20021018Illuminet - Florack Rebuttal.pdf

Page 1 of 21BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONIDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATIONC I T I ZEN S TEL E CO MMUN I CAT ION SCOMPANY OF IDAHO , CENTURY TELOF IDAHO , CENTURY TEL OF THEGEM STATE , POTLATCH TELEPHONECOMPANY and ILLUMINET , INC.CASE NO. QWE-T-02-Complainantsvs.QWEST COMMUNICATIONS , INC.Respondent.Rebuttal Testimony ofPaul Florackon Behal f 0 III uminet , Inc.
October 18 , 2002
Are you the same Paul Florack that pre-filed testimony in
this proceeding on September 27 , 2002?
Yes I am.
Have you reviewed the pre-filed testimony of Scott
McIntyre and of Joseph Craig, which was filed September 27
2002 in this proceeding on behalf of Qwest Corporation?
Yes I have.
I .I NTRODUCT I ON
Do you have a general reaction to the testimony of Mr.
McIntyre or of Mr. Craig?
Yes.Qwest I S testimony is simply a "smoke screen " to avoid
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 2 of the real issue in this case -- whether , under the SouthernIdaho Access Service Catalog ("Catalog , Qwest can assessSignaling System No.SS7") message charges for signalingmessages that support intrastate end user calls that are notsubj ect to the Catalog.Does Illuminet have any arrangements wi th Qwest for "enduser traffic, but its carrier/customers have those arrangements withQwest.And while Qwest makes attempts to rebut the factspresented in the testimonies of Illuminet and its co-Complainants , the record is clear that Illuminet is the SS7network signaling agent for its carrier/customers , and it Ifrom these carrier/customers perspective that the issue ofwhether it is proper to assess SS7 message charges under theCatalog must be determined.
Why is the end user traffic important for purposes of this
proceeding?
Because wi thout these SS7 signaling messages no inter-
carrler end user traffic of any category would be completed.
Thus , the SS7 signaling message lS an integral and essential
component of the VOlce traffic , which Qwest effectively
admi ts when it recogni zes , as Mr. Craig does , tha t the SS 7
signaling messages at issue "are used to set up,superVlse
and release call pa ths. "Craig Testimony at page lines
17-18) Moreover , Qwest I s wi tnesses confirm that only
Illuminet carrier/customers carry end user customer traffic
(see McIntyre Testimony at page (line 16)( " I 11 umi net
serves no end user customers at all.and it is only these
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 3 of carrier/customers that generate the SS7 message signals forwhich Qwest has been assessing access charges under Section15 of its Catalog (see Craig Testimony at page (lines 1-2) ("Illuminet does not own any end office swi tch pointcodes. ") .Q :Based on your reVlew of Qwest I s testimony are you convincedthat Qwest cannot properly implement the Catalog I S SS7structure it has filed?Yes.Al though Mr. McIntyre states that Qwest made substantial investment to update its systems so thatsignaling costs could be assessed and recovered based on customer I S actual usage of the SS7 signaling network"(McIntyre Testimony at page (lines 12-14), whatever thelevel of the investment (the amount of which isconspicuously absent from Mr. McIntyre I s testimony), Qwest
still failed to properly implement the billing detail
necessary to separately identify the types of intrastate SS7
signaling messages that are an integral component of the
underlying voice traffic.Not only does that decision fly
in the face of what the Federal Communications Commission
FCC"deemed necessary for proper implementation of the
unbundled SS7 tariff structure that Qwest elected
implement , but under Qwest I s misplaced theories , ensures
that unwarranted costs would , in fact , be imposed upon those
of its competitors that use Illuminet as their SS7 network
provider agent.Because the record is clear Qwest was on
notice , at least as of November 2000 , that Illuminet had
concerns about improper implementation of an unbundled SS7
tariff structure and Qwest chose to ignore those concerns
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 4 of Mr. McIntyre I s testimony confirms that Qwest designed itss ys tems to ens ure tha t re ul t Will you summarlze your overall concerns?Yes.The lack of relevant facts presented by Qwest and theuse of rhetoric and misleading statements all seem aimed confusing the record in an effort to draw the Commission Iattention away from the fact that Qwest has chosen to fileand implement a tariff structure that it was unprepared implement properly.Qwest has arbi trarily and openlyrefused to implement available measuring technology appropriately segregate SS7 messages by jurisdiction andcall type.Illuminet trusts that the Commission will seethrough the confusion that Qwest has created to support itsinherently unjustifiable position.It is clear that public
policy, the facts , and , most importantly, common sense
dictates a resul t far different from that which Qwest has
offered.When reviewed in its totali ty, the record confirms
that Qwest has prematurely unbundled SS7 signaling messages
from its Catalog in direct violation of common sense and
governing policies , and that Qwest now wants the Commission
to bless this improper action.Qwest I S self-chosen
inabili ty to properly track and identify the SS7 message
charges for the end user call type and jurisdiction
however , should resul t in the wi thdrawal of its tariff
structure until it can accurately and separately identify
the SS7 signaling messages that are not properly subj ect
the Catalog, and otherwise demonstrates it is consistent
wi th all appropriate IPUC policies and appropriate ICAs.
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 5 of What would the policy concerns and practical resul ts be ifthe Commission did not grant the relief the Complainantsseek?Fundamentally, Qwest will be rewarded for improperlyimplementing a tariff structure that will simply shiftunwarranted costs to Illuminet I s carrier/customersincluding the costs that Qwest generates for the SS7signaling that supports its own end user customer trafficand that end user customer traffic associated wi th enti tiesother than Qwest and the Illuminet carrier/customer.Thisresul t will thwart the further development of competi ti veend user markets in Idaho.Moreover , to the extent thatQwest does not assess these charges to those enti ties thatdirectly connect to it (i., do not use a third party SS7provider like Illuminet) Qwest would gain an improper
competitive advantage for carriers seeking SS7 network
connecti vi ty.
II. QWEST HAS PRESENTED NO BASIS TO DENY THE RELIEF
COMPLAINANTS REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION
Do you have any overall lssues regarding the Qwest
testimonies?
The Qwest testimonies are based on the following threeYes.
unfounded or unproven premlses.Generally, Qwest improperly
suggests that:
1 .The jurisdiction of SS7 messages required for
local/EAS/IntraMTA CMRS and toll is irrelevant Slnce
the concept of jurisdiction applies only to end user
traffic (see , e. g., McIntyre Testimony at page
(lines 20-21) and page (lines 4-; and Craig
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Testimony at page 11 (lines 5-10)2 .Illuminet is the "customer " under the Catalog andit should pay all SS7 message charges being assessed(see , e., McIntyre Testimony at page (line 12)page 20 (lines 4-, and page (lines 22-23); and3 .Payment of these SS7 message signaling charges byIlluminet is more equitable because it and itscarrier/customers have taken advantage of some type ofpricing loopholes or have circumvented charges throughthe prior rate structures (see , e. g., McIntyreTestimony at page (lines 10-12), page (lines 14-16), page (lines 2-, page (lines 16-17), andpage 31 (lines 13-14)In addi tion , Qwest makes a number of claims thatconfuse the record.
1. THE JURISDICTION OF THE SS7 MESSAGE IS RELEVANT BECAUSE
NATURALLY FOLLOWS THE END USER CUSTOMER TRAFFIC IT SUPPORTS
Is Qwest correct that the jurisdiction of the SS7 message
irrelevant?
No.Both Mr. McIntyre I s testimony and Mr. Craig I s testimony
on this point simply misfocus attention from the fact that
the SS7 signaling messages are an integral component of the
end user customer traffic.
Please explain?
Of course "a bit is a bit is a bit" from a purely electronic
perspective , but the economic relationships established by
the industry I s regulators continue to make very significant
distinctions based upon the various categories of end user
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc
Page 6 of
10/23/2002
Page 7 of customer traffic.The distinction between local calls andlong distance calls has consequences for both the end usercustomer traffic and the SS7 signaling traffic , which lS anindispensable component of the facili ties that are utilizedto complete the end user customer traffic.Moreover , Qwestcan hardly contend that the jurisdiction of the SS7signaling message is irrelevant since Mr. McIntyre , at page(1 ine 22) through page (line 2) of his testimony,admi ts that these signaling messages are necessary establish and tear down every type of end user call.Do you have any support for your statement?Yes.As explained above , the FCC determined that the SS7network supports a wide variety of services and made clearthat it expected SS7 costs to be allocated and recovered from
all of the various end user services for which it provides an
essential component.Specifically, the FCC found that "CCS7
(the FCC I S term for SS 7 represents a general network
upgrade , the core costs of which should be borne by all
network users.4 FCC Rcd 2824 , 2832 (1989) (emphasis added)
The FCC also found that SS7 costs "will be used for a wide
variety of both intrastate and interstate services.Id. at
2833.
Thus , SS7 signaling message costs associated with providing
local exchange service should be recovered from the local
exchange rate payer , SS7 signaling message costs associated
wi th providing exchange access should be recovered from the
purchaser of access , and SS7 signaling costs associated with
providing long distance service should be recovered from the
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 8 of long distance user.Do you have any other support?Yes.Common sense -- no interoffice end user customer calls(regardless of whether they are local , toll , EAS , wirelessetc.) would be completed absent the SS7 signaling messagesat issue.Similarly, Qwest can hardly claim that thejurisdiction of the SS7 signaling messages vis-vis thevoice traffic they support is irrelevant when its ownCatalog relies upon the jurisdiction of the voice call whereactual measurement capabili ty is unavailable (see Section 2Page 19 , Release 2 , and 2.10 Jurisdictional ReportsRequirements, Southern Idaho Access Service Catalog) Further , Qwest I s own FCC filing, which unbundled SS7signaling message charges from its interstate access ratesnecessarily implies that it jurisdictionalized its SS7
costs.
Finally, if jurisdiction of the SS7 signaling messages was
irrelevant as suggested by Qwest , there would have been no
reason for Congress to reference in Section 271
(g)
( 5 ) tha t
Qwest may now transport signaling information used in
connection wi th both local services (which the Act refers
as "telephone exchange services ) and access services (whi ch
the Act refers to as "exchange access.I have attached
copies of those statutory sections to this testimony so that
the Commission can reVlew the provisions for itself.See
Exhibit 407.
2 .ILLUMINET AND ITS CARRIER/CUSTOMERS ARE THE
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 9 of CUSTOMER FOR ONLY CERTAIN OF THE SS7 SIGNALINGMESSAGES GENERATED BY QWESTIs Qwest correct that Slnce Illuminet established the linksand ports required to connect to the Qwest SS7 networkIlluminet is the customer for all SS7 signaling messagecharges assessed under the Access Catalog because it haspurchased a finished product?No.Qwest has self-created that rationalization based on anoverly broad interpretation of its Catalog.Mr. McIntyre Idefinition of "finished product" at page (lines 4-suffers from the same improper premise that the jurisdictionof the SS7 signaling messages are not relevant.MoreoverMr. McIntyre appears to forget the very distinction at pages4 to 5 of his testimony between "accessing " the network andutilizing" the network.Illuminet established a networkt hat con n e c t s t 0 ( 0 r , i n Mr. M c I n t y re i s t e rmi n log Y
accesses ) other SS7 networks.Illuminet I
carrier/ customers and the other enti ties to which Illuminet
connects its network generate the SS7 signaling messages
issue in this case , thereby "utilizing " the networks that
have been connected.Illuminet does not package those
messages as part of its service to its carrier/customers.
As the record demonstrates , Illuminet passes through to its
carrier/customers any SS7 signaling message charges it
receives from Qwest.
Is Illuminet attempting to either take advantage of some
pricing loophole or circumvent charges?
No.I know that Qwest makes these claims (see
McIntyre Testimony at page (line 11) and page (lines 13-
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 10 of 14) ), but that position defies the facts of the relationshipbetween Qwest and Illuminet , and between Qwest and theIII uminet carrier / customers.Illuminet is clearly the customer for the facili ties andports required to set-up its network , and in its testimonyit and the Co-Complainants in the case readily admi t thatfor IntraLATA toll end user customer traffic of one of theCo-Complainants delivered to a Qwest end user , then Qwest ICatalog SS7 signaling message charges apply.That is whatoccurred prior to the unbundling of SS7 signaling messagecharges in this case.What Qwest fails to address , because it has no meaningfulresponse, is that there are separate arrangements thatgovern how Qwest and the Illuminet carrier/customer will
handle other types of intrastate traffic (e. g. local , EAS
IntraMTA CMRS , and jointly-provided access), including the
SS7 signaling associated wi th that traffic.Again , Qwest
has provided no basis that would allow it to unilaterally
circumvent and/or modify these arrangements through
Catalog revision , and Illuminet knows of no such fact
particularly since Illuminet is the agent for its
carrier/ customers as the record reflects.
But Qwest contends that the Letter of Agency LOA"from
the Illuminet carrier/customer that is provided to Qwest
limi ted?
I recognize that Mr. McIntyre makes these statements at page
(lines 16 and 17) and at page (lines 13 and 14) of his
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 11 of 21testimony, but the LOAs speak for themselves.It is clearthat they are used to open the point codes of the Illuminetcarrier/customers for transporting SS7 signaling messages and from the SSPs of the Illuminet carrier/customers overtheir agent'. e. I 11 umi net) S S 7 n e two r k Howeve r , theLOA authorizes Illuminet to "conduct all negotiations andlssue orders for all services " associated wi th the pointcodes of the carrier/customer.While Qwest may rely uponthat LOA for Qwest' s own internal network securi ty purposes(see Craig Testimony at page (lines 19-21) and page ( 1 i n e s 2 2 - 2 3) ), t hat 1 i mi t e d use doe s not 1 i mi t the s cop e 0 fthe authori ty Illuminet has been gl ven as the agent of itscarrier/ customers.In any event I note that Qwest will notprocess any orders wi thout the LOA and that the LOA is onlyone aspect of the agency relationship established.indicated in my testimony, Qwest is fully aware of the
relationship that Illuminet has wi th its Co-Complainant
carrier/customers based on the SS7 network issues we address
on their behalf , the fact that the charges are passed
through to them wi thout mark-up and the fact that the
establishment of voice trunks between Qwest and the Co-
Complainants requlre that the Co-Complainants indicate
Illuminet as the SS7 serVlce provider.In light of the
overall relationship between Qwest and Complainants , common
sense and proper interpretation of the Catalog makes clear
that Illuminet and its carrier/customers are customers of
Qwest only for specific purposes under the Catalog.
As Mr. McIntyre notes at page (lines 1-15), isn t it true
that Qwest is not a party to the contracts between Illuminet
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 12 of and its carrier/customers?Yes , but t hat mi sse s the poi n t .Qwest has a contractualrelationship wi th the Illuminet carrier/ customers (which areIlluminet's principals for purposes of signaling) and thosecontracts govern the intercarrier relationship between Qwestand the Illuminet carrier/customers for various types of enduser traffic , including all the necessary and integralcomponents of such traffic such as the SS7 message signalingat issue in this proceeding.Is the concept of "agency " something new to thetelecommunication industry?No.As will be testified by Illuminet' s Co-Complainantsthe concept of having agents provide various network or back-office functions is not new to the telephone industry.
Is Mr. McIntyre correct at page (lines 9-21) that
because Illuminet is not a party to its carrier/ customers
interconnection agreements , those agreements are not
relevant?
No.The FCC has acknowledged that a non-carrler agent can
assert the same right to nondiscriminatory access to
directory assistance ("DA") database information as that
provided to its principal IXC or Competi ti ve Local Exchange
Carrier ("CLEC"
) ,
subj ect to the terms and condi tions
established in the underlying interconnection agreement
between the principal and LEC.Specifically, the FCC stated
that:
(WJ hen a CLEC or an IXC (having entered
an interconnection agreement wi th the
relevant LEC) designates a DA provider to act
as their agent , that competing DA provider
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
enti tled to nondiscriminatory access to theproviding LECs ' local DA database.Naturally, the DA provider s database accesswill be consistent wi th the terms of therelevant interconnection agreement and wi the terms of the DA providers ' separateagreements wi th its carrier principal.16 FCC Rcd 2736 , 2748 While I recognlze that(2001) Illuminet is not a DA provider , and DA access is not atlssue in this case , the policy basis applies - the agent(Ill uminet) is subj ect to the interconnection agreement forpurposes of asserting the rights of its principals(including its Co-Complainant carrier/customers) Likewiseconsistent wi th the FCC's discussion (see id.regarding theneed to ensure that enti ties should be able to takeadvantage of "economies of scale " I have already indicatedthat Illuminet' s carrier/customers use Illuminet in order avoid the expense and effort involved in deploying their ownSS7 network.
3. ILLUMINET AND ITS CARRIER/CUSTOMERS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF PRICING LOOPHOLES OR CIRCUMVENTING CHARGES
Do you agree wi th Qwest that Illuminet and its
carrier/customers have been taking advantage of some prlclng
loophole or circumventing any charges?
Absolutely not.In fact , this premise is so outrageous and
irresponsible tha t it should not requlre a response.
Unfortunately, however , since Qwest attempts to divert the
Commission s attention from Qwest' s own inabili ty to
properly implement its SS7 unbundled tariff structure I am
compelled to set the record straight.Nei ther Illuminet nor
its carrier/customers have been using any type of "pricing
loop hole " associated wi th the access charges that the IXCs
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc
Page 13 of
10/23/2002
Page 14 of paid prlor to Qwest' s efforts to unbundle its intrastate SS7signaling message charges.Where the voice traffic of anIlluminet carrier/customer was intrastate toll and subjectto the switched access charges of the Catalog, the SS7 coststhat Qwest incurred for that call were recovered from theIlluminet carrier/ customer through the swi tched accesscharges being paid.That has never been an issue andIlluminet has agreed that the current SS7 signaling messagecharges under the Catalog are proper for this category ofservlce.The arrangements in place , however , that governthe end user traffic types between Qwest and the Illuminetcarrier/customers govern whether and how SS7 signalingmessage charges should be assessed.The Illuminetcarrier/customers have arrangements with Qwest as to howthey individually would recover their respective SS7
signaling message costs associated wi th the various
intrastate types of inter-company end user customer traffic.
If Qwest is recovering its SS7 signaling costs associated
wi th the end user customer traffic types governed by those
arrangements wi th the Illuminet carrier/ customer , then any
additional recovery that Qwest receives from the charges
assessed incorrectly through the Catalog amounts to double
recovery from the Illuminet carrier/ customer.
Alternatively, if Qwest failed to include its SS7 costs in
the arrangements applicable to the other intrastate end user
types of calls , that mistake is Qwest' s alone and it cannot
hide behind claims of a pricing " loophole " to misfocus
attention away from that mistake.Rather , Qwest should seek
renegotiation of those arrangements wi th the Illuminet
carrier/ customers.
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 15 of In summary, where the end user traffic is properly assessedaccess charges under the Catalog, the SS7 signaling messagecharges apply.When the Catalog does not apply, such as thecase for local , EAS , intraMTA CMRS calls and jointlyprovided access , the underlying arrangements between Qwestand the Illuminet carrier/ customers applicable to that end-user traffic apply.Placed in proper context , thereforeQwest has no basis , let alone provided any fact , to evensuggest that any "pricing loop hole " has ever existed.Do you agree wi th Mr. McIntyre s suggestions at page line15), page (lines 2-6) and page (lines 21-23) that theCatalogs structure is more equitable?No.Far from being more equi table , the resul t of the SS7
signaling message revisions , if not corrected , would simply
place more burden upon the Illuminet carrier/customer all
because Qwest cannot properly distinguish the SS7 signaling
messages associated wi th the types of intrastate traffic
issue in this case.This issue was raised wi th Qwest prior
to the development of it tariff structure and has been
ignored.
What do you mean that Qwest ignored concerns about the
proper development of the unbundled SS7 signaling message
structure?
As indicated in my testimony at page 27 , Illuminet
officially placed Qwest on notice in November 2000 as to
Illuminet's concerns regarding the improper SS7 signal
message billing under the "access charge " model.These
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 16 of concerns were not baseless as the FCC (as discussed at pages22-23 of my testimony) had already recognized the need forcarrlers that elected to implement an unbundled SS7signaling message structure to "acquire the appropriatemeasurlng equipment as need to implement such a plan.FCC Rcd 15982 16087 (para. 253) (1997) Moreover , the FCCnoted LECs that elected to implement the structure were evaluate how the implementation of these plans will affecttheir prospective customers.12 FCC Rcd. 15982 16090(para. 253) (1997) These same considerations apply hereparticularly since Qwest relied upon the FCC "access chargemodel for its current Idaho structure.That being the casethe facts demonstrate that Qwest chose to ignore the FCC'directives because it prematurely unbundled and filed itsIdaho SS7 signaling message structure prior to deploying the
proper measurement equipment and because it did so wi thout
substantive efforts to address Illuminet' s concerns.
4. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REJECT QWEST' S TESTIMONY AS IT MERELY
CONFUSES THE RECORD
Do you have any examples of Qwest' s attempt to confuse the
record?
Yes.For example , Qwest claims that Illuminet and its Co-
Complainants don t really understand that the SS7 network
a separate network , that access to it is not "exchange
access " and that complainants incorrectly refer to SS7
messages as "traffic.See , e. g., McIntyre Testimony at
page (lines 31-35), page (lines 17-18), and page
(line 14) through page (line 9); Craig Testimony at page
(line 5) through page (line 6), and page (line 23)
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 17 of through page (line 4)Is Qwest correct?No.These statements substantially misrepresent thefunction of an SS7 network for the apparent purpose ofdisguising the true nature of the facili ties and service atlssue.Of course , the SS7 network is separate in the sensethat it is composed of switches and transmission facilitieswhich are used solely for signaling and which carries no enduser traffic.But signaling has no independent purpose , itis necessarily interconnected to the network , which carriesend user customer voice and data traffic and functionssolely to control that network or to obtain and supplyinformation from databases relevant to that end usertraffic.The SS7 network does not , by itself , provideexchange serVlce , exchange access , or long distance service
but it is an indispensable component to each and every one
of those services.(As an aside traffic " is not a magic
word , nor even a technical term and it is nei ther incorrect
nor misleading to refer to messages composed of packets of
bi ts transi ting the SS 7 network as "traffic " so long as it
is clear from the context , as it is in Complainants
testimony, whether it is signaling, data or voice traffic
being referred to.
In light of your answer do you agree wi th Mr. McIntyre
analogy at page (lines 1-that the SS7 signaling network
is similar to traffic signals?
Generally, yes.Al though like many analogies it is not
perfect , there are several conceptual similari ties.The
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 18 of most significant of these similarities is that like the SS7signaling network , traffic signs and signals , even thoughphysically distinct from the streets and highways are anintegral component of the land vehicle transportation system- wi thout them you would have traffic jams which effectivelybrings vehicle movement to a hal Further , some signs andsignals relate to the interstate highway system , some tostate highways , some to county roads and others to municipalstreets and are paid for in generally the same manner as thestreet or highway to which they relate.Moreover , thesignals and stoplights have no independent purpose wi thoutthe cars moving on the roadways just like SS7 messagesignaling has no distinct purposes wi thout the calls fromend users.When carried to its logical conclusiontherefore, Mr. McIntyre s analogy actually demonstrates thefallacies of his theories of this proceeding.
Any other example you d like to share regarding Qwest' s
efforts to confuse the record?
At page (lines 16-18) of his testimony, Mr. Craig makes
the sta tement tha t "ss 7 messages are not the equivalent of
voice calls.
Q :Did Illuminet make this claim?
No.Illuminet knows that SS7 messages are not the same
voice calls.Rather , Illuminet has demonstrated that the
SS7 messages are an integral component of the end user
traffic to which they are associated.
Any other examples?
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 19 of Yes.Mr. McIntyre responds to a question at page 18 of histestimony regarding whether other states have "adopted theimproved SS7 rate structure " and he indicates that eight(8) have.Q :How is this confusing?Well , while Qwest may have access catalog or tariffrevisions in place in eight states identical to that atissue here , clearly Illuminet does not believe that thestructure is "improved" since Qwest cannot possiblyimplement that structure properly.I also note that whetherstates have "adopted" the tariff structure may be anoverstatement if , like Idaho , Qwest merely needs to file theCatalog revisions.Most importantly, however , is the factthat Qwest has not implemented the tariff structure in thefour (4)jurisdictions wi thin which Illuminet was able to
challenge the revision.Specifically, Illuminet opposed the
approval of the tariff in the States of Arizona , Utah
Minnesota and Washington.After increased opposi tion to its
tariff , Qwest withdrew its tariff proposal in Arizona , Utah
and Washington.Similarly, in Minnesota , after the
Minnesota Department of Commerce had issued over seventy
data requests to Qwest concerning the proposed tariff and
least one party having filed a motion to dismiss Qwest' s
proposed tariff application , Qwest likewise wi thdrew that
tariff filing as well.Thus , when confronted wi
challenges , Qwest has wi thdrawn its filings that attempted
to put in place the same intrastate SS7 message signaling
structure that is at issue here.
Do you agree wi th Mr. McIntyre at page (line 3-6) that
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Page 20 of the loading of the Illuminet carrier/ customer point codes intoQwest I S SS7 network should be viewed as Illuminet "requestingthat Qwest bill it for the SS7 message accessAbsolutely not.Illuminet has never acquiesced to thelmproper billing by Qwest , and Mr. McIntyre is clearlymistaken for the reasons stated before if he believes theLOA or Catalog provides this authori ty.Do you have any final example of where Qwest is attemptingto confuse the record?Yes.Mr. McIntyre at page (lines 20-22) infers thatComplainants are somehow suggesting that "signaling costsshould only be recovered for certain classes " of messages.Is Mr. McIntyre correct?No.Mr. McIntyre I s statement is itself "confusing and
mi s 1 e a din g (McIntyre Testimony at page 23 , lines 20-21)
How recovery of SS7 signaling message costs between the
Illuminet carrier/ customer and Qwest is determined
addressed in the arrangements in place between those
carrlers for the associated end user traffic , only one of
which is the Catalog.
What then would you have the Commission do?
The Commission should rej ect the testimony, concluding as I
have and as the record supports , that Qwest has spun a tale
to divert attention from the obvious conclusion that Qwest
cannot properly implement the intrastate SS7 signaling
message structure reflected in its Catalog.
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc 10/23/2002
Does this end your rebuttal testimony?Yes.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Page 21 of I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 18th day of October , 2002I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing REBUTTALTESTIMONY OF PAUL FLORACK ON BEHALF OF ILLUMINET , INC. to beserved by the method indicated below , and addressed to thefollowing:Mary S. HobsonStoel Rives LLP101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite1900Boise, ID 83702-5958Stephanie Boyett-ColganQwest Services Corp.1801 California st., 47th FloorDenver, CO 80202Conley WardGivens Pursley LLPPost Office Box 2720Boise, ID 83701Clay SturgisSenior ManagerMoss Adams LLP601 W. Riverside , Suite 1800Spokane, WA 99201-0663Lance A. Tade , ManagerState Government Affairs
Citizens Telecommunications of
Idaho
4 Triad Center , Suite 200
S a 1 t La k e C i t Y ,UT 8 4 1 8 0
Thomas J. Moorman
Kraskin , Lesse & Cosson
2120 L st. NW , Suite 520
Washington , D.C. 20037
Richard Wolf , Director
Contracts & Regulatory
III uminet , Inc.
Post Office Box 2909
Olympia , WA 98507
F. Wayne Lafferty
Lykam Services , Inc.
2940 Cedar Ridge Dr.
McKinney, TX 75070
) U. S. Mail , Postage) Hand Delivered) Overnight Mail) Facsimile) U. S. Mail , Postage) Hand Delivered) Overnight Mail) Facsimile) U. S. Mail , Postage) Hand Delivered) Overnight Mail) Facsimile) U. S. Mail , Postage) Hand Delivered) Overnight Mail) Facsimile) U. S. Mail , Postage) Hand Delivered
) Overnight Mail
) Facsimile
) U. S. Mail , Postage
) Hand Delivered
) Overnight Mail
) Facsimile
) U. S. Mail , Postage
) Hand Delivered
) Overnight Mail
) Facsimile
) U. S. Mail , Postage
) Hand Delivered
) Overnight Mail
) Facsimile
Mo rg an W. Ri cha rds
file:1 I A: \Rebuttal Florack.asc
PrepaidPrepaidPrepaidPrepaidPrepaid
Prepaid
Prepaid
Prepaid
10/23/2002