20050815Ducloo direct.pdf

, ,~ ,'-, .-
, ' 1 .";~I
\j
c--~LiW; r:r
; '
,.,. L- I.
~:.
L_,.
"'.
""';- I!!lUU~ ALl1 2 PM 3= 27
Dean 1. Miller
McDEVITI & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, ill 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
oe~mcdevitt -miller .com
r f) ;-
\ ;
LJ C: P U ;.:; I ! C: IE tI t Tie c:; 0
' (' (' ~ '-"
'LI;IL", viJIJjJ.
,)..)
Attorneys for Level Communications, LLC OR\GiNAL
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF LEVEL 3
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC'S PETITION
FOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 252(B) OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS
AMENDED BY THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
AND THE APPLICABLE STATE LAWS FOR
RATE, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS OF
INTERCONNECTION WITH QWEST
CORPORATION
Case No. QWE-O5-
BEFORE THE IDAHO UTILITIES COMMISSION
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ROGIER R. DUCLOO
II.
III.
IV.
XII.
Table of Contents
Introduction. ....
....... ...... .... ........... ... ....... ..... .... ...... ........... ... ..... ................. ... ... ........ ... .......
Statement Of Scope And Summary..
........ ........ ......... ................ ...................... ................
ISSUE 2: Combining Different Traffic Types on Interconnection Trunks .......................
ISSUE 5: ESP Traffic - VoIP Traffic ..............................................................................
Conclusions...... ...
........ ....... ........................ ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... .............. ....... ..... ... ...... ..... .....
Duc1oo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Introduction
PLEASE ST ATE YOUR NAME, POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND
BUSINESS ADDRESS.
My name is Rogier R. Duc1oo. I am a Director with Level 3
Communications, LLC. My business address is 1025 Eldorado Blvd
Colorado, 8021. I am filing this testimony on behalf of Level 3
Communications, LLC of Broomfield, CO.
PLEASE REVIEW YOUR EDUCATION AND RELEVANT WORK
EXPERIENCE.
I received a Bachelor of Science in Business and Management from the
University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands in 1996. I've worked at Level
3 since 1998. Most of my experience with Level 3 has been with the
company s network group. I've worked in network provisioning, network
engineering & design, and network planning & project management of
network deployment. Since 2002, I have worked in network planning and
regulatory support. Prior to joining Level 3 I worked in business
development and international institutional sales.
II.Statement Of Scope And Summary
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
I am testifying on behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLC ("Level 3 "
regarding interconnection agreement terms and conditions between Level
3 and Qwest that we have been unable to resolve during negotiations.
will address various technical issues to provide a network and engineering
perspective for the issues that are in dispute in this case. As part of my
presentation, I will also address some high-level technology policy issues
Duc1oo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
that are embedded in the nation s communications laws, as I understand
them, and how those policies relate to this case.
PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY, INCLUDING YOUR
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
Level 3 is a facilities-based Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
CLEC"). To facilitate fair competition, and for Level 3 to meet
customer demands, Level 3 must be permitted to interconnect with Qwest
on reasonable terms, rates and conditions. Moreover, because of Level3'
experience operating the largest next-generation, end-to-end Internet
Protocol ("IP"based network in the United States, Level 3 is uniquely
positioned to propose terms that are not only reasonable and technically
sound, but also consistent with the overall public interest in the continued
technical advancement of the nation s communications infrastructure.
Qwest, in contrast, takes an extremely limited and one-sided view
of interconnection. The Qwest-sponsored provisions to which Level 3
objects would cause inefficiencies in the network by, among other things
requiring technically unnecessary trunks and facilities, as well as changes
to efficient interconnection architecture. As a result, Qwest's proposals
are detrimental to overall network efficiency, quality, and to Level 3'
ability to offer services in furtherance of the public interest in facilitating
and developing a competitive telecommunications market.
summarized here and as explained in greater detail below, Qwest's one-
sided proposals cause problems at several levels.
First, Qwest proposes to place a number of restrictions on
switching and trunking operations. It does this through the definitions of
Duc1oo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
various terms in the Agreement. None of these restrictions has any
technical basis. In each case, Qwest would impose engineering
inefficiencies on Level 3 (and in some cases on Qwest itself as well) for
no reason other than, as far as I can tell, to impede Level 3' s growth or to
extract extra revenues from us. These definitional issues affect the
outcome of Issues 1 and 2 and I deal with the definitional concerns in the
course of discussing the relevant issues.
Second, the companies disagree on the how to divide the traffic we
send each other into different trunk groups. We agree that when total
traffic between Level 3 and a particular Qwest end office switch reaches a
certain reasonable volume, we will establish a direct trunk group between
that end office and Level 3. The technical and engineering efficiency of
both parties' networks will be maximized by including all traffic between
Level 3 and the affected Qwest switch on a single large trunk group.
Qwest, however, wants us to establish multiple trunk groups between each
pair of switches, with the traffic divided based on regulatory
classifications that have no engineering significance. This is, pure and
simply, inefficient. I understand that governing law requires the terms and
conditions of interconnection to be "reasonable." From an engineering
perspective, what Qwest is proposing is patently unreasonable. Level 3
fully recognizes that different regulatory "types" of traffic might be
subject to different rates; but we have a proposal for dealing with that
situation simply and efficiently, without degrading network efficiency and
imposing needless costs, discussed below.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Third, in Issue 4 Qwest is arguing that certain types of Enhanced
Service Provider ("ESP") traffic, including specifically VoIP traffic
should be included within the regulatory category of switched access
traffic. My understanding is that the status of traffic as ESP traffic
depends on certain technical characteristics of the entities that provide it
so that entities that qualify as ESPs are entitled to have their traffic rated
on an end-user basis, as opposed to on a carrier basis. I understand that
there are legal and regulatory considerations affecting this issue which
Level 3' s lawyers will address in our filings. From a technical
perspective, however, it is clear that VoIP traffic is a form of information
service, that is, the VoIP providers that Level 3 serves meet what I
understand to be the relevant criteria for having their traffic treated as end-
user, as opposed to carrier, traffic. In this regard, and irrespective of how
this traffic is rated (reciprocal compensation versus access), Qwest also
seeks to have ESP traffic, including VoIP traffic, routed over distinct trunk
groups and perhaps over distinct facilities. For the reasons noted above
this is grossly inefficient and patently unreasonable.
In Issue No.3 the ISP/RUF (VNXX) issue, Qwest is trying to shift
the financial responsibility for maintaining its own network, on its side of
the Point of Interconnection ("POI"), to Level 3. As a contractual matter
the parties agree that the cost of facilities used to connect their networks
will be split based on relative use, so that cost responsibility follows in
proportion to which party originates which portion of traffic on the
affected facilities. But what Qwest seeks to do is to exclude from the
calculation the overwhelming majority of traffic that it sends to Level 3.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
As a simple matter of mathematics, this sleight-of-hand would relieve
Qwest of cost responsibility for facilities that Qwest uses (in the sense of
originates traffic over) much, much more than Level 3 does. In certain
cases (so-called "VNXX" traffic), Qwest would go even farther, and
would send Level 3 bills for originating intrastate access charges. Again
Level 3's lawyers will address the legal flaws in Qwest's position, but
from an engineering perspective, treating VNXX calls like intrastate toll
traffic is absurd.
The LIS NRC section continues the issue of who is responsible for
the cost of interconnection, and explains why Qwest should not be able to
pass the cost of installation and maintenance of its own network to Level
Finally, the section of the Determination of Traffic Types
provides a description of how Level 3 proposes to calculate the traffic mix
on trunks. The section also explains a dispute over the new way that
Qwest is proposing to determine whether a call is "local" or not. New
contract language is proposed in this section to specify Level 3' s proposal
on how to calculate and manage traffic factors for billing purposes.
TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND, PLEASE GIVE A BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE QWEST
CIRCUIT SWITCH-BASED NETWORK AND LEVEL 3'
SOFT SWITCH-BASED NETWORK.
Qwest's network is comprised of circuit switches connected to each other
by fiber and copper transmission paths, and to end user customers largely
by means of copper loops. Qwest's Class 4 (tandem) and Class 5 (end
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
office) switches are the "brains" of its network. Like the traditional PSTN
of which it is a part, the Qwest network operates using a centralized
architecture which evolved starting more than 50 years ago with the
introduction of automatic (originally, mechanical) circuit switching. The
entire design objective of the PSTN was to do just one thing deliver
voice calls very, very well. This design objective led to the old Bell
System s implementation of computerized switches in a hierarchical
architecture, the development of time-division multiplexing for use
initially on copper and later on optical fiber, as well as the design of
customer premises equipment and the specification of the interfaces
between that equipment and the PSTN. The goal, and the result, of this
focus was a network in which end-to-end network resources are devoted to
the completion of large volumes of plain old voice telephone calls.
Level 3' s network is quite different, arising not out of the hierarchical
circuit-switched PSTN but instead out of the distributed, open architecture
of the Internet. The Internet evolved as a scientific, educational and
military network outside the PSTN, beginning in the 1960s. The Internet
uses packet switching, not circuit switching. Rather than devoting end-to-
end network resources to communicate information (voice or otherwise), a
packet switched network breaks the information down into pieces
(packets) and then separately routes the packets to their destination, often
by very diverse routes, based dynamically on which switches (called
routers" on the Internet) and links are free or busy on a near-
instantaneous basis. The packets are then reassembled into the proper
order at the destination, so that the information is properly delivered.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Using Internet Protocol technology, Level 3 operates a distributed
softswitch architecture. All internal connections between nodes on Level
s network are by means of high-capacity optical fiber. Level 3'
softswitch- and IP-based network is based on an open architecture that
optimizes the use of computing technology to maximize the efficiency of
the network infrastructure transport layer. Softswitch technology is able to
bridge the gap between legacy circuit-switched technology and more
advanced IP-based networks. Because it knew that its customers would
need to interface with the PSTN, Level 3 retro-engineered its network-
from one perspective
, "
dumbed it down to be able to exchange IP-
based traffic with the PSTN.
A simple metaphor illustrates the difference. Qwest's network is
like a funny kind of highway system. Imagine dedicated roads leading
traffic from one point to another on fixed highways with multiple lanes
like the real highway system. On a circuit-switched network like Qwest'
however, when there is a car running down one lane of the highway say
on a trip from Seattle to Phoenix - no other car is allowed be in its lane
all the way from Seattle to Phoenix. Only when the first car has
completed its journey can any other car use "its" lane.
In contrast, Level 3' s softswitch and router based network is like
the human brain. It is a smart, highly interconnected network that
functions in parallel, so that traffic can take many different paths to get to
the same place, and packets containing bits from different conversations
can travel the same path at the same time for part, or all, of the route.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
From Level 3's perspective, the technical superiority of its flexible, IP-
based network is obvious even for the traditional mainstay of the
PSTN, voice calls. From both an engineering and business perspective
this is extremely threatening to PSTN operators like Qwest, who have
enormous amounts of money and expertise invested in what is manifestly
an old-fashioned and increasingly obsolete way of doing things. It is only
natural that those with such a heavy investment in old technology and old
knowledge would do everything possible to delay the day when they are
overtaken by the new. For that reason, it is understandable why Qwest
would want to shoe-horn Level3's operations, as much as possible, into
network architectures, regulatory classifications, and business models that
Qwest understands, and that are in harmony with Qwest's own network
and operations. But the entire point of introducing competition into the
telecommunications business at least from my technical perspective
is to make it possible for consumers to enjoy the benefits made possible by
newer and more technically sophisticated networks. In assessing what
constitutes "reasonable" terms for interconnection in this proceeding,
therefore, I urge the Commission to recognize and take account of this
fact. I submit that on the issues I address, Qwest is acting primarily to
avoid the impact of new technology-based competition on its legacy
network, not in the best interest of the citizens of Idaho.
WHERE DOES LEVEL 3 FIT INTO THE BROADER
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY?
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Level 3 is not a traditional competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC"
In broad terms, many of the CLECs that were created following the 1996
Act had a business model that boiled down to
, "
do what the incumbent
does, only 5% better." As the regulatory authorities have come to
appreciate the need to encourage competition based on investment in
competing facilities, this business model has become increasingly
unviable. Many of the CLECs that have gone into bankruptcy or been
acquired by rivals had placed key reliance on this now-superseded
business model.
Level 3, however, takes a very different approach. Level3'
business focuses not only on the traditional public switched telephone
network (PSTN), but also in fact, even more directly on the Internet.
As noted above, Level 3' s entire network architecture arose out of the
architecture of the Internet. The Internet uses packet switching, mainly
developed in the 1970s, as opposed to circuit switching, developed
essentially, in the 1870s. (When the original, 19th Century version of
Ernestine the Operator" plugged a line into her circuit board, she was
doing just what circuit switches do today: creating a dedicated path
between two customers for the duration of their call.
While Level 3 certainly functions as a "local" exchange carrier, in
fact Level 3' s operations are nationwide, and more, in scope. Level 3 has
billions of dollars invested in its network, which consists of an all fiber-
optic backbone connected to 68 markets in the U.S. and 17 markets in
Europe. Level 3 has over 16 000 route miles of fiber in the US and an
additional 3600 route miles in Europe. Riding on this fiber backbone
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
Level 3 maintains a separate, private IP network, composed of high-speed
links (carried over the fiber optic facilities) and core routers (which direct
enormous volumes of packetized traffic to the appropriate destinations).
The Level 3 IP backbone is connected to the public Internet by means of
hundreds of peering arrangements with other large Internet entities
located in approximately 30 different metropolitan areas.
One key technical contrast between Level 3 and an ILEC is that
unlike the ILECs, Level 3 embraces and seeks out robust interconnection
with other networks. As a result, Level 3 is extensively interconnected
with such networks. Its central offices are state-of-the-art facilities in the
heart of 70 major metropolitan areas, which range in size from 50 000 to
550 000 square feet of equipped floor space. In these locations, Level 3
terminates both local and intercity fiber networks, as well as locates its
high-speed transmission equipment, routers, and Softswitch equipment.
(Softswitch technology bridges the gap between legacy circuit-switched
technology and more advanced IP-based networks.
Level 3 believes that, while other entities in the communications
business -such as, frankly, Qwest struggle to adapt to change, Level
, to quote a former President is the change.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, WHAT CONSIDERATIONS OF
TECHNOLOGY POLICY SHOULD GUIDE THE COMMISSION'
DECISIONS IN THIS CASE?
From a high-level perspective, I believe that three key technology policies
are embedded in the nation s communications laws and have a direct
bearing on this case.
First, at a high level, the Commission should make decisions that
encourage development and deployment of new technology and
innovative, new services. The history of the telecommunications industry
is one of sustained one might even say unrelenting technical and
service-oriented innovation. On some level, each decision the
Commission makes here will either facilitate and encourage such
innovation, or will tend to preserve the status quo. The 1996 Act is not
about preserving the status quo. It is about bringing new and innovative
services to all segments of the industry.
Second, the Commission should promote and encourage the
unfettered growth of the Internet. Section 230 of the Communications
Act, and any number of FCC pronouncements, embody a clear policy to
promote the growth and development of the Internet and consumer access
to it. Weare now so accustomed to contacting friends by email, finding
information from Google or Yahoo or Map Quest, and downloading our
favorite music from iTunes or RealNetworks, that it is easy to forget that
these and other incredibly useful services and applications did not just
magically appear, and the environment in which they grew and developed
was not some stroke of luck. To the contrary, the wide-open environment
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
that made these services possible was the result of conscious policy
choices to keep regulation away from the Internet. As Internet
applications such as Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") services are
beginning to make inroads on incumbents' businesses, the policy of
keeping the Internet unregulated is coming under increasing assault.
Third is to encourage competition in telecommunications markets.
The Commission, therefore, should in each case ask whether deciding for
or against Level 3 would encourage the development of competition.
Although on some level this is an "economic" rather than "technology
policy consideration, in fact there is an intimate link between promoting
competition and promoting the development and deployment of new
technology. Incumbent monopolists have very little incentive to deploy
new technology. New technology disrupts settled ways of doing things.
requires capital expenditure at the outset even if it saves money in the long
run. People have to be trained in how to best use it. And, because it is
new, it is in some sense inherently risky in that it might not work entirely
as anticipated, it might affect other markets in which the business is
operating, etc. Businesses in general will avoid these "hassles" if they
can. A competitive environment, however, is a situation in which these
things cannot be avoided and where, to the contrary, businesses are forced
to invest and innovate in order to survive and prosper. So, from this
perspective, promoting competition is an important way to promote the
development and deployment of new technology.
HOW DO THESE POLICIES RELATE TO EACH OTHER?
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
While they may conflict in some situations, from the perspective of
promoting technological development, these policies are mutually
reinforcing. As just noted, promoting competition creates an environment
in which firms are free to innovate and deploy new technology. The
development and deployment of new and innovative technology; of
course, stimulates and enables competition. And the flexible, advanced
capabilities of the Internet simultaneously depend on and enable both
competition and technical innovation.
AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, HOW DO THESE POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS RELATE TO THE LEGAL AND
REGULATORY CONTEXT OF THIS CASE?
While I am not a lawyer, I am generally familiar with the provisions of the
1996 Act and FCC rulings relating to telephone competition both of
which have a strong technology policy component. With that perspective
I would note that several of the key issues separating the parties relate to
interconnection of their networks, under Section 251 (a)( 1) and Section
251(c)(2) of the Communications Act. Section 251 (c)(2) requires that
terms and conditions of interconnection be "reasonable." That is a
relatively open-ended standard, so it is helpful to articulate some specific
policy considerations that should guide the Commission in determining
what is and is not "reasonable.
Second, as I understand it, under Section 251(d)(3), the
Commission is allowed to impose requirements regarding interconnection
that are not specified in the federal law, as long as those additional
requirements are "consistent with the requirements of' Section 251.
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
considering the question of whether a particular obligation not literally set
forth in the Act is "consistent with the requirements" of Section 251 , to
understand the policies and objectives that underlie that portion of the law
- which, I believe, the policies articulated above clearly do.
HOW DOES LEVEL 3'S APPROACH TO THE INDUSTRY
RELATE TO THE KEY POLICIES AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, AS
YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THEM ABOVE?
Level3's network embodies innovation and new technology. Its services
facilitate and encourage access to and development of the Internet. And, it
provides competition across a wide spectrum of telecommunications
markets. From Level 3's perspective, its entire business plan is consistent
with, and dependent on, the pro-technology policies underlying the 1996
Act.
III.ISSUE 2: Combining: Different Traffic Types on Interconnection
TrunksStatement of the Issue:
Qwest wants Level 3 to provision separate trunk groups for different
types of traffic, thus forcing Level 3 to set up duplicate, inefficient
trunk groups to every Qwest end office and tandem office switch.
WHAT IS LEVEL 3'S POSITION ON THIS ISSUE?
Level 3 and Qwest should not be required to set up different trunk groups
for different regulatory "types" of traffic. Instead, all types of traffic
going from Level 3 to Qwest (local and toll, interLA T A and intraLA T A
interstate and intrastate
, "
telecommunications service" or "information
service " circuit switched end-to-end or IP-enabled) should be combined
on the same trunk group along a given route. I understand that regulatory
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
rules might require that different types of traffic be subject to different
rating regimes, but that is no reason to degrade network efficiency by
handling technically equivalent traffic in different ways as a matter of
network engineering and architecture. I note in this regard that Level 3
has agreements with the 3 other RBOCs, covering 39 states and the
District of Columbia that allow for the most network-efficient exchange of
all types of traffic. Qwest is a real outlier on this issue.
WHAT IS QWEST'S POSITION?
Qwest wants Level 3 to order and provision multiple, separate trunk
groups to every tandem and end office in the state. They want one set of
trunk groups for local and IntraLA T A traffic, and another set of trunk
groups for InterLA T A traffic. If they will accept IP-enabled traffic at all
which they appear to contest they want that on separate trunks too.
From an engineering perspective, setting up all these separate trunk groups
for traffic going to and coming from the same place is grossly inefficient.
I submit that it cannot be considered a "reasonable" condition of
interconnection.
WHAT IS A TRUNK?
A trunk is a logical connection between two switches, provisioned by
means of physical facilities between those two switches. The physical
facility is not the trunk. It may be any appropriate medium - copper
optical fiber, microwave radio, coaxial cable, etc. The trunk is the logical
path carried on the physical facility. The term "trunk" arises from within
the PSTN, so, not surprisingly a trunk refers to a single voice-grade
connection, capable of carrying one voice call between two switches.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
WHAT IS A TRUNK GROUP?
A trunk group is a collection trunks, normally (but not necessarily)
provisioned over the same physical facility connecting two switches
configured to operate as a cohesive unit when delivering multiple voice
connections between the two switches. You can think of the physical
facility carrying a trunk group as completely unmarked road just a wide
concrete path between two cities. Each individual lane that we paint on
the highway is a trunk. All the lanes going together in the same direction
are a trunk group. The wider the highway, the more lanes it has, and the
more traffic it can carry.
HOW DO YOU MEASURE THE CAPACITY OF TRUNK
GROUPS?
A single trunk that can carry a single voice conversation is known as
a "DSO." Putting 24 DSOs together creates aDS 1 , which is the basic unit
of carrier-to-carrier trunking in the PSTN. Putting 28 DS 1 s together
creates a DS3, which is equivalent to 672 DSOs. (For historical reasons
there is no "DS2.) DSOs, DSls and DS3s can all be carried on any
normal transmission medium (copper, fiber, or radio).
More modern, high-capacity networks exchange traffic using
optical fiber connections. The data-carrying capacity of optical fiber
utterly dwarfs the capacity of copper wires. The smallest normal unit of
capacity on an optical network is an OC-, which is the equivalent of three
DS3s. Other common capacity measures for optical networks are the OC-
12 (12 DS3s), the OC-48 (48 DS3s), and the OC-192 (192 DS3s).
Ducloo, Di 1 7Level 3 Communications, LLC
HOW DO TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS DECIDE
HOW MUCH CAPACITY TO PUT INTO PLACE BETWEEN TWO
SWITCHES?
At a very high level, the more traffic that will flow between the switches
the bigger the trunk group you will put into service. But it is actually
more complicated than that.
Think about the highway example discussed above. Imagine that
you are trying to design a highway between a large city and a populous
suburb. You would not look at the number of cars driving between the
city and the suburb at 3 :00 on Sunday morning. And, although perhaps
not as obvious, you would not just look at the total number of cars that
travel that route over the course of a day or week or month. Instead, to
properly design the highway, you would look at how many cars are trying
to travel that route at the very same time, at rush hour on the busiest day of
the week. That way, you would know how much traffic your new road
will need to be able to handle when it is at its busiest. That will tell you
how big to make your highway.
This same principle applies to deciding how big to make trunk
groups between switches. Different routes that serve different types of
customers have different "rush hours" (called "busy hours" in the
telecommunications business). A route between switches that mainly
serve business customers might have a busy hour between 9:00 and 10:00
m. when people arrive at their offices for work. On the other hand, a
route between switches that mainly serve residential customers might have
a busy hour between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. as children get home from school
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
and they and their parents start calling each other to discuss homework
social events, or the evening s plans.
There is a final, but critically important, consideration in
determining how large trunk groups should be. This issue is known as
trunking efficiencies.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "TRUNKING EFFICIENCIES?"
For reasons which I will briefly explain below, it turns out that, while the
number of trunks that you need in a trunk group to carry a given amount
of busy hour traffic definitely increases as the amount of traffic increases
the number of trunks goes up at a slower rate than the traffic goes up.
the current amount of traffic is carried on a single DS 1 (24 DSOs), it will
not require three DS 1 s to carry three times as much traffic. Instead, it will
require, perhaps, only two DS 1 s. Moreover, this effect continues as the
traffic growth get larger, so that ten times as much busy hour traffic will
not require anything near a 10- fold increase in the number of trunks.
In practical terms, this means that carriers can greatly conserve on the
number of trunks they need to establish between two switches, by
combining as much of the interswitch traffic as possible onto a single
large trunk group.
WHAT TRUNKING IS AT DISPUTE IN THIS ISSUE?
There are several issues. The first has to do with handling incoming (to
Qwest) interLATA traffic. The bulk of traffic between Leve13 and Qwest
is "local" interconnection traffic. However, Level 3 also has some
InterLA T A traffic that it carries for IXCs that must be delivered to Qwest
customers. Today, Level 3 routes this traffic to 3rd parties (IXCs) for
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
completion to Qwest. These 3rd party IXCs price this service at relatively
high rates, causing this to be an expensive solution for Level 3. Level 3
would like to complete this traffic directly to Qwest. Unfortunately,
Qwest wants to require Level 3 to use separate trunk groups for this
traffic, rather than simply to deliver this traffic on existing interconnection
trunks.
IS LEVEL 3 TRYING TO AVOID PAYING ACCESS CHARGES
ON THIS IXC TRAFFIC?
Absolutely not. Level 3 agrees that this traffic is subject to access
charges, and has language in its proposed agreement that provides for the
payment of those access charges. However, for the reasons explained
briefly above, it would be technically much more efficient to include this
traffic on the same trunk group that Level 3 uses to deliver "local" traffic
to Qwest. That would allow Level 3 (and Qwest) to take advantage of the
trunking efficiencies discussed above.
WHAT OTHER TRUNKING ISSUES EXIST BETWEEN LEVEL 3
AND QWEST?
Qwest seems reluctant to accept incoming IP-enabled traffic (that is
traffic that originated by means of a broadband data connection as
opposed to a normal telephone) at all. To the extent that it will accept the
traffic, however, it wants that traffic, too, to be on trunks other than the
existing "local" interconnection trunks. In addition, Qwest may even want
separate trunking for some calls from its customers to ISPs served by
Level 3.
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
IS THERE ANY TECHNICAL REASON TO REQUIRE
SEPARATE TRUNK GROUPS FOR LOCAL, INTRALA T A
INTERLA T A, ISP-BOUND, AND/OR IP-ENABLED CALLS?
No. Although various kinds of calls might begin in non-PSTN format, or
be transported some or all of the way along their journey in a non-PSTN
format (such as IP-enabled), Level 3 delivers all of its traffic bound for
Qwest subscribers in standard PSTN circuit switched format and standard
SS7 signaling, and receives all traffic from Qwest in that same, standard
format. (As I mentioned above, one of the capabilities of our softswitches
is precisely to do the necessary conversions from IP to PSTN format and
vice-versa). So, all traffic coming from Qwest is obviously in normal
PSTN format, and by the time we deliver any of this traffic to Qwest, it is
all in that same format as well no matter what transformations and
changes it may undergo at other parts of its journey.
Now, not surprisingly, Qwest and Level 3 have some disputes
about the proper charging regime to apply to traffic that might fall into
different regulatory categories. But no matter how those disputes might
turn out, there is absolutely no technical reason to carry these different
regulatory "types" of traffic on different trunk groups. Yet, that is what
Qwest is proposing to require.
WOULD IT BE EFFICIENT TO BUILD TWO HIGHWAYS RIGHT
NEXT TO EACH OTHER, BOTH GOING TO THE SAME PLACE?
No. One large highway is, obviously, more efficient than two smaller
highways with the same number of lanes. As noted above, car traffic on a
highway behaves in the much the same way as traffic on a telephone
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
network. The same types of traffic engineering calculations are used to
size both. The same types of congestion, blocking and capacity are
common to both. Again, though, that is what Qwest's language would
seem to require.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE REASONS WHY A SINGLE LARGE
TRUNK GROUP IS BETTER THAN MULTIPLE SMALLER
TRUNK GROUPS?
As alluded to above, requiring multiple trunk groups along the same path
between two switches is unnecessary, inefficient, costly, and can harm
network performance. For example, one key problem is that using
multiple trunk groups will lower the blocking Grade of Service (GOS),
unless additional trunks are installed.
WHY WOULD THE REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE TRUNK
GROUPS CAUSE LEVEL 3 TO BUILD SEPARATE NETWORKS?
To meet the Qwest requirement, Level 3 would need to order, build and
provision multiple trunk groups from the Level 3 switch serving the state
to each Qwest tandem, and over time to each end office. Essentially,
Level 3 would need to build a separate network for each type of traffic that
Qwest requires to be split out. Each separate network would be composed
of transport facilities and switching facilities between the Level 3 switch
to all Qwest tandems and eventually to virtually all Qwest end offices.
Over time, this would require needless duplication of both transport and
switch facilities, for both Level 3 and Qwest.
WHY IS THIS INEFFICIENT?
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
From a network point of view, it is always preferable to combine as much
traffic as possible on single trunk groups. Large single trunk groups are
much more efficient than multiple smaller trunk groups. For example, one
trunk group with four DS 1 s will handle much more traffic than two trunk
groups, each with two DSls. To handle the same amount of traffic, the
two trunk groups would need to contain 3 DS 1 s each to have the same
capacity. This would require a total of six DS 1 s to do the same job as four
DS 1 s on one trunk group. "Breakage" of a single trunk group into
multiple trunk groups always requires additional trunks to carry the same
traffic load with the same blocking grade of service.
EARLIER YOU MENTIONED "BLOCKING GRADE OF
SERVICE.WHAT DOES THAT TERM REFER TO?
Blocking Grade of Service ("GOS") is the measure of call blocking on a
trunk group. Blocking is generally measured at the busy hour and is given
as a percent of the calls that are blocked due to insufficient trunk capacity.
A standard, acceptable blocking GOS would be 2% end-to-end. This
means that for every 100 calls that customers try to make that would be
carried on that route, group, two calls will be blocked due to insufficient
capacity. When 2% call blocking is desired end-to-end, an allocation is
made to various facilities and equipment to achieve the 2%. Typically, a
trunk group between two switches is allocated 1 % blocking level so that
2% can be maintained end-to-end. This is due to the fact that many calls
involve more than one switch and thus more than one trunk group. There
are also small probabilities of blocking on digital loop carrier equipment
and associated loop transport. (Within the traditional PSTN, you would
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
know that you had encountered blocking on a trunk group when you heard
a "fast busy" signal, or a recording telling you that "all circuits are busy.
WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON BLOCKING GOS WHEN A LARGE
AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC MUST BE BROKEN DOWN INTO
MUL TIPLE TRUNK GROUPS?
If a large trunk group (say, 48 DSOs, or 2 DSls) is split into multiple trunk
groups with the same total size (two groups of 1 DSI each), the overall
carrying capacity of the multiple smaller trunk groups is smaller than the
carrying capacity of the original one trunk group. The laws of trunk
engineering dictate that the total number of trunk members in multiple
trunk groups must be significantly larger in order to carry the same
amount of traffic. The effect is like congestion on the highway. One four-
lane highway will carry considerably more traffic than two, 2-lane
highways. For example, a single trunk group with 48 members (two
DSls) can carry about 15% more traffic than two trunk groups with 24
members each.
IS THERE ANOTHER TYPE OF INEFFICIENCY WITH
RESPECT TO SPLITTING A LARGE TRUNK GROUP INTO
MUL TIPLE SMALLER TRUNK GROUPS?
Yes. Earlier I mentioned "breakage." This term is used to describe the
problem when facilities with discrete sizes must be divided into smaller
facilities. As I noted earlier, the DS 1 (24 DSOs, or 24 simultaneous calls)
is the smallest normal unit in which trunks between switches are ordered
and provisioned. This is because the DS 1 is the most common size of
port" on switching and transport equipment. This makes the practical
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
effect of the inefficiencies of breaking a large trunk group down into two
or more smaller trunk groups even worse.
F or example, suppose that if a trunk group needs a total capacity of
30 DSO trunks. Because trunks are ordered and provisioned in DSI units
two DSls must be used (that is, 48 DSOs). Even though the need is only
for 6 DSOs above the first DS 1 , two complete DS 1 s will be established
because the switching and transport gear accepts trunk groups in DS
sized "chunks.
Now, if this trunk group must be divided to handle two different
call types on two different trunk groups, it is quite possible that the ratio
between the two call types is not 50/50. If the trunk requirement is larger
than a multiple of 24 (even if it is only one trunk member larger - say 25
DSOs) a new DS 1 must be provisioned and the associated equipment
added to terminate the new DS 1. Coupled with the need for additional
capacity to maintain the same blocking GOS, this leads to significant
increases in the overall number of DS 1 s needed for a given traffic volume
when the trunk groups must be split. Taking this factor and the blocking
factor into account, one trunk group with 48 members cannot be replaced
with two trunk groups of 24 members. To get the same blocking grade of
service using two trunk groups, both trunk groups would need to have two
DS 1 s. So the effect of splitting the large trunk group into two is actually
to double the total number of DS 1 s needed to carry the exact same
amount of traffic!
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
WHAT COST ELEMENTS ARE ADDED TO THE NETWORK
WHEN MULTIPLE SEPARATE TRUNK GROUPS MUST BE
MAINTAINED?
In physical terms, to establish a DS 1 trunk group between two switches
requires, essentially, the following. First, each switch must be
programmed to separately identify the traffic bound for the particular
trunk group and to direct that traffic to the appropriate "port" on the
switch. Second, there must actually be a trunk port (a separate physical
device) available on the switch to accommodate the new DSI trunk group.
The capacity of switches to accommodate new trunk ports is limited; at
some point it is necessary to add new switch modules (that contain more
ports) in order to add new trunk groups, and, for any given switch, at some
point the total number of ports is reached and the only way to establish a
new trunk port is to add a new switch.
The same holds true for the transmission medium (in Level 3'
case, typically optical fiber) used to carry a DS 1 trunk group between
Level 3 and Qwest. The DS 1 trunk physically runs from the Level 3
switch to a device known as a digital cross-connect system (DCS) - which
has its own DSI ports and port-capacity limits - and then on to the fiber
optic terminal (FOT) that actually sends and receives the laser signals used
to convey information over optical fiber. The FOT also has its own DS
ports and port-capacity limits. Adding DS 1 s, therefore, sooner or later
requires the purchase of additional trunk ports on switches, DCSs, and
FOTs, eventually requiring that these devices be "grown" or that new
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
switches, DCSs, and/or FOTs be purchased. Obviously, over time this
will greatly increase the capital requirements of operating the network.
Finally, although obviously much of the operation of a modern
telecommunications network is automatic, behind the scenes a large
number of people are required to monitor, maintain and operate the
system. Provisioning and maintaining additional trunk groups and the
resultant facilities requires additional staff time as well.
From Level 3's perspective, when it is necessary to incur these
costs due to growth in traffic volume, we of course do so. But at the same
time, if it is not necessary to incur these costs in order to carry a given
volume of traffic, we obviously do not want to do so. This is why the
issue of using efficient trunking arrangements is so important to Level 3
and why we believe that it is entirely unreasonable to allow Qwest to
require that traffic be broken down into multiple, smaller trunk groups if
there is no technical reason for doing it.
WOULD QWEST FACE THE SAME INEFFICIENCIES FROM
MUL TIPLE TRUNK GROUPS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED
ABOVE FOR LEVEL 3?
Yes. Just like Level 3 , Qwest would need to dedicate DSI ports on its
FOTs, DCSs, and switches to the additional DSI trunk groups made
necessary by inefficient, multiple trunk groups.
WHY WOULD QWEST WANT TO IMPOSE SUCH
INEFFICIENCIES ON ITSELF?
I obviously can t say for sure. That said, it is well known among
telecommunications engineers that traffic is migrating off the traditional
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
landline PSTN. Some normal voice traffic is just "disappearing" as end
users communicate via email and instant messaging, rather than making
telephone calls at all. Some PSTN voice traffic is migrating to wireless, as
people use their cell phones to make calls that would otherwise have been
made over the landline network. Some PSTN voice traffic (although not
as much as Qwest might want the Commission to believe, at least in the
short run, as Mr. Gates describes) is migrating to VoIP services such as
those offered by Vonage or Skype. Unless Qwest had perfect foresight, it
is quite possible that it overestimated its own needs for capacity and could
well have over-invested in switch, DCS, and/or FOT capacity. (Of course
since Level 3 is a relatively new and still-growing carrier, Level 3 is not
sitting around with excess capacity on its switches, FOTs, etc. Level 3 has
to spend capital dollars to meet growing demand.) In that situation, Qwest
might see it as advantageous to require a competitor like Level 3 to use an
inefficiently large number of trunks. If Qwest already has the excess
capacity on hand which it would, if total demand for its services was
shrinking then it could impose large capital and other costs on Level 3
with little or no new cost to itself, simply by convincing this Commission
that there was some reason to require multiple, inefficient trunk groups.
ARE THERE STILL OTHER POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH
QWEST'S PROPOSAL?
Yes. Taking essentially the reverse of the situation described above, if
Qwest does not have excess capacity, Qwest might actually not be able to
add the necessary trunk ports in a timely fashion. This would put an
effective limit on the rate at which Level 3 could grow and make
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
competitive inroads in the market. At least from the perspective of the
industry as a whole, this is not hypothetical. As I understand it, in a case
within the last year or so, the FCC found that Verizon had violated the
Communications Act by reason of having insufficient capacity to permit
interconnection with a competitor (Core Communications) to grow. If a
true industry giant like Verizon did not invest in enough capacity to handle
growth in interconnection requirements, it is of course possible that Qwest
would be in the same position.
WILL THERE BE ANY INCREASE IN MISROUTED CALLS IF
LOCAL
" "
TOLL " AND OTHER "TYPES" OF ARE CARRIED
ON A SINGLE, LARGE TRUNK GROUP?
, not at all. Briefly, to determine how to route a call, the switches looks
at the first six digits of the telephone number (the "NP A-NXX"). Part
the human staff effort described above in administering trunk groups is
properly programming the switch to know that, if the NP A-NXX of the
called number on an outgoing call is "208-348 " the call gets routed to
Trunk Group XX " but if the NPA-NXX is "208-555 " the call gets
routed instead to "Trunk Group YY.
Of course, in actual practice it's a bit more complicated than that.
For example, if the called number has been ported from its original carrier
to a competing carrier, the switch doesn t look at the NPA-NXX of the
number that was actually dialed, it looks at the "NP A-NXX"-equivalent
portion of the "Location Routing Number " or LRN. And, if the NP A-
NXX in question is subject to "thousands-block pooling," it will be
necessary to look not only at the first six digits of the number (the NP
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
NXX), but also at the seventh digit essentially, the NP A-NXX-
well.
But the point is that none of this activity involved in routing a call
outbound from Qwest to Level 3 , or vice versa, is affected in any way by
any regulatory overlay that classifies a call as "local" or "toll" or
intraLA T A" or "IP-enabled" or "ISP-bound" or "interstate" or
intrastate." What matters is the dialed number or, for ported numbers the
LRN. The rest of the regulatory stuff has literally no impact at all on call
routing. 1 The network will have no trouble correctly routing any type of
calls, no matter how many are combined on the same trunk group. While
there will always be some small numbers of misrouted calls in the
network, this number will not increase when these traffic types are
combined on the same trunk group.
DOES COMBINING DIFFERENT REGULATORY "TYPES" OF
TRAFFIC (SUCH AS LOCAL AND ACCESS TRAFFIC) ON THE
SAME TRUNK GROUP RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE
POSSIBILITY OF FRAUD OR INTENTIONAL MISROUTING OF
CALLS?
No. Any company can intentionally misroute calls to perpetrate fraud
whether or not traffic is combined on a single trunk group. Dishonest
carriers can change the SS7 call identification information to make access
In fact, even if there is a regulatory requirement to treat some class of traffic differently for routing
purposes, such a requirement is basically impossible to implement unless the requirement can be
translated into handling calls with different NP A-NXXs differently. For example, that's how
interLATA calls are routed to a customer s presubscribed long distance carrier. Originating ILEC
switches contain a list of NP A-NXXs that are "local" to the switch contained in their programming,
along with a particular trunk port assigned for outgoing calls to each "local" NP A-NXX. If a customer
dials an NP A-NXX that is not on that list, either the call will be sent to the customer s presubscribed
IXC or, in areas where "+" dialing is required for toll calls, directed to a recording saying that the call
cannot be completed as dialed" or some similar message.
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
traffic appear to be local traffic if they so choose. This can be done
whether the traffic is put on separate trunk groups or on a single trunk
group. Level 3 always pays the appropriate access charges for access
traffic and has no intention of changing call information or inappropriately
routing calls to avoid access charges. But requiring separate trunk groups
to prevent so-called "call laundering" is no more useful or effective than it
would be to require banks to provide one copy of everyone s bank
statement on plain white paper, and then an extra copy on special yellow-
and red-striped paper, be to prevent "money laundering.You can
establish such a requirement obviously at an increased cost but
doing so has nothing to do with preventing the problem at issue.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROCESS BY WHICH PROPER BILLS
FOR INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION ARE DEVELOPED.
Normally billing for intercarrier compensation is accomplished in several
stages. First, the SS7 signaling network transmits data about an incoming
call, such as the identification of the carrier delivering the call, the calling
number, the dialed number, the LRN if the dialed number has been ported
etc. The switch receiving the traffic generates a record, known as an
AMA" record in traditional PSTN circuit switches, that records this
information, along with other information such as the time (to the second)
that the call starts and stops, perhaps the specific trunk on which the call
was received, and other switch-specific information. These "AMA"
records are then processed through what is known as a "mediation" system
into industry-standard "EMI" (or "electronic message interchange
records. The EMI record basically takes the AMA or equivalent data and
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
puts it into an industry-standard format (sometimes known as a "CDR " or
call detail record"
).
These records are then run through a billing system
that applies programmed logic to the data in the records to determine
whether, how much, and who to bill.
This process normally occurs on a call-record-by-call-record basis.
, it doesn t actually matter, for LEC-to-LEC traffic exchange whether
the traffic on a given trunk is subject to different charging regimes or the
same; each call is (or can be) rated individually.
IS THAT THE WAY ALL CARRIERS ACTUALLY BILL FOR
THIS TYPE OF TRAFFIC EXCHANGE?
No. First, some carriers have less capable mediation or billing systems
than others, so not all carriers are capable of performing the call-by-call
review. Another carrier might have a bill-and-keep arrangement with
respect to much or all of the traffic exchanged with interconnected LECs
and so not need to go through the call-by-call process. Second, carriers
can establish a Percent Local Use (PLU) and Percent Interstate Use (PIU)
for calls on a trunk group, updating the information periodically to assure
that it is correct. Basically, instead of reviewing the call-by-call data on a
monthly basis for billing, all or a sample of a month's traffic is reviewed
periodically to determine what percent of traffic falls into which billing
category. In this regard, Level 3 has offered to track the Percent ofIP Use
(PIPU) to measure the percent of IP-Enabled traffic that is exchanged
between the parties.2 This information can be audited if there is any doubt
as to its validity. These two methods are being used today by various
2 See Intercarrier Compensation Sections 3.2.4 -, Issue IC-See Intercarrier Compensation
Sections 3.2.4 -2.2., Issue IC-
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
CLECs and ILECs to manage the combining of different traffic types on
trunk groups.
HOW DOES LEVEL 3 PROPOSE TO CALCULATE THE PLU
FACTOR?
I describe the process in detail below in Section XI of this testimony,
Determination of Traffic Types." This process is being used by Level 3
in all of the Bell South states, SBC states, and Verizon states, and similar
processes are used by other CLECs with the ILECs.
HAVE OTHER COMPANIES DEALT WITH THE BILLING
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH COMBINING DIFFERENT TYPES
OF TRAFFIC ON INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS?
Yes. Other CLECs have been using factors in many states for more than
five years. Several IXCs with CLEC affiliates combine different traffic
types on FGD trunks with Qwest, using PLU to handle carrier billing.
These IXCs started off with an FGD network for the purpose of
exchanging intrastate and interstate access traffic. As their business
strategy changed and these carriers decided to enter the local market, they
made use of the FGD network that was already in place to handle the
exchange of all their traffic. Similarly, Level 3 started out with a "local"
network established for the purpose of exchanging "local" traffic. As
described above, there is no technical or "billing" -related reason that
Level 3 should not be able to use those same trunks for terminating FGD
and other types of traffic. In this regard, the distinction between local and
toll services is fast disappearing. Level 3' s customers are demanding
packaged services that include the termination of intrastate and interstate
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
access traffic. Level 3 would like to be able to make most efficient use of
the network that is already in place today. Qwest and Level 3 will be able
to do so if Qwest is required to allow the exchange of all traffic over the
existing "local" trunks.
DOES QWEST USE A PLU FOR DISTINGUISHING LOCAL AND
INTRALA T A TOLL TRAFFIC ON INTERCONNECTION
TRUNKS?
Yes. That is, Qwest already permits the combination of local and
intraLA T A toll traffic normally subject to different charging regimes
on a single trunk group, and uses PLU factors for determining how
many minutes are subject to access charges and how many are subject to
reciprocal compensation. In other words, even Qwest allows mixed traffic
on the same trunk group today. To distinguish the traffic that is subject to
reciprocal compensation from the traffic that is subject to intrastate access
it provides on a quarterly basis, a PLU factor to the terminating carrier.
Likewise, it expects any carrier originating traffic that terminates to Qwest
to provide a PLU factor to Qwest. It is neither technically challenging nor
in any way unreasonable to extend that process to include a PIU or other
factors to determine the distribution of traffic among whatever different
regulatory traffic "types" might end up existing under our final contract.
Qwest calls these "LIS" trunks, for "Local Interconnection Service " but that is actually a misnomer.
Qwest and Level 3 are co-carriers; although each is responsible for the transport and termination of
traffic delivered by the other, Qwest is not providing Level 3 a "service" in the nonnal sense, any more
than Level 3 is providing Qwest a "service." Rather, in order for each carrier to provide full "service
to its respective customers, the two carriers enter into interconnection arrangements.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
HAS LEVEL 3 AGREED TO SEND ONLY "LOCAL" TRAFFIC TO
QWEST'S "LOCAL ONLY" TANDEM SWITCHES?
Yes. Most Qwest switches are currently carrying both local and toll
traffic. These switches can easily handle trunk groups that carry both
local and toll traffic. Where Qwest has a tandem switch that currently
only handles local traffic, however, as an accommodation, Level 3 has
agreed to send only local traffic to such switches. However, I would
emphasize that Level 3 agreed to this not because it thinks this is good
network engineering. To the contrary, for all the reasons discussed above
it is not sensible to separate traffic into different types and trunk groups if
not required. Because the amount of affected traffic is small in this case
however, Level 3 chose not to continue to dispute with
Qwest on this topic in the limited circumstance of "local only" tandems.
HAS LEVEL 3 AGREED NOT TO SEND TOLL TRAFFIC THAT
DOESN'T TERMINATE TO QWEST END USERS OR
UNE/RESALE CUSTOMERS TO QWEST END OFFICE
SWITCHES?
Yes. Qwest has told Level 3 that is expects difficulty with Independent
Telephone Companies ("ITCs ) and other CLECs that expect to receive
recording data from the Qwest tandem switch when an IXC terminates
traffic to such other carrier s through Qwest's network. Because Qwest
has chosen to configure its so-called "LIS" trunks without the same
recording capabilities as FGD trunks have, Qwest will not be able to
provide such data to these carriers. This would create a situation in which
these 3rd party LECs would receive traffic as to which they would
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
legitimately be entitled to charge access rates, but as to which they would
have inadequate information to actually render an access bill. To avoid
this situation, for the relatively limited amount of IXC traffic that Level 3
will deliver to Qwest for further delivery to ITCs or other CLECs, Level 3
has agreed to send such traffic only to Qwest's toll tandems where
adequate recordings for the 3 rd parties can be made. Again, Level 3 is
making this accommodation to Qwest because its impact is relatively
small. The fact that we are doing so does not mean that it would be
sensible to generally carve out different types of traffic for separate
trunking, for all the reasons discussed above.
QWEST STATES THAT LEVEL 3 MUST DESIGN ITS
INTERCONNECTION TO COMPORT WITH QWEST'
EXISTING NETWORK AND NOT INTERCONNECT IN A
MANNER THAT RISKS EXHAUSTING QWEST TANDEMS. ARE
THESE STATEMENTS JUSTIFIED?
Qwest is completely wrong to suggest that Level 3 is or should be required
to design any part of its network to mirror, match, duplicate, or conform to
Qwest's network design. Put aside the fact, as discussed above, that Level
3 is a new carrier without any need (yet) for a ubiquitous network such as
Qwest's; and put aside the fact that Level 3' s customer base differs from
that of Qwest, which would lead to a different network design. The fact is
that network technology has changed so much since Qwest started
deploying its network in Idaho that if Qwest were building a new network
today, to serve its own existing customer base Qwest itself would not re-
generate the same network that it actually has today. It makes no
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
engineering or technical sense to suggest that there is anything sacrosanct
or even particularly efficient or optimal, about Qwest's existing network.
There is not.
Now, that said, Qwest does have a legitimate technical concern
that neither Level 3 nor any other interconnected carrier should deliver
such large amounts of traffic to Qwest's tandem that the capacity of the
tandem itself would be overloaded. It is standard practice in the circuit-
switched telephone industry to establish direct trunks between switches
when the level of traffic between them exceeds a certain level. Given this
Level 3 is perfectly willing to work with Qwest to avoid the problem of
tandem overload by jointly engineering separate trunk groups that go
directly between Level 3 and those Qwest end offices with enough traffic
to justify the direct trunking. These are known in the industry as "Direct
End Office Trunks " or DEOTs.
DOESN'T ESTABLISHING DEOTS LEAD TO THE CREATION
OF MULTIPLE TRUNK GROUPS, WHICH YOU HAVE
TESTIFIED ABOVE ARE INEFFICIENT?
To a certain extent, yes. However, all network engineering involves
making tradeoffs. There is, to coin a phrase, no such thing as a free lunch.
While looking at trunking alone, it is more efficient for both Qwest and
Level 3 to connect their networks with a single, massive trunk group from
Level 3 to Qwest's tandem, that requires that all traffic between the parties
be switched by Qwest twice, once at the end office, and once at the
tandem. In addition, it requires Qwest to make use of three trunk ports for
all traffic between the networks: one at the "Level 3" side of Qwest'
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
tandem, to accept incoming traffic and send outbound traffic to Level 3;
another at the "Qwest Network" side of Qwest's tandem, to connect the
tandem to trunks bound for particular end offices; and then a third trunk
port at the end office itself, to connect that end office to the tandem. With
DEOTs, even though the total number of trunks will be higher than would
be the case in a single massive trunk group, Qwest is able to avoid the use
of tandem switching and to cut down on the total number of trunk ports it
has to use. Level 3 is certainly willing to work with Qwest to permit
Qwest to obtain those network efficiencies.
GIVEN THESE TECHNICAL CONCERNS WITH ESTABLISHING
MUL TIPLE TRUNK GROUPS ALONG THE LINES QWEST IS
SUGGESTING, HOW DO THE KEY TECHNOLOGY POLICIES
YOU IDENTIFIED EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY RELATE
TO THE QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING MULTIPLE TRUNK
GROUPS TO THE SAME QWEST SWITCH OR SWITCHES?
From a high-level policy perspective, on this issue, Qwest is trying to drag
Level 3 back into the past. Level 3 proposes to deliver traffic to each
Qwest switch on a single, efficient, combined trunk group. Qwest
however, is not concerned about technical efficiency. Instead, because it
thinks that different kinds of traffic fall into different regulatory buckets, it
wants those types of traffic sent on separate trunk groups. This is
anticompetitive, because, as described above, it will impose needless costs
on Level 3. It is also contrary to the development and encouragement of
new services, in that it forces Level 3 to classify traffic in accordance with
the old, existing service classifications with which Qwest seems most
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
comfortable. And, particularly in the case ofVoIP traffic (addressed
below), the inefficiencies imposed by Qwest's suggested requirement of
separate trunking for different "types" of traffic will act to directly
suppress the development of this exciting Internet-based innovative
servIce.
IN ORDER TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, HOW DOES THE ISSUE
OF ESTABLISHING SEPARATE TRUNK GROUPS FOR
DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRAFFIC RELATE TO THE QUESTION
OF ESTABLISHING NEW, PHYSICAL POINTS OF
INTERCONECTION - THAT IS, NEW TRANSMISSION
FACILITIES - BETWEEN LEVEL 3 AND QWEST?
As noted above, physical transmission facilities and trunk groups are two
different things. One way to look at it is to consider a physical highway
running between two cities. Looking just at the one city-to-city route, the
transmission "facility" is the physical slab of concrete and asphalt that the
cars and trunks will drive on. Setting up a trunk group is analogous to
drawing lane lines on the concrete, indicating that some lanes are for
traffic going northbound, some for traffic going southbound, some for
trucks only, some for passenger cars only, etc.
As between two communications networks, a single, high-capacity
fiber optic facility between the two networks can easily contain dozens of
different trunk groups. One trunk group might be traffic directed to the
ILEC tandem. Another trunk group might be traffic directed to a specific
ILEC end office switch. Still another trunk group might carry traffic
bound for the ILEC's operator service network. But whatever might lead
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
the carriers to establish different trunk groups (such as traffic bound for
different switches), that is a totally separate question from any need to
establish different physical facilities linking the carriers' networks. The
idea behind setting up a physical "meet point" between two networks is
that each carrier is responsible for all the switching, transmission and
related facilities on its side of the meet point. The two carriers then
cooperate with each other to establish whatever trunk groups need to be
established carried over that meet point interconnection facility.
Given this, it is important to recognize that the establishment of separate
direct end office trunks does not at all mean that it makes sense to
establish any separate facilities linking Level 3 with Qwest end offices.
To the contrary, the facilities to carry the trunks from the Qwest tandem
location (where Level 3 will normally physically interconnect in a LATA)
to the affected end office already exist; they are the same facilities
(normally optical fiber) that carry the traffic from the tandem to the end
office before the DEOT is established. The new DEOT trunk group will
ride the same fiber optic interconnection facility between Qwest and Level
3 that all other traffic rides, at the parties ' single POI in the LATA.
All that said, it makes no sense at all to suggest, as Qwest does, that
putting local, toll, or other types of traffic on a single combined trunk
group will risk exhausting Qwest tandems in any way. What avoids
exhausting Qwest's tandem is establishing DEOTs to carry all the traffic
from Level 3 to a Qwest end office on an efficient basis. Level 3 is
willing to do this. Simply provisioning several inefficient trunk groups of
separate "types" of traffic to Qwest's tandem will not only not help with
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
tandem exhaust, it will cause the tandem to exhaust its trunk port capacity
more rapidly than keeping the different types of traffic together in the
same trunk group. Again, the solution to tandem exhaust is DEOTs
which separate traffic out based on destination switch not separate
trunk groups for different "types" of traffic.
HOW DO THE KEY TECHNOLOGY POLICIES YOU
IDENTIFIED EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY RELATE TO
THE PROSPECT OF LEVEL 3 BEING REQUIRED TO
EST ABLISH ADDITIONAL PHYSICAL POls - THAT IS,
ADDITIONAL PHYSICAL TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
BETWEEN LEVEL 3 AND QWEST?
Each of the three pro-technology policies identified above supports
allowing Level 3 to interconnect by means of a single POI until and unless
Level 3 itself believes additional POls are needed. For this issue, the
primary policy is the promotion and encouragement of competition.
Although Level 3 , as noted above, has invested billions of dollars in its
advanced, fiber-optic, IP-based network, that does not mean that it can or
should be called upon to mirror or duplicate the local network architecture
of the ILECs with which it interconnects and competes. To the contrary, it
would be extraordinary to conclude that a competitor like Level 3 would
have any rational interest in duplicating the incumbent's network
architecture.
The essence of Level 3' s local business plan is to identify
customers with high levels of Internet-based communications, either
incoming, outgoing, or both, and provide highly efficient links for such
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
customers both "upstream" to the Internet itself and "downstream" to the
PSTN. Level 3 has no independent business reason and certainly no
engineering reason to try to re-create Qwest's local network
architecture. Instead, what Level 3 primarily needs from Qwest in order to
serve its customers is efficient, seamless interconnection between Level
s network and Qwest's network. It seems plain that efficient
interconnection of this type will be degraded if Level 3 is subject to
regulatory obligations to establish multiple physical interconnections with
Qwest, above and beyond those that are necessary to Level 3' s business
and that Level 3 will put into place itself.
As I note elsewhere in my testimony, Level 3 is not averse to
establishing multiple physical points of interconnection in a LATA when
traffic levels and other factors so warrant; but requiring Level 3 to
interconnect at multiple points on Qwest's network really boils down to
punishing Level 3 in the form of needless mandated capital
expenditures for not having the same network, the same customer base
and the same business plan as Qwest. This is contrary not only to the
policy of encouraging competition, but also to the policy of encouraging
the deployment of new, innovative services and network architectures.
Clearly, as a policy matter, Qwest is simply wrong in insisting that Level 3
should have to establish more than one physical POI within a LATA.
WHAT IS LEVEL 3 ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO DECIDE
ON THIS ISSUE?
Level 3 is asking this Commission to rule that Qwest must allow Level 3
to use single interconnection trunk groups between the carrier s switches
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
instead of multiple trunk groups, using PLU, PIU and PIPU for carrier
compensation and billing purposes. This will preserve network efficiency,
maintain reasonable call blocking standards, and minimize the trunking
and switching equipment both parties need for interconnection. The
language that Level 3 is proposing for this issue is fair and balanced and
will allow the efficient use of trunks by both companies.
IV.ISSUE 5: ESP Traffic - VoIP TrafficStatement of the Issue:
Whether QWEST may prohibit Level 3 from utilizing local
interconnection facilities to terminate Internet-enabled traffic,
specifically for VoIP traffic.
WHAT IS INTERNET-ENABLED TRAFFIC?
Internet-Enabled traffic is meant to be a broader term for Enhanced
Service Provider (ESP) traffic. Internet-Enabled traffic includes VoIP and
other forms of enhanced communications capabilities made possible by
the Internet and IP technology.
WHAT IS THE INTERNET?
The Internet is an open-ended, network of networks that allows virtually
anyone with a computer and a high speed or low speed link to connect to
anyone or any business in the world. Historians debate about when the
Internet really began. It had its roots in the 1970s and 1980s with
research, government and business networks. The "Internet" as such was
opened to the public for commercial purposes around 1995. The Internet
has grown quickly in less than a decade to include hundreds of millions of
4 The following paragraphs in the agreement are covered by the testimony in this issue: Interconnection
Trunking Requirements Appendix, Section 13., Intercarrier Compensation, Sections 3., 4., 4.
, 7.2, 16.1. DPL Issues ITR 19; IC 1 , 14.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
computers worldwide and has become a major factor in the global
economy.
HOW DOES THE INTERNET DIFFER FROM THE PSTN?
The PSTN is a closed network, controlled by large telephone companies
including ILECs, ICOs, IXCs, CLECs and CMRS operators. Access to
the PSTN is through a variety of equipment such as dial-up phones, PBXs
and more lately cordless phones and cellular phones. All terminal devices
on the PSTN must be connected through a switch controlled by one of the
phone companies. In fact, to be "" the PSTN basically means that you
have a telephone number assigned by one of the entities noted above.
That telephone number is, in effect, a "network address" on the PSTN.
In contrast to the PSTN, the Internet is comprised of (among other things)
hundreds of thousands of routers and switches owned by tens of thousands
of different companies. Routers and switches with new networks attached
are added to the Internet every day. Anyone who abides by the standards
and protocols used on the Internet can set up a new network and connect
themselves or their customers to the Internet without any detailed
application process or regulatory scrutiny.
WHAT IS VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL, OR VoIP?
One of the basic protocols of the Internet is called "" which means
(sensibly enough) "Internet Protocol." Another basic protocol is called
TCP " or "Transaction Control Protocol." There are many, many
protocols that work with these basic protocols to define how the Internet
performs various functions. These include SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol, used for email); FTP (File Transfer Protocol, used to allow the
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
retrieval of files from remote locations); HTTP (Hyper-Text Transfer
Protocol, used for transmitting web pages and establishing web links); and
many others. All of these different protocols rely on the basic TCP/IP
protocols to permit different applications (email, file transfer, world-wide
web, etc.) to function on the Internet.
Voice over Internet Protocol, or V oIP, refers to various specific
protocols that use the basic TCP /IP system to treat voice communications
like any other Internet application. With VoIP, telephony signals
including voice signals, are digitized and transmitted as packets to their
destination, just as with an email, streaming video, or any other kind of IP
transaction. While the PSTN, as noted above, was designed with a laser-
sharp focus on one thing delivering voice calls the Internet focuses
equally sharply on something very different delivering data packets, no
matter what those data packets might represent. This means that while the
PSTN treats data as some unusual thing that requires special treatment, the
Internet treats all data the same even if the data in question happens to
represent a voice call. As a result, the Internet essentially destroys the old
distinctions between "voice" and "data" that are a standard part ofPSTN
thinking.
Indeed, because the information associated with any particular
application is broken down into packets of bits and does not re-assume its
original form (i.e. sound, text or pictures) until it is reassembled at the
terminating end, it is virtually impossible to assign the transmission of
packets to any particular service classification at any point other than
origin or destination. An IP network provider, for example, can be
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
carrying real-time two-way voice packets without actually offering voice
service to any end-user customer.
When a VoIP call starts with a computer or with some device on a
broadband data network (such as a DSL line or a cable modem service),
and then is delivered to the PSTN, the protocol, or format, of the
transmission has clearly and fundamentally changed. Specifically, a net
protocol conversion is required to convert the packetized IP data into the
Time Division Multiplexed (TDM) signal that is used on the PSTN.
Today, VoIP applications come in many forms. Some resemble traditional
phone service, from the point of view of the end user, more than others.
But the application as a whole clearly entails changing the form (and
perhaps even the content) of the signals at issue. As I understand the
relevant regulatory classifications, this means that VoIP is properly
viewed as an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications
service.
IS VoIP, AS FACILITATED BY LEVEL 3, A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE?
No. Level 3 performs many functions for its various customers. For
example, Level 3 is a CLEC that performs telecommunications functions
for its customers transmission of traffic between points specified by the
customer; assigning telephone numbers and switching calls to and from
them, etc. But the service that Level 3 provides to VoIP entities is a
translation or protocol conversion service that allows communications
between end users of the PSTN and the Internet. This service enables
customers to have oral communications over the Internet that may seem to
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
be the similar to ordinary telephone calls, but in fact are very different.
Access to Level 3-provided VoIP is through high-speed data lines, not
phone lines with phone numbers; and the terminal equipment is not a
telephone, but a computer or computer phone. In this regard, the PSTN
itself is not compatible or interoperable with the Internet. Frequently,
communications from end users to the Internet are carried by means of
PSTN services this happens every time a customer dials up a
connection to his or her ISP. But the only way that the PSTN can be
actually connected to the Internet in any meaningful sense is by means of
a protocol conversion of the signal from Time Division Multiplexing
(TDM) on the PSTN to Internet Protocol (IP) for the Internet. Level 3
does a net (or complete) protocol conversion from TDM to IP to enable
VoIP users to communicate with the end users of PSTN services.
WHAT IS NET PROTOCOL CONVERSION?
Net protocol conversion occurs when the media stream that uses one
protocol, native to one particular type of network, is converted into a
different media stream using a different protocol on a different type of
network. In the case ofVoIP, a voice call originating on the PSTN using
TDM must be converted to IP by packetizing the data, generating the
Internet protocol and sending out the result on the packet network.
IS NET PROTOCOL CONVERSION NECESSARY ON VoIP
CALLS BETWEEN LEVEL 3 AND QWEST?
Absolutely. All VoIP calls that begin with a Level 3 customer and
terminate to a Qwest customer require a net protocol conversion.
Likewise, calls that begin with a Qwest customer and terminate to a Level
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
3 customer also require a net protocol conversion. The reason for this is
simple. Level 3 has no PSTN-like, TDM-using, circuit switches on its
network. Any and all media streams generated by Level 3 will originate in
an IP format and must be converted to TDM for terminating on the PSTN.
The reverse is also true. A call originating from a Qwest end user (on the
Qwest network) must be converted to IP in order for Level 3 to move the
signal through its network. In this regard, Level 3 has had to backwards-
engineer its network to be able to facilitate the conversion from TDM
based services offered on the PSTN to IP based services offered Level 3'
(and others ) next generation networks. Finally, Level 3 receives and
terminates services to its ESP customers in an IP format - the media
originated in TDM on the PSTN is not converted back to TDM by Level 3
before hand-off to its ESP customers. Thus, a net protocol conversion
occurs - media streams go from IP to TDM or vice versa depending on
whether Level 3 originates or terminates the call.
DOES NORMAL CELLULAR TELEPHONY REQUIRE A
PROTOCOL CONVERSION?
No. The cell phone uses modulation and compression techniques in the
over the air channel (from the cell phone s antenna to the cell site
antenna), but there is no protocol conversion at the cell site. The signal is
demodulated and decoded as any radio signal would be. The cell phone
and cell site are merely using an efficient means of radio communication.
The cell site operates in the TDM domain and is part of the Public
Switched Telephone Network. This is quite distinct from the protocol
conversion that occurs between the IP domain and the TDM domain.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
WHAT TYPE OF CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT IS
NEEDED FOR VoIP?
VoIP requires specialized Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). Standard
Touch Tone or dial pulse phones will not work on a VoIP network, unless
they themselves are connected to a computer or similar device that can
handle VoIP format. Special phones, called "SIP" phones ("SIP" stands
for "Session Initiation Protocol " and is another Internet-related protocol
like FTP, SMTP, and HTTP) can be used for VoIP. These phones have
small computers built into them that packetize the voice data and generate
SIP messages. Computers with headsets and microphones can also be
used for VoIP.
CAN A VoIP CUSTOMER MOVE HIS OR HER SIP PHONE
CO MPUTER PH ONE TO DIFFERENT LOCA TI 0 NS, WHILE
STILL MAINTAINING THE SAME PHONE NUMBER?
Yes. A SIP phone or computer phone can be plugged into any broadband
connection to receive VoIP service. The end user could send and receive
calls from any location with this type of broadband connection. This gives
VoIP users a degree of mobility that is not available to users ofPSTN
service. This type of mobility is coming to be known in the industry as a
nomadic" service, in order to distinguish it from more traditional
mobile" service of the kind provided by normal wireless phones.
IS THERE CURRENTLY ANY WAY TO DETERMINE WHERE A
VOIP USER IS LOCATED WHEN THEY MAKE A CALL?
No. At present, the geographic location of a VoIP user is indeterminate.
They can take a computer from one location to another and make VoIP
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
calls in either location. Since the "telephone number" is resident in the
computer terminal or SIP phone, the calling number is the same whether
the device is located in Minnesota or Idaho. Of course, as one might
imagine, an indeterminate location makes it challenging for VoIP services
to function properly in connection with location-based E911 services. The
VoIP industry is working on this issue, and the FCC recently required
VoIP services that use normal telephone numbers and that meet certain
other criteria to find a way to supply "normal" 911 capabilities to their
users.
CELLULAR TELEPHONES CAN BE USED IN ANY LOCATION.
DO CELLULAR PROVIDERS AND ILECS HAVE THE SAME
PROBLEM WITH GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AS VoIP
SERVICE?
No. The location of a cell phone user is always known within a pretty
small geographic area. The cell phone registers with all cell sites that are
nearby and service is provided by a particular cell site that has a definite
location. So if a cell phone user travels from a home location in
Minnesota to a location in Idaho, the cell phone system will automatically
know" that they are in Idaho and not Minnesota when they make a call.
This is fundamentally different from the VoIP situation, where the
geography of a call is not known by the ESP that provides the service or
carrier that completes the call. Indeed, the broadband service provider to
which a VoIP user connects his or her SIP phone in most cases probably
has no idea that the packets going back and forth to that particular node on
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
the network represent voice communications as opposed to email, web site
traffic, or any other Internet activity.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE LEVEL 3 FIBER AND IP NETWORKS.
Level 3 has a large all fiber-optic backbone network that connects 68
markets in the U.S. and 17 markets in Europe, with over 16 000 route
miles of fiber in the US intercity network and 3600 route miles in Europe.
Exhibit 107 shows the current configuration of the Level 3 fiber network
that is installed and operational in the US. Riding on this Fiber Backbone
Level 3 maintains a large IP network that it manages as a separate
network, composed of high-speed links and core routers. Exhibit 107
shows the current configuration of Level 3' s IP network. The Level 3 IP
backbone is run as a private network and is connected to the public
Internet via hundreds of peering arrangements at Level 3 Gateways
located in 29 metropolitan areas.5 Level 3 central office facilities are
state-of-the-art facilities in the heart of 70 major metropolitan areas. As
noted earlier, these facilities range in size from 50 000 to 550 000 square
feet of equipped floor space. This is where both local and intercity fiber
networks terminate, where high-speed transmission equipment is situated
and where routers and Softswitch equipment is located.
IS LEVEL 3 A FACILITIES BASED CARRIER IN IDAHO?
Peering arrangements, as used here, refer to locations at which Level 3 exchanges traffic with other
providers of Internet connectivity. Suppose an end user connected to an ISP that uses Level 3 for its
Internet connectivity seeks to download information from a web site that is hosted by an ISP that uses
some other entity (say, UUNet) for its Internet connectivity. For the information to get from the
UUNet network to the Level 3 network, there must be connections between them. That is what the
peering arrangements are.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Yes. Level 3 has fiber facilities in Idaho as well as Points of
Interconnection (POls) with Qwest. Exhibit 107 shows the fiber route
fiber regeneration facilities, POls and serving areas in Idaho.
HOW HAS THE LEVEL 3 NETWORK BEEN OPTIMIZED FOR
IP?
The Level 3 network was designed as a high-speed packet network for
carrying IP traffic. It is composed ofIP routers instead ofPSTN type
switches, and all of its facility links are IP-based.
WHAT IS THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PSTN AND
LEVEL 3'S IP BASED NETWORK?
As noted above, the PSTN was designed to carry voice traffic. The PSTN
is made up of circuit switches and facilities linking them that carry circuit-
based phone traffic. The Level 3 IP network is a data network, not a voice
network. It is made up of IP routers and IP data links between the routers.
WHA T TYPES OF CUSTOMERS DOES LEVEL 3 SERVE AND
WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES DO THEY USE?
Level 3 serves ESPs and ISPs, a subset of ESPs. ISPs require local
connectivity to the PSTN and transport and termination services from
Level 3, including modem banks and collocation space. ESPs and ISPs
use the Level 3 network to pass all types of data, including email, web
download services, computer-to-computer data transfer, VoIP and other
streaming media. Level 3 also serves cable companies, DSL providers
some large enterprise companies and other carriers with transport and
termination of VoIP and TDM traffic.
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
DO LEVEL 3 CUSTOMERS NEED LEVEL 3 TO PROVIDE THEM
WITH THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE TRAFFIC FROM THE PSTN
AND TO ORIGINATE TRAFFIC BOUND FOR THE PSTN?
Yes. Traditional ISPs need to receive dial-up modem access from the
PSTN. Though high-speed service from cable and DSL is becoming
increasingly popular, there are still a great number of customers who
utilize dial-up modems to access the Internet from the PSTN, in part
because the costs of high-speed access to the edge of the network are still
too expensive for many customers. Many Qwest customers today call
Level 3' s ISP customers for dial up Internet service. Level 3' s VoIP
customers today need Level 3 to complete calls to Qwest end users and to
receive calls from Qwest end users bound for Level3's customers ' end
users.
CAN YOU GIVE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT
HAPPENS WITH A VoIP CALL?
Exhibit 107 shows a high level depiction of a VoIP connection. In this
example an end user sitting at a VoIP terminal requests a connection to a
Qwest customer. The Voir terminal uses a broadband connection to
access a VoIP Feature Server ('FS"
).
The V oIP terminal and the FS
negotiate features and functionality, giving the user a wide variety of
options. The VoIP terminal initiates signaling protocol that is passed
through the FS, through the Level 3 IP network, and on to the Level 3
Softswitch and SS7 Gateway. The Leve13 SS7 Gateway turns the SIP
messages into SS7 messages and thru the SS7 Signaling Transfer Points
S TP") passes them on to the Qwest network, where appropriate trunking
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
is negotiated. When this call set up has been completed, the VoIP phone
begins passing packetized voice data to the Level 3 IP network. The Level
3 IP network sends the packets on to the Level 3 Media Gateway ("MG"
which completes a net protocol conversion on the packetized voice to turn
it into Time Division Multiplex (TDM) signals that are recognized by the
Qwest trunks and switches. The Qwest switch sends the call on to the
Qwest end user. In this example voice type data is passed between the end
users.
DOES THE QWEST NETWORK NEED TO TERMINATE VoIP
CALLS IN A MANNER THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE
TERMINATION OF NORMAL PSTN BASED LOCAL
TELEPHONE CALLS?
Qwest terminates VoIP calls to its end users in the same manner they
would use to terminate regular PSTN based local calls to their end users.
There are no extra processes, no additional transport, and no additional
switching. This is possible because Level 3 itself has already done the
work of converting the IP-format data stream into a TDM-format circuit-
switched voice call that Qwest's network is capable of recognizing and
handling.
HOW DO THE KEY ISSUES OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY THAT
YOU DISCUSSED EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY RELATE TO
THE ISSUE OF VoIP CALLS?
At a high level, VoIP is an innovative Internet application that turns the
voice-centric world of the PSTN on its head by treating voice
communication as just another data-oriented application on the worldwide
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Internet. From a long-run industry perspective, it represents the triumph
of data networks over voice networks. While the PSTN can provide only
a limited, low-bandwidth form of data communications (basically, dial-up
access to the Internet at 56 kilobits per second), the Internet can do
everything the PSTN can do, and more. In my view, it is only a matter of
time before the entities that comprise and operate the PSTN convert to IP-
based communications, as indeed, Qwest and other PSTN entities are
already beginning to do.
One of the features of the Internet is that distance and location are
largely irrelevant. As the FCC has noted, the contents of a single web page
can come from a variety of different servers in a variety of different
locations. Most of us familiar with modern business travel have learned
that our email can reach us anywhere, either downloaded to a computer in
a hotel room by means of now-ubiquitous broadband connections offered
by business hotels, or to wireless devices such as a Blackberry.
VoIP is an Internet application first and a voice application second. By
this I mean that VoIP partakes in the distance-insensitive, location-
insensitive characteristics of Internet applications. No matter what
telephone number might be assigned to a VoIP customer (if any number is
assigned at all), the customer might be participating in a call from next
door or from around the world.
It is obviously challenging from a regulatory perspective to figure
out what to do with VoIP traffic. The FCC has a number of ongoing
proceedings trying to sort it out. But one thing is clear: whatever VoIP is
it is not traditional "telephone toll service " where the end user makes a
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
call from some fixed location, completes it to some distant location, and is
charged a separate toll charge for the privilege. In both economic and
technical terms, VoIP calling is sui generis.
In these circumstances, the choice between assessing traditional
access charges or lower and more economical reciprocal compensation
rates on this traffic should actually be very clear. This is a new and
innovative service that we should all want to encourage. That means that
we should impose the lowest reasonable charges on it, when it needs to
interface with the PSTN. That means that as a policy matter this traffic
should be subject to reciprocal compensation rates, not access charges.
Basically, all three of the policies I articulated at the beginning of
my testimony point to this same conclusion. Permitting VoIP traffic to be
terminated at reciprocal compensation rates will encourage competition.
VoIP is exactly the kind of new and innovative service that we should be
trying to encourage, so it should not be subject to high access charges
when lower reciprocal compensation rates provide adequate compensation
to Qwest. And, VoIP is the latest innovative service to arise from the
Internet, which should be encouraged for independent policy reasons.
a policy matter, therefore, VoIP traffic should be subject to reciprocal
compensation, not access charges.
XI.Determination of Traffic Types
WHAT ISSUES MUST BE RESOLVED FOR THE PROPER
DETERMINATION OF TRAFFIC TYPES?
First, in order to efficiently combine traffic on single interconnection trunk
groups, a Percent Local Use must be calculated to determine traffic types
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
for billing. Second, Qwest is proposing a new, technically infeasible
method of determining whether traffic is local or toll.
HOW DOES LEVEL 3 PROPOSE TO CALCULATE THE PLU, PIU
AND PIPU FACTORS?
Level 3 maintains local calling area tables as does Qwest. Over a given
period of time, Level 3 can collect all call data on calls exchanged
between the parties. Once this data is collected Level 3 will, per industry
standard, calculate and report the Percent Interstate Usage (PIU). The
remaining traffic is a combination of local and Intrastate traffic. Level 3
will then once again compare the remaining call data with call tables and
from this calculation determine the PLU as the percent of local traffic
compared to the percent of intrastate traffic. So, by first determining the
percentage of interstate traffic from the total traffic and then determining
the local traffic from the remaining traffic, you end up with the traffic that
is intrastate toll and the traffic that is local. For IP-Enabled traffic, Level 3
will create a Percent IP Use (PIPU) for both originating and terminating
traffic. This will allow Qwest and Level 3 to properly compensate each
other for IP traffic. Alternatively, Level 3 has proposed to attach an
Originating Line Identifier (OLI) code to the call record to identify calls
that originate as IP- Enabled traffic.
WHAT IS LEVEL 3'S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE OLI
FIELD IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF IP-ENABLED TRAFFIC?
The OLI field is part of the SS7 protocol. It is currently used to identify
calls from payphones, from prisons and for other purposes. Level 3 would
like to use the OLI field to identify IP-Enabled traffic. It is reasonable to
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
assume that IP-Enabled traffic may be handled differently for purposes of
compensation over time; thus, the companies need a way to identify IP-
Enabled calls. Level 3 can identify IP-Enabled calls and can set a unique
identifier in the OLI field for each IP-Enabled call. This would help
Qwest to identify the traffic if they so choose. Level 3 is offering to mark
the OLI field for each IP-Enabled call so that Qwest can track IP-Enabled
traffic.
IS THERE A DISPUTE OVER THE USE OF THE OLI FIELD FOR
THE IDENTIFICATION OF IP TRAFFIC?
There is currently no guideline or standard that calls for the use of the OLI
field in SS7 messages for the identification ofIP traffic, though this is one
of the mechanisms that is being reviewed nationally. Qwest is reluctant to
commit to the use of the OLI field, and a particular identifier, before
national guidelines are set. Level 3 believes the OLI field is an excellent
way to identify IP traffic.
IS THERE PRECEDENT IN THE INDUSTRY FOR USING
OPTIONAL SS7 FIELDS OR UNUSED IDENTIFIERS BEFORE
NATIONAL GUIDELINES ARE SET?
Yes, there is precedent in the industry for carriers to agree on the use of
optional or unused SS7 fields and codes and billing format fields and
codes for legitimate business uses. SBC, for example, does this in many
areas of billing, where they have customized billing formats for their own
purposes and now ask carriers who exchange bills with them to use the
customized formats with the optional fields. For example, my
understanding is that SBC wants CLECs to use what are known as
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
Category 92/99" records. The use of Category 92/99 records is entirely
unique to SBC' s Southwest region.
IF LEVEL 3 PROVIDES QWEST WITH PIPU FACTORS FOR
THE COMPENSATION OF IP TRAFFIC, IS THERE ANY NEED
FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF IP TRAFFIC WITH THE OLI
FIELD?
Not really. The use ofPIPU will allow the companies to correctly
compensate each other for IP traffic without the use of the OLI field. The
OLI field identifier for IP traffic is only needed if the companies want to
track every IP call. The PIPU factor makes such identification
unnecessary.
CAN LEVEL 3 A CCURA TEL Y CALCULATE THE PL U, PIU AND
PIPU?
Yes. The calculation ofPLU, PIU and PIPU is accurate and can be used
for billing purposes on traffic that is originated by Level 3. Qwest can
perform the same calculations on the calls that it originates. Level 3 can
create PIPU for both originating and terminating traffic, as is discussed
below in our proposed contract language.
DOES BELLSOUTH HAVE A PROCEDURE FOR
ADMINISTERING PLU WITH LEVEL 3 AND OTHER CLECS?
Yes. BellSouth has agreed to allow Level 3 to combine different traffic
types on interconnection trunks, and they have established a procedure for
administering the PIU and PLU. I am including the Bell South procedure
for PLU below for comparison:
PLU - Percent Local Usage
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
This factor is the percentage of intrastate terminating usage that is
categorized as Local Jurisdiction. For purposes of this guide the
total intrastate usage includes intrastate local usage and intrastate
non-local usage. The local jurisdiction is applicable to Competitive
Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) that are terminating local traffic
from their network to the BellSouth network. CLECs that totally
utilize resale or unbundled network elements to provision local
services are not required to report PLU factors. Interexchange
Carriers that do not terminate local traffic as a CLEC are not
required to report PLU factors. The local jurisdiction is normally
defined per Local Interconnection contractual agreements and is
calculated as follows where MOU s are billed minutes of use: Total
Local MOUs I divided by J Total Intrastate MOUs. The total
intrastate minutes can be determined by multiplying the total
minutes by (1- PIU). Therefore the PLU may also be calculated as
follows:
Total Local MOUs (divided by) (Total MOUs) x (1-TPIU)
This factor is calculated on a statewide basis by Access Carrier
Name Abbreviation (ACNA).
DOES LEVEL 3 HAVE CONTRACT LANGUAGE THAT IT IS
PROPOSING FOR THE CALCULATION OF PLU, PIU AND PIPU
AND FOR THE TRANSMISSION AND ASSURANCE OF
ACCURACY OF THESE MEASURES?
Yes, Level 3 is proposing contract language for definition and calculation
ofPLU, PIU and PIPU as well as language for the transfer and verification
of these traffic factors on a monthly basis. That language is contained in
Level 3' s proposals for Section 7 of the Interconnection Agreement.
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
DO THESE CONTRACT PROVISIONS ADEQUATELY CODIFY
THE ACCURATE COLLECTION OF DATA, CALCULATION OF
FACTORS, EXCHANGE OF FACTORS AND VERIFICATION BY
THE PARTIES THAT IS NECESSARY FOR PROPER BILLING
OF CALLS?
Yes. I am not an attorney, but I can read and use the English language.
Based on a review of the attached contract provisions, it seems clear that
they spell out the responsibilities of Level 3 in generating accurate factors
and Qwest's right to verify and audit the results. By using these
procedures, the companies can bill each other for access charges and
reciprocal compensation for all types of traffic flowing over the
interconnection trunks.
HOW DO THE TRAFFIC CALCULATIONS WORK WHEN
INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS CARRY LOCAL, INTRALA T A
INTERLATA AND IP TRAFFIC?
The calculation of factors is spelled out in the language contained in
Traffic data is collected for one month. When the traffic is evaluated to
calculate the factors, first the IP-Enabled traffic is taken out and its
percentage calculated. The Level 3 network can determine whether an
originating or terminating call is IP-Enabled or not by looking at how the
calls is originated or terminated (end points can be certified as IP or
TDM). When the call is IP originated the SIP signaling will reflect that
and one of the SS7 call set up message parameters (OLI) is set to a
particular value (65) to flag the call as enhanced to Qwest. From this
process PIPU is tabulated. Next, interstate traffic is separated from
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
intrastate traffic by calculating the PIU factor. This is done by examining
call records against a database that can tell whether the calling number and
the called number are in the same state. Phone numbers are traditionally
associated with a geographic area (rate center). Rating of TDM based
services is done based on the geographic assignment of the phone
numbers. If the terminating phone number is associated with a rate center
that is outside of the state that the originating phone number is associated
with, then the call is rated as interstate and the call counts towards the
calculation of PIU. Finally, the PLU factor is calculated on the remaining
traffic by using a state specific database that looks at whether the calling
number and the called number are associated with rate centers in the same
applicable local calling area. This is a simplified description of the
process that is used to put traffic in the correct buckets for proper
compensation. The creation of PLU and PIU factors is a process that is
done throughout the industry. Level 3 is leading the industry in the ability
to create the PIPU factor.
IS THERE A BASIC DISPUTE BETWEEN QWEST AND LEVEL 3
ON HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER TRAFFIC IS "LOCAL"
Yes. As I understand it there is a fundamental disagreement between the
parties with respect to what traffic is properly characterized as "local" and
what is not. I recognize that there are legal and policy aspects to this
disagreement. However, I will relate the technical aspects of this dispute.
That said, the dispute is basically this: Level 3 contends that since the only
thing the PSTN "knows" about a call is the originating and terminating
telephone number, the status of traffic as "local" should be determined
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
based on the geographic area associated with the telephone numbers of the
calling and called parties. Qwest, by contrast, seeks to change that
traditional arrangement and to attempt to assess the status of a call as
local" or not based on the actual physical location of the calling and
called parties.
WHAT IS QWEST'S POSITION ON HOW TO CHARACTERIZE
TRAFFIC AS "LOCAL" OR NOT?
As noted, Qwest maintains that the definition of a local call should be
changed to reflect the geographic location of both the calling and called
party premises as opposed to the originating and terminating phone
numbers that have traditionally been used.
DOES LEVEL 3 AGREE WITH THIS NEW METHOD?
No. There are a number of technical problems with the method that Qwest
is promoting.
HAS THE CUSTOMER PREMISES LOCATION BEEN THE
DETERMINING FACTOR IN THE DEFINITION OF A LOCAL
CALL IN THE PAST?
No. As I described above in connection with routing calls, the PSTN uses
the calling party s number and the called party s number to determine if a
call is a local call.
DO LOCAL SWITCHES KNOW THE LOCATION OF THE
PARTIES WHEN A CALL IS MADE?
No. Circuit switches have no way of knowing the geographic location of
the calling or called party end user. The switch is programmed with a list
of which numbers are "native" to its area and treats calls to and from such
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
numbers accordingly (i., it routes them on trunks to other switches to
which it is connected, based on the NP A-NXX dialed). Calls that it
recognizes as "toll" are routed to the caller s presubscribed IXC. Older
circuit switches have a limited geographic range within which it can serve
end users and maintain its quality standards. Before Local Number
Portability ("LNP") and number block pooling, a process by which 1 0 000
number NP A-NXXs blocks are divided across multiple carriers and
switches in increments of 1000 number blocks (NP A - NXX - X) to make
more efficient use of numbering resources, each phone number assigned
from a given circuit switch fairly reasonable correlated to the geographic
location of the end user. This is simply because the phone number can
only be assigned to end users within that limited geographic range from
the circuit switch. With the introduction of newer technology switches
soft-switches and now VoIP those distance limitations are fading, phone
numbers can be assigned to end users anywhere within the country or
world, and switches have no way of knowing the geographic location of
the end user.
HOW ARE CALLS ROUTED IN THE PSTN?
Local calls are routed between switches according to the routing tables in
each switch. Depending on the number dialed (putting aside number
portability), a switch either handles a call entirely on its own (such as a
call between next-door neighbors); or it sends the call off to some other
switch by routing it outbound on a particular trunk port. Toll calls that
, calls carried by IXCs are routed according to the Local Exchange
Routing Guide (LERG). The LERG is a database that identifies switches
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC
and numbers associated with those switches, based on the NP A NXX
codes of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), as well as specific
physical locations at which traffic bound for particular switches may be
delivered. Thus, for example, in the normal course within the PSTN, the
LERG would indicate that a call to a number within the "208" NP A
should be delivered to a particular carrier, at a particular location in Idaho.
Which carrier and which location will depend on the "NXX" of the dialed
number. Switches within a local calling area know which numbers are
associated with the local calling area and which numbers are not.
SO CALLS BETWEEN TWO LOCAL NUMBERS ARE TREATED
AS LOCAL CALLS?
Yes. As noted above, each end office switch has a table ofNPA-NXXs
that the particular switch views as "local." For all such NP A-NXXs, the
switch has to make only one decision: "Is this call 'mine' or do I need to
send it to some other switch?" If the dialed number "belongs" to the
originating switch, as noted above, the call stays there. But if the dialed
number "belongs" to some other switch, the only thing the originating
switch needs to know is which trunk port to send the call out on.
Note that, from this network perspective, the only truly "local" calls are
calls that begin and end in the same physical switching device. Long ago
however, retail local calling plans grew to include customers served by
many different switches. As a result, what constitutes a "local" call for a
retail customer is not really a technical matter at all. It is simply a retail
marketing decision by the originating carrier. From a technical
perspective it is essentially an arbitrary decision which NP A-NXXs to
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
include on the programmed list of "local" calls and which to exclude
(which means, usually, that the customer has to dial a "1" before the NP A-
NXX-XXXX in order to complete the call).
FROM A TECHNICAL NETWORK PERSPECTIVE, IS THERE
ANY LIMITATION ON THE DISTANCE THAT A "LOCAL"
CALL CAN TRAVEL, THE SIZE OF A "LOCAL" CALLING
AREA, OR THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS IN A "LOCAL"
CALLIN G AREA?
None at all. And, in fact, the size and scope of "local calling areas" varies
greatly from place to place around the country. Some states have large
local calling areas; others have small local calling areas. Again, from this
perspective, the technical network personnel have no basis to care one way
or another. The carrier s marketing and/or regulatory personnel just have
to tell the engineers which NP A-NXXs to include on the "local" list for
any given switch. The originating switch does not "care" (in the sense of
doing anything at all technically different) where it is actually sending a
local" call to a number served by some other switch; and the terminating
switch does "care" (in the same sense) where a "local" call is coming
from. These are retail marketing questions, not technical questions.
HOW WOULD SWITCHES IMPLEMENT THE QWEST IDEA OF
USING THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AS THE
DETERMINATION FOR A LOCAL CALL?
I have no idea. A switch has no way of storing information regarding the
premises location associated with a phone number assigned to that switch
and no way of receiving or storing information about the premises location
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
assigned to a phone number calling someone served by that switch. The
SS7 protocol that sends information between switches for call set-up and
billing purposes does not have any parameters to identify the premises
locations of calling or called parties. I have asked engineers that have
worked in switch design for 25 years and no one has ever heard of a
feature that would store the geographic location associated with a phone
number in the switch or in any peripheral that is accessible by a switch.
Qwest were to design such a feature in a peripheral device, it would no
doubt be expensive to implement since each call would need to reference a
database, and the database itself would need to be created and maintained.
As I pointed out above, moreover, the status of any given call as "local" or
not is an arbitrary marketing-oriented retail choice, not anything that
affects or is driven by any relevant network technology. So, from my
network engineering perspective, it seems to me that Qwest, by pressing
its premises-location-based notion of what constitutes a "local" call, is just
trying to impose its own retail marketing choices onto Level 3. There is
certainly no technical basis for Qwest's position that I can see.
EVEN IF THE SWITCHES, OR AN OUTBOARD DATABASE
COULD UTILIZE CUSTOMER LOCATION INFORMATION
HOW WOULD THIS INFORMATION BE UPDATED AND KEPT
CURRENT?
Today, local routing tables must be updated in the switches when a new
NXX code is activated in a rate center. This updating is a labor-intensive
process, but fortunately is only needed when new codes are required. The
thought of managing and updating a database that would hold each
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
customer s geographic location is daunting. Instead of dozens of changes
per year there would be hundreds of thousands in a large LATA. Each
time a customer moved in or out of a house or apartment the database
would need to be changed, and each carrier would have changes for each
of their customers who moved.
WHAT IS FOREIGN EXCHANGE (FX) SERVICE?
FX is a service that has been offered by phone companies for many years.
The service allows an end user to be assigned a phone number from a
switch that serves a different local calling area than the one in which they
are located. This allows customers in the calling area from which the FX
number is assigned to call the FX customer without incurring toll charges.
On the other hand, if the FX customer s next-door neighbor called, it
would be a toll call. In traditional FX service, the customer pays the
providing carrier for an arrangement (a special trunk or other facility) that
connects them to the switch covering the distant area, a.a. "foreign
exchange The customer is assigned a phone number out of a switch in
the distant area so that end users in that foreign local calling area can call
them by dialing a local phone number. FX numbers have been popular in
the past with airlines and other companies who desired a method for
people to call them using a local number without having to maintain call
centers everywhere.
HOW ARE FX CALLS ROUTED?
FX calls are routed between the local switches as normal local calls, or as
toll calls, depending on whether the NP A-NXX of the FX number being
called is included in the calling switch's table of "locally dialable" NP A-
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
NXXs. Neither the originating nor terminating switch has any way to
know where the end user with the FX line is actually located, nor does it
matter for proper switching and delivery of the traffic. The switch that
hosts the FX customer has a circuit coming in that it associates with phone
service, providing dial tone and other local services. The switch has no
way to know whether the customer loop is 500 yards, 2 miles, or 200
miles long.
HOW ARE FX CALLS BILLED?
When a customer of one phone company places a call to a customer of
another phone company and the originating and terminating phone
numbers are assigned to rate centers which are rated as "local" to each
other by the originating carrier, the call is rated as a local call and there is
no toll charge. It does not matter if the calling or called party is 500
yards, 2 miles, or 200 miles from the end office out of which the number
is assigned. The FX line is paid for separately by the FX customer to the
FX providing carrier. No toll charges are applied to calls to the FX
number from numbers assigned within the same local calling area as the
FX number. Interestingly, When the FX customer with a phone number
assigned to a foreign exchange receives a call from some who is
physically within the same exchange -like a next door neighbor toll
charges are applied. Intercarrier compensation is based on the originating
and terminating phone numbers.
IS QWEST'S INTERCONNECTION TRUNKING THE SAME NO
MATTER WHERE THE LEVEL 3 END USER CUSTOMER IS
LOCATED?
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Yes. Qwest's trunking is always to the POI, no matter where the Level 3
end-user customer is located. It doesn t matter if the Level 3 customer is
500 yards, 2 miles, or 200 miles from the POI. Leve13 carries the traffic
to its end-user customer, no matter where they are located. Qwest's
interconnection trunking to the PO I is the same no matter where the Level
3 customer that they are calling is actually located.
SO THE DISTANCE QWEST TRANSPORTS TRAFFIC IS THE
SAME WHETHER THE LEVEL 3 CUSTOMER IS 500 YARDS, 2
MILES, OR 200 MILES FROM THE POI?
Yes. Qwest transports calls that it originates to the POI, regardless of
where the Level 3 customer is located. The location of the Level 3
customer or end user is immaterial to Qwest' s call transport or for Qwest'
costs for that matter. Mr. Gates will discuss in his testimony how Qwest's
costs are the same no matter where the Level 3 end user is located.
XII.Conclusions
HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE
PROPOSED BY LEVEL 3 AND QWEST IN THIS CASE?
Yes, I have.
FOR THE ISSUES YOU HAVE ADDRESSED, WHICH
LANGUAGE IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE POINTS YOU
HAVE MADE IN THIS TESTIMONY?
Level 3' s language is reasonable and balanced from a technical and
engineering standpoint and is consistent with the FCC's orders from an
engineering point of view. Adoption of Qwest's language, by contrast
would require the parties to degrade the efficiency of their networks
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
imposing substantial costs on Level 3 and possibly on Qwest as well
while at the same time potentially permitted Qwest to bill Level 3 for costs
and charges for functions that Qwest itself should perform without a
charge to Level 3.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
Yes
Ducloo, Di
Level 3 Communications, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the l1J1-day of August, 2005, I caused to be served, via the
methodes) indicated below, true and correct copies of the foregoing document, upon:
Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
i iewe U~puc.state. id...Jlli
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Mary S. Hobson
STOEL RIVES LLP
101 S Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702-5958
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mstlObson~stoel.com
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Senior Attorney
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street - 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Thomas. ~s~qwest.com
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Ducloo, Di Level 3 Communications, LLC