20080502Petition.pdf

RECEiVEDMary S. Hobson
Attorney & Counselor
999 Main, Suite 1103
Boise, il 83702
208-385-8666
û8 HAY -2 AM 26
i tJ?\l"H) tJL.J 0
UTILITIES MISSION
May 2, 2008
VIA HAD DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretar
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington
Boise,ID 83702-5983
RE: Docket No. QWE- T -08- Ot.
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing with this Commission are an original and seven (7) copies of QWEST
CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ITS STATEMENT OF
GENERAL Y AVAILABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. If you have any
questions, please contact me. Than you for your cooperation in this matter.
Ver trly yours,~g40~
Mai SJiobson
Enclosures
RECEiVED
'ì r
í.~O
Mar S. Hobson (ISB. No. 2142)
999 Main, Suite 1103
Boise, ID 83702
Tel: [phone]
mar.hobson(fgwest.com
j""C¡l;
UTIUTl
Adam L. Sherr
Corporate Counsel, Qwest
1600 7th Avenue, Room 3206
Seattle, WA 98191
Tel: [phone]
adam. sherr(fgwest. com
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
In Re WITHDRAWAL of QWEST
COPORATION'S STATEMENT OF
GENERAL Y AVAILABLE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS
Case No. QWE-T-08-o'f
PETITION of QWEST CORPORATION
Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), by and though its undersigned attorneys, petitions
the Idaho Public Utilties Commission ("Commission") for permission to withdraw its
Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions (SGAT) and accompanying
exhibits on the grounds that it SGA T is superfuous, has become outdated due to changes
in applicable law, has not been used as the interconnection contract template in Idaho for
some time, and has not been updated since August 2004, as fully described below. Qwest
Petition of Qwest Corporation 1
fuer seeks a determination that the Performance Indicator Definitions (PIDs) and
Performance Assurance Plan (PAP), voluntarly offered by Qwest, are no longer
necessar and can be remoxed.
INTRODUCTION
1. Qwest is a Colorado corporation whose principal place of business in
Idaho is Boise. Qwest is the successor corporation to US West Communications, Inc.,
which provided telecommunications services in Idaho pursuant to Titles 61 and 62, Idaho
Code. Presently Qwest provides retail telecommunications servces in Idaho under Title
62, Idaho Code. For convenience, both Qwest and its predecessor shall be referred to as
"Qwest" in these proceedings.
2. Under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act" or "the
Act") Qwest is a Bell Operating Company ("BOC") as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 153 (35)
and operates as an "incumbent local exchange carer" ("ILEC") as defined in section
251(h) of the 1996 Act. 47 U.S.C. § 251(h).
3. Pursuant to the 1996 Act, ILECs such as Qwest are required to enter into
interconnection agreements with other providers of telecommuncations services who
request access to its network, facilties or services. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-252.
4. The 1996 Act also provided a means by which BOCs like Qwest could
gain entr into certain telecommunications markets, known as the in-region interLATA
servces markets, from which they had been legally precluded. 47 U.S.C. § 271.
Proceedings by which BOCs sought regulatory approval for this market entr
("interLATA freedoms") were termed "271 proceedings" and the path these proceedings
took though state and federal regulatory trbunals is often refered to as "the 271
process." As par of the 271 process, state regulatory bodies such as this Commission
wereto consult with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") as to whether a
paricular BOC had met the standards set out in section 271. 47 U.S.C. § 271 (d) (2) (B).
5. The Idaho Legislature in 1997 enacted Idaho Code § 62-615 (1), which
granted the Commission "full power and authority" to implement the 1996 Act.
JURISDICTION
Petition of Qwest Corporation 2
6. The Commission has jursdiction over this matter under section 615,
Title 62, Idaho Code.
QWEST'S SGAT
7. After the passage of the 1996 Act, Qwest in Idaho was actively engaged
in takng all steps necessar to comply with the Act and to successfully complete the
requirements for entry into the in-region, interLATA service markets though the 271
process.
8. Among these activities, Qwest negotiated numerous interconnection
agreements with competitive local exchange carrers (CLECs). Said agreements were
subsequently submitted to the Commission for approval pursuant to section 252(e) of the
1996 Act.
9. At the time Qwest began its effort to obtain 271 relief, it elected to obtain
state approval using a collaborative workshop process to explore and resolve the literally
hundreds of issues relating to specific provisions of Qwests proposed SGAT. In the 271
collaborative workshop process Qwest, CLECs, and commission staff members worked
through proposed contract language that would serve to implement the section 271
requirements as they were developed. Where the paries could not come to agreement by
themselves, competing language was submitted to the workshop arbitrator, John
Antonuk, for decision. At the time, the SGAT was the document that provided a single,
common vehicle for these collaborative workshops with CLECs and state commissions to
assure Qwests agreements met the section 271 checklist requirements
10. Qwest fied its original SGAT on June 9, 2000, and, as a result ofthe
collaborative workshop process, multiple revisions were made to the Idaho SGAT. The
most curent version of the SGAT is the "3rd Revised SGAT" filed July 25,2002.
11. The SGAT also sered as a guide for the ters Qwest would make
available to CLECs to align with the requirements of the 1996 Act and provided a
template for Qwests interconnection agreements between mid-2000 and August 2004.
Petition of Qwest Corporation 3
The first interconnection agreement based on the SGAT was signed by the paries in
December 2001, and approved by the Commission on Februar 26,2002.
12. On June 6, 2002, the Commission entered its "Final Decision on Qwests
Corporation's Compliance with Section 271" stating that it was prepared, when consulted
by the FCC, to advise that Qwest had adequately addressed the section 271 requirements.
The FCC approved Qwests application for market entry through the 271 process on
December 23, 2002.1
13. During this period the Idaho SGAT provided a template for numerous
interconnection agreements between Qwest and CLECs. However, subsequent to
August 2004, Qwest no longer offered its SGAT as an option for interconnection
agreements with CLECs in Idaho.
14. Since August, 2004, CLECs in Idaho have nevertheless entered into
seventeen (17) interconnection agreements, all of which were subsequently filed with the
Commission and approved.
SGAT DISCUSSION
Part One-wests 271 Approval Did Not Rely on the SGAT
15. Despite the utilty ofthe SGAT as a reference for the provisions
incorporated during the collaborative workshop phase ofthe 271 process, the SGAT itself
was not the basis for Qwests successful multi-state section 271 application to the FCC.
16. The 1996 Act provides two paths by which BOCs could seek approval to
enter new markets:
. 271 (c)(1)(A) provides that "A Bell operating company
meets the requirements of this subparagraph if it has
entered into one or more binding agreements that have
been approved under section 252 specifying the terms
and conditions under which the Bell operating company
is providing access and interconnection to its network
1 Application by Qwest Communications International, Inc. for Authorization to Provide In-Region,
InterLATA Services in the States of Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming, WC Docket No. 02-314, Memorandum Opinon and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 26303
(2002).
Petition of Qwest Corporation 4
facilities for the network facilities of one or more
unaffliated competing providers of telephone exchange
serice.. .."
. 271 (c)(1)(B) provides that "A Bell operating company
meets the requirements.ofthis subparagraph if, after 10
months after the date of enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, no such provider has
requested the access and interconnection descrbed in
subparagraph (A). ..and a statement ofthe terms and
conditions that the company generally offers to provide
such access and interconnection has been approved or
permitted to take effect by the State commission under
section 252(f)."
The path provided under subsection 271 (c)(1)(A) is known as "Track A," while that
provided under subsection 271(c)(1)(B) is referred to as "Track B."
17. In its Order approving Qwests request for 271 approval, the FCC noted at
paragraph 20:
In order for the Commission to approve a BOC's application (for
market freedom under section 271), the BOC must first
demonstrate that it satisfies the requirements of either section
271 (c)(I)(A) (Track A) or section 271(c)(1)(B) (Track B). To meet
the requirements of Track A, a BOC must have interconnection
agreements with one or more competing providers of "telephone
exchange serice. . . to residential and business subscrbers." In
addition, the Act states that "such telephone service may be offered
. . . either exclusively over (the competitor's) own telephone
exchange serice facilities or predominantly over (the
competitor's) own telephone exchange facilities in combination
with the resale of the telecommunications services of another
carer." The Commission has concluded that section 271 (c)(1)(A)
is satisfied if one or more competing providers collectively sere
residential and business subscribers, and that unbundled network
elements are a competing provider's "own telephone exchange
serce facilities" for purposes of section 271 (c)(1)(A). The
Commission has further held that a BOC must show that at least
one "competing provider" constitutes "an actual commercial
alterative to the BOC," which a BOC can do by demonstrating
that the provider serves "more than a de minimis number" of
subscribers. The Commission has held that Track A does not
require any paricular level of market penetration, and the D.C.
Petition of Qwest Corporation 5
Circuit has affirmed that the Act "imposes no volume requirements
for satisfaction of Track A. (footnotes omitted)
18. In requesting relief under section 271 in Idaho, Qwest followed the Track
A path, relying on the binding agreements it had with CLECs that had been approved by
the Commission under section 252 of the 1996 Act. It did not rely on its SGAT or pursue
the Track B alternative. On April 19,2002, the Commission issued its decision on
Qwest s compliance with the Track A, finding ''that Qwest satisfies the Track A
requirements." (Idaho PUC Decision Regarding Track A, Public Interest and 272 at 7)
19. The FCC, in its Memorandum and Order approving Qwests 271
application stated, "We conclude, as did the state commissions, that Qwest satisfies the
requirements of Track A." (Paragraph 21, FCC 02-332, adopted December 20,2002).
Part Two-The SGAT Is Not Necessary for Qwest to Meet Its 251 Obligations
20. Section 251 of the 1996 Act requires that Qwest enter into interconnection
agreements with other providers of telecommunications serces who request access to its
network, facilities or services. However, neither section 251 nor any other par of the Act
require an SGAT.
21. Rather, the 1996 Act provides that an SGAT is optional:
A Bell operating company may prepare and fie with a State commission a
statement of the ters and conditions that such company generally offers
within that State to comply with the requirements of section 251. . .
47 U.S.C. § 252 (f)(1) (emphasis added)
22. No provision of the 1996 Act requires an SGAT be in place or maintained.
In finding compliance with the 1996 Act requirements, the FCC demonstrated it was not
concerned whether a BOC presented an overarching SGAT or wholesale tariff
encapsulating all of its section 251 obligations. For example, in Maine CLECs attempted
to argue that the lack of a SGAT or tarff precluded a finding that Verzon was meeting
its section 251 obligations. The FCC, however, looked at the multiple interconnection
agreements Verizon had entered into with Maine CLECs and the abilty of other CLECs
Petition of Qwest Corporation 6
to opt into said agreements as evidence of continuing section 251 compliance.2 The FCC
paid paricular emphasis to the fact that section 252(f)(1) states that a BOC "may" fie a
SGAT, not that it has to file one.3
23. Furhermore, Qwest is not required to continue to make the SGAT
available simply because it was the basis of previously approved interconnection
agreements. Even though the SGAT has not been available for opt-in since August 2004,
CLECs in Idaho have entered into 17 interconnection agreements since Qwest stopped
allowing opt-in to its SGAT. All 17 of those agreements were approved by this
Commission. Given this experence with interconnection agreements in Idaho, it is
evident that Qwest is meeting its obligation to negotiate interconnection agreements with
those wishing to interconnect. The fact that Qwest continues to maintain multiple
interconneçtion agreèments in Idaho coupled with the rights of those CLECs under
section 252(i) demonstrates, that Qwest continues to meet its section 251 requirements.
24. To facilitate the process of enterng into an interconnection agreement,
Qwest makes available a "template" interconnection agreement ("Template Agreement").
The Template Agreement serves as Qwests initial offer to CLECs and can be adopted as
their interconnection agreement. Although the Template Agreement initially used the
language from the SGAT, unike the SGAT, it has continued to evolve. Today's
Template Agreement not only reflects the curent state ofthe law, but has been modified
to be more consistent in its language across the foureen states in which Qwest operates.
as a BOC. These "consistency" modifications were made with the encouragement of
CLECs who operated in multiple states and Qwest operations people who were applying
contractual requirements in diverse locations. In those instances where a specific state
commission has ordered substantive deviation from the language and intent of other
states, Qwest has preserved those state-specific modifications as par of the Template
Agreement offer for that paricular state. Eight of the seventeen interconnection
2 In the Matter of Application by Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc.
(d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise
Solutions), Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc., for Authorization to
Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services In Maine, CC Docket No. 02-61, 17 FCC Rcd 11659,
11687-11688 (June 19,2002)
3 Id. At11688,n. 185
Petition of Qwest Corporation 7
agreements approved by this Commission since August 2004 were based on the Template
Agreement for Idaho.
25. As Qwests initial offer, if the Template Agreement does not meet all ofa
CLECs business needs, it serves as a starting point for subsequent negotiations and, if
necessary, arbitrations, of interconnection agreements that are ultimately submitted to a
state commission for approval.
26. In addition, CLECs may opt-in to existing agreements between Qwest and
other carers that have been recently negotiated or arbitrated and approved by the
Commission under its section 252 authority.
27. The absence of an SGAT in no way diminishes the Commission's role in
overseeing and approving the terms and conditions of section 252 agreements. Qwest
submits every agreement containing 251 terms (including rates associated with those
products and servces) to the Commission for review and approval pursuant to the
requirements of section 252.
28. As a final safeguard, the Commission maintains its authority to serve as
arbitrator and to render the final decisions on disputed interconnection agreement terms
and conditions between Qwest and CLECs. The Commission also maintains îts authority
to reject any agreement or amendment if: a) it is found to discriminate against a
telecommunications carer not a pary to the agreement; b) the implementation of such
agreement or portion is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity;
or, c) the agreement does not meet the requirements of section 251.
QWEST'S PIDs and PAP
Part One-Origin of the PIDs and PAP
29. At the onset ofthe 271 process, the focus was on implementing wireline
competition. One critical element of that implementation was assurng the BOCs
provided quality service to the competitors to whom they provided interconnection and
other products and services used in their CLEC operations. In particular CLECs sought
assurance that service quality would be maintained once the BOCs received 271 approval
and re-entered the interLATA service markets.
Petition of Qwest Corporation 8
30. Among the BOCs, Bell Atlantic (now Verizon) was the first to receive 271
approval from the FCC. As a result, the Bell Atlantic application became a blueprint for
all other 271 submissions. In paricular Bell Atlantic's extensive, independent third-pary
Operations Support Systems (OSS) testing and voluntar plan to assure service quality
were seen as a useful approach. Included in that approach were:
. Development of clearly defined performance measures and standards; and,
. Adoption of performance assurance measures with substantial penalties
that created a strong financial incentive for Bell Atlantic's post-approval
compliance with the section 271 requirements.
31. As noted, Bell Atlantic's application, including its performance assurance
plan became a blueprint for other BOCs, like Qwest, who were seeking the FCC's
approval under section 271. Therefore, like Bell Atlantic, Qwest submitted to extensive
third-party testing of its OSS offerng and worked with interested paries to develop
perormance measures known as Performance Indicator Definitions ("PIDs") that would
be used to provide specific data about Qwests performance. Finally, Qwest voluntarly
put into place a Performance Assurance Plan ("PAP") that applies specific standards to
the perormance data to assure post-approval compliance with section 271 requirements.
32. Based on a snapshot ofthe industr as BOCs completed their 271
processes, Qwest voluntarily offered the PAP. PAPs were not required under the Act.
Instead, they were considered an anti-backsliding mechanism to assure that the pro-
competitive measures required prior to BOCs gaining access to the in-region, interLATA
markets were not compromised once interLATA freedoms were attained. Consequently,
PAPs went far beyond what had been considered commercially reasonable in ordinar
business-to-business agreements and required Qwest make payments for failure to meet
PIDs even where CLECs suffered no actual har.
Part Two-The PAP Was Never Intended to Be Permanent
33. During the workshops and negotiations in the 271 process, it was
anticipated that the PAP would not always be in place. In fact, terms were added to the
Petition of Qwest Corporation 9
Idaho PAP providing for its elimination. By its own terms, the Idaho PAP provides at
Section 16.3:
Qwest wil make the PAP available for CLEC interconnection agreements until
such time as Qwest eliminates its Section 272 affliate. At that time, the
Commission and Qwest shall review the appropriateness of the PAP and whether
its continuation is necessary. ..." (Emphasis added)
This reference to "Section 272" is to the 1996 Act. Essentially that section allowed
BOCs to provide in-region, interLAT A telecommunications services through separate
corporate affliates, if certain safeguards were in place. 47 U.S.C. § 272(a)(2). By its
own ters, many of the requirements in section 272 expire three years after a BOC is
authorized (through the 271 process) to provide in-region, interLATA serces. 47
U.S.C. § 272(f)(1). As noted above, the FCC granted Qwests section 271 authorization
for Idaho in an order released on December 23,2002. Therefore, pursuant to section
272( f)(1), the provisions of section 272 (other than section 272( e)) sunset by operation of
law for Qwest in Idaho effective December 23,2005. After that time Qwest was no
longer required to provide those in-region, interLATA serices through a section 272
affiliate.4 However, Qwest did not cease using its 272 affliates to offer its in-region
interLATA services because if Qwest had offered those services immediately itself, they
would have been subject to additional FCC regulations until the FCC issued a
forbearance order.
34. On February 20,2007, the FCC granted Qwests Petitionfor Forbearance
from Enforcement of the Commission's Dominant Carrier Rules as They Apply after 272
Sunsets.
5 In connection with this forbearance grant, Qwest provided the FCC with notice
that Qwest had stopped providing in-region, interstate, interLATA interexchange ("IXC
services") though section 272-compliant affiliates as of February 20,2007.
4 See Section 272(/(1) Sunset of the ROC Separate Afliate and Related Requirements, WC Docket No.
02-112, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 26869 (2002) (finding that section 272(£)(1) is best
interpreted as providing for a state-by-state sunset).
5 In this petition Qwest sought relief from FCC requirements that would have made any IXC
servces it provided subject to the stringent regulations known as "dominant carer regulations."
Petition of Qwest Corporation 10
35. Thus, the trggering event contemplated in section 16.3 ofthe Idaho PAP
occured as of Februar 20,2007. It is appropriate for the Idaho Commission to now
determine continuation ofthe PAP and PIDs is no longer necessar.
Part Three- The PAP Is Not Necessary
36. Since the creation of the PAP and continuing through Qwest s successful
271 process and entr into the in-region, interLATA market, Qwest has consistently
provided good serice to CLECs. Average Idaho performance since 2003 has been over
99%, as sumarzed below:
Percent Items Met b' Major PIC Category
Category 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Grand
Total
Billnq (BI)95.8%99.6%99.8%99.99%99.99%99.3%
Maintenance & Repair 99.3%99.4%99.6%99.5%99.7%99.5%
(MR)
Ordering &99.3%99.0%99.3%99.1%99.1%99.2%
Provisioninq (OP)
Pre-order/Order (PO)99.1%99.5%99.3%99.5%98.4%99.2%
Total 96.0%99.6%99.8%99.98%99.99%99.3%
37. Qwest remains committed to providing good serice to CLEC customers
and is prepared to include additional language in the Template Agreement that provides
additional wrtten assurance that Qwest wil continue to provide good serice to this
group of customers. Exhibit 1 to this Petition depicts Qwests proposed language for
sections, 6 (peraining to resale), 7 (interconnection) and 9 (unbundled network
elements). In each case the proposed language states Qwests commitment to providing
serice to CLECs that is at least as good as it provides to its own retail operations
("party"). The language also preserves the Commission's role in resolving any serce
quality concerns if the streamlined, business-to-business dispute resolution process
already contained in section 5.8 of the Template Agreement is unsuccessful in resolving
any of those concers.
Part Four--Exhibits Band K Should Be Removed
Petition of Qwest Corporation 11
38. In the interconnection agreements that have been approved by this
Commission, the PIDs and PAP may be found in Exhibits B and K respectively. Given
the natue of the PAP and PIDs, neither exhibit has historically been subject to individual
CLEC negotiations. CLECs either opted in and received the benefit, or believed these
exhibits were not needed and did not have them included in their interconnection
agreements. If a CLEC opted to include Exhibits B and K, it did not adopt a static
version of the PAP or PIDs. Instead the CLECs are informed and aware that the PAP and
PIDs are subject to future negotiations and modifications approved by the Commission,
as well to modifications from changes in law governing the paries' duties toward each
other and submitted to the Commission. For example, the Idaho PAP and PIDs were
modified by the Commission in Case No. QWE-T-03-23 by Order No. 30461.
39. Moreover, CLEC interconnection agreements with Qwest contain
provisions that address the fact that changes in law wil affect obligations under the
agreement. See e.g., Section 2.2 ofQwest's Negotiations Template. Given that the Idaho
PAPin section 16.3 explicitly sets out the role of the Commission in deterining whether
the PAP is necessar after Qwest ceases offering in-region, interLAT A serices though
section 272 affiliates, the agreements currently containing the PAP recognize the
possibilty of a regulatory deterination affecting the continuing availability of the PAP.
The Commission's continuing role and abilty to resolve any service quality concerns
provides additional support for a finding that the Idaho PAP is no longer necessar.
40. Therefore, Qwest asks that the Commission deterination that the Pils
and PAP are no longer necessary and that its finding constitutes a change of law that
removes Exhibits B and K from existing interconnection agreements that contain them.
See Exhibit 1 to this Petition, page 3.
WHEREFORE, Qwest respectfully prays for relief as follows:
1.
SGAT.
That the Commission enter an order allowing Qwest to withdraw its
2. That the Commission enter an order finding the PAP and PIDs are no
longer necessar and may be withdrawn.
Petition of Qwest Corporation 12
3. That the Commission find that its decision that the PAP and PIDS are no
longer necessar constitutes a change oflaw requiring the Exhibits Band K ofthe SGAT
(containing the PAP and PIDs) be removed from existing agreements and not be included
in future agreements.
4. That the Commission order such other relief as is appropriate in the
circumstances.
Dated this U day of May, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
Adam L. Sher
Corporate Counsel, Qwest
1600 7th Avenue, Room 3206
Seattle, WA 98191
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation
Petition of Qwest Corporation 13
Qwest Proposed Interconnection Agreement Language Changes
Section 6 - Resale
6.2.3 Qwest shall provide to CLEC Telecommuncations Serices for resale that are at
least equal in quality and in substantially the same time and maner that Qwest provides
these services to itself, its subsidiares, its Affliates, other Resellers, and Qwests retail
End User Customers. Qwest shall also provide resold services to CLEC in accordance
with the Commission's retail servce quality requirements, if any. Qwest further agrees to
reimburse CLEC for credits or fines and penalties assessed against CLEC as a result of
Qwests failure to provide serice to CLEC, subject to the understanding that any
payments made pursuant to this provision wil be subject to the following provisions:
6.2.3.1 Qwest shall provide service credits to CLEC for resold serces in
accordance with the Commission's retail serice requirements that apply to Qwest
retail serces, if any. Such credits shall be limited in accordance with the
following:
a) Qwests serice credits to CLEC shall be subject to the wholesale
discount;
b) Intentionally Left Blan.
c) Intentionally Left Blan.
d) Intentionally Left Blank.
e) In no case shall Qwests credits to CLEC exceed the amount Qwest
would pay a Qwest End User Customer under the servce quality
requirements, less any wholesale discount applicable to CLEC's resold
servces; and
f) In no case shall Qwest be required to provide duplicate
reimbursement or payment to CLEC for any servce qualiy failure
incident.
6.2.3.2 Fines and Penalties - Qwest shall be liable to pay to CLEC fines and
penalties for resold serices in accordance with the Commission's retail serice
requirements that apply to Qwest retail serces, if any. Such credits shall be
limited in accordance with the following:
a) Qwests fines and penalties paid to CLEC shall be subject to the
wholesale discount;
b) Intentionally Left Blank.
c) Intentionally Left Blan.
d) In no case shall Qwests fines and penalties to CLEC exceed the
amount Qwest would pay the Commission under the serce quality plan,
less any wholesale discount applicable to CLEC's resold serices; and
Qwest Petition Exhibit 1
Page 1 of3
e) In no case shall Qwest be required to provide duplicate
reimbursement or payment to CLEC for any service quality failure
incident.
6.2.3.3 If CLEC contends that Qwest does not provide performance to CLEC in
the provision of resale services at a level that is at least equal in quality to that it
gives to itself, its Affliates, subsidiares and Qwests retail End User Customers,
CLEC shall initiate the dispute resolution process contained in Section 5.18 of
this Agreement. Nothing herein shall deprive CLEC of its rights, if any, to pursue
an action with the Commission for any alleged Qwest failure to provide quality
serice under this section, in addition to any other remedies allowed under this
Agreement, the laws of the state of Idaho, and federal law.
Section 7 - Interconnection
7.1.1.1 Qwest wil provide to CLEC Interconnection at least equal in quality to that
provided to itself, to any subsidiar, Affliate, or any other pary to which it provides
Interconnection. Notwithstanding specific language in other sections of this Agreement,
all provisions of this Agreement regarding Interconnection are subject to ths
requirement. Qwest wil provide Interconnection under rates, terms and conditions that
are just, reasonable and non-discriminatory. In addition, Qwest shall comply with all
state wholesale and retail service quality requirements, if any.
7.1.1.2 If CLEC contends that Qwest does not provide performance to CLEC in the
provision of Interconnection at a level that is at least equal in quality to that it gives to
itself, its affliates and subsidiaries, or any other pary to which it provides
Interconnection, CLEC shall initiate the dispute resolution process contained in Section
5.18 of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall deprive CLEC of its rights, if any, to pursue
an action with the Commission for any alleged Qwest failure to provide quality servce
under this section, in addition to any other remedies allowed under this Agreement, the
laws ofthe state ofIdaho, and federal law.
Section 9 - Unbundled Network Elements
9.1.2 Qwest shall provide non-discrminatory access to Unbundled Network Elements
on rates, terms and conditions that are non-discrminatory, just and reasonable. The
quality of an Unbundled Network Element Qwest provides, as well as the access
provided to that element, wil be equal between all Carrers requesting access to that
element; second, where Techncally Feasible, the access and Unbundled Network
Element provided by Qwest wil be provided in "substantially the same time and maner"
to that which Qwest provides to itself or to its Affiliates. In those situations where Qwest
does not provide access to Network Elements to itself, Qwest wil provide access in a
maner that provides CLEC with a meanngful opportnity to compete. For the perod of
time Qwest provides access to CLEC to an Unbundled Network Element, CLEC shall
Qwest Petition Exhibit 1
Page 2 of3
have exclusive use of the Network Element, except when the provisions herein indicate
that a Network Element wil be shared. Notwithstanding specific language in other
sections of this Agreement, all provisions of this Agreement regarding Unbundled
Network Elements are subject to this requirement. In addition, Qwest shall comply with
all state wholesale servce quality requirements, if any.
9. i .2.1 If CLEC contends that Qwest does not provide performance to CLEC in
the provision of Unbundled Network Elements at a level that is at least equal in
quality to, where Technically Feasible, that it gives to itself, its affliates and
subsidiares, CLEC shall initiate the dispute resolution process contained in
Section 5.18 ofthis Agreement. Nothing herein shall deprive CLEC of its rights,
if any, to pursue an action with the Commission for any alleged Qwest failure to
provide quality serice under ths section, in addition to any other remedies
allowed under this Agreement, the laws of the state of Idaho, and federal law.
Section 20 - Service Performance
Delete this section completely as well as Exhibits B and K
Qwest Petition Exhbit 1
Page 3 of3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do herby cefy that a tre and corrt copy ~orgOing PETmON of QWEST
CORPORATION was served on the:l-l day of 2008 on the following individuals:
Jean D. Jewell
Idao Public Utilties Commssion
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, il 83702
Telephone [phone]
Facsimle: [phone]
j j ewellíiuc.state.id. us
i Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnght Delivery
Facsimile
Email
~¡lLrMar Hobson
Attorney for Qwest Corporation