20090610Torrence Rebuttal.pdf

REceIVED
2U9 JUN lOAM 8: 46
IDAHO PUBLICBEFORE THE UTfUTt£S COMMISSION
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 TRIENNAL REVIEW REMAD )ORDER )
)
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF RACHEL TORRNCE
QWEST CORPORATION
JUE 10,2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS .....................................................................4
II. PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY ........................................................5
III. THE JOINT CLECs DO NOT DISPUTE THE NON-IMPAIRMNT
STATUS OF THE BOISE MAN AND BOISE WEST WIRE
- CENTERS............................................................................................................... 7
IV. QWEST'S CURRNT PROCESS YIELDS ACCURATE RESULTS ............9
A. QWEST'S LETTERS TO CLECs REQUESTING VALIDATION OF ITS FININGS
AR A REASONABLE ATTEMP TO SOLICIT CLEC PARTICIPATION ....................10
B. COLLOCATION FIELD VERIFICATIONS WERE COMPREHENSIVE AN
PERFORMED IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER ......................................................................17
C. CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNECTIONS.....................................................................................25
D. NOTIFICATION OF IMPENDING NON-IMPAIRNT IS UNECESSARy........... 33
E. PROVISIONS OF THE MUTISTATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING
EXPRESS FIER......................................................................................................................... 37
v. SUMMAY OF TESTIMONY ..........................................................................39
VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................42
1 ATTACHED EXIBITS
2
3 Confidential Qwest Exhibit 1l..........................Letter to Wire Center Personnel
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 3
QWEST CORPORATION
1 I.IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2
3 Q:PLEASE STATE YOUR NAM, BUSINSS ADDRESS AND
4 POSITION WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
5 A:My name is Rachel Torrence. My business address is 700 W. Mineral
6 Ave., Litteton, Colorado, 80120. I am employed as a Director supporting Network
7 Operations for Qwest Corporation.
8
9 Q:DID YOU PREVIOUSLY FILE DIRECT TESTIMONY IN THIS
10 DOCKET?
11 A:Yes. I fied Direct Testimony in ths docket on behalf of Qwest
12 Corporation on April 17,2009.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 4
QWEST CORPORATION
1 II.PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
2
3 Q:WHT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
4 A:The purose of my rebuttal testimony is to address the direct testimony of
5 Mr. Douglas Denney, filed on behalf of Integra and 360Networks (USA) Inc. ("Joint
6 CLECs"), regarding Qwests methodology for identifyng and counting fiber-based
7 collocators for wie center non-impairment puroses pursuant to the Triennial Review
8 Remand Order ("TRRO"). i In his direct testimony, Mr. Denney confirms the validity of
9 the evidence presented by Qwest and which supports the tier designation of the Boise
10 Mai and Boise West wire centers, based on the number of fiber-based collocators in
11 those wire centers, and as such, their non-impairment status. However, 'while agreeing
12 with the end results of Qwest's efforts, he proceeds to attack the methodology that Qwest
13 used to produce these accurate and valid results.
14 Unfortately, in attacking Qwests comprehensive efforts to obtain the accurate
15 identification and count of fiber-based collocators in those two wire centers, Mr.
16 Denney's testimony mischaracterizes Qwest s actions and intentions. He also presents
17 testimony which contradicts itself, in an ultimately misguded effort to rework the
18 languge of the FCC and the TRRO to benefit the Joint CLECs. My rebutt testimony
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, ce Docket No. 01-
338, we Docket No. 04-313,20 Fee Rcd 2533, (2004) ("Triennial Review Remand Order" or "TRRO").
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 5
QWEST CORPORATION
1 will correct these mischaracterizations and reinforce the validity of Qwest s methodology
2 to identify and count fiber-basedcollocators and the results of Qwests efforts.
3 Additionally~ I will respond to the Joint CLECs' assertion that Qwest should be
4 required to provide "advance notification" to CLECs when a wire center is nearng a non-
5 impairment theshold. My testimony will show that such notification is immaterial and
6 unecessar and seeks to imose an undue requirement on Qwest for no benefit to Qwest,
7 or for that matter, the CLECs.
8 Finally, I will respond to Mr. Denney's request regarding a provision in the
9 Settement Agreement addressing "express fiber."
10 Whle I am responding to the fiber-based collocation element of Qwest s
11 methodology, Ms. Albersheim's testimony will respond to Mr. Denney's testimony
12 regarding the multi-state settlement agreement and the business line-count methodology
13 and Ms. Hunicutt will respond to Mr. Denney's testimony regarding the conversion
14 charge.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 6
QWEST CORPORATION
III. THE JOINT CLECs DO NOT DISPUTE THE NON-IMPAIRMENT
STATUS OF THE BOISE MA AN BOISE WEST WI CENTERS
1
2
3
4
5 Q: DO MR. DENNEY AND THE JOINT CLECs DISPUTE THE NON-
6 IMPAIRMNT STATUS OF THE TWO IDAHO WIRE CENTERS AT ISSUE IN
7 THIS DOCKET?
8 A:No. In fact, on page 41, lines 4-6, of his direct testimony, Mr. Denney
9 states:
10 Both the Tier 1 statu for Boise Main and The Tier 2 status for Boise West
11 curently appear to be supported by the number of fiber-based collocators in those12 offces.
13
14 Later in his testimony, on page 42, lines 5-8, he provides fuer confrmation of the
15 accuracy of Qwest s data.
16 Based upon a review of the fiber-based collocation data provided by Qwest, it
17 curently appears that Qwest has at least four fiber-based collocators in Boise
18 Main and at least thee in Boise West, which would support Qwest s request for
19 Tier 1 and Tier 2 status respectively.
20
21 Q:SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE NON-
22 IMPAIRMENT STATUS OF THESE TWO WIRE CENTERS, WHT AR MR.
23 DENNEY'S PURORTED CONCERNS?
24 A:Simply stated, the Joint CLECs attack the methodology by which Qwest
25 has identified and counted the fiber-based collocators on which the non-impairment
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 7
QWEST CORPORATION
1 status is based. Additionally, while one of the Joint CLECs, Integra, was a signatory to
2 the Multi-State Settlement Agreement regarding Wire Center Designations and Related
3 Issues ("the Settlement Agreement") which memorialized Qwest s and numerous
4 CLECs' agreement on the methodology for identifyng and counting fiber-based
5 collocators, and the parameters for futue non-impairment filings, the Joint CLECs
6 apparently would like to have that methodology readdressed in Idaho. The Joint CLECs
7 would have this methodology reexamined, despite the fact that the use of ths
8 methodology has resulted in an accurate count of fiber-based collocators in Idaho and
9 numerous other states. They would have ths methodology reexamned despite the fact
10 that it has been accepted by numerous other state commissions in Qwest s ILEC region.
11 Furer, they would have the methodology reexamined despite the fact that Qwest makes
12 every reasonable effort to obtain an accurate count, not in a unilateral vacuum, but by
13 actively soliciting the affected CLECs' paricipation. In short, the Joint CLECs are
14 essentially asking that all paries, including ths Commission, "reinvent the wheel" not
15 only for this proceeding, but for any subsequent updates to the non-impairment list.
16 Thus, it appears that the Joint CLECs are seeking to increase the chance of maintaning
17 the status quo of impairment by seeking to insert additional complexity into what the
18 FCC intended to be a largely simple and self-effectuating process for identifying
19 competition in a telecommunications market.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 8
QWEST CORPORATION
1 IV. QWEST'S CURNT PROCESS YIELDS ACCURTE RESULTS
2
3 Q:MR. DENNY CLAIS THE JOINT CLECs HAVE FIV MAJOR
4 ARAS OF CONCERN WITH QWEST'S METHODOLOGY FOR
5 IDENTIFYNG FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS. WHT IS YOUR GENERA
6 RESPONSE?
7 A:Mr. Denney purorts to have concerns with five aspects of the
8 methodology that Qwest uses to identify and count fiber-based collocators. His concerns
9 center on (1) the distrbution and use of Qwests letter to CLECs regarding their fiber-
10 based collocations, and Qwest s actions when a CLEC fails to respond to Qwest s
11 requests for validation of its findings, (2) Qwests instrctions to field personnel
12 regarding collocation verification and the validity of the collocation verifications, (3) the
13 counting of CLEC-to-CLEC connections, (4) the advance notification of impending non-
14 impairent and (5) a Settlement Agreement provision regarding express fiber. Generally
15 speakng, however, Mr. Denney's concerns are unfounded. His testimony relies on
16 mischaracterizations of Qwest s actions and intentions. His testimony also contradicts
17 itself. And, finally, his testimony shows a tendency to either ignore the language of the
18 TRRO, or to bend that language in the order to benefit the interests of the Joint CLECs.
19 I will address each of his five concerns individually and in greater detail in the following
20 five subsections.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 9
QWEST CORPORATION
1 A. QWEST'S LETTERS TO CLECs REQUESTING VALIDATION OF ITS
2 FINDINGS AR A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO SOLICIT CLEC3 PARTICIPATION
4
5 Q:IN IDS DIRECT TESTIMONY, MR. DENNEY TAKS ISSUE
6 WITH QWEST'S METHODOLOGY IN THE EVENT THAT A CLEC ELECTS
7 NOT TO RESPOND TO QWEST'S LETTER ASKING FOR VALIDATION OF
8 THE CLEC'S DESIGNATION AS A FIBER-BASED COLLOCATOR. HOW DO
9 YOU RESPOND?
10 A:Mr. Denney's testimony completely mischaracterizes Qwests position
11 and its actions in the event that a CLEC chooses not to respond to Qwest s inquiries.
12 First, at page 43, footnote 62, Mr. Denney erroneously cites my testimony, misstating that
13 "Qwest counted a carier as a fiber-based col1ocator even if a carer failed to confirm ths
14 status." He also erroneously states at page 42, footnote 60, that in the absence of a CLEC
15 response, Qwest interprets the non-response as CLEC agreement, rather than a CLEC
16 dispute. With these misstatements, he wrongly insinuates that Qwests letters to CLECs
17 play no serious role in determining the count of fiber-based collocators. Ths could not
18 be fuer from the trth.
19 In developing its process for identifying and counting fiber-based col1ocators,
20 Qwest wanted to ensure that it made every reasonable effort to arve at an accurate
21 number of fiber-based collocators in a given wire center. Recognzing that the only
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 10
QWEST CORPORATION
1 definitive proof regardig a collocator's status can only come for the collocator itself,
2 Qwest sought to obtain that proof via a letter requesting not only validation of a CLEC's
3 status as a fiber-based collocator as the FCC defined it in the TRRO, but also the CLEC's
4 affiliations with other carers, and the terms under which it may be obtaining facilities.
5 That information was then incorporated into Qwest s count.
6 If a collocator presents Qwest with information that it is not a fiber-based
7 collocator for any of the reasons outlined in the request letter, such information is fuer
8 investigated and, when necessary and appropriate, the CLEC is removed from the list.
9 However, when a carier has chosen not to respond to Qwest s inquiry letter, whether or
10 not it remains on the list of fiber-based collocators depends on varous factors. For
11 example, if Qwest obtains sufcient evidence, gained independently of the collocator's
12 affrmation that it is a fiber-based collocator, the collocator remais on the list. If there is
13 insufficient evidence of a CLEC's status as a fiber-based collocator, regardless of
14 whether the collocator has or has not responded to Qwests letter, that collocator would
15 not have been included on the list of fiber-based collocators. Qwest does not believe that
16 a fiber-based collocator's choice not to respond to Qwests request for information should
17 be sufcient reason for it to be removed from Qwest s list of fiber-based collocators,
18 especially if Qwest is already in possession of other substatiating evidence tht the
19 CLEC is indeed a fiber-based collocator. Otherwse, there would be absolutely no
20 incentive for any CLEC to respond to Qwests letter. After all, a CLEC's failure to
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10109
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 11
QWEST CORPORATION
1 respond may be a purosefu attempt to avoid being designated a fiber-based collocator
2 for TRRO non-impairment puroses. It is certnly logical, therefore, to assume, as the
3 FCC directed, that a carier is a fiber-based collocator as defined in the TRRO when,
4 despite the fact that a collocator chose not to respond, Qwest can provide independent
5 evidence that: (1) the carer is occupying a collocation space, (2) the carier is being
6 biled, and is paying, for that space, as well as for power to that space, (3) the collocation
7 has fiber facilties entering and terminating in that space, and (4) those fiber facilities
8 leave the central office.
9
10 Q:PLEASE RESPOND TO MR. DENNEY'S CONCERNS
11 REGARDING QWEST'S LETTERS BEING APPROPRIATELY ROUTED TO
12 THE APPROPRITE INDIVIDUALS.
13 A:Like the Joint CLECs, Qwest also believes it is important that its requests
14 for validation are sent and routed to the appropriate individuals within the companies that
15 Qwest sends these letters to. As such, Qwest makes every reasonable effort to ensure that
16 the letters are sent to the appropriate CLEC personneL. Qwest sends its letters to the
17 contact of record for a paricular CLEC collocator, and the letters are sent in compliance
18 with the provisions in each CLEC's specific interconnection agreement regarding
19 notifications. For a few collocators, Qwest has received specific instrctions regarding
20 who is to receive this tye of request, and Qwest sends these letters to them accordingly.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 12
QWEST CORPORATION
1 In isolated instaces, however, the letters have been inadvertently misdirected, but Qwest
2 certainly has made every reasonable effort to reroute them to the correct individual, and
3 has made alternate accommodations for responding when requested by a CLEC.
4 In his testimony, Mr. Denney also complains that despite his ongoing
5 involvement with non-impairment dockets before other state utility commissions in
6 Qwest s region, he has not been included in the distrbution of these letters, presumably
7 to his employer, Integra. I do note, however, that Mr. Denney never claims that Integra
8 did not receive the letter in question for Idaho.
9 Again, however, these letters are sent to the each CLEC's contact of record and
10 are sent in compliance with provisions of the specific interconnection agreement for his
11 paricular employer, Integra, as with all other CLECs. I am not aware that Mr. Denney
12 ever made any request to be the recipient of these letters to Integra in the pastor going
13 forward. Moreover, given his past and ongoing involvement in non-impairment dockets,
14 and his knowledge of my role in faciltating the count of fiber-based collocators and as a
15 witness in these tyes of dockets, I would have thought he would have at least contacted
16 me earlier in this (or other past) proceeding if he wanted to receive this letter. To my
17 knowledge he had never done so. And I do not believe that Qwest was somehow
18 obligated to anticipate that Mr. Denney wanted to be the contact person for Integra
19 simply because he has been involved in these non-impaient proceedings in the past.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 13
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Regardless, going forward. should he wish to become the official contact for Integra, he
2 can easily let me know to make such an arangement.
3
4 Q:PLEASE ADDRESS MR DENNEY'S COMMENTS REGARDING
5 ATTEMPTS BY QWEST TO "FOLLOW UP" WITH INEGRA WHN IT
6 FAILED TO RESPOND.
7 A:As noted in my direct testimony and as Mr. Denney himself
8 acknowledges, CLECs are often reluctant to respond to Qwest s inquiries, and
9 unortately, Qwest canot force a CLEC to respond. Qwest can only make its best
10 efforts to try to enlist the cooperation of any of the impacted CLECs. Here, Qwest did all
11 it could have reasonably done, and will continue to do so in the futue, to validate the
12 existence of fiber-based collocators in a wire center. The Joint CLECs' implication,
13 therefore, that it is somehow Qwests obligation to "baby-sit" CLECs is seriously flawed
14 in that it essentially ignores a vital circumstance that signficantly affects Qwest s ability
15 to obtan independent validation; that it is often in the CLECs' interests not to respond.
16 Moreover, although these collocators are in Qwest wire centers, Qwest may not have
17 fist-hand knowledge as to how a collocator is using its space. This is paricularly so if
18 that collocator is not purchasing services from Qwest, as would be the case with most
19 fiber-based collocators, since Qwest has no physical access to those cariers' networks
20 (beyond what Qwest may be providing) or operations data to defintively verify each of
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 14
QWEST CORPORATION
1 these facts; it is only the carers themselves that are in a position to defitively affirm
2 their network architectues, corporate affiliations, and thus their status as fiber-based
3 collocators. Notably, numerous carers have readily affirmed their status as fiber-based
4 collocators. Others, however, have apparently chosen not to respond.
5 Here in Idaho, Integra did not respond to Qwests letter (although, again, Mr.
6 Denney does not state that Integra never received it, and does not deny that it did receive
7 it). The letter, however, was sent to Integra's contact(s) of record, who had responded
8 not only to previous letters, but also to another letter sent in a more recent fiing, and
9 thus, subsequent to the letter in question. Given ths previous pattern of responses from
10 Integra, it would be diffcult to believe that Qwest s letter did not reach the intended
11 individual, as Mr. Denney implies at page 43, lines 13-14. Furermore, the letters are
12 sent via certfied mail, and indeed, Qwest is in possession of a signed receipt from
13 Integra. Thus the most logical and reasonable conclusion is that Integra chose not to
14 respond for this paricular proceeding.
15 It is also reasonable that once Qwest has received confirmation that its letter was
16 indeed received by Integra, Qwest is under no obligation to undertake fuer action. The
17 TRRO imposes no such obligation. It was Qwest, in an effort to perform due diligence,
18 that voluntaly opted to solicit the CLECs' cooperation. Ironically, the "obligation" to
19 send these letters was only memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, whose validity
20 Mr. Denney and Joint CLECs are vehemently objecting to in his testimony. Finly, by
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 15
QWEST CORPORATION
1 choosing inaction, Integra canot absolve itself of the responsibility for compliance with
2 an FCC order, nor should it attempt to shift the obligation for fuher action onto Qwest.
3
4 Q:WHT is QWEST'S RESPONSE TO THE JOINT CLECs'
5 RECOMMENDATION REGARING ADDITIONAL FOLLOW-UP WHN
6 OBTAIING VALIDATION FROM CLECs OF THEIR STATUS AS FIBER-
7 BASED COLLOCATORS?
8 A:At page 73, lines 6 though 11, Mr. Denney states that Qwest should make
9 more of a serious effort to obtain verification from CLECs. However, as stated, Qwest
10 already takes these efforts very seriously. Interestingly enough, however, he never
11 mentions that CLECs, such as his employer Integra, should make more of a serious effort
12 to facilitate the intent of the TRRO by diligently providing the data that Qwest is
13 requesting. Nor does he ask ths Commission, the only entity with authority to obligate
14 CLECs to cooperate in determining the tre natue of their collocator status, for
15 assistance in obtaining the data that Qwest is requesting. Instead, he recommends that
16 Qwest send "a notice to at least the contacts identified by each carer for interconnection
17 agreement notices." However, as I have aleady testified, Qwest has already done so, as
18 ths is already par of Qwests methodology.
19 Mr. Denney goes on to state that Qwest should be required to follow up with
20 carers if Qwest receives no response. He does not state, however, exactly what type of
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 16
QWEST CORPORATION
1 follow-up that he and the Joint CLECs believe should be required. Neverteless, Qwest
2 notes that it sends its notifications via certified U.S. MaiL. Qwest then receives a signed
3 receipt upon the letter having been delivered to the CLEC's contact of record.
4 In short, Qwest knows the CLEC received the letter, and thus the ball is squarely
5 in the CLEC's proverbial cour. Qwest has very little, if any, recourse at ths point. If a
6 CLEC, such as Integra, chooses not to respond, or fies the letter in a drawer and forgets
7 about it, it is ultimately the CLEC that should be held accountable. That accountability
8 should not be shifted to Qwest, paricularly in light of the fact that Qwest has made a
9 dilgent effort to solicit each CLEC's cooperation.
10
11 B. COLLOCATION FIELD VERIFICATIONS WERE COMPREHENSIVE AN12 PERFORMD IN AN OBJECTIVE MAER
13
14 Q:WERE QWEST'S PHYSICAL FIELD VERIFICATIONS OF
15 FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS CONDUCTED IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER?
16 A:Absolutely. Mr. Denney (at pages 43 and 44 of his testimony) wrongly
17 accuses Qwest of attempting to come to predetermined outcomes when he states that
18 Qwest was "encouraging its employees to err on the side of finding fiber-based
19 collocations." However, apar from the offensive, unair and groundless natue of Mr.
20 Denney's accusation, it becomes abundantly clear if one reads the instrction letter that a
21 brief explanation regarding why Qwest field personnel are asked to perform a task
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 17
QWEST CORPORATION
1 outside of their day-to-day fuctions is entiely appropriate.2 In addition, these Qwest
2 personnel were given specific instrctions regarding what data to validate. I take strong
3 exception to Mr. Denney's apparent accusations that Qwest employees were "encouraged
4 to err" and believe these accusations are inappropriately infamatory and insulting, and,
5 at a minimum, they are simply wrong. Confdential Exhbit 11, attched to my rebuttal
6 testimony, is a copy of the letter in question.
7
8 Q:AT PAGE 44 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR DENNEY POINTS TO AN
9 INSTANCE THAT HE BELIEVES CALLS INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY
10 OF THE PHYSICAL FIELD VERIFICATIONS CONDUCTED BY QWEST.
11 PLEASE ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
12 A:Mr. Denney is referencing an instance where a collocator in Colorado was
13 intially mis-designated as a fiber-based collocator in Qwests initial 2005 filing. He is
14 incorrect, however, in claiming that the field verification in that case erroneously
15 validated a copper-based collocation as a fiber-based collocation. Before rebutting Mr.
16 Denney's testimony, it is important to recognze that ths issue is irrelevant to this Idaho
17 docket, and we are not here to deal with the specifics of any non-Idao wire center, but
2 It has been my experience that if employees are given a clear understanding regarding why they
are being asked to a complete a given task, especially one that is not par of their usual day-to-day
responsibilties, they tend to perform better and produce a better product.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 18
QWEST CORPORA nON
1 since Mr. Denney raised it, we are forced to rebut it so that the Commission does not
2 believe there is any merit to ths non-Idaho example.
3 The mis-designation in question occured durng Qwests first non-impairment
4 filing in February 2005, when Qwest was stil developing its methodology immediately
5 afer the FCC had issued its TRRO. Specifically, upon release of the TRRO on Febru
6 4, 2005, Qwest had a relatively short two-week timeframe before it was to fie a final
7 determnation of the number non-impaired wire centers with the FCC, based solely or in
8 par on the number of fiber-based collocators. Given the very limited time that Qwest
9 had between receipt of the FCC's Februar 2005 request for a wire center list and the
10 date that Qwest was required to submit.that list to the FCC, Qwest's developed an initial
11 list that was the result of data gathered from its collocation tracking and inventory records
12 and biling data, and fied that list on February 18, 2005. The collocator referenced by
13 Mr. Denney was included in ths initial list. At this point, coming just days afer the FCC
14 had issued the TRRO, the methodology did not necessarly include an on-site physical
15 field verification, but rather, verification by field personnel who mayor may not have
16 been onsite, Due to the rushed and rather conservative nature of Qwest s initial list of
17 fiber-based collocators, Qwest necessarly decided that it would modify its list by way of
18 a secondar effort comprised of a comprehensive validation of the data compiled durg
19 the initial effort, in addition to incorporating CLEC responses to Qwest s requests for
20 confrmation of data and the results of actual on-site field verifications of wire centers. It
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 19
QWEST CORPORATION
1 was after the physical on-site verification was instituted that the collocation in question
2 was identified as being copper-based (and not fiber-based). Ultimately, however, the
3 field verification, in conjunction with the collocator's response to Qwests letter, resulted
4 in Qwest correctly designating the collocation as copper-based and thereafter, the filing
5 of an accurate list of fiber-based collocators. In fact, and contrary to Mr. Denney's
6 mistaen assertions, the methodology as set fort, including the field verification,
7 ultimately yielded a correct count. Ths one instace also demonstrates that the
8 methodology Qwest ultimately arived at and used in this proceeding, has checks and
9 double checks that mimize (if not eliminate) errors, ultimately yieldig an accurate list
10 of fiber-based collocators.
11
12 Q:PLEASE ADDRESS MR. DENNEY'S MINNESOTA EXAPLE, AT
13 PAGES 44 AND 45 OF IDS TESTIMONY, WHERE HE AGAIN CALLS INTO
14 QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF QWEST'S FIELD VERIFICATIONS.
15 A:First, it is important to note once again, that the circumstaces In
16 Minnesota have absolutely no bearng on the proceedings here in Idaho, as they were
17 specific to Minnesota and to one CLEC only. However, since Mr. Denney raises the
18 issue, Qwest is once again forced to rebut it so that the Commission has the full pictue of
19 what happened there. Second, I can only conclude that his comments are either a blatant
20 and intentional mischaracterization of the applicable facts, or evidence of Mr. Denney's
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 20
QWEST CORPORATION
1 selective memory regarding the actual facts of Qwest s intial filings in Minnesota, the
2 outcome of that filing, and their lack of impact in Idaho.
3 In any event, the Minnesota example to which Mr. Denney is referring was also
4 par of Qwests initial non-impairment filing in 2005. As I stated above, however, upon
5 release of the TRRO in Februar 2005, Qwest had a relatively short two-week timeframe
6 before it was required to file a list of non-impaired wire centers with the FCC. Given that
7 limited time period, Qwest developed an initial list that was the result of data gathered
8 from its collocation tracking and inventory records and biling data. This effort resulted
9 in a list of fiber-based collocators that were operating from December 2003 though
10 February 2005 and that Qwest filed on February 18, 2005. The data on which Qwest
11 relied showed that the collocations in question had scheduled target completion dates in
12 late February 2005, fitting well with in the stated timeframe. Subsequent to the mid-
13 Februar 2005 filing, however, with the collocation space and power already provisioned
14 and in place for this one CLEC, the completion dates were pushed out into early March
15 2005 because of delays in bringing in and terminating the fiber. The termination of the
16 fibers in the two collocations was completed and the collocations were handed off to the
17 collocator before the March 11, 2005 effective date of the TRRO. Also, as stated earlier,
18 in an effort to expand on the limited initial filing effort, Qwest altered its methodology to
19 include a comprehensive validation of the data compiled durng the initial effort, as well
20 as incorporating CLEC responses to Qwest s requests for confirmation of data, and actual
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 21
QWEST CORPORATION
1 on-site field verifications of wire centers. The final product was a list of fiber-based
2 collocators in operation as of March 11,2005, the effective date of the TRRO. Included
3 in that list were the two Eschelon collocations that Mr. Denney referred to.3
4
5 Q:HOW ACCURTE AR MR. DENNY'S CLAIMS THAT QWEST
6 CONTINUES TO COUNT CARERS WHEN THE FIELD VERIFICATIONS
7 INDICATE OTHERWISE?
8 A:Once again, Mr. Denney is mistaen, and once again he refers to a historic
9 instance in another state in an apparent attempt to distract from the issues here.
10 Specifically, at page 45, lines 3-9, Mr. Denney points to one instance in Arizona (in
11 which Qwest could not provide as proof, specific technical information regarding the
12 location of fuses on the power plant) to allege that Qwest is ignoring its own field
13 verification worksheets. However, ths was merely one instance out of the hundreds of
14 collocators and collocation worksheets that Qwest has filed as evidence in numerous non-
15 impairment proceedings in nine different states since 2005. Again, it appears that Mr.
16 Denney is attempting to distract ths Commission from the issues here, through techncal
3 Interestingly enough, Mr. Denney continues to dispute that the collocations were, in fact,
operational as of the effective date of the TRRO, March 11, 2005. He does so even though Qwest is in
possession of documents proving that Eschelon (M. Denney's former employer which Integra later
acquired) took possession of the two Minesota collocations at issue before March i i, 2005, proving
therefore that they met the FCC's defintion for a fiber-based collocator. Furermore, the wire centers in
question were accepted as non-impaired by the Minesota Commission, despite Mr. Denney's testimony to
the contrar.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 22
QWEST CORPORATION
1 discussions of an isolated incident in another state that have nothg to do with the issues
2 here, and thus force Qwest to rebut this example, lest the Commission believe there is
3 any merit to these contentions. With that in mind, Qwest is forced to rebut ths non-Idaho
4 example so that ths Commssion can have the complete pictue of what happened there
5 and to allay any concern the Commission may have about Qwest s process to identify a
6 fiber-based collocator.
7 In his testimony in the Arzona proceeding which he refers to, as well as his
8 testimony here in Idaho, Mr. Denney erroneously claims that Qwest has mistaenly
9 counted cariers as fiber-based collocators when it appeared that Qwest was unable to
10 "verify that the carers had power at the BDFB (Battery Distribution Fuse Board)." Mr.
11 Denny makes ths claim despite the fact that active power was verified and it was only a
12 carer's location on the BDFB that was not validated. Once again, Mr. Denney and the
13 Joint CLECs stray from the TRRO's definition of a fiber-based collocator.
14 Qwestagrees that the purose of the (verification) spreadsheet is to verify aspects
15 of a collocation, specifically, the criteria set fort by the TRRO which define a fiber-
16 based collocator. Notably, but ignored by Mr. Denney, the spreadsheet does indeed
17 document the specific criteria defining a fiber-based collocator as set forth in the TRRO:
18 (1) an existing collocation arangement, (2) active power, (3) the existence of fiber
19 facilties, and (4) the fiber facilities both terminating and exiting the wire center.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 23
QWEST CORPORATION
1 However, and of paricular importance here, the spreadsheets also contain
2 information that the TRRO does not require as necessary in definig a fiber-based
3 collocation. This additional inormation is simply additional data, such as the tye of
4 fiber (i.e., express fiber), cross-connect information, and verification of connections at the
5 Battery Distribution Fuse Board (the BDFB on the worksheet), that Qwest collects as
6 further substantiation of the fiber-based collocator designation. Mr. Denney's testiony
7 erroneously implies that the absence of ths paricular information (specifically, the
8 verification and location of connections at the BDFB) somehow must mean that Qwests
9 collocation verification has failed. This is certainy not the case.
10 If one looks at the spreadsheets, in all instances, power has been visually verified
11 at the collocation, whether or not it was traced back to the BDFB. That means that the
12 equipment in the collocation was "on" and operationaL. The mere fact that a techncian
13 may not have completed a physical trace of a single cable though the central office
14 racking to the BDFB does not mean that the collocation was not actively powered; it
15 simply means that circumstances, such as racking congestion, may have prevented the
16 techncian from completing the tracing of the cable. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Denney's
17 mistaken assertions, in ths Arizona example, Qwest verified the existence of active
18 power to all the fiber-based collocations that it counted in its Arzona wie centers, as
19 Qwest counted only valid fiber-based collocators.
20
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 24
QWEST CORPORATION
1 C. CLEC- TO-CLEC CONNECTIONS
2
3 Q:AT PAGE 45 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. DENNEY TAKES ISSUE
4 WITH QWEST'S TREATMENT OF "CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNECTIONS."
5 DOES MR. DENNY BELIEVE THAT EITHER OF THE IDAHO WIRE
6 CENTERS IN QUESTION AR IMPACTED BY CLEC-TO-CLEC
7 CONNCTIONS?
8 A:No. At page 45, lines 15-17, Mr. Denney states: "Based on my review of
9 the Idaho fiber-based collocations data, I curently do not believe Qwest counted CLEC
10 to -CLEC cross connections for this request."
11
12
13
Q:WHAT IS A "CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNECTION"?
A:A CLEC-to-CLEC connection allows a collocated CLEC to interconnect
14 its network to any other collocated telecommunications carier in the same wire center.
15 A CLEC-to-CLEC connection also allows a CLEC to connect its own multiple
16 collocations withn a single Qwest wire center. Figue 1 is a diagram ilustrating a
17 tyical wire center arangement, including CLEC-to-CLEC arrangements.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 25
QWEST CORPORATION
Intero
Ra
UNEs
Figure 1 Qwest Wire Center
Colla
-1
CLECB
CLECB "I~""Colla48 Fibers UN~s
24 Fibers CLECC
I Fibr Dill Pinel I
~i¡i;~ --
?
Colla"'J~"A UNEs
I 24 Fibers CLECA
I FllerDIsPlinei I
Share Entrce
I- FaciUIy'" ~"R Owsl 144 Fibe
flce 72 Fibers
\. MHIPOI
(48 Spare Fibers)
ute CLECA
24 Fibers
1
2 As ilustrated, fiber-based collocators bring their fiber facilities to a Qwest
3 facility, usually through a manole, commonly referred to as a point of interconnection
4 ("POI"). At the POI, the collocators will splice their fiber cable to a shared entrance
5 facilty. This shared facilty is a cable shared by the CLECs as a means to enter the
6 Qwest wire center. This is a common and effcient method for fiber-based collocators
7 to enter the wire center. Once inside the wie center, the fibers are once again broken
8 out for the individual CLECs and terminated at their respective collocations. This is
9 ilustrated by the fiber configuations for CLEC A and CLEC B. CLEC A and CLEC B
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 26
QWEST CORPORATION
1 deploy optronics to their fiber facility, connect to UNEs, and transport traffic from this
2 Qwest wie center.
3 However, in this example, CLEC C, obtas its fiber from CLEC B. In effect,
4 CLEC C has obtained a fiber facility from CLEC B, and that fiber facilty extends from
5 CLEC C's collocation through CLEC B's collocation and out of the Qwest wire center
6 to whatever end-point it has aranged with CLEC B. In ths example, CLEC B retains
7 48 of its original 72 fibers, and CLEC C obtans the remaig 24 unit fibers for its
8 use. CLEC C is therefore free to connect its own optronics to that fiber facilty,
9 connect UNs to that fiber facilty, and transport traffic across that facility. Here,
10 CLEC C is operating a fiber facility, as are CLECs A and B. In other words, both
11 CLECs B and C are fiber-based collocators, even though they are cross-connected.
12 Figure 1 ilustrates CLEC-to-CLEC connections between fiber-based collocators only.
13 Any of the CLECs shown in Figure 1 may also be connected with other non-fiber-based
14 collocators.
15
16 Q:WHAT ROLE WOULD CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNCTIONS PLAY
17 IN A COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAT?
18 A:In a wire center where a CLEC or CLECs are offering alternative transport
19 facilities in competition with an ILEC (such as Qwest), a CLEC-to-CLEC connection is a
20 viable and relatively easy way for carers to obtain facilties from someone other than the
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 27
QWEST CORPORATION
1 ILEC. CLEC-to-CLEC connections faciltate the use of alternative facilties with a
2 mium of investment and constrction efforts by leveraging architectures already in
3 place. As demonstrated in Figue 1, it is exactly what the FCC intended: easily
4 obtainable competitive alternatives.
5
6 Q:WOULD QWEST'S METHODOLOGY CORRCTLY IDENTIF
7 FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS, OR EXCLUDE NON-FIBER-BASED
8 COLLOCATORS, EVEN IF CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNECTIONS AR PRESENT?
9 A:Yes. Qwest s methodology for identifying and counting fiber-based
10 collocators looks for very specific criteria. If a collocator me.ets these very specific
11 criteria, it is counted as a fiber-based collocator. If it does not meet the specific criteria, it
12 is not counted as a fiber-based collocator. If a collocator is cross-connected to another
13 collocator in the same wire center and it otherwse meets these very specific criteria, one
14 or both will be counted, and legitimately so. Again, if the CLEC does not meet these
15 very specific criteria, it will not be counted as a fiber-based collocator.
16 Qwest is confident that its methodology accurately identifies and counts fiber-
17 based collocators. Contrary to Mr. Denney's assertion, Qwests methodology does not
18 promote "double-counting" or erroneous counting of fiber-based collocators.
19 Furermore, CLEC-to-CLEC connections, do not, in and of themselves, negate a
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 28
QWEST CORPORATION
1 collocator from being counted as a fiber-based collocator if it otherwse meets the criteria
2 set forth by the FCC in the TRRO.
3
4 Q:DOES MR. DENNY CONTRADICT IDMSELF WHEN HE
5 DISCUSSES FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS USING CLEC- TO-CLEC
6 CONNECTIONS?
7 A:He absolutely does. At page 46, lines 27-29, Mr. Denney states: "A
8 CLEC-to-CLEC connection does not fall within the FCC's definition of a fiber-based
9 collocator and should not be counted as separate fiber-based collocations." However,
10 iIIediately above this statement, at page 46, lines 21-26, he quotes the TRRO and the
11 conditions that must exist in order for a carer to be considered a fiber-based collocator.
12 Specifically, he quotes footnote 292 to paragraph 102 ofthe TRRO, as stating:
13 We find tht when a company has collocations facilties connected to fiber-
14 transmission facilties obtaned on an indefeasible right of use ("IRU") basis from
15 another carer, including the incumbent LEC, these facilities shall be counted for
16 puroses of ths analysis and shall be treated as non-incumbent LEC fiber17 facilities.
18
19 Based on ths clarification, a collocator obtaning facilties from another carer, meeting
20 these conditions, is operating non-incumbent fiber facilities. An efficient method for
21 obtaining these facilties would be with a CLEC-to-CLEC connection as described in
22 Figure 1 above. As such, if a collocator utilzes a CLEC-to-CLEC connection to obtain
CASE NO. QWE- T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 29
QWEST CORPORATION
1 non-incumbent fiber facilities, while otherwse meeting the criteria set fort by the FCC
2 in the TRRO, it would be a legitimate fiber-based collocator.
3
4 Q:PLEASE RESPOND TO MR. DENNEY'S ALLEGATION AT PAGE
5 45 THAT CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNCTIONS RESULT IN "DOUBLING
6 COUNTING" OF FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS?
7 A:Mr. Denney is mistaken. If we look back at my Figue 1, we can see that
8 if we removed CLEC C entirely, both CLEC A and CLEC B would stil meet the FCC's
9 defition of a fiber-based collocator in all respects. Now, assume that CLEC C is back
10 in the pictue. Perhaps the CLEC-to-CLEC connection was simply a revenue-boosting
11 move (understandable in today's economy) that may have prompted CLEC B to offer
12 fiber facilities to CLEC C. Regardless, the result here would be that both CLEC B and
13 CLEC C would be operating fiber facilties, both have deployed optronics that support
14 those fiber facilties, and both are serving customers in the same wire center. Thus, if
15 both collocators otherwse meet the FCC's definition as fiber-based collocators, both
16 should be counted as a fiber-based collocator for non-impairment puroses.
17
18
19
20
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 30
QWEST CORPORATION
1 Q:DOES THE FCC'S LANGUAGE SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION?
2 A:Absolutely. Paragraph 408 of the TRO clarifies the conditions under
3 which to view and count a CLEC that may obtain facilties from a carer other than the
4 ILEC. Paragraph 408 of the TRO (unchanged by the TRRO) states:
5 We find, however, that when a company has obtained dark fiber from another
6 carier on a long-term IRU basis and activated that fiber with its own optronics,
7 that facility should be counted as a separate unaffliated facilty. (Emphasis
8 added.)
9
10 A CLEC-to-CLEC connection is one method a collocator can use to access unaffiliated
11 fiber-based facilities.
12 Paragraph 408 furter states:
13 . . . the record suggests that competing carers are able to engage and have
14 engaged in joint efforts to deploy transport, so that imposing a trgger that
15 requires each facility on a route to have been separately deployed would fail to
16 consider and may inhibit such cooperative deployment efforts.
17
18 Therefore, the FCC makes clear that even if two CLECs connect together, the
19 arangement may stil yield multiple fiber-based collocators.
20
21 Q:THE JOINT CLECs APPEAR TO BE ASKING FOR QWEST TO
22 EXPRESSLY CONFIRM THAT CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNCTIONS WERE NOT
23 COUNTED IN THIS PROCEEDING, AS WELL AS IN FUTURE
24 PROCEEDINGS. HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 31
QWEST CORPORATION
1 A:Frany, I am a bit confsed. It is unclear whether Mr. Denny is askig
2 that Qwest confirm that CLEC-to-CLEC connections were not a factor in ths filing, or
3 whether he is askig that Qwest confrm its intention to exclude such connections in
4 futue updates. In either case, it is Qwest s position that if a collocator otherwse meets
5 the very specific definition of a fiber-based collocator, it is counted as such. If it does not
6 meet these criteria, it is not counted as a fiber-based collocator. Moreover, if a collocator
7 is cross-connected to another collocator in the same wire center, and both collocators
8 otherwse meet these very specific criteria defining fiber-based collocators, both will be
9 counted. Again, if one or the other of the cross-connected CLECs does not meet these
10 very specific criteria, it will not be counted as a fiber-based collocator. Qwest is
11 confdent that its methodology accurately captues fiber-based collocators.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6110109
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 32
QWEST CORPORATION
1
2
3
D. NOTIFICATION OF IMPENDING NON-IMPAIRMENT
IS UNECESSARY
4 Q:HOW DOES QWEST RESPOND TO THE JOINT CLECs'
5 RECOMMENDATION THAT QWEST SHOULD PROVIDE "ADVANCE
6 NOTICE" OF WIRE CENTERS NEARG THE FCC'S NON-IMPAIRMENT
7 THRESHOLD?
8 A:Qwest believes that such notification is completely unecessar and
9 immaterial. Mr. Denney and the Joint CLECs' state (at page 75, lines 12-13) that they
10 require such information so that they can rationally plan futue investment. However,
11 notifying CLECs of when a given wire center is within one fiber-based collocator of a
12 Tier 2 designation is imaterial since being within one fiber-based collocator of the
13 theshold in a wie center does not necessarily indicate an imminent change in that wire
14 center's impairment classification. My research indicates that, overall, a substantial
15 percentage of Tier 3 wire centers with fiber-based collocators have already been
16 identified as being within one fiber-based collocator of becomig a Tier 2 wire center (in
17 other words, these wie centers have two fiber-based collocators and thee are needed to
18 become a Tier 2 wire center). Of these Tier 3 wire centers which are withn one fiber-
19 based collocator of meeting the non-impairment threshold (in other words, wire centers
20 with two fiber-based collocators), the vast majority have been with one fiber-based
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 33
QWEST CORPORATION
1
icollocator since 2005 when the TRRO was issued, rendering the one-more-collocator
2 notification requiement immaterial.
3 My research, as well as previous non-impairment filings, also show that changes
4 in tier designations are often the result of more than one fiber-based collocator being
5 provisioned in a wie center in the relatively short timeframe between Qwest s fiings of
6 non-impaired petitions, thus again makng the one-more-collocator notification
7 requirement moot (assuming that notification is undertaken simultaneously with a
8 filing).4 Finally, one canot ignore that advance notification could facilitate the abilty of
9 a CLEC to take "creative advantage" of the situation by changing business its plans and
10 network architectures to make it less likely that a particular wire center ever reaches a
11 given theshold, or, at the very least, delay the inevitable change of a wire center's
12 impairment status.
13
14 Q:HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO MR. DENNEY'S TESTIMONY
15 THAT IT WOULD NOT MA SENSE FOR CLECs TO ALTER THEIR
16 BUSINESS PLANS TO IMPACT A WIRE CENTERS NON-IMPAIRMNT
17 STATUS?
4 The research cited here is a review of existing data gathered in support of previous non-
impairent fiings and not a separate initiative to compile a list of wire centers approaching the non-
impairent thesholds.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 34
QWEST CORPORATION
1 A:His arguent canot be taen seriously or withstand credible scrutiny.
2 One example is the mere fact that the Joint CLECs are intervenors in ths proceeding, and
3 that they have attempted to complicate what was intended to be a simple and self-
4 effectuating process, clearly in an attempt to maintai access to UNEs at below market
5 rates for as long as possible.
6 Mr. Denney's claims that wie centers nearg non-impairment status would
7 likely spur investment and competition also rig hollow. For example, if one looks at
8 many of the smaller wire centers across Qwests terrtory, one sees a pattern of merging
9 or acquiring of existing companes withn the same wire centers in order to expand those
10 companes' customer bases, instead of additional investment in new infrastrctue (as
11 claimed by Mr. Denney), which therefore lessens the number of actual competitors in a
12 given wire center and thus the possibility of attaining a non-impairment status. The type
13 of notification being recommended by the Joint CLECs can reasonably be seen as a road
14 map for "gamng" the system.
15
16 Q:DOES THE TRRO CONTAIN A REQUIREMENT FOR AN ILEC
17 TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION WHEN WI CENTERS APPROACH A NON-
18 IMPAIRMNT THRESHOLD?
19 A:No. It is apparent that the FCC did not contemplate any such notification
20 since the TRRO does not contain any such requirement. Furer, to my knowledge, and
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 35
QWEST CORPORATION
1 as noted by Mr. Denney, only the Colorado Commission has imposed such a requiement.
2 Moreover, I know for a fact that in the initial set of non-impairment proceedings in five
3 other states in 2006 and 2007, prior to the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Denney had
4 advocated on behalf of his then-employer for such an advance notice requirement, but
5 none of the other state commissions accepted ths recommendation. And, of course, the
6 settling CLECs who were par of the original non-impaient dockets, including Integra,
7 agreed not to include any such advance notification requirements.
8
9 Q:DOES REQUIRING SUCH ADVANCE NOTIFICATION PLACE
10 AN UNDUE, AND ARGUABLY DISCRIMINATORY, BUREN ON QWEST?
11 A:Yes. Requiring that Qwest notify CLECs when a wire center is within one
12 fiber-based collocator of non-impairment would place an undue burden on Qwest, both
13 operationally and from a resource perspective. Not only would Qwest have to mobilze
14 and fud such an effort beyond its curent efforts in support of a non-impairment filing,
15 but it would do so for no material benefit to itself or to CLECs. Notably, CLECs located
16 in Qwest wire centers can already undertake essentially the same effort of counting fiber-
17 based collocators in any given wire center without Qwests involvement. Additionally,
18 they too can seek validation from the CLECs collocated withn the same wire centers.
19 Finally, in his testimony (beginnng at page 74), Mr. Denney goes on in detail as
20 to the limited capital dollars that CLECs have to invest in Idaho. Mr. Denney apparently
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 36
QWEST CORPORATION
1 ignores the fact that Qwest is also in very much the same position. Neverteless, he and
2 the Joint CLECs seek to impose additional operational and resource requirements on
3 Qwest, but for their sole (albeit, extremely limited) benefit. Essentially, the Joint CLECs
4 are asking that Qwest subsidize their business planing and the direction of their futue
5 investment. This is wholly inappropriate.
6
7 E. PROVISIONS OF THE MULTISTATESETTLEMENT AGREEMENT8 REGARDING EXPRESS FIBER
9
10 Q:HOW DOES QWEST RESPOND TO THE JOINT CLECs'
11 RECOMMENDATION THAT A PROVISION IN THE SETTLEMENT
12 AGREEMENT REGARDING EXPRESS FIBER SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED
13 IF THE COMMISSION ADOPTS THE PROCEDURS OF THE SETTLEMENT
14 AGREEMENT IN IDAHO?
15 A:At page 47, of his testimony, Mr. Denny cites a provision in the
16 Settlement Agreement regarding how "express fiber" will be treated for purposes of non-
17 impairment. 5 Whle the Settlement Agreement was intended to have broad application
18 across multiple states, the provision regarding "express fiber" was included to address
5 "Express fiber,: as par of the provision in question, was defied as a CLEC-owned fiber placed
to the collocation by Qwest that terminates at CLEC-owned equipment in a collocation and that draws
power from a remote location. This should not be confused with an "express fiber entrance facilty," which
is included as one of the verification criteria on the Collocation Verification worksheet.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 37
QWEST CORPORATION
1 specific circumstances that to date has been unque to one state. Additionally, the express
2 fiber provision does not apply to any of the fiber-based collocators identified in Idaho.
3 Thus, if the Commission adopts the procedures of the Settlement Agreement in Idaho,
4 Qwest would not be opposed to excluding the "express fiber" provision. as Mr. Denney
5 requests in his testimony.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 38
QWEST CORPORATION
1
2
3
v.SUMMAY OF TESTIMONY
Q:PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF YOUR
4 TESTIMONY.
5 A:The Joint CLECs do not dispute the non-impairment designations of the
6 Boise Main and Boise West wie centers, which are based on the number of fiber-based
7 collocators at those wire centers. However, while agreeing with the results, they attck
8 the methodology that Qwest used to obtain those accurate results. In attacking elements
9 of the methodology that Qwest used, Mr. Denney and the Joint CLECs mischaracterized
10 events and Qwests processes and intentions. My testimony shows that Qwests
11 methodology is sound and yields accurate resnlts.
12 The letters that Qwest sends to collocators asking for validation of their status as
13 fiber-based collocators and of their affiliate status represent a reasonable effort by Qwest
14 to secure accurate information prior to its fiing of its list of non-impaired wire centers.
15 These letters also represent Qwests effort to obtain definitive proof from the only source
16 capable of providing such proof (the CLECs themselves). When sending the validation
17 request letters to a CLEC, Qwest ensures that the letter is sent to the contact of record for
18 that CLEC, and that the CLEC has indeed received the letter. Qwest then incorporates
19 the response into its list of fiber-based collocators. If a CLEC chooses not to respond,
20 that is its choice, but Qwest may, or may not, stil include that CLEC as a fiber-based
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 39
QWEST CORPORATION
1 collocator, depending on additional evidence that Qwest may have gathered regarding
2 that CLEC's collocation. However, Qwest does not, as Mr. Denney suggests, take a
3 CLEC's unesponsiveness as agreement that it is a fiber-based collocator, but rather,
4 Qwest considers such lack of response as only one factor before compiling its final list of
5 fiber-based collocators.
6 In addition, Qwest s physical field verifications provide a comprehensive and
7 accurate validation of the presence of fiber-based collocators in a given wire center.
8 These verifications have resulted in not only the validation of legitimate fiber-based
9 collocators, but also in the removal of collocators that may have been initially
10 misidentified. In short, these verifications perform the fuction for which they were
11 designed. Furhermore, contrar to Mr. Denney's inflammatory rhetoric, Qwests field
12 verification process is conducted in an objective maner. This objectivity has been
13 proven repeatedly by the resulting modification of the list of non-impaired wire centers
14 based on information subsequently obtained during field verifications.
15 Furer, while no CLEC-to-CLEC connections were present in either of the Boise
16 Main or Boise West wire centers, this in no way negates the fact that a collocator
17 utilizing a CLEC-to-CLEC connection, and otherwse meeting the TRRO's criteria, is a
18 valid fiber-based collocator. Additionally, this position is supported by FCC's language
19 in the TRRO.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 40
QWEST CORPORA nON
1 Additionally, the TRRO places no obligation on ILECs, such as Qwest, to provide
2 advance notification of impending changes in a wire center's non-impairment status.
3 Such notification is unecessar and imaterial. Additionally, while providing little, if
4 any, benefit to CLECs or Qwest, such a requirement would place a discriminatory and
5 undue burden on Qwest, paricularly since CLECs can arve at the same information
6 independently and without Qwests involvement. It is no wonder, therefore, that every
7 state. commssion but one has rejected Mr. Denney's recommendation for such "advance
8 notification."
9 Finally, the express fiber provision of the Settlement Agreement does not apply to
1 0 any of the fiber-based collocators identified in Idaho. If the Commission adopts the
11 procedures in the Settlement Agreement in Idaho, Qwest would not object to the
12 exclusion of this paricular provision.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 41
QWEST CORPORATION
./
1 VI. CONCLUSION
2
3 Q: DOES TilS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
4 A: Yes, it does. Than you.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 42
QWEST CORPORATION