
Interface Requirements: The signaling protocol and interface information Eor Common Chan-
nel Signaling can be found in the following Be11core Tedmical Refer-
ences:
T1\-UY-aJ03g.t
Swf(ddng System Requirements for In'erexdumge Carrier Int~
lion using the Integrated ServWes Digital Network User Pl.n
Issue 2:, Ju 1y 1989 $4D.OO
TIt. - TS Y-mJ082
Signaling TlIINfer Point (S'IP) Generic Requirements
I&sue 2, Jan'uIIY 1988 Revision 1, December 1988
Revision 2. June 1990
$55.00
$25.00
Attachment C
to Affidavit of Philip Linse
Ta-TSY-GOOO64
Lata Switching Systems Generic: RequIrements
Sectiqn 6.5
Supplement 1
$1,825.00
$465.00"
(wer)
.... ----- ---.... --" '-'-~ ..."""-
or", ~.....
MAY 01 2003 15: 47 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES P .
\1 S WEST Network DisclOlUN Newl #46 continued
TIl--M'L-0002 f6
Bell Communication R~rch Specification of Sl.pling
System Number 7 $497.~wwn ~~OORevision 2 $80.Rnbion 3 $171.
TR.-TSY-GQ0317
Switdung System Requirements for Call Control Using theISDN User Part $40.
TK- TSV.Q00905
ConuD()n Chanr.e1 Si~g Network Interface
Specification $80.00
These documents can be obtained by writing or calling:
Bell Communications Research, Inc.
CustOmer: Services
60 New England Avenlle
Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196
(800) 521-CORE
Addltio.nallnfomu.tion: Any customer premises equipment vendor/manufactUrer or en-
hanced services provider desiring additional technical information in
conjunction with the SS7protoCOl may write to:
Ron Woldeit
Manager - CCS Network Planning
1600 Bell Plaza, Room 2813
Seattle, WA98191
.. . -
MAY 01 2003 15: 47 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES
.. .
u s WEST NctWD.dt J::JIsdonn Ne"ft 1f46
$I!p teQ1bIr", 1990
Att&chllll!ld r.. t
The following list represents U S WEST's current deployment plans in 1991 for CCS-SS7 Call
Setup to !XCs. This list is subject to change.
QIflCE CJ.I.SWITCH TYPE.~RIC PAlE.
Phoeftbr.. Adzona LATA.
PboeI\1x Main Tandem PHNXAZMAOIT DMS200 BCS31 lQ91
Phaeab: M..in TOp5 PHNXMAO4T DM5200 :ecs;o lQ91
Thunderbtm SCDLAZrHDSO SE56 5E6 lQ91
Mama MESAAZMACQ)1 AE$S 1ARU lQ91
PI1oc:nIx Greenway PHNXAZGRDSO SESS 5E6 101
PhoeJIIx CiImD PHNXAZCACGO 1 AESS lAE1.1 1Q91
Tempe MtClintoek TntP AZMCCCO 1Ae 1 ASt1 1Q91
PhoeI1ix North ceo PHNXAZNO;CGO lABSS tAE11 tQ91
Phaenh Nortneut PHNXA.ZNECCO lAESS lA'E11 1091
PhoenIJc North CGl PHNX.UNoa::; t 1 ABSS IAE11 1091
PboeniX Main ceo PHNXAZMACCO lAESS lAE1'1 Ion
Phoealx Southeast PHNXAZSBCGO IAESS tAm1 1Q91
PhoeNx S\rnn)'Jlope PHNXAZSYCQ)1 AESS tAB11 lQ91
Phaadx But PHNXAZEACCO 1 AESS lAE11 lQ91
Tempe Main DSO TEMP,\ZMADSO DMSlOO BCS31 1(291
PIIonix Main eCl PHNXAZMACGl lA1iSS 1AEll 1(291
PhoeN:r North DS1 PHNXAZNODSI 5ESS SE6 1091
ScattldaJe ),bin sCoLAZMACCO lAiSS 1 AEl1 101
PI\oeIdX Wat pHNXAZWiCCQ 1 AESS 1 AEI1 2Q91
Northwest PHNXAZNWCCO tAESS tAEll 'lQ9t
Supentltion SPRSAZWECCO 1 AESS 1~1I 201
CIe1\da1e CLDLAZMACCO 1 AESS lAEn 2.Q91
MBIiII Cilbert MESAAZGIDSD SESS SE6 2091
Deer Va.Uey DRVY AZNOPSO 5BSS SB6 2.Q91
New River NWRV AZMARSl SRSU SE6 2(191
Wtdcanburg W CBG AZMARSl'5RSM SE6 1Q9~
PhoenIx Sauth PHNXAZSOCCO lAESS lAEll ZQ91
J.fesa Ma!n MBSAAZMADSO SESS SE6 2Q91
Tmlpe McCIintoc:k TEMP AZMCDSO 5ESS SB6 201
PhaeAix Main CSI PHNXAZMADS1 DMSIOO BCS31 3QlJ1
North PHNXAZNoRSl 1U.CM aa;.12 3Q91
Midriwra PHNXAZMRCGO IAESS 1 ABU 301
CMnd1er Wrst CHNDAZWEDSO SESS 5E6 3QIJ1
Phoenbc !'ems PHNXAZPPRS1 sRSM 5E6 301
ChaadJer Main cHNDAZMADSO SESS 5E6 3Qrn
Cal\f81ton CHNDAZSLRS1 sORM 5E6 SQ9t
Oca ti11o CHNDAZKSKS'I 5ORM 5E6 3Q91
PhoePh Muyvale PHNXAZtdR(D)1 ABSS lAE11 3Q91
Shea SCDLA2'SHDSO SSSS SE6 3Q!) 1
Fort McDowet FrMnAZNORSt ItSM SE6 3Q91
Pllael\ix Peoria PHNXAZPRCCO 1 AESS IAEll 3Q91
s.apa.titkm SPRSAZSADSO DMS1 00 BCS3t 3Q'n
Coodyar/ColdWil'et CDYRAZCWDSC DMSt 00 BCS31 3091
aAckeye BCKY A ZMARSI RSC BCS31 3091
Wifttersburg WNBGA2D1RS1 ltSC BCS31
Pllaeaix FaDthil1s PHNXA2:81DSO 5BS$SE6 3(291
Supenritfon Main SPKSAZMACGD lABsS 1AE11 3Q91
Clumd1er South CHNDAZSOCGO SE6
DeftYer.. OiIlanda LATA
Den,.. Taac1em OZT DNVacoMAOZr 8CS31 tan
Deftwr'T.Nlem CDT DNVRCOMAO3T DMS200 BCS31 JQ91
SIIDivan DN\'8CO51.a:o 1 A6S$tAEI1 1(191
DeiWerOrJ' Creek.DNVR(:ODCCGO 1 AES5 t AEn 10111
Dinv8rEPt 11NVItCOEACC1 1 AESS tAElt 1~1
MAY 01 2003 15: 47 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES
US WESt'Nawork DiId~ NlltwI~
~'"
1990A~ Page2
LakeWuod LKW DCO IdA ceo lAE55 lAE\1 lQ91
tJemra' ~ tt DNVRCORACGO 1AESS tAEt1 1091
anpwood AbaUeo BNWDCOABCCO tAmS lAEl1 1011
NorthgIeM NGLNCOMACCO 1AESS lA1Itt lQ91
Del\wr ).bin CC2 I) NVRCOMACC1 lAESS lAm1 lQ91
~ver )of.m CQJ DNVRCOMACCO 1 AESS tARn lQ91
DeiWI' Capital HiD.DNV1lCOCH ceo 1 ABSS lAE11 101
0Bnws- Capbl Hill DNVRCOCHCG1 1 AESS tAEt 1 101
Iou1dv BLDRCOMADSO SESS 5E6 lQ91
Denwr Dry Creek DNVRCOOCDSO SESS SE6 tQIJ1
CuJt1a Pade.DNVRCOCPRSl SGSM 5E6 1091
$autheallt DNVRCOSSRSt SRSM SB6 1Q9'!
SuJUvm DNVR.COSf..,RSl 5RSM 5E6 1(291
TeclI. Cent-DNVIlCO'I'CRSl SRSM 5E6 Oil
Northg1enD NClNOOMARSl 5R5M SE6 lQ91
Denver C\wtia Park DNYRCOCPCCO SESS SF.&lQ91
D8nwtt MaIa\ DSO DNVRCOMADSO SE55 .sn 2Q91
City ICounty DNVRCOfWRSI 5RSM SE6 2Q91
SatIIl9vcl DNVRCOHXRS1 5RSM 5E6 2Q91
LabwaocI LKWDCOTCRS1 SORM SE6 1091
CcneraJ Hospitlll DNVRCOjWRS1 SORM 5E6 1Q91
Majn DNnCOtdAASl RSM 5E6 2.Q91
Den. ver To..DNVKCOMA3CT nMS200 BCS31 2.091
Aurora AURRCOMAD$O 5SSS 586 ~Q91
Dimftlt' South~t DNV&COSWCCO lAESS lAE11 2.Q91
Den"'l'2' SOUth DNV Rc:osocnJ l,A.ESS 1AEU 2Q91
DenWI' Calumbine DNVRC:CX::LCCO 1 AESS lAEl t ?Q91
W MNSCQMACCO 1 AESS tABU 2.(291
5ns18waad ENWDCOMACGO l,AESS lAlnt 2Qil
T,b18 Meta TEMACOMA.CGO l.AESS lAm1 2091
ArVIda ARVDCOMACGO 1AESS lAE11 301
LittJetoa TINCOMACCO lAESS 1 AB11 3Q)1
DeftWI' Smoky Hm DNVRCOSHCGO t AESS tAm.l 3Q91
Den" West DNVRCOWscx;o 1 AESS lAE11 3Q91
o.n.... Suuthea5t DNVRCO6ECGO 1 AESS lAlnt 3(291
8rcJoaIfieH .BRFDCOMACCO lAESS tAm1
Davei' Nod1u=ut DNVRCONECCO tAES5 lAm 1 301
Den.. North DNVKCONOCGO lAESS tAE11 3Q91
Go1dea GLDNCOMADSO DMS100 BCS31 3Q91Ht~. Rdt TINCOHLO5O DMS100 BeS1 301
I)d.ver CouonWDOd DNVRCOCWDSO SESS SE6 401
Demler MaaIbe1lo DNVRCOMBDSO SESS 5E6 4Q91
Bdsz.ton BITNCOM ADSO SESS 401
MiaaeapoJia, M~aota LATA
Mpb DoW1\mwn CG3 MPLSMNDT62.G 5ESS SE6 101Ni~TII1\ CCl UPLSMNDTI %I'5ESS 5&6 1091
~pa1i8 asps CC4 MPLSMNDT1 CT 5ESS SE6 1091
111ft Norman4a1e 8LTNMNN083E 1ABSS lAE11 lQ91
St. Paul Market ceo Sl'PLMNMIC29.E tA1$1AElI lQ91
Hop1drd HPKmfNH093&lAESS lAm1 101
Jiee SHVWMNR148E IAESS lAEl1 Ion
CJa Prairie EDPRNNQ'93E SS$SE6 lQ1)1
WYZI'MNW ADSO SE$101
crdWc$CLVYMNOJtS4.E DM$100 BCS.11 1Q91
Mp18 DowntDWn ceo MPL6MNtJI'3G lAESS IAm1 2(291
MpIt DowntoWD CC1 MPl.5MNDT37E lAESS IAmI 1Q91
11m Cedar 8L TNMNCESSE lAESS l.AEl1 2Q91
N.plc1Jaod DSO MPWDMNMADSO SESS 1091
It. PaW. Beech S1'R.MN1IERSA 5ORM SEe.lQ91
STPLMN8EJtSC 5ORM SE6 101
Cottap Gm1Ie c:rcYMNcisRsI SOIQd 5&6 101
MAY 01 2003 15: 48 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES
. .
u s WEST Network Df~NIWII M6
Sep1s11Icr'" 1990
AtI8C:1unmt Pige 3
&gm EAGNMNLBRSA SORM 5E6 tQJn
Mpwd SM MPWDMNZH1UiA SORM 556 101
LexiDpn.BAGNMNLIK5G eNs 100 lQ91
I.8cinstOn RSC EAGNMNRFRSA RSC BCS31 lQ1J1
EACNMNZKRSA RSC BCS31 lQ91
HAGNMNRDUA RSC BC531.lQ91
EACNMNRARSA RSC 1CS31 10)1
EACNMNRCRSA RSC BCS31 1~1
HACNMNt..ftSA RSC BCS31 tan
Mplal!d.m Prairie EDPKMNPE9C SE6
St. Paul OakdltIe WSPLMNWSISB SESS SE6 2Q91
BJoomiqtoa South BLTNMNSO88E sESS SE6 3Q91
fit. hill Mid. way il'ft.MNM16m 1. ABSS 1AEll 3Q91
Bmo1dyn Ct\tr BRCrMNBC56G DMS100 BCS 31 3Q91
St. Paul M. rJcet CG2 STPLMNMK29G 5I!SS SE6 3Q91
b:e1dor EXCLMNBX47C SBSS SE6 3Q!Jl
Hamel HAMLMNHBRSI SRSM SE6 3Q91
H8l\over HNVRMNHBRS4.SRSM:5E6 3Q91
N..YIII1e NVRRMNNARS4 5RSM 5E6 3QJl
CIIM!Jmd.NWBTMNCL63E l-'BSS l,\Ell 3Q!al
Mpl. Ft. SneUJns MPlSMN1"S12G DMS100 BCS91 -&Q91
LexlDgtan RSC EAGNMNZNRSA RSC BCS31 4Q91
WIUe WBLKMNWB42H DIG DIe 4Q91
ClJatal CRYSMNCIS3B DIG ole 4Q91
MpI8 Be8nt MPLSMNBE92E 1 AESS tABU 4091
Mlm\eapolis 7th Ave MPLSMNO737E 1 ABSS IAn 1 4Q91
St. Paul Park Row NSPLMNPK77E DIG DIC 4Q91
Seattle, Wuh1~ lATA
SeattI8 Tandem A.S1TL W AO6C9T DMS200 tQIJl
Suttle Tandem 4S 51TL W AO3O2T 4ESS 1091
ISQHW AEXDSO SESS SE6 1Q91
SeattIB CIu:ny STrL W ACH43A.1 AESS IABU IQP1
s.ttla CamPU'STTLWACADSO.SEtSS 5E6 lQil
IkI11eYu8 SJu:rwoocl B1..L VW ASHCCO lAESS IAEl1 lQ91
s-.tt1a &.t s:m. W AO3CCO 1 ABSS lA&l1 Ian
SeaItI8 Main CGO SlTLW AO6CGO 1 A.ESS lA-En lQ91
Seattle Lalceview STrLW ALADSO 5ESS SE6 '1(291
Remon RNTNW AO1CGO lAESS lAEn 1(291
Silatt1e Main CC3 S1TL W AO6CC3 lAESS 1 AESS lOll
Se.utle Atwater S1TL W AO5CGQ lAESS 1 AEU lQJl
Sea" SUllSCt srn. W ASUDSO S6SS SE6 1(291
OIyInpka White"-"OL YMW AOZDSO 5ESS SE6 lQ91
Evergreen OL YMW AEVKSO SRSM SEll 1Q91
Steamboat STBTW ASTRS1 SRSM SS6 lQ91
Lacey LACYW AOl OS)SESS 5E6 1001
T &CD mtL J un1per T A CMW AJU DSO 5ESS SE6 2Q)1
Kent KENIWAO8DSO SESS SE6 2Q!Jt
8811BYue Glencourt BLLVWAGLDSO 5ESS SS6 2091T~ Wavmy 1 T ACM W A WVDSO SESS SE6 2Q!n
Ta(OW!a Fawcett T A. CMW AF ARSO SRSM SEi 201
Tamma Wawrty 2 TAOrtWAWARSJ SRSM 5E6 2(191
Wr:yco Hdq FOW\'W A 10RS0 SRSM 5E6 2Q91
Seattle Main DS4 srn. W AO6DS(SBSS 5E6 -2Q91.
Kent Ulrich KENJ'W AOID50 SESS 5E6 2Q9t
Tac:oIU Foawcett TAOIfWAFA21A 1 ABSS lAEn 1(291
5ea1t1e 'EItIatt sm. W AELDSO 56SS 5E6 3Q9t
ICent O'Brien ICENfW AOBRSO SORM 5E6 3Q9t
Ra,ta.RNTNW AO1RS1 SDRM SE6 301
6cInIc C1Ierry srn.W ACHm)SDRM"SE6 3(291
IieattJe West . WAflE93B t AESS 1AE11 3Q91
' Federal Way IJIl DSO SESS SE6 3Q91
88tt1e Tops B sntw AO6ic:r DMS2OO BCS31 3Q9t
- -- - - -- -- - -- .
MAY 01 2003 15: 48 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES
U 5 WEST Ndwodt Dl8dOtWfi N.wa i46
Slpt8Dba 4. 1990
tt8d8D8ft\\Pqe 4
Selttte Emeno.STILWAOCGO 1ABSS tAE11 3Q91
Tacomil Lato)(T ACMW ALECCO tASSS 1 AESS 3Q91
T.mlJ'a G~e1d T ACMW AGFD50 SES5 tAInt 3(291
T.mIN Logan TACMWALODSO SESS 5B&3Q!IJI
Aberdeen Tmden\.\BROW .\D1C91'100/2.00 BCS31 4(291
SeaWe Ouwamllh STILW ADUCCO IAESS 1 AESS 4Q91
Sattle MaIn DSD STI'L W AMADSO DMStOO BCS3 t 4Q91
BeUewe Ctencourt:BLL VW AGLRSO RLCM Ba31 4Q91
).f8f'Cl!l' Island MlUSW AOtDSO SESS 5Ei 4QIJ1
Seattta PNkway STJL W AP ADSO SESS 5E&4Q91
Auburn AUIINW AOIDSO 5ESS 5B6 4Q91
Rnwnclaw IlNMCW A.O1RSO Sl5f
Black ~nd BONDW AO1RS1 SI&d S:E6 4Q1n
Puya1lup PYLPW A a 1 ceo 1 AI3SS t ABU
Tacoma Skyline 't A CMW ASY1S A 1AESS tABU
Del Moinm DBSMW AOtOSO SESS 4Q91.~t Merldhm 1CEN1W AMmJ50 sass SE6 ((191
~ham.GKHMW AGRDm 5EG .(Q!iI1.
"aztla'-'~ ana,. LATA 1Q9tro.tIand Tandem A PTLDORl3C9T DMS200 BCS3t
Pomllnd Tandem 'B P'I'LDOR131CT DMS200 SCS31 1091
PeDdtetlOn TII1'tdetn I.'NTNORSKW DMS200 BCS3O 1Q91
POItIa1\d Ctpital P'I'LDOR'9DS1 5BO lQ91
I'oJOaftd. Atlantk PrLDOK12CGO lABSS lABU tQ91
PoftIabd Butler PTLDOR.I4CCO lABSS 1AS11 t Q9:I
Port1aDd Alpine PTLOOR11CGO 1 AESS tARt1 101
Pod:Ja1\d. Prospect P1'DLOR18CGO lAESS lAB11 1. Q91
V&nCDuver Oxtord V ANCW AO169C 1 AESS IAEl1 2Q91
PonJand Harold Sl.PTLDORO8DSO SF.SS SE6 1Q91
Portland Chmy PTLCOR1 'lCGO 1 AE5S lAE11 2.0:91
I'oItIand Cypnss PI'LDOKO2DSO 5ESS SE6 2Q91
PortIuKt Capital P1'LDOR69DSO DMStOO BCSS 1 ZQ91
portland CapUal PrLDORCJRSO . JU.CM BCS11 2Q31
Hawthorne P1'LDORH.USO RLCM BCS31 2.Q5ll
S8Iem Midn SALMOR58CCO,lAESS IJ\ESS 2Q91
OJ'eson City ORCYORI8CGO 1A~tABU 2Q91
MRwaakie MLWKOIU7CO)lA~lAE11 1Q91
0n:bard5 ORCHW AO1CG(J lAms lAin 2QIJ1
Portland Belmont Pl'1.IXIRI3CCO 1AESS 1AE11 3Q91
Lab Oswego LKOSOR62D5O 5ES5 4(191
Salem 1 Oth Ave SALMO959DSO SESS 5E6 4Qh
Portland o.pital J'ILD)K69DS2 SESS SE6 102
Local STP Pairs in the U 5 WEST Region
~T ASIiR.VED OFFICE g.u,,.wITCH TYPE CeJF.RIC DAm
Denver Dry Creelc ONVRCODOOOW AXEIO AS13 lQ91
Main DNVRCOMAl9W AXBJO AS13 1031
Omaha Douglas OMA~W AXEl 0 ASlS lQ91
0" Street OMAHNEOSZOW AXEtO AS13 1(291
Phoenix Deer Valley DRVy AZNOOOW AXIU 0 ASI3 1(291
Mesa MESAA%MAOOW AXE1D A.513 1091
Portland Belmont P11.DOR13O3 W AXE10 AS13 lQ91
Capitol PTLDCJR69OOW AXBI0 AS13 101
t.finnlli.polla Beiud MPtSMNBI!92.W AXE10 ASIa 101
!it. Paul Midway S17ILMNMI64W AXE10 A513 lQ91
Seattle Main SlTLWAMOSW AXi10 AS13 1091
ta5t S'iTL W AO3OI AXE1 0 AS13 lf81
MAY 0 1 ~003 15: 48 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES
D I S C No.
In1orl11;JIIOI1 lor ClJ~;l(1nh;r I'rdrnl~'!:) LqUIP:JI(-1J"i1 ~,,:1;.lnlJlaGlur\.~c~, ;\1\\1 LIlII,)nc,~j ~)\!rVIL:.u::, I-Jovlo!.~r~;
Custom Local Area Signaling Services (CLASS)
Featur Calling Name Delivery
10/23/90 REISSUE AND CORRECTION OF #36
Disclosure Date:September 4, 1990
ummuy.US WEST today announced its intent to offer a new interface which
allOW6 the deli very of the calling party's name to the terminating end
office using the multiple data message format. This interface is-offered
in conjunction with another CLASS Feature, Calling Number Delivery,
announced February 1, 1990. The purpose of this disclosure is to clarify
the market trial locations and to identify a new technical reference.
Location:A market trial will begin in the following areas February 1991:Boise, ID BOISIDMADSO PMS.l00/200BaIse.1D UO1SIDWECGO tASSSBoise, ID BOlSIDMACCO lAESS-
Timing of Deployxnent: Upon successful completion of the Market Trial, the initial offering
will be in Boise, 10. FutUre offerings will be based on customer
demand throughout U S WEST's 14+state area.
Pricing:The catalog price list will be available in February 1991.
InterfiJ.ce Requiaments: Northero Teleoom
NIS 5107'-1,. IMueO.2: DMS 100 SfDilch to Cwswmcr PITIII~ E~ulpmmt SigMUIIg InktfRCe for
CLASS llred ct.A.ss PLUS Sf:rr1iczs deKri'Des ,be interface speCibOOI\S for Caning Name
Delivery. Price: $35.
Northern Telecom, Inc.
Dept. 6611/MVL
O. Box 13010
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 OR CALL (800) 347'-4850
Attachment D
to Affidavit of Philip Llllse
(over)
~~-~-~-~--~- -. .--.-.---...-...----.. ..--. .--..-. ... ~_...... ........-
or... .._n
MAY 01 2003 15: 49 FR IDAHO PUBL I C LAW 208 385 8081 TO STOEL RIVES P. 1
oj( 1 t '3DVd '1V~OJ.. **
US WEST Network Disclosure News #52, oont.
AT&:. T Technical Reference
eu.tomer InfOrn\AUOIl JUIf!!O\8Ie CIU OlD-099..UO IR: LCl(.QI ArM Sigmli"8 SntIica fLASS)
Prohx:ol jar Analog OIlling N..mt DelirM"Y (ACND) (1A~SS ud SESS IlwiliCh types)
Prim: no c:harge
The above technical reference can be obtained by contacting:
AT&T
Attn; Erv Johnson - Technical Cow:ultant
3030 N. 3rd Street, #1030Phoenix, AZ 85012 OR CALL [phone]
Bellcore Technical Referenm
TR-TS'Y..Q()IJCnO lI.utl l,.Nav. U88: fPCS ClUfO..- prmtisa; Erpdpmmt Dfrta InteJflU:t:
Price: $25.00
The above technical reference can be obtained by contacting;
Bell Communications Research, Inc.
Customer Services
60 New England Ave.
Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196 OR CALL (sOD) 521-CORE
Additional Information: Any customer premises equipment vendor/manufacturer or en-
hanced services provider desiring additional technical information
in conjunction with this new interface provided by U S WEST may
write to:
J. Ballard
Manager-N etwork Planning
421 SW Oak, Reom 7NIl
Portland, OR 97204
------------ -- . .--.-.-------...----.. ..--.
.~_h"'" ...
,...,"".""... .,.."""".... ..." ......
MAY 06 2003 14:47 FR ID POLICY AND LAW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040 P .
..", -
U S WEST Corrvn.u\icatlons
999 Main Street. 11th Floor
Post OHiC/) SoJl 7888
Boiaa. Idaho 63723
208 ~262e Office
2OS 385-S026 FaCSImile
Barbaril L WtIriorI
Idaho Vice President
llj.-wEST
COMMUNICATIONS
April 30, 1993
TRANS MITT AL NO. 93-6-PL
Myrna. Walters, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Statehouse Mail
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Myrna:
Changes in the Access Service Catalog for US WEST Communications in
southern is hereby submitted in accordance with Section 62-606 Idaho Code.
This filing is made to introduce Common Channel Signaling Access
Capability and to introduce two new optional features available with Feature
Group 0 (FGD) - Clear Channel Capability (CCC) and Signaling System 7 (557)
Qut of Band Signaling.
Common Channel Signaling Access Capability is a switched access service
which allows a. customer to interconnect their Common Channel Signaling
(CCS) network with U S WEST's CCS network. This service provides the
platform through which customers will be able to obtain access to USWC's
services requiring Common Channel Signaling such as CCC, SS7 out of band
ignaling, and others. Three network components make up CCSAC: the
Signal Transfer Point (STP) Access Connection, the STP Port, and the STP
Link. USWC's CCS/SS7 network is a dedicated digital data network which is
separate from the regular message network. ;fhe existing message network
carries the voice/ data communications, w~\ the CCS7 network carries thesignaling.
Clear Channel Capability allows a. customer to send information at 64 kbps.
CCC may be requested in concert with the initial installation of FGD, or the
customer may request rearrangement of existing FGD service. Utilizing a DSl
facility, CCC allows 64 kbps of throughput on each of the 24 DSO trunks.
Attachment E
to Affidavit of Philip Linse
MAY 06 2003 14: 47 FR I D POL I CY AND LAW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040 P .
.;..,;
Myrna Walters
Page 2
April 30, 1993
557 out of band signaling is a FGD optional feature which provides the
customer the ability to use this signaling to set up trunks on a per call basis. It
also provides the automatic transmission of calling party number (CPN) and
carrier selection parameter (CSP). Calling party number will be automatically
transmitted with 55? out of band signaling in those offices suitably equipped
with the software that allows customers to elect to block their CPN
information from being displayed to the called party. CSP signaling indicator
signifies to the customer that the call being processed was originated from a
presubscribed end user line or was dialed using a lOXXX code. When
requested on the irUtial installation of FGD, 55? out of band signaling is a
nonchargeable optional feature. When it is requested on existing FGD
service, a rearrangement charge will apply.
. These changes will be effective June 1, 1993. Questions may be directed to Pat
Stewart at [phone].
Yours truly,
Barbara L. Wilson
Idaho Vice President.
MAY 06 2003 14:47 FR ID POLICY AND LAW 208 385 8026 TO 93899040
, ... -
1801 California Street, Room 4610
Denver. Colorado
Aprt 1 12, 1993
Pat stewart
Mdnager
Boise . Idaho
IDAHO CCC/CCSAC/SS7 ACCESS SERVICE FILING
Attached for your filing are rev1s'ons to the Idaho Access Service
cablog.
This filing introduces Clear Channel Capab11ity (CCC) , Common Channel
Signaling Access Capability (((SAC) and SS7 Out of Band Signaling (5$7).
eee is a new Common S~itching optional feature available w1th Feature
Group D Access Servi ce 64 cec permi ts the customer the ab111 ty . to
or1g1nate and terminate vo1ce and data from/to their end users over a
clear channel at a rate of 64 kbps.
eeSAC is a Switched Access Service which perm1ts the customer to
interconnect thetr Common Channel Signaling Network (eeSN) with USWC'
ees network. This service is the platform for ces application services;
, SS7 Out of Band Signaling, ecc and future serv1ces.
SS7 is a new Common Switching optional feature avallable with Feature
Group D Access Servi ee. SS7 prov'des the customer the ab\ 11 ty to use the
CCSAC to set up trunks on a per call bas 1 s. Thi s reduces ea 11 set-up
time. thus resu)ting in shorter calls.
On the day the formal Comm1ss1on f11ing is made , please send copies(transmittal letter , tariff/catalog pages and any information provided tothe commission that is not proprietary or confident1al). via Bell
Express . to the following persons:
Patty Hahn
1999 Broadway, Room 940
- Denver , Colorado
Martha Phe il s
1801 California St., Room 2120
Denver, Colorado
An approved Product/Serv1 ce Authorization form ., s . attached.
Marketing' would like
-:"
th's ffling effect1ve-
':"
as soon :as.ssible.
Card er
If you have any questions . please contact me on [phone]. If your
question involves the supporting information. contact Barbara Markovitz.
Product Manager. on [phone].
JEAN ROBERTS
Manager-Tart ffs
Attachments
Cophs to:Corporate Tad ff 01 strt but1on-Access. U st 2 t Barb Hjelmaa
and Barbara Markov
ATTACHMENT E
to Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 29219
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT
~ij
ATTACHMENT F
to Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 29219
ILLUMINET INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT
(PAGES 25 AND 31)
. .i
Part A
General Terms
any mark anywhere in the world which is identical or confusingly
similar to the Marks or which is so similar thereto as to constitute a
deceptive colorable imitation thereof or to suggest or imply some
association , sponsorship, or endorsement by the Owners. The
Owners make no warranties regarding ownership of any rights in or
the validity of the Marks.
(A)3.11 Warranties
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE
PARTIES AGREE THAT NEITHER PARTY HAS MADE, AND THAT THERE
DOES NOT EXIST, ANY WARRANTY , EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
(A)3.12 Assignment
(A)3.12.Neither Party may assign or transfer (whether by operation of law or
otherwise) this Agreement (or any rights or obligations hereunder)
to a third party without the prior written consent of the other Party.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, either Party may assign or transfer
this Agreement to a corporate affiliate or an entity under its common
control. If ELI's assignee or transferee has an Interconnection
agreement with USW, the Parties shall meet and negotiate the
resolution of conflicts and discrepancies between the assignee s or
transferee s Interconnection agreement and this Agreement. To the
extent the Parties cannot agree to a resolution , the Dispute
Resolution provisions shall apply. Any attempted assignment or
transfer that is not permitted is void ab initio. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, this Agreement shall be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties' respective successors
and assigns. Nothing in the foregoing is intended to alter ELI'
rights pursuant to Section 252(i) .of the Telecommunications Act as
set forth Section (A)3.33.
(A)3.12.Without limiting the generality of the foregoing subsection , any
merger, dissolution , consolidation or other reorganization of ELI , or
any sale , transfer, pledge or other disposition by ELI of securities
representing more than 50% of the securities entitled to vote in an
election of ELI's board of directors or other similar governing body,
or any sale, transfer, pledge or other disposition by ELI of
. substantially all of its assets , shall be deemed a transfer of control.
(A)3.13 Default
If either Party defaults in the payment of any amount due hereunder, or if either
Party violates any other material provision of this Agreement, and such default or
violation shall continue for thirty (30) calendar days after written notice thereof
the other Party may seek relief in accordance with the Dispute Resolution
June 22, 2000Ilhd/EIi-ldaho-final.doc
CDS-OOO612-01621c
Page 25
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS
WERE INCLUDED IN THIS FILING