20050209Steese Affidavit.pdf

" ,-;",,"'".'"
fU: L f
y '
11 '! c.
!::...
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES d8~lSsibl'fr1 2:4'
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMP ANY OF IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF
IDAHO , CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM
STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE
COMPANY and ILLUMINET, INC.
Ii 0 f' ij ;.-; t if'
UTILITIES COt1't1i SSION
CASE NO.: QWE-02-
EXHIBIT
AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES W. STEESE
Complainants
QWEST CORPORA TION
Respondent.
, Charles, W. Steese, do depose and state:
I am a founding member of the law firm of Steese & Evans, P., formerly known
as Steese & Associates, P.C. If called upon to testify, I could testify to the following from
personal knowledge.
In April 2003 , Qwest hired my law firm to represent it in all litigated matters
concerning SS7 signaling across the region. In each such action, I was lead trial counsel.
Shortly after the Commission issued the Orders, Illuminet and some of its carrier
customers initiated similar proceedings in the states of New Mexico, Iowa and North Dakota.
The parties to the New Mexico proceeding (and to a more limited extent in North Dakota and
Iowa) participated in extensive document and deposition discovery.Qwest produced over
000 pages of new material, gathered substantial new documentation from Illuminet, and took
The Complaint names Qwest Communications, Inc. as the Respondent, but the proper party is Qwest
Corporation.
Rule 30(b)( 6) depositions of Illuminet and one of its wireless carrier customers. Over the course
of this discovery, Qwest uncovered many new facts that previously had not been uncovered or
presented to this Commission. Specifically:
That Ameritech and Bellsouth bill for signaling messages associated with local
traffic out of intrastate tariffs;
That the entire telecommunications industry was well aware from a series of FCC
decisions that incumbents such as Qwest planned to begin separately billing for
signaling messages;
That there is substantial documentary and anecdotal evidence that third-party
signaling providers do not act as agents for their carrier customers;
That the FCC specifically found that signaling should not be part of reciprocal
compensation;
That the FCC specifically found that BOCs, such as Qwest, should create message
rating for signaling;
That signaling messages that cross LA T A lines are by definition interLA T A
traffic , not local traffic, and therefore are not paid for out of interconnection
agreements;
That Qwest developed a form interconnection agreement with the industry that
specifically excluded signaling from reciprocal compensation;
That Qwest's SGA T and many interconnection agreements specifically state that
local traffic (including signaling traffic) delivered to Qwest from a third-party is
to be billed and paid for out of tariffs;
How the terms of Qwest's interconnection agreements evolved , and that no one
ever planned to have signaling included as part of reciprocal compensation;
That the rates for reciprocal compensation do not include any component of
signaling; and
Unless a CLEC orders unbundled signaling, Qwest is not getting compensated for
the use of its signaling network when it provides signaling to carriers to complete
local calls.
Qwest is precluded from giving the full scope of the facts - indeed some facts altogether - due to
protective orders issued in other proceedings. Thus, this is anYthing but a complete list.
Further affiant sayeth not.
Charles W. Steese, Esq.