20090610Albersheim Rebuttal.pdf

RECEIVED
ZÐØ9 JUN '0 AM 8:"6
IDAHO PUBLICBEFORE THE UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION
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 TRIENNIA REVIEW REMAND )ORDER )
)
DIRECT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF RENÉE ALBERSHEIM
QWEST CORPORATION
JUE 10, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
"I. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS .....................................................................2
II. PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY........................................................2
III. THE MULTI-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT....................................3
IV. BUSINESS LINE COUNT METHODOLOGY ................................................10
v. TRANSITION PERIOD......................................................................................25.
VI. UNE CONVRSIONS.........................................................................................27
VII. PROCESS GOING FORWAR ........................................................................33
VIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................36
1 I.IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2 Q.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS AN
3 POSITION WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
4 A.My name is Renée Albersheim. I am employed by Qwest Services
5 Corporation, parent company of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), as a Staff Witnessing
6 Representative. I am testifyng on behalf of Qwest. My business address is 1801
7 Californa Street, 24th floor, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
8 Q.DID YOU SUBMIT DIRECT TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE ON
9 APRIL 17, 2009?
10 A.Yes.
11 II.PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
12 Q.WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
13 A.The purose of my testimony is to respond to the Direct Testimony of
14 Douglas Denney, submitted on May 22,2009. Specifically, I will respond to Mr.
15 Denney's testimony regarding the multi-state settlement agreement and the business line-
16 count methodology for puroses of establishing "non-impairment" pursuant to the
17 Triennial Review Remand Order ("TRRO"). i Rachel Torrence of Qwest will respond to
18 Mr. Denney's testimony regarding the methodology for counting "fiber-based
i See 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").
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 2
QWEST CORPORATION
1 collocators" at non-impaired wie centers. Finally, Victoria Huncutt if Qwest will
2 respond to Mr. Denney's testimony regarding the conversion charge to convert
3 unbundled network elements ("UNEs") to alternative services such as private line or
4 special access services after a wire center has been designated as non-impaired.
5 III. THE MULTI-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
6 Q.MR. DENNEY CLAIMS THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR TilS
7 COMMISSION TO DECIDE ALL OF THE ISSUES REGARING TRRO
8 IMPLEMENTATION IN TilS CASE, AND THAT THE COMMISSION ONLY
9 NEED DETERMINE WHETHER CERTAIN WIRE CENTERS AR NON-
10 IMP AIRED.2 DO YOU AGREE?
11 A.No. Qwest believes that it is most effcient, and the best use of this
12 Commission's time and resources, to settle all questions pertaining to the implementation
13 of the TRRO in this proceeding. That is how Qwest has approached the implementation
14 of the TRRO in all of Qwest s states. And that is how the TRRO has been implemented in
15 the five states in which the state utilty commissions adopted the multi-state settlement
16 agreement that I outlined in my direct testimony.3 Using the procedures established in
2 Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney ("Denney Direct"), at page 19.
3 See Arizona Wire Center Docket (phase I), Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket Nos. T-
03632A-06-0091, T-04302A-06-0091, T-03406A-06-0091, T-03402A-06-0091, T-0105lB-06-0091,
Opinion and Order, May 16,2008, page 22; In the Matter ofCLECs' Requestfor Commission ofILEC
Wire Center Impairment Analysis; In The Matter of a Commission Investigation Identifing Wire Centers
in Which Qwest Corporation Must Offer High-Capacity Loop or Transport UNEs at Cost-Based Rates,
Minesota Public Utilties Commission, Docket No. P-5692, 5340, 5643, 5323,465, 6422/M-06-211,
Docket No. P-999/CI-060685, Order Adopting Settlement, October 5, 2007, at page 5 ("Minnesota
Settlement Approval'); In the Matter ofCovad Communications Company, Eschelon Telecom Of Oregon,
Inc., Integra Telecom of Oregon, Inc., McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc., and XO
Communications Services, Inc. Request for Commission Approval of Non-Impairment Wire Center List,
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 3
QWEST CORPORA nON
1 the agreement, Qwest has proposed additions to the non-impaied wire center lists in all
2 five states. In each case, the process established by the agreement was used successfully
3 to star dockets, disseminate confdential inormation, allow for objections, and come to
4 resolution regarding the additions to the non-impaired wire center lists in varous states.
5 The experience for Qwest and the CLECs in these five states in the past two years (non-
6 impaied wire center updates in 2007 and 2008) has been a productive one with a
7 minimum of litigation and process.4
Oregon Public Utilty Commission, Docket UM 1251, Order on Reconsideration, Order No. 07-328, July
31,2007, at page 5; In the Matter of the TRRO/Requestfor Commission Review and Approval of Wire
Center Lists, Utah Public Service Commission, Docket No. 06-049-40, Report and Order Approving
Settlement Agreement, July 31,2007, at page 5; In the Matter of the Petition ofQwest Corporation For
Investigation Concerning the Status of Competition and Impact of the FCC's Triennial Review Remand
Order on the Competitive Telecommunications Environment in Washington State, Washington Utilties and
Tranporttion Commission, Docket No. 073035, Order 05, Initial Order Accepting, Subject To
Conditions, Multi-Par Settlement Regarding Wire Center Designations And Related Issues, March 21,
2008, at ii 26.
Qwest has also proposed the use of the settlement agreement as a template to implement the TRRO
in Iowa. That case is stil pending. The only state where Qwest is not using the settlement agreement as a
template to implement the TRRO is in New Mexico, where there were two undisputed wire centers
considered non-impaired on the basis of fiber-based collocators, and Qwest does not anticipate futue
updates to the list of non-impaired wire centers in that state.
4 See, for example, Arizona- In the Matter of the Application of Dieca Communications DBA
Covad Communications Company, Eschelon Telecom of Arizona Incl., McLeodUSA Telecommunications
Services, Inc., Mountain Telecommunications, Inc., XO Communications Services, Inc. and Qwest
Corporation's Request for Commission Process to Address Key UNE Issues Arising from Triennial Review
Remand Order, Including Approval ofQwest Wire Center Lists (Phase II), Arizona Corporation
Commission, Docket Nos. T-03632A-06-0091, T-04302A-06-0091, T-03406A-06-0091, T-03402A-06-
0091, T-0105IB-06-0091, Order, Februar 4,2009 ("Arizona Wire Center Docket"); Minnesota- In the
Matter of Qwests Petition for Approval of Additions for 2008 to the Non-Impaired Wire Center List,
Minnesota Public Utilties Commission, Docket No. P-421/ AM-08-726, Order Approving Petition to
Reclassify the Little Falls Wire Center as Tier 2 Impaired, Januar 8, 2009; Oregon- Petitionfor
Commission Approval of2007 Additions to Non-Impaired Wire Center List, Oregon Public Utilty
Commission, Docket UM 1326, Final Order, September 18, 2009; Utah- (1) In the Matter of Qwest
Corporation's Petition for Commission Approval of2007 Additions to Non-Impaired Wire Center List and
Motion for Expedited Issuance of Protective Order, Utah Public Service Commission, Docket No. 07-049-
30, Report and Order Approvig Tier 2 Designation of Qwests Orem Main Wire Center, November 20,
2007; (2) In the Matter of Qwest Corporation's Petition for Commission Approval of2007 Additions to
Non-Impaired Wire Center List and Motion for Expedited Issuance of Protective Order, Docket No. 07-
049-30, Report And Order Approving Tier 2 Designation ofQwests Midvale Main Wire Center, October
1,2007; Washington- In the Matter of the Petition ofQwest Corporation, For Commission Approval of
2007 Additions to Non-Impaired Wire Center List, Washington Utilties and Transportation Commission,
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 4
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.WHT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS
2 COMMISSION WERE TO FOLLOW MR. DENNY'S SUGGESTION AND
3 ONLY DECIDE THE ISSUE OF NON-IMPAIRMENT FOR THE TWO WI
4 CENTERS IN QUESTION IN THIS CASE?
5 A.The result would be an excess of futue litigation before this Commission.
6 Every year that Qwest seeks to update its list of non-impaired wire centers in Idaho, the
7 same issues that were raised here would be raised again, and another lengty litigation
8 could ensue. Ths is in stak contrast to the states in which the commissions have
9 adopted the settlement agreement as I discussed above, where resolution was reached
10 quickly in each case where updates were made to the non-impaired wie center lists.
11 Each lengthy litigation would serve the CLECs' interests as this would allow them more
12 time to continue to take advantage of UN pricing in the wire centers at issue, but ths
13 would be the only benefit of putting offresölution of these issues now. Unnecessary
14 additional litigation would also only serve to take additional time and resources away
15 from other matters before this Commission. Qwest does not believe this is an effcient
16 use of this Commssion's resources.
17 Q.MR DENNEY CLAIMS THAT THE STATEMENT IN YOUR
18 TESTIMONY THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT COMPLIES WITH
Docket No. UT-073033, Initial Order Granting Petition for Approval of Additions to Non-Impaired Wire
Center List, July 30, 2008.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 5
QWEST CORPORATION
1 THE RULES ESTABLISHED BY THE TRRO WAS IN ERROR.5 PLEASE
2 RESPOND.
3 A.Mr. Denney is incorrect. No pary to the settlement agreement would have
4 signed an agreement that did not comply with the FCC's rules. To suggest otherwise is
5 to suggest that a pary is willng to violate the FCC's rues or applicable law.
6 I paricipated in the negotiations that resulted in the multi-state settlement agreement.
7 Without disclosing any confdential settlement discussions or information, I can say
8 generally that durng those negotiations, all paricipants made it very clear that the end
9 result must comply with the FCC's rues. The statement in the settlement agreement that
10 Mr. Denney uses to support his assertion simply pertains to the fact that the document
11 was in fact a settlement, a compromise of differing views, and thus that the paries
12 entered into the negotiations takg different positions.6 Neverteless, that does not mean
13 that simply because a pary was willng to compromise on its original (pre-settlement)
14 position, the end result of the compromise does not comply with the TRRO. The
15 statement that Mr. Denney refers to has no bearing as to whether the settlement
16 agreement is compliant with the FCC's rules or the FCC's TRRO.
/
5 Denney Direct, at page 15.
6 Denney Direct, at pages 15-16 (the settlement agreement "does not represent the position that
any par would take if this matter is not resolved by agreement").
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 6
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.MR. DENNEY CLAIMS THAT QWEST IS SOMEHOW "IN
2 VIOLATION" OF THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY
3 REFERENCING IT IN THIS PROCEEDING.7 IS HE CORRCT?
4 A.No, not at all. With all due respect, Mr. Denney, who is not a lawyer, is
5 incorrect regarding his legal conclusion. To be clear, Qwest is simply using the
6 settlement agreement as an example of a set of procedures that ths Commssion can use
7 to implement the TRRO. Qwest is not using the settlement agreement as "evidence"
8 agail?st a pary or as "impeachment,"8 nor is Qwest attempting to use the settlement as
9 any tye of legal precedent. Whle the agreement prohibits those actions, the agreement
10 does not prevent a pary from referrng to it or recommending that a state commission use
11 it as a template for futue non-impairment proceedings, as Qwest is doing here. Qwest is
12 merely advising this Commission (1) of the undisputedfactthat the agreement has been
13 entered into (which the agreement does not prohibit and indeed, which is publicly-
14 available information, as it was publicly-filed, as Mr. Denney admits),9 and (2) that
15 Qwest believes these are reasonable methods and procedures that this Commission may
16 want (but is certainly not obligated) to consider and adopt.
17 To allay Mr. Denney's concerns, Qwest acknowledges that "no precedent is
18 established" by the settlement agreement. Indeed, nowhere is Qwest arguing that this
19 Commission is somehow "obligated" to adopt the methods and procedures in the
20 agreement, much less the agreement itself. Again, Qwest is simply presenting the
7 See, for example, Denney Direct, at page 12.
8 Denney Direct, at page 12.
9 Denney Direct, at page 12.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 7
QWEST CORPORATION
1 methods and procedures from that settlement agreement, with Qwest's two-year
2 experience having used it with numerous CLECs in those five states, to show the
3 Commission that, rather than "reinvent the wheel" every year there is a non-impairment
4 proceeding, the Commission should use these methods and procedures (some or all of
5 them, at the Commission's discretion) as a way to evaluate such futue non-impairment
6 proceedings.
7 Q.DOES MR. DENNEY PROVIDE TIDS COMMISSION WITH AN
8 ALTERNATIVE SET OF PROCEDURES TO USE TO IMPLEMENT THE TRRO
9 IN FUTURE NON-IMPAIRMENT PROCEEDINGS?
10 A.No. As I noted above, it appears that Mr. Denney would rather have the
11 Commission not establish procedures for futue updates to the list of non-impaired wire
12 centers. Apparently, Mr. Denney and the Joint CLECs would prefer to litigate the same
13 issues with each non-impairment filing.
14 Q.MR. DENNEY ALSO CLAIMS THAT QWEST IS IN VIOLATION
15 OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
16 PLEASE RESPOND.
17 A.Remarkably, Mr. Denney claims that the CLECs had not received notice
18 that Qwest is seeking non-impairment for DS3 unbundled loops in the Boise Main wire
19 center until they reviewed my direct testimony. As I noted in my direct testimony, the
20 business line counts that Qwest provided with its petition in this proceeding clearly
21 indicated that the theshold for DS3 unbundled loops was reached in the Boise Main wire
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
5/20/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 8
QWEST CORPORATION
1 center. As I will discuss fuer below, however, there are curently no DS3 unbundled
2 loops in the Boise Mai wire center. Given that fact, and the fact that Mr. Denney does
3 not want to be governed by the settlement agreement, I believe his indignation is
4 overblown.
5 Q.WHT DOES QWEST RECOMMND TO THIS COMMISSION
6 REGARING THE MULTI-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT?
7 A.Qwest and (to date) five state commissions consider the multi-state
8 settlement agreement to be a proven guide for establishing procedures to implement the
9 FCC's mandates in the TRRO. Qwest believes that the multi-state settlement provides a
10 comprehensive blueprint for TRRO implementation. The negotiations that resulted in the
11 settlement agreement established procedures that ensured fai treatment of all paries, and
12 all of these state commissions clearly found them to be reasonable and in the public
13 interest when they approved the agreement. Qwest wanted to ensure that futue non-
14 impairment proceedings could not be used simply to delay non-impairment designations,
15 and the CLECs who entered into the settlement agreement wanted to ensure that they
16 would obtan sufficient data and receive sufficient time to ensure that Qwest s non-
17 impairment designations were valid. These competing needs were recognized by the
18 Minnesota Commission; for example, in its order adopting the settlement:
19
20
21
22
23
Applying the FCC's standards in a mutually-agreeable way, CLECs have
acknowledged where Qwest's duties to provide UNEs have now Expired. And
Qwest has acknowledged the legitimate interest of CLECs in procedural
safeguards and transition periods for implementing changes in Qwest s
unbundling obligations.
10
10 See Minnesota Settlement Approval, at page 5.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 9
QWEST CORPORATION
1
2 Indeed, the fact that all the paries agreed to the resulting terms necessarly indicates that
3 they all believed their concerns were fairly dealt with, as each pary entered into the
4 settlement agreement of its own volition and no par was compelled to enter into it.
5 Therefore, Qwest recommends that the Commission establish procedures for
6 implementing the TRRO for futue non-impairment proceedings consistent with those
7 established in the multi-state settlement agreement and which are curently in use in five
8 other states.
9 iv. BUSINESS LINE COUNT METHODOLOGY
10 Q.MR. DENNEY RELIES HEA VIL Y ON A COLORAO
11 COMMSSION DECISION TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT QWEST
12 DOES NOT COUNT BUSINESS LINS PROPERL y.ll PLEASE RESPOND
13 GENERALY.
14 A.First, I should note that the Colorado Commission was the only state
15 commission to reject the multi-state settlement agreement. One aspect of this rejection
16 was the Colorado Commission's erroneous belief that the settlement agreement did not
17 establish a proper methodology for counting business lines. Although Mr. Denney did
18 not mention it, Qwest notes that this Colorado decision is presently being reviewed by the
19 U.S. District Cour in Colorado.12
11 See for example, Denney Direct, at pages 11, 12-13, and 16.
12 See Qwest Corporation v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission, et. al., United States District
Court, District of Colorado, Civil Action Number: 08-CV-02653-RPM-KLM.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 10
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.WHAT DID THE COLORAO COMMISSION ORDER
2 REGARING THE BUSINESS LINE COUNT METHODOLOGY?
3 A.The Colorado Commission found that residential and non-switched lines
4 should be excluded from the count of UNE loops in Qwest s business line calculations.
5 The data in the FCC ARMIS 43-08 report, from which Qwests retail business lines are
6 counted, is a business line count and already excludes residence lines. The Colorado
7 Commission order was specific to UNE loops.
13
8 Q.THE COLORADO ALJ RELIED ON A MICmGAN COMMISSION
9 DECISION.14 IS THE MICHIGAN DECISION STILL IN EFFECT?
10 A.No. The Michigan decision, on which the Colorado Commission heavily
11 relied, was overturned by a federal distrct cour.
15 Regarding the Michigan
12 Commission's decision on business line counts, the cour stated:
13 The Cour disagrees with the Defendant Intervenors, and concludes that the
14 September Order improperly confuses the definition of a business line with the
15 procedure that is used for counting it as specified in the governing regulation, 47
16 C.FR. 51.5. Unfortately, the September Order ignores the plain language of
17 the regulation, and transforms an otherwse unambiguous phrase, "all UNE
18 loops," to mean only some UN loops. Moreover, the Cour concludes that the
13 See In the Matter of the Joint Competitive Local Exchange Carriers' Request regarding the
Status of Impairment in Qwest Corporation's Wire Centers and the Applicabilty of the Federal
Communications Commission's Triennial Review Remand Order, Colorado Public Utilties Commission,
Decision No. C08-0969 Order on Exceptions, September 17, 2008, ~~ 15-17.
14 See In the Matter of the Joint Competitive Local Exchange Carriers' Request Regarding the
Status of Impairment in Qwest Corporation's Wire Centers and the Applicabilty of the Federal
Communications Commission's Triennial Review Remand Order, Colorado Public Utilties Commission,
Recommended Decision, Februar 19, 2008, ~ 70.
15 See Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan v. Michigan Public Service
Commission, et al., Case No. 06-11982,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71272. (E. D. Mi. 2007), p. 28.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 11
QWEST CORPORATION
1 MPSC, in misconstring the reguation, has violated existing federal law.
2 Accordingly, this par of the September Order must be voided.16
3 Indeed, one of the flaws of the Colorado Commission's September 2008 decision is
4 that it erroneously relied on the Michigan Commission's decision, even though the
5 Michigan Commission decision had already been overted (on May 8, 2007) by the
6 Michigan federal cour.
7 Q.HAS AN OTHER STATE COMMISSION AGREED WITH THE
8 COLORADO COMMISSION REGARING BUSINESS LINE COUNTS?
9 A.Only one other state commission, the Nort Carolina Public Utilities
10 Commission, has agreed with the Colorado Commssion. 1 7 The North Carolina decision
11 was not appealed.
12 Q.IN CONTRAST, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER COURTS OR
13 COMMISSIONS THAT HAVE AGREED WITH THE MULTI-STATE
14 SETTLEMENT'S POSITION REGARING THE COUNTING OF BUSINESS
15 LINES?
16 Yes. In fact, by my count, in addition to the five Qwest state commssions that
17 have approved the settlement agreement, there have been 15 separate decisions (two by
18 cours and 13 by state commissions) that have rued that business lines should be counted
19 in a maner consistent with the methodology supported by the multi-state settlement
16 Id., at'r 17. (Emphasis added.)
17 See In the Matter of Proceeding to Consider Amendments to Interconnection Agreements
Between BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and Competing Local Providers Due to Changes of Law,
Order Concerning Changes of Law, Docket No. P-55, Sub. 1549 (NC P.D.C., March 1,2006), atp. 5.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 12
QWEST CORPORATION
1 agreement.I8 For example, in reversing the Michigan Commission's order, the cour
2 stated as follows:
3 The MPSC's position confses the definition of a business line with the
4 procedure used for counting a business line as specified in the governng
5 regulation. "A business line is an incumbent LEC-owned switched access line
6 used to serve a business customer." See 47 C.FR. 51.5. Based upon ths
18 See (1) Texas- See Logix Communications, L.P., V. The Public Utility Commission of Texas, et.
al., Docket No. 06-51697 (5th Cir. 2008), slip op. P 7-8; (2) Michigan- Michigan Bell Telephone
Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al., Case number 06-11982,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71272 (E. D. Mi. 2007), p. 28; (3) Missouri- Report and Order, In the Matter of the
Application ofNuVox Communications of Missouri, Inc.for an Investigation into the Wire Centers that
AT&T Missouri Asserts are Non-Impaired under the TRRO, Case No. TO-2006-0360 (Mo. P.S.C., March
31, 2008), pp. 5-6; (4) Indiana- Final Order, Petition of Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated
for Expedited Resolution of Dispute with Nuvox Communications Inc. Regarding Non-Impaired Wire
Centers, Docket No. 42986 (Ind. U.R.C., August 15,2007), pp. 48-55; (5) Order, In the Matter of the
Indiana Utilty Regulatory Commission's Investigation of Issues Related to the Implementation of the
Federal Communications Commission's Triennial Review Remand Order and the Remaining Portions of
the Triennial Review Order, Cause No. 42857 (Ind. U.R.C, Januar 11, 2006); (6) Ohio- Finding and
Order, In the Matter of the Petition ofXO Communications, Inc. Requesting a Commission Investigation of
Those Wire Centers that AT&T Ohio Asserts are Nonimpaired, Docket No. 05-1393-TP-UNC (p.U.C Oh.
June 6, 2006); (7) Arbitration Award, In re Establishment of Terms and Conditons of an Interconnection
Agreement Amendment, PUCO, Case No. 05-887-TP-UNC (p.U.C. Oh. Nov. 9, 2005), at 16; (8) Kansas-
Order Determining Proper Method for Fiber-Based Collocator and Business Line Counts, In the Matter of
Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution of Southwestern Bell Telephone LP Against Nuvox
Communications of Kansas, Inc. Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcations, Docket No. 06-SWBT-
743-COM (Kansas Corp. Com., June 2, 2006); (9) Texas- Order Approving Methodology to Determine
AT&T Texas Wire Centers which are Non- Impaired, Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution Proceeding
Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcation, PUC Docket No. 31303 (Tex. P.U.C., April 7, 2006), pp. 30
and 32-33; (10) South Carolina- Order Addressing Changes of Law, In Re: Petition of BellSouth
telecommunications, Inc. to Establish Generic Docket to Consider Amendments to Interconnection
Agreements Resultingfrom Changes of Law, Docket No. 2004-316C, Order No. 2006-136 (SC P.S.C.,
March 10,2006), at p. 44; (11) Florida- Order No. PSC-06-0172-FOF- TP, Petition to Establish Generic
Docket to Consider Amendments to Interconnection Agreements Resultingfrom Changes in Law by
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Fla. PUC, Docket No. 041269-TP (FI. P.S.C., March 2,2006), p. 37;
(12) Georgia- Order on Remaining Issues, Generic Proceeding to Examine Issues Related to BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc's. Obligations to Provide Unbundled Network Elements, Docket No. 19341-U
(Ga. P.S.C., Februar 7, 2006), pp. 19-20; (13) California- Decision Adoptig Amendment to Existing
Interconnection Agreement, Application of Pacifc Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a SBC California for
Generic Proceeding to Implement Changes in Federal Unbundling Rules Under Sections 251 and 252 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Application 05-07-024, Decision 06-01-143 (P.U.C. CaL., Januar 26,
2006), pp. 10-11; (14) IIinois- Arbitration Decision, Petitionfor Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with Ilinois Bell Telephone Company to Amend Existing
Interconnection Agreements to Incorporate the Triennial Review Order and the Triennial Review Ijemand
Order, Docket No. 05-0442 (Il Commerce Com., Nov. 2, 2005), p. 32; (15) Mississippi- Final Order, In
Re: Order Establishing Generic Docket To Consider Change-Ol-Law To Existing Interconnection
Agreements, Docket No. 2005-AD-139, 2006 Miss. PUC LEXIS 680 (October 20, 2006),pp. 76-69. See
also footnote 3 for the five Qwest state commissions approving the settlement agreement.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 13
QWEST CORPORATION
1 definition, the MPSC concluded thatthe phrase "all UNE loops connected to that
2 wire center" included only those UN loops that can be shown to serve business3 clients."
4
5 This interpretation ignores the plain language of the regulation. If the
6 FCC wanted to include only business switched-access lines, it would have said so.
7 The Cour declines to transform the unambiguous phrase "all UN loops" to
8 mean only some UNE loops. Furher support for the reading of the regulation
9 advanced by AT&T can be gleaned from the FCC's rejection of an approach
10 requiring "detailed and potentially subjective building-by-building and loop-by-
11 loop evaluations" as impracticaL. TRRO at' 159. The FCC instead based its
12 business line count on data established by objective ILEC fiings, concluding that
13 "by basing our definition (of business line counts) on an ARIS filing required of
14 incumbent LECs and adding UNE figures, which must also be reported, we can
15 be confdent in the accuracy of the thesholds, and a simplified ability to obtain
16 the necessar inormation. ¡d. at' 105. In contrast, the MPSC's approach
17 requires the loop-by-Ioop analysis that the FCC explicitly rejected because the
18 information is neither readily available or verifiable. The fact that AT&T, unike
19 many other ILECs, has that information, does not alter the approach ariculated in
20 the TRRO and reguation. Finally, the interpretation adopted by the MPSC has
21 been rejected by the state commissions of Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia,
22 Ilinois, Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Washington,
23 D.C. (Citation omitted). 19
24
25 Likewise, the Missouri Commission noted:
26
27 Between the two arguments presented on this issue, the Commission is most
28 persuaded by that of Staff and AT&T. In both the defintion of "business line"
29 and in the FCC's TRRO, the phrase "UNE-Ioop" is not modifed by the word
30 "business." This is tre, despite that "switched access lines", in the definition, is
31 modified by the word "business", as is "UNE-P, in the TRRO paragraph. It is
32 therefore the FCC's intent that UNE-loops serving both business and residential
33 customers be included when counting "business lines." Also weighing in
34 AT&T's favor is the FCC's intent that the information on business lines be
35 objective and readily available. AT&T knows the capacity of the lines sold to
36 CLECs. If it is something other than voice grade, then AT&T might assume the
37 line is serving a business. However, as discussed durng the hearng, a voice grade
38 line might also serve a business. It follows that the distinction between a business
39 loop and one that serves a residential customer will blur at times. As pointed out
40 by AT&T, it was the FCC's intention that an approach be adopted that "relies on
41 objective criteria to which the incumbent LECs have ful access, is readily
19 Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan v. Michigan Public Service
Commission, et al., Case number 06-1 1982,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71272 (E. D. Mi. 2007), p. 28.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 14
QWEST CORPORATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
available by competitors. . . ." Furer, the FCC discourages the "loop-by-loop"
evaluations that would be necessar to determine whether a loop serves a business
or residential customer. (Citations omitted and emphasis addedlo
And finally, the Kansas Commission ruled:
55. The Commission concludes that there is no confict between the fist
and second sentences of the "business line" definition. The FCC defined the term
in the first sentence and then, in the second sentence, provided the means by
which business lines would be counted in an incumbent LEC's wire center. The
FCC determned that the sum of incumbent LEC' s business switched access lines
and UN loops was appropriate because this set of data was objective and already
in existence for other regulatory requirements. (fn) The FCC adopted the most
objective criteria possible in order to avoid complex and lengty proceedings that
are administratively wastefu and add only marginal value to the unbundling
analysis.
Thus the Commission concludes that Nu V ox's attempt to link the phrase "among
these requirements" to the first sentence of the rule is wrong. NuVox's
interpretation would limit the business line count to only SWBT-owned switched
access lines used to serve business customers, whether by SWBT itself or by a
CLEC that leases lines from SWBT. This limitation is clearly not the intention of
the FCC because an inquiry would be required as to which CLEC-leased lines
were used for business customers and which lines were leased for switched access
or data puroses. This information is held only by the CLECs in Kansas (fn and
clearly is not the "objective set of data that incumbent LECs already have created
for other regulatory puroses" envisioned by the FCÇ. As the FCC observed,
relative to fiber-based collocation data: "Moreover, unlike information regarding
fiber-based collocation, the information necessary to implement the previous self-
employment triggers was possessed entirely by a span of competitive LECs and
was not easily verifiable." That observation is equaly germane to the business
line count in a SWBT wire center. Depending upon data that is not objective
criteria to which SWBT does not have full access, that is not readily confrmable
by competitors and that does not make appropriate inferences regarding potential
deployment does not comply with FCC intentions in the analysis of unbundled
transport impairment. (Citations Omitted and Emphasis addedl1
20 Report and Order, In the Matter of the Application of Nu Vox Communications of Missouri, Inc.
for an Investigation into the Wire Centers that AT&T Missouri Asserts are Non-Impaired under the TRRO,
Case No. TO-2006-0360 (Mo. P.S.C., March 31, 2008), pp. 5-6.
21 Order Determining Proper Method for Fiber-Based Collocator and Business Line Counts, In the
Matter of Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution of Southwestern Bel/Telephone LP Against Nuvox
Communications of Kansas, Inc. Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcations, Docket No. 06-SWBT-
743-COM (Kansas Corp. Com., June 2, 2006), 2006 Kan. LEXIS, at p. 16.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 15
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, HOW
2 SHOULD BUSINESS LINES BE COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
3 ESTABLISHING NON-IMPAIRMNT?
4 A.As I stated in my direct testimony, and as stated by the TRRO itself and in
5 the rules implementing the TRRO, "business lines" for TRRO non-impairment puroses,
6 should include all retail business lines as reported in the ILEC's FCC ARIS Report 43-
7 08, all business UN_p,22 and all UNE loops.23
8 Q.MR. DENNEY QUOTES THE RELEVANT RULE AND CLAIMS
9 THAT QWEST PLACES TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE SECOND
10 SENTENCE IN ISOLATION FROM THE REST.24 ISHE CORRCT?
11 A.No. In fact, reading Mr. Denney's testimony, it is the CLECs who are the
12 ones who would have the Commssion read the first sentence of the rule in isolation from
13 the rest of the rule.25 The rule at 47 C.F.R. § 51.5 states in its entirety as follows:
14 A business line is an incumbent LEC-owned switched access line used to serve a
15 business customer, whether by the incumbent LEC itself or by a competitive LEC
16 that leases the line from the incumbent LEC. The number of business lines in a
17 wire center shall equal the sum of all incumbent LEC business switched access
18 lines, plus the sum of all UNE loops connected to that wire center, including UNE
19 loops provisioned in combination with other unbundled elements. Among these
20 requirements, business line tallies:
21
22 As UN-P is no longer a UNE, Qwest includes a count of business QPP lines. QPP is the
commercial product that Qwest offers in place ofUN-P. This is consistent with the terms of the
settlement agreement and the TRRO.
23 See TRRO, at' 105 and 47 C.F.R. § 51.5.
24 Denney Direct, at page 28.
25 Denney Direct, at page 24.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 16
QWEST CORPORATION
1 (l) Shall include only those access lines connecting end-user customers
2 with incumbent LEC end-offices for switched services.
3
4 (2) Shall not include non-switched special access lines.
5
6 (3) Shall account for ISDN and other digital access lines by countig each
7 64kbps-equivalent as one line. For example, a DSlline corresponds to
8 24 64 kbps-equivalents, and therefore to 24 "business lines." (Emphasis9 added.)
10
11 Contrar to Mr. Denney's assertion, Qwest reads the rue in its entirety, and Qwest s
12 business line-count methodology as captued in the settlement agreement is entirely
13 consistent with the rule. This means that, per the rule, and consistent with the findings of
14 the vast majority of jurisdictions where this issue has been decided, Qwest counts "all
15 UNE loops connected to that wire center," and not just switched business UNE loops, as
16 Mr. Denney advocates. Thus, all of Mr. Denney's speculation or wishful thinking about
17 what he believes the FCC "intended" is irrelevant- the rue says what it says.
18 Furermore, Mr. Denney ignores the fact that CLECs do not obtain residential or
19 business lines from Qwest. They purchase UNE loops. A loop is simply a network
20 element. Qwest is sellng what amounts to a generic offering that CLECs are free to use
21 for whatever business purose they choose. As such, Qwest and the FCC appropriately
22 recognize that all UNE loops are correctly counted under the business line category.
23 Q.MR. DENNEY ALSO CLAIMS THAT QWEST IMPROPERLY
24 INCLUDES "SPAR CAPACITY" AND NON-SWITCHED LINES IN ITS
25 BUSINESS LINE COUNTS.26 IS QWEST'S COUNT IMPROPER?
26 Denney Direct, at page 26-33.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 17
QWEST CORPORATION
1 A.No. The FCC's rule is very clear that business line talies:
2 (3) Shall account for ISDN and other digita access lines by counting each 64
3 kbps-equivalent as one line. For example, a DSlline corresponds to 24 64 kbps-
4 equivalents, and therefore to 24 "business lines." (Emphasis added.)
5
6 Mr. Denney may disagree with this approach, or believe that it is not logical or
7 competition-friendly,27 but ths is the approach that the FCC established. This is also the
8 approach implemented to count UNE loops in the multi-state settlement agreement that
9 five state commissions in Qwest s terrtory have approved. In the 10 cases where this
10 issue has been raised, all have agreed with Qwest's interpretation of the FCC's rule on
11 counting high capacity 100ps.28 For example, the Fifth Circuit Cour of Appeals said:
27 See Denney Direct, at page 33.
28 See (1) Texas- See Logix Communications, L.P., V. The Public Utilty Commission of Texas, et.
al., Docket No. 06-51697, slip op. (5th Cir. 2008); (2) Missouri- Report and Order, In the Matter of the
Application of Nu Vox Communications of Missouri, Inc. for an Investigation into the Wire Centers that
AT&T Missouri Asserts are Non-Impaired under the TRRO, Case No. TO-2006-0360 (Mo. P.S.C., March
31,2008); (3) Indiana- Final Order, Petition of Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporatedfor
Expedited Resolution of Dispute with Nuvox Communications Inc. Regarding Non-Impaired Wire Centers,
Docket No. 42986 (Ind. U.R.C., August 15,2007; (4) Ohio- Finding and Order, In the Matter of the
Petition of XO Communications, Inc. Requesting a Commission Investigation of Those Wire Centers that
AT&T Ohio Asserts are Nonimpaired, Docket No. 05-1393- TP-UNC (Oh. P.U.C, June 6, 2006;
(5) Kansas- Order Determining Proper Method for Fiber-Based Collocator and Business Line Counts, In
the Matter of Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution of Southwestern Bell Telephone LP Against Nuvox
Communications of Kansas, Inc. Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcations, Docket No. 06-SWBT-
743-COM (Kansas Corp. Com., June 2, 2006); (6) Texas- Order Approving Methodology to Determine
AT&T Texas Wire Centers which are Non- Impaired, Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution Proceeding
Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcation, PUC Docket No. 31303 (Tex. P.U.C., April 7, 2006); (7)
South Carolina- Order Addressing Changes of Law, In Re: Petition of Bell South telecommunications, Inc.
to Establish Generic Docket to Consider Amendments to Interconnection Agreements Resultingfrom
Changes of Law, Docket No. 2004-316C, Order No. 2006-136 (SC P.S.C., March 10,2006); (8) Florida-
Order No. PSC-06-0 172-FOF - TP, Petition to Establish Generic Docket to Consider Amendments to
Interconnection Agreements Resultingfrom Changes in Law by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Fla.
PUC, Docket No. 041269-TP (pi. P.S.C., March 2, 2006); (9) Georgia- Order on Remaining Issues,
Generic Proceeding to Examine Issues Related to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc's. Obligations to
Provide Unbundled Network Elements, Docket No. 19341-U (Ga. P.S.C. ,Febru 7, 2006); (10) IIinois-
Arbitration Decision, Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 with Illnois Bell Telephone Company to Amend Existing Interconnection Agreements to Incorporate
the Triennial Review Order and the Triennial Review Reman Order, Docket No. 05-0442 (IlL. Commerce
Com., Nov. 2, 2005); (11) Mississippi- Final Order, In Re: Order Establishing Generic Docket To
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 18
QWEST CORPORATION
1 the requirement at issue provides that "business line talies. . . (s)hall
2 account for ISDN and other digital access lines by counting each 64 kbps-
3 equivalent as one line." 47 C.F.R. § 51.5. The regulation does not indicate that
4 ILEC's or CLEC's should, for the first time, undertake building-by-building, end-
S user analysis. In-stead, the plain language indicates that all lines in a high-
6 capacity loop should countas business lines.29
7
8 And the Florida Commission stated:
9 We also agree with BellSouth that unused capacity on chanelized high
10 capacity loops should be counted in the business lines. As noted by BellSouth
11 witness Tipton, the FCC rules specifically state that "the business line tallies . . .
12 shall account for ISDN and other digital access lines by counting each 64 kbps-
13 equivalent as one line." ( 47 CFR 51.5) The FCC rule fuer explains by way of
14 example that a DS 1 line should be counted as 24 business lines because it
15 corresponds to 24 64 kbps-equivalents.3o
16
17 Q.MR. DENNEY ALSO TRIES TO PARSE THE RULE TO DIVIDE
18 HIGH-CAPACITY CIRCUITS BETWEEN BUSINSS AND RESIDENTIAL
19 LINES.31 DOES EVEN A BROAD READING OF THE RULE SUGGEST THE
20 DATA SHOULD BE SO DIVIDED?
21 A.No. Mr. Denney is correct that each 64 kbps-equivalent should be
22 considered as one line, as the FCC rule already states.32 But Mr. Denney then tries to
Consider Change-Ol-Law To Existing Interconnection Agreements, Docket No. 2005-AD-139, 2006 Miss.
PUC LEXIS 680 (October 20, 2006).
. 29 See Logix Communications, L.P., V. The Public Utilty Commission of Texas, et. al., Docket
No. 06-51697, slip op. (5th Cir. 2008).
30 Order No. PSC-06-0172-FOF-TP, Petition to Establish Generic Docket to Consider
Amendments to Interconnection Agreements Resultngfrom Changes in Law by Bel/South
Telecommunications, Inc., Fla. PUC, Docket No. 041269-TP (Fl P.S.C., March 2, 2006); pp. 78-79.
31 Denney Direct, at page 27.
32 Denney Direct, at page 27 (contradicting his position that spare capacity should not be counted).
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 19
QWEST CORPORATION
1 parse the rue to read that only those lines "intended for business use" should be counted.
2 Nothing in the rule establishes that requirement.
3 Q.MR. DENNEY CLAIMS THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO
4 VALIDATE QWEST'S COUNT OF INTEGRA'S LINES.33 HAS MR. DENNEY
5 BEEN ABLE TO VALIDATE LINE COUNTS IN OTHER STATES IN OTHER
6 CASES?
7 A.Yes. In several states where Qwest has filed to update its list of non-
8 impaired wire centers, Qwest and Integra have shared data and been able to.determine
9 whether or not Qwest s line counts were accurate. In fact, I have worked directly with
10 Mr. Denney on an analysis of a wie center in Arzona, and we both agreed in that case
11 that Qwest did have enough lines to declare that wie center non-impaired.
12 Q.WHY DO YOU THINK MR. DENNEY NOW CLAIMS HE WAS
13 NOT ABLE TO PERFORM THE SAM VALIDATION IN IDAHO?
14 A.I canot know for certn, as Mr. Denney's testimony does not provide a
15 great deal of detaiL. However, I have to question his use of Qwest biling data to perform
16 his validation.34 It makes much more sense, and is more likely to produce more accurate
17 results, if one were to use a database of one's own circuit inventory. Such a database
18 would at the very least provide a list of curent circuits. I would then look at a database
19 containing transaction history, and look for new connections (to eliminate circuits that are
33 Denney Direct, at pages 33-35.
34 Denney Direct, at page 24.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 20
QWEST CORPORATION
1 too new) and disconnections (to find circuits that were connected at the time of Qwests
2 filing, but have subsequently been disconnected). I am not familiar wìth Integra's
3 computer systems, but databases such as the ones that I have described should be
4 included in any telecommunications company's systems.
5 Q.CAN YOU THINK OF AN OTHER REASONS THAT MR.
6 DENNY WAS NOT ABLE TO VALIDATE QWEST'S COUNTS OF
7 INTEGRA'S LINES IN IDAHO?
8 A.I am certain that there was an impact based on the timing of the data. Mr.
9 Denney strongly advocated changing the timing of the data to be used in TRRO cases,
10 which I wìll discuss that shortly, but I th that such advocacy is driven in par by the
11 age of this case. Qwest filed its request for non-impairment in June 2008. That filing
12 included year-end 2007 data (December 2007), as required by the TRRO. It is now June
13 2009. It would have been prudent for Integra to collect its own data at the time that
14 Qwest made its filing a year ago. It is evident, however, from the data provided by
15 Integra in response to Qwest s data request in May 2009 that Integra did not collect data
16 until very recently. That creates a more than significant time gap between Integra's data
17 and Qwest's, making a data comparson much more diffcult.
18
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 21
QWEST CORPORATION
1 ****BEGIN IDGHLY CONFIDENTIAL****
18 ****END HIGHLY CONFIDENTIA****
19 Q.MR. DENNEY CLAIMS THAT QWEST DID NOT USE THE
20 CORRCT VINTAGE OF DATA IN ITS FILING, AND THAT QWEST WAS
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
5/20/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 22
QWEST CORPORATION
1 "SELECTIVE" IN ITS USE OF DATA, AND HE SUGGESTS THAT THE DATA
2 FOR THIS CASE SHOULD BE BASED IN 2008.35 DO YOU AGREE?
3 A.No, not at alL. Qwest made its filing using the rules established by the
4 TRRO and agreed to by the paries in the settlement agreement. This means that Qwest
5 made its fiing based in par on the ARMIS report that Qwest is requied to file with the
6 FCC in the spring of each year using data collected in December of the previous year.
7 Following those rues, Qwest filed this case in June 2008. As I stated in my direct
8 testimony, Qwest should not be penalized for the delays or inevitable reguatory lag
9 inherent in a Commission proceeding. To suggest that data should be re-collected after a
10 case schedule is established would only create an incentive for delay by CLECs and
11 would create a perpetually moving target for Qwest. Qwest made its filing for non-
12 impairment in good faith, and Integra could have exercised due dilgence and collected
13 datato perform its validation much earlier than it did. To penalize Qwest now because
14 Integra failed to take action when Qwest first fied its petition is hardly reasonable.
15 Q.MR. DENNEY REDUCES QWEST'S BUSINESS LINE COUNTS
16 BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESS LINES HE WAS ABLE TO
17 VALIDATE.36 PLEASE RESPOND TO IDS RECOMMENDATION.
18 A.Mr. Denney admtted that he had difficulty validating Qwests data.
19 Based on that and my discussion of his methods above, I do not believe it is appropriate
20 for Integra to make such a reduction to Qwest s counts. What I find most telling
35 Denney Direct, at page 37.
36 Denney Direct, at page 35.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 23
QWEST CORPORATION
1 regarding Mr. Denney's analysis is that he must combine both his argument regarding the
2 vintage of Qwests data, along with his arificial percentages, to achieve line counts
3 below the thresholds for non-impairment that Qwests line counts achieve.37 His
4 adjustments place the Boise Main just 60 lines below the Tier 1 theshold, which suggests
5 a manufactued result.
6 Q.GIVN THAT INTEGRA CLAIMS IT COULD NOT PROPERLY
7 VALIDATE QWEST'S DATA, is IT APPROPRIATE FOR TilS COMMSSION
8 TO APPLY INTEGRA'S SUGGESTED CHANGES TO QWEST'S BUSINESS
9 LINE COUNTS?
10 A.No. Integra provides no convincing support to validate its own
11 methodology, and Integra apparently bases its methodology on the assumption that Qwest
12 has not used the proper vintage of data. Qwest has used its counting methodology for
13 several years now, and this methodology has been approved in five Qwest states, and
14 even Integra agreed to it when it entered into the settlement agreement. This same
15 methodology has also been used several times in those states to update the lists of non-
16 impaired wire centers. Therefore, it is appropriate for ths Commission to rely on the
17 business line counts provided by Qwest.
18
37 See the right-hand colum of Exhibit JoInt-CLEC 207.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 24
QWEST CORPORATION
1 v.TRASITION PERIOD
2 Q.MR. DENNY CLAIMS THAT CLECs SHOULD BE GIVEN SIX
3 MONTHS TO TRASITION CIRCUITS FROM UNEs TO NON-UNE SERVICES
4 ONCE WIRE CENTERS AR DECLARD NON-IMP AIRED.38 PLEASE
5 RESPOND GENERALY.
6 A.Mr. Denney suggests that six months is a reasonable transition period,
7 apparently because the FCC allowed one year for the intial transition when the TRRO
8 was first implemented in 2005. Whle ths fact may be tre, I should note that the FCC
9 established the one-year initial period based on its valid assumption that there would be
10 large numbers of circuits to be converted during the initial transition. That is not the case
11 in Idaho, however, where only two wire centers are at issue. Also, most large wire
12 centers in Qwest states have already been transitioned due to non-impairment of those
13 wire centers.
14 Q.ARE THERE AN UN SERVICES TO BE TRANSITIONED IN
15 IDAHO AT THE PRESENT TIME?
16 A.No. There is presently no DS3 or dark fiber transport between the Boise
17 Main and Boise West wire centers, and there are no DS3 unbundled loops in the Boise
18 Main wire center. As such, there are no services that will need to be transitioned at the
19 present time. This might seem somewhat counter-intuitive, especially given the numbers
20 of business lines that we have been discussing in order to establish non-impairment. It is
38 Denney Direct, at page SO.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 25
QWEST CORPORATION
1 important to recognize, however, the difference between the criteria to establish non-
2 impairment, such as the number of business lines and the number of fiber-based
3 collocators at a wire center, and the services that will no longer be available as UNEs if
4 non-impairment is established. If the Boise Mai and Boise West wie centers are
5 determined to be non-impaired as requested by Qwest, then the following UNs would
6 have to be converted: DS3 transport between the Boise Main and Boise West wie
7 centers, dark fiber transport between the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers, and
8 DS3 unbundled loops in the Boise Main wire center.
9 Q.IF THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO SERVICES TO BE
10 CONVERTED IF THESE WIRE CENTERS AR DECLARD NON-IMPAIRED,
11 DOES THIS MEAN THAT CLECs AR NOT IMPACTED BY THIS
12 PROCEEDING?
13 A.No. The impact of the fact that there are curently no services to be
14 converted would be that CLECs would no longer be able to purchase DS3 or dark fiber
15 transport between the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers, and they would no longer
16 be able to purchase DS3 unbundled loops in the Boise Main wire center. Instead, CLEC
17 will be able to obtain equivalent facilties from Qwest by purchasing tariffed services, or
18 purchasing equivalent services from another provider, or CLECs can self-provision the
19 services themselves by building their own facilties.
20 Q.SO, IF THERE AR NO SERVICES TO BE CONVERTED AT THE
21 PRESENT TIME, IS THE TRASITION PERIOD NECESSARY?
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 26
QWEST CORPORATION
1 A.Yes. A transition period may be necessar in the futue should additional
2 wire centers with existing services be declared non-impaired. The paries to the
3 settlement agreement established a 90-day transition period for such circumstances.
4 Qwest believes that such transition period should be more than adequate, as it is not
5 likely there will be signficant servces impacted by future declarations of non-
6 impairent in Idaho.
7 VI. UNE CONVRSIONS
8
9
Q.PLEASE COMMENT ON UN CONVRSIONS GENERALLY.
A.First, it is important to keep in mind that the primar discussion regarding
10 UNE conversions and the conversion charge is contaied in Ms. Hunicutt's testimony.
11 My testimony on ths subject is limited to a discussion of the changes to the UN
12 conversion process advocated by Mr. Denney (specifically, regarding the Circuit il).
13 Q.GIVN THAT NO UNE CONVRSIONS WILL TAK PLACE AT
14 THE PRESENT TIME WHEN THE BOISE MAIN AND BOISE WEST WIRE
15 CENTERS ARE DECLARD NON-IMPAIRED AS REQUESTED BY QWEST, IS
16 IT EVEN NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE UNE CONVRSION PROCESS?
17 A.Yes. While there are curently no circuits to convert from a UN to an
18 alternative service this year, there is the potential that circuits would need to be converted
19 when the list of non-impaired wire centers is updated in the futue. Still, the fact that no
20 circuits will be converted this year makes Mr. Denney's desire to retain the Circuit il for
21 a converted circuit seem over-stated.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 27
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q.WHAT is A "CIRCUIT (ID.)"?
2 A.The Circuit ID, more formally known as the Common Language Circuit
3 Identification (CLCI), is used to unquely identify every circuit in Qwests inventory.
4 Qwest maintains this inventory in the TIRKS (Tru Information Record Keeping
5 System) database, a computer system licensed to Qwest by Telcordia.39 Qwest is
6 required to follow Telcordia's stadards for the CLCI in order to maintan its inventory
7 properly. In its most widely-used form, the Circuit il, which is applicable to unbundled
8 loops, is a 22-letter identifier that is made up of several Telcordia approvedcodes.4o It is
9 important to note that ths format is an industr standard and is not specific to Qwest.
10 Deviation from these standards jeopardizes industr interoperability.
11 Q.DOES THE TIRKS APPLICATION ALLOW QWEST TO LEAVE
12 THE CIRCUIT ID UNCHANGED WHEN THE SERVICE PROVIDED ON THE
13 CIRCUIT CHANGES?
14 A.No. Ths is the critical problem with Mr. Denney's recommendation that
15 the Circuit il remain unchanged. As I described above, the Circuit ID contains a
16 Telcordia code for the service provided over the circuit. If a circuit is converted from an
17 unbundled loop to a tariffed service, that code must change to comply with Telcordia's
39 Telcordia is the former Bell Labs, which established many processes and systems for use by the
telephone companies of the former Bell system. Many companies, including the Bell Operating Companies
like Qwest, stil use many Telcordia systems and processes.
40 The information provided here is documented in "Common Language Special Servce Circuit
Codes, Telcordia Technologies Practice BR-795-402-100, Issue 21, 2008." This document must be
purchased from Telcordia.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 28
QWEST CORPORATION
1 requiements and to make such a change work properly in the TIRKS system.41 Mr.
2 Denney's description of the retention of the Circuit ID as a simple biling change is
3 grossly overstated.
4 Q.WHAT is THE BILLING CHAGE THAT MR. DENNY
5 DESCRIBES?42
6 A.The biling change that Mr. Denney discusses is a work-around that Qwest
7 was required to implement in order to comply with an order by the Washington Utilities
8 and Transportation Commission in the interconnection arbitration between Qwest and
9 Eschelon (one of Mr. Denney's former employers and a company later acquired by
10 Integra). I note, however, that this order is curently on appeal in federal cour, and thus
11 the final outcome of the case has not been determined yet.43 I also note that the
12 Washington Commission approved the TRRO settlement agreement but without reference
13 to the Eschelon arbitration order.
14 In any event, the billng change is not simple. Qwest is, however, implementing
15 ths work-around to leave the Circuit ID unchanged for UNE conversions for Eschelon
16 and any other CLECs that opts into Eschelon's interconnection agreement, as required by
41 TIS is not the only application that uses the Circuit ID. It is central to a number of other
applications, both written by Qwest and leased from softare vendors such as Telcordia. These include the
Customer Record Information System (CRlS), the Interexchange Access Biling System (IABS), and the
Work Force Admistration System (WFA), to name a few.
42 Denney Direct, at page 67.
43 See Qwest Corporation v. Washington State Utilties and Transportation Commission, Case
No. 3:09-cv-05259-RBL, United States District Cour, Western District of Washington.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 29
QWEST CORPORATION
1 the Washington Commission order.44 This work-around does not apply to any other
2 CLECs, however. Even though Qwest is required to perform this work for a small subset
3 of carers, the work that it must undertake to accomplish the changes is complex, and it
4 will not be implemented in Qwests systems until April 2010. Once the system changes
5 have been implemented, Qwest will need to undertake signficant manua administrative
6 work to deal with the resulting converted circuits.
7 Q.MR. DENNEY CITES A BILLING CHAGE RELATED TO
8 QWEST'S QPP PRODUCT AS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT A SIMPLE
9 BILLING CHAGE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE CIRCUITS IN
10 QUESTION IN THIS CASE.45 DO YOU AGREE?
11 A.Absolutely not. Mr. Denney is comparing apples to oranges. What Mr.
12 Denney fails to mention with his example is that the conversion ofUN-P to QPP
13 involved the conversion of one finished service to another finished service. A finished
14 service contains all of the components needed to establish a telecommuncations service.
15 In the case ofUNE-P, this includes the loop, transport and switching, makng it
16 equivalent to a basic telephone line. This is as opposed to an unbundled loop, which is
17 only comparable to the loop portion ofUN-P. In the example that Mr. Denney cites, the
18 TRRO declared that ILECs were no longer required to provide UNE-P. Thus, Qwest
44 This Eschelon-specific work-around wil cost Qwest approximately $100,000 to implement.
This estimate, however, does not even include the costs of the administrative effort that Qwest wil be
required to undertake once ths change has been implemented. No provision has been made to compensate
Qwest for these costs, however.
45 Denney Direct, at page 69.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 30
QWEST CORPORATION
1 created a commercial product that CLECs could use as an alternative to UNE-P. One
2 more distinction is that a finished service uses a different kind of Circuit ID that is more
3 equivalent to a telephone number. Finally, in the case that Mr. Denney cites, the entire
4 product known as UNE-P was eliminated, and replaced with QPP. This was one instance
5 when a simple biling change was possible. In the case of non-impaient, however, an
6 entire unbundled element is NOT being eliminated. It is only being made unavailaple in
7 a given wire center. Qwest must stil be able to identify these unbundled elements as
.8 products in wire centers that remain "impaired" separately from the alternative servces
9 offered in non-impaired wire centers. That is the fuction of the Circuit ID. Again, a
10 product is not being eliminated, as in the example that Mr. Denney cites. The product is
11 being replaced with an alternative service in a given wire center.
12 Q.is QWEST REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DATA TO THE FCC
13 BASED ON THE CIRCUIT ID?
14 A.Yes. There are a number of reports that Qwest is required to provide to
15 the FCC along with the ARMIS 43-08 report.46 All of the ARIS reports pertaining to
16 network infrastrctue are dependent on the Telcordia codes for the components of the
17 Circuit il, which are used to identify the various elements of all carers' networks.
18 Another example is the Form 477 report, which collects information about broadband
19 connections to end-user locations, wired and wireless local telephone services, and
46 See for example http://ww.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/instructions/ for curent instrctions for the
preparation of ARIS reports.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 31
QWEST CORPORATION
1 interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (V oIP) servces, in individual states.47 This
2 report also relies on the proper identification of network components which is dependent
3 on Circuit il coding.
4 Q.SO, is QWEST IMPACTED IF THE RULES FOR THE CIRCUIT
5 ID AR NOT FOLLOWED?
6 A.Absolutely. If the Commission were to require Qwest to maintain the
7 Circuit ID afer the service is changed, in violation of Telcordia's processes, Qwest
8 would need to seek significant systems changes from Telcordia in order to make these
9 changes work in Telcordia's TIRKS system. Moreover, Qwest would then be required to
10 implement these changes for all CLECs in Idaho, as this docket impacts all CLECs in
11 Idaho, not just one CLEC (Eschelon/Integra), or a few CLECs (those that opt into the
12 Eschelon agreement), as is the case in Washington. The Joint CLECs, however, have not
13 offered to compensate Qwest for ths systems work, nor did Eschelon make any such
14 offer in Washington. These costs, of course, were not anticipated when Qwests rates for
15 tariffed services were established, nor were they factored into the cost studies for UNEs.
16 These costs are also not included in the conversion charge discussed in Ms. Hunicutt's
17 testimony. These costs would be incured by Qwest and would not be recovered.
47 Interestingly, Mr. Denney identifies the Form 477 report as one the CLECs are also required to
prepare, and suggests this would be a good source for the CLECs to use to report their circuits to estimate
Qwest business lines. (Denney Direct, at page 33.) Mr. Denney fails to mention, however, that this report
is intended to tell the FCC about the deployment of specific tyes of services, as I have listed here.
Gleaning inventory figures from this report makes about as much sense as using another company's biling
data to identify circuits. As I stated in my testimony above, it makes more sense to use one's own
inventory to count circuits. The specifications for the Form 477 report can be found at
http://www.fcc.govlFormslForm477/477inst.pdf .
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 32
QWEST CORPORATION
1 In short, the TRRO did not contemplate leaving the Circuit ID unchanged, it did
2 not even discuss the Circuit il, and it certinly did not anticipate the need for
3 uncompensated system changes in order to implement the TRRO. It is therefore
4 inappropriate for Mr. Denney to raise this issue here.
5 Q.WHAT DOES QWEST RECOMMEND THIS COMMISSION
6 REQUIRE REGARING CIRCUIT IDs AND UNE CONVRSIONS?
7 A.At the present time, there would be no UN conversions resulting from
8 the designation of the Boise Main and Boise West wie centers as non-impaied, and the
9 likelihood of futue conversions is minimal. Given these facts, and the significant
10 impacts to Qwest if the Commission were to order Qwest to alter its use of the Circuit ID
11 as discussed above, Qwest recommends that ths Commission permt Qwest to change the
12 Circuit ID when a UN is converted to a tariffed service, per Qwest s curent, industr
13 standard process.
14 VII. PROCESS GOING FORWAR
15 Q.MR. DENNY WANTS THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE
16 QWEST TO PROVIDE "ADVANCE NOTICE" WHN A WIRE CENTER IS
17 WITIDN 5,000 LINES OF REACHIG A NON-IMPAIRMNT THRESHOLD.
18 PLEASE RESPOND.
19 A.Although Mr. Denney does not want this Commission to address anything
20 other than the designation of the two non-impaied wire centers, and thus does not want
21 the Commission to address the process for futue non-impairment proceedings, he does
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 33
QWEST CORPORATION
1 inconsistently ask the Commission to impose additional requirements on Qwest in the
2 future. The first of these additional requiements is his request for "advance notice" to
3 CLECs when a wire center is withn 5,000 business lines of becoming non-impaired.
4 There is absolutely no legitimate reason to add this administrative burden upon Qwest,
5 and numerous state commissions other than the Colorado Commssion have not accepted
6 the recommendation that Mr. Denney makes here, and that he unsuccessfully made in
7 those other initial non-impairment proceedings in 2006 and 2007.
8 Additionally, the threshold that the Mr. Denney set fort is not meanngf. This
9 is especially so because a wire center being within 5,000 lines or one fiber collocator
10 from non-impairment48 does not mean that a change in the impairment classification for
11 that wire center is imminent. The Commission should recall that Qwest only collects the
12 business line counts once a year. Thus, while a wire center may be within 5,000 lines of
13 a non-impairment theshold in December of any given year, that certainy does not mean
14 the wire center will meet or exceed the threshold in the following year, or even that it wil
15 likely do so.
16 Furer stil, advance notification could allow a CLEC to attempt to "game" the
17 system by changing its business plans so that the wire center would be unikely to meet
18 the theshold. Whle Mr. Denney notes that the Colorado Commission agreed with his
19 proposal, he conveniently fails to mention that he has advocated ths recommendation
20 since 2006 (in the initial non-impairment proceedings) and yet no other state commission
21 has accepted the recommendation or imposed ths burden upon Qwest.
48 Qwest assumes Mr. Denney meant to refer to one fiber-based collocator, rather th one wire
center.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 34
QWEST CORPORATION
1 The FCC set fort the non-impairment thesholds, and requiring an ILEC to report
2 in addition to that threshold is an undue burden that the FCC clearly does not require. It
3 should be sufficient that when Qwest becomes aware that a wie center has actuly met
4 the non-impairment requirements to warant a change its impairment status, Qwest will
5 notify ths Commssion and CLECs that Qwest is seeking a change in the wie center's
6 impairment designation.
7 Q.HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO MR. DENNEY'S CLAIMS THAT
8 QWEST SHOULD BE REQUID TO MAK DATA AVAILABLE EVERY
9 YEAR, AND IDS CLAIMS (AT PAGE 76) THAT QWEST ALREADY DOES SO
10 AND THAT IT POSTS THAT DATA ON ITS WEBSITE. IS HE CORRCT?
11 A.No. Mr. Denney is referring to Qwest's ICONN database.49 However,
12 there is no relationship between the data provided in the ICONN database and the data
13 that Qwest collects for TRRO non-impairment business line counts. The "Central Office
i 4 Find" fuction in the ICONN database, to which Mr. Denney referred, simply tracks
15 Qwest residential and business lines connected to a switch in a wire center. The data,
16 however, contains no data for unbundled loops, or for wholesale servces like UNE-P,
17 QPP or QLSP. The line counts reported in the ICONN database were defined years
18 before the TRRO and do not comply with the FCC's TRRO business line definition, and
19 they canot be used to determine the business line counts. Mr. Denney's assumption that
20 Qwest aleady provides the business line count data publicly is invalid.
49 The ICONN database contains a set of report that provide information regarding Qwest's
network.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 35
QWEST CORPORATION
1
2 VIII. CONCLUSION
3
4
Q.PLEASE SUMZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
A.My testimony responds to the.testimony of Mr. Douglas Denney presented
5 on behalf of Integra and 360networks. My testimony rebuts his contention that the
6 Commission should only determine the non-impairment status of the Boise Main and
7 Boise West wie centers, and not establish procedures for implementing the TRRO in the
8 futue. Instead, based on the reasonableness of the process in the multi-state settlement
9 agreement that I have discussed (a reasonableness that numerous CLECs, including
10 Integra, recognzed in various states), I recommend that the CommisSion use the
11 settlement agreement as a framework for establishing procedures to implement futue
12 non-impairment proceedings the TRRO in Idaho. Using that framework, the Commission
13 should also approve the non-impairment of the Boise Main wire center as a Tier 1 wie
14 center and the Boise West wire center as a Tier 2 wire center, and fuher, the
15 Commission should approve the Boise Main wire center as being non-impaired for DS3
16 unbundled loops based on Qwest s business line counts and the number of fiber-based
17 collocators in that wire center.
18 My testimony also rebuts Mr. Denney's claims regarding the methodology used to
19 count business lines. Thus, the Commission should adopt the business line process in the
20 settlement agreement, and find both wire centers (Boise Main and Boise West) as non-
21 impaired based on such business line counts and process.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 36
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Accordingly, I recommend that the Commission adopt the methodology
2 established in the multi-state settlement agreement, which is consistent with the rules
3 established by the FCC in the TRRO, and that the Commssion find and declare the Boise
4 Main wire center to be non impaired as a Tier 1 wire center and the Boise West wire
5 center to be non-impaired as a Tier 2 wire center, and finally, to declare the Boise Mai
6 wire/center to be non-impaired for DS3 unbundled loops.
7
8
Q.DOES TilS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
A.Yes, it does.
9
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 37
QWEST CORPORATION