20030603Objections to Rebuttal Testimony of David Teitzel.pdf

JOHN GANNON (ISB #1975)
Attorney at Law
1101 West River, Suite 110
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone No.[phone]
Attorney for Intervenors Meierotto et al
-/()tG(
t\ECEIVED
:~. i i r-
' ".- L
fxl
~.;
2003 JUN -3 PN 3= 16
i L.";,, (J U U L;UTILITIES COMMISSION
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF QWEST
CORPORATION FOR PRICE
DEREGULATION OF BASIC LOCAL
EXCHANGE SERVICES
CASE NO. QWE-02-
OBJECTIONS TO REBUTTAL
TESTIMONY OF
DAVID TEITZEL
COMES NOW Intervenors Meierotto et al who hereby pursuant to IPUC Rule 261 who
hereby submit the following objections to the Rebuttal Testimony of David Teitzel. These
objections are made and filed at this time so that they may be considered in a more expeditious
manner and more easily decided without unduly delaying the proceedings:.
Objection No.1: Intervenors object to testimony on Page 8 , Lines 7-17 and object to
Exhibit 23 unless it is offered only for the limited purpose that it is a "claim" made by Clear Talk
and not evidence or the proof of that "claim" is true. The objection is based on lack of foundation
hearsay, and no personal knowledge.
Objection No.2: Intervenors object to testimony on Page 8 Lines 21-, Page 9 Lines 1-
and Exhibit 24 on the basis that this is hearsay and completely lacks any foundation. The
underlined testimony on page 9 does not even identify the "independent... reports" . Again, this
objection is made unless this material is offered as a "claim" made by T Mobile and not evidence
or proof that the "claim" is true.
Objection No.3: Intervenors object to Mr.Teitzel's opinion on page 9 , Line 10-17 in that it
is based on research that is not reliable and does not even identify the persons or authors upon
which his opinion is based, if this opinion is based upon the matters objected to in Objection.No.
OBJECTIONS TO REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DAVID L TEITZEL - Page
and Objection No.
Objection No.4: Intervenors object to testimony on page 11 L 5 -13 in that it is irrelevant
hearsay and lacks foundation. The "customer" lives in Florida, and there is no detail in the article
concerning the cost of a land line in Florida, extra features, or any facts to support the double
hearsay statement regarding savings.
Objection No.5: Intervenors object to testimony on Page 11 L 15-29 which purports to
summarize the article and is double hearsay. Further, the article speaks for itself and in fact the
summary is an inaccurate statement of what is contained therein. For example the author on page
3 states:
For those whose wireless providers do not offer unlimited local calls, there
is a risk that cellphone bills will be higher than those for conventional telephone
service. "
This is contrary to the witnesses statement on page 11 Line 18-19.
Objection No.6: Intervenors object to testimony on P 22 L 24-27 and Page 23 L 1-33 on
the basis that Qwest has refused to make public the entire report, and foundation. It is contrary
to public policy to allow a witness to select a part of a confidential report for public testimony and
then claim the balance cannot be reviewed not only by parties, but by the public in a public setting
because it is confidential.
Further, there is no foundation for the quoted material. Essentially, there is double or
even triple hearsay since the source for many of the statements
, "
facts" and conclusions in the
report are other researchers or persons, who are not even identified.
Objection 7: Intervenors object to testimony on Page 40, L 1-13 which discusses an article
which discusses "new research" by two companies. There is no foundation for the article and this
is again, at the least double hearsay, since it is an article discussing two studies. There is no
showing that the witness has even seen the two studies.
Objection 8: Intervenors object to testimony concerning Taher Bouzayen on Page 42 L 4-
19 on the basis of foundation and that again, this is double hearsay.
Objection 9: Intervenors object to testimony on Page 45 L 22 and P46 L 1-3; and on P 52
L 20-21 and P 53 L 1- 9 on the basis that there is no foundation for the conclusions in this report;
this is double or triple hearsay; and this report is not available to the general public, as a request
has been made to keep it confidential.
Objection 10: Intervenors object to testimony on Page 53 L 15-, P 54 L 1-2 on the basis
there is no foundation; his quote is double hearsay and not within the personal knowledge of the
OBJECTIONS TO REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DAVID L TEITZEL - Page 2
witness.
Objection 11: Intervenors object to testimony on Page 55 L 1-10 on the basis of
foundation; double hearsay and unreliability in that there is no evidence that any newspaper even
published this article.
Objection 12: Intervenors object to testimony on Page 55 L 11-24 on the basis that there
is no foundation; it is hearsay or even double hearsay, and irrelevant since it took place in another
state, and it appears to have taken place, if at all, in a rural area which is a different area generally
from the exchanges which are the subject of the Qwest application.
Objection 13: Intervenors object to Insight Research Corp testimony on P 66 L 7-26 on
the basis that there is no foundation;and this report is not available to the general public, as a
request has been made to keep it confidential.
Objection 14: Intervenors object to IDC testimony on P 72 L 4-14 on the basis that there
is no foundation;and this report is not available to the general public, as a request has been made
to keep it confidential.
Objection 15: Intervenors object to IDC testimony on P 73 L 14-19 on the basis that there
is no foundation;and this report is not available to the general public, as a request has been made
to keep it confidential.
Dated this 3 rd day of
OBJECTIONS TO REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DAVID L TEITZEL - Page 3