20050919Easton rebuttal.pdf

Mary S. Hobson, ISB #2142
Stoel Rives LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise, ill 83702-5958
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
i:.CEIVED
ILED
,""
J ."'1
1 i
,""",,,.
""'I"r C"-f~UUJ .)trJ 6 Pr:f 4:
. iT! i ;~~ i r!rJ ~rj y ~~: I~ ! C; t L I 1 j L ,) L 0 11t'1 1 S S ION
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street - 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80202-1984
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys Representing 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 RATE
TERMS, AND CONDITIONS OF
INTERCONNECTION WITH QWEST
CORPORATION
CASE NO. QWE-05-
REBUTT AL TESTIMONY
WILLIAM R. EASTON
QWEST CORPORATION
September 16, 2005
(Disputed Issue Nos. 1 , 5, 13 , 17, 18 21 and 22)
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
ABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
DISPUTED ISSUE NO.1: COSTS OF INTERCONNECTION
DISPUTED ISSUE NO.2: COMBINING TRAFFIC ON INTERCONNECTIONTRUNKS
DISPUTED ISSUE NO.5: SHOULD INTERCONNECTION TERMS BE
IN CO RPO RATED BY REFERENCE?
DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 13: LOCAL INTERCONNECTION SERVICE
DE FINITI ON
VII. DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 17: TRUNK FORECASTING
VIII. DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 18: JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATION FACTORS
IX.
XI.
DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 21: ORDERING OF INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS
DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 22: COMPENSATION FOR CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,OCCUPATION AND BUSINESS
ADDRESS.
My name is William R. Easton.My business address is 1600 7th Avenue, Seattle
. ..
Washington. I am employed as Director - Wholesale Advocacy. I am testifying on
behalf of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"
ARE YOU THE SAME WILLIAM EASTON WHO FILED DIRECT
TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING?
Yes.
II.PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
The purpose of my testimony is to respond to the Level 3 testimony of Mr. Gates
and Mr. Duc1oo. Specifically, I reply to the Level 3 testimony as it relates to the
following disputed issues:
Issue 1: Costs of Interconnection
Issue 2: Combining Traffic on Interconnection Trunks
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 1
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Issue 5 Should Interconnection Terms be Incorporated by
Reference?
Issue 13: Local Interconnection Service Definition
Issue 17: Trunk Forecasting
Issue 18: Jurisdictional Allocation Factors
Issue 21: Ordering of Interconnection Trunks
Issue 22: Compensation for Construction
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 2
III. DISPUTED ISSUE NO.1: COSTS OF INTERCONNECTION
IN DISCUSSING THE COSTS OF INTERCONNECTION AT PAGE 5 OF
HIS TESTIMONY, MR. GATES CLAIMS THAT QWEST'S NETWORK
ARCHITECTURE "DOES NOT REMOTELY REFLECT WHAT AN
EFFICIENT CONSTRUCT TODAY.PLEASEFIRMWOULD
COMMENT.
Mr. Linse addresses Mr. Gates ' allegations from a network perspective. From a
policy perspective, and from the perspective of the issues that this Commission
must resolve, it is irrelevant which company has the more or less efficient network.
Issue raises the question of which party is responsible for the costs of
interconnection. Embedded in this question is the assumption that interconnection
to Qwest's network, regardless of its alleged state of technological obsolescence, is
valuable to Level 3. My direct testimony and the direct testimony of Mr. Linse
, explain that Qwest offers Level 3 a number of different options for interconnection
and allows Level 3 to select the option that best meets its needs given its business
strategy, its own network configuration, and its desire to interconnect with the
Qwest network. The costs related to each of these options have been identified
discussed and approved by this Commission in its cost docket proceedings. There
is no question that, under the Act, Qwest is allowed to recover costs that are just
and reasonable and based on the cost of providing service.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 3
ON PAGE 12 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. GATES STATES THAT THE
POINT OF INTERCONNECTION (POI) IS NORMALLY VIEWED AS THE
FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL DEMARCATION POINT THAT DEFINES
PARTY'AND OPERATIONALFINAN CIALWHEREONE
OBLIGATIONS THE OTHER PARTY'END AND WHERE
OBLIGATIONS BEGIN. DO YOU AGREE?
The POI is clearly the physical demarcation point between the partiesNo.
networks, but it is not necessarily the demarcation point from financial
perspective. Whether Level 3 will incur expense on Qwest's side of the POI will
depend on the form of interconnection that Level chooses.As Mr. Linse
explained in his testimony, the POI is merely the point at which the two networks
meet, but by itself it does not establish interconnection. If, for example, Level 3
requires an entrance facility to bring its traffic from the POI to the Qwest switch
Level 3 will be required to pay for its use of that facility as provided in the FCC'
rule 51. 709(b), which states:
The rate of a carrier providing transmission facilities dedicated to
the transmission of traffic between two carriers ' networks shall
recover only the costs of the proportion of that trunk capacity used
by an interconnecting carrier to send traffic that will terminate on
the providing carrier network. Such proportions may be
measured during peak periods.
Clearly, the FCC rules allow for Qwest to be compensated for the use of facilities
on its side of the POI.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 4
AT PAGE 12 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. GATES STATES THAT FCC
RULE 51. 703(b) REQUIRES THAT EACH CARRIER BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE COSTS OF ITS OWN NETWORK ON ITS SIDE OF THE POI.
IS THAT A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF 51.703(b)?
No. Rule 51.703(b) states that "A LEC may not assess charges on any other
telecommunications carrier for telecommunications traffic that originates on the
LECs network. (Italics added). This rule pertains only to the costs associated
with telecommunications traffic originated by a local exchange carrier. It does not
state that each carrier is responsible for all costs on its side of the POI, as Mr. Gates
has suggested.
MR. GATES DISCUSSES "MEET POINT" INTERCONNECTION AT
PAGE 42 OF HIS TESTIMONY AND STATES THAT THE FCC HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT WITH THIS TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT "EACH
PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS OWN COSTS IN GETTING TO A
MEET POINT.IS THIS AN ISSUE AT DISPUTE IN THIS
ARBITRATION?
No. As I discussed in my direct testimony, section 7.2.3 of the agreement that
Qwest proposes allows for Mid-Span Meet POI interconnection, 1 which would
involve Qwest and Level 3 each building facilities to the meet point and each being
Local Competition Order ~ 553, cited by Mr. Gates refers to "meet point arrangements (or mid-
span meets).
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 5
responsible for its own costs. This form of interconnection does not require
entrance facilities.
WHAT, THEN, IS THE CONFUSION?
Mr. Gates seems to confuse establishing a Mid-Span Meet point with another form
of interconnection that does require entrance facilities.The relative use (RUF)
calculations, which apply to an entrance facility purchased from Qwest, do not
apply to a Mid-Span Meet Point of Interconnection. Section 7.2.3 states that
under this latter option
, "
( e Jach Party will be responsible for its portion of the build
to the Mid-Span Meet POI." Thus, to the extent that Level 3 seeks to avoid
financial responsibility for entrance facilities provided by Qwest, it is free, under
this agreement, to select the Mid-Span Meet POI option and thus avoid charges
based on the RUF calculation.
ON PAGE 43, MR. GATES STATES THAT "
...
QWEST WILL TRY TO
ASSIGN SOME OF THE COSTS OF ITS OWN NETWORK ON ITS SIDE
OF THE POI TO LEVEL 3, BASED IN SOME WAY ON THE AMOUNTS
OF TRAFFIC THAT QWEST SENDS LEVEL 3 AND VICE VERSA. THAT
IS UNREASONABLE IN AND OF ITSELF.IS QWEST BEING
UNREASONABLE?
No. Qwest is merely complying with FCC rule 51.709(b) cited earlier, which
allows for cost recovery in proportion to the parties' usage of the facilities. If Level
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 6
subscribes to a Qwest facility, it is entirely reasonable for Qwest to be
compensated for network capacity used by Level 3 to transmit traffic that will
terminate on the Qwest network. I would add that Mr. Gates' testimony is also at
odds with the testimony of Mr. Ducloo, who states on page 5 of his direct testimony
that "the parties agree that the cost of facilities used to connect their networks will
be split based on relative use.
ON PAGE 43 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. GATES ALLEGES THAT
QWEST IS SEEKING TO "UNFAIRL Y AND UNREASONABLY"
EXCLUDE ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC THAT IT SENDS LEVEL 3 FROM THE
RELATIVE USE CALCULATION. AT PAGE 6 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR.
DUCLOO CHARGES THAT REMOVING ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC FROM
THE CALCULATION IS A "SLEIGHT-OF-HAND.PLEASE COMMENT.
Although Mr. Gates argues that "there is no basis for excluding ISP-bound traffic
from any RUF calculation " both he and Mr. Ducloo are certainly aware that
commissions in a number of Qwest states have ruled that Internet-related traffic
should be excluded when calculating the relative use factor (RUF) by the
originating carrier. Given the previous rulings on this issue, Qwest's proposal to
exclude this traffic is neither "unreasonable" nor accomplished through a "sleight of
hand.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 7
HAVE FEDERAL COURTS REVIEWED THE ISSUE OF EXCLUDING ISP
BOUND TRAFFIC?
Yes. Qwest's language and position have been subj ect to federal court review in
both Oregon and Colorado, and both courts upheld Qwest's language.Judge
Nottingham of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently
addressed this issue and affirmed that Qwest's language accurately reflects the law.
In particular, Judge Nottingham held that the rules that relate to relative use, 47
R. ~~ 703(b) and 709(b), apply only to "telecoI111TI.unications traffic" and, under
the unambiguous terms of the ISP Remand Order Internet-bound traffic is not
telecommunications traffic. ,,3 He further held that because Internet-bound traffic is
not "telecommunications traffic " Rule 709(b) is inapplicable and the Colorado
commission properly excluded Internet-bound traffic from the relative use
provisions of the parties' interconnection agreement.4 Moreover, Judge Nottingham
upheld the Colorado commission policy determinations, the same policy
determinations the FCC made in the ISP Remand Order and that Qwest relies upon
2 Order and Memorandum of Decision Level Communications, LLC v. Pub. Uti/so Comm n of Colorado,
Civil Action No. Ol-2455 (CBS) (D. Colo. Dec. 8 2003) Colorado Level Order and Memorandum
of Decision
);
Opinion and Order Level Communications, LLCv. Public Uti/so Comm n of Oregon
CV 01-1818 (D. Or. Nov. 25, 2002) (slip op.
See Colorado Level Order and Memorandum of Decision at 23.
Id. at 22.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 8
here, i.e., that costs of serving ISPs should be absorbed by ISPs, not Qwest and its
customers.
MR. GATES STATES THAT EXCLUDING THE ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC IS
CONTRARY TO THE ECONOMIC RULE OF COST CAUSATION. DO
YOU AGREE?
In a previous arbitration between Level 3 and Qwest, the ColoradoNo.
Commission directly addressed the issue of cost causation, stating:
When connecting to an ISP served by a CLEC, the ILEC end-user
acts primarily as the customer of the ISP, not as a customer of the
ILEC. The end-user should pay the ISP; the ISP should charge the
cost-causing end-user. The ISP should compensate both the ILEC
(Qwest) and the CLEC (Level 3) for costs incurred in originating
and transporting the ISP-bound call. Therefore, we agree with
Qwest that Internet related traffic should be excluded when
determining relative use of entrance facilities and direct trunked
transport. 6
Qwest believes that this is a reasonable principle, and thus believes that this
Commission should adopt this principle for Idaho.
Id. at 25.
In the Matter of Petition of Level Communications LLC, for Arbitration Pursuant to~ 252(b) of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Establish an Interconnection Agreement With Qwest
Corporation docket No. 00B-601T (Colorado PUC, March 16, 2001), p. 36.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 9
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO MR. GATE'S CLAIMS AT PAGE 46 OF HIS
TESTIMONY, THAT QWEST IS ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT ITS OWN
NETWORK COSTS TO LEVEL 3?
The reality is that it is Level 3 who is attempting to shift costs. As the Colorado
Commission noted in the order just cited, it is Level 3 who is attempting to shift the
cost of providing service to its ISP customers to Qwest. These costs should not be
borne by Qwest.
AT PAGE 45 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. GATES STATES THAT UNDER
FCC RULE 51.703(b), QWEST HAS AN OBLIGATION TO COMPENSATE
LEVEL 3 FOR ALL CALLS WHICH ORIGINATE ON QWEST'
NETWORK. DO YOU AGREE?
No. Clearly, under the FCC's rules, Qwest has an obligation to compensate Level 3
for "telecommunications traffic" that originates on its network. The ISP-bound
traffic in question here, however, has been defined as "information access" by the
FCC and, as such is explicitly excluded from the FCC'definition of
telecommunications traffic.
ON PAGE 42, MR. GATES STATES THAT THE FCC'TRIENNIAL
? FCC rule 51.701(b)(I) derIDes "telecommunications traffic" as traffic "exchanged between a LEC
and a telecommunications carrier other than a CMRS provider except for telecommunications traffic
that is interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such
access.(Italics added).
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 10
REVIEW REMAND ORDER HELD THAT ENTRANCE FACILITIES ARE
NO LONGER TO BE PROVIDED - AT LEAST AT TELRIC-BASED
RATES." IS THIS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS WELL?
No. The FCC determined that ILECs were no longer required to make unbundled
elements available for use as entrance facilities. As Qwest's proposed language in
the interconnection agreement makes clear Qwest continues to offer entrance
facilities as an interconnection option. These entrance facilities are offered at
TELRIC rates.
AT PAGE 22, MR. GATES REFERS TO PARAGRAPH 995 OF THE FCC'
LOCAL COMPETITION ORDERs STATING THAT ONCE A POI IS
EST ABLISHED IT CAN BE USED FOR THE EXCHANGE OF ALL TYPES
OF TRAFFIC. IS THIS AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF PARAGRAPH
995.
No. Mr. Gates refers to only a portion of the paragraph. The full text of paragraph
995 reads as follows:
We conclude that, if a company provides both telecommunications
and information services it must be classified as
telecommunications carrier for purposes of section 251 , and
subject to the obligations under section 251(a), to the extent that it
is acting as a telecommunications carrier. We also conclude that
telecommunications carriers that have interconnected or gained
8 See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of
1996, 11 FCC Rec. 15499 (August 8, 1996), aff'd in part and rev d in part, Iowa Uti/so Bd.
FCC 525 U.S. 1133 (1999)(the Local Competition Order
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 11
access under sections 251(a)(1), 251(c)(2), or 251(c)(3), may offer
information services through the same arrangement, so long as they
are offering telecommunications services through the same
arrangement as well. Under a contrary conclusion, a competitor
would be precluded from offering information services in
competition with the incumbent LEC under the same arrangement
thus increasing the transaction cost for the competitor. We find this
to be contrary to the pro-competitive spirit of the 1996 Act.
rejecting this outcome we provide competitors the opportunity to
compete effectively with the incumbent by offering a full range
services to end users without having to provide some services
inefficiently through distinct facilities or agreements. In addition
we conclude that enhanced service providers that do not also
provide domestic or international telecommunications, and are thus
not telecommunications carriers within the meaning of the Act, may
not interconnect under section 251. (Italics added.
It is clear that telecommunications carriers are allowed to interconnect and, having
done so, may carry both information services and telecommunications services.
is also clear that companies that do not provide telecommunications services are not
entitled to interconnect under section 251. What is not clear is whether Level 3 has
any end-user telecommunications customers, which raises the question whether it is
in fact a telecommunications carrier or an enhanced service provider.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE LEVEL
TESTIMONY ON ISSUE NO.
Yes. As I explained in my direct testimony, and as Level 3 details in the matrix of
disputed issues, Issue 1 is comprised of 10 subparts. It is worth noting that, other
than the high-level discussion about points of interconnection compensation on
each party s side of the POI and the RUF calculation, to which I have just
responded, Level 3 has offered neither detailed objections to Qwest's proposed
QWE- T -05-11 Easton, W (REB)
September 16, 2005 Qwest Corporation
Page 12
language, nor an explanation of why Level 3' s language is appropriate. The
Commission should therefore adopt Qwest's contract language on this issue.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 13
IV. DISPUTED ISSUE NO.2: ALL TRAFFIC ON INTERCONNECTION
TRUNKS
AT PAGE 6 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. GATES STATES THAT QWEST
WANTS LEVEL 3 TO SEPARATE TRAFFIC AND ROUTE IT OVER
DIFFERENT TRUNK GROUPS BASED ON WHETHER THE TRAFFIC
FALLS INTO" ARBITRARY" CATEGORIES. IS THIS WHAT QWEST IS
PROPOSING?
No. First, the "arbitrary" categories to which Mr. Gates refers are anything but
arbitrary. These categories (e.g. local vs. toll) have long been established and
maintained by the telecommunications companies and regulators alike.Each
category has its own well-recognized intercarrier compensation mechanism.
More importantly, Qwest does allow all traffic types to be combined on a single
trunk group. Qwest's proposed language in section 7.2 of the agreement
allows for the combining of traffic over the same Feature Group D (FGD) trunk.
But, as I explained in my direct testimony, Qwest is not able to allow both local and
switched access traffic to be combined over LIS trunks because LIS trunks are not
capable of producing records for the billing of switched access charges associated
with toll or interexchange services. In addition to the systems changes necessary to
create Jointly Provided Switched Access records from LIS trunks, there are
extensive billing changes that have the potential to be extremely expensive to
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 14
implement. There are also potential network changes and multiple process changes
required to reflect the changed manner in which LIS trunks will be used. Finally,
Level 3' s proposal would necessitate a change in Qwest's access catalog provisions
which spell out how switched access is ordered, provisioned and billed today.
Combining all traffic over FGD trunks would allow for the efficiencies that Level 3
claims it is seeking, while allowing Qwest to use its existing processes and access
tariffs for billing the appropriate tariffed rates for switched access and for producing
the necessary Jointly Provided Switched Access records used by other ILECs
CLECs and wireless carriers.
ON PAGE 27, MR. GATES SPECULATES THAT QWEST'S TRUNKING
PROPOSAL APPEARS TO BE DESIGNED TO "DISADV ANT AGE
DRIVE ITS COMPETITORS FROM THE MARKET PLACE." PLEASE
COMMENT.
Qwest's trunking proposal here is entirely consistent with what Qwest has offered
every other carrier, and with what the Commission has approved in numerous ICAs.
Despite Mr. Gates ' overheated rhetoric and speculation, the accurate and more
rational explanation is that Qwest has offered Level 3 a solution that allows Qwest
to use the catalog provisions , processes and systems it has in place, and to avoid
investing significant amounts in systems and processes to meet the demands of a
single carrier.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 15
ON PAGE 35, MR. DUCLOO OFFERS THAT LEVEL 3 WILL SEND TOLL
TRAFFIC THAT DOES NOT TERMINATE TO QWEST END USERS, OR
UNE/RESALE CUSTOMERS TO QWEST TOLL TANDEMS WHERE
ADEQUATE RECORDINGS FOR THE THIRD PARTIES CAN BE MADE.
DOES THIS ALLEVIATE QWEST'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE USE OF
FACTORS FOR BILLING?
No. Level 3's offer does not reduce the systems changes required of Qwest to
apply the factors, and the appropriate tariffed rates, to traffic on LIS trunks. Nor
does it eliminate the issue of the third parties' need for Jointly Provided Switched
Access records. It also does not remove the need for Qwest to modify its state
catalogs and federal access tariffs to allow for this new way of ordering,
provisioning and billing switched access service.I would also note that the
proposed agreement filed by Level 3 does not include language that describes how
traffic destined to non-Qwest end users would be handled. Thus, there is no
language for the Commission to even consider regarding this. The Commission
should therefore adopt Qwest's contract language on Issue No 2.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 16
V. DISPUTED ISSUE NO.5: SHOULD INTERCONNECTION TERMS BE
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE?
IN DISCUSSING ISSUE NO.5 ON PAGE 8 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR.
GATES STATES THAT IT IS LARGELY "LEGAL" IN NATURE. PLEASE
CO MMENT .
There is apparently still confusion about this issue. Qwest's response to the Level 3
Petition for Arbitration and my direct testimony explain that Qwest is not proposing
to incorporate SGA T language into the interconnection agreement by reference.
Rather, the SGA T language was cited in the contract negotiation template as a
means to highlight the fact that state-specific language was to be a part of the
proposed language for the states cited. The appropriate proposed language has been
included in the interconnection agreement that Qwest filed with its reply to the
Level 3 petition. Level 3 has yet to state whether this explanation allows for the
closure of this issue or whether it is objecting to the proposed language. The
Commission should therefore adopt Qwest's contract language on this issue.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 17
VI. DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 13: LOCAL INTERCONNECTION SERVICE
DEFINITION
DID LEVEL 3 FILE ANY TESTIMONY SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO
THE DEFINITION OF LOCAL INTERCONNECTION SERVICE?
No. Since Level 3 did not file any testimony specifically objecting to Qwest'
proposed language, the Commission should adopt Qwest's contract language on
Issue No 13.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 18
VII. DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 17: TRUNK FORECASTING
DID LEVEL 3 FILE ANY TESTIMONY SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO
TRUNK FORECASTING?
No. Thus, since Level 3 did not file any testimony specifically objecting to Qwest'
proposed language, the Commission should adopt Qwest's contract language on this
Issue.
QWE- T -05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 19
VIII. DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 18: JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATION
FACTORS
AT PAGE 25 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. GATES ARGUES THAT THE
USE OF BILLING FACTORS IS A SIMPLE, INEXPENSIVE WAY TO
RESOLVE BILLING ISSUES RELATED TO ALLOWING ALL TRAFFIC
TYPES ON A LIS TRUNK GROUP. DO YOU AGREE?
No. Changing Qwest systems to allow for the use of factors is not a trivial matter
and would require Qwest to significantly rework its systems and processes. In
addition, Level 3' s "factors" proposal relies on estimates of traffic, based
periodic sampling, rather than on recordings of actual traffic information, which is a
clearly superior method and is what Qwest is able to use today. There is simply no
need to go through a process of developing estimates when there is already a system
in place (FGD) that does this, based on actual traffic recording.
AT PAGES 34 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. DUCLOO ARGUES THAT
QWEST ALREADY USES FACTORS TO DETERMINE HOW MANY
MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO ACCESS CHARGES AND HOW MANY
ARE SUBJECT TO RECIPROCAL COMPENSATION. IS HE CORRECT?
No. Mr. Ducloo apparently misunderstands how Qwest uses the Percent Local
Usage (PLU) factor. The PLU is used only with traffic that does not contain a
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 20
calling party number, and thus cannot be jurisdictionalized based on a comparison
of the calling and called parties' numbers. In these situations , the PLU is applied to
the bucket of these "unidentified" calls to determine what percent should be billed
at the local rate. These calls represent a small minority of the total number of calls.
The jurisdiction for all other calls is based on a comparison of the calling and called
parties' numbers.
IT APPEARS THAT THE LEVEL 3 PROPOSED LANGUAGE REQUIRES
QWEST TO PROVIDE FACTORS TO LEVEL 3. ARE SUCH FACTORS
NECESSARY?
No. Qwest believes that Level 3 is able to bill accurately today. Level 3 provides
no reasons why Qwest-provided factors would be necessary in the future.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON LEVEL 3'
PROPOSED FACTORS?
Yes. Level 3' s proposed language does not include a factor for intrastate toll
traffic. It is unclear to Qwest how this type of traffic would be handled under Level
3' s proposal.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 21
IX. DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 21: ORDERING OF INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS
DID LEVEL 3 FILE ANY TESTIMONY SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO
THE ORDERING OF INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS?
No. Thus, since Level 3 did not file any testimony specifically objecting to Qwest'
proposed language, the Commission should adopt Qwest's contract language on this
Issue.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 22
X. DISPUTED ISSUE NO. 22: COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION
DID LEVEL 3 FILE ANY TESTIMONY SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO
COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION?
No. Since Level 3 did not file any testimony specifically objecting to Qwest's
proposed language, the Commission should adopt Qwest' s contract language on
Issue No 22.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 23
XI.SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
Despite the pages and pages of contract language at dispute in the arbitration
Level 3 has failed to file testimony on the contract language itself, offering neither
detailed objections to Qwest's language, nor explanations of why its own proposed
language is appropriate.Instead, Level 3 offers only high-level philosophical
discussions, inaccurate interpretations of FCC rules based on fragments that are
taken out of context, and repeated claims that Qwest is unreasonable, backward-
thinking and somehow should be punished for the fact that it was once a regulated
monopoly.However, the determination of the appropriate language for the
interconnection agreement must be based on the language itself, in conjunction with
the language of the Act, the FCC rules implementing the Act, this Commission
own rulings and common sense, and not on rhetoric.
In its proposed interconnection agreement, Qwest offers Level 3 several different
options for interconnecting with the Qwest network. These options have been
identified and discussed before this Commission in various cost dockets and have
been approved by this Commission. Despite Level 3' s denials, there is no question
that under the Act, Qwest is allowed to recover costs that are just and reasonable
and that are based on the costs of providing interconnection. Indeed, it only makes
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 24
sense that Qwest be allowed to charge for network capacity used by Level 3 to send
traffic that will terminate on the Qwest network.
In this arbitration, Level 3 has raised objections to the concept of a relative use
factor calculation and, specifically, to Qwest's proposal to exclude ISP-bound
traffic from the calculation of the RUF. These objections are misplaced, as the FCC
has specifically provided for compensation based upon the relative usage of the
parties, and this Commission (and a federal court) has specifically ruled in the
parties ' previous arbitration proceeding that ISP-bound traffic should be excluded
from the relative use calculation.
Finally, Level 3 mischaracterizes Qwest's trunking options by stating that Qwest
refuses to allow Level 3 to combine all traffic on a single trunk group. Level 3 fails
to acknowledge that Qwest has agreed to allow the combining of all traffic over
Feature Group D trunks. This proposal allows for the efficiencies that Level 3
claims it is seeking, while allowing Qwest to use existing tariffs, processes and
systems to bill appropriate rates for switched access and for producing Jointly
Provided Switched Access records. This proposal also has the benefit of using
actual recordings of traffic for billing purposes, rather than using "estimated
factors " as Level 3 proposes.
For all of these reasons, Qwest respectfully requests that the Commission approve
and adopt Qwest's language as it relates to these issues.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 25
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
Yes, it does.
QWE-05-
September 16, 2005
Easton, W (REB)
Qwest Corporation
Page 26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 16th day of September, 2005, I served the foregoing
REBUTT AL TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. EASTON upon all parties of record in this
matter as follows:
Jean D. Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83702
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
iiewell~puc.state.id.
Weldon Stutzman
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83702
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
weldon. stutzman~puc. idaho. gov
John Antonuk
Liberty Consulting Group
65 Main Street
O. Box 1237
Quentin, PA 17083-1237
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
antonuk~li bertyconsultinggro up. com
Erik Cecil
Level 3 Communications LLC
1025 Eldorado Boulevard
Broomfield, CO 80021
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
erik.cecil(f!)leve13 .com
Boise-187629.l 0061273-00018
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
Henry T. Kelly
Joseph E. Donovan
Scott A. Kassman
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
hkell y~kelleydrye. com
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Dean J. Miller (ISB #1968)
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2564
Boise, ill 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
joe~mcdevitt-miller.com
Attorneys for Level Communications
Brandi L. Ge hart, PL
Legal Assistant to Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
Boise-187629.10061273-00018