20080707Comments.pdf

WELDON B. STUTZMAN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 3283
I''~\0: ",j
Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W. WASHINGTON
BOISE, ID 83702-5983
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF )
QWEST CORPORATION REQUESTING )
AUTHORIZATION TO WITHDRAW ITS )
STATEMENT OF GENERALLY AVAILABLE )TERMS AND CONDITIONS. )
)
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-4
COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilties Commission, by and though its
Attorney of record, Weldon B. Stutzman, Deputy Attorney General, in response to the Notice of
Petition and Notice of Modified Procedure in Case No. QWE-T-08-4 issued on May 23,2008,
submits the following comments.
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2008, Qwest Corporation fied a Petition requesting authorization to withdraw its
Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions (SGAT). Qwests Petition explains that
the SGAT was developed in 2000 as par of Qwests application to gain entry into the interLATA
(long-distance) services market pursuant to Section 271 of the 1996 federal Telecommunications
Act. Bell operating companies like Qwest could fulfill par of their Section 271 obligations by
having a "statement of the terms and conditions that the company generally offers to provide such
STAFF COMMENTS 1 JULY 7, 2008
(network) access and interconnection (that) has been approved or permitted to take effect by the
State Commission." 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(1)(B).
Qwest is required to enter into interconnection agreements with other telecommunications
providers that request access to Qwests network, facilities, or services. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-252.
Qwests Petition explains that a critical element in the Section 271 process was assurance that the
Bell operating companies (BOC) would continue to provide non-discriminatory interconnection
services to competitors once the BOC received approval to enter the long-distance service markets.
To provide this assurance, the Petition states that Qwest voluntarily put in place a Performance
Assurance Plan (PAP) as par of its SGAT. The PAP also contains a comprehensive list of
performance measures known as Performance Indicator Definitions (PID) to provide specific data
about Qwests interconnection services to the competitors using Qwests facilities and network. If
the Commission approves Qwests Petition to withdraw its SGAT, the Performance Assurance Plan
and Performance Indicator Definitions will no longer be in place.
Qwest fied its originalSGAT in June 2000, but the Petition states that the Company has not
offered its SGAT as an option for interconnection agreements since August 2004. Qwest asserts
that its SGA T is superfuous and 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.
STAFF REVIEW
It is appropriate to review the SGAT, including its PAP, before allowing Qwest to withdraw
it. The PAP itself states that the Commission will review whether it is necessar to continue it once
Qwest eliminates its long distance affiliate. Section 16.3 states:
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. However, in the event Qwest exits the
interLATA market, that State PAP shall be rescinded immediately. (Emphasis
Added).
State Commission Staff members of the Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) plan to
create a review process to evaluate all performance measurements and provide a comprehensive
analysis on which measurements should be eliminated, enhanced, or remain in effect.
STAFF COMMENTS 2 JULY 7, 2008
On May 19,2008, ROC Staff members prepared a Scoping Document for a multi-state
review of Qwest s performance assurance plans. See Attachment 1. The ROC Staff asked Liberty
Consulting to perform the review. Liberty Consulting completed the original audit of all the PIDs
and thus has knowledge of the PIDs and PAP and should be able to conduct a thorough review in a
timely maner.
The ROC Executive Steering Committee has accepted the recommendation for a multi-state
PID review by Liberty Consulting. Because Liberty completed the initial PIDIP AP audit, using
Liberty for this PID review should expedite the review and afford those CLECs that have limited
resources the opportunity to paricipate in all of Qwests 14 state regions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission not grant Qwests request for withdrawal of its
SGAT, but instead extend the comment period in this case until a review of the Performance
Measurements can be completed and an analysis presented to the Commission for its final review
and decision. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the multi-state review process by
Liberty Consulting and authorize Staffs paricipation.
Paricipating states plan to pay for the review on an individual state prorated basis using
Qwest Tier 2 penalty payments i . Staff believes that there are adequate fuds available to cover
Idaho's portion of the 14 state collaborative review process.
DATED at Boise, Idaho, this 1~ day of July 2008.if~
Weldon B. Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Technical Staff: Carolee Hall
Patricia Hars
i :umisc/commentsqwet08.4wsch
i Similar to the Tier i strcture, Tier 2 payments are for non-conformance to measurements categorized as High,
Medium and Low in Exhibit K (PAP) of the SGAT. The Tier 2 penalty payments are made to the State's PID/QPAP
Administrator.
STAFF COMMENTS 3 JULY 7, 2008
ROC Staff
Scoping Document: Collaborative Review
Qwest Performance Assurance Plans
(QPAP)
· The QP AP* in each of the relevant 14 states (Arzona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minesota
Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nort Dakota, South Dakota Uta,
Washington, Wyoming) include language regarding reviewing the QP AP by the state
commissions. Certn states also have provisions for conducting an analysis, upon the
occurence of certin triggering events, on whether the QP AP should be phased-out
entirely and/or identifying any sub-measures, if any, that should continue as par of the
QPAP.
· The trggering event vares from state to state. In some states ths phase-out review and
analysis is trggered by Qwest obtaning relief from section 272 obligations. In other
states the trgger is a fixed point in time - 5 Yi years from the sta of the QPAP, or 6
month from the QPAP's proposed end.
· Qwest has sought, is seeking, or has indicated plans to seek 272 relief in many states.
Furher, in the states with the 5 Yi year fixed trgger, the deadline for conducting the
review is fast approaching. Therefore, the stas of the 14 member commssions of ROC
recommend a multi-stte collaborative review of the QP AP be conducted.
· We recommend that Libert Consultig be contrcted to conduct a detailed review and
analysis of both the performance plan and the performance indicator descriptions (PIDS).
We fuer recommend that Libert Consulting also provide draf recommendations as to
the curent effectiveness, value, and usefuess of the performance plan and PIDS in
relation to their intended purose and fuction as well as the usefuness of some or the
entire plan and PIDS continuing including possible modifications to such. We
recommend that Libert Consulting document the review, analysis and draf
recommendations in a baseline document. The baseline document may be used for
collaborative discussions between the varous Commssion Stafs, Qwest and the CLECs
and/or for use by individual Commissions in their separate state 6 month, 6 year, or other
appropriate dockets. Should a collaborative discussion of the baseline document occur,
we recommend that Libert Consulting faciltate and document the results of such
discussions clearly delineating areas of agreement and issues of dispute along with
supporting positions.
· The'independent contrctor's review will include the paricipation of and consultation
with the QP AP stakeholders; Qwest, Competitive Local Exchange Carers with business
in the relevant foureen-state region, and the appropriate paricipating state public
commission regulatory bodies.
· Each state would receive a copy of the analysis and report and then use the data and
findings in whatever capacity it sees fit. We finally recommend that the cost be
apportioned to. the states in the same maner as the Qwest Audits.
*For puroses of this document "QPAP" is inclusive of the Colorado "CPAP".
Attahment i
Case No. QW-T-08-4
C. Hall, Staff
7/7/08
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 7m DAY OF JULY 2008, SERVED
THE FOREGOING COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF, IN CASE
NO. QWE-T-08-4, BY MAILING A COpy THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE
FOLLOWING:
MARY S HOBSON
QWEST CORPORATION
999 MAIN ST, SUITE 1103
BOISE ID 83702
ADAMLSHERR
CORPORATE COUNSEL
QWEST CORPORATION
1600 7TH AVE, ROOM 3206
SEATTLE WA 98191
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE