20050913Submission supplemental authority.pdf

Mary S. Hobson
STOEL RIVES LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ill 83702-5958
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mshobson~stoel.com
, ;' \
iF:: 0 -/ "' L"
' ,,'
(t,ED r~'-i " ;
inu,
" '"'1.-' PI'4: 43
."J
Urj! ; T LO ,,1": UBL Ie
I I c ~ C Ut'/!1! S S ION
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Senior Attorney
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street - 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Thomas .Dethl efs~qw est. com
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MA TIER OF LEVEL 3
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC'S PETITION FOR
ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
252(b) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934, AS AMENDED BY THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
AND THE APPLICABLE ST ATE LAWS FOR
THE RATES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS OF
INTERCONNECTION WITH QWEST
CORPORATION
Docket No.: QWE-05-
QWEST CORPORATION'
SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY RELATING TO
LEVEL 3'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), by and through its attorneys, hereby submits the following
attachments:
Order Denying Request for Hearing and Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Motion to Compel ("Iowa Order ) entered on August 16, 2005 by the Iowa
Utilities Board in response to a Motion of Compel filed by Level 3
Communications ("Level 3"
).
The Iowa Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
QWEST CORPORATION'S SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY RELATING TO LEVEL 3'S MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 1
Boise-187463.1 0061273-00018
Interim Order of Administrative Law Judge Dale E. Isley Rejecting Notice of
Supplemental Authority; Denying Motion for Leave to Respond as Moot; and
Granting Motion to Compel, in Part ("Colorado Order ) entered on August 31
2005 by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado in response to a
Motion to Compel filed by Level 3. The Colorado Order is attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
Procedural Order ("Arizona Order ) entered by the Arizona Corporation
Commission in response to a Motion to Compel filed by Level 3. The Arizona
Order is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
The issues raised in Level 3' s Iowa, Colorado, and Arizona motions are not completely
identical to those in the Motion to Compel currently under consideration by the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission ("Commission ), but the differences are minimal. A key element of all of
these orders is that where the commissions ordered Qwest to respond, they limited the required
responses to state-specific information.
Because the numbering for the requests in other states and the Idaho requests are not
identical, the following chart is submitted so that the Commission and the Arbitrator may
correlate the attached order with the discovery requests at issue in Idaho.
Idaho Corresponding Iowa Corresponding Corresponding
Requests Requests Colorado Requests Arizona Requests
13 (no motion filed in Iowa)
1 7 and 18 16 and 1 16 and 1
QWEST CORPORATION'S SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY RELATING TO LEVEL 3'S MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 2
Boise-1 87463.1 0061273-00018
26 (no motion in Iowa)
29 (no motion in Iowa)
30 (no motion in Iowa)
31 (no motion in Iowa)
32 (no motion in Iowa)
No equivalent No equivalent
Qwest Corporation hereby requests that the Commission and the Arbitrator review the
attached orders as part of their deliberations on the pending Motion to Compel.
DATED: September 13 , 2005.
STOEL RIVES LLP
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
QWEST CORPORATION'S SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY RELATING TO LEVEL 3'S MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 3
Boise-187463.10061273-00018
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of September, 2005, I served the foregoing QWEST
CORPORATION'S SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY RELATING TO LEVEL
S 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, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ijewell~puc.state.id~
--.X..-
Weldon Stutzman
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
wstutzm~puc.state.id.
--.X..-
--.X..-
John Antonuk
Liberty Consulting Group
65 Main Street
O. Box 1237
Quentin, P A 17083-1237
antonuk-Wibertyconsul tinggroup. com
--.X..-
--.X..-
Erik Cecil
Level 3 Communications LLC
1025 Eldorado Boulevard
Broomfield, CO 80021
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
erik.cecil~leve13 .com
--.X..-
--.X..-
Dean J. Miller (ISB #1968)
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2564
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
oe~mcdevitt -miller. com
Attorneys for Level Communications
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
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
6tua
Brandi L. Gearhart, P
Legal Assistant to Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
QWEST CORPORATION'S SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY RELATING TO LEVEL 3'S MOTION TO COMPEL - Page 4
Boise-187463.l 0061273-00018
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF IOWA
Exhibit A
Qwest's Submission of Supplemental
Authority Relating to Level3'
Motion to Compel
Docket Nos. T.OIO51B-OS-O350
T -O3654A-OS-O3S0
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UTILITIES BOARD
IN RE:
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Petitioner,DOCKET NO. ARB-05-
vs.
OWEST CORPORATION
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR HEARING AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL
(Issued August 16 , 2005)
BACKGROUND
On June 30 , 2005, level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3), filed with the
Utilities Board (Board) a motion to compel discovery in Docket No. ARB-05-, asking
the Board to issue an order requiring Owest Corporation (Owest) to immediately
provide substantive responses to Level 3's first set of data requests.
On July 7, 2005 , Owest filed its response to level 3's motion to compel
discovery. Owest stated that it answered approximately 70 of the 106 data requests
and that Owest objected to the remaining requests. Owest stated that Level 3 did not
challenge any of these objections and , therefore, the Board should dismiss Level 3'
matio n
DOCKET NO. ARB-05-4
PAGE 2
Four weeks later, on August 5 , 2005 , level 3 filed a further motion to compel
responses to its first set of data requests, a request for oral hearing, and a motion for
, extension of time. level 3 stated that it will be prejudiced if it is required to prepare
its rebuttal testimony before it receives Owest's responses to level 3's data requests.
level 3 also sought an amendment of the procedural schedule to allow for the
submission of rebuttal testimony on or before August 19 , 2005, instead of August 12
2005.
On August 9, 2005, the Board Issued an order in this docket requiring Owest
to file a response to level 3's August 5 motion on or before August 10, 2005. Also in
that order, the Board denied level 3's request to amend the procedural schedule
because such an amendment would not provide the Board sufficient time to prepare
for the hearing in this docket.
On August 10, 2005, Owest filed a response to level 3's August 5 motion.
its response, Owest states that many of level 3's requests are unreasonable , overly
broad, and are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Owest
requests the Board deny level 3's motion.
As part of its August 5 motion , level 3 requests a hearing before the Board
regarding its motion to compel. The Board notes that level 3's initial motion to
compel data requests was filed with the Board on June 3D , 2005, and awest filed its
initial response on July 7, 2005. The Board did not receive any additional information
DOCKET NO. ARB-05-
PAGE 3
from either party regarding improper requests or inadequate responses until level 3'
August 5 motion, nearly a month after Owest's response.
Pursuant to an agreement by the parties , the deadline for Board action in this
docket is November 1, 2005, and the procedural schedule in this docket. as
established in the Board's June 30, 2005. order. was created to give the parties due
process and allow the Board to act on the petition in a timely manner. The hearing
for this docket is scheduled for August 30, 2005, and various schedule conflicts
preclude setting the hearing for a later date. Having lost a significant amount of time
in an already tight schedule , a hearing at this time on level 3's motion to compel
would not allow the Board to act on the petition for arbitration in the time frame
agreed by the parties. Therefore , the Board will not set level 3's motion for hearing.
Rather, the Board will rule on the motion based on the written submissions by both
parties.
DATA REQUEST ,NO.
In Data Request No.3, Level 3 seeks information regarding Owest's offering
of Internet access services in Iowa , including the number of end user and wholesale
customers Owest has in Iowa. level 3 also asks that the response include
information regarding each end office in the state and a list of each local calling area
in the state where Owest maintains a physical presence.
Owest objects to this request because it asks for information regarding end
user customers and wholesale customers its affiliates have in Iowa I which constitutes
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 4
a trade secret and is highly confidential and proprietary. Owest also objects to this
request on the grounds that it is not relevant and will not result in the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Level 3 states that this request is directly relevant to Issue 3 in its petition for
arbitration and concerns whether the geographic location of the Internet service
provider (ISP) is relevant to compensation exchanged by the parties for the transport
and termination of ISP-bound traffic. level 3 contends that the jurisdiction of calls
should be determined by the NPA-NXX, in accordance with long-standing industry
practice. level 3 asserts that Owest is attempting to rate traffic based upon the
physical location of the customers, not the NPA-NXX. level 3 also states that a
protective order has been entered in this case and, therefore , Owest's confidentiality
objection is moot.
Owest states that this request does not seek any information relevant to this
proceeding. Owest states that its position in this proceeding is that under the North
American Numbering Plan (NANP), NPA-NXXs are supposed to be assigned to
customers that are physically located in the same rate center to which the NPA-NXXs
are assigned; thus, calls are rated as local or toll based on the rate centers in which
the parties are located. awest states that this request does not seek information that
relates to the assignment of NPA-NXXs and that the number of Owest's Internet
access customers has no bearing on the VNXX issue. Owest also states that there
DOCKET NO, ARB-O5-
PAGE 5
has not been any request made to the Board for the issuance of a protective order
and that there is no protective agreement between Owest and level 3 in Iowa.
Analysis
The Board finds that level 3's request, as written , is within the scope of this
proceeding and could result in the production of admissible evidence. The Board will
require Owest to respond to level 3's request. The Board also finds, however, that
the number of end user customers and wholesale customers that Owest has in Iowa
is confidential in nature. level 3 indicates that a protective order exists; Owest states'
that there is not one. The Board notes that it has not been asked by either party to
issue a protective order in this proceeding. Absent a protective agreement between
the parties , Owest will not be required to respond to level 3's request with respect to
specific customer count information.
DATA REQUEST NO.
In Data Request No., level 3 asks for information regarding whether Owest
offers dedicated inward dialing (DID) or dedicated outward dialing (000) services to
ISPs in Iowa.
Owest's initial response states that it is in the process of preparing a response
to this request.
level 3 states that as of August 5, 2005, Owest had not provided a response
to this request.
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 6
Owest responds by stating that it has now prepared and served an answer to
level 3's request.
Analysis
Based on Owest's statement that it has prepared and served an answer to
level 3's request No., the Board finds that this request has been satisfied.
DATA REQUEST NO. 6(b):
In its Data Request No. 6(b), level 3 seeks the number of retail and wholesale
customers of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) in Iowa.
Owest objects to this request on the grounds that the information is a trade
secret and is confidential. Owest also states that the request asks for information
that is not relevant to this proceeding,
Level 3 states that the information requested in No. 6(b) is needed to
demonstrate the effect that Qwest's voir interconnection proposal will have on
level 3.
Owest states that Owest does not offer voir and that it is the number of
level 3 voir customers that will determine the impact of Owest's voir proposal on
the Interconnection Agreement.
Analysis
The Board finds that level 3's request, as written , is within the scope of this
proceeding and could result in the production of admissible evidence. The Board will
require Owest to respond to Level 3's request. The Board also finds, however, that
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 7
the number of Owest's retail and wholesale customers in Iowa is confidential in
nature. Level 3 indicates that a protective order exists; Owest states that there is not
one. The Board notes that it has not been asked by either party to issue a protective
order in this proceeding. Absent a protective agreement between the parties , Owest
will not be required to respond to Request No. 6(b) with respect to specific customer
count information.
DATA REQUEST NO. 6(e):
In Data Request No. 5(e), Level 3 seeks to determine whether Owest
purchases any wholesale VolP services from any other provider. Level 3's request
also asks for the name of the provider, the services purchased , and the various
states in which such service is purchased.
Owest objects to this request on the grounds that the request seeks
information concerning Owest's purchases of services outside the state of Iowa and
outside the 14-state territory where Owest operates as the incumbent local exchange
carrier (ILEC). Owest also states that the request is overly broad , burdensome, and
is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Level 3 states that request No. 6(e) is relevant to the disputed issue regarding
whether Owest and Level 3 will compensate each other at the rate of $0.0007 per
minute of use for the exchange of IP-enabled or VolP traffic. Level 3 also states that
at a minimum, Owest should be required to provide Iowa information in response to
this request.
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 8
Owest states that there is no justification for requesting Owest to provide
information pertaining to states outside of Iowa. Owest also asserts that this request
does not relate to whether Owest and level 3 will compensate each other at the rate
of $0.0007 per minute of use for VolP traffic. Owest again states that it does not offer
VoIP.
Analysis
The Board finds that Level 3'5 request , as written , is overly broad insofar as it
seeks information regarding Owest's purchases of services outside Iowa. It is
unclear whether the information will lead to the production of relevant or admissible
evidence. As such , the Board will require Owest to respond to this request with Iowa
information , to the extent it is available.
DATA REQUEST NO. 13
In Data Request No. 13 , level 3 seeks information regarding every state in
which owest or one of its affiliates offers service. The subparts to Request No. 13
seek information concerning five different circumstances.
Owest objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information about
states other than Iowa and says it is overbroad when it includes states in which
Owest is not the IlEG. Owest also states that the request is irrelevant, overbroad,
burdensome, and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Level 3 states that the information sought in this request is central to the
disputed issue regarding whether level 3 may exchange all traffic over the
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 9
interconnection trunks established under the Interconnection Agreement. Level 3
states that it seeks to use its existing trunk groups to exchange all traffic with awest.
but Qwest seeks to limit Level 3's ability to use trunks efficiently. Level 3 states that
information related to Qwest's current practices , the practices of its affiliates , and the
obligations imposed on competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) with which
Qwest exchanges traffic," is central to understanding and rebutting Qwest's position in
this proceeding,
Qwest states that it maintains its objection because Level 3 has not agreed to
limit this request to the state of Iowa, to the commingling of traffic on interconnection
trunks, or to interconnection with awest. awest also states that its affiliates do not
have interconnection obligations under Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 (the Act) and, therefore , this request is overbroad.
Analysis
The Board finds that Level 3's request, as written , is overly broad insofar as it
seeks information regarding Owest and Owest's affiliates outside of Iowa. Owest has
not appeared to object to the production of the requested information as it relates to
Iowa. As such , the Board will require Owest to respond to this request with
information limited to Iowa and limited to the commingling of traffic on interconnection
trunks or to the interconnection with Qwest.
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 10
DATA REQUEST NOS. 14,
In Data Request Nos. 14 and 17, level 3 seeks information concerning every
local calling area in the country in which Qwest and Owest's ClEC affiliates have
trunk groups.
Qwest objects to these requests on the grounds that they are unduly
burdensome , seek information about the activities of Qwest's affiliates in states other
than Iowa , and are irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
level 3 states that the information sought in this request is central to the
disputed issue regarding whether level 3 may exchange all traffic over the
interconnection trunks established under the Interconnection Agreement. level 3
states that it seeks to use its existing trunk groups to exchange all traffic with Owest
but Owest seeks to limit level 3's ability to use trunks efficiently. level 3 states that
information related to Qwest's current practices. the practices of its affiliates, and the
obligations imposed on CLECs with which Owest exchanges traffic is central to
understanding and rebutting Qwest's position in this proceeding.
Qwest states that the requests are extraordinarily burdensome because there
are thousands of local calling areas in the United States. awest also states that
these requests seek information concerning trunk groups operated by Qwest's GlEC
affiliates who are not parties to this proceeding.
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-4
PAGE
Analysis
The Board agrees with Owest and finds this request to be unduly burdensome.
Owest is not required to respond to Data Request Nos. 14 and 17.
DATA REQUEST NO. 18
In Data Request No. 18, Level 3 seeks information regarding the states in
which Owest combines CLEC local and toll traffic on a single trunk. The subparts of
this request also ask Owest to provide a list of all CLECs for whom Owest combines
traffic and when Owest started to combine this traffic.
Owest objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome
seeks information about the activities of its affiliates in states other than Iowa , is
irrelevant, and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Level 3 states that the information sought in this request is central to the
disputed issue regarding whether level 3 may exchange all traffic over the
interconnection trunks established under the Interconnection Agreement. Level 3
states that it seeks to use its existing trunk groups to exchange all traffic with Owest
but Owest seeks to limit Level 3's ability to use trunks efficiently. Level 3 states that
information related to Owest's current practices, the practices of its affiliates, and the
obligations imposed on CLEGs with which Owest exchanges traffic is central to
understanding and rebutting Qwest's position in this proceeding.
Owest states that this request is not limited to Iowa , to interconnection trunks,
or to Qwest's ILEG operations. Owest also states that Level 3 appears to want
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 12
Owest to perform a historical study of traffic pas-sing across trunk groups to
determine when traffic was first combined.
Analysis
The Board finds that this request, as written , is overly broad insofar as it seeks
information regarding Owest and Qwest's affiliates outside of Iowa. Owest has not
appeared to object to the production of the requested information in Request No.
18(a) as it relates to Iowa. As such , the Board will require Owest to respond to
Request No. 18(a) with information limited to Iowa and limited to the commingling of
traffic on interconnection trunks or to the interconnection with Owest.
The Board finds the information sought in Request No. 18(b), however, to be
overly broad and burdensome. Owest is not required to respond to Request No.
18(b).
DATA REQUEST NO. 20
In Data Request No. 20, Level 3 seeks information regarding each CLEC with
which Owest exchanges local and toll traffic and uses a percent local use (PLU) or
similar method of establishing the apportionment of local versus toll traffic on the
combined trunk group in the 14 states where Owest operates as an ILEC.
Owest objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome,
seeks information about the activities of its affiliates in states other than Iowa, and is
irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
DOCKET NO. ARB-05-
PAGE 13
Level 3 states that the information sought in this request is central to the
disputed issue regarding whether Level 3 may exchange all traffic over the
interconnection trunks established under the Interconnection Agreement. level 3
states that it seeks to use its existing trunk groups to exchange all traffic with Owest
but Owest seeks to limit level 3's ability to use trunks efficiently. Level 3 states that
information related to Owest's current practices , the practices of its affiliates, and the
obligations imposed on CLECs with which Owest exchanges traffic is central to
understanding and rebutting Qwesfs position in this proceeding.
Owest states that this request seeks information that is contained in the
interconnection agreements for each CLEC in each of the 14 states where Owest is
the IlEC and that these interconnection agreements are publicly available to Level 3
through the various state public utility commissions. Owest states that there are over
000 interconnection agreements on file throughout the 14 states where Owest
operates as the ILEG and that these agreements are more easily reviewed by level 3
since level 3 knows what specific information is wanted.
Analysis
The Board agrees with Owest and finds that this request, as written , is overly
broad insofar as it seeks information outside of Iowa. Owest appears not to object to
the production of the requested information in Request No. 20 as it relates to Iowa.
As such , the Board will require Owest to respond to Request No. 20 with information
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 14
limited to Iowa and limited to the interconnection agreements it has with ClECs
Iowa.
DATA REQUEST NO.
In Data Request No. 21 , level 3 seeks information regarding Qwest's CLEC
affiliates and whether they combine local and toll traffic on a single trunk group.
level 3 also seeks information regarding whether Owest's ClEC affiliates use a PLU
or similar method of establishing the apportionment of local versus toll traffic on the
combined tl unk group.
Owest objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information
regarding Owest's affiliates' operations in states other than Iowa. awest also objects
on the grounds that the request seeks information that is irrelevant and not likely to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
level 3 states that the information sought in this request is central to the
disputed issue regarding whether level 3 may exchange all traffic over the
interconnection trunks established under the Interconnection Agreement. level 3
states that it seeks to use its existing trunk groups to exchange all traffic with Owest
but awest seeks to limit level 3's ability to use trunks efficiently. level 3 states that
information related to Owest's current practices , the practices of its affiliates, and the
obligations imposed on GlEGs with which Owest exchanges traffic , is central to
understanding and rebutting Owest's position in this proceeding.
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 15
Owest states that this request is not limited to Iowa. to interconnection trunks
or to Owest's IlEC operations. Owest also states that level 3 appears to want
Owest to perform a historical study of traffic passing across trunk groups to
determine when traffic was first combined.
Analysis
The Board finds that this request, as written , is overly broad insofar as it seeks
information regarding Owest's affiliates outside of Iowa. Owest appears not to object
to the production of the requested information in Request No. 21 as it relates to Iowa.
As such , the Board will require Owest to respond to Request No. 21 with information
limited to Iowa and limited to the commingling of traffic on interconnection trunks or to
the interconnection with Owest.
DATA REQUEST NOS. 22 and 23
In Data Request Nos. 22 and 23. level 3 seeks information regarding each
system that Owest uses to estimate or track the amount of local and toll traffic
exchanged with a ClEC and whether Owest is aware of any state commissions that
require separate trunk groups for transit traffic.
awest objec~s to these requests on the grounds that they are overbroad, seek
information about Owest operations in states other than Iowa , and that the requests
seek information that is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the production of
admissible evidence.
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 16
Level 3 states that the information sought in this request is central to the
disputed issue regarding whether Level 3 may exchange all traffic over the
interconnection trunks established under the Interconnection Agreement. Level 3
states that it seeks to use its existing trunk groups to exchange all traffic with Owest,
but Owest seeks to limit Level 3's ability to use trunks efficiently. Level 3 states that
information related to Owest's current practices, the practices of its affiliates, and the
obligations imposed on CLECs with which Owest exchanges traffic is central to
understanding and rebutting Owest's position in this proceeding.
Owest states that neither of these requests is limited to Iowa. Owest also
states, however, that if these two requests are limited to Iowa , Owest will withdraw its
objection and provide responses.
Analysis
Owest has agreed to provide responses to Level 3 if these requests are limited
to Iowa. The Board will requirE7 Owest to respond to Requests Nos. 22 and 23 with
information limited to Iowa.
DATA REQUEST NO.
In Data Request No. 46. Level 3 seeks information regarding the number of
CLECs in Iowa for which Owest assigns traffic to different jurisdictional or rating
categories based on PLU or similar factors.
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 17
Owest objects to this request on the grounds that it is burdensome and would
require a special study. Owest also objects on the grounds that the request is not
likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence.
Level 3 states that the information sought in this request is central to the
disputed issue regarding whether level 3 may exchange all traffic over the
interconnection trunks established under the Interconnection Agreement. level 3
states that it seeks to use its existing trunk groups to exchange all traffic with Owest,
but Owest seeks to limit level 3's ability to use trunks efficiently. Level 3 states .~hat
information related to Owest's current practices , the practices of its affiliates, and the
obligations imposed on ClECs with which Owest exchanges traffic is central to
understanding and rebutting Owest's position in this proceeding.
Owest responds that it is not clear to Owest what level 3 means by "assign
traffic to different jurisdictional" or rating categories. Owest states that when PLU or
similar factors are used , they are applied to an overall volume of traffic and are not
used to determine the rating or jurisdiction of individual calls. Owest reiterates that to
answer this question would require a special study.
Analysis
The Board finds that based on Qwest's assertion that PLU factors are applied
to an overall volume of traffic, this request is vague and ambiguous. The Board also
finds that level 3 has not established that awest should be required to conduct a
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 18
special study to answer this request. As such , the Board will not require Owest to
respond to Request No. 46.
DATA REQUEST NOS. 27, 28 , 32, and 33
In Data Request Nos. 27 , and 33 , level 3 seeks information regarding
whether Owest offers any foreign exchange (FX) or similar services. Specifically,
level 3 seeks information regarding the identification of FX or FX-like services, the
product descriptions, the number of customers and lines in Iowa, how long the
service has been ordered by Qwest. the number of ISPs that purchase the service
whether Qwest has billed or received reciprocal compensation or other terminating
compensation for calls received from Owest's FX or FX-like customers and details
regarding such billings, and whether Owest has paid access charges to the
originating carrier for calls originated by another carrier and terminated to a Owest FX
or FX-like customec
Owest objects to these requests on the grounds that they seek information
beyond Iowa , that Level 3 can obtain responsive information regarding these
requests from its catalogs and tariffs, and that the requests seek confidential
information. awest also objects on the grounds that the requests are overly
burdensome and are irrelevant and not likely to result in the production of admissible
evidence.
level 3 states that the information sought in these requests is relevant to
Issue 3 , which involves whether intercarrier compensation applies to alllSP-Bound
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-4
PAGE 19
traffic, including FX and FX-like services. level 3 states that its service provides the
same functionality as FX and FX-like services and that Owest treats its FX and FX-
like services as local service. level 3 contends that Owest seeks to impair Level 31
ability to compete with Owest's FX and FX-like service by imposing access charges
on level 3's comparable FX service.
Owest states that these requests are difficult to answer because level 3 does
not define what it means by "FX-like.1I Owest asserts that it is Level 3's responsibility
to provide the criteria to be used for determining whether services are FX-like. Owest
also states that the descriptions , terms , and conditions for the services Owest offers
are set forth in its tariffs and catalogs that are publicly available to level 3. Owest
also states that none of these requests are limited to Iowa.
Analysis
The Board finds that despite Owest's confusion over the definition of IIFX-like
these requests are not vague or ambiguous. However, these requests, as written
are overly broad insofar as they seek information outside of Iowa. Owest has not
appeared to object to the production of the requested information in these requests
as it relates to Iowa. As such , the Beard will require Owest to respond to Request
Nos. 27, 28 , 32, and 33 with information limited to Iowa.
DATA REQUEST NOS. 45and 47
In Data Request Nos. 45 and 47, level 3 seeks information regarding the
number of points of interconnection (POls) in Iowa between Owest and GLEGs, as
DOCKET NO. ARB-05-4
PAGE 20
well as information regarding how many CLECs in Iowa connect to Owest's network
by means of a Owest-supplied entrance facility, a GLEe-supplied facility, or some
other means.
Owest objects to these requests on the grounds that they are unreasonably
burdensome and that providing a response would require a special study. Owest
also objects on the grounds that the information is not likely to lead to the production
of admissible evidence.
Level 3 states that the information requested is relevant to Issue 1 of the
arbitration proceeding regarding the number of POls per LATA that may be allowed
under the agreement.
Owest states that to answer these requests, Owest would have to review the
interconnection arrangements that are in place for each CLEC that has an
interconnection agreement in Iowa and conduct a special study of the facilities that
are actually in place for each CLEC. Owest states that there is no central repository
of this information.
Analysis
The Board finds that Request No. 45 regarding the number of POls that exist
in Iowa between Qwest and GLEGs is reasonable. Owest is required to respond to
Request No. 45.
However, based on Qwest's statement that the information sought in Request
No. 47 is not readily available in a central repository, the Board finds that this
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 21
request, as written , is unduly burdensome. Owest is not required to submit a
response to Data Request No. 47.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66
In Request for Admission No. 66 . level 3 asks Qwest to admit that Qwest'
VolP offering is less expensive than Owest's Choice Home Plus package.
Owest states that it cannot admit or deny this request because it is not clear
what is being referred to by "Owest VolP offering.
level 3 states that Owest's objection is designed to avoid providing an easy
explanation. level 3 also states that the request is based upon information found on
Qwest's Web site.
Owest states that a review of the Web site cited by level 3 indicates that both
Qwest's VolP offering and the Choice Home Plus package have a base rate plus a
rate for other features and services such as long distance. Owest asserts that
level 3 has not been clear what packages it wants Owest to compare,
Analysis
It appears that this request seeks information that cquld easily be obtained by
viewing the Web sites cited by level 3 and further explored at hearing in this
proceeding. Nevertheless, the Board finds Qwest's response to be inadequate.
Owest is required to admit or deny the request based on the base rate for the YelP
offering and Choice Home Plus.
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 22
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NOS. 71,, 76, 77 , 81,98,, 101, and 102
In these Requests for Admission , Level 3 asks for Owest to admit or deny
information relating to interconnection contract language (71), local exchange
services (72), increased competition for wireline voice service (76), federal and state
regulatory policies (77), end office and tandem switches (81), rules by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regarding interexchange carriers (95),
collocation equipment (97), revenues for Owest's local voice services (98), origination
and termination of local calls by voir providers (99), and recent FCC orders (101 and
102).
Owest objects to these requests on the grounds that they are overly broad and
that there are too many variables to predict the result described is probable. along
with other objections. Notwithstanding these objections , in each case Owest
provided some form of explanatory response supporting its reasons for declining to
answer.
Level 3 asserts that Owest has not provided rational, reasonable basis for its
failure to admit or deny these requests.
Owest states that its objections are reasonable and that it has stated its
reasons for not being able to admit or deny each request.
Analysis
The Board has reviewed each of these Requests for Admission as well as
Qwest's responses a nd objections. The Board finds that Owest has provided
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-4
PAGE 23
sufficient explanations regarding its inability to admit or deny each request and that
Owest has , in many cases, provided level 3 with appropriate information that can be
further explored at hearing in this proceeding, if necessary. Therefore , the Board
finds that Requests for Admission Nos. 71 r 72, 76, 77, 81 99, 101 , and
102 have been adequately answered.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NOS. 57, 58, and 59
In Requests for Admission Nos. 57 , 58, and 59, level 3 asks Owest to admit
or deny whether certain information exists in Owest's federal and state tariffs
regarding intercarrier compensation for VolP traffic and information services.
Owest objects to these requests on the grounds that they call for legal
conclusions and are not appropriate subjects for discovery. Owest also states that its
state and federal tariffs speak for themselves.
level 3 asserts that Owest has failed to undertake a reasonable investigation
of its tariffs to respond to these requests.
Owest states that it clearly denied these requests for admission and that there
is no failure by Owest to respond to level 3.
Analysis
The Board has reviewed these Requests for Admission as well as Qwest's
responses and objections. The Board finds that Owest denied Level 3's requests
and supplied appropriate information in support of those denials that can be further
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 24
explored at hearing in this proceeding, if necessary. Therefore, the Board finds that
Requests for Admission Nos. 57 , and 59 have been adequately answered.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NOS. 86 and 87
Requests for Admission Nos. 86 and 87 ask Owest to admit or deny
information regarding Owest's call routing systems and billing systems.
Owest denies the requests and references previous responses to support its
position.
level 3 states that Owest's responses are not responsive.
Owest states that it denied these requests and has fully satisfied any
obligation it has to respond to these requests.
Analysis
The Board has reviewed Requests for Admission Nos. 86 and 87 as well as
Owest's responses and objections. The Board finds that awest denied level 3'
requests and supplied appropriate information in support of those denials that can be
further explored at hearing in this proceeding, if necessary. Therefore, the Board
finds that Requests for Admission Nos. 86 and 87 have been adequately answered.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
The Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Level 3
Communications , LLC, on June 3D , 2005, and amended on August 5, 2005, is
granted in part and denied in part as described in this order. awest is directed to
DOCKET NO. ARB-O5-
PAGE 25
respond to the appropriate data requests and requests for admission within three
days of the date of this order.
The request for hearing reg~rding the Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses filed by Level 3 Communications, LLC , on August 5. 2005, is denied as
described in th is order.
On or before August 22, 2005, Level 3 Communications, LLC, may file
supplemental testimony and exhibits based on the information produced in response
to this order.
UTILITIES BOARD
Isl John R. Norris
ATTEST:
Isl Diane Munns
Is! MarQaret Munson
Executive Secretary, Deputy
Is/ Elliott Smith
Dated at Des Moines, Iowa , this 16th day of August. 2005.
EXHIBIT B
Decision No. RO5-1 044-
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
DOCKET NO. 05B-210T
IN THE MATTER OF LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC'S PETITION FOR
ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996,
AND THE APPLICABLE STATE LAWS FOR RATES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS
OF INTERCONNECTION WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
INTERIM ORDER OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DALE E. ISLEY
REJECTING NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY; DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO RESPOND AS MOOT; AND
GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL, IN PART
Mailed Date: August 31, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8T A TEMENT ........
........... ...................... ........................ .............. ................... ...
.... ........ .... ..... 2
A. Interrogatory No.4.. ..................... ........................ ..... ...............
........ ...... .... ...... ..... ........ ....
B. Interrogatory No.5........... ..... ......... ............ ........ ........... ............ ........
....... .............. ...........
C. Interrogatory No.7...... ......... ................ .... ........
....................... ................... ............. ..........
D. Interrogatory Nos. 14, 15 , 16, 17, 19 20,21,22, and 44.................................................
E. Interrogatory Nos. 26, 27, 31 , and 32 .............................................................................
F. Interrogatory No. 43..........
.... .... ............. ........... ........... .............. """"" ...... ......... ........... .
G. Interrogatory No. 45..
....... .... ........ ............... ....... ........ ... ...... .........
......... .......................... 13
H. Request for Admission Nos. 20,27, 31 , 36, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 57................................I. Request for Admission No. 49.......... .................................
......... ...... .......... "" ..... ....... ....
J. Request for Admission Nos. 10, 11 , 12, and 13..............................................................
K. Request for Admission Nos. 41 and 42...........................................................................
II. ORDER .................. .
;.... .... ................. ............... ......................... ............ """'.".""'" ........ .......
A. It Is Ordered That: ................
.......... ............. ....... ...................... ....... .............. .........
......... 20
Dedsioo No. ROS-I044-
Bdore tIle P.blic Utilities CommlssJoD of the State of Colorado
DOCKET NO. OSB-110T
STATEMENT
On July 25 2005 , Level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3) filed a Motion for
Variance of Rule 4 CCR 723.77(b)(4) (Motion for Variance), Motion to Compel Responses
Level 3's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for
Admission (Motion to Compel). The Motion to Compel contained a request that response time
thereto be shortened to three business days. I On July 28, 2005, Level 3 filed an Errata to the
Motion to Compel.
On July 27, 2005, Qwest Corporation (Qwest) filed a Response to Level 3
Communications, LLC's Request for Shortened Response Time and Motion to Strike Motion to
Compel (Motion to Strike).
The Motion for Variance was granted and the Motion to Strike was denied on
August 3 2005. See, Decision No. R05-0950-
On August 12, 2005, Qwest filed its Response to the Motion to Compel
(Response).
On August 19, 2005, Qwest filed a pleading entitled "Notice of Supplemental
Authority" (Notice) in connection with the Motion to Compel. The Notice included orders
issued by the State of Iowa Department of Commerce Board and the Arizona Corporation
I On August 1 , 2005, the procedural schedule previously established in this proceeding was suspended in
order to facilitate resolution of the discovery dispute raised by the Motion to Compel.
See Decision No. RO5-0946-I. This effectively rendered Level3's request for shortened response time to the Motion to Compel moot.
eisioa No. RO5.1O44.
Bdofe the Public Utilities CommiaaioD of tbe State or Colorado
DOCKET NO. OSB-110T
Commission ruling on motions to compel filed by Level 3 in connection with similar discovery
served on Qwest in interconnection arbitration proceedings currently pending in those
jurisdictions.
On August 23, 2005, Level 3 filed a Motion for Leave to Respond to the Notice
(Motion for Leave). The Motion for Leave included Level3's Response to the Notice.
While Qwest's efforts to keep this Commission apprised of developments in other
jurisdictions relating to parallel interconnection arbitration proceedings are appreciated, the
Notice does not provide proper legal authority that would assist it in fashioning a ruling in
connection with the Motion to Compel. Simply put, this Commission s ruling on the Motion to
Compel must be rendered independently of the decisions reached in other jurisdictions
concerning similar motions. As a result, the Notice will be rejected. This renders the Motion for
Leave moot and it will, therefore, be denied for that reason.
The Motion to Compel seeks responses to various discovery requests directed to
Qwest in connection with four main issues raised in this proceeding.2 Level 3 generally contends
that the infonnation sought is relevant or is designed to lead to the discovery of relevant
infonnation relating to these four issues. Qwest generally contends that such information is
either irrelevant or is proprietary and, therefore, need not be produced. A discussion of the
specific discovery requests encompassed by the Motion to Compel follows.
Interrogatory No.
Interrogatory No.asks whether Qwest offers Internet access services in
Colorado and, if so, how many end user customers and wholesale customers it has. It requests
2 These four issues, as framed by Level 3, are set forth at page 3 of the Motion to Compel. They arereferred to herein as Issues 1 , 2, 3, and 4 respectively.
DeeisioD No. RO5-1044-
Before tile Public Utilities CommissioD of tile State or Colorado
DOCKET NO. OSB.210T
that Qwest identify each telephone company end office in which Qwest has collocated equipment
and the telephone company that owns or operates each end office. It also requests that Qwest list
each local calling area within the state in which it maintains a physical presence as defined in
Section 4-Definitions VNXX Traffic of Qwest's proposed changes to the parties' Interconnection
Agreement (Agreement). Level 3 contends that this information is relevant to Issue 3 and that
Qwest's confidentiality objections are moot in light of the protective order previously entered in
this case.
10.Qwest objects to responding to Interrogatory No.4 on the ground that it seeks
confidential and proprietary information. Qwest also contends that the information sought
does
not relate to the numbering assignment rule for the assignment ofNPA-
NXXs and, therefore, is
irrelevant.
11.Qwest is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No.4 since the issue of whether its
proposals may afford different treatment to Level 3 than
is afforded to other Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) or its ISP affiliates in Colorado is relevant to this proceeding.
The information
to be produced by Qwest in response to Interrogatory No.4 will be deemed to be confidential
within the meaning of 4 Code of Colorado Regulation~ (CCR) 723-16-3 and its use will be
governed by the provisions of that rule. If Qwest does not believe that this adequately addresses
its confidentiality concerns it may seek further relief under the provisions of 4 CCR 723-
12.
Interrogatory No.
Interrogatory No.5 asks whether Qwest offers PRI or DIDIDOD services to ISPs
within Colorado. Qwest had originally objected to this discovery request on the ground that it
3 The Commission has not formally entered a protective order in this proceeding. However, Level 3'8 legalcounsel and a number of other Level 3 representatives have submitted Nondisclosure Agreements pursuant to the
provisions of 4 Code of Colorado Regulations 723-16-
DedsioD No. ~OS-IO44-
Before the Public Utilities CommissioD of tile State of Colorado
DOCKET NO. 05B-210T
was ambiguous. However, the Response indicates that Level 3 has clarified this request and that
such clarification will now allow Qwest to respond to the same. Qwest shall, therefore, respond
to Interrogatory No.
13.
Interrogatory No.
Interrogatory No. 7b seeks the number of retail and wholesale VolP or ESP
customers Qwest has in Colorado. Interrogatory No. 7e seeks to detennine whether Qwest
purchases any wholesale VoIP services from any other provider and, if so, from whom. Level
contends that the information requested by these portions of Interrogatory No.7 is relevant to
Issue No.4 and is foundational to demonstrating the impact that Qwest's VolP proposal will have
on it.
14.Qwest objects to producing the information requested by Interrogatory No. 7b on
confidentiality grounds. It also questions the relevancy of the information sought since Level 3
is requesting interconnection with Qwest, an entity that does not offer VolP. Qwest objects to
Interrogatory No. 7e on the ground that it is overbroad since it requests information relating to
Qwest operations outside the State of Colorado.
15.Qwest is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 7b since the issue of whether its
proposals may afford different treatment to Level 3 than is afforded to other VoIP providers in
Colorado is relevant to this proceeding. The information to be produced by Qwest in
response to
Interrogatory No. 7b will be deemed to be confidential within the meaning of 4 CCR 723~ 16~
and its use will be governed by the provisions of that rule. If Qwest does not believe that this
adequately addresses its confidentiality concerns it may seek further relief Wlder the provisions
of 4 CCR 723~
Dedsioa No. ROS-I044-
Before the PubUe Utilities Commlssioa of tile State of Colorado
DOCKET NO. 05B-11 OT
16.The information sought by Interrogatory No. 7e is not relevant to the
interconnection issues involved in this proceeding, nor is it designed to lead to the discovery of
relevant information. In addition, the information requested in Interrogatory No. 7e is within the
control of a third party and requiring its production by Qwest would be burdensome.
17.
Interrogatory Nos. 14,15,, 17,19,20,21,22, and 44
Level 3 groups Interrogatory Nos. 14
, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 , 22, and 44 together
since, in its opinion, they seek information concerning Qwest's affiliates' use of combined trunk
groups; Qwest's imposition of separate trunking obligations upon other competitive local
exchange carriers (CLECs); Qwest's, or any other local exchange carriers (LECs) that deliver
traffic to Qwest, use of traffic apportionment factors, such as percent interstate usage (Pill) and
percent local usage (FLU); as well as Qwest's knowledge of any state commissions that have
required separate trunk groups. Level 3 contends that the subject information is relevant to
Issue 2, whether Level 3 may exchange all traffic over the interconnection trunks established
under the Agreement. Qwest generally contends that Level 3 has inappropriately lumped these
inteITOgatories together and has treated them in a broad fashion in order to conceal their
burdensome and irrelevant nature.summary of these inten-ogatories and Qwest'
objections/responses thereto are contained in Chart I attached to the Motion to Compel.
18.Interrogatory No. 14 requests that Qwest identify every state in which it combines
local and toll traffic on the same trunk group at any point in Qwest's transmission of traffic.
Subsections a through e of this interrogatory then request Qwest to identify which of five
situations apply with regard to such traffic. Qwest contends that Interrogatory No. 14 is overly
broad since it requests infonnation relating to operations outside Colorado and since subsections
, b, and e do not involve interconnection.
Decision No. ROS-IO44-
Before the Pablle Utilities Commission of tbe State of Colorado
DOCKET NO. OSB-2IOT
19.The information requested in Interrogatory Nos. 14c and d is relevant to this
proceeding or could lead to the discovery of relevant information, but only to the extent such
information relates to Qwest's Colorado operations. Therefore, Qwest is ordered to respond to
Interrogatory Nos. 14c and d subject to that limitation. The remaining portions of Interrogatory
No. 14 seek information relating to operations in states other than Colorado or for non-
interconnection trunks. Those portions of Interrogatory No. 14 seek infonnation that is not
relevant to this proceeding or is overbroad.
20.Excluding those states in which Qwest operates as an incumbent local exchange
carrier (!LEC), Interrogatory No. 15 asks that Qwest identify which states, and which calling
areas within those states, its CLEC affiliates combine their own local and toll traffic on a single
trunk. Qwest contends that Interrogatory No. 15 is extraordinarily burdensome since it calls for
infonnation concerning thousands of local calling areas in the country in which its CLEC
affiliates have trunk groups. It points out that these affiliates are not parties to this proceeding
and that the infonnation requested by these interrogatories ~s not limited to interconnection
trunks .
21.Qwest's operations outside the area in which it operates as an ILEC are not
relevant to the issues involved in, this proceeding. In addition, the infonnation requested in
Interrogatory No. 15 is within the control of a third party and requiring its production by Qwest
would be burdensome. As a result, Qwest is not required to respond to Interrogatory No. 15.
22.Including those states in which Qwest operates as an ILEC, Interrogatory No.
asks that Qwest identify which states, and which calling areas within those states, its CLEC
affiliates combine their own local and toll traffic on a single trunk. Qwest contends that
Interrogatory No. 16 is extraordinarily burdensome since it calls for infonnation concerning
Decision No. RO5-1044-
Before tbe PubUe Utilities Commission of tbe Stlte of Colorado
DOCKET NO. 05B-210T
thousands of local calling areas in the country in which its CLEC affiliates have trunk groups.
points out that these affiliates are not parties to this proceeding and that the information
requested by these interrogatories is not limited to interconnection trunks.
23.The information requested in Interrogatory No. 16 is relevant to this proceeding,
but only to the extent such information relates to Qwest's Colorado operations over its
interconnection trunks. Therefore, Qwest is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 16 subject to
those limitations. Those portions of Interrogatory No. 16 that seek information relating to
operations in states other than Colorado or for non-interconnection trunks are not relevant to this
proceeding or are overbroad.
24.Of those states in which Qwest operates as an !LEC, Interrogatory No. 17 asks
Qwest to identify those states in which it combines CLEC local and toll traffic on a single trunk.
Subsections a and b then request an identification of all CLECs for whom Qwest combines, or
has combined local and toll traffic on a single trunk, as well as the month and year when it
started to combine such traffic. Qwest contends that Interrogatory No. 17 is overly broad since it
requests information relating to operations outside Colorado.
25.The information requested in Interrogatory No. 17a is relevant to this proceeding,
but only to the extent such information relates to Qwest's Colorado operations. Therefore,
Qwest is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 17a, subject to that limitation. That portion of
Interrogatory No. 17a requesting information relating to operations in states other than Colorado
is overly broad.
26.Producing the information requested in Interrogatory No. 17b would be
burdensome and oppressive.Therefore, Qwest is not required to provide a response to
Interrogatory No. 17b.
Before the Publie Utilities Commission of tile State of Colorado
DeelsioD No. ROS-I044-DOCKET NO. 05B-21 OT
27.F or each state in which Qwest operates as an ILEC, Interrogatory No. 19 asks
Qwest to identify each CLEC with which it exchanges local and toll traffic on a single trunk
group and uses a PLU or similar method of establishing the apportionment of local versus toll
traffic on the combined trunk group. Qwest contends that Interrogatory No. 19 is overly broad
since it requests information relating to operations outside Colorado. It also contends that such
infonnation is contained in publicly available interconnection agreements it has with CLECs in
each state. Accordingly, it believes it is unreasonable and burdensome to require it to assemble
this information.
28.The infonnation requested in Interrogatory No. 19 is relevant to this proceeding,
but only to the extent it relates to Qwest's Colorado operations. Therefore, Qwest is ordered to
respond to Interrogatory No. 19, subject to that limitation. That portion of Interrogatory No. 19
requesting infonnation relating to operations in states other than Colorado is overly broad.
29.F or each state in which a Qwest CLEC affiliate combines local and toll traffic on
a single trunk group, Interrogatory No. 20 asks that Qwest state whether its CLEC affiliate uses a
PLU or similar method of establishing the apportionment of local versus toll traffic on the
combined trunk group. Qwest contends that this interrogatory is burdensome since it calls for
information concerning its CLEC affiliates in every state and would require a review of all its
interconnection agreements in every state. It also points out that its affiliates are not parties to
this proceeding and do not have interconnection obligations.
30.The information requested in Interrogatory No. 20 is relevant to this proceeding,
but only to the extent it relates to Qwest's Colorado operations. Therefore, Qwest is ordered to
respond to Interrogatory No. 20, subject to that limitation. That portion of Interrogatory No. 20
requesting infonnation relating to operations in states other than Colorado is overly broad.
DedsioD No. ROS-1O44-
Before the Public Utilities CommissioD of the State of Colorado
DOCKET NO. OSB.;UOT
31.Interrogatory No. 21 asks Qwest to describe each system or method it uses to
track or estimate the amount of local and toll traffic exchanged with a CLEC. Interrogatory
No. 22 asks whether Qwest is aware of any state commission that has required separate trunk
groups for transit traffic. Qwest objects to both interrogatories on the ground that they are
overbroad by seeking information relating to states other than Colorado. It does not object to
providing the requested information if limited to its Colorado operations. Qwest is ordered to
~espond to Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22, but only to the extent such information relates to its
Colorado operations. Those portions of Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22 requesting information
relating to operations in states other than Colorado are overly broad.
32.Intenogatory No. 44 asks for the number of CLECs in Colorado for which Qwest
assigns traffic to different jurisdictionaVrating categories based on PIUIPLU or similar factors.
Qwest contends that this interrogatory is ambiguous since it cannot determine what Level 3
means by the phrase "assign traffic to different jurisdictionaVrating categories.The phrase
identified by Qwest in its response to Interrogatory No. 44 is ambiguous. Therefore, Qwest need
not respond to that interrogatory.
33.
Interrogatory Nos. 26,27,31, and 32
Level 3 ~oups Interrogatory Nos. 26, 27, 31 , and 32 together since, in its opinion
they seek information concerning services that Qwest provides and considers to be Foreign
Exchange (FX) or FX-like. Level 3 contends that the requested information is relevant to Issue
, whether intercarrier compensation applies to all ISP-bound traffic, including VNXX traffic.
Qwest objects to providing responses to these interrogatories on the groWld that they seek
information beyond Colorado, that they seek confidential information, or that they are overly
broad and burdensome.It also contends that Level 3 can secure much of the requested
Before the Public Utilities CommissioD of the State of Colorado
DeelsioD No. RO5-tO44-DOCKET NO. OSB-210T
information from Qwest's filed tariffs or catalogs. It also contends that it is unable to respond to
these interrogatories since Level 3 has failed to define the term "FX-like." A summary of these
interrogatories and Qwest's objections/responses thereto are contained in Chart 2 attached to the
Motion to Compel.
34.Interrogatory No. 26 asks whether Qwest offers any FX-like service other than
service specifically described as Foreign Exchange. If so, it asks Qwest to name and provide
service descriptions for each such service. Qwest contends that Interrogatory No. 26 is overly
broad since it requests information relating to operations outside Colorado. It also contends that
such information is contained in its tariffs or catalogs and, therefore, is readily available to
Level 3.
35.It is unreasonable to expect Qwest to respond to Interrogatory No. 26 in the
absence of a definition of the term "FX-like service.Information relating to the Colorado-
related Qwest service offerings Level 3 may deem to be "FX-like" are contained in Qwest'
tariffs and/or catalogs and, therefore, are readily available to Level 3. For these reasons, Qwest
is not required to respond to Interrogatory No. 26.
36.Interrogatory No. 27 asks that Qwest provide additional information relating to
the number of customers in Colorado who subscribe to its FX-like service, the number of lines
over which such services are provided, how long each FX-like service has been available from
Qwest, and the number of ISPs who purchase such services. Qwest objects to providing a
response on confidentiality grounds.
37.Again, as with Interrogatory No. 26, it is unreasonable to expect Qwest to respond
to Interrogatory No. 27 in the absence of a definition of the tenn "FX-like service." For this
reason, Qwest is not required to provide a response to Interrogatory No. 27. Level 3 may wish to
Befort the Public Utilities CommissioD of the State of Colorado
DedsioD No. ROS-IO44-DOCKET NO. OSB-110T
resubmit this interrogatory once it has determined the Colorado-related Qwest service offerings it
deems to be "FX-like.
38.Interrogatory No. 31 asks if there are any circumstances (and, if so, a description
of such circumstances) in which Qwest has paid access charges to the originating carrier for a
call originated by another carrier and terminated to a Q~est FX or FX-like customer. Qwest
objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not limited to Colorado and that it is overly
broad and burdensome.
39.The information requested in Interrogatory No. 31 is relevant to this proceeding,
but only to the extent it relates to Qwest's Colorado operations. Also, for the reasons discussed
above, the information requested by this interrogatory must be limited to FX services. Therefore
Qwest is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 31 , subject to these limitations. That portion of
Interrogatory No. 31 requesting information relating to operations in states other than Colorado
and to FX-like services is overly broad.
40.Interrogatory No. 32 asks whether Qwest knows, or has reason to believe, that any
independent LEC with whom Qwest has EAS arrangements provide FX or FX-like service that
pennits customers physically located in another rate center to be assigned a number that is local
to the rate center included in Qwest's BAS area. Qwest objects to this interrogatory on the
ground that it is not limited to Colorado and that it is overly broad and burdensome. It also
contends that such information is available from the independent LECs that are the subject of
this interrogatory and, therefore, is readily available to Level 3.
41.Information relating to FX or FX.like service independent Colorado LECs may
provide are independently available to Level 3 from the LECs themselves or are on file with the
'I.
Before the PUblie Utilities CommissioB of t.e State of ColoradoPtdsioa No. ROS-I044-
DOCKET NO. 8SB-210T
Commission and, therefore, publicly available to Level 3. For these reasons, Qwest is not
required to provide a response to Interrogatory No. 32.
42.
Interrogatory No. 43
Interrogatory No. 43 asks how many physical POls exist in Colorado between
Qwest and CLECs. Qwest objects to IntelTOgatory No. 43 on the
ground that its is unreasonably
burdensome and that providing a response would require a
special study.
43.The information requested in Interrogatory No. 43 is relevant to this proceeding
and, by its tenns, is limited to Qwest's Colorado operations. The information relating to the
number of POls that exist in Colorado between Qwest and CLECs should be readily available to
Qwest nom a number of sources and, as a result, should not be burdensome to produce.
Therefore, Qwest is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 43.
44.
Interrogatory No. 4S
Interrogatory No. 45 asks how many CLECs in Colorado connect to Qwest'
network by means of: (a) a Qwest-supplied entrance facility running between Qwest'
s network
and a CLEC switch; (b) a CLEC-supplied facility delivered to Qwest's network at or near a
Qwest central office building; or (c) some other means. Qwest objects to Interrogatory No. 45
on the ground that it is unreasonably burdensome and that providing a response would require a
special study.
45.The infonnation requested by Interrogatory No. 45 is of questionable relevance to
the issues involved in this proceeding and would be burdensome to produce. Therefore
, Qwest isnot required to respond to Interrogatory No. 45.
Before the Public UtiUties CommissioD or the Stlte or Colorado
Decision No. ROS-I044-DOCKET NO. OSB-110T
46.
Request for Admission Nos. 20, 27, 31, 36, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 574
Request for Admission (RA) No. 20 asks that Qwest admit that its OneFlex Voice
over Internet Protocol VoIP offering is less expensive than its Choice Home Plus package.
Qwest objects to RA 20 on the ground that it is ambiguous and compound.
47.RA 20 is ambiguous since it does not make clear which of the many possible
versions of Qwest's VoIP offering it is referring to. Accordingly, Qwest is not required to
respond to RA No. 20.
48.RA 26 requests that Qwest admit that interconnection contract language should be
as consistent as possible with applicable federal law and regulations. Qwest objects to RA 26 on
the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion and is overly broad. Qwest's supplemental
response to RA 26 provides an explanation as to why it is unable to either admit or deny the
same.
49.RA 26 is overly broad and is not capable of being admitted or denied in the
absence of additional context. Accordingly, Qwest is not required to provide any additional
response to RA No. 26.
50.RA 27 requests that Qwest admit that wireline local exchange services offered in
Qwest's 14-state area are provided through legal entities which operate within authorized regions
subj ect to regulation by each state in which they operate and by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Qwest objects to RA 27 on the ground that it is overly broad, ambiguous,
burdensome, and calls for a legal conclusion. Qwest's supplemental response to RA 27 provides
an explanation as to why it is unable to either admit or deny the same.
4 A summary of these requests for admission and Qwest's objections/responses thereto are contained in
Chart 3 attached to the Motion to Compel.
Before the Public Utilities Commission of tbe State of Colorado
DecisioD No. ROS-tO44-DOCKET NO. 05B-110T
51.RA 27 is ambiguous for, among other reasons, its failure to identify which of the
many possible wireline local exchange services it is referring to. In addition, it is overly broad
since it encompasses Qwest services offered outside Colorado. Accordingly, Qwest is not
required to provide any additional response to RA No. 27.
52.RA 31 requests that Qwest admit that while the deployment of VolP will result in
increased competition for Qwest's core wire line voice services, it also presents growth
opportunities for Qwest to develop new products for its customers. Qwest objects to RA 31 on
the ground that it solicits an opinion on a matter that can only be the subject of speculation.
Qwest's supplemental response to RA 31 provides an explanation as to why it is unable to either
admit or deny the same.
53.RA 31 requires Qwest to speculate on a number of variables relating to the
possible future outcome of its deployment of VoIP services. Such speculation would not be
useful in deciding the issues raised by this proceeding. Accordingly, Qwest is not required to
provide any additional response to RANo. 31.
54.RA 32 requests that Qwest admit that it favors federal and state legislative and
regulatory policies which support the development of facilities-based competition.Qwest
objects to RA 32 on the ground that it is ambiguous and seeks an opinion and, therefore, is not an
appropriate subject for a request for admission. Qwest's supplemental response to RA 32
provides an explanation as to why it is unable to either admit or deny the same.
55.RA 32 is overly broad and ambiguous and, therefore, is not capable of being
admitted or denied in the absence of additional context. Accordingly, Qwest is not required to
provide any additional response to RA No. 32.
Before tbe Public Utilities CommissloB of tbe State of Colorado
DecisioD No. ROS-I044-DOCKET NO. OSB-llGT
56.RA 36 requests that Qwest admit that its end office and tandem switches do not
store any infonnation indicating the address or location of any end user s premises. Qwest'
supplemental response to RA 36 provides an adequate explanation as to why it can neither admit
nor deny RA 36. Accordingly, Qwest is not required to provide any additional response to
RA No. 36.
57.RA SO requests that Qwest admit that the FCC's rules contain no definition of the
tenD ~~interexchange carrier.Qwest objects to RA 50 on the ground that it calls for a legal
conclusion and, therefore, is not an appropriate subject for a request for admission. Qwest'
supplemental response to RA SO provides an explanation as to why it is unable to either admit or
deny the same.
58.Qwest has provided an adequate explanation as to why it can neither admit nor
deny RA SO. Accordingly, it is not required to provide any additional response to RA No. 50.
59.RA 52 requests that Qwest admit that it physically collocates equipment at its or
another carriers' switch or other location permitting collocation within the local calling area
associated with each of the NPA-NXX codes that it uses to provide this service. Qwest objects
to RA 52 on the ground that Level 3 's failure to define the tenn "this service" makes
ambiguous.
60.Level 3's failure to define the tenn "this service" as used in RA 52 renders it
ambiguous. Accordingly, Qwest is not required to provide any additional response to RA No. 52.
61.RA 53 requests that Qwest admit that revenue for its local voice services may be
affected adversely should providers of VolP services attract a sizable base of customers who use
VoIP to bypass traditional LECs. Qwest objects to RA 53 on the ground that it is ambiguous and
Before tile Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado
Decisloa No. RO5-tO44-DOCKET NO. 058-liOT
calls for speculation. Qwest's supplemental response to RA 53 provides an explanation as to
why it is unable to either admit or deny the same.
62.RA 53 requires Qwest to speculate on a number of variables relating to the
possible future outcome of its deployment of VoIP services. Such speculation would not be
useful in deciding the issues raised by this proceeding. Accordingly, Qwest is not required to
provide any additional response to RA No. 53.
63.RA 54 requests that Qwest admit that to the extent that VoIP networks or VoIP
service providers bypass the traditional methods for originating and terminating local calls, these
providers could enjoy a competitive advantage versus traditional carriers who must pay regulated
carrier access and reciprocal compensation charges. Qwest objects to RA 54 on the ground that
it is ambiguous and calls for speculation. Qwest's supplemental response to RA 54 provides an
explanation as to why it is unable to either admit or deny the same.
64.RA 54 requires Qwest to speculate on a number of variables relating to the
possible future outcome of its deployment of VoIP services. Such speculation would not be
useful in deciding the issues raised by this proceeding. Accordingly, Qwest is not required to
provide any additional response to RA No. 54.
65.RA 56 requests that Qwest admit that on October 18 , 2004 the FCC released an
Order forbearing from applying certain ISP reciprocal compensation interim rules adopted in its
April 27, 2001 ISP-Remand Order that imposed a volume cap on the number of minutes of use
of ISP-bound traffic subject to compensation and that required carriers to exchange ISP-bound
traffic on a bill-aDd-keep basis if those earners were not exchanging traffic pursuant to
interconnection agreements prior to adoption of the April 27, 2001 Order. Qwest objects to
RA 56 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, is not an appropriate
Before the Public Utilities Commission of the Stlte of Colorado
Decision No. RO5-1044-DOCKET NO. OSB-210T
subject for a request for admission. Qwest's supplemental response to RA 56 provides an
explanation as to why it is unable to either admit or deny the same.
66.Qwest has provided an adequate explanation as to why it can neither admit nor
deny RA 56. Accordingly, it is not required to provide any additional response to RA No. 56.
67.RA 57 requests that Qwest admit that the effect of the FCC's October 18, 2004
Order may be to increase significantly Qwest's payments of reciprocal compensation. Qwest
objects to RA 57 on the ground that it is ambiguous and calls for speculation. Qwest'
supplemental response to RA 57 provides an explanation as to why it is unable to either admit or
deny the same.
68.RA 57 requires Qwest to speculate on a number of variables relating to the
possible effect of the FCC's October 18, 2004 Order. Such speculation would not be useful in
deciding the issues raised by this proceeding. Accordingly, Qwest is not required to provide any
additional response to RA No. 57.
69.
Request for Admission No. 49
RA 49 requests that Qwest admit that where it proposed to rate ISP~bound traffic
as toll traffic, Level 3 would pay Qwest $0.068929MOU (state rate from tariff) so that Qwest
would not instead pay Level 3 $.0007 per MOD for terminating a call. Qwest objects to RA 49
on the ground that it is ambiguous and compound. The Response provides an explanation as to
why Qwest is unable to either admit or deny the same.
70.RA 49 is ambiguous and compound. Qwest has provided an adequate explanation
as to why it can neither admit nor deny RA 49. Accordingly, it is not required to provide any
additional response to the same.
Dedslol No. ROS-JO44-
Before the Public Utilities CommissioD of the State of Colorado
DOCKET NO. 05B-210T
71.
Request for Admission Nos. 10, 11, 12, and 13
RA 10 requests that Qwest admit that its federal tariffs contain no terms
applicable to intercarrier compensation for Voice over Internet Protocol. Qwest objects to RA 10
on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, is not an appropriate subject for a
request for admission. Notwithstanding that objection, Qwest's supplemental responses clearly
indicate that it has denied RA 10. Therefore, Qwest has provided an adequate response to RA 10
and is not required to provide any additional response.
72.RA 11 requests that Qwest admit that its state tariffs contain no terms applicable
to intercarrier compensation for Voice over Internet Protocol traffic. Qwest objects to RA lIon
the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, is not an appropriate subject for a
request for admission. Notwithstanding that objection, Qwest's supplemental responses clearly
indicate that it has denied RA 11. Therefore, Qwest has provided an adequate response to RA
and is not required to provide any additional response.
73.RA 12 requests that Qwest admit that its federal tariffs contain no terms
applicable to intercarrier compensation for information services traffic. Qwest objects to RA
on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, is not an appropriate subject for a
request for admission. Notwithstanding that objection, Qwest's supplemental responses clearly
indicate that it has denied RA 12. Therefore, Qwest has provided an adequate response to RA 12
and is not required to provide any additional response.
74.RA 13 requests that Qwest admit that its state tariffs contain no terms applicable
to intercanier compensation for infonnation services traffic. Qwest objects to RA 13 on the
ground that it calls for a legal conclusion and, therefore, is not an appropriate subject for a
request for admission. Notwithstanding that objection, Qwest's supplemental responses clearly
Betore the Public Utilities CommissiOD or the State of ColoradooeeisioD No. 805-1044-
DOCKET NO. OSB-210T
indicate that it has denied RA 13. Therefore, Qwest has provided an adequate response to RA 13
and is not required to provide any additional response.
75.
Request for Admission Nos. 41 and 42
RA 41 requests that Qwest admit that its call routing systems never sample any
data regarding the address or location of any end user s premises for purposes of routing a call.
Qwest's supplemental responses clearly indicate that it has denied RA 41. Therefore
, Qwest has
provided an adequate response to RA 41 and is not required to provide any additional response.
76.RA 42 requests that Qwest admit that its billing systems never sample any data
regarding the address or location of any end user s premises for purposes of billing. Qwest'
supplemental responses clearly indicate that it has denied RA 42. Therefore, Qwest has provided
an adequate response to RA 42 and is not required to provide any additional response.
II.ORDER
It Is Ordered That:
The Notice of Supplemental Authority filed by Qwest Corporation is rejected.
The Motion for Leave to Respond to Qwest's Notice of Supplemental Authority
filed by Level 3 Communications, LLC is denied as moot.
The Motion to Compel Responses to Level 3's First Set of Interrogatories
Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admission filed by Level 3
Communications, LLC is granted, in part, consistent with the terms of this Interim Order.
Qwest Corporation shall provide full and complete responses to Level 3's First
Set of Inteuogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admission as
required by this Interim Order on or before September 9, 2005.
This Order shall be effective immediately.
~ .'-----.~~
DeelsloD No. ROS-l044-
Before the Publie Utilities CommissioD or tbe State or Colorado
DOCKET NO. 05B-210T
TIlE PUBLIC UTILITIES COJ\,flvfiSSION
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
DALE E. ISLEY
Administrative Law Judge
ATTEST: A TRUE COpy
~~-
Doug Dean
Director
G:\ORDER\210T.doc:srs
EXHIB IT
BEFORE THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS
JEFF HATCH-MILLER, Chairman
WILLIAM A. MUNDELL4 MARC SPITZER
MIKE GLEASON
KRIS TIN K. MAYES
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LEVEL
3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC FOR ARBITRATION7 OF AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT
WITH QWEST CORPORATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 252(b) OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996.
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350
DOCKET NO. T-01051B-05-0350
10 BY THE COMMISSION:
PROCEDURAL ORDER
Pursuant to the verbal request of the parties, on August 3 , 2005 , the Arbitrator in the above-
12 captioned matter heard oral argument on a Motion to Compel brought by Level 3 Communications
13 LLC ("Level 3") against Qwest Corporation ("Qwest") in the above captioned arbitration. During the
14 course of the August 3 , 2005 proceeding, the parties were able to narrow somewhat the issues in
15 dispute, but because of the extensive scope of the Motion to Compel, the Arbitrator requested that
16 Level 3 file a written Motion.
On August 8, 2005, Level 3 filed its written Motion to Compel. Level 3 identified at least 36
18 different Data Requests and Requests for Admission for which it believed Qwest's objections were
19 baseless or its responses inadequate. Level 3 also requests an extension for the discovery cutoff
20 deadline.
On August 12 2005 , Qwest filed its Response.
22 Data Request No.4 - Qwest Internet Access Service
Level 3' s Data Request No.4 asks if Qwest offers Internet access service in the state and how
24 many end user and wholesale customers Qwest has. It requests that that Qwest identify each end
25 office in which Qwest has collated certain equipment and list each local calling area within the state
26 in which Qwest maintains a physical presence. Qwest objected to the request because it called for
27 proprietary information related to the operations of Qwest's affiliates and sought information that was
28 not relevant to the proceeding.
s/H\J\ Telecom\arbitration \leve13Qwest\Motion to Compel
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
Level 3 argues that its request is relevant to the third issue in this proceeding which Level 3
identifies as whether Qwest's election to be subject to the ISP-Remand Order for the exchange of
3 ISP-bound traffic requires Qwest to compensate Level 3 for ISP-bound Traffic at the rate of $0.0007
per minute of use. Level 3 asserts it is relevant to the question of whether the geographic location of
the ISP is relevant to the compensation exchanged by the parties for the transport and termination of
6 ISP-bound traffic. According to Level 3, the information is also relevant to the question of whether
Qwest treats its affiliates the same as it treats Level 3. Qwest argues that Data Request No.4 does
not seek information in any way relating to the numbering assignment rule for the assignment of
9 NP A-NXXs.
10 Resolution:
Whether Qwest's proposals discriminate against Level 3 in Arizona are relevant to this
12 proceeding. The information sought in this Data Request appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
13 discovery of admissible evidence. Any proprietary information should be protected by the existence
14 of the Protective Agreement between the parties. Consequently, Qwest should respond as soon as
15 possible to this Data Request.
16 Data Request No.5 - PRI or DIDIDOD Service
Level 3's Data Request No.5 asks whether Qwest offers PRI or DID (Dedicated In
18 Dialing)!DOD (Dedicated Out Dialing) service to ISP customers in the state and if so, does Qwest
19 pay carriers originating access charges. According to Level 3, Qwest had not provided any response
20 to this request. Qwest has indicated that Level 3 has clarified ambiguities in the question and that
21 Qwest has served an answer. Qwest's response indicates that this dispute has been resolved.
22 Data Request No. 7(b), 7 (c) and 7 (e) - Qwest's VoIP Service
In Data Request 7(b), Level 3 requests that Qwest provide the number of retail and wholesale
24 VoIP customers in the state. Data Request 7(c) asks for a list of each local calling area in which
25 Qwest maintains a physical presence. Data Request 7(e) asks whether Qwest purchases any
26 wholesale VoIP services from another provider, and if so, the name of the provider, the services
27 purchased and the states in which such service is provided. Qwest objects to these Data Requests on
28 the basis of relevancy.
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
Level 3 contends that VoIP is not subject to access charges, but that Qwest seeks to impose
access charges on certain VoIP traffic, and that the information requested in 7(b) is necessary to
demonstrate the impact that Qwest's VoIP proposal will have on Level 3. With respect to Data
Request No. 7(e), Level 3 argues the information sought is relevant to determining whether Qwest's
proposals discriminate against Level 3.
With respect to Data Request 7(b), Qwest argues that it is the number of Level 3 VoIP
customers that will determine the "impact" on Level 3. Qwest states the relevant issue in this
proceeding is the proper application of inter-carrier compensation rules, not the impact of those rules
on one competitor.
Qwest states it is preparing a response to Date Request 7(c).
With respect to Data Request 7(e), Qwest argues that information concerning its affiliate
12 QCC' s, wholesale providers and the service it purchases from them on a nationwide basis is overly
13 broad and not relevant to this proceeding in Arizona. Qwest argues the only discrimination issue that
14 could be relevant is whether Qwest is discriminating against Level 3 in favor of QCC in Arizona, and
15 thus, this request goes far beyond the issues in the case and would be extremely burdensome and
16 time-consuming for Qwest to provide. Qwest offered to provide the information sought in Data
17 Request No. 7(e) for Arizona.
18 Resolution:
Similar to our finding with respect to Data Request No., the issue of discrimination
20 relevant. Qwest should respond to Data Request 7(a). We agree, however, with Qwest that this
21 proceeding involves an interconnection agreement in Arizona and that we are concerned with
22 Qwest's practices in Arizona. Level 3's Data Request 7(e) is overly broad to the extent it seeks
23 information concerning purchases outside of Arizona. Consequently, Qwest should be required to
24 respond to Data Request 7(e) only as it would relate to Arizona.
25 Data Request No.8 - traffic exchange arrangements
Data Request No.8 asks Qwest to describe any traffic exchange arrangements applicable to
27 enhanced or Internet Enabled services that Qwest has in Arizona with other ILECs, CLECs, or any
28 other party.
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
Level 3 argues the arrangements that Qwest or a Qwest affiliate has with other LECs is
directly relevant to the issue of whether Qwest, directly or indirectly, is acting in a discriminatory
manner vis-a-vis Level 3. Level 3 asserts that in the past Qwest has taken the position that certain
types of agreements need not be filed with the Commission, and that Qwest is in the best position to
provide the requested information.
Qwest asserts that interconnection agreements between Qwest Corporation and CLECs or
Qwest Corporation and QCC are on file with the Commission, and given the breadth and ambiguity
of the inquiry, Level 3 is capable of reviewing the filed interconnection agreements in Arizona as
easily as Qwest.
10 Resolution:
Despite Level 3' s intimations that Qwest has not filed interconnection agreements, there is no
12 evidence that subsequent to the resolution of the inquiry into Qwest's compliance with Section 252(e)
13 of the Telecommunications Act in Decision No. 66949 (April 30, 2004), Qwest has not filed
14 interconnection agreements, or that any interconnection agreements remain unfiled. We find that
15 Level 3 can obtain the information it seeks in this Data Request from public sources and that Qwest
16 should not be required to respond further.
17 Data Requests Nos. 14, 15, 19, 20-21 and 44 - Efficient Use of Trunk Groups
Level 3 groups these requests together and states that they seek information on the use of
19 combined trunk groups by Qwest and Qwest affiliates; the imposition of separate trunking obligations
20 upon other CLECs by Qwest; the use of traffic apportionment factors, such as percent interstate usage
21 (Pill) and percent local usage (PLU), by Qwest or any other LEC that delivers traffic to Qwest; and
22 Qwest's knowledge regarding any state commissions that have required separate trunk groups. Level
23 3 states that one of the issues in this proceeding is whether Level 3 may exchange all traffic over the
24 interconnection trunks established under the Interconnection Agreement. Level 3 seeks to use its
25 existing trunk groups to exchange all traffic, but according to Level 3, Qwest seeks to limit Level 3'
26 ability to use trunks efficiently by requiring Level 3 to establish separate Feature Group D trunks to
27 transmit traffic Qwest claims is "toll" or otherwise subject to access rates. Level 3 argues that
28 information related to Qwest's current practices, the practices of its affiliates, and the obligations
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
imposed on CLECs with whom Qwest exchanges traffic is central to understanding and rebutting
2 Qwest's position in this proceeding. Level 3 argues that Qwest has provided no authority to support
its argument that information regarding its affiliates and information about its business activities
outside of Arizona are not within the realm of discovery. Level 3 argues that to the extent that Qwest
has not required its affiliates or other CLECs to separate traffic onto different trunks and has
employed PIUs, PLUs or some other traffic allocation factor to rate traffic, or has itself asserted its
right to commingle traffic on trunk groups, such information is directly relevant to the reasonableness
of a separate trunking requirement and possible discriminatory treatment.
Qwest asserts that to treat these Data Requests as a group conceals the fact that each request is
10 extraordinarily burdensome and does not seek relevant information.
Data Request No. 14 requests Qwest to identify every state in which Qwest combines local
12 (including intraMTA CMRS traffic) and toll traffic (including inter LATA or IntraLATA toll traffic or
13 any combination thereof) on the same trunk grouping in any of the following situations: 1) local and
14 toll traffic are combined on a direct trunk group between two end offices; 2) local and toll traffic are
15 combined on a trunk group between a Qwest end office and a Qwest tandem; 3) local and toll traffic
16 combined on a trunk group between a Qwest end office and a third party carrier switch; 4) local and
17 toll traffic are combined on a trunk group between a Qwest tandem and a third party switch; and 5)
18 local and toll traffic are combined on a trunk group between two Qwest tandems. Qwest argues that
19 Data Request No. 14 is overbroad as it requests information for every state in which Qwest or one of
20 its affiliates operates and further, that only two of the circumstances listed involve interconnection.
Data Request No. 15 asks Qwest to identify the local calling areas ("LCAs ) in states where
22 Qwest does not operate as an ILEC, where Qwest's CLEC affiliates combine their own local and toll
23 traffic on a single trunk. Qwest asserts that Data Request No. 15 calls for information involving
24 thousands of LCAs and trunk groups operated by CLEC affiliates and is not in any way limited to
25 interconnection trunks. Qwest claims this information could not possibly lead to the discovery of
26 admissible evidence in this case. Qwest argues the burden imposed by Data Request No. 15 clearly
27 outweighs any possible relevance of the information sought.
Data Request No. 17 asks that with respect to those states in which Qwest operates as an
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
1 ILEC, that it list each CLEC for which local and toll traffic has been combined on any trunk group.
Qwest argues the request is extremely overreaching in scope and clearly not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Data Request No. 19 requests information concerning specific CLECs that exchange local and
toll traffic on a single trunk group and which uses PLU or similar method of apportionment in each of
the 14 Qwest in-region states. Qwest argues this information is contained in the interconnection
agreements for each CLEC in each state and which are publicly available to Level 3 and can
reviewed more easily by Level 3 as it knows what it is looking for. Qwest states there are over 1 000
interconnection agreements on file with the state public utility commissions and it is unreasonable for
10 Level 3 to insist that Qwest assemble the information on Level 3' s behalf.
Data Request No. 20 requests Qwest to provide information concerning the use of PLU
12 similar apportionment method where a Qwest CLEC affiliate combines local and toll traffic on a
13 single trunk. Qwest states this request is not limited to interconnection trunks, but even if it were, it
14 would call for a review by Qwest of every interconnection agreement Qwest's CLEC affiliate has
15 entered into anywhere in the United States.Qwest argues Data Request No. 20 is clearly
16 unreasonable especially since Qwest's CLEC affiliates are not parties to this proceeding and do not
17 have obligations to interconnect under Section 251 of the Act.
Data Request No. 21 asks Qwest to describe each system and/or method that Qwest uses to
19 track or estimate the amount of local and toll traffic exchanged with a CLEC. Qwest does not object
20 to this request if it is limited to the state of Arizona.
Data Request No. 44 asks for the number of CLECs in Arizona for which Qwest assigns
22 traffic to different jurisdictional/rating categories based on PIU/PLU or similar factors. Qwest objects
23 to Data Request No. 44 on the grounds it is ambiguous as to what Level 3 means by "assign traffic to
24 different jurisdictional/rating categories." Qwest also objects because it is unreasonably burdensome
25 and would require a special study.
26 Resolution:
As drafted Data Request No. 14 is overly broad and burdensome as it concerns agreements
28 outside Arizona. Consequently, Qwest should be required to respond to Data Request No. 14 and its
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
subparts as it relates solely to Qwest Corporation.
Data Request No. 15 is overbroad as it is directed at obtaining information about the practices
of Qwest's CLEC affiliate and is not relevant to the issues in this proceeding. Qwest should not be
required to respond.
Data Requests Nos. 17, 19, 20 and 21 are overly broad to the extent they seek information
regarding Qwest or Qwest's affiliate s operations outside of Arizona. Qwest should respond to each
of these Data Requests as they relate to Arizona.
Data Request No. 44 is vague and ambiguous. Furthermore, Qwest should not be required to
conduct a special study. Consequently, Qwest is not required to respond to this Data Request.
10 Data Request No. 22 - Efficient Use of Trunk Groups
Data Request No. 22 asks whether Qwest is aware of any state commission that has required
12 separate trunk groups for transit traffic. Qwest objected on the grounds that the request is overbroad
13 unduly burdensome to the extent it is not limited to Qwest interconnection agreements and further it
14 is tantamount to asking Qwest to do legal research for Level 3.
15 Resolution:
Date Request No, 22 is overbroad and Level 3 has equal access to the information sought.
17 Qwest should not be required to respond further.
18 Data Requests Nos. 24-27, 28(a), 29-33 - Qwest FX and FX-like Services
Data Request No. 24 asks if Qwest provides any kind of foreign exchange ("FX") service in
20 Arizona. Data Request No. 25 Requests information on the number of FX customers. Data Request
21 No. 33 addresses whether FX service associated with broadband is treated differently than voice
22 service. Neither Data Request Nos. 24 or 25 were included in Level 3's Matrix of disputed issues
23 that was provided at the August 3, 2005 proceeding. During the August 3, 2005 proceeding, Level 3
24 stated that it had included Data Request No. 33 in error. Qwest states that it has responded to these
25 requests. Thus, no action is required concerning Data Requests Nos. 24, 25 and 33.
Data Requests Nos. 26 , 27 and 28(a), and 29 through 32 seek information related to "FX-like
27 services. At the August 3, 2005 proceeding, Qwest agreed to respond to Data Requests Nos. 26-
28 28(a) and 29-31 based on the definition of "FS-like service" used in interrogatories in a Level 3
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
complaint docket in Washington. Qwest states that it is in the process of responding to these
2 requests, and will provide responses to Level 3 as soon as possible.
Data Request No. 32 asks whether Qwest knows or has reason to believe that any independent
4 LEC with whom Qwest has EAS arrangements provide FX or FX -like services. Qwest states that it
responded to Data Request No. 32. Data Request No. 32 was not included in Level 3's August 3
2005 Matrix.
Resolution:
Based on Qwest's previous responses to Data Request Nos. 24, 25, 32 and 33, and its
commitment to respond to Data Requests 26, 27, 28(a), 29 and 30, we take no further action with
10 respect to these items.
Data Requests Nos. 43 and 45 - POls and Other Facility Connections in Arizona
Data Request No. 43 seeks the number of physical Points of Interconnection (POIs) in
Arizona between Qwest and CLECs. Data Request No. 45 seeks the number of CLECs in Arizona
that connect to Qwest's network by means of Qwest supplied entrance facilities, CLEC supplied
facilities, and other means.
Qwest obj ects to these requests as it claims they do not bear on the issues in this proceeding
and are burdensome. Qwest claims that to respond would require it to review the interconnection
agreements in place for each CLEC that has an interconnection agreement in Arizona and to conduct
a special study of the facilities that are actually in place for each CLEC.
Level 3 argues that these requests are relevant to the issue regarding the points of
interconnection per LATA that may be allowed under the Interconnection Agreement. In addition
Level 3 states it is important for it to understand which points of interconnection Qwest considers to
be POIs under Qwest's interpretation of the law.
Resolution:
Neither of these items were included on the August 3, 2005, Matrix nor discussed at that
proceeding. However, we find Data Request No. 43 is relevant to the proceeding and Qwest should
be required to respond. Because the data sought in Data Request No. 45 is not contained in a central
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
repository, we find that it is unduly burdensome and Qwest should not be required to respond.
Requests for Admission Nos. 55-59 - Qwest's State and Federal tariffs
In Requests for Admission Nos. 55-, Level 3 seeks Qwest's admission that certain
information is not set forth in Qwest's state or federal tariffs. Qwest denied each of the requests, but
states that it did not conduct a review of the tariffs to ascertain the accuracy of its response. Level 3
argues that Qwest has failed to undertake the reasonable investigation of its tariffs necessary to
respond to these requests.
Resolution:
Qwest has responded to these requests. The tariffs speak for themselves and Level 3 is able to
10 review them to obtain the information it desires. We do not require Qwest to respond further.
11 Requests for Admissions Nos. 66, 82, 96 and 99
Qwest neither admits nor denies Requests for Admissions Nos. 66, 82, 96 and 99. Level
13 asserts that the Rules of Civil Procedure provide that to the extent a party cannot admit or deny a
14 request for admission, the answer shall specifically set forth in detail the reasons why. Level 3 argues
15 that Qwest has provided no reasonable bases for its failure to admit or deny.
Qwest claims it could neither admit nor deny the requests because they are not sufficiently
17 complete. In Request for Admission No. 66, Level 3 asks Qwest to admit that the OneFlex VoIP
18 offering is less expensive than the Choice Home Plus package. Qwest states that in its response, it
19 stated that it is not clear which particular OneFlex VoIP or the precise Choice Home Plus package
20 that it was meant to compare, this it could not be admitted or denied without further clarification.
Request for Admission No. 82 asks Qwest to admit that "Qwest's end offices and tandem
22 switches do not store any information indicating the address or location of any end user s premises.
23 (emphasis added) Qwest acknowledges that the switches do not contain specific street addresses for
24 individual customers, but states that they do contain information indicating the general geographic
25 location. Qwest states it cannot admit or deny because Level 3 has failed to define the level of
26 specificity that the phrase "any information" refers to. Qwest would deny the request on the basis
27 that its switches do store information that indicates the location of a customer.
Request for Admission No. 96 asks Qwest to admit "that where Qwest proposes to rate ISP-
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
bound traffic as toll traffic, Level 3 would pay Qwest $0.016270 per MOU instead of Qwest paying
Level 3 $.0007 per MOU for terminating a call received at the Parties ' POI." Qwest objected on the
ground that the request is ambiguous and compound.
Qwest states that Request for Admission No. 99 used the ambiguous term "this service
without identifying the particular service. Qwest further states that Level 3 has clarified the term to
refer to the service in the preceding request. Qwest states that it will respond to this Request for
Admission shortly.
Resolution:
As drafted, Request for Admission No. 66 does not provide sufficiently specific information
10 to allow Qwest to admit or deny the request, and thus Qwest should not be required to admit or deny
11 this request.
Through its explanation in its Response to the Motion to Compel, Qwest denies Request for
13 Admission No. 82, thus no further action is required.
Request for Admission No. 96 is compound and ambiguous, Qwest should not be required to
15 admit or deny this request.
16 Request for Admission No. 88 - Qwest's call Routing and Billing System
Request for Admission No. 88 asks Qwest to admit that its billing systems never sample any
18 data regarding the address or location of any end user s premises for purposes of billing. Qwest
19 denied this request "for the same reasons as set forth in Qwest's responses to Request Nos. 82 and
20 86.Qwest states that the fact that it denied the request is fully responsive under applicable
21 discovery rules.
22 Resolution:
Qwest has denied Request for Admission No. 88 , thus, satisfying its obligations.
24 Request for Admission No. 100 - Impact ofVoIP Services on Qwest Revenue.
Request No. 100 asks Qwest to admit its revenues may be adversely affected should
26 "providers of VoIP services attract a sizeable base of customers who use VoIP to bypass traditional
27 local exchange carriers." Qwest objected on the ground that this request is ambiguous and calls for
28 speculation. Qwest further states that it could not admit or deny this request because there were too
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
1 many variables to predict the result.
As drafted Request for Admission No. 100 is ambiguous and Qwest should not be compelled
to admit or deny.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Qwest shall respond to the outstanding Data Requests
and Request for Admission as discussed herein by August 26, 2005.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for filing discovery requests shall be extended
until August 31, 2005, and that all responses to discovery requests shall be made within five days of
8 receipt, and any objections made within three days of receipt.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any rejoinder or surrebuttal testimony may be presented
10 orally at the arbitration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Arbitrator(s) may rescind, alter, amend, or waive any
12 portion of this Procedural Order either by subsequent Procedural Order or by ruling at arbitration.
DATED this day of August, 2005.
JANE L. RODDA
ARBITRATOR
Copies of the foregoing mailed17 this day of August, 2005 to:
18 Thomas Campbell
Michael Hallam
19 LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
40 N. Central Avenue
20 Phoenix, AZ 85004
Attorneys for Level 3
Richard E. Thayer22 Erik Cecil
Level 3 Communications, LLC23 1015 Eldorado Boulevard
Broomfield, CO 80021
Henry T. Kelly25 Joseph E. Donovan
Scott A. Kassman26 Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP
333 West Wacker Drive
27 Chicago, IL 60606
DOCKET NO. T -03654A-05-0350 et al.
Christopher W. Savage
1 Cole, Raywid & Braverman, LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
2 Washington, DC 20006
Timothy Berg
Teresa Dwyer4 FENNEMORE CRAIG, PC
3003 N. Central Ave., suite 2600
5 Phoenix, AZ 85012
Attorneys for Qwest
Norman G. Curtright7 QWEST CORPORATION
4041 N. Central Ave., 11 th Floor
8 Phoenix, AZ 85012
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Senior Attorney10 Qwest Legal Dept/CD&S
1801 California St., Suite 900
11 Denver, Colorado 80202
12 Christopher Kempley, Chief Counsel
Legal Division13 ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION
1200 West Washington Street
14 Phoenix, Arizona 85007
15 Ernest Johnson, Director
Utilities Division16 ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION
1200 West Washington Street
17 Phoenix, Arizona 85007
19 By
Juanita Gomez
Secretary to Jane L. Rodda