20090417Albersheim Direct.pdf

Mary S. Hobson
Attorney & Counselor
999 Main, Suite 1103
Boise, ID 83702
208-385-8666
20n9 APR l 1 Pl1 2:23
April 17, 2009
VIA HAD DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
'472 West Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983
RE: Docket No. QWE-T -08-07
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing with this Commission are nine (9) copies of the Direct Testimony and non-
confidential exhibits of Qwest witnesses Renee Albersheim, Rachel Torrence, and Victoria
Hunnicutt. Qwest's Confidential Exhibits 5, 8, 9 and 10 are being filed separately and under an
Attorney's Certificate.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Ver trly yours,
/.ú.i¿ll/',~",/ /Si' '--
Mar Z,/Hobson
Enclosures
cc parties of record
CEi
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. 70na APR i 7 Pt., 4: 45
I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DIRECT TESTIMÖÑY OF
QWEST WITNESSES RENEE ALBERSHEIM, RACHEL TORRNCE, and VIC!U~~Fu
HUNICUTT (together with exhibits as noted) was served on the 1 ih day of April)l~naÇföñEilfèC'.
following individuals:
Jean D. Jewell
IdahO Public Utilities Commssion
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, il 83702
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
j j ewell(iòpuc.statejd. us
i
Weldon Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Email: Weldon. Stutzmn(ipuc.daho.gov
--~
Douglas K. Denney
Director, Costs & Policy
Suite 900
730 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
E-mail: dkdenney(iintegratelecom.com
~
-.
Michael Singer Nelson
Associate General Counsel
Suite 160 .
867 Coal Creek Circle
Louisvile, CO 80027
E-mail: mnelson(i360.net
~
_x_
Hand Delivery (confidential exhibits filed
U. S. Mail separately)
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Hand Delivery (all exhbits)
U. S. Mail
Overnght Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail (all exhibits)
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Hand Delivery
U.S. Mail (all exhibits)
Overnght Delivery
Facsimile
Email
/,.1 C' //.
..,-' j,,- ,- l ". ,--;~ ----
Mar S. Hobßon
Attorney forlQwest Corporation
!"-I"I_1,oct ...! - _.. ., .'.''''' ;',.,,1:,.,
2009 APR 17 PM 2= 23
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF QWEST )
CORPORATION'S PETITION ) CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
FOR APPROVAL OF NON-IMPAIRED )
WIRE CENTER LISTS PURSUANT TO )
THE TRIENNIAL REVIEW REMA )ORDER )
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RENÉE ALBERSHEIM
QWEST CORPORATION
APRIL 17, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS .....................................................................1
II. PURPOSE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY ..............................................................3
III. A BRIEF HISTORY OF TROITRRO .................................................................4
iv. NON-IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLDS FOR TRASPORT AND
THE WIRE CENTER TIER STRUCTURE.....................................................14
V. NON-IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLDS FOR UNBUNDLED DSI AND
DS3 L.OOPS..........................................................................................................17
Vi. QWEST'S PROCEDURES FOR EST ABLISHIG NON-IMPAIRED
WIRE .CENTERS.................................................................................................18
VII. PROCESS FOR UPDATING LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED WIRE
CENTERS BASED ON A MULTI-STATE SETTLEMENT
AG.REEMENT .....................................................................................................20
VIII. METHODOLOGY FOR COUNTING BUSINESS LINES BASED
ON THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ........................................................29
A. Qwest Retail Business Lines.........................................................................................................34
B. Unbundled Loops..........................................................................................................................35
C. QLSP and Other Commercial Equivalents ................................................................................37
IX. CONCLU.SION ....................................................................................................37
Exhibit Qwest-l
Exhibit Qwest-2
Exhibit Qwest-3
Exhibit Qwest-4
Exhibit Qwest-5
ATTACHED EXHBITS
Letter from FCC Requesting Initial List of Wire Centers
Current List of Non-Impaired Wire Centers in Idaho
Wire Center Tier Structure
TRRO Settlement Agreement
HIGHLY-CONFIDENTIA Business Line Count Data
1 I.IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2 Q.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS AND
3 POSITION WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
4 A.My name is Rence Albersheim. I am employed by Qwest Services
5 Corporation, parent company of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), as a Staff Witnessing
6 Representative. I am testifying on behalf of Qwest. My business address is 1801
7 Californa Street, 24th floor, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
8 Q.PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
9 AND EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE.
10 A.I have been working in Qwests Global Wholesale Markets organization
11 since December 2003. Before December 2003, I had worked in Qwests Information
12 Technologies Wholesale Systems organzation since joinng Qwest in October 1999. As
13 a Staff Witnessing Representative, I provide support for Qwest s responses to reguatory
14 issues associated with the 1996 Telecommuncations Act, FCC orders, state commission
15 decisions, and other legal and regulatory matters.
16 Prior to becoming a Qwest employee, I worked for 15 years as a consultat on
17 many systems development projects and in a varety of roles, including the followig:
18 programer and systems developer, systems architect, project manger, information
19 center manager and software training consultat. I worked on projects in a number of
20 different industries, including: oil and gas; electrc, water and telephone utilities;
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 1
QWEST CORPORATION
1 insurance; fast food; computer hardware; and the miltar. I also designed and developed
2 a number of applications, including electronic intedaces. Durng that time, I worked on
3 several of Qwests Operations Support Systems ("OSS") as a consultant on Human
4 Resources and Interactive Access Biling Systems ("lABS") projects.
5 In addition to working full-time at Qwest, I also eared a Juris Doctor degree
6 from the University of Denver College of Law and passed the Colorado Bar Examination
7 in October 2001. Prior to attending law school, I received a Master of Business
8 Administration in Management Information Systems from the University of Colorado
9 College of Business and Administration in 1985 and a Bachelor of Ars degree from the
10 University of Colorado in 1983.
11
12
Q.HAVE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMISSION BEFORE?
A.I fied wrtten testimony with the Commission in a cost docket, Docket
13 No. QWE-T-Ol-11, but! have not appeared at a hearng in Idaho.
14 Q.HAVE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE OTHER STATE
15 REGULATORY COMMISSIONS?
16 A.As a witness for Qwest s Global Wholesale Markets organzation, I have
17 filed written testimony and appeared before the commissions in Arzona, Colorado, Iowa,
18 Minnesota New Mexico, Oregon, Uta, Washington and Wyoming. In my job as a
19 witness on matters dealing with Qwest s interconnection agreements and operations
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 2
QWEST CORPORATION
1 support systems, I have also submitted wrtten testimony in Nort Dakota South Dakota,
2 Montana, and Nebraska.
3
4 II.PURPOSE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY
5
6
Q.WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?
A.The purose of my testimony is to put this case into context by giving a
7 high-level sumar and the appropriate background for the case, as well as to introduce
8 Qwest s other witnesses who will testify in more detail about the specific issues in the
9 case. For example, I will explain the impact of the Telecommuncations Act of 1996 and
10 the origins of the FCC's Triennal Review Remand Order ("TRRO") that is at issue in this
11 proceeding. I wil also explain the unbundling and the changes to unbundling mandated
12 by the TRRO, and will discuss the portion of the TRRO that is being addressed by the
13 Commission in this proceeding. I will also describe the Settlement Agreement that was
14 reached between Qwest and a joint group of Competitive Local Exchange Carers
15 ("CLECs"), and that was approved by state public utilities commissions in five states,
16 and explain how it is relevant here. I will also describe the methodology established in
17 the Settlement Agreement that Qwest used to develop counts of business access lines in
18 Idaho wire centers. And finally, I wil explain how this methodology can be used by ths
19 Commission to establish procedures for futue TRRO proceedings.
20
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 3
QWEST CORPORA nON
1 III. A BRIEF HISTORY OF TRO/TRRO
2 Q.WHAT IS THE TELECOMMUNCATIONS ACT OF 1996?
3 A.The Telecommuncations Act of 1996 (''the Act") was a signficant change
4 in the law governing telecommuncations in the United States.
i The Act's primar
5 purose was to promote competition in local telephone service markets, thereby giving
6 consumers a choice of local service providers.
7 Q.HOW DID THE ACT CREATE COMPETITION FOR LOCAL
8 TELEPHONE SERVICE?
9 A.Among other thigs, the Act required Incumbent Local Exchange Carers
10 ("ILECs") such as Qwese to unbundle, or break apar, the physical fuctional
11 components of their telephone networks, and lease these components, or piece pars,
12 known as Unbundled Network Elements ("UNEs"), to Competitive Local Exchange
13 Carers ("CLECs").
14 Q.WHT IS A WIRE CENTER?
15 A.Very simply, a wire center is the physical structure (a building) where a
16 telephone company connects local phone lines to its telephone network. A wire center is
17 also sometimes known as a central office. The wire center usually contains one or more
18 telephone switches, which connect the varous pars of the telephone network together
I Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, i 10 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C.
§§151 et seq.
2 Qwest was known as US WEST at the time the Act was passed.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 4
QWEST CORPORATION
1 and route calls to their final destinations. In Idaho, most communties have a single wire
2 center. However, Boise, because of its relative size, has three wie centers serving the
3 community.
4 Q.HOW ARE WIRE CENTERS RELEVANT TO TmS
5 PROCEEDING?
6 A.As I will discuss in detail below, the FCC implemented the TRRO based
7 on its analysis of the level of competition within wire centers (in other words, based on
8 the number of certain telephone lines and the number of competing telephone companes
9 operating within a wire center).
10
11
Q.
A.An unbundled loop is a UNE (network element). In its most basic form, a
WHAT IS AN UNBUNDLED LOOP?
12 loop is a pair of wires that connect an end-user's (or customer's) telephone to a telephone
13 company switch, which then connects the end-user to the rest of the company's telephone
14 network in order to route calls to their final destinations. If a CLEC (Qwest competitor)
15 leases an unbundled loop from an ILEC (such as Qwest), the CLEC can connect the end-
16 user to its own switch.
17
18 A.
Q.ARE THERE DIFFERENT KINDS OF UNBUNDLED LOOPS?
Yes. There are different "sizes" or capacities of unbundled loops. The loop that I
19 described above, for a single end-user, is known as a DSO, or a "voice-grade" loop. In
20 simplest terms, this is one telephone line. These lines can be grouped together into larger
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 5
QWEST CORPORATION
1 capacities. The next larger capacity is known as a DS 1. A DS 1 is equivalent to 24 DSOs,
2 or 24 lines. The next larger capacity is known as a DS3. A DS3 is equivalent to 672
3 DSOs (i.e., 672 telephone lines, or 28 DSls (28 X 24 = 672)). DSI and DS3 unbundled
4 loops are also known as "high-capacity" loops.3
5 Q.HOW AR UNBUNDLED LOOPS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE?
6 A.As I will discuss in detail below, the TRRO determines whether or not
7 Qwest is stil required to provide unbundled loops to CLECs in certin wire centers.
8 Q.WHAT IS UNBUNDLED INTEROFFICE TRASPORT?
9 A.For puroses of the TRRO, unbundled interoffce transport is a physical
10 facility that a CLEC can lease from Qwest to create a transmission path from one Qwest
11 wire center to another Qwest wire center. Such a transmission path would be used by a
12 CLEC to car its telecommuncations traffic between two wire centers.
13 Q.ARE THERE DIFFERENT KINDS OF UNBUNDLED
14 INTEROFFICE TRASPORT?
15 A.Yes. Just like unbundled loops, interoffce transport facilities come in
16 different sizes or capacities. The capacities relevant to this case are DS 1 and DS3
17 interoffce transport facilties. These facilities are also known as high-capacity transport
18 facilities.
3 This description has been simplified. There are other technical specifications which determine
whether a loop can car voice traffc. Such technical detail is not necessar to this discussion.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 6
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.HOW is UNBUNDLED INTEROFFICE TRASPORT RELEVANT
2 TO THIS CASE?
3 A.As I will discuss in detal below, the TRRO determines whether or not
4 Qwest is required to provide unbundled transport between two or more wire centers to
5 CLECs.
6
7
Q.WHAT is UNBUNDLED DARK FIBER?
A.Dark fiber is fiber optic cable though which no light is being transmitted,
8 and therefore no signal is being cared. Once dark fiber is connected to the proper
9 electronics to allow the transmission of light, the fiber is then known as lit fiber. ILECs
10 were formerly required by the Act to make unbundled dark fiber available to CLECs.
11 Dark fiber can be used for both loops and transport.
12 Q.HOW is UNBUNLED DARK FIBER RELEVANT TO THIS
13 CASE?
14 A.As I wil discuss in detail below, the TRRO determines whether or not
15 ILECs are stil required to provide dak fiber to CLECs.
16 Q.HOW ARE UNBUNLED NETWORK ELEMENTS (UNES)
17 PRICED?
18 A.The Act requires ILECs to base the prices for UNEs on an economic cost
19 concept known as Total Element Long Run Incremental Costs ("TELRlC"). Put simply,
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 7
QWEST CORPORATION
1 the price of a UNE is based on a forward-looking cost to provide the UNE. These costs
2 are generally established in cost dockets presided over by state utilties commissions.
3 Q.HOW is PRICING IMPACTED BY THIS CASE?
4 A.If a UN is eliminated under the stadards of the TRRO, Qwest is no
5 longer obligated to provide that UNE at a TELRIC rate, although Qwest may stil offer an
6 equivalent service at a market-based price (in other words, not at the forward-looking
7 TELRIC cost). Under these circumstaces, the CLEC then has the option of purchasing
8 the commercial equivalent for the UN from Qwest, purchasing the service or facility
9 from another provider, or self-provisioning the service or facilty itself.
10 Q.DID THE ACT INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO REVIEW THE STATE
11 OF COMPETITION?
12 A. Yes. The Act requires the FCC to review the state of competition every
13 thee years.4 Ths is known as a trennial review.
14 Q. PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE GENESIS OF THE FCC'S
15 FIRST TRIENNIAL REVIEW.
16 A.In 2001, the FCC initiated a proceeding to review its policies on
17 unbundling under the Act. 5 The FCC sought "comment on how best to update its rules
4 47 U.S.C. § 257(c).5 Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers,
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment
of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capabilty, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98,
98-147, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 22781 (2001) ("Triennial Review NPRM').
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 8
QWEST CORPORATION
1 and make them more 'granular' to reflect competitive conditions in different markets."6
2 The FCC's intent was to ensure that its unbundling rules were faithl to the requirements
3 of the Act, but at the same time reflected changes in the marketplace for
4 telecommunications services and advances in technology, and remove unbundling
5 obligations in response to these changes. 7
6 Q.WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE FIRST TRIENNIAL
7 REVIEW?
8 A.Upon completion of the Triennal Review, the FCC published its Triennial
9 Review Order ("TRO") in October 2003.8 This order created a revised list of unbundled
10 network elements or "UNEs" (a revised list of network elements that ILECs like Qwest
11 were required to continue to offer to CLECs at TELRIC (forward-looking) costs). The
12 TRRO also removed unbundling requirements for broadband services in order to
13 encourage investment in broadband facilities, and established a signficant role for state
14 utilties commissions to determine "impairment.,,9
6 http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/triennial review/.
7 In the Matter of Review of Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Order on Remand, CC Docket No. 01-
338, WC Docket No. 04-313,20 FCC Rcd 2533, at 2 (2004).
8 Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers,
Implementation of the Local Competiton Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment
of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capabilty, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98,
98-147, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Furer Notice of Proposed Ru1emaking, 19 FCC Rcd
16978, 17145 (2003) ("Triennial Review Order" or "TRO").
9 "Impairent" is a term used by the FCC to describe the state of competition in a given market.
If the FCC describes a market as "impaired," that means the FCC sees impediments to corrpetitionin that
market such that ILECs are required to continue to offer UNs at TELRIC prices to CLECs in order to
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 9
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.DID THESE NEW RULES COMPLETE THE TRIENNIAL
2 REVIEW PROCESS?
3 A.No. A number of impacted paries appealed the TRO to the D.C. Circuit
4 Cour of Appeals. The cour upheld a number of the rules that the FCC had established in
5 the TRO, but most relevant to this proceeding, the cour vacated and remanded the FCC's
6 findings of nationwide impairment for "mass market switching" and dedicated
7 transport.
10 The cour also vacated the FCC's delegation of authority to state
8 commissions to conduct granular impairment analysis as established in the TRO. United
9 States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (2004) ("USTA Ir'). The cour determined
10 that the FCC did not properly relate the possibility of competitive deployment of facilities
11 in one market to the actual deployment of facilities in similar geographic markets. Id. at
12 575.
13 Q.HOW DID THE FCC RESPOND TO THE USTA II DECISION?
14 A.In August 2004, the FCC issued an Interi Order and Notice of Proposed
15 Rulemaking ("NP RM') eliminating a number of sections of the TRO, and sought
continue to foster competition. Conversely, if the FCC describes a market as being "non-impaired," the
FCC considers that market to be open to competition such that ILECs like Qwest are not required to
continue to offer UNs at TELRIC prices to CLECs.
10 Access to ILEC switching (the use of an ILEC switch, so that a CLEC would not have to deploy
its own switch) was originally a UN, and as such was used by the FCC to measure impairent in the
TRO. In the TRRO, the FCC determined that ILECs were no longer required to unbundle switching. So the
availabilty of mass market switching is not at issue in this case.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 10
QWEST CORPORA nON
1 comment on a response to USTA II. The FCC then published the TRRO on Februar 4,
2 2005.11
3 Q.WHT RULES ESTABLISHED BY THE TRRO ARE RELEVANT
4 TO THIS PROCEEDING?
5 A.Among other things, the TRRO clarfies the obligations of ILECs like
6 Qwest to provide unbundled access to dedicated interoffce transport and high-capacity
7 loops. The TRRO also clarfies the "impairment" standard. Impairment is now evaluated
8 as it relates to the capabilities of a "reasonably efficient competitor." TRRO, at ir 24. If a
9 market is considered "impaired," there is not sufficient competition in that market to
10 relieve an ILEC of its unbundling obligations. Using ths stadard, the TRRO determines
11 whether unbundling is required for dedicated interoffice transport on a route-by route
12 basis, depending on the number of "business lines"ii and "fiber-based collocators"13 in
ii In the Matter of Review of Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Order on Remand, CC Docket No. 01-
338, WC Docket No. 04-313, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, (2004) ("Triennial Review Remand Order" or "TRRO").
The TRRO was affirmed by the D. C. Circuit Cour of Appeals on June 16, 2006. See Covad
Commns. Co. v. FCC, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14826 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2006). The decision is also
available at http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/bin/opinions/allopinions.asp .
12 47 CFR § 51.5 dermes a "business line" as follows: "A business line is an incumbent LEC-
owned switched access line used to serve a business customer, whether by the incumbent LEC itself or by a
competitive LEC that leases the line from the incumbent LEC."
13 47 CFR § 51.5 defines a "fiber-based collocator" as follows: "A fiber-based collocator is any
carer, unaffliated with the incumbent LEC, that maintains a collocation arangement in an incumbent
LEC wire center, with active electrcal power supply, and operates a fiber-optic cable or comparble
transmission facilty that (1) terminates at a collocation argement within the wire center; (2) leaves the
incumbent LEC wire center premises; and (3) is owned by a par other than the incumbent LEC or any
affliate of the incumbent LEC, except as set forth in this pargraph." Please see the Direct Testimony of
Rachel Torrence for fuher details regarding fiber-based collocators.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 11
QWEST CORPORATION
1 paricular wire centers. For DSI and DS3 loops, the FCC uses a methodology similar to
2 its treatment of high-capacity transport. Specifically, the FCC establishes a wire center-
3 by-wire center analysis method to determine whether a given wire center is subject to
4 actual or potential competition based on specific cnteria, including the number of
5 business lines and the number of fiber-based collocators in that wire center. These new
6 criteria, and the associated analyses methods, wil be discussed in greater detail in the
7 next section.
8 Q.DID THE FCC REQUIRE ILECs TO TAK ANY IMMEDIATE
9 ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THE TRRO?
10 A.Yes. Based on the transition plan outlined in the TRRO at paragraphs 142
11 through 145 and paragraphs 195 though 198, ILECs such as Qwest were required to file
12 a list of non-impaired wire centers coincident with the effective date of the TRRO, March
13 11, 2005. Qwest also received a letter from the FCC requesting the list of non-impaired
14 wire centers. This letter is attached as Qwest Exhbit I. Qwest filed a list of non-
15 impaired wire centers in Februar 2005. The curent list of non-impaired wire centers in
16 the state of Idaho is attched as Qwest Exhibit 2.
17 Q.WHAT HAPENS WHEN A WIRE CENTER IS DETERMINED TO
18 BE NON-IMPAIRED?
19 A.If a wire center is determined to be non-impaired for certain UNEs, this
20 means that, per the FCC's rules, there is suffcient competition in that wire center and
21 thus Qwest is no longer obligated to provide those UNEs at TELRIC rates in that wire
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 12
QWEST CORPORATION
1 center. The CLEC can purchase an alternative taffed or commercial service or facility
2 from Qwest, or a service or facility from another competitor; alternatively, the CLEC can
3 choose to self-provision the service or facility.
4 Q.GIVEN THAT THE FCC HAS ESTABLISHED THE RULES FOR
5 DETERMINING NON-IMPAIRMENT, WHY HAS QWEST COME BEFORE
6 THE COMMISSION?
7 A.Qwest is not asking the Commission to issue an order regarding the TRRO
8 rules themselves. The FCC intended the unbundling rules established in the TRRO to be
9 largely self-effectuating and implemented though negotiations between ILECs and
10 CLECs. TRRO, at' 233. Rather, Qwest is asking the Commission to approve the list of
11 wire centers in Idaho that Qwest has determined to be non-impaired in order to
12 implement the rules that the FCC established in the TRRO.
13 Following a discussion of the new impairment stadards that the FCC established,
14 I will also discuss the terms of the Settlement Agreement reached by Qwest and various
15 CLECs (including Integra, an intervenor CLEC in this docket) in some of the larger states
16 in Qwests ILEC territory in which Qwest had brought TRRO proceedings to implement
17 the TRRO. I will also describe the methodology for counting business lines, and I will
18 introduce the witnesses who will discuss Qwest s data in support the methodology for
19 counting fiber-based collocations and the pricing for conversions.
20
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di) 13
QWEST CORPORA nON
1 iv. NON-IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLDS FOR TRANSPORT AND THE
2 WIRE CENTER TIER STRUCTURE
3 Q. WHT IS THE WIRE CENTER TIER STRUCTUR THAT THE
4 FCC ESTABLISHED IN THE TRRO FOR IDGH-CAPACITY TRANSPORT?
5 A.The FCC created a three-tier strcture to classify wire centers based on
6 their potential to support competitive transport deployment. Per the FCC, "Tier 1" wire
7 centers are those with the highest likelihood for actual and potential competitive
8 deployment of alternative services or facilties, including wholesale opportities. "Tier
9 2" wire centers also show a smaller but stil very signficant likelihood of actu and
10 potential competitive deployment. "Tier 3" wire centers are those that show a generally
11 low likelihood of supporting actul or potential competitive transport deployment.
12 TRRO, at ir 111.
13 Q.WHAT CRITERIA DID THE FCC USE TO DETERMINE WHICH
14 WIRE CENTERS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS TIER 1 WIRE CENTERS FOR
15 HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSPORT?
16 A.The FCC defines "Tier 1" wire centers as those with four or more fiber-
17 based collocators, or with 38,000 or more business lines. 47 CFR § 51.319(e)(3)(i). The
18 FCC determined that these thesholds indicate that very extensive CLEC transport
19 deployment exists or is likely to exist in these wire centers, and that competitors are
20 likely to provide transport services on a wholesale basis. TRRO, at ir 112.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 14
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.WHAT CRITERIA DID THE FCC USE TO DETERMINE WHCH
2 WIRE CENTERS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS TIER 2 WIRE CENTERS FOR
3 HIGH-CAPACITY TRASPORT?
4 A.The FCC defines "Tier 2" wire cefiters as those with three or more fiber-
5 based collocators, or with 24,000 or more business lines. 47 CFR § 5 L.319( e )(3 )(ii).
6 These thesholds suggest that multiple carers have overcome the costs of deployment
7 and that there are revenues available to substatiate deployment. TRRO, at ~ 118.
8 Q.WHT CRITERIA DID THE FCC USE TO DETERMINE WHICH
9 WIRE CENTERS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS TIER 3" WIRE CENTERS FOR
10 HIGH-CAPACITY TRASPORT?
11 A.The FCC considers all wire centers that are not Tier 1 or Tier 2 wire
12 centers as "Tier 3" wire centers. 47 CFR § 5L.319(e)(3)(iii). Put another way, all wire
13 centers with fewer than three fiber-based collocators or with fewer than 24,000 business
14 lines are Tier 3 wire centers.
15 Q.WHT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FCC'S WIRE CENTER
16 TIER STRUCTURE FOR HIGH-CAPACITY TRASPORT?
17 A.The FCC uses these tiers as indicators of non-impairment and bases its
18 unbundling requirements for DS 1, DS3 and dark fiber interoffice transport on these tiers.
19 Please see Qwest Exhbit 3 for an ilustration of the wire center tier structue and the non-
20 impairment criteria.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 15
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.WHAT ARE THE UNBUNDLING REQUIREMENTS FOR DSI
2 TRANSPORT?
3 A.The FCC determined that there is no impairment for DS 1 interoffice
4 transport between two Tier 1 wire centers. As a result, ILECs such as Qwest are not
5 obligated to provide unbundled DS 1 interoffice transport on routes connecting two Tier 1
6 wire centers. 47 CFR § 51.319(e)(2)(ii)(A).
7 Q.WHT AR THE UNBUNDLING REQUIREMENTS FOR DS3
8 TRASPORT?
9 A.The FCC concluded that there is no impairment for DS3 interoffce
10 transport on routes connecting wire centers where both of the wire centers are either Tier
11 1 or Tier 2 wire centers. The" FCC determined that competitive transport facilties have
12 been or can be deployed between such wire centers, and that signficant revenue
13 opportunities make such deployments economically feasible. Therefore, ILECs such as
14 Qwest are not obligated to provide unbundled DS3 interoffice transport on routes
is connecting either Tier 1 or Tier 2 wire centers. 47 CFR § 51.319(e)(2)(iii)(A).
16 Q.WHAT AR THE UNUNDLING REQUIREMENTS FOR DAR
17 FIBER TRASPORT?
18 A.The FCC concluded that there is no impairment for dark fiber interoffce
i 9 transport on routes connecting wire centers where both of the wire centers are either Tier
20 1 or Tier 2 wire centers. The FCC determined that competitive transport facilties have
21 been or can be deployed between such wire centers, and that signficant revenue
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 16
QWEST CORPORATION
1 opportties make such deployments economically feasible. Therefore, ILECs such as
2 Qwest are not obligated to provide unbundled dark fiber interoffice transport on routes
3 connecting either Tier 1 or Tier 2 wire centers. 47 CFR § 5L.319(e)(2)(iv)(A).
4
5
6
v.NON-IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLDS FOR UNBUNDLED DSI AND DS3
LOOPS
7 Q.DID THE FCC USE THE WIRE CENTER TIER STRUCTURE TO
8 ESTABLISH NON-IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLDS FOR HIGH-CAPACITY
9 LOOPS?
10 A.No. However, the FCC uses a methodology similar to its treatment of
11 high-capacity transport in that it establishes a wire center-by-wire center unbundling
12 requirement to determine whether a wire center is subject to actul or potential
13 competition for high-capacity loops, based upon the number of business lines and the
14 number of fiber-based collocators in the wire center.
15 Q.WHT IS THE IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLD FOR UNBUNDLED
16 DSl LOOPS?
17 A.Per the FCC, there is no impairment for DS 1 loops within a service area of
18 a wire center that contains 60,000 or more business lines and four or more fiber-based
19 collocators. 47 CFR § 5L.319(a)(4)(i). Therefore, ILECs such as Qwest are not obligated
20 to provide unbundled DS 1 loops iii these wire centers.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 17
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.WHAT is THE IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLD FOR UNBUNDLED
2 DS3 LOOPS?
3 A.The FCC determined that there is no impairent for DS3 loops within a
4 service area of a wire center that contains 38,000 or more business lines and four or more
5 fiber-based collocators. 47 CFR § 51.319(a)(5)(i). Therefore, ILECs such as Qwest are
6 not obligated to provide unbundled DS3 loops in these wire centers.
7 Q.is THERE AN IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLD FOR UNUNLED
8 DAR FIBER LOOPS?
9 A.No. The FCC determined that there is no impairment for dark fiber loops
lOon a nationwide basis. Therefore, ILECs such as Qwest are no longer obligated to
II provide unbundled dark fiber loops in any wire center. 47 CFR § 51.319(a)(6)(i).
12
13 VI.
14
QWEST'S PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISmNG NON-IMPAIRED WIRE
CENTERS
15 Q.HAS QWEST ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES FOR COUNTING
16 FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS AND THE NUMBER OF BUSINESS LINES IN
17 A WIRE CENTER?
18 A.Yes. Qwest and the paricipating CLECs in the other states that held
19 earlier non-impaired wire center dockets agreed to procedures for counting business lines
20 and fiber-based collocators in the Joint Settlement Agreement, which I will discuss in
21 detal in section VII of ths testimony. In that section, I will also describe the
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 18
QWEST CORPORATION
1 methodology that Qwest used to determine business line counts in this case based on the
2 Settlement Agreement.
3 Then, in Section VIII of this testimony, I wil discuss the business line count
4 methodology.
5 The FCC-based methodology for counting fiber-based collocators will be
6 discussed in detail by Qwest witness Rachel Torrence.
7 Q.WHT is THE RESULT OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-
8 IMPAIRMENT FOR DSI OR DS3 TRASPORT OR FOR CERTAIN IDGH-
9 CAPACITY LOOPS?
10 A.Put very simply, the associated circuits that were leased by CLECs as
11 UNEs will need to be converted from UNEs to alternative Qwest service~ or to
12 wholesale services obtained from another carier, or be self-provisioned by the CLEC
13 itself.
14 Q.WHICH QWEST WITNESS WILL DISCUSS THE ACTIVITIES
15 ASSOCIATED WITH CONVERSIONS TO ALTERNATIV QWEST
16 SERVICES?
17 A.Qwest witness Victoria Hunicutt will discuss the activities associated
18 with the conversions of UNEs to alternative Qwest services, including Qwests
19 assessment of a nonrecurrng charge for these conversions.
20
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 19
QWEST CORPORATION
1 VII. PROCESS FOR UPDATING LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS
2 BASED ON A MULTI-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
3 Q.QWEST is PRESENTING AN INITIAL LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED
4 WIRE CENTERS IN TIDS CASE. SHOULD QWEST BE ALLOWED TO
5 UPDATE THE LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS?
6 A.Yes, Qwest should be allowed to update the list of non-impaired wie
7 centers as often as necessar. Whle Qwest and the CLECs agreed in the Settlement
8 Agreement that business line updates will only be done once a year, given that the data
9 upon which business line counts are based (the FCC's Automated Reporting
10 Management Inormation System ("ARIS") data) is only prepared and submitted to the
11 FCC once per year, the status of fiber-based collocations are not limited in this way. For
12 example, at any point in time, a new fiber-based collocation could be placed in a wire
13 center, thereby changing the status of that wire center to non-impaired. 14
14 Q.DOES QWEST EXPECT TO UPDATE ITS LIST OF NON-
15 IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS IN THE FUTURE?
16 A.Yes, Qwest expects to update its list of non-impaired wire centers to the
17 extent that additional wire centers meet the FCC criteria in the futue. As noted above,
14 The FCC anticipated such changes as well. "We recognize that some high-capacity loops with
respect to which we have found impairent may in the futue meet our thresholds for non-impairent. For
example, as competition grows, competitive LECs may constrct new fiber-based collocations in a wire
center that curently has more than 38,000 business lines but 3 or fewer collocations. In such cases, we
expect incumbent LECs and requesting cariers to negotiate appropriate transition mechanisms though the
section 252 process." TRRO, at/n. 519.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 20
QWEST CORPORATION
1 the FCC determined that the rules in the TRRO are self-effectuting, and that "our
2 unbundling rules are designed to remove unbundling obligations over time."
3 TRRO, at ir 3. Indeed, in the five states in which the Settlement Agreement has been
4 approved, Qwest has updated its list of non-impaired wire centers over the past two years,
5 using the terms of the Settlement Agreement as guidance for those updates.
6 Thus, going forward, if updates to the list of non-impaired wire centers are
7 required, Qwest intends to update the list of non-impaired wire centers using the same
8 FCC counting methodologies described in ths proceeding.
9 Q.IN THE STATES WHERE QWEST FIRST BEGAN TRRO
10 PROCEEDINGS, DID QWEST AND THE PARTICIPATING CLECs REACH A
1 I SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING THE TRRO, INCLUDING
12 THE PROCESS FOR UPDATING THE NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTER
13 LISTS?
14 A.Yes. Qwest and the CLECsl5 who were involved in the TRRO
15 proceedings in certain other states (kown as "the Joint CLECs") reached a multi-state
16 Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") that established the initial wire center
17 lists in those states, and fuher established an agreed-upon process for updating the lists
18 going forward. This Settlement Agreement was approved in five of the six states
19 included within the agreement, and has been used to update the non-impaired wie center
is The Joint CLECs included Integra (an intervenor here), Eschelon (which is now par ofIntegra),
Covad, McLeodUSA, Onvoy, POPP, TDSM and XO.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 21
QWEST CORPORATION
1 lists in those states since its approval. 16 I have attched the Settlement Agreement as
2 Qwest Exhbit 4. It was also attached to Qwests Petition, which initiated ths docket.
3 Q.WHY is QWEST PRESENTING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
4 USED IN OTHER STATES TO THIS COMMSSION?
5 A.Qwest believes that the Settlement Agreement provides a template that
6 this Commission can use to implement the TRRO in Idaho.
7 Q.PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
8 GENERALY.
9 A.The Settlement Agreement contans seven sections, each aimed at
10 providing terms to implement the TRRO. These sections are:
11 . Section 1- Introduction - describes the basis for the Settlement
12 Agreement.
13 . Section II - Definitions - contans defined terms used withn the body
14 of the Settlement Agreement.
15 . Section 111- Initial Commission-Approved Wire Center List - contans
16 the paries' agreed-upon initial list of wire centers to be submitted for
17 approval to the six states included in the Settlement Agreement.
18 . Section IV- Non-Recurng Charge for Conversions Using the Intial
19 Wire Center List and For Futue Commission-Approved Additions to
16 The Settlement Agreement was approved in Arizona, Minesota, Oregon, Uta and
Washington. The Agreement was not approved in Colorado and the case is stil pending.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 22
QWEST CORPORATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
That List - sets forth the conversion charge that the paries agreed
upon for services converted to alternative Qwest services in non-
impaied wire centers.
. Section V-Methodology - describes the agreed-upon process for
counting business lines and fiber-based collocators to determne wire
center eligibility for non-impairment.
. Section VI-Futue Qwest Filings to Request Commission Approval of
Non-Impairment Designations and Additions to the Commission-
Approved Wire Center List - describes the set of procedures to be
used when Qwest seeks to add wire centers to the non-impaired list.
. Section VII-Other Provisions - describes the attchments to th
settlement and provides for adoption of the Settlement Agreement into
interconnection agreements.
14 Q.DOES THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDE TERMS TO
15 IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT WITHIN THE PARTIES'
16 INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS WITH QWEST?
17 A.Yes. The agreement includes three attchments, two of which provide for
18 interconnection agreement amendments, and one which was designed specifically to
19 insert language into Eschelon's interconnection agreement, which was in arbitration
20 when the Settlement Agreement was reached. These attachments were fied with
21 Qwest s Petition in this proceeding.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 23
QWEST CORPORA nON
1 Q.DOES THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DEFINE THE
2 METHODOLOGY TO BE USED TO COUNT BUSINESS LINES AND FIBER-
3 BASED COLLOCATORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING NON-
4 IMPAIRMENT?
5 A.Yes. Section V of the Settlement Agreement outlines the methodology
6 that the paries have agreed to use for the puroses of counting business lines and fiber-
7 based collocators. The paries have agreed that this methodology complies with the rules
8 established by the FCC in the TRRO. As noted above, Rachel Torrence will provide
9 testimony regarding the methodology used to determine whether two wire centers in
10 Idaho (the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers) quaify as non-impaired based on the
11 number of fiber-based collocators in those wire centers. I will provide testimony below
12 regarding the methodology used to identify the same two wire centers in Idaho (Boise
13 Main and Boise West) as non-impaired on the basis of the number of business lines.
14 Q.DOES THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT GIVE CLECs THE
15 OPPORTUNITY TO DISPUTE CHANGES MAE TO THE LIST OF NON.
16 IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS?
17 A.Yes. Although Qwest does not believe that any pary should have the
18 opportunity to re-litigate the methodology set fort by the FCC, the paries to the
19 Settlement Agreement agreed that the Settlement Agreement weighs the need for
20 resolution of disputes with the need to keep the list of non-impaired wire centers up-to-
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di) 24
QWEST CORPORA nON
1 date. The Settlement Agreement therefore allows an expedited process that provides
2 CLECs with the opportty to dispute additions to the non-impaired wire center list.
3 Q.PLEASE DISCUSS THE DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE
4 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARING THE PROCESS TO ADD A WIRE
5 CENTER TO THE LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS?
6 A.Section VI of the Settlement Agreement details the process the paries
7 have agreed to use to add wire centers to the non-impaired list in the futue. The
8 Settlement Agreement includes the following provisions for futue filings:
9 . Qwest may request additions of non-impaired wire centers at any time
10 based solely on the number of fiber-based collocators.
11 . Qwest may request additions based in whole or in par on line counts
12 until July I of each year, based on prior year data.
13 . At least five _ days prior to a fiing, Qwest will request a protective
14 agreement for confidential information. The Settlement Agreement
15 includes a model protective order. 17
16 . Qwest wil provide notice to all impacted CLECs at least five days
17 prior to filing.
17 Attchment E to the Settlement Agreement is a template protective order used to allow all the
paries to view the highly-confidential data that is used by Qwest to verify non-impairent. Qwest
understands that Idaho generally prefers protective agreements instead of protective orders. Qwest believes
that a stadad protective agreement, such as the one agreed to by the paries in this case, wil work in place
of the stadard protective order attached to the Settlement Agreement.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 25
QWEST CORPORATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
. Qwest will file supporting data outlined in detail in the Settlement
Agreement suffcient to support the counts of fiber-based collocators
and/or line counts.
. Once a filing has been made, paries will have 30 days to raise
objections with the applicable state commission to Qwests request.
. If there are no objections filed, the effective date for non-impairment
will be 30 days after the fiing date, unless the state commission orders
otherwse, and the paries wil jointly request an expedited non-
impairment designation from the commission.
. The CLECs agree that they will not order non-impaired facilities-in the
wire centers on the non-impaired list as of 15 days from the effective
date of the non-impairment designation.
. If any pary disputes Qwests proposed non-impairment designations,
the paries have agreed to ask the state commission to use its best
efforts to resolve the dispute within 60 days of the date of the
objection.
. If there are no objections fied with the state commission, the paries
have agreed that they will jointly request an expedited order approving
the undisputed designations.
. CLECs agree not to place orders for non-impaired facilities in wire
centers identified on the state commission-approved wire center list 15
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 26
QWEST CORPORATION
1
2
days after the effective date of the commission order adding such wire
centers to the list.
3 Q.HAS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ESTABLISHED
4 PROCEDURES FOR TRASITIONING HIGH-CAPACITY UNEs WHEN
5 ADDITIONAL WIRE CENTERS ARE FOUND TO BE NON-IMPAIRED?
6 A.Yes. CLECs wil have 90 days to transition high-capacity loops and
7 transport to alternative services from the effective date of the initial commission order or
8 a commission order approving additional wire centers. CLECs will then have 180 days
9 to transition non-impaired dark fiber.
10 Q.WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE TRASITION PERIOD USED
11 IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND CAN IT BE CONSIDERED
12 SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW CLECs TO TRAFER SERVICES WHN WIRE
13 CENTERS ARE ADDED TO THE NON-IMPAIRED LIST?
14 A.The FCC recognized that the initial transition to new services would
15 require signficant effort due to the large number of impacted wire centers and therefore it
16 allowed a one-year initial transition. The one-year period outlined in the TRRO was to
17 begin upon the effective date of the TRRO, March 11,2005. Thus, that transition period
18 has already expired as of March 11, 2006. The FCC did not make any statements with
19 regard to transition periods for subsequent wie centers. However, it follows that since
20 far fewer wire centers wil quaify for non-impairment with each subsequent filing, the
21 transition for additions to the non-impaired wire center list should be shorter than the
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 27
QWEST CORPORATION
1 intial transition. Likewise, there will also be a much smaller subset of services to
2 convert to alternative (non-UNE) services. Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement
3 includes transition periods that Qwest and the Joint CLECs believe are reasonable.
4 Q.SHOULD A DISPUTE PROCEEDING BE ALLOWED TO DELAY
5 THE ADDITION OF NEW WIRE CENTERS TO THE LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED
6 WIRE CENTERS?
7 A.No. The Settlement Agreement includes terms to expedite disputes in
8 order to avoid protracted delays in the addition of wire centers to the non-impaired list
9 when supporting data proves that such additions are waranted.
10 Q.SHOULD RECLASSIFICATION OF A NON-IMPAIRED WIRE
11 CENTER BE PART OF A FUTUR INQUIRY?
12 A.No, there is no need to include such an inquiry within the scope of this (or
13 any future docket) because in the rules implementing the TRRO, the FCC specifically
14 determned that wire centers may not be reclassified once they have been designated as
15 non-impaired. 18
18 For OSL loops, see 47 CFR §51.19(a)(4)(i) ("Subject to the cap described in pargraph
(a)(4)(ii) of this section, an incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications carer with
nondiscriminatory access to a OS 1 loop on an unbundled basis to any building not served by a wire center
with at least 60,000 business lines and at least four fiber~based collocators. Once a wire center exceeds
both of these thresholds, no future DSI loop unbundling wil be required in that wire center"). (Emphasis
added.)
For OS3 loops, see 47 CFR §51.3l9(a)(5)(i) ("Subject to the cap described in paragrph (a)(5)(ii)
of this section, an incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications carier with
nondiscriinatory access to a OS3 loop on an unbundled basis to any building not served by a wire center
with at least 38,000 business lines and at least four fiber-based collocators. Once a wire center exceeds
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 28
QWEST CORPORATION
1 VIII. METHODOLOGY FOR COUNTING BUSINESS LINES BASED ON THE2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
3 Q.IN THE TRRO, DID THE FCC PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF
4 "BUSINESS LINES" FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHETHER A
5 PARTICULAR WIRE CENTER MEETS THE THRESHOLD TEST FOR NON-
6 IMP ARMENT?
7 A.Yes. At paragraph 105 of the TRRO, the FCC defined "business lines" as
8 follows:
9 The BOC wire center data that we analyze in this Order is based on
10 ARMIS 43-08 business lines, plus business UNE-P, plus UNE-loops.
11
12 Furer, the FCC's rules regarding implementation of TRRO requirements (47
13 CFR § 51.5) define "business line" as follows:
14 A business line is an incumbent LEC-owned switched access line used to
15 serve a business customer, whether by the incumbent LEC itself or by a
16 competitive LEC that leases the line from the incumbent LEC. The
17 number of business lines in a wire center shall equal the sum of all
18 incumbent LEC business switched access lines, plus the sum of all UN
both of these thresholds, no future DS3 loop unbundling wil be required in that wire center"). (Emphasis
added.)
For DS 1 and DS3 loops, see also Order on Remand, In the Matter of Review of Unbundled Access
to Network Elements, Review of Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers, CC Docket No. 0 i -338, WC Docket No. 04-313, p. 94, footnote 466 (FCC reI. Februar 4, 2005)
("Therefore, once a wire center satisfies the stadad for no DS 1 loop unbundling, the incumbent LEC shall
not be required in the futue to unbundle DSI loops in that wire center. Likewise, once a wire center
satisfies the standard for no DS3 loop unbundling, the incumbent LEC shall not be required in the futue to
unbundle DS3 loops in that wire center.").
For dedicated DSI and DS3 trsport, see 47 CFR §51.19(e)(3)(i) (" Once a wire center is
determined to be a Tier 1 wire center, that wire center is not subject to later reclassifcation as a Tier 2 or
Tier 3 wire center.") and 47 CFR §51.19(e)(3) (ii) (" Once a wire center is determined to be a Tier 2 wire
center, that wire center is not subject to later reclassifcation as a Tier 3 wire center."). (Emphasis added.)
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 29
QWEST CORPORATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
loops connected to that wire center, including UNE loops provisioned in
combination with other unbundled elements. Among these - requirements,
business line talles:
(l) Shall include only those access lines connecting end-user customers
with incumbent LEC end-offices for switched services.
(2) Shall not include non-switched special access lines.
(3) Shall account for ISDN and other digita access lines by counting each
64KBPS-equivalent as one line. For example, a DS1 line corresponds to
2464 kbps-equivalents, and therefore to 24 "business lines."
14 Q.IN THE TRRO, DID THE FCC INDICATE A PREFERENCE FOR
is THE METHODOLOGY TO BE USED TO COUNT BUSINESS ACCESS LINES?
16 A.Yes. The FCC envisioned a streamlined and simple process for
17 determining business line counts. The FCC stated that "business line counts are an
18 objective set of data that incumbent LECs have already created for other reguatory
19 puroses," and that "by basing our definition in an ARIS filing required of incumbent
20 LECs, and adding UNE figues, which must also be reported, we can be confdent in the
21 accuracy of the thresholds, and a simplified ability to obtan the necessar information."
22 TRRO, ir 105. (Emphasis added.)19 Clearly, the FCC's intent is that incumbent LECs
23 should use data "already created for other regulatory puroses," and should follow the
24 FCC's simple and unambiguous definition to count business lines in determinig which
25 wire centers meet the non-impairment thesholds established in the TRRO.
19 The ARIS filing is a report that every ILEC must fie with the FCC by April 1st regardig
various measures, including the number of business lines that the ILEC has at each of its wire centers.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 30
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.is THE METHODOLOGY ESTABLISHED IN THE
2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES
3 ESTABLISHED BY THE TRRO FOR COUNTING BUSINESS LINES?
4 A.Yes.Section V(A) of the Settlement Agreement establishes a
5 methodology for counting business lines that Qwest and the Joint CLECs agreed is
6 consistent with the FCC's rules established in the TRRO.
7 Q.BASED ON BUSINESS LINE AND FIBER COLLOCATION DATA
8 AS OF DECEMBER 2007, WHICH WAS FILED WITH QWEST'S PETITION IN
9 THIS CASE IN JUE 2008, ARE AN QWEST WIRE CENTERS IN IDAHO
10 CLASSIFIED AS NON-IMPAIRED FOR DSI AN DS3 UNBUNDLED LOOPS?
11 A.Yes. Based on business line and fiber collocation data for December
12 2007, the Boise Main wire center has met the non-impaient threshold for DS3
13 unbundled 100ps.20
14 Q.THE ABOVE QUESTION REFERS TO DATA FROM DECEMBER
15 2007. SHOULD MORE RECENT DATA BE USED?
16 A.No. First, according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which
17 Qwest is asking this Commission to adopt, Qwest is allowed to file a request for non-
20 Please note that Qwest's Petition in this case inadvertently failed to mention non-impairent
for DS3 loops in the Boise Main wire center. However, since Qwest's Petition indicated that it would
demonstrate that the Boise Main wire center met both stadards for Tier. 1 status in that it had more than
38,000 business lines and four or more fiber-based collocators, under the stadards of the TRRO, a fiding
that access to DS3 loops is non-impaired in Boise Main necessarly follows from that evidence.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di) 31
QWEST CORPORATION
1 impairment based on business lines only once a year, based on data collected in
2 December of the prior year, and reported to the FCC in its ARMIS report by April 1 st of
3 the subsequent year. In fact, the Settlement Agreement gives Qwest until July 1 st of the
4 subsequent year to make its filing. So, consistent with the terms of the Settlement
5 Agreement, Qwest fied its Petition in this proceeding in June 2008, based on data
6 collected in December 2007 and reported to the FCC by April 1, 2008. Also consistent
7 with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and in keeping with the FCC's stated
8 expectation that these matters will be resolved promptly, the paries to the agreement are
9 to request expeditious treatment of these petitions. Qwest does not believe it should be
10 penalized or required to refie the data simply because of the inevitable regulatory lag that
11 may occur as a result of the filing of its Petition. Qwest notes that it filed its Petition in
12 June 2008, although the proceeding has not become active until recently.
13 Second, and perhaps more importtly, requiring more curent data would be
14 counter to the FCC's position that once a wire center has been determined to be non-
15 impaired, that wire center stays non-impaired, and is not reviewed again, even if the data
16 change in the future.21
21 Please see my testimony above and footnote 18.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 32
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.BASED ON THE BUSINESS LINE AN FIBER COLLOCATION
2 DATA AS OF DECEMBER 2007, WHICH WAS FILED WITH QWEST'S JUE
3 2008 PETITION IN THIS CASE, AR AN IDAHO WIRE CENTERS
4 CLASSIFIED AS "TIER I" OR "TIER 2" FOR INTEROFFICE TRASPORT?
5 A.Yes. Based on Qwest s analysis, one Idaho wire center, Boise Main,
6 meets the FCC's transport threshold for "Tier I" non-impairment status. Another Idaho
7 wire center, Boise West, meets the non-impairment threshold for "Tier 2." Both wire
8 centers qualify on the basis of both business line counts and the number of fiber-based
9 collocators in those wire centers.
10 Q.HAVE YOU PREPARD AN EXHIBIT THAT IDENTIFIES THE
11 BUSINESS LINE COUNTS CALCULATED PER THE SETTLEMENT
12 AGREEMENT METHODOLOGY?
13 A.Yes. Highy-Confdential Qwest Exhbit 5 provides the business access
14 line counts for the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers identified above, calculated
15 in accordance with the TRRO definitions and the Settlement Agreement methodology.
16
17 Q.WHAT TYPES OF BUSINESS LINES HAS QWEST INCLUDED IN
18 ITS ANALYSIS OF THESE TWO IDAHO WIRE CENTERS?
19 A.In conformance with the TRRO and the Settlement Agreement, the Qwest
20 analysis includes:
21 (l) Qwest retail business lines,
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di) 33
QWEST CORPORATION
1 (2) All UNE loops, and
2
3
4
(3) Business Qwest Local Services Platform ("QLSP"), and other similar
platform product offerings.22
5 A.QWEST RETAIL BUSINESS LINES
6 Q.PER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, HOW AR RETAIL
7 BUSINESS LINES DETERMINED?
8 A.Qwest business lines are determined using the most recently-fied
9 unadjusted ARIS data reported to the FCC.23 In this case, Qwest used the ARIS data
10 calculated as of December 2007 and filed with the FCC in April 2008. Qwest recorded
11 and counted actul retal business lines for this filing in the same maner as business line
12 data is tracked and recorded at the wire center-level data that Qwest used to develop its
13 statewide FCC ARIS 43-08 report.24
22 The Settlement Agreement also includes the count ofUN Platform ("UN-P") lines, but there
are no UN-P lines stil in service in Idao.
23 As I discussed above, ARIS stads for Automated Reporting Management Information
System. ARMIS reports are filed with the FCC as required by and according to FCC Rules. Furher
information and detailed instrctions for fiing ARMIS reports can be found at
htt://www.fcc.gov/wcb/aris/ .
24 Use of this data is consistent with the TRRO, as the FCC intended the business line counts be
based "an objective set of data that incumbent LECs already have created for other regulatory puroses."
TRRO, ,r 105.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 34
QWEST CORPORATION
1 B.UNBUNDLED Loops
2 Q.HAS QWEST INCLUDED ALL UNBUNDLED LOOPS IN ITS
3 BUSINESS LINE WIRE CENTER IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS?
4 A.Yes. Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, Qwest included all UNE
5 loops for each wire center in its business line counts, as the FCC directed in paragraph
6 105 of the TRRO and in its rule, 47 CFR § 51.5. Consistent with the FCC's "business
7 line" definition, Qwest did not attempt to "remove" UNE loops that may be used to serve
8 residential customers. In fact, the clear languge in the TRRO and associated rules
9 specifies that there is no basis to distinguish between "business" UNE loops and
10 "residential" UNE loops, or switched and non-switched UNE loops, and that all UNE
11 loops must be included in the business line count for each wire center. In paricular, 47
12 CFR § 51.5 defines what constitutes "business lines" as follows:
13 The number of business lines in a wire center shall equal the sum of all
14 incumbent LEC business switched access lines, plus the sum of all UN
15 loops connected to that wire center, including UN loops provisioned in
16 combination with other unbundled elements.
17
18 The FCC clearly specifies that "LEC business switched access lines" must be included in
19 an ILEC's retail line count, but it excludes the "business" quaifier in its mandate
20 regarding the treatment of UNE loops in the count. In other words, the FCC's rules
21 require all UNE loops to be included in an ILEC's business line count for puroses of
22 assessing whether the FCC's non-impairment criteria have been met. The FCC's
23 discussion ofUNE loops is consistent with the FCC's view tht the data should be simple
24 and based on readily-available data sources. Finally, the FCC's rules (47 CFR § 51.5)
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di) 35
QWEST CORPORATION
1 clearly state that the sum of all UNE loops-- not a subset of UNE loops-- should be
2 included in an ILEC's count of business lines.
3 Q.IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRRO AND THE SETTLEMENT
4 AGREEMENT, DID QWEST INCLUDE ALL 64 KILOBIT VOICE-GRAE
5 EQUIVALENT ("VGE") CHANNELS ASSOCIATED WITH DIGITAL
6 UNBUNDLED LOOPS?
7 A.Yes. For example, Qwest multiplied all DSI unbundled loops in Qwests
8 December 2007 wholesale database-the same vintage of data upon which Qwests retail
9 business line count for its FCC ARIS 43-08 report was based-by a VGE factor 24,
10 consistent with the FCC's guideline (47 CFR § 51.5) that all 64 kbps chanels of capacity
11 in a digital circuit should be counted as separate business lines.25
12 Q.IN ADDITION TO STAND-ALONE UNBUNDLED LOOPS, DID
13 QWEST INCLUDE ENHANCED EXTENDED LOOPS ("EELS") IN ITS
14 UNBUNDLED LOOP COUNT?
15 A.Yes. An enhanced extended loop, or "EEL," essentially consists of an
16 unbundled loop plus interoffce transport, and is used by a CLEC to provide service to a
17 customer located in a paricular wire center when the CLEC is collocated in a different
18 wire center. Thus, EEL loops are appropriately included in the count of unbundled loops
25 This also means that DS3 loops are multiplied by a VGE factor of 672.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 36
QWEST CORPORATION
1 for the wire center in which the unbundled loop terminates. Again this is consistent with
2 the TRRO and the Settlement Agreement. 26
3
4 C.QLSP AND OTHER COMMERCIAL EQUIVALENTS
5 Q.AR ANY OTHER WHOLESALE SERVICES INCORPORATED
6 INTO THE COUNT OF BUSINESS LINES?
7 A.Yes. Per the Settlement Agreement, and consistent with the TRRO, Qwest
8 incorporates the counts of Qwest Local Services Platform ("QLSP"), and other similar
9 platform products offered to business customers. These products represent commercial
10 services that Qwest offers to CLECs as replacements for UNE Platform (UNE-P")
11 services which the FCC no longer requires Qwest to offer. However, for puroses of this
12 docket, Qwest notes that there are no UNE-P lines stil in service in Idaho.
13
14 IX.CONCLUSION
15 Q.PLEASE SUMMAZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
16 A.My testimony describes the history of the 1996 Federal Act's unbundling
17 requirement and the FCC's Triennal Review process, as well as the results of the FCC's
18 TRRO. I describe the criteria that the FCC defined to identify non-impaired wire centers.
26 Interestingly, both wire centers contain the same number of EELs. These totals are arved at
via different subtotals leased to different CLECs as can be seen in Highly Confidential Exhibit C attached
to the Affdavit of Bob Brigham filed with Qwests petition in this case.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 37
QWEST CORPORATION
1 I identify the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers as non-impaired for interoffce
2 transport on the basis of both business line counts and fiber-based collocators. I also
3 identify the Boise Main wire center as non-impaired for DS3 unbundled loops on the
4 basis of business line counts. Furer, I introduce the Qwest witnesses who wil discuss
5 Qwests count of fiber-based collocators. I also introduce and describe the terms of a
6 multi-state Settlement Agreement reached between Qwest and the Joint CLECs that can
7 be adopted by the Commission or that can be used as the basis for the implementation
8 process in Idaho, as it has been successfully used in five other states. And finally,
9 I describe the methodology that Qwest uses to count business lines.
10 Accordingly, Qwest asks the Commission to adopt Qwests list of non-impaied
11 wire centers in the state of Idao so that Qwest may obtain the unbundling relief that the
12 FCC intended in its TRRO. Qwest also asks the Commission to adopt Qwests proposed
13 procedures as outlined in the multi-state Settlement Agreement for designation of non-
14 impaired wire centers in the future.
15
16
Q.DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
A.Yes, it does.
17
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 38
QWEST CORPORATION
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
February 4, 2005
Via Facsimile and First Class Mail
Gar R. Lytle
Senior Vice President, Federal Relations
Qwest
607 14th Street, NW, Suite 950
Washington, DC 20005
Re: Unbundled Access to Network Elements, we Docket No. 04-313; Review of Section 251
Unbundling Obligations for Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, ce Docket No. 01-338
Dear Mr. Lytle:
On Februar 4, 2005, the Commission released its Triennial Review Remand Order, adopting rules
governing the unbundling obligations of incumbent LECs regarding, among other things, dedicated transport
and high-capacity loops. i In crafting impairment thesholds for these elements that relied on readily
ascertainable, quantitative criteria, the Commission sought to faciltate prompt implementation of its revised
rules, and to minimize disputes regarding the scope of an incumbent LEC's unbundling obligations in any
paricular case. The Bureau is mindful of the need for certainty within the industr regarding the scope of
unbundling obligations. Such certainty depends on the timely incorporation of the Triennial Review Remand
Order's fact-dependent rules into revised interconnection ageements. To this end, we ask that you provide the
Bureau a list identifying by Common Language Location Identifier (CLLI) code 2 which wire centers in your
company's operating areas satisfy the Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 criteria for dedicated trsport, and identifying
by CLLI code the wire centers that satisfy the nonimpairment thresholds for DSI and DS3 loops.3 We ask that
you submit this information into the above-referenced dockets by Februar 18,2005.
The Bureau believes that this information wil expedite the implementation of the Commission's rules
implementing the Act. I than you in advance for your prompt reply to this request.
Sincerely,
lsI
Jeffrey J. Carlisle
Chief, Wire line Competition Bureau
i Unbundled Access to Network Elements; Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local
Exchange Carriers, we Docket No. 04-313, ee Docket No. 01-338, Order on Remand (Triennial Review Remand Order).
2 The eLLI code is an eight charcter code that identifies a paricular wire center.
3 Id. at par. 120 (defining Tier 1 wire centers); id. at para. 126 (defining Tier 2 wire centers); id. at par. 131 (defining
Tier 3 wire centers); id. at par. 185 (defining wire center nonimpairment threshold for DS3 loops); id. at para. 189
(defining wire center nonimpairmentthreshold for DSI loops); see also id., App. B, 47 e.F.R. §§ 51.19(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i),
(e)(3).
EXHIBIT NO.1
Case No. OWE-T-08-7
A1bersheim, R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 1 of 1
Wir
e

Ce
n
t
e
r

Wi
r
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

H
i
g
h
Wi
r
e

Ce
n
t
e
r

fo
r

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

N
o
n
-
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y

L
o
o
p

N
o
n
-
ST
Wi
r
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

N
a
m
e
CL
L
l
S

C
o
d
e
Im
p
a
r
i
m
e
n
t
Im
p
a
i
r
m
e
n
t
ID
Bo
i
s
e

M
a
i
n
BO
I
S
I
D
M
A
Ti
e
r

1
DS
3

U
n
b
u
n
d
l
e
d

L
o
o
p
s
ID
Bo
i
s
e

W
e
s
t
BO
I
S
I
D
W
E
Ti
e
r

2
EX
H
I
B
I
T

N
O
.
2
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

Q
W
E
-
T
-
0
8
-
0
7
Al
b
e
r
s
h
e
i
m
,

R

Q
w
e
s
t
4/
1
7
/
0
9
Pa
g
e

1

o
f

1
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

I
m
p
a
i
r
m
e
n
t
Im
p
a
i
r
e
d
08
1
,
0
8
3
,
Im
p
a
i
r
e
d
08
1
,
0
8
3
,
F
r\
l
o
t

I
r
n
p
a
i
r
e
c
l
DS
1
,

D
S
3
,

U
D
F
EX
H
I
B
I
T

N
O
.
3
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

Q
W
E
-

T

-
0
8
-
0
7
Al
b
e
r
s
h
e
i
m
,

R

Q
w
e
s
t
4/
1
7
/
0
9
Pa
g
e

1

o
f

1
MUTI-STATE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING
WI CENTR DESIGNATIONS AN RELATED ISSUES
This Multi-State Settlement Agreement ("Settement Agreement'j is entered into between Qwest
Corporation ("Qwes") and Covad Communcations Company ("Covad'j, Eschelon Telecom,
Inc. ("Eschelon"), Integra Telecom Holdings, Inc. ("Integr"), McLedUSA
Telecmmuncatons Serces, Inc. ("McLedUSA'j, Onvoy, POPP.Com (''POPP'j, US Lin
Inc. d//a TDS Metrocom, Inc. C'TSM'j, and XO Coinuncations Serces, Inc. ("XO'j.
Qwest and each CLEC are refered to separately as a "Party" or collectively as the ''Pares.''
I. INODUCTION
WHREAS, the Fed Communcations Comssion ('"FCC") issue its Reprt and
Order, In the Matter of Review of the Section 251 Unbunding Obligations of Incubent Local
Exchange Carrers; Implementation of the Local Competition Proviions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of Wireline Serces Ofering Advancd
Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98 and 98-147 (effecve October
2, 2003) ("TRO"); and, on Febru 4, 2005, ~fleFCC releaed the Revew of the Section 251
Unbunding Obligations of Incubent Locl Exchange Carrers, Order on Remand (effective
Marh 11, 2005)(Tnenal Revew Remd Orer) (FCC 04-290) ("'TO");
WHREAS, on Februar 15, 2006, some or all of the Joint CLECs fied reques with the
state Commissions in Anona, Colorao, Minnesota Orgon, and Uta asg that the state
Commssions, in acoordace with the TRO, develop and aprove a list of Non-hnpaied Wire
Cente and a process for futur up of the wire cente list;
WHREAS, the aforeentioned stae Commssions opened the followig dockets in
resnse to these filigs: Arona (Docket Nos.T-03632A-06-0091; T..03267A-06-0091; T-
04302A-06-001; T-03406A-06001; T-03432A-06-0091; and T-OI051B-06-0091), Colorao
(Docket No. 06M-080T), Miesota (Docket Nos. P-5692, 5340, 5643, 5323, 465, 6422-06-
211), Oregon (Dcket No. UM 1251), and Uta (Dcket No. 06-049-40);
WHREAS, the Wasgtn Utilities an Trarton Commssion (WC)
Page lof1S
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
A1bersheim, R
Qwest
411709
Page 1 of21
investgated Qwest's intial non-impaien li in an existg - docket (numer tJ-053025)
established to review the impacts of the TRO on loca competition.
WHREAS, on Mah 3, 2006, Qwest al petitioned for a Commssion investgation
and expedited proceeding to verfy Qwest wie cente data address the nonrecurg conversion
chage, estalish a process for futue updes of the wie center list, adess related issues, an
bind all CLEs.
WHREAS, the Joint CLECs and Qwest have reached resolution of their disputes.
Because of the multi-state natue of the isses, the Pares have detened that it is in their
mutual intert to effect a multi-stte setlement of issues.
THFORE, the Pares agree to the followig resolution of issues:
n. DEFIITIONS
"Commssion" for Arzona mean the Arna Corpration Commssion or any succesor state
agency.
"Commsson" for Colorao mean the Colorao Pulic Utilities Commssion or any successor
st agency.
"Commission" for Minesota mea the Minesota Public Utilities Commission or any sucessor
sta agency.
"Commssion" for Oregon mea the Public Utility Commssion of Orgon or any sucessor
ste agency.
"Commssion" for Uta mean the Uta Public Servce Commssion or any successor state
agency.
"Commssion" for Washigtn mea the Washigton Utities and Traortation Commssion
or any succesr state agency.
"Commssion-Approved Wir Center List" is Atthment A to ths Settlement Agreement, as
Page 2 ofl8
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. OWE-T-08-07
A1bersheim, R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 2 of21
- - '-may be updëdby the CoiIssion, as described in Section V ¿fths settement Agreeent.
"Effective Date of ths Settlement Agreement' is the effective date of the Commssion order
apprvig ths Setlement Agrent.
"Effective Date of Non-Imaient Designation" is the date on which the non-impaient
designtion begi as speced in th Setement Agreement at Section II(B) for the Intial
Commssion-Approved Wire Center List an as later detered purt to Setion VI (F) for
futu non-imaient designons identied in a Commsion-Approved Wire Cente Li.
"Filig Date" is the date on which Qwest submits its non-impairment or tier designon filig,
with supportg da as described in Section VI of ths Settement Agreement, to the-
Commssion for review and provide the Commssion and CLECs tht, as of th date, have
signed the aplicable protetive orde/agreeent (or ar subjec to a stdig prtective order).
If Qwes provides the data to the Commission and Joint CLECs on different daes, the Filing
Date sha be the later of the two dates.
"Intial Commssion-Approved Wire Cente List" is Atthment A to ths Settlement Agrement
as of the Effective Date of ths Settlement Agrement.
"Joint CLECs" refers collecvely to Covad Communcations Company ("Covadn), Eschelon
Telecm, mc. (''Ehelon''), Integr Telecm Holdings, Inc. ("Integr''), McLeodUSA
Telecmmuncaons Serce, Inc. ("McLeodUSA"), Onvoy, POPP.Com ("POPP"), US Link,
Inc. d//a TOS Metrocom (''TSMn), and XO Communcaons Serces, In. ("XO").
''Non-Impaied Facilities" ar those netork elements identied in an applicable FCC order as
no longer available as unbundled network elements ("UNs'') under 47 U.S.C. § 25l(c)(3) based
on non-impaient or tier desgnaton and tht have bee reviewed and approved by a
Commssion using the process and methodology set fort in Section N of ths Setement
Agreement.
"Non-Impaied Wir Center" is a Wire Center that the Commssion fids meets the loop
tholds identified in CFR 47 §S1.319(a)(4)(i) for DSI Loops, or the loop thesholds identied
in CFR 47 §SL.319(a)(S)(i) for DS3 Loops, or the Tier I or Tier 2 Wir Centers designtions as
defied in §SL.319(e)(3) and that is identified on a Commsion-Approved Wire Center List.
Page 3 ofl8
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case Noo QWE-T-08-07
Albersheim, R
Qwest
4/17/09
Page 30f21
- "parës" refers collectively to Qwest Corporation and the Joint CUCs.
"Qwest" refer to "Qwest Colporation."
"Wire Center" For puroses of this Settement Agreement, a Wire Center is the location of a
Qwes local switchig facility contaig one or more Centr Offces as defied in the Appedi
to par 36 of chater 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federa Regulations. The Wire Center
boundaes define the ar in whch al customer seed by a given Wir Center ar located. -
il. INIA COMMSSION-APPROVED WI CENTR LIST
Notwthtading anytg that may be to the contr in the Defiitions set fort in
Section I and the Methodology set fort in Section V of this Setlement Agrment, the Pares
age the Qwest Wir Cente listed in .Atthment A quaify as Non-Impaired Wire Centers at
the tier levels and fòr the facilities noted on Atthment A.
For Wir Center identified in Atthment A, the Paries agr as follows:
A. The Joint CLECs agre tb. upon the Effective Date of th Settlement
Agrment, they wi not order Non-Impai Facilties identified in the Intial
Commission-Approved Wire Center List An order approvig ths Setement
Agrent is, and will also be recogned by the Pares as, an order approvig
the non-impaient or tier designons identified in the Intial Commsson-
Approved Wir Center Lis
B. The Effective Date of Non-Imaient Designatons contaned in the Intial
Commission-Aproved Wire Center List is Marh 11,2005. with the following
excetions:
1. July 8, Z005: The Effective Date of Non-Imaient Designions fied
in 2005 af Qwes's intial Febru 18, 2005 filing and identified in the
fi colum of Attachment A shall be July 8,2005.
2. Thir (30) Days After the Effective Date of this Settement
Agreement: The Effective Date of Non-Impaient Deignons for the
Page4of18
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE.T-08-07
A1bersheim, R
Qwest
4/17/09
Page 4 of21
Denver Eas and Colorado Sprigs Maî WIrëenters Shall be 30 days
following the Effective Date of ths Settlement Agreement.
IV. NON-RECUG CHGE FOR CONVRSIONS USING TH IN
WI CENTR LIST AN FOR FUTU COMMSSION-APPROVED
ADDmONS TO THAT LIST
A. Qwest will, for at least the (3) year frm the Effective Date of ths Settlement
Agrement, assess an effective net non-recunng chage of $25 for each facilty
convered from a UN to an alterntive serice or product under ths Settlement
Agrent. Qwest may assess a non-recurg conversion chage in excess of
$25 so long as Qwest provides a clealy identified lump sum credt within th
(3) billg cycles that results in an effective net non-recurg charge of $25. No
adtional non-recurng charges apply, other than OSS non-reunng charges if
applicable. Qwest shall not impose any recurg-or nonrecurg ass chages
uness .and until the Commssion authorizes Qwest to imose such chages and/or -
approves applicable rates at the completion of appropriate cost docket
proceengs.
B. For puroses of selement, Qwest will provide a clealy identified lump-sum
cret of $25 per convered facility to those CLECs th have (1) convered Non-
Impaied Faclities to a Qwest alternve serce before the Effective Date of th
Settlement Agreeent puruant to the TRO and (2) paid a $50 non-recurng
coveron chage. In the event a CLEC ha, prior to the Effective Date of th
Settement Agreeent, discnneced a conver circt and, as a result th
circuit is no longer in serce as of the Effective Date of ths Settlement
Agrement, Qwes wil include tht discomiected ciruit in the lump-sum credt
descbed above if the CLEC provides: (1) the circuit ID of the discomiected
circuit; (2) the BAN number on which the disconnected circuit was billed; and (3)
the BAN number to which the CLEC would lie the credt applied. Once the
CLEC has provided this information, Qwes will provide the reimbursement
credt as set fort herei. A CLEC will not be reuired to provide a copy of the
discomiection order as a condition of includg the diimected ciruit in the
lump sum crt prvided under ths Paraph.
Page 5 of18
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
Albersheim, R
Qwest
411709
Page 50f21
C. The Pares may disagr as to the amôunt of the applicable non-reurg chage
afer th yea frm the' Effecve Dat of ths Settlement Agrement, and each
Par reeres all of its rights with resect to the amount of chares afer that date.
Nothing in thi Setement Agrment precludes a Par frm addressing the non-
recurg chage af three yea frm the Effective Date of th Settement
Agreeent. A different non-recurg chage will apply only to the exten
authorized by an aplicable regulatry authority, or agr upn by the Pares.
v. METHODOLOGY
Non-Imaired Facilties. non-impaient or tier designations wil be detered usng
the followig methodology
A. - Business Lines - Business lines shal be couned as follows:
1. Qwest reta business lines shl be deteed using the most reently
filed unadjusd AR data reprt to the FCC. For puroses of futue
non-impaient designtions, Qwes shall follow FCC AR
intrctons and wil recrd and count retl business lies in preciely the -
same maner as business acess lie dat is tracked and recorded in the
Wire Center level da Qwest us to develop its statewide AR 43-08
report filed anualy with the FCC, without makg any inter-wi center
adjusents to ths dáta and without includig the sae lies in more th
one of the categories list in pargrhs (2) - (4) of ths Secon yeA).
2. UN loops connected to a Wire Cente where DS 1 & DS3 unundled
loops and DS i & DS3 Enhced Extended Loops (''EEL'') are provided to
CLECs shl be counted at full caacity (Le., DSls will be counted as 24
business lies and DS3s wil counte as 672 business lies).
3. Only Business UN.P lies will be counted for the Commsion-
Approved Wire Center List Busess UN-P lies shall be derved by
subtrtig the count of ligs associated with residential UN.P frm
the tota number ofUNP lies.
Page 60f18
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-0B-07
Albersheim, R
Qwest
4/17/09
Page 6 of21
4. Qwest piätform Plus ("QPP"), Qwes Loca Serces Platforn ("QLsP"),
and other simlar platform product offergs shall be caculated using
actu business li counts for thes serces.
B. Collocation -
1. A fiber.based collocator is defied as any caer, unfflite with the
incumbent LEC (Qwest), tht mata a collocation argement in an
incumbent LEC (Qwest) Wire Center, with active elecca power supply,
and opertes a fiber-optic cable or comparble tranission facilty that:
a. terms at a collocation argement with the Wir Center;
b. leaves the Incumbent LEC's (Qwest's) Wire Center premises; and
c. is owned by a par other th the incumbent LEC (Qwes) or any
affili of the incumbent LEe (Qwest), except as set fort in ths
defition. Dar fiber obtaed frm an incumbent LEe (Qwest)
on an indefeaible nglt of us basis shl be treated as non-_
incumbent LEe (non-Qwes) fiber-optic cable. Two or more
afliated fiber-based colloctors in a sigle Wire Center shal
collectively be counted as a single fi-based collocator. For the
puroses of ths definition, "afliat" is defied by 47 U.S.C.
§153(1) and any relevant interetaon in tht title.
2. Before classifg a carer as a fiber-bas collocr in a Qwest filig
request puruat to Section VI for Commssion approval of a non-
impaid designtion, Qwest will:
a.Confrm th the carer mee the cntea contaed in the
defition of fiber-based collocator in 47 C.F.R. § 51.5 (as
reflected in paragrh B(l) and subpar above);':'
b. Conduct a field viit to verfy and document the above (2.a.)
crtera; and
Page 7 of18
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. OWE-T-08-07
A1bersheim, R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 7 of21
c. Valdat the crter âgäî the most reent order and/or bfllig
dat.
3. Express fiber will be counted as a fuctional fiber faility for purses of
identig a fiber-basd collocaor, if it meets the defition of fiber-
based collocor in 47 C.F.R. §51.5 (as reflected in pargrh B(l) and
subpar abve). The Joint CLECs agree not to rase the lack of Qwest-
provided power when there is trc over the exress fiber as the sole
basis to dispute whether expres fiber can be counte as a fuctiona fiber
facilty for purses of identifyg a fiber-based collocator. For the
purse of ths Settlement Agreeent, "express fiber mean a CLEC-
owned fiber placed to the collocation by Qwes th terates at CLEC.
owned equipment in a collocation and drws power from a reote
location.
4. Before fig a reuest puruant to Section VI for Commission approval of
a non-impaient deigntion, Qwest wi send a letter by certfied U.S.
mail, retu receipt requesed to CLECs idenifed by Qwest as fiber-
based collocators using the conta identied by each such CLEC for
internnection agreeent notices, and inorm them tht they will be" "
counte by Qwest as fiber-based collocators in Qwests filig. The CLEC
will have a reanable opportty (which Qwest will identify in its letter
but which will be no less than ten (10) business days frm the CLEC's
confed recipt of Qwests letter) to provide feedback to ths
inormtion before Qwest files its request. In the absence of a resonse by
the Qwest-identified collocators, Qwest may rely on the Qwest-identified
collocrs in its filig. No par shl us the absenc of a resonse frm
a CLEC collocator as the sole basis for its position.
VI. FU QWEST FIINGS TO REQUEST COMMSION APPROVAL OF
NON-IMAINT DESIGNATIONS AN ADDITIONS TO THE
COMMSSION-APPROVED WIRE CENTR LIST
A. Qwest may fie a request(s) with the Commission to obtai additional Non-
Impaired Wire Center as data suprtg such designtions becme available,
Page 8 ofl8
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. OWE- T -08-07
Albersheim. R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 8 of21
subject to the followig conditions:
1. Qwest may reues adtion of Non-Impaied Wire Centers to the
Commission-Approved Wire Cente List at any tie based solely the
number of fiber-bas collocators.
2. Qwest may request adtion of Non-Impai Wire Center based in whole
or par upon lie counts at any tie up to July 1 of eah year, based on
prior yea lie count data.
3. Notwthng the above, Qwest wil not reues addition of any Non-
Imaire Wir Cente until afer the 2007 ARS filig (using Decber
200 lie count data).
B. When reuestig additiona non-impaient designtions, Qwest wil use the
metodology set fort in Section V above, and wil us the most recent data
available at the time Qwest submits its proposed non-impairent desgntions for
Commssion review. For business line counts, Qwest will use and submit the
most reent filed ARS (as reported) dat available at the time of submission of
its reuest to the Commssion.
C. At leat five (5) days prior to :flig new non-impaient or tier designtions for
Commssion review, Qwest will reues a protecve order frm the Commssion
to gover the handlig of confidential inormation durg the proceedgs.
Atthed as Athment E to ths Settement Agreement, is a model protective
order. The Pares agr to sek frm the individual Commsson's approval for a
stding protective order based upon the atthed model protective order that will
apply in futue proeeds. Where a Commssion adopts a stading protective
ord, Qwest is not reuied to submit a request for a new protetive order, and
CLECs tht have signed the protective orde ar not required to resign it for eah
new Qwest reuest. A Commsion may modify a standig protetive order usig
its,;stdad proceses and procedures afer Qwest ha made its fig.
D. In order to provide all interted paries adequate notice of the scoe of the
requested protective order and the anticipated Wir Center update proceeg,
Qwest wil provide CLECs (Joint CLECs and other potentially afected
Page 90f18
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. OIN-T-08-07
A1bersheim, R
Owest
411709
Page 9 of21
Competitive Local Exchange Carer), inciUëlñg äi least the contats identied
by each such caer for interconnection agreeent notices, via its email
notific.ation chaels, with at leat five (5) business days notice prior to filig
proposed non-impaient or tier designations for Commssion review.
E. Qwest will fie supportng da (as outled below) with the Commssion when
fig its reques to obta additiona non-impaient designatons. Qwest wil
alo provide a copy of the suppog dat pursuat to the terms of the applicale
prtetive order to CLEs that have signed th.e applicable protective agreeent
(or are subject to a stag protective order).
1. If Qwes relies upon Fiber-Based Collocators for its proposed Non. Impairment
Designation, the supportg da win include at least the followig inormtion:
a. The name of eah fiber-based collocator.
b. The applicable Qwest Ready for Servce date.
c. The results of any field verficaion that Qwest underok to ver the
fiber-based collocaton, includig the field techncian' notes which includes:
(1) the Wir Center and state; (2) collocator name; (3) collocation tye; (4)
fiber tye; (5) valdaion of fibe teration at the fiber-based collocation; (6)
validaon that fiber exits a Wir Center prees; (7) visual. power
verficaton; (8) power vercaton at Bater Dibution Fuse BaylBoard
e'BDFB,") if possible; (9) additional comments from field personnel.
d. A copy of the letter sent by Qwest to collocar(s) identified by Qwest as
fiber-based collocatr(s) reuestig valdaon of status as a fibér-based
collocator and ownership/reponsibilty.
e. Copies of any responses to the leter noted in 1 (d) abve, includig an
."indication of whether the collocator has affatvely identified (or disputed)
itself as a fiber-based collocator; and
f. All wrtten correspondence betee Qwest and the collocatr( s) identified
by Qwest as fiber-based collocator(s) regarg the valdation of the fiber-
Page 10 of is
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
A1bersheim, R
Qwest
4/17/09
Page 10 of 21
based colloction.
2. If Qwest relies upon Switched Business Line Count da for its proposed Non-
Impairment Designtion, the supportg da wil inlude at leas the following
inormtion:
a. The lates available ARS 43-08 lie counts, usg the metodology
described in Section VeAl of th Agrent and used to create offcial
AR data on fie with the FCC.
b. Tota wholesale UN loops shown at the aggega level for the Wire
Centers) at issue, an by capacty (voice gre, DSl, DS3). Ths inormation
wi also be provided on a disaggregated basis for al CLCs with the CLEC
naes maked Qwest win provide to CLEC the maskig coe informtion
necsar for CLEC to identify its own line count da Qwest calculations to
derve 64-kbs equivalents for high caacity (e.g., DSI and DS3) loops wil
also be provided.
c. CLEC lie counts based upon QPP or Qwest Loal Serces Platform (or
silar platform product) wi be provided on a disaggegated basis for al
CLEs with CLEC names mased. Qwest will provide to CLEC the mag
co information necar for CLEC to identi its own line count data
F. Once Qwest submits its new non-impaient or tier designation filig to request
Commssiòn aprova, includng all of the informtion identified in Section VI(E)
abve:
1 A CLEC or any other par will have 30 days frm the Filing Date to raie
objections to Qwest's request with the Commssion.
2. If no objections' are filed with the Commssion, the Effective Date of the
Non-Imairent Designation will be thir (30) days afer the Filng Date,".
uness the Commisson order othere ("Effective Dat for Undiuted
Desgnatons''). The Pares agre tht they will reuest that the
Comnsion not alter the Effective Date for Undisputed Designtions
without good cause.. If no objections are filed with the Commssion, the
Page 11 oris
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
Albersheim, R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 11 of21
._....._~.~
Joint CLECs agree tht they will not order Non-Imaied Facilties in the
Wir Centers) identied on the applicable Commssion-Approved Wire
Center List as of fiftee (15) days frm the Effective Date of the Non-
Imairment Designtion.
a. In the event no objections to Qwest filing are filed with the
Commission, the Pares agree tht they wi, with thy (30)
days of th Effective Date of the Non-Impaient Designations,
joinly request an expedted order desgnting as non-impaid the
faclities identified in the Qwest filig, if no order ha been
recived.
b. To facilitate the exedted order descn"bed in the previous
pargraph, the Pares fuer agree that they will with th (30)
days of the Effective Date of Non- Impaient Designons,
include a mutually agr to proposed order designatng as non.
imaied th facilties identified by Qwest in its filing on th Filing
Date as an attchment to the joint request for an expedited order, if
no order ha bee received.
3. If a CLC or any other par disputes Qwes's prosed non-impaient
designations, the Pares agr to as the Commssion to use its best
effort to resolve such dispute withi 60 days of the date of the objection.
a. In the event no objections ar filed with respect to some but not all
of the non-impaient designtions identified by Qwest in a
reuest on the Filig Date, the Pares agre tht they wil jointly
request an expedite order approvig the undisputed designations
identified in the Qwest filing on the Filing Dat, using the process
note in pargraphs 2(a) and 2(b) above.
4. If a CLEC or ~y other par disputes Qwest's proposed non-impaient
designaton but Qwest prevails and the Wire Center is added to the
Commssion-Approved Wire Center List, the Joint CLECs agr they will
not order Non-Impaied Facilties in (for loops) and betee (for
trrt) Wire Center identified. on the applicable Commssion-
Page 12 ofl8
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. OWE-T-0B-07
A1bersheim. R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 12 of 21
Apprved Wire Center List as of fift (15) days afer the effective date
of the Connsion order addig it to the Commission-Approved Wir
. Center List.
5. If a CLEC or any other par disputes Qwests proposed non-imaient
designtion and prevails, an it is not added to the Commssion-Apprved .
Wire Center List DS 1 and DS3 UN loop or high capacity trsport UN
facilties in (for loops) and betwee (for trsprt) such Wir Cente wil
contiue to be treaed as UNs unti those facilties ar added to a
Commission-Apprved Wir Center List in a futu filing.
G. Length of Tration Perod for Addtiona Non-Impaient Designtions.
1. When the Commssion aproves adtional DS 1 and DS3 UN loop or
high capacity trort UN non-impaient designtions as described in
ths Section VI CLEC will have niety (90) days from the effective date
of the order in which the Commsion approves the addition to the
Commssion-approved Wire Center List to trsition the aplicable Non-
Impaied Facilties to an altertive serce puruat to the term of the
applicale internnection ageement.
2. When the Commsion approves additiona Dark Fiber tranport non-
impaient Designatons as decnòed in ths Section VI CLEC wil have
one-hundr and eigh (180) days frm the effective date of the order in
which the Commssion approves the addition to the Commsion-approved
Wire Center List to trition the applicable Non-Impaied Facilities,
puruat to the teims of the applicable interonnection agreement to an
altertive serce. Qwes and CLEC will work together to idetify those
circuts imacted by such a chage.
H. Rae Durg Tration Perod for Additiona Non-Imaient Designtions
..,
1. Durg the Trsition Perods idenfied in Section VI (G), facilties
subject to the trition will be provided at a rate equal to i 15% of the
lT'E rates aplicable as of the applicable effectve date. The 115%
tritiona rate for adtiona Non-Imaied Facilties will be aplied to
Page 13 of18
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. OWE.T-08-07
A1bersheim. R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 13 of 21
.'_.-- -. ~ - .. ~_._........ ._._.... . - .. '.
CLEC bills as a maua adjusent on the followig bil cycle. The bil
adjustment will be applied to each account based on the Billig Telephone
. Number (BTN and/or Ciruit (CKT) per Biling Account Number (BAN
with an effecve bil date as of the applicable effective date.
2. The non-recurng conversion charge is addressed in Section IV.
VII. OTHER PROVISIONS
A. Ths Settlement Ageement is the entie agement between the Pares regarg
resolution of the underlying dispute and ths Settement Agreeent may be
moded only if agree to in wrtig, signed by the Pares and approved by the
Commssion. Ths Setement Agreeent is not inended to alter or amend the
existig intennecon agreements between Qwes and Joint CLCs. To the
extent tht any tem of th Settlement Agrement would afect interconnection
agrment ter internnection agreement ter wil not be dealt with in the
Setlement Agreeent but wil inte be inluded in fied and aproved
internnection agrents or amendments as descrbed in subpargrphs 1-3 of
th Section VllA):
1. Atthments B, C, and D to ths Setteient Agreeent contai
internnection agreeent ("ICA") proviions regarding issues addressed
in ths Settement Agreeent. The CLECs tht are par of the Joint
CLCs are at varg stages of ICA negotiations with Qwes. Qwest an
the Joint CLECs agree that the lCA language wil be addressed as follows:
a. Covad Integra, POPP.Com, and XO have each extCuted TRO
ICA amendments with Qwest. Qwest, Covad Integr POPP.Com
and XO ag to amend their interconnection agrents with
Qwes using the amendment ter in Attchment B.
b. Eschelon and Qwest have executed a Bridge Agreeent and ar
curtly pares to lCA arbitrons. Qwest and Eschelon agree
tht, in each aritrtion, the language in Atthment C wil be
aded as closed (i,e., agreed upon) languge to the inteonnection
Page 14of18
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
Albersheim, R
Qwest
4/17/09
Page 140f21
agrement th is sumitt in the compliance filing for
Commssion approval in eah state. Inering this language wil
not re.pen or modify any closed languge in the proposed
interconnection agrent. Eschelon agres to ad the closed
laguge reflected in Attachment C to the negotiatons multi-stte
intercnnecton agreeent negotiations dr withn ten (10)
busines days of the Effective Date of ths Settement Agreeent.
c. McLedUSA and TDSM have not agreed to or executed TRRO
Amendments to thei curt ¡CAs and are in negotiations with
Qwes puruat to Section 252 of the feder Act The tiefres
of Section 252 apply to those internnection agrent
negotiatons. Qwes McLeUSA and TDSM agree to execute an
amendment to thei existg ICAs to include the amendment ters
in Atthment D. Qwest McLeodUSA and TDSM resere their
rights as to TRO and ICA tem not set fort in Atthment D
includig ter with respt to the raes, ter and backbillg for
the time period frm Marh 10, 2006 to the tie McLeodUSA and
TDSM cover thei existig base of Non~Iiaire Facilities as
well as the coequences for any non-cnversion (or "Failur to
Conver") afer the end of a tranition perod.
2. Qwest, Covad, Integra, POPP.Com, and XO agree to execute the rCA
terms in Atthment B withn te (10) busess days of the Effective Dat
of ths Setlement Agement, and Qwest ages to :fle the executed
amendments for Commssion apprval with thrt (30) days of the
Effective Date of ths Settement Agrent.
3. McLedUSA and TDSM ag to execute the lCA ter in Atthment D
with ten (10) business days of the Effective Date of ths Settement
Agreement, an Qwest agrees to ..ile the executed amendments for
Commssion approval with th (30) days of the Effective Date of ths
Settlement Agreemet.
4. Qwes agrs to make the te in Exhbits B, C, an D availe to other
Page 15 of 18
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
A1bersheim, R
Qwest
4/17/09
Page 15 of 21
requesting CLECs for inclusion of one'öltle ofuë¡. in therr intercöIiection .
ageements, consistent with Section 252(i) of the Act, as well.
B. Ths Settlement Agrment is a setlement of a controvery. No preedent is
established by th Settlement Agreeent, wheter or not approved by
Commissions. The Settement Agreement is made only for settlement purses
and does not represet the position that any Par would tae if ths mater is not
reolved by agreement. Ths Settement Agreement may not be used as evidence
or for impeachment in any futu proceedg before a Commssion or any other
adstative or judicial body, except for futu enorcen of the ter of ths
Setlement Agrent afer approval.
C. If, pror to approval, any Commission modfies any porton of ths Settement
Agrment, the Pares exressly acknowledge th any Pary may terinte ths
Settlement Agreeent as to that paricular Ste.
D. Qwest has entered into ICA Amendments (See, e.g., Secion 2.6 of the Qwest-
Covad TRO Amendment; Secon 2.8.5 of the Qwest-Integr TRO
Amendment, and Section 2.9.4 of the Qwest-XO TRO Amendment.) under
which Qwest ha agree tht facilties previously convered to (or ordered as)
non-UNs based on initial Qwest non-impaient designtions will be convered
back to UN at no charge with corrondig refuds to the CLECs for non-
recurg chages and the dierene between the applicable non-UN and UN
recurg rates afer a detation th the relevant Wire Cener did not meet the
FCC's non-impaient critea. Qwest agrees here that these provisions and all
the converion and refud tes therei wil apply to any of the relevant Joint
CLEC's facilties previously desgnted by Qwest as non-imai, but not
identified as non-impaied in Atthment A to ths Settlement Agrement. For
any refuds th ar due aid owig puruant to suh proviions as of the Effective
Date of ths Settlement Agrent, Qwest wil refud the app~cabie qualifyng
Joint CLEC no later th sity (60) days af the Effecve Date of th
Settlement Agreeent.
E. For those non-impaient designons tht have an effective date of July 8, 2005
under ths Settlement Agreeent, CLECs that have already been back-biled to March 11, 2005
for those facilties shall receive frm Qwes a lump sum crdit eqal to the amount back-biled
Page 16 orI8
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-08-7
Albersheim. R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 16 of21
specifically for the penod frm Marh 11,2005 to July 8, 2005.
Page 17 of 18
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
A1bersheim, R
Qwest
4/17/09
Page 17 of21
.'fm.rr~~,. ......":~'~SAØRït.ÊJI_.i
Da:!f, .PC~.~-o¡-~Ø1i
. ~,Qotpomtlótl,
;.
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
Albersheim, R
Qwest
4/17/09
Page 18 of 21
MUTI.STA TE
SETNT AGRE REGARING
WI CEN DESIGNATIONS AN REATED ISUE
Dat th ¡4 day of June, 'l7.
(l¡;
He B. Gold
SVP - Exteal Afrs
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. OWE-T-OS-07
Albersheim, R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 19 of21
MUTi..TATE
SE'IEMENT AGRENT REARING
WI CENTR DESIGNATIONS AN RELATED ISS
Datd th 13th day of June, 2007,
MeLeUSA Telecmmunications Servce Inc.
tJtI/Í.
William A. Ha
Vice Prsident & Deput Gene Counel
1 Mar's Way
Hiwath Iowa 52233
[phone]
EXHIBIT NO.4
Case No. OWE-T-08-07
Albersheim, R
Owest
4/17/09
Page 20 of21
~-
~1£~.i;w. GeI'CoUA~Esn Tel¡rñ¿~ ..'730 '$e-Ave&, &*90
MRl~ea¡ MNi!i'
EXHIBIT NO, 4
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
A1bersheim, R
Qwest
4/17/09
Page 21 of21