20050902Response to motion to compel.pdf

F/ECEIVED I"'
~:'
L'J
r~""
Mary S. Hobson
STOEL RIVES LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ill 83702-5958
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
msho bson~stoel. com
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
:~ !
t::"n
: '
c""
,.."
zon5 SEP - 2 Pfi 4: 1:3
iu ,;0 i)UBLiC,i-
""""'-~' ;~'.""'-'
i ,'i-
";:"~ '"" '
tLI h...vU Ii, 0JI ,
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street - 10th Floor
Denver ,CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Thomas .Dethlefs~qw est. com
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF LEVEL 3
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC'S PETITION
FOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 252(b) OF THE COMMUNICA-
TIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED BY
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1996, AND THE APPLICABLE STATE
LAWS FOR THE RATES, TERMS, AND
COND IT IONS OF INTERCONNECTION
WITH QWEST CORPORATION
Docket No.: QWE-05-
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL
Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), by and through its attorneys, hereby responds to the
Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Interrogatories filed by Level 3 Communications
LLC ("Level 3"). For the reasons that follow, Level3's motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
On June 3, 2005, Level 3 served Qwest with sixty-seven (67) discovery requests (not
counting subparts) in this proceeding. The Idaho discovery requests were just one part of a
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 1
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
larger deluge of discovery from Level 3. On June 14, Level 3 had served more than a hundred
requests in the Oregon arbitration. On June 15, Level 3 served Qwest with one hundred six
(106) discovery requests in Iowa and more than a hundred requests in the Colorado arbitration.
And on June 17 2005 , Level 3 served more than a hundred requests in the Arizona arbitration.
Altogether, Level 3 served more than four hundred twenty (420) requests in a three day time
frame in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Oregon and Idaho~ Nearly contemporaneously,
Level 3 also served Qwest with over one hundred requests in Wyoming bringing the total
number of requests in the first round to nearly six hundred, not counting subparts.
In mid-July, Level 3 served a second round of discovery in the states of Colorado
(7/15/05), Arizona (7/20/05), Idaho (7/20/05), Oregon (7/25/05) and Iowa (7/25/05). Including
these requests, Level 3 has now served Qwest with more than eight hundred discovery requests
in the six states in which arbitrations are pending between the parties.
Qwest has obj ected to much of Level 3' s discovery for various reasons. First and
foremost, Qwest has objected because Level3's requests are grossly overbroad and unduly
burdensome discovery requests. Level 3 has not tailored its requests to obtain information that
would be admissible at hearing. Rather, it has engaged in a gigantic fishing expedition with the
hope that just one of the six public utility commissions hearing these arbitrations will require
answers to its overbroad requests. In order to minimize the number of disputes, Qwest has
attempted in good faith to respond to as much of the discovery served by Level 3 as possible.
However, there are simply too many requests that are unreasonable. It is against this backdrop
that Level 3' s motion to compel should be evaluated.
II.ARGUMENT
In its motion to compel, Level 3 requests that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Commission" or "IPUC") require Qwest to answer interrogatories that are extremely
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 2
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
burdensome to answer. Many of them seek information about the operations of Qwest and its
affiliates throughout the United States. Most of the interrogatories seek information with little or
no relevance to the matters at issue in this proceeding. For the reasons that follow, the IPUC
should deny Level 3' s motion to compel. Copies of the disputed Interrogatories and Response
are attached for the convenience of the arbitrator.
Interrogatory No.4 - Qwest Internet Access Service
In Interrogatory No., Level 3 seeks highly proprietary information related to the
operations of Qwest's affiliates who offer Internet access. Interrogatory No.4 does not seek any
information relevant or even potentially relevant to this proceeding. Level 3 claims, without any
analysis, that Interrogatory No.4 relates to whether "the geographic location of the ISP is
relevant to the compensation exchanged by the parties for the transport and termination of ISP
traffic." (Motion to Compel, p. 5.) In making this claim, Level 3 draws no connection between
the information it seeks and the issue it claims this information relates to.
Qwest's position in this proceeding is that under the North American Numbering Plan
NP A-NXXs are supposed to be assigned to customers that are physically located in the same rate
center to which the NPA-NXXs have been assigned. Thus, as a result of this numbering
assignment rule, calls are rated as local or toll based on the rate centers in which the calling and
called parties are located. In contrast, Level 3 argues that it is free to disregard the numbering
rule and to assign numbers to end users (ISPs in particular) that are located in rate centers other
than the rate center to which the NPA-NXXs have been assigned. This is the essence of Issue
No.3 related to VNXX.
Interrogatory No.4 does not seek information in any way relating to the numbering
assignment rule or the assignment ofNPA-NXXs. The number of Internet Access customers
that a Qwest affiliate has bears in no way on the VNXX issue. Nor does the location of end
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 3
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
offices in which Qwest has collocated equipment or the local calling areas in which Qwest
maintains a physical presence bear on this issue. Level 3 is on a fishing expedition and may be
seeking this information for purposes unrelated to this arbitration. The burden on Qwest to
answer this interrogatory would be enormous, given its extreme breadth (nationwide by
individual LCA). Thus, Level3's motion to compel should be denied.
Level 3 also claims that because the parties have executed a protective agreement
Qwest's confidentiality objections are moot. That is not correct. Level 3 is seeking highly
sensitive competitive information concerning affiliated companies who are not parties to the
agreement and whose information has no bearing on the issues in this case. It stretches credulity
to claim that the protective agreement was entered with intent to allow discovery of information
of this kind.
Level 3' s motion to compel should be denied.
Interrogatory Nos. 11 and See) - Qwest's VoIP Service
In Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 5( e), Level 3 again seeks highly confidential information
that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In Interrogatory
No. 11 , Level 3 requests the number ofVoIP customers that Qwest has in Idaho. Level3's sole
basis for requesting this information is the nonsensical statement that "( t Jhe information
requested in Request No. 11 is necessary to demonstrate the impact that Qwest's VoIP proposal
will have on Level 3." (Motion to Compel, p. 6.) This statement is nonsensical for at least two
reasons. First, Qwest Corporation is the party with whom Level 3 is seeking interconnection and
Qwest Corporation does not offer VoIP, so the number ofVoIP customers of Qwest's affiliate
cannot be relevant. Second, it is the number of Level 3 VoIP customers that will determine the
impact" to Level 3 of Qwest's VoIP proposal. Level 3 obviously knows how many customers it
has. Third, the issue here is the proper application of intercarrier compensation rules, not the
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 4
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
impact of those rules on one competitor. If access charges are applied to certain VoIP calls by
Level 3 or to a VoIP provider that is a customer of Level 3 , the quantification of that impact is
not relevant, although Qwest would certainly agree that if access charges apply in situation in
which Level 3 does not believe they should apply, the cost to Level 3 or its VoIP provider
customer will be higher than under Level 3' s proposal. The quantification of that difference is
not an issue in this docket, nor should it be.
In any event, Level 3 has not demonstrated how the number of Qwest's affiliates ' VoIP
customers would lead to admissible evidence. Furthermore, Level 3 again overstates the purpose
of the parties' protective agreement. Said agreement is not designed to permit Level 3' s fishing
expedition into the confidential information of affiliates who are not parties to the arbitration and
whose information is not relevant to any pending issue.
The information sought by Interrogatory No. 5( e) is even less relevant. Interrogatory No.
5(e) asks for information concerning Qwest's affiliate s wholesale providers and the services it
purchases from them, not just in Idaho, but anywhere in the United States. To justify this
request, Level 3 launches into a lengthy discussion about Qwest's duties not to discriminate in
providing interconnection. However, Level 3 makes no effort to explain how knowing the
identity of wholesale providers ofVoIP and what Qwest's affiliate(s) purchase from those
providers has any relevance to any issue pending in this arbitration. Nor does it explain how
having such information would help Level 3 analyze whether Qwest's actions are discriminatory
toward Level 3. Moreover, there is no justification for requiring Qwest to provide information
pertaining to states outside of Idaho, since the only possible issue for resolution by the IPUC is
whether Qwest is discriminating in favor of its affiliate in Idaho.
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 5
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, and 18 - Efficient Use of Trunk
Groups
Level 3 has inappropriately lumped Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13 , 14, 15 , 16 , 17, and 18
together and treated them in broad-brush fashion. Undoubtedly, Level 3 has done this to conceal
the fact that each of these requests is extraordinarily burdensome and does not seek relevant
information. These requests must be evaluated individually. Additionally, Level 3 also again
claims that the parties' protective agreement renders Qwest's objections moot. Again, that is a
mischaracterization.
Interrogatory No. 12 requests information for every state in which Qwest or one of its
affiliates operates concerning five different circumstances, only two of which involve
interconnection (subparts c and d). Level 3 has not limited this request to the state of Idaho, to
the commingling of traffic on interconnection trunks, or to interconnection with Qwest
Corporation. The breadth and burdensomeness of this request is breathtaking. It requests
information related to local (including intra-MTA wireless traffic), toll traffic (both inter- and
intraLA T A) or any combination that is carried on the same trunk group. It requests information
for each state in whichQC or an affiliate operates in. To top it off, it requests all of this
information in five different categories, only two of which (c and d) relate to interconnection
trunks. Thus, Interrogatory No. 12 calls for information concerning every state in the country in
which Qwest's CLEC affiliates have trunk groups (though , given the level of detail requested, in
order to respond, Qwest would be required to obtain trunk group information down to the LCA
level). There are literally thousands of LCAs in the United States.
This Interrogatory seeks information concerning trunk groups operated by Qwest's CLEC
affiliates who are not even parties to this proceeding. Qwest's CLEC affiliates do not have
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 6
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
interconnection obligations under Section 251(c). The burden imposed by Interrogatory No. 14
clearly outweighs any possible relevance of the information it seeks.
Level 3 correctly notes in its motion that Qwest Corporation has an obligation to provide
nondiscriminatory access to interconnection." (Motion to Compel, p. 11.) Since
interconnection under the Act is handled on a state by state basis, Interrogatory No. 12 must be
limited to the state of Idaho. Moreover, the nondiscrimination obligation applies only to
interconnection trunks (subparts c and d of Interrogatory No. 12) and to interconnection
involving Qwest Corporation, the ILEC. Qwest's affiliates do not have obligations under
Section 251 of the Act and, thus, Interrogatory No. 12 is grossly overbroad to the extent that it
requests information concerning the trunking arrangements of Qwest's affiliates.
Interrogatory No. 13 is an extraordinarily burdensome request and calls for information
concerning every local calling area in the country in which Qwest' s CLEC affiliates have trunk
groups. There are literally thousands of local calling areas in the United States. Moreover, this
Interrogatory seeks information concerning trunk groups operated by Qwest's CLEC affiliates
who are not even parties to this proceeding. Qwest's CLEC affiliates do not have
interconnection obligations under Section 251 (c). Finally, Interrogatory No. 13 is not even
limited to interconnection trunks. The burden imposed by Interrogatory No. 13 clearly
outweighs any possible relevance of the information it seeks. Level 3' s motion to compel a
response to this interrogatory should be denied.
Level3's motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 14 should be denied for the
same reasons that its motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 13 should be denied.
Interrogatory No. 14 seeks information concerning trunk groups in Qwest's region. However
like Interrogatory No. 13 , it calls for information involving thousands of local calling areas and
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 7
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
trunk groups operated by CLEC affiliates. Furthermore, it is not in any way limited to
interconnection trunks. As was the case with Interrogatory No. 13, the burden imposed by
Interrogatory No. 14 clearly outweighs any possible relevance of the information it seeks.
Interrogatory No. 14 is also overly broad and burdensome in the extreme. It asks Qwest
to list each CLEC for which local and toll traffic has been combined on any trunk group in any
state. It is not limited to the state of Idaho, to interconnection trunks or to Qwest Corporation
ILEC operations. Moreover, for no apparent reason, Level 3 also wants Qwest to do a historical
study of traffic passing across trunk groups to determine when traffic was first combined. This
request is extremely over reaching in its scope and is clearly not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence in this Idaho arbitration.
Level 3 moves to compel a further response from Qwest to Interrogatory No. 15. This
interrogatory asked Qwest to speculate whether Qwest would receive "materially more or less
intercarrier compensation from Level 3" if Qwest prevails in a position that Level 3 characterizes
as requiring "multiple or separate trunking facilities" for various types of traffic. Qwest's
objections, which are not recited in its Motion, include the fact that the interrogatory requires
Qwest to speculate without providing a complete set of assumptions and that the request calls for
Qwest to provide an opinion on a matter on which it has not previously written or published its
views in violation ofIPUC Rule 225.01.a. In addition, Qwest notes that its opinion on this point
is not relevant evidence for any issue in the arbitration and the request is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory No. 16 requests information concerning specific CLECs in each of the
fourteen Qwest in region states. This interrogatory calls for information that is contained in the
interconnection agreements for each CLEC in each state. These interconnection agreements are
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 8
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
publicly available to Level 3 and can be reviewed more easily by Level 3 than by Qwest since
Level 3 knows specifically what it is looking for. There are over a thousand interconnection
agreements on file with the state public utility commissions. Accordingly, it is unreasonable for
Level 3 to insist that Qwest assemble the information on Level 3' s behalf. Level 3' s motion to
compel a response to this interrogatory should be denied.
Interrogatory No. 17 is extremely burdensome. It calls for information concerning
Qwest's CLEC affiliate in every state. It is not limited to interconnection trunks but even if it
were, it would call for a review by Qwest of every interconnection agreement Qwest's CLEC
affiliate has entered into anywhere in the United States. Interrogatory No. 17 is clearly an
unreasonable request especially since Qwest's CLEC affiliates are not parties to this proceeding
and do not have obligations to interconnect under Section 251 of the Act.
Qwest objected to Interrogatory No. 18 on the grounds that it is overbroad. This
Interrogatory is not limited to the state of Idaho. Level3's discussion of this entire group of
interrogatories misrepresents Qwest's position and seeks to confuse measures that are used to
distinguish the "jurisdiction" of toll traffic (i., whether it is intra- or interstate) with the
requirements for Local Interconnection Service (LIS) trunks. Level 3 seeks to place a huge
burden on Qwest to produce reams of irrelevant data that will be of no value to the adjudication
of the issues presented by this arbitration.
Interrogatory No. 19 - Efficient Use of Trunk Groups
Level 3 correctly notes that Qwest objected to Interrogatory No. 19 on the basis that the
term "transit traffic" is ambiguous. Level 3's explanation that "transit" is "widely understood
within the industry to refer to the carriage of traffic that is rated as 'local' (or otherwise
considered 'local') between three interconnecting LECs " is not helpful. Not only is this
explanation itself ambiguous (what, exactly, is traffic that is not rated as local but is "otherwise
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 9
Boise-1 86928.1 0000-000
considered local"?), but in Idaho at least, the term is used to refer to toll traffic that is carried by
a company that neither originates nor terminates it. Interrogatory No. 19 is also objectionable for
the reason that it appears to ask Qwest to do legal research for Level 3.
Interrogatory Nos. 22, 23, 24, 2S, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 - Qwest's FX and
FX-Like Services
Interrogatory No. 22 asks for detailed information about the number ofFX customers
Qwest has in Idaho, the date of introduction of the service and the number of ISPs who
subscribe. Although Qwest objects to this request on the grounds that it unnecessarily seeks
proprietary and trade secret information, it must also be noted that the request is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Qwest's FX service, as should be
abundantly clear from Qwest's Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 21 , and 25, is a retail service
offered to end users in which they purchase service in the remote exchange and pay for the
increased costs of transporting calls to another local calling area. It bears no relationship to
Level 3' s VNXX scheme, under which NXX's associated with one geographic area are assigned
to services located in another for the purpose of avoiding payment of appropriate charges.
Interrogatory Nos. 23 and 24 purport to seek information relating to what Level 3 refers
to as "FX-like" services. Qwest has provided a great deal of information to Level 3 with respect
to FX service in Idaho. In its answer to Interrogatory No. 21 , for example, Qwest provided
Level 3 with the tariff pages describing the terms and conditions applicable to FX service; in
response to Interrogatory No. 25, Qwest explains the circumstances under which FX calls are
rated as toll versus local; and in response to Interrogatory No. 26, Qwest explains the application
of access charges to FX customers. Qwest is not able, however to respond with regard to the
undefined term "FX-like" services.
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 10
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
A fundamental problem with these requests is that Level 3 does not define what it means
FX-like." These requests do not provide the criteria or attributes to use to determine whether
particular services are "FX-like." Apparently, Level 3 doesn t know what it means either. In its
motion to compel, Level 3 makes the statement that "Level 3 has no idea which services Qwest
considers to be FX-like." (Motion to compel, p. 13.) Thus, Qwest appropriately objected to
these requests. It is Level 3' s responsibility to provide the criteria to be used for determining
whether services are FX-like. Moreover, the descriptions and terms and conditions for the
services Qwest offers are set forth in its publicly available tariffs and catalogs. Thus, to the
extent that Level 3 has criteria in mind to be used to determine whether a service is FX -like
Level 3 can review Qwest's tariffs and catalogs to obtain the information it is looking for just as
readil y as Qwest can.
Level 3 erroneously contends that it is entitled to information relating to the undefined
FX-like" services for all states that Qwest does business in. However, Level 3 offers no
explanation as to how services offered in states other than Idaho could have any relevance to this
Idaho arbitration. Under the Act, the terms and conditions for interconnection are set on a state
by state basis in accordance with the Act and applicable FCC rules and regulations. Thus, until
Level 3 demonstrates that service offerings in states other than Idaho are reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence concerning Qwest's interconnection obligations in Idaho, Level 3
should not be permitted to pursue discovery concerning states other than Idaho.
In its motion to compel, Level 3 asserts that Qwest has not responded to Interrogatory
Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. In fact Qwest has filed responses to each of those
interrogatories. Level 3' s motion does not explain how these responses are defective and
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 11
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
frankly, the motion appears to be taken from another proceeding and not fully modified for the
present docket.
Interrogatory Nos. 41 and 43 - POls and other facility connections in Idaho
Interrogatory No. 41 requests Qwest to provide the number of PO Is it has with CLECs in
Idaho and Interrogatory No. 43 requests the number of CLECs interconnecting with Qwest
through (a) Qwest supplied entrance facilities, (b) CLEC supplied facilities and (c) other means.
Neither Interrogatory No. 41 nor Interrogatory No. 43 seeks information that bears on the issues
in this proceeding. Indeed, Level 3 does not even assert in its motion to compel that these
requests are calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory Nos. 41 and 43 are very burdensome requests. To answer these requests
would require Qwest to review the interconnection arrangements in place for each CLEC that has
an interconnection agreement in Idaho and to conduct a special study of the facilities that are
actually in place for each CLEC. There is no central repository of this information. Since these
requests are burdensome and do not seek information that could lead to admissible evidence, the
IPUC should deny Level 3' s motion to compel with respect to these requests.
III.CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Qwest Corporation requests that the Commission deny Level3'
motion to compel discovery.
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 12
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
DATED: September 2, 2005.
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
QWEST CORPORATION
By:
Mary S. bson
Stoel Rives LLP
Ted D. Smith
Stoel Rives LLP
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Qwest Services Corporation
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of September, 2005, I served the foregoing
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL upon all parties of record in this matter as follows:
Jean D. Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83702
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ij ewell~puc. state. id. us
John Antonuk
Liberty Consulting Group
65 Main Street
O. Box 237
Quentin, P A 17083
antonuk~li bertyconsul tinggro up. com
Erik Cecil
Level 3 Communications LLC
1025 Eldorado Boulevard
Broomfield, CO 80021
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
erik.cecil~leve13 .com
Dean J. Miller (ISB #1968)
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2564
Boise, ill 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ioe~mcdevitt-miller.com
Attorneys for Level Communications
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 14
Boise-186928.1 0000-000
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Brandi L. Gearhart, PLS
Legal Assistant to Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
_.. )
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-05-11
L3C 01- 004
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0041
Does Qwest have an affiliated Internet Service Provider (" ISP") that offers
Internet access services in the state? If so, please identify the
affiliates, and state the number of end user and wholesale customers in the
state for each Qwest ISP affiliate.
Please identify each telephone company end office in the state in which
the Qwest affiliate ISP has collocated equipment such as modem banks,
DSL equipment, routers, ATM switches or other equipment. Please identify
the telephone company that owns/operates each such end office.b. Please list each local calling area within the state in which the
affiliate maintains a physical presence.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to the request that it "state the number of end user and
wholesale customers in the state for ~ach Qwest ISP affiliate" on the basis
that the information requested constitutes a trade or business secret and is
highly confidential and proprietary. Qwest further objects that the
information requested is not relevant and that it does not appear the request
is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Notwithstanding its objections, Qwest responds that two of its affiliates
offer Internet access services in Idaho: Qwest Communications Corporationand Qwest ! nterprise America, Inc.
Respondent:Mary LaFave
Idaho
Case No. QWE-OS-11
L3C 01-0051
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0051
Does Qwest or any affiliate of Qwest offer Voice over Internet Protocol(IIVoIP") to end users in this state? If so,
a. Please identify the specific entity that offers the service and explainthat entity's relationship to Qwest.
Please state how many end use customers and how many wholesale customers
in the state the Qwest VoIP provider has.c. Please list each local calling area within the state in which the
affiliate maintains a physical presence.
Please identify each telephone company end office in the state in which
the Qwest affiliate VoIP provider has collocated equipment such as media
gateways, DSL equipment, routers, ATM switches of any other related
equipment necessary for providing VoIP service. Please identify the
telephone company that owns/operates each such end office.
Does Qwest purchase any wholesale VoIP services from any other
provider? If so, please name the provider (s) and the state (s) in whichsuch service (s) is/are purchased.
RESPONSE:b. Qwest objects to this subpart that it "state how many end use and how
many wholesale customers in the state the Qwest ISP VoIP provider has" on the
basis that the information requested constitutes a trade or business secret
and is highly confidential and proprietary. Qwest further obj ects that the
information requested is not relevant and it does not appear the request is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.d. Qwest objects to this subpart to the extent that its seeks information
concerning Qwest I S affiliates' network configurations in territory not served
by Qwest as the incumbent LEC.e. Qwest objects to this subpart to the extent that it seeks information
concerning Qwest' s purchases of services outside the state of Idaho and
outside the 14-state territory in which Qwest operates as an incumbent LEC.
This request is overly broad and burdensome and seeks information that isirrelevant. Furthermore, the s~bpart does not appear to be reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections, Qwest responds:
a. Qwest Communications Corporation (QCC) offers VoIP in the state of Idaho.
QCC is an affiliate of QC, both of which are owned by Qwest ServicesCorporation.
See previously filed objection.
c. QCC has a physical presence in the Boise, Caldwell, Meridian and Nampa
exchanges in the Boise EAS region and in the Pocatello and Idaho Falls
exchanges in the Eastern Idaho EAS region.
d. QCC, as a provider of VoIP, operates as an Enhanced Service Provider
(ESP); accordingly, it does not collocate any equipment in a Qwest central
office or any other central office of a local exchange carrier in Idaho.
See previously filed objection.
Respondent:Mary LaFave
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-05-
L3C 01-0111
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0111
Please provide the total number of VoIP customers Qwest has in the State as of
May 1, 2005. How many VoIP terminals does that number represent?
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that the information sought
constitutes a trade or business secret and is highly confidential and
proprietary to Qwest or its affiliates. Qwest further objects that the
information requested is not relevant. Furthermore, it does not appear the
request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence.
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-05-
L3C 01- 012 I
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0121
Please identify every state in which Qwest combines local and toll traffic
(including either interLATA or intraLATA toll traffic, or both, as the case
may be) on the same trunk group at any point in Qwest I s transmission of
traffic. For each such state, please indicate which of the followingsi tuations apply:a. Local and toll traffic combined on a direct trunk group between two endoffices;b. Local and toll traffic combined on a trunk group between a Qwest end
office and a Qwest tandem;
Local and toll traffic combined on a trunk group between a Qwest end
office and a third party carrier (CLEC, ILEC, IXC) switch;
Local and toll traffic combined on a trunk group between a Qwest tandem
and a third party (CLEC, ILEC, IXC) switch; and/ore. Local and toll traffic combined on a trunk group between two Qwesttandems.
For purposes of this question, please use Qwest I s own definitions of "locallland II toll II traffic, but provide a brief explanation of how Qwest clas'sifies
traffic into those categories.
RESPONSE:
Qwest obj ects to this request to the extent that it seeks information about
states other than Idaho and is so over broad as to include states in which
Qwest is not the incumbent LEC. Qwest further obj ects that the request is
overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not relevant to the
subj ect matter in the pending action, and is not reasonably calculat~d tolead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Idaho
Case No. QWE-O5 -11
L3C 01-013I
INTERVENOR: 'Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0131
In which states, and in which local calling areas in those states, do
Qwest's CLEC affiliates combine their own local and toll (IntraLATA and
InterLATA) traffic on a single trunk?
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information about
the activities of Qwest affiliates in states other than Idaho and is so over
broad as to include states in which Qwest is not the incumbent LEC. Qwestfurther obj ects that the request is burdensome, seeks information that is not
relevant to the subject matter in the pending action, and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
-- --,-
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-05-
L3C 01-014I
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0141
In which states does Qwest combine CLEC local and toll IntraLATA
and InterLATA) traffic on a single trunk?
Please provide a list of all CLECs for whom Qwest combines, or has
combined, local and toll (IntraLATA and InterLATA) traffic on a singletrunk.
Please provide the month and year when Qwest started to combine traffic
in each state where Qwest combines CLEC local and toll (IntraLATA and
InterLATA) traffic.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information aboutstates 'other than Idaho and is so over broad as to include states in which
Qwest is not the incumbent LEC. Qwest further objects that the request is
overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not relevant to the
subj ect matter in the pending action, and is not reasonably calculated tolead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Qwest also obj ects to this
request to the extent it requests that Qwest identify individual wholesale
customers and to disclose information that said customers may considerproprietary.
~- - 1
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-05-L3C 01-015I
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUES T NO:0151
Does Qwest believe that it will receive materially more or less intercarrier
compensation from Level 3 if Qwest prevails in its proposal to require Level
3 to establish multiple or separate trunking facilities for Transit Traffic,
InterLATA traffic, and any non-local or non-intraLATA traffic (see Petition,
Tier I, Issues 2 and 4)? If your answer is anything other than an unqualifiedno," please explain in detail the basis for your answer, including all
workpapers underlying any calculations involved in supporting that answer.
RESPONSE:
Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for speculation and
is impossible to answer without making assumptions concerning volumes and
traffic mix that are not contained in the record. Qwest further objects the
request appears to seek opinion or policy not previously written or published
in violation IPUC Rule 225.01. a.
Without waiving its objection, Qwest states:
It is the category of the traffic exchanged, not the trunk' the traffic is
exchanged on, that determines the compensation rate. Putting the traffic on
the correct trunk enables accurate tracking and billing but does not change
the category of the call. Assuming Level 3 has been accurately identifying
and routing traffic there should be no change in compensation if the types of
traffic remain the same. Qwest can't predict whether Level 3' s traffic will
be local, toll or transit, or whether that mix and volume will change.
Respondent: Larry Brotherson
Idaho
Case No. QWE-O5-
L3C 01-0161
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0161
For each state in which Qwest operates as an ILEC, please identify each CLEC
with which Qwest (a) exchanges local and toll (IntraLATA and InterLATA)
traffic on a single trunk group and (b) uses a a Percent Local Use (PLU) or
similar method of establishing the apportionment of local vs. toll traffic
on the combined trunk group.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information about
Qwest operations in states other than Idaho. Qwest further obj ects that the
request appears to seek information about specific Qwest wholesale customers
that is not relevant and may not be appropriately disclosed in this case.
Finally, Qwest obj ects that the request seeks information that is not
relevant to the subj ect matter in the pending action and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T~05-11
L3C 01-0171
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0171
For each state in which a Qwest CLEC affiliate combines local and toll(IntraLATA and InterLATA) traffic on a single trunk group, please state
whether Qwest I s CLEC affiliate uses a Percent Local Use (PLU) or similar
other method of establishing the apportionment of local vs. toll traffic on
the combined trunk group.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information about
Qwesti s affIliate' s operations in states other than Idaho. Qwest further
that the request seeks information that is not relevant to the subj ect matter
in the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
- _
Idaho
Case No. QWE-05-
L3C 01-018I
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0181
Please describe each system and/or method that Qwest uses to track or
estimate the amount of local and toll traffic exchanged with a CLEC. Please
specifically state whether each such system and/or method is capable of
distinguishing between IntraLATA and/or InterLATA calls on the one hand, and
calls that are in-state versus out-of-state on the other.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on th~ basis that it seeks information about
Qwest operations in states other than Idaho. Qwest further obj ects that the
request seeks information that is not relevant to the subj ect matter in the
pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Idaho
Case No. QWE-OS-
L3C 01-019I
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0191
Please state whether Qwest is aware of any state commission that has
required separate trunk groups for transit traffic. If your answer isanything other than an unqualified "no," please identify each state that
Qwest believes has required separate trunk groups for transit traffic and
provide a compete citation to such order.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it the term "transit traffic"
may be ambiguous.
Idaho
Case No. QWE-05-
L3C 01-0221
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0221
Unless your answer to Question #21 above was an unqualified "no," pleaseidentify:a. the number of customers in this state who subscribe to or purchase
Qwest I S FX service;
the number of FX lines that Qwest provides in this state;
how long FX service has been available from Qwest; and,
the number of ISPs to whom Qwest provides such service.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request in so far as it seeks information about the
volumes of Qwest I s retail business, on the basis that Such information
constitutes a trade or business secret and is confidential and proprietary toQwest. Qwest further objects on the basis that it does not retain
information about the business purposes of its retail customers and that such
information may be proprietary to Qwest I s customers.
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-05~11
L3C 01-0231
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0231
Please state whether Qwest offers any FX-Like Service, other than servicespecifically, described as Foreign Exchange. If the answer is anything otherthan an unqualified "no," please state the name of each such FX-Like Service
and provide service descriptions (including, but not limited to, tariff
pages) for each such FX-like service.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information
concerning Qwest' s product offerings in states other than the state of Idaho.
Idaho
Case No. QWE-OS-
L3C 01-0241
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:024I
Unless your answer to Question #23 above was an unqualified II no , II please
identify:
the number of customers in this state who subscribe to or purchase each
of the FX-Like Services identified in response to the precedingquestions;
the number of lines in this state over which Qwest provides each of the
FX-Like Services identified in response to the preceding questions;
how long each FX-Like Service has been available from Qwest; and,d. the number of ISPs who purchase each of the FX-Like Services identified
in response to the preceding questions.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request ,and its subparts in so far as it se~ks
information about the number of customers and lines it is serving, on the
basis that such information constitutes a trade or business secret and is
confidential and proprietary to Qwest. Qwest further objects on the basis
that it does not retain information about the business purposes of its
customers and that such information may be proprietary to Qwest 's customers.
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-05-L3C 01-0251
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0251
With respect to Qwest' s FX and FX-Like services:
a. Please explain the circumstances under which calls from a subscriber to
Qwest FX or FX-like service are rated as local versus toll, and provide
all documentation supporting your answer.
RESPONSE:
Qwest obj ects to this request and its subparts on the basis that the terms
"toll" and local" are not defined and may be ambiguous in this context.
Qwest further obj ects on the basis that the request is overly broad and
therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence.
Without waiving its objection, Qwest states:
a. Foreign Exchange (FX) service is a combination of rate elements from the
Local Exchange tariffs and Private Line Transport tariffs and/or catalogs.
The subscriber purchases an FX connection in the local calling area in which
the subscriber seeks a local number. As to the persons making the call , all
calls to and from other subscribers in the same local calling area where the
FX subscriber purchased a connection are treated as local. All calls to and
from subscribers outside the local calling area where the FX subscriber I
connection was purchased are treated as toll calls. The additional transport
for carrying calls from the local calling area where the connection was
purchased, to the FX customer's location are ordered as private lineservices. Documentation for charges are identified in the Exchange and
Network Services and the Private Line Transport Services tariffs for northernIdaho. Please note these tariffs will be converted to catalog on or about
August I, 2005.
Respondent:Larry Brotherson
Idaho
Case No. QWE-05-
L3C 01-0261
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0261
Please state whether Qwest or any Qwest affiliate has ever billed or demanded
payment of access charges from an incumbent LEC for calls originated by
Qwest's end user to an incumbent LEC' s FX or FX-Like customer.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is not limited to the
state of Idaho and is otherwise overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, and
does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence.
Without waiving this objection Qwest states:
If the call was placed to an incumbent LEC's subscriber who had purchased a
physical connection in the same local calling area as the calling party, the
call would be treated as a local call. If the call was made from outside the
local calling area, acc~ss charges would be paid by the toll carrier.
Respondent:Larry Brotherson
-- -
m_'.~
Idaho
Case No. QWE-05-11
L3C 01-0271
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0271
Please state whether Qwest has ever billed or received reciprocal
compensation or other terminating compensation for calls received from an
incumbent LEC or any CLECs for termination to Qwest' s FX or FX-like
customers? Please explain your answer, including but not limited to (a) the
dates upon which you first began billing incumbent LECs or CLECs for suchcompensation; (b) the amount of compensation received from incumbent LECs and
CLECs; ,and (c) describe any changes you may have made to your billing
policies with respect to calls terminatin~ to your FX or FX-like customers.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is not limited to the
state of Idaho and is otherwise overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, and
does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence.
Without waiving this objection, Qwest states:
The local calling area in which the Qwest FX customer purchases a connection
to the local network is the point for determining whether a call is local.
ILEC calls to a Qwest FX customer who purchases a connection in the same
local calling area that the call originated in are generally treated as bill
and keep. CLEC calls originating in the local calling area where the FX
customer purchased a local connection are billed local reciprocalcompensation.
Respondent:Larry Brotherson
Idaho
Case No. QWE-05-
L3C 01-028I
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LtC
REQUEST NO:028I
Are there any circumstances in which Qwest has paid access charges to the
originating carrier for a call originated by another carrier and terminated
to a Qwest FX or FX-like customer? If your answer is anything other than an
unequivocal u no, II please describe all circumstances under which Qwest has
made such payments.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request- on the , basis that t is not limited to thestate of 'Idaho and is otherwise overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, and
does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence.
Without waiving this objection, Qwest states:
If the call originated outside the local calling area, the toll carrier pays
acce$S charges. When Qwest is the toll carrier, and the call originates in a
non-Qwest exchange, Qwest pays originating access.
Respondent:Larry Brotherson
---
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-05-
L3C 01-0291
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUES T NO:0291
Please state whetherindependent LEC wi
Service that permitsbe ass igned a numberarea.
Qwest knows, or has reason to believe, that any
whom Qwest has EAS arrangements, provide FX or FX-Like
customers physically located in another rate center tothat is . local to the rate center included in Qwest' s EAS
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is not limited to the
state of Tdaho and is otherwise overly broad and unreasonably burdensome.
Qwest further obj ects that the service offerings of independent LECs in Idaho
are available from said LECs and are filed as a matter of public record with
the IPUC where they are as readily available to Level 3 as to Qwest.
Without waiving this objection, Qwest states:
Qwest is not aware if any Independents in Idaho offer FX or FX-like servicesto their end-users. If they do, they are likely to be described in their
tariffs on file with the Idaho Public Utilites Commission.
Respondent:Larry Brotherson
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-05-11
L3C 01-0301
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:030I
Please provide Qwest I s definition of FX ervice and provide the source for
that definition. Is it true that Qwest I s FX Service allows the customer to
make calls to an exchange outside of the Qwest customer I s home exchange
without incurring a toll charge? If not, please explain.
RESPONSE:
See Attachment A to Data Request No. 21 for the service description of
Foreign Exchange service. Foreign Exchange (FX) service is a combination ofrate 'elements from the local ,exchange tariffs catalogs and priva-te line
transport tariffs and/or catalogs. In each instance, the toll revenues that
would otherwise be billed to the calling parties as toll are recovered fromthe called party as a toll replacement charge. The additional transport
costs that Qwest incurs for routing calls beyond the local calling area overthe private line network are recovered through tariff and/or catalogservices. Documentation for charges are identified in the tariffs
catalogs for each service.
Respondent: Larry Brotherson
Idaho
Case No. QWE-05-
L3C 01- 031I
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUES T NO:0311
Does Qwest treat FX service associated with Broadband Data, and FX service
associated with voice service, differently? If yes, please explain why there
are two such differences.
RESPONSE:
The question is unclear because there are different characteristics for
transmitting each type of call. For example, a voi_ce _capable loop is
different than a broadband capable loop. If Qwest assumes these transmission
characteristics are irrelevant to the question, the answer is "no"The
services are offered in a similar manner and treated the same.
Respondent:Larry Brotherson
Idaho
Case No. QWE-05-11
L3C 01-0411
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0411
How many physical POIs exist in Idaho between Qwest and CLECs?
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is unreasonably burdensome
and that response would require a special study. Qwest further objects that
the request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence.
Idaho
Case No. QWE-05-11
L3C 01-0431
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0431
How many CLECs in Idaho connect to Qwest I s network by means of (a) a
Qwest -supplied entrance facility running between Qwest' s network and a CLECswitch; (b) a CLEC-supplied facility delivered to Qwest' s network at or near
a Qwest central office building; or (c) some other means?
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is unreasonably burdensome
and that response would require a special study. Qwest further obj ects that
the request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.