The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20021025PageData Comments.pdf'2f.4::J- r:rF . ! Vr:,Lv".1 ~ L JOSEPHB. MCNEAL, d/b/aPAGEDATA PageData PO Box 15509 Boise ill 83715 208-375-9844 FILED f'71!-::.1f-. 2002 OCT 2 5 Pl1 ~: I' "'"' UHUIJES cm.\NiSSION Appearing Pro Se BEFORE THE IDHAO PUBLIC UTILTIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF QWEST CORPORATION AND MCLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN) INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT FOR THE) STATE OF IDAHO PURSUANT TO 47 U.e. ~ ) 252(e). (PRIOR CASE NO. QWE-00- CASE NO. QWE-02- IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF QWEST CORPORATION AND ESCHELON TELECOM, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO PURSUANT TO 47 U.C. ~ 252(e). (PRIOR CASE NO. QWE- T -00-13) IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF QWEST CORPORATION AND COV AD COMMUNICA TIONS COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT FOR THE) STATE OF IDAHO PURSUANT TO 47 U.e. ~ ) 252(e). (PRIOR CASE NO. USW-99-3) COMMENT BY PAGEDATA PageData hereby submits its comments regarding the above case. The local Idaho market has been damaged by unfiled interconnection agreements such as the McLeod, Eschelon, and Covad agreements that are now being presented for approval. This has hindered competition in Idaho, which has the effect of higher prices for the Idaho consumer. PAGEDATA'S COMMENT - The Idaho Commission had deferred any further investigation in the unfiled agreements until the FCC ruled on Qwest's Petition for a Declaratory Ruling on the Scope of the Duty to File and Obtain Prior Approval of Negotiated Contractual Arrangements Under Section 252(a)(I), WC Docket No. 02-89. On October 4, 2002, the FCC issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order No. 02-276. The FCC said , " The state commissions should be responsible for applying, in the first instance, the statutory interpretation we set forth today to the terms and conditions of specific agreements."l The FCC also said , " We find that an agreement that creates an ongoing obligation pertaining to resale, number portability, dialing parity, access to rights-of- way, reciprocal compensation, interconnection, unbundled network elements, or collocation is an interconnection agreement that must be filed pursuant to section 252(a)(1)."2 The FCC further stated: We find that agreements addressing dispute resolution and escalation provisions relating to the obligations set forth in sections 251 (b) and ( c) are appropriately deemed interconnection agreements. The purpose of such clauses is to quickly and effectively resolve disputes regarding section 251 (b) and ( c) obligations. The means of doing so must be offered and provided on a nondiscriminatory basis if Congress' requirement that incumbent LECs behave in a nondiscriminatory manner is to have any meaning. The agreements at issue with McLeod, Covad, and Eschelon are not all of the unfiled interconnection agreements that Qwest had with McLeod, Covad, and Eschelon including oral expired, and cancelled agreements. There are other unfiled interconnection agreements (including oral, expired, and cancelled) with other carriers that are applicable to Idaho but have not been filed. PageData has attached as Exhibit 1 a Declaration of Kenneth L. Wilson (Consultant and Technical Witness with Boulder Telecommunications Consultants, LLC) filed 1 FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order No. 02-276 dated October 4 2002, at ~7.2 FCC Order No. 02-276, at ~8.3 FCC Order No. 02-276, at ~9. PAGEDATA'S COMMENT - 2 on behalf of AT&T in FCC Docket No. 02-314 that details a comparison of interconnection agreements that have recently been filed in several states. It shows that agreements have not been . filed in each relevant state. It was Qwest's position that a multi-state agreement did not have to be filed in each state the agreement covered. This is contrary to 47 CFR ~ 252. Metrocall, Arch, and PageNet (paging Network) were operating in the state of Idaho without an interconnection agreement filed in Idaho until 2002, 2000, and 2000 respectively (from information received from the Idaho Commission), but had interconnection agreements covering all of Qwest' s 14 states filed in other states. As an alternative, Qwest would have the Commission believe that even though a carrier has an interconnection agreement covering all 14 states the carrier would pay higher rates under the tariff if the interconnection agreement were not filed in that state. This is contrary to the secret settlement portions of the agreements that covered all 14 states (See Exhibit 2). Qwest has made this issue complex by design. The Idaho Commission should not permit local Idaho carriers to continue suffering this discrimination and should allow carriers to immediately pick and choose from the provisions in these agreements per 47 CFR ~ 51.809. The pick and choose rule implemented Section 252(i). There is a big difference between adoption of a complete interconnection agreement, as advocated by ILECS, and picking and choosing provisions from an interconnection agreement as envisioned by Congress, the Supreme Court and the FCC. The Commission should not take a lack of numerous responses in this matter meaning that other carriers are not interested parties. It is expensive and time-consuming dealing with the Idaho Commission and its rules and procedures. Qwest has excellent legal representatives that know the Idaho Commission rules and regulations very well. The large companies (with legal PAGEDATA'S COMMENT - 3 representation equal to Qwest) that would have complained the most already received favorable provisions they wanted in special agreements and a majority of their disputes with Qwest have been resolved. The small carriers that have not received the benefit of the secret agreements do not have all the resources of a company such as Qwest. Qwest attempts to keep these favored provisions from other carriers by saying many of the agreements are already expired or trying to have the agreements terminated. This furthers the discrimination against carriers not a party to the special interconnection agreements. Any interconnection agreement that Qwest has been operating under (whether currently in effect or not) but has not previously filed with the Idaho Commission should immediately be made available for other carriers to pick and choose. This will help rectify the discrimination that has occurred. INEXPENSIVE INVESTIGATION Qwest has done a disservice by not providing all Idaho carriers nondiscriminatory access to Qwest's network. Qwest has not recognized that it has discriminated against Idaho carriers in favor of large multi-state carriers. To rectify the situation the Idaho Commission needs to do the following: 1. The Idaho Commission needs to order Qwest to file all interconnection agreements, within 10 days, that are applicable to Idaho including those agreements that Qwest has recently filed in Iowa, New Mexico, Arizona, and Minnesota. This includes agreements with CMRS, CLEC, IXCs, etc.The provisions in these agreements should be immediately available for pick and choose or adoption by other carriers. PAGEDATA'S COMMENT - 4 2. The Idaho Commission should initiate a letter to all carriers in Idaho requiring them to send in, within 30 days, a copy of all interconnection agreements, all interconnection documents, or letter agreements associated with Qwest that have not previously been filed with the Idaho Commission. 3. The Idaho Commission should require Qwest to file all cancelled interconnection agreements and give Idaho carriers an opportunity to pick and choose the terms and conditions out of the cancelled agreements. 4. The Idaho Commission does not have the ability by statute to make a discriminated carrier whole by requiring Qwest to pay damages. Therefore, the Idaho Commission needs to come up with a very broad definition of what an interconnection agreement is. This will ensure that local Idaho carriers will not be disadvantaged again with any scheme of this kind. 5. The Idaho Commission should contact the other states (Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Arizona) that have investigated Qwest for unfiled interconnection agreements and have the other states send both the redacted and non-redacted interconnection agreements that Qwest filed with those states. The Idaho Commission should cross-reference the agreements that Qwest has recently filed in other states and if any of the interconnection agreements reference Idaho or say they are applicable in all of Qwest's 14 states then the Idaho Commission should require Qwest to file the interconnection agreements in Idaho and make them immediately available for others to adopt through pick and choose. 6. The Idaho Commission should require Qwest to reveal all past and present oral agreements with carriers and have those agreements presented to the Idaho PAGEDATA'S COMMENT - 5 Commission within 30 days so other carriers may pick and choose from those provIsIOns. 7. If Qwest and the other carriers do not respond in an appropriate manner, the Idaho Commission needs to turn the uncooperative carriers over to the Idaho Attorney General's office. 8. The Idaho Commission should remove Qwest's confidentiality games in connection with the agreements. The Idaho Commission should not use overly burdensome procedures on confidentiality stipulations to procedurally block the immediate availability of interconnection agreements or provisions by other carriers. The burden of proof should be on Qwest to show why confidentiality is needed since most of the agreements are publicly available now. This cross-reference is the most time and cost efficient way to ensure that all previously unfiled interconnection agreements with Covad, McLeod, Eschelon, and others are available to Idaho carriers without an expensive investigation. The terms and conditions out of all of the previously unfiled interconnection agreements should be immediately available to other carriers to adopt. This would be in compliance with Qwest's public promise to file all interconnection agreements on a going forward basis to allow other carriers to adopt. Respectfully submitted this 25th day of October 2002. PAGEDATA'S COMMENT - 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of October, 2002, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMMENTS BY PAGEDATA by hand delivery to the following: Jean Jewell Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 West Washington Boise, ill 83702 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of October, 2002, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMMENTS BY PAGEDATA by first class mail to the following: Mary S. Hobson Stoel Rives LLP 101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900 Boise, ill 83702-5958 Lauraine Harding Senior Manager, Interconnect Negotiation McLeodUSA 6400 C Street SW, Box 3177 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-3177 Dennis Ahlers, Senior Attorney Eschelon Telecom, Inc. 730 Second Avenue, South Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Brad Sonnenberg Covad Communications Company 3420 Central Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95051 PAGEDATA'S COMMENT - 7 EXHIBIT DECLARATION OF KENNETH L. WILSON Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.c. 20554 EXHIBIT In the Matter of Qwest Communications International Inc., Consolidated Application For Authority To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services In The States Of Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming we Docket No. 02-314 DECLARATION OF KENNETH L. WILSON My name is Kenneth L. Wilson, and I am a senior Consultant and Technical Witness with Boulder Telecommunications Consultants, LLc. My business address is 970 11 Street, Boulder, Colorado, 80302. I am submitting this affidavit on behalf of AT&T. My education and relevant work expenence are as follows.I received a Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering from OkJahoma State University in 1972, and I received a Masters of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois in 1974. In addition, in 1976, I completed the course work required to obtain my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois. For 15 years before coming to Denver, I worked at Bell Labs in New Jersey in a variety of positions. From 1980 through 1982, I worked as a member of the network architecture and network planning team at Bell Labs for AT&T's long distance service. From 1983 through 1985, I was amember of the fITst AT&T Bell Labs cellular tenninal design team. From 1986 through 1992, I led a Bell Labs group responsible for network performance planning and assurance for AT&T Business Markets. From 1992 through 1993, I was a team leader on a project to reduce AT&T's capital budget for network infTastructure. . . . . From January 1994 through May 1995, I led a team at Bell Labs investigating the various network intTastructure alternatives for entering the local telecommunications market. From 1995 through the spring of 1998, I was the Business Management Director for AT&T in Denver, managing one of t~e groups responsible for getting AT&T into the local market Qwest's 14-state territory. I was the lead technical negotiator for AT&T with US WEST (now Qwest), negotiating the terms of interconnection agreements in each of US WEST's 14 states. In addition, I was also the senior technical manager in Denver working on local network and interconnection planning, ass interface architectures and the technical aspects of product delivery. As noted above, I am currently a consultant and technical witness with Boulder Telecommunications Consultants, LLC. In this capacity, I have worked with several companies including AT&T, on all aspects of interconnection, unbundled elements, collocation and resale issues, among other things. I was the lead technical witness for AT&T in the section 271 workshops in Qwest's region. In this capacity, I attended a total of 41 multi-day Qwest 271 workshop sessions and several hearings.My credentials are a matter of record in the Commission s prior proceedings regarding Qwest's request for authority under Section 271 including WC Docket No. 02-148. I am qualified to analyze the agreements that Qwest engaged in with various CLECs over the past three years because of my familiarity with the Qwest SGAT and its development, the process of negotiating interconnection agreements with Qwest and the workshops conducted by the state commissions. The purpose of my testimony is to demonstrate that Qwest has not disclosed all the secret interconnection agreements that are currently in effect in the nine states for which Qwest is seeking Section 271 approval. Additionally, a variety of these secret agreements included provisions that b~ed Qwest'secret deal partners ITom criticizing Qwest' interconnection performance in state and federal Section 271 proceedings. I have previously submitted testimony in this proceeding that supported the claim that Qwest's secret deals contained discriminatory terms, silenced secret deal partners causing a substantial impact on the state proceedings, and substantially skewed the results of the third party tests of Qwest' operations support systems. -.- -- _. Qwest has asserted that it is making all of its "unfiled" agreements in the nine states covered by its Application available for review by the Commission and competitive local exchange carriers ("CLECs ) by posting those previously filed secret deals on its Internet website. My review of the secret deals that Qwest has posted on its website confirms that Qwest has not yet done so.Qwest's web site contains twenty six (26) separate interconnection agreements (Qwest creates the impression that it has posted more than 26 agreements by posting multi-state agreements separately for each state in which those agreements are in effect). contrast, the current active investigations into Qwest' s sec~et deals (by three separate state commissions in Arizona, Iowa and Minnesota, and by Qwest's admissions in FCC ex parte filings) confirm that at least 105 separate arrangements between Qwest and various CLECs are available for review - some publicly available, but the majority available only through an agreement to review the documents under confidential seal. Based on my review of these arrangements, I have determined that most of them are interconnection agreements that relate to the states in Qwest's pending nine-state Section 271 application. Thus, Qwest has not come close to disclosing all of the relevant interconnection agreements. In order to assist the Commission in evaluating the claims concerning Qwest's practice of entering secret, discriminatory interconnection agreements, I have prepared a matrix, attached to this declaration, that identifies and catalogues Qwest agreements that are available in different venues. I used documents from the Minnesota proceeding on unfiled agreements, the Iowa proceeding on unfiled agreements, the Colorado proceeding on unfiled agreements, and the Arizona proceeding on unfiled agreements. I also utilized agreements that Qwest filed on its web site. I have limited the matrix to only those agreements that are interconnection agreements and have terms and conditions that have not to my knowledge been made available to other CLECs. The fIrst column in the matrix, "Company , lists the name of the CLEC with which Qwest made the agreement. The second column , " Date , lists the effective date of the agreement. The third column, "Agreement", lists the title of the agreement. The fourth column On Qwest Web Site , indicates whether or not the agreement is on the Qwest web site. The fifth column , " Public , indicates whether the agreement has been made available to the public with notes when AT&T was given permission to use the contract even though it is not generally available to the public. The 6th column , " Expiration Date , lists any expiration that is shown on the agreement. However, subsequent agreements could serve to extend or replace an agreement before it expired. This column also lists situations where, to my knowledge or information Qwest terminated the agreement by terms that were cOntained in a second agreement.The seventh column , " Should Have Been Filed", lists who has requested that the contract be filed. the Minnesota proceeding, the Department of Commerce and the Administrative Law Judge hearing the case have requested that the contracts be filed. In Arizona, the Arizona eommission Staff has requested that Qwest file many of the contracts (These agreements are marked as " Staff"). There are a number of qther contracts where AT&T has filed or will file requests that the contracts should be filed. The eighth column , " Jurisdiction , lists the states where the contract is effective. When the indication in that column is "all" the indication is that the contract is valid in a1114 Qwest states. The final column , " Discriminatory Terms , lists the type of discriminatory terms that are in the contract. 10.To determine whether a contract is an interconnection agreement, I have read the FCC's recent ruling on this issue. To determine whether a contract has discriminatory terms, I have relied on my extensive knowledge of Qwest's positions and policies on the issues as set forth in their SGATs, in testimony by Qwest witnesses in hearings and workshops, and on other information available on the Qwest web site in the form of product catalogues. 11.Qwest has agreed that it would consent to AT&T disclosing to this Commission the agreements that are subject to the state protective orders; AT&T would be required, however to obtain consent from the other party to the agreement in question, or have some other basis for its disclosure. While AT&T has obtained consent from Eschelon to show the FCC the secret deal arrangements that it entered with Qwest, it has not had such success with certain other CLECs, who have withheld their consent or been beyond AT&T's reach. In order to abide by the protective order that covers a particular contract where a release was not available, I have blanked out information in the folJowing columns: Expiration Date Jurisdiction, and Discriminatory Terms. The fact that a particular contract exists, along with the date of the contract and the contract title have been disclosed in the Arizona proceeding and so can be revealed here. 12.I have included only agreements that appear applicable in some or all of the nine states at issue in the Qwest III Application and that contain terms or conditions that I believe were not made available to other CLECs. Interconnection agreements that should have been filed but do not appear to contain discriminatory terms were excluded ttom the matrix. (Many of the agreements that were excluded ttom the matrix should have been filed as interconnection agreements). I have provided only information that is publicly available. AT&T expects that the Arizona Corporation Commission " Ace" proceeding will conclude during the 90-day period for considering the Qwest III application, forcing these parties to end their campaign of secrecy. course, the FCC has the authority to require the ti1ing of these agreements on a confidential basis at the FCC for its own review if it so chooses. 13.The summary of my review is contained in a matrix of forty seven (47) discriminatory agreements that were at some point part of Qwest' s practice of engaging in secret deals. While Qwest has posted sixteen (16) of these agreements on its web site, numerous other agreements remain "secret to this day-- either unfiled or otherwise unavaiJable. Those continuing secret agreements include seventeen (17) interconnection agreements that the ACC Staff has recommended be ti1ed and made public, and fifteen (15) additional agreements that AT&T continues to argue also constitute interconnection agreements in the state proceedings. 14.As indicated above, Qwest has posted to its web site 26 unique agreements for the nine states in its filing (of which 16 are in the matrix). The title of the web page is "Provisions Available for Opt In -V6.0 and the URL for the site is: HU. --.. ~htt ://www.west.cornlwholesale/clecsl rovisiono tin.html~. Qwest has been claiming that is posting the agreements to its website so that other eLECs can take advantage of the terms that Qwest has provided to other, preferred CLECs in the past. The catch is that in these agreements Qwest is selecting the provisions t~t the CLEC can opt into. Qwest is only providing "selected" provisions from the 26 agreements: Selected provisions ar~ available for all CLECs to review and request as Opt Ins. The selected opt in provisions are marked and bracketed. Qwest selected the provisions that would be available without discussion with CLECs. Generally, opt in is applicable to an entire contract, not to selections that Qwest makes. In the agreements on the website, Qwest makes the following restrictions: A CLEC may request only those services that are being provided to another CLEC under the posted agreement on a going-forward basis. This offer does not apply to provisions of these agreements that have expired, that involved payments made in settlement of past disputes, or that involve matters unrelated to Section 25 1 (b) and (c) ofthe Telecommunications Act. Qwest has predetermined, without discussion, negotiation or state ruling, which sections of each contract Qwest thinks meets these restrictions. This is hardly the availability of provisions that I would have expected, especially given the limited number of agreements that Qwest has listed. 15.Moreover, Qwest has disgorged the agreements contained in the attached matrix very slowly and very reluctantly over the past nine months. The only state that is looking at the full complement of agreements is Arizona. Minnesota did an in-depth review of a dozen agreements out of a total of over one hundred and found all of them to be discriminatory on multiple issues. The nine states in the current filing looked at a minimal number of agreements in a very perfunctory manner. Qwest s assurances that they were divulging every relevant agreement have proven, politely speaking, to be inaccurate. To the extent states believed this message ftom Qwest, their review of the issues is woefully incomplete. 16.In a previous declaration I spent some time reviewing the discriminatory issues that impacted CLECs and the 271 workshops. My review in that declaration was limited to a mere handful of the 47 agreements contained in the matrix that I present here. Moreover, that review (and the review catal~gued in the matrix) does not consider the impact of Qwest' practice of entering secret oral agreements and connecting disparate written agreements through oral understandings that provide, in the aggregate, discriminatory treatment to CLECs. There is no doubt in my mind, having attended over 41 Qwest 271 workshops, that if the content of these agreements had been known, the workshops would have included numerous additional issues and the outcomes could easily have been very different While we cannot turn back the clock, Qwest can be required to divulge all of the agreements and explain for each agreement why all CLECs should not be able to take advantage of any provision they choose. Only then will Qwest have made a clean break ftom its entry into numerous secret deals. 17.Although numerous other secret deals are not on the website and currently covered by protective orders, the staff of the Arizona Corporation Commission ("ACC") has determined that 28 of those confidential secret agreements should have been filed in Arizona as interconnection agreements. And I have identified 22 additional agreements that I believe should have been filed in Arizona as interconnection agreements. Filing of these agreements should be required by the ACC Staff as they complete their review process. I also can confirm that many of the agreements available for review in Arizona and other state proceedings are effective in the states for which Qwest currently is seeking Section 271 approval, including Colorado, Idaho Iowa, Nebraska and North Dakota, Utah and Washington. I hereby declare under penalty of perjwy that the foregoing is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief Executed on October l2 2002 EXHBIT 2 EXCERPTS FROM INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS NOT FILED IN IDAHO t(~c..:::n~L.. '. OR;(:")i~.;i. 00 NOT R~\~(Y_ FILED WITH ExeclJtlvf' Secretary ' .. \ I. IOWA UTILITIES BOARD DATE:July 29 , 2002 EXHIBIT COMPANY NAME:Owest Corporation SUBJECT MATTER:Amended Agreement for Interconnection PERSON TO CONTACT:lone E. Wilkens 925 High Street, 9 S 9 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 515 286-7336 515-286-6128 - Facsimile . . INITIAL FILING: DOCKET NO:NIA-99-35 (FCU-02- CONFIDENTIAL BILLING SEITLEMENT AGREEMENT This Confidential Billing Settlement Agreement (NAgreement"), dated and effective June , 2001-,. is between Owest ,Corporation rawest") and MCI WORLDCOM Network Services, Inc., on behalf of itself and its affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively WorldCom ) - (Owest and WorldCom collectively referred to as the "Parties ) wh hereby enter into this Confidential Billing Settlement Agreement with regard to the following: RECITALS Owest is an incumbent local exchange carrie~ ("ILEC") operating in its 14-state region. - . World~or:n' is a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") operating in Owest' ~state region ahd an interexchange carrier. Owest and WoridCom provide and bill each other for various services and f?icilities provided to one another pursuant to various agreements, including interconnection agreements entered into pursuant to the federal Telecommunications Act of 1934 as amended ("Act-), and, for some services. under state and federal tariffs. Certain disputes have arisen between the Parties in connection with certain charges assessed by the Parties and certain services provisioned under the aforementioned agreements and tariffs and because of disagreements over the effect. meaning and impact of various state and federal regulatory decisions. In an attempt to finally resolve the specific billing and provisioning disputes Qwest WorldCom - proprietary and confidential FINAL C QC Settlement Agreement NON COBRA FINAL identified herein that exist between the Parties through the date of the execution of this Agreement, and to avoid delay and costly litigation, and for valuable consideration. the Parties voluntarily enter into this Agreement and hereby agree to the following. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT In settlement of the disputes, claims and controversies referenced above and described more fully below, Owest agrees to a one-time payment to World Com in the amount of $16.2 million ($16,200,000). Owest will wire to World Com such amount by July 16 , 2001. As consideration for this payment ?nd for the other commitments and waivers by Owest and World Com set forth' herein, the Parties agree to the following provisions. EEL. WorldCom has claimed that approximately 2,500 private line circuits provided by Owest to WoridCom in various states should have been converted to the Unbundled Network Element Platform known as EEL from tariffed services during the time period between September 4, 1997 and the date of this Agreement, and therefore disputes the billing associated with these circuits.Owest denies WoridCom assertions and the Parties dispute their legal obligations concerning World Com request to convert the tariffed services to EEL. As part of this Agreement and to resolve any disputes related to this issue. World Com has agreed to waive any and all claims it may have with respect to charges assessed by Owest for these circuits through the effective date of this Agreement.Following the effective date of this Agreement WorldCom agrees that in the event it desires to convert circuits to Unbundled Network Elements (including EELs), WoridCom will submit orders and Qwest World Com - proprietary and confidential FINAL C QC Settlement Agreement NON COBRA FINAL .,-.- __0.__- --.... DATE: COMPANY NAME: SUBJECT MA iTER: PERSON TO CONTACT: INITIAL FILING: DOCKET NO: - ---- - . - . ---.................v""'- li~\,;:..,IH;. .. . . :; i ;;'i( Oi,1GiNAL ._~ DO NOT REMOVE! f=ILEO WITH Executive Sicretaty JUl 2 9 2002 IOWA OTIWTIES SOARD July 29. 2002 Qwest Corporation Amended Agreement for Interconnection lone E. Wilkens 925 High Street, 9 S 9 Des Moinesf Iowa 50309 515286-7336 515-286"6128 - Facsimile NIA-OO-32 (FCU..O2- . .-. liar""" N:""hIP T-US 'P .Ism H8S CONPIDEN11AL IUJNG SETI\,EIIENT AGREaENT 1IIIS IIIUJNG semaerr ('Cw""'"iIin8 "'- ~I'). by .. U $ WESI" !JIll. ru S WE$'I"I, ;;ftI GIDup. induIffWJ ....et.Rl eomm~ me. and Mobile CollI"'"fII.\n18ria8 (~ ....,.diII')end AId! ...... 3IId AId\'oIh8r~' aftJ;dBSand"'" arldh.etJ 8Ndt), is. -"-- Bndtnal ....... "'- ... - ...... hInIIL U 5 M!ST .... AId! .. I'8I8f8d to ....... jDfrdIY 85 ?Jdet"or .,....,.,., a~" DESCRIPT1ON oF1ME RSLA1IDNSHP OF THE PAR11ES ANDDSPU'fES. a. /4f:tI BI\II U S \NEST h1vt enIIIId IfttD V8iOU$ Hal .1eCIIOn pursuant tD 1IIhich .. respedPve ~..,~.,. ftdJJIks In'" ... GfArlam. ~ICIO...... 'ow&. Mb\r...sJta. Nebr8SIc& ... North DaIfIat8. 0IwQM. UIIh. W8ShinI8ft and ...... "..".... ..-- CD -- nIen'8d . heNin as b. 1ft ~.. the PI8\I1OUS A..-4IlMJa- Nfia ....,.. .... US WESI" 1IU8t""'" c.dain ..... pIIId '" AIfJI8 tD U S v&T for iftII8~1 I\A ,.--. U 8 WEST .... -- Nch ... pay U . WEST for h86~."'1 ,..- ,....., ~ U S YtlESTtI Aft;h. ,.,..... -wi8d dllttD .... , pa~ U. 8 WEST, ... U . WEST cIIIi AJfI:tS . ~ . ,....... .,.. eMf" ..... . JWr 1. ... ..... tie dIIdwe .. .,..... ....~m ~~. ..."" in f1;~ -- """.""".... twWI ." Co On 3. 1-. Nd\ .JIC.. 1\).'" CIDft...,..t (E 81 e') .. .. o.,.~ .,.... -mp1J. .... adeN. U S w&T: on....." 1_. MM."""". fA_a a1S81cnDM1 UlblaM'" ~... . InC.. 811 It"""'-" I 1?" ~'" --FCC US WESr. 1ha Arch ~.. ~eUf. CD,n;&fan!dtD 1-- . .. ~4~ 2. ..-osE OF CaNFIDeN1IAL BWNG ~1IUf. ".... CI8Sifa ...-. ..... iIICI their and .... ~ OtIr ..~ "II""'1*f-118 P"" .. .......... for .. ...... u.,."to 10') 811\ ... ...... - . .... Df ,.... ~lrs an.'" ford'"baSIL ". ,.-s 1fttlnd tlltlts ContIdenIi8I .. .... If .- 18SGWI$ .. ........ 8ft) 8M .. d8Im8 ." VIe Pal .... "8th lID or ..... GUt fie. IIin1I ....... pJiOt tD .. Eft'MIe DIIIa elf till 1h8 """""'"=::: ~;:a ~.... ... .... 1..-. IN'I'ERCQNN&C11 Nd\ ,,1881 to adOPt"" S,Ddion 2St (I) of ..1- ~.WllWN..vr..Nj." 3.. CONFIDENT1AL BilLING sET"I'LEMENT AGRIIMEHT .. , ._-,--_..-. """01 -........- .....".,.... 18a,-olooGZ ",38,. - - -. .. -. ,_. -.---,-.--- t.... p.osn. MISFr.. ... .......-,II1II" J9II\U S wr:sr.. WI""'" P4QII. whiI:h ..."", III OIIV"'" '188. In ... ..... (;oIor8'. ................... tI8If ... \IIIIh"" \III8SIIInIIIII ,.. hIIIe" ... ... '- --- ........ II1II"'---usin111h8 """""'" .-irT oudI P8IIiV I:u.I)ICID" IIIP ---- as 8 1ft .. fo\IIIIIIiIII tMo ..... 1dIIID.1o1in....t/bItI $0II1II 8ncI ",. PIIIi85 ..... 111 --.-- .-.. ""*' ....-a ..... (II ""*" "" d8JII- lie -- 11'"" '" .. C-,jIJ .-0118" "- ~......... Earll ~... ..... ~~_dkr1_~ .. .. flied with the .... IM* II8Jr fOr"""'" 118 "'"" ~...... II8W 8ft ""'" aI '. -. ... . ........... ... .. Jt1111111"118. 2QD2. ANAl. ~. The P.rIe5 NIAIbJ tullY. compIeI8\Y. and $IIIIIe "" and .. .... bJ" ,... "'10 1D ,. '-""8 aut of.. 8IinCI \)iSIIUIIIS ...tw (MI.f I ... 1IID1JiIinII -. ""'" ....... fI.." .... 811 ........ ......- ... it "'" hel8\QW" peIIoIIlIIi ID ... IrICIudNApJiID.2IXIO- p -. VMEHT. WiIhIn ftV8 (S) .... -- ffOrft 1M ... ..;.. recr~for dI8I\i8SOII'" tie FCC .. '" ...,.........., 1.1 $ WEST ..... par MIl" NIl 81,sao,aaDJ1O u.s.. okIIIR- ....-. willi' ..........-.. !II"'" -- """'" jUIb.-...... ...12.7IlO,OIIII u..s. dOII.~1b8S8 b1I CN JI.. ...." th8 ,.....sent.of.. S 1-'- U"' cIGt8I8. .. ... II" IIQAeCtar tie w-ril ... CIft etib1t , for lie periIII ... .. .. :zc)aD; "...,..........-, U $ 'I4'ST ."..111 ..,. taD .., .... ~.. ~1_&811.. 1IeI'C'-or"' baCt. tallllllClft -- ':::'" ..... '" AJO ....... .~.. ",1n IbtM AId 10. 2DQD. ~~ faJ" ~ II fIIIJn 1. 2DOO .... ........-"" .... . ...-. .aI8t ~ ...- in ........ U 8 VtIIST ... - ; , ..., bit Mdt for h~...=I1m ... I a """ 1\ enw. ,.Me AJCb"'. ad for ." .... ~. . . w ~~"-"""" ~. ...... 1i8 pa T pNIIiIII'\ ..,.,...,.Anh .............. ....... fIIr narr:.r"~"**" ....... ~ic8S.IidudIftl. but not 1m18C11D, WIlla ,... C:o8nI ---'" pdIIIII8 .... IW.. as a..... MIl IIdI\i8& . serv1c:eS tIDIft U sWEST. Ndt""'" ftO1 tD Dill U $ 'llESTf8r -.. Gf(IICIIve daleS flit.... i\-~0I"'", _..merdS 11. 1ft Ie ~rII l""" -n- ... ~.-n .. ....... fIf . aI cIspUIes In will .. BIinO. and dI$fth - II fIIh FCC eompIIIntL DlSIIIS'"OF FGC CQIIPlAIN1'S. \'M1Ift five (5) ...-,e..... flam ..,..,... fI- .. ~_.A8f8 e .aent.An:h . ....... FCC to .k~ '" ~ - FCC c.."'d.S '" PJdIi4 11\ 1he fonft of Z ... 3 hR"" ,nvidCII. ~......, Anti...ftGt ..... ~..... of" FCC c.mp \ II.tie. cIo$8 01 tMI;tIlf 8ft JIm 18. 2CQO. Hdt. GQR 1- .. ....., .. FCC;" Ita intIdtD ,..... ....... tI.. FCC CMI""" .., .... ... at ........... 1lll..Me 18. zaao. In"" """"""" the feQUO8t .... .. FCC Co mpI8Its illGfUHd. and U. S WBfIf' is --- CONFIDEtmAL 8'UJNG SETJL,Et.4lNT AGRiaJIINT '. 2 ~~_..- ....- '-'-_.. ~. ~...__- ~. 0'0 ""'0""" '"". -, ~....nf"'" , ""'. ""0-'1. ..,)/ .....,)~nu.""....... """'0 Uar-OHt M~"" . . '-iSl , .OflU ,..881 Ft.. III JII!I' ...- ,... .~.,.. III AJcb .. .. FCC c..4 k' ..lOll"" ... FCC. ......... 111& II1II; .... '" .......... ~.. s~ """ tII8I ~. .........".. U $ vaT is iIf,MIt ttl8IIf .... .. A""' inv* ArCh .. sUO 1m ,,-. ""..... U S WesT '** . it'r ... rc......... .....118 dWfaNI- vt#:lt ~~.... -~~ess. 1'-' ..... .- .... ...Ik-. ..........,..-4oIIWe8. --- If ........ ... ,.... udI. .....,... .. 8LbO' "'lieS. .......'....... insIIIaIIG8 ..,.,- !no"" .......-1IId =-- ~ :: ::. := :::. :::. ::: co. ..... ..... ...". .11111, .... "'11""" ... I'"III*. ... .....8 "" .-. -. ill' _far ~ ......."'" af.., ..... ...,& YII'. """ .ell ............... ... WIll -"" pili""""" -- or'" GQIIId ... -- 11 I. d, ill .", WIllI NIIIIII. or .. 01 the .... Qi8VW'... pee C..,1 COIIf'ACIIIIIifr """~...... .. .... Ii ..--'-" ..eo"""" ","'"... .... .... .. -- ...... ill tile FCC c.r4h"-' . 0 110 ..." i lOt& "* CoIMo AI .... ~ ~ --Nil ----.. "'1. L .- .., ..... P.8\Y. of" ..._1ftIIIt ::= 8ffI - 111 1l1li .,.' -".. _1M. 8ffI NiW.or -- - ac:IOft " . L! lei" .., 1IgII .,...""", ... ....... ...... 1IIe ......", _ lJIIIII 1n lilt eo.. 1". .fIJ ... 8 JlI .0lil A.. .-1'-' CcJdiil. .,""",Wi& ... dIllS !lilt .411*8IIo.J . .... A' *.. . I. - . . it.. 1IJ8t'Ir ".., .... Jill. ..... .. ...r ... . unpIId. . . AItIIIRA'QIIII. III" -*..... r . """" ..... bf88Idwd .. \IIIII8r" ................ ........Aw - . !rIIL PardI8 .... to ..... ......"..... .....-a. .a. . .. JIIiIII'\ 8IId ............ III Ih8 RUII8 _fie Ao. I'" IW.-J'"E8*"'" tNII .. ft"" ~ ..... tar" -""""'" ....... ...-IllllAlJ"'" .. -.IIICI GIt" ----.. .......... pIto .1. ""118 I11III111 a li ....1. III ......... ...." .. W ,......"",... ... ilia -"'" .... 81181'" .....,. ...... ..oIofI&..aIIiIII...,......." nidi for IIIIIi. 1M -... ... &1 .... .. ... ..oIIIIW lD -- ..... 411.111. ~d~.J~ Jur.~M .1. 11.Q6idtE AGto'..-IfM .........,110 EPfICf OIl 'INs ~1IiII ""'" ,.,....d 18 .. .... """""""l ~ MIl- UI WEST ... B8IO DIIP"-.... the FCC ~.IJbt'. ...~. ....,...--.... ....... "eIIIIiM ...... ....... .... 1I1Is ~... ...... $ell8lMnt .,.... -- ,.,.....,...,.. III" .... ... .. 1M ~tU...JtOt l._~ lL"anr""" ~......,... ..................... -. 8& ........,.." 1M"""" A"~Cln~ BILLING s&;m.&M&NT AGREEMDfT . S _.. M4--.ft. ~""'- j~J ' " --- ---'-. ._.'-_.~~_. 'f-111 t.etlU Ulr.DI-OZ 0&111-- "... II'I\S ... ~,......n\IIII nIIII& b8 ~ .,....... ..ad bf8\ ... .. ~... ,a. ~. ,. P818DS"" -- .... S - . ...... A80--II ...~ ed""" lIaUD ......- 1Ie WIllS 8l1li ...- ..... U/IIIS Ct) 1118 .....", iftOCIII8" ... ................ ~~.,. .. ..,111 s,ciIan 1O...-1n CDlf\lldlDllwiII \l1li-' OJIPUII'S Cll't8 FCC or tZI- "-" 15 .."ped !If ,npetIY IISIIIII ..- CI .... .. pt III'. ..--. a CIIfII Gf 11""- ~.............. ~. It ....... ttJ -- lie 1# 00f1fid8nllal 8lO --- 1n.....-....1\111111 diIdO"....'" Pn"'" -- an .......- ..... fit ..,."""" PJOII'Ii tit .......t~af'" CGftlidellliBlIiIInII Atn-'"lID -- heI8CIf. 1~ lAVI/o "........- It CaItIIMO sI:8II petti io_t""" .,... Co1I6II. ---... ~,.".",...,.. .... "* .. A;I""" I11III" ~""...".. -- ....... e;dI ar.wctl"". """ 811 .. fit wII\d'I ..... ..... *' - ..,.. 1114 81\11- 15. JICI11CES. ~..... a ......... or \IIIIter" C8JA1811'1a1 ... .. aI~ A,p.,.d\dl1tl1\1li\1810 _IhaII\18 -- ....""..,...._'" . ...........""", \/pan pIior ......-nert If"""'" ......, ..1d,AIIIIII "'" ..... ...., .... "--"""'"""'"'" or .......... .otmI (eomIII). Jo:IIIIIII8d.!If I\111III8 .., ..... ,. fIII$" ws.- """",... ....-.s UIInI- .. .......... III .... ........ ... M'" ...,., . tit ........~ ..:-..:. -:.- ..:=. .:=: till ". U S w&ST: U . YJES'f ~K ~.. A~ ...... 1801 CM-. ..""".. 5100 ~.. fIt\Dft8'. ,. (101) zes.,1D48 . 11) ArdC Ndt P4WJ. ... 0.'. '" "* PI...L1."" Te. II - 1800 WIll"" DdIf8 ...- \NI ~Wtt 01581.at12:;I'!..=:U ...."ue:tnsll'lAL elLUNG SE'f1'\,EIIENT .. 4 .... hI ..ft: '" zoot...." ~- . --~~.~~... '-'. .'-" , . '-.... ~un'--"" -""'~""'U""""""""'J /'iu.u",,",",Uti T -1&1 P . otn) fens MarDHZ 04"" "... ,.. NO WINEIt OF NIftW)IIL 1IIe PIlI" .. tilt .... - ..... """"' AQf~and III .. ......-""-' ..... Is ............ .. lflii ... 'JIIIIv8, ." fill- 'It;/\l ~ ... ,-", ...." ~ .. fUIIII8, In ~. jUoIlIII. .....\......-"'..... f/I1f'i ..... nJ1a1111 1D ~~ JI)d .. .......-......... ...-.. ..-d1D "...,. 1.,. DATi- 1118 Ilk 0. at.. CIII1fidIIIIII EJiIIinII S8\II!IftIIIt is ... 11. 2DDO. -nIE ~ ~ tHAT tHE 1SIM$ OF THIS coNFJl)Elli11fL IIIJ,JNG AGRS!MENT HAVE EIEEH CoNPLE1'8, y READ AND 111& F\JU. Y AND ". VOLUNTARIIo V I Eu FOR -mE J'UIU'OSf' OF MMONG FULl. AND F\IfAL. OF tI1! DISI"\ITES 8JEIWEIN 'ntE !'ARTJES. ..".- .J,:.a f(1MtJ$ " Fi ..,.. ..... D88. DII88 eoNFIOENTIAL BILLING SEftLEMENT Acsu=~eHT .. 5 -. -""".- .."9"",,,'1 . ,~.. -- .. . a,""" ~'41.. 'rea- ~ ' T.III P. \'~I '-&8' CONFCD!NT1AL BtWNG S&nLEM1NT AGREEMENT 1H1S CONFJD!NT1AL SIUJNG $ET1UM&t\" AGR:EM!NT ("'ConfidefttJa1 Billing Se&tJernent Agftlemem-). ~, and betw8.Qw8t CorporatlDft fcnnerl)' Icr~wn at 0wE1 communlcatioftS. tnc. rawest1 and ho'n8 NetwaItc. In~ (\cgether with it$ end indirect~s. 'p~. a whoDy owned ~., of Arr:h Wft\eSS jo1o1d!np, the.. ("Atl::h1. Is . camplate and hi aelUemont of disputes d~ Qwes1 and PaseNet 1ftof~to herein join1l,. es 1he ep8~. .. aa . "Party: a. PeeeNet and QwIcst hIMI t1Wfft:d IrU v-.rioUa net=Mec6on e~'" idefdilied 018 '8C~ Kt forU'1 on EINIIt 1 herete. ~U8ftUO whtch ... ,.... 1'eIi~ I:OIMIUnIcdonl NJb,..OIft$are the .... of ~ ~I Icteho. ~sota. Nebt~... UwD:o. 0I8gDn. UIah. and Weshingtan (CDII8c:11ve1y. the el'tavblS b. In c:omectian v.th the Pt8Wious IntMDnMCtiDft ~. (t) hgeNet BSSeI'Ia that Dive-must refiN c:ert;IIn MtOU1U -- P48'" to aw.dfor~. f8cIItIesa (II) Qwect ...,. #sat pageNet must -pay Qweat fer Int8h:IDMecIiof by Qwe&t 10 PiQ8Net.and (III) PqeN8t ha$ -- .im8d the III" tP.~t Q)fft ~~" ffDm 0Wat. TMst b1IIin; . ~;~ CIOVOr oNy periDd fNtft ~.. 1998 throueh Dec::elnber 31. with aff'/ and II oCher""'" and peyment - . listed aft 1xh1btt I tw:tetD 8ff8InI 01 durfns N:h jiifOd. aNl'efermd tD '*"" as the "9- puRPOse OF CONFIDEN'IW. BlWNG SETnJ!UENT AGREEMerr. 1M Pafti88 ... tD resolve 8ftCI unahBnlbl1 "* dlffarenC88 .ftIf aft ....."..... reprclilg" ... DisplIeI.The Partie8 .... desire CD \*'CIer 1M 1'lctt '~"'IeCIJo 1\ Cae cIdiMd to gavem tIw int8n:onn8C8on fl the network:s on a I~ foM8Id _15.. ".. P8t18s .1ntend th8t thIB CMfiden8I8I ell. SetUemeftt Agreement 88de. ........ 8ft)' aM aD claims by t1e P8lUes reI3Iin8 . Or.." 0&It of &he 8IIng as".,.. as estIIt""lt-.4 1n 111. Move. PINAl. SErTI.EMINT. Th8 Petti. tlerab)' tu8y. comptetety. ... unehernJ~ $etUI .,." end all. dalrftB ~y ,.. Parties relating \0 or ari&inG out of the -'" traspUtas.. CREDrr or: ACCOUNTS. In UI:h8nge fw the c:cN8ft8fttS 8ncI ....,..,. Get fCIftt heIIndI, wfttIn 8btr (60) days hIft aacutiorI Df this ConftdeftIiaI B8II SetIIem8ftt AQr8em8ftt. Qweat ... to pnMd8 P8gRN8t with bID c;tWb tDtdft8 S 1.517.210.57 US. "'" TII8s8 bIt wID""" afll:8tg and bsucs rot the a~~Is18d on &hIb1t 1 .,... period from thI'ough 08I:ember; 31. 2000: and Qw8St 8Qr8CS nat aD ta8C8 .", action. ....... b8far8 . court. 1ICfq.Dr 0IhCr acrjUdicatofY NeIr. to c:o8eet any CON'IDemAL BILLING SE1i\.EMEKr AGREEMENT NM:ft.. 1IIIW..... '1II~u. Sellkd . ... cos.n o 1.DESCRIPT&ON OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF 11(& PARTIES AND DISPU'I1!&. %.. 4r.. -..- - -' .. .- - -~_. -. .--..u......-- uo.:..10, . Mar-es-U .,.42P8 fr~ .~ .- 1-151 , . &1m f-III . .. 114E UNDERS'~ED PEC\.Nt ~ T 'THE 1&RMS OF THIS CQNFtoeNTlAJ.. BIWNG SE.'1"TIJ!NeHr AGREEMENT HAVE ee&N COMPLITEL Y AND AfIE PULL UNDERSTOOD AND AJ/fE.VOWMTARlLY ACC IlYlIO FOR 'THE PURPOSE OF UAJQNG A FULL ANO FINAL CCMPAOMISEDP 'THe DlSPIJT&S 8E1WEEN'THE PAR11ES. QwvSt CerpenRiOft Pqint N~ tnc. By. VieI iJiN 'I/a/tJ . . ill: III"" .. ~:~ 8ET'J'I.EM1OO" cos.cn ","~ II I_~'~~ft. ~ ....1 -/DIU ~mdes=IG %DD:.JtJ-LG