20050919Ducloo rebuttal.pdf

C~~-
, L: i,; t. 1\ '
.. .
Dean J. Miller
McDEVITI & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, ill 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
oe~mcdevitt -miller .com
i !.. F. f)C:.1
~HO5 SEP 16 Pii if: 3a
i LJ Ii U f) U BL ! 'r-'" r,f.....41,ro'JI J L_. ! I t.~) G U ri 11 J. . r'
Attorneys for Level Communications, LLC ORIGINAL
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-
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF ROGIER R. DUCLOO
ON BEHALF OF LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
II.
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
Table of Contents
Introduction.. ...
....... ... .................. ...... .......... ..... ................ .... ................ ...... ... ..... .....
........ .... 3
ISSUE 1: Single Point of Interconnection Per LATA ........................................................ 4
ISSUE 2: Combining Different Traffic Types on Interconnection Trunks ...................... 17
Additional Interconnection Trunking Issues Raised by Qwest......................................... 27
ISSUE 3: VNXX/FX Traffic ............
.... ... ....... ............ .........
......................... .................... 35
ISSUE 8: Definition of Call Record ................................................................................. 40
ISSUE 20: Signaling Parameters.. ................ ......
....... ......... ..........
....................... ............ 42
Ducloo, Re Level 3 Communications, LLC
REBUTT AL TESTIMONY OF ROGIER R. DUCLOO
ON BEHALF OF LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Introduction
PLEASE ST ATE YOUR NAME, POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND
BUSINESS ADDRESS.
My name is Rogier R. Ducloo. 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.
ARE YOU THE SAME ROGIER DUCLOO WHO FILED DIRECT
TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE ON JULY 15, 2005?
Yes, I am.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
I am testifying in reply to the testimony of Qwest witnesses Mr. Brotherson, Mr.
Easton, and Mr. Linse.They make statements in their testimony that are
inaccurate and confusing, and they do not always represent the Level 3 position
correctly. I would like to clarify some of the issues they address.
HOW HAVE YOU ORGANIZED YOUR TESTIMONY?
I demonstrate below that Qwest's objections to Single Point per LATA are
without merit; that Level 3' s contract language addresses their concerns with
exchanging differently rated traffic over a single interconnection network; and
address several additional points made by their witnesses.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
II.ISSUE 1:Sinele Point of Interconnection Per LATA
MR. LINSE STATES THAT THE REAL ISSUE IN THIS ARBITRATION
IS "WHETHER QWEST SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
INTERCONNECTION WHERE IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE
OR TO PROVISION/BUILD TRANSPORT FACILITIES WITHOUT
COMPENSATION FOR THE BUILDING OF SUCH TRANSPORT
FACILITIES." IS THAT THE REAL ISSUE?
No. Mr. Linse s statement assumes that Qwest is entitled to compensation for
originating traffic on Qwest's side of the POI. This is contrary to federal law.
Secondly, Mr. Linse mixes issues of technical feasibility and compensation. The
two are not linked.The rule is quite simple: no carrier may charge an
interconnecting LEC for originating telecommunications traffic on its side of the
POI.Accordingly, Qwest'contract language throughout Section 7 which
requires interconnecting facilities-based LECs mirror its retail local calling area
distinctions should be rejected.- which it also purports to measure somehow by
the "physical presence" of the end user - for purposes of intercarrier architecture
and compensation requirements not only violate the letter and intent of the Act
they simply shift enormous benefit to Qwest without any corresponding benefit to
the public interest. As Mr. Gates demonstrates, Qwest's proposals on POI and
trunking result in a deadweight economic loss.
YOU SAY THAT QWEST'S CONTINUED RELIANCE UPON RETAIL
LOCAL CALLING AREA DISTINCTIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE
PHYSICAL PRESENCE" OF THE END USER FOR PURPOSES OF
INTERCARRIER COMPENSATIONARCHITECTUREAND
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUIREMENTS ONLY BENEFIT QWEST WITHOUT ANY
CORRESPONDING BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. PLEASE
EXPLAIN.
Mr. Linse combines several concepts to come up with this assertion. Each must
be examined individually in order to understand the relation of these parts to the
assertion he makes. Let's start with Single POI. Mr. Linse claims that Qwest
should be required to provide interconnection where it is not technically feasible.
(Linse Direct p. 3) But a few lines later on the same page, Mr. Linse claims that
the real issue here is one of Level 3 not wanting to compensate Qwest for the use
of its network." So it appears that Mr. Linse actually equates technical feasibility
with economic cost. This is a judgment that the FCC, Congress and the federal
courts have already made. The single POI rule says what it says: each carrier
bears the costs of originating and transporting its traffic to the POI. Mr. Gates
provides a discussion on the economics underlying the wisdom of a single POI per
LATA rule in his testimony.
SETTING ASIDE THAT MR. LINSE'S POSITIONS ARE CONTRARY TO
THE SINGLE POI RULE ARE THERE ANY OTHER
INCONSISTENCIES IN THIS PART OF HIS TESTIMONY?
Yes. When one thinks a little deeper about Mr. Linse s claim that Level 3
doesn t want to pay Qwest for use of Qwest's network, two things are apparent.
First, he claims that Level 3 is making use of Qwest's network when a Qwest
customer calls Level 3. From a business perspective, that's a convenient theory,
but it doesn t pass the straight face test. I'd love to charge my competitors for
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
my costs when customers on my networks call customers on their network. But
that's not how interconnection works. When a Qwest customer calls a Level 3
customer that customer makes a call that utilizes Qwest' s network until that call
reaches the POI where Level 3 places it on Level 3's facilities and, if it is a
modem call, places it on the worldwide web to any point, including the New
York Times web page, wherever that may "physically reside . By the same
token, when the Qwest end user calls the Idaho Statesman, the call rides on the
Qwest network until it either terminates to the end office serving the Idaho
Statesman (assuming that the Idaho Statesman is also Qwest' s customer) or
the carrier who serves the Idaho Statesman. In the latter example, Qwest would
hand off the call to a fellow carrier at the Single POI. That carrier would carry
the call over its own facilities and terminate it to the Idaho Statesman. In both
examples Qwest's responsibilities ended at the POI. The difference with the
second example is that the call terminated to a brick and mortar building
physically located" in the Phoenix local calling area. So it seems like a "local"
call. In the previous example, it terminated into the vastness of the Internet.
to the previous example, there is an intuitive appeal to the idea that such a call is
somehow "interexchange" because relative to the Idaho Statesman, the New
York Times web page is somewhere else. That's part of the challenge of the
Internet - distance (and time) do not matter on an IP network. Accordingly IP-
based carriers (including Qwest or its affiliates who offer these services - I really
can t tell from their webpage which it is) do not charge their end user customers
long distance" charges, nor is the service offered as a "long distance" service.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
So from a retail perspective, the service is no different than a call to the Idaho
Statesman. From a network perspective it is no different either. It is always a
locally dialed call that is handed off at the POI. The call makes no use of the
access network. If one accepts Qwest' s reasoning, prior to the 1996 Act, Qwest
was not allowed to provide an "interexchange service that crossed LATA
boundaries. Rather Qwest would have handed that call off to an "interexchange
carrier that charged minute-sensitive rates for such carriage and received
originating access" which included the subsidy given to ILECs who were
precluded from offering such services at that time. Along comes competition
however, and now another LEC can pick up that locally dialed call and take it
anywhere. While a call terminating to the Internet is "interstate" for purposes of
jurisdiction, the FCC has stated that the call is not an "interexchange" call in the
traditional sense of someone pre-selecting an IXC and paying that IXC to utilize
the access network to carry a call. The truth of the matter is that as much as
Qwest would like to make calls to the Internet appear as traditional
interexchange" calls, they aren There are no exchanges on the Internet.
These are locally dialed calls handed off at the POI. Level 3 does the work and
receives no additional compensation from Qwest's customer for providing such
servIce.
Second, his claims that Level 3 will not pay Qwest for using Qwest'
network is not true at all relative to what really happens when calls are
exchanged. Let me explain. When a Level 3 end user calls an end user connected
to Qwest's network, Level 3 would pay Qwest the costs of terminating that call.
Ducloo, Re Level 3 Communications, LLC
For VoIP traffic that would be seven one hundredths of a penny per minute
which is consistent with what the FCC stated in the ISP-Remand Order: that the
costs of terminating an ISP-bound or voice call were the same. Since the costs are
the same on Qwest's side of the network regardless of whether Qwest brings the
call to Level 3 at the POI or accepts a call from Level 3 at the POI, symmetrical
intercarrier compensation rates make sense. Moreover, to the extent the calls are
IP-in the middle , or traditional interexchange calls that Level 3 would terminate
to Qwest over this same network, Level 3 would pay Qwest the same subsidy
laden rates Qwest would receive were these calls handed off over the duplicative
Feature Group D ("FGD") network Qwest would have Level establish. So
either way, Qwest is paid for its use of the network.
ARE MR.LINSE'CLAIMS CONTRADICTED QWEST'
DISCOVERY RESPONSES?
Yes. Qwest admits in response to Level 3 RFA 1 that the location of the POI does
not determine whether Qwest has an obligation to pay reciprocal compensation.
(Ducloo Exhibit 108).Interestingly Qwest qualifies this answer by stating that
under Qwest's language the physical location of the called and calling parties
determine the nature of the compensation" but as I've stated above, from a
network perspective there is no difference in costs because all calls are handed off
between the two carriers at the POI and the FCC has already affirmed as much in
the ISP-Remand Order. In its response to Level 3 Request No., Qwest admits
that its obligations to pay reciprocal compensation do not vary based upon the
location of Level 3' s switch. Again Qwest explains away its contract proposals
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
by importing concepts of retail regulation by claiming that the location of the
calling and called parties have something to do with its costs. This is true only as
a matter of how Qwest words its contract; it bears no relationship to what actually
occurs on the network. (Ducloo Exhibit 109).
MR. LINSE CLAIMS AT PAGE 6 OF HIS TESTIMONY THAT THE
SINGLE POI IS NOT THE FINANICAL DEMARCATION POINT.
I am not entirely certain of the genesis of Mr. Linse s claim. Just to be clear, he
states the following:
As Mr. Easton testimony explains, the POI is not the financial
demarcation point between Level 3 and Qwest. Level 3 also incorrectly
defines its POI as a point that is physically located on Qwest's network.
addition Level 3' s proposed language is inconsistent and attempts to
extend Qwest's interconnection responsibility to any point on the Qwest
network to a point not even within Qwest's serving territory. (Linse
Direct, Idaho, page 7, lines 13-18) (sic)
Mr. Linse s statement above is packed with several overlapping concepts best
examined individually.
First, he states that the single point of interconnection per LA T A is not the
financial demarcation point between Level 3 and Qwest." He provides no
authority for this proposition other than his opinion. I would note that the single
POI per LATA rule would have little meaning if it did not require originating
carriers to haul traffic to the single POI in the LATA at their own expense. Mr.
Gates explains the economic reasons that led the FCC and multiple federal district
and federal circuit courts to affirm this rule.
Second, Mr. Linse states that Level 3 incorrectly defines the POI as
point that is physically located on Qwest's network. This raises factual questions
about how parties interconnect and some legal questions that I'm sure Level 3'
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
lawyers find interesting. I'll deal with the facts and only point to what might be a
legal explanation for Mr. Linse s statement. The single POI is an interface
between the Qwest network and the Level 3 network. At the physical, network
level, Level 3 typically brings fiber optic strands to the single POI, which is
usually located within a Qwest tandem office. There the strands terminate to fiber
optic termination equipment, which connect to add / drop multiplexers and other
equipment that allow Level 3's network to communicate directly with Qwest's
network. Qwest, for its part, typically connects DS-l or DS-3 copper coaxial and
other cabling to Level 3' s facilities in collocation space Level 3 purchases from
Qwest. While there may be other arrangements, none that Level 3 uses are so
atypical as to raise the question of whether Level 3 has connected "" or
within" Qwest's network.It really depends upon how you look at it, but
common sense tells me that Qwest's distinction is largely semantic: Level 3'
single POI is equally a point on the Qwest network as it is within the Qwest
network.
Another possible explanation for Mr. Linse s statement that Level 3 had
incorrectly defined its POI as "" Qwest's network might be a point that Mr.
Gates has provided regarding the concept of relative use of facilities (RUF).
Backing up just slightly, RUF is the concept that applies to entrance facilities that
Level 3 might purchase from Qwest which are dedicated to the exclusive use of
the two carriers., if Mr. Linse bases his claim upon a world view that
(incorrectly) sees RUF as an exception to the single POI rule, his statement might
have a basis. As Mr. Gates explains at page 42 of his direct testimony, RUF arises
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
from and applies only to entrance facilities dedicated to the transmission of traffic
between an ILEC's network and the CLEC's network. In other words, where a
CLEC obtained an entrance facility from the ILEC to connect to the CLEC'
switch, the effect of this rule (which remains embodied in 47 CFR ~ 51.709(b))
was to reduce the ILEC's charges for the entrance facility based on what
proportion of the traffic going over it was ILEC-originated, as opposed to CLEC-
originated. As Mr. Gates indicates, the FCC'Triennial Review Remand Order
however, relieved ILECs from obligations to provide entrance facilities at least
not at TELRIC-based rates for these purposes. But even here, Mr. Linse
claim about "" or "within" doesn t follow because the FCC's determination
suggests therefore, that interconnection must occur "" the ILEC's network and
not "within" it as one can no longer unbundle entrance facility elements "within
the ILEC network. This seems logical. Therefore, Level 3 is not responsible for
the costs "within" Qwest's network.
DOES THE LEVEL 3 LANGUAGE PROPOSE THAT THERE IS
DEMARCATION POINT BETWEEN THE NETWORKS AS MR. LINSE
SUGGESTS?
Absolutely not. It is physically impossible not to have a demarcation point. Any
fiber, coaxial cable, copper twisted pair or other means of connectivity must have
a termination block or termination point. The demarcation point is always a
location of that type and is always clear. Control and maintenance on one side of
that point will be Qwest'responsibility and on the other side Level 3'
responsibility. Physically, it can t be any other way.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Moreover, according to agreed upon terms within the contract there is no
way that Level 3' s contract provisions (presumably Level 3 Section 7.
extend Qwest's interconnection responsibility to any point on the Qwest network
to a point not even within Qwest's serving territory.Setting aside the clarity of
the single POI per LATA rule, and the physical impossibility of what Mr. Linse
appears to suggest, the contract itself contains several references to demarcation
point. The first refers to a demarcation point as the boundary line between
Qwest'network and any other networks including a CLEC'network
("'
Demarcation Point' means the point where Qwest owned or controlled
facilities cease, and CLEC End User Customer premises owner or landlord
ownership or control of facilities begin.). The second reference is within the
definition of POI ("'Point of Interface
, "
Point of Interconnection " or "POI" is a
demarcation between the networks of two (2) LECs (including a LEC and CLEC).
The POI is that point where the exchange of traffic takes place.). Moreover, the
POI is often accomplished by using meet points. As Mr. Gates explained in his
direct testimony the FCC has relieved ILECs of the obligation to unbundle
entrance facilities. Accordingly, if a carrier wants to interconnect with Qwest
then that carrier must interconnect "" Qwest's network, which means it pays
the full freight to get to the POI for its traffic and to pick up Qwest's traffic. In
that regard, the concepts of meet point and POI merge. Interestingly, the agreed
upon definition of Meet Point ("'Meet Point' is a point of Interconnection
between two networks, designated by two Telecommunications Carriers, at which
one Carrier s responsibility for service begins and the other Carrier s responsibility
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
ends.) again confirms that the POI would be the financial, legal and technical
boundary between the two parties ' networks. Taken together and examined
against the usage within thebackgroundandpracticecommon
telecommunications industry these definitions make very clear that financial, legal
and technical responsibility for each company s network ends at the POI. So Mr.
Linse s claims that Level 3's contract provisions require Qwest to extend its
interconnection obligations to anywhere, including outside of Qwest's serving
territory make no sense.
NEVERTHELESS MR. LINSE IMPLIES AT PAGES 9 AND 10 OF HIS
TESTIMONY THAT THE LEVEL LANGUAGE MAY OBLIGATE
QWEST TO EXCHANGE TRAFFIC WHERE IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY
FEASIBLE TO DO SO. IS THIS TRUE?
No. Mr. Linse is mainly concerned with the potential routing of long distance
traffic over Qwest's Local Only Tandem switches. He appears concerned that
Level 3 might route jointly provisioned switched access traffic over the
interconnection trunks. This is incorrect. Not only do the parties already have in
place jointly provisioned trunk groups that provide for routing of switched access
traffic to and from third party long distance carriers, they have also agreed to
language in Section 7.1 of the Agreement that keeps these arrangements in
place. So any suggestion of misrouting is not only technically not possible as
these trunks are in place, the contract already deals with the issue.
To the extent Mr. Linse is concerned that "switched access" traffic will be
routed to local only tandems, there are two responses. The first is technical:
Ducloo, Re Level 3 Communications, LLC
whether a call is destined for an NP A - NXX that subtends the "local only" tandem.
If so, then it makes no difference whether the call is later characterized for billing
purposes as "switched access
, "
VoIP"
, "
ISP-bound", or "interexchange" or
whatever.That's a rating issue which is entirely separate from and occurs
subsequent to the routing of the call. Again, to the extent that the call must route
to another carrier or route to another end office, Level 3' s proposals address those
situations. Moreover, where the occasional exception comes up, Level 3 is a
practical company and has worked with Qwest and every other ILEC including
SBC, Verizon and BellSouth, to solve issues like these in practical ways for all
parties concerned.
As to the question of rating, Qwest has a legal theory through which it
attempts to base characterization of the nature of traffic based upon Qwest's
network architecture. Whatever appeal that may have to the logic of how things
appear from solely circuit -switched incumbent'perspective their
determinations are legal claims, not technical network issues. Let me provide an
example to make this clearer. Take a call made by a Level 3 or Qwest VoIP
customer. The call originates in IP format. Neither company s network knows or
can know the "physical location" of the end user. The call originates somewhere
on the Internet over some sort of broadband - whether DSL, WiFi, cable Modem
or other technology. A traditional NP A-NXX number is associated with the
device that the customer making the call uses because telephones on circuit
switched networks cannot make calls to IP addresses. A call is placed to another
NP A-NXX, but this call is headed toward a circuit switched landline customer.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Once Level 3 hands that call off at the single POI per LATA (or via an additional
POI that Level 3 , for network control and other reasons, has established within the
LATA), such traffic could route to a "local only" tandem with no difficulty so
long as the terminating NPA-NXX was associated with an end office that
subtended that tandem. As to the network, there is no logic to Qwest's distinction
because calls are routed to and from NP A - NXX according to the routing
instructions contained in the local exchange routing guide (LERG). So it really
doesn t matter as a technical matter whether, when, or how the FCC classifies this
traffic (unless, of course, in the highly unlikely event that the FCC includes
specific routing instructions in its rules).Accordingly, Level 3' s language
accommodates this by focusing on the technical routing issues and proposes, as a
policy matter, that the compensation for information services mirror existing
compensation for information service. So one is an issue of making the networks
work, the other is an issue of who gets paid how much for exchanging traffic.
MR. LINSE MAKES A POINT THAT QWEST MUST BUILD
FACILITIES TO THE LEVEL 3 POI. IS THAT CORRECT?
No. Federal law is clear: competitive carriers may establish a single point of
interconnection per LATA. Qwest's view of SPOI actually mixes concepts of
retail regulation with interconnection between LECs to require that Level
assume costs of transport within Qwest's network (where Level 3 has no control
over such costs).As a facilities-based competitor of Qwest, Level 3 has
constructed a nationwide (and international) network. In order to connect its
network to Qwest's network, Level 3 constructed, leased or purchased
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
transmission facilities and equipment that reaches into the Qwest network at POls
Level 3 has established. Qwest customers benefit from Level 3 building these
facilities in many ways, not the least of which is obtaining access to one of the
world's largest Internet backbone.
MR. LINSE STATES THAT LEVEL 3 LANGUAGE FOR PARAGRAPH
1.2 "METHODS OF INTERCONNECTION" IS INAPPROPRIATE.
WOULD YOU AGREE?
, I would not. He states that the Level 3 language mischaracterizes the
methods of interconnection with the methods of establishing a POI. Since the
establishment of a POI is essential for several of the methods of interconnection
any language that talks about methods of interconnection will logically need to
talk about methods of establishing a POI. In point of fact, the Qwest language
talks about the POI as well.
ARE THERE PROBLEMS WITH THE QWEST CONTRACT
LANGUAGE FOR PARAGRAPH 7.1.2?
Yes. The Qwest language does not specifically allow interconnection through a
POI established at a third party collocation site. It is relatively common for
CLECs to share a collocation site.Level 3 establishes POls in third party
collocation sites in a number of states and may need to do so in new locations in
the future. Language in 7.1.2 should allow for this circumstance.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
II.ISSUE 2: Combinine: Different Traffic Types on Interconnection Trunks
WHAT IS LEVEL 3'S POSITION ON THIS ISSUE?
Level 3 and Qwest are perfectly capable of exchanging locally dialed traffic as
well as all forms of traffic (including traditional circuit switch "interexchange" or
switched access" traffic) over Level 3' s existing and extensive interconnection
network.Qwest's requirement for Feature Group D ("FGD"trunks is
unnecessary and duplicative.
WHAT IS QWEST'S POSITION?
Qwest asserts that Level 3 must order and provision FGD trunks to each POI as
well as separate interconnection trunk groups for local and intraLA T A traffic
based solely upon billing concerns. Qwest further claims that establishing a
duplicative FGD network for purposes of exchanging "switched access" or
interexchange" or "FGD" would be just as efficient for Level 3 as it would be to
use Level 3' s existing and extensive interconnection network to exchange all such
traffic today.
WHY ARE MR. LINSE'S CLAIMS THAT LEVEL 3 MUST ESTABLISH
FGD TRUNKING INCORRECT?
There is no issue as to whether traffic subject to different rating schemes can be
exchanged over a single network. Though Qwest refuses to admit this in Idaho
(Level 3' s Motion to Compel is pending), Qwest admitted this in other states
(such as Iowa) and I would expect the same answer in Idaho (Ducloo Exhibit
110). Mr. Linse readily concedes as much at page 28 of his testimony when he
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
states that Qwest can route local traffic over the same trunks as Qwest currently
routes "switched access" or "interexchange" or "FGD" traffic today.The
converse is equally as true. Thus, regardless of whether a small amount of
locally" rated traffic rides over FGD trunks (as with AT&T and others) or a
small amount of "switched access or "long distance traffic rides over
interconnection trunks (as Level 3 has accomplished with Verizon, SBC, and
BellSouth) the billing concerns are the same: either way there is a concern that the
CLEC terminating traffic to the ILEC or the ILEC terminating the traffic to the
CLEC will over-report the lower rated traffic. Or looked at from the perspective
that Qwest addresses, the party receiving the traffic will be concerned about
ensuring that the traffic subj ect to the highest compensation rates will be reported
at the most "accurate" levels.
All telecommunications traffic, regardless of what compensation billing
systems later apply to it - whether those systems "mechanically" record the traffic
or whether the parties sample traffic streams and apply billing factors - can be
exchanged over Level 3' s existing, well-engineered network today without the
need for any additional billing systems or personnel. Rather, as the parties today
routinely exchange billing information and factors related to intraLA T A toll, ISP-
bound and other forms of traffic that occasionally appear on these trunks, there
would not be any additional cost to Qwest for the parties to do the same and
include "interstate" circuit switched (i.e. IP in the middle) and VoIP traffic within
that calculation. Moreover, Qwest has no systems in place today, nor could it
reasonably develop systems capable of determining the actual physical location of
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
any end user. Thus, FGD trunks are irrelevant to rating any call.There is no
certainty that the end users are physically located in the rate center associated
with the switch associated with the calling and called NPA-NXX codes.
Accordingly, Mr. Linse objections to Level 3'Section 7.3.1 are
unfounded.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ORDERING FGD TRUNK GROUPS
TO EACH POI?
Almost all of Level 3' s traffic is locally dialed traffic. In other words, Level 3
picks up and delivers all traffic to POls located within the LATAs in which the
traffic originates from Qwest's customers or in which Level 3 brings it for
termination to Qwest customers. Level 3 offers no retail interexchange services.
Accordingly, end users have no reason to dial 1 + to reach Level 3' s services.
Thus, Level 3 has, and will have, very little traffic that utilizes traditional "access
networks such that any separate trunking, much less FGD trunks, which merely
provide additional call recording functionalities, are necessary. So, it makes no
sense for Level 3 to order separate FGD trunks for a small amount of access
traffic. To the extent that 1+ dialed traffic must be exchanged with third party
interexchange carriers" Level 3 and Qwest have "meet point" trunk groups in
place that provide that functionality.
WHY DOES LEVEL 3 WANT TO PUT ALL OF THE TRAFFIC
INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS RATHER THAN FGD TRUNKS AS
QWEST IS PROPOSING?
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Setting aside the sheer lack of necessity of establishing a duplicative network
solely to address Qwest's illusory billing concerns , Qwest claims that its tariffs
require that Level 3 utilize these trunks.Under those tariffs Qwest would
essentially impose retail rates on a co-carrier. In today s world, there is no
justification for forcing retail rates upon a facilities-based co-carrier s exchange of
traffic within a LATA. That traffic is, can be and should be exchanged over
interconnection trunks. Even assuming that Qwest's insistence upon Feature
Group D trunks were rational, and assuming that billing concerns for these
charges could not be addressed as Level 3 has addressed them with Verizon
BellSouth and SBC in interconnection agreements approved by thirty-six (36)
state commissions, and assuming that the entire reason for distinguishing between
access" traffic and "local" traffic evaporated with the approval of 271 authority
for every major ILEC, there is simply no technical reason for doing so.
WHAT QWEST'OBJECTION THE USE
INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS FOR ALL TRAFFIC TYPES?
Qwest's objections boil down to an issue of access billing. Qwest is afraid that
they won t receive their fair due for access charges on long distance calls.
Historically they have billed access charges on FGD trunks. What they are
proposing is for all traffic to go down FGD trunks so they can individually bill for
the small number of access calls that go to and from Level 3. These FGD trunks
would also unnecessarily tie up additional trunk ports on access and end office
switches throughout Qwest's network. These circuits are sold in increments far
beyond Level 3' s existing needs, which results in additional unnecessary costs.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Moreover, requInng FGD trunks would requIre additional time and delay
provisioning and testing these trunks, which would significantly (and
unnecessarily) delay Level 3' ability to offer many of its VoIP services.
WHAT IS LEVEL 3'S SOLUTION TO THE BILLING ISSUE THAT
QWEST RAISES?
Level 3 is proposing that the companies use Percent Local Use (PLU) and Percent
Interstate Use (PIU) to separately bill long distance traffic. PLU and PIU factors
would be created based on periodic traffic studies. This method allows each
company to bill the other for access charges in a fair and equitable manner. As I
have said before, Level 3 expects to have only a small amount of access traffic
anyway, and with access rates at historic lows, it isn t worth the effort to record
minute by minute usage for each and every call and bill separately for those calls.
IS LEVEL 3 USING THIS METHODOLOGY WITH OTHER ILECS?
Yes, Level 3 is combining all traffic on interconnection trunks in the SBC
BellSouth and Verizon territories. Weare using the PLU/PIU method of billing
in the 36 states comprising these Bell operating regions with problems no more
severe or any different than the sorts of verification that occurs daily between
carriers exchanging not only vast amounts of traffic, but vast amounts of billing
information about that traffic. If anything, Level 3' s billing factors tend to reduce
the costs of billing by virtue of the fact that reliable sampling and application of
factors, as proposed by Level 3 , actually requires far less effort than billing each
and every call. It is unreasonable for Qwest to refuse this efficient and equitable
solution.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
QWEST RAISES AN ISSUE OF BILLING JOINTL PROVIDED
SWITCHED ACCESS CALLS IF THE PLU/PIU METHODOLOGY IS
ADOPTED.HOW DOES LEVEL 3 PROPOSE TO HANDLE THIS
ISSUE?
Both Mr. Linse and Mr. Easton raise this issue in their testimony (pages 35 and 3
respectively). They both claim that traffic cannot be combined on interconnection
trunks because billing records cannot be created for third parties for jointly
provided switched access. However, Level 3 has already agreed to provision
separate Meet Point Trunks to handle jointly provided switched access traffic
according to the terms mutually agreeable to Qwest in the most current round of
interconnection negotiations leading up to this arbitration. Accordingly, any
claims even remotely related to problems about such billing (or routing) are
unfounded.
ARE MEET POINT TRUNKS COMMONL Y USED FOR JOINTL Y
PROVIDED SWITCHED ACCESS TRAFFIC?
Yes. Since Level 3 does not have connectivity to all IXC', Qwest is required to
provide access to those IXCs through its tandem switches. Special trunks, called
Meet Point Trunks, are typically provisioned to handle this traffic.The
appropriate billing records can be created for traffic on the Meet Point Trunks.
Ducloo, Re Level 3 Communications, LLC
HAS LEVEL 3 AGREED TO PROVISION MEET POINT TRUNKS AT
QWEST TANDEM SWITCHES?
Yes. Level 3 has agreed to provision Meet Point Trunks at Qwest tandem
switches where Level 3 has traffic to the area served by the tandem switches.
These trunks are in addition to interconnection trunks.
WILL MEET POINT TRUNKING HANDLE THE PROBLEM RAISED BY
MR. LINSE AND MR. EASTON?
Yes. Since Level 3 has agreed to establish Meet Point Trunks, the issue raised by
the Qwest witnesses regarding jointly provided switched access is not an issue for
the interconnection trunks.All remaining traffic can be carried on the
Interconnection Trunks and billed using PLU/PIU factors.
IS THIS THE WAY THAT JOINTLY PROVIDED SWITCHED ACCESS
TRAFFIC IS HANDLED IN THE SBC, VERIZON AND BELLSOUTH
REGIONS?
Yes it is.
IS THERE A RELATED ISSUE WITH SS7 CALL SET UP MESSAGES?
Yes, there is. Qwest and Level 3 need to exchange SS7 messages in the course of
interconnection and the exchange of traffic.Qwest would like to require
unnecessary, duplicative links between the two SS7 networks. Level 3 would like
to use the same SS7links for both local and toll messages.
WHAT IS LEVEL 3'S POSITION ON THIS ISSUE?
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
This issue is similar to the previous issue on combining both local and InterLA T
switched access traffic on single trunk groups. Level 3 is proposing to use SS7
Quad Links for both local and toll traffic. This is an efficient use of scarce
resources for both the links (which are already provisioned in a redundant manner
for reliability) and ports on the Signaling Transfer Points (STPs). Level 3
proposes using the same PLU and PIU calculations discussed above for
calculation of charges for SS7 messages.
WHAT IS QWEST'S POSITION ON THIS ISSUE?
Qwest is proposing that Qwest and Level 3 put in separate, duplicative SS7 quad
links (one set for local traffic and one set for toll traffic) between their SS7
networks. Qwest does not want Level 3 to use existing SS7 quad links for both
local and toll traffic.
DOES THIS ISSUE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SS7 AS AN
UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENT?
No. Level 3 does not use Qwest SS7 as a UNE and does not desire to do so. The
dispute concerns how to interconnect the Qwest SS7 network with a future, as yet
to be constructed, Level 3 SS7 network. This is purely an interconnection issue
and does not involve UNEs.The exchange of SS7 traffic is essential for
interconnection and should be done efficiently and economically.
WHAT IS THE SS7 NETWORK AND WHAT ARE SS7 QUAD LINKS?
The SS7 network is the part of the PSTN that allows switches and databases to
communicate with each other. Its main function is for call set up, but it is also
used for database look up such as required by 800 service. SS7 quad links are the
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
data links that connect two SS7 networks. Without these links, neither Qwest nor
Level 3 could complete calls to the other company s network. Figure 1 (Attached
here to as Exhibit 111
, p.
1) shows a set of Quad Links connecting Level 3
Signaling Transfer Points (STPs) and Qwest STPs with the associated
Interconnection Trunk Groups. Figure 2 (Attached here to as Exhibit 111 , p.2)
shows the S S 7 Quad links and the associated signaling and transport paths for
Local" traffic over Interconnection Trunk Groups. Figure 3 (Attached here to as
Exhibit 111
, p.
3) shows Quad Links and the associated signaling and transport
paths for IntraLATA Toll traffic. Figure 4 (Attached here to as Exhibit 111 , p. 4)
shows Quad Links and the associated signaling and transport paths for InterLA T A
Toll traffic.
WHAT EFFICIENCIES WOULD BE OBT AINED BY COMBINING
LOCAL AND TOLL SS7 MESSAGES ON ONE SET OF QUAD LINKS?
U sing the same quad links for both local and toll call set up messages will save
both Qwest and Level 3 transmission links and ports on their SS7 switches. Since
transmission links and SS7 ports are provisioned in a redundant manner for
additional reliability, the Qwest proposal will waste a significant number of
transmission links and ports on both networks, doubling the links and ports that
are needed. Figure 5 (Attached here to as Exhibit 111 , p. 5) shows the Level 3
Configuration that requires only one set of Quad Links between the companies.
Figure 6 (Attached here to as Exhibit 111 , p. 6) shows the Qwest proposal that
would require a duplicate set of Quad links, wasting network resources.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR QWEST TO IMPLEMENT THE SHARING
LINKS BETWEEN LOCAL AND TOLL TRAFFIC?
Yes. Qwest does not need to distinguish between messages relating to local calls
and messages relating to toll traffic. There is a simpler way to handle the billing
issues for these messages. The same PLU and Pill factors that are used to
correctly bill access charges for the actual calls can be used to charge for SS7
messages. The data traffic flowing between the two SS7 networks mirrors the
actual call traffic flowing between the two networks as the SS7 messages are
setting up and managing the calls. The PLU and Pill for the one can be used to
accurately calculate billing for the other. Qwest can simply calculate the charges
based on total messages and then factor the bill down using the PLU and Pill. If
hypothetically, the bill from Qwest to Level 3 for SS7 messages was $20 000 for
one month and the PLU is 65%, then the actual bill would be $7 000. The
calculations are simple and eliminate the concerns expressed by Mr. Linse.
IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES THAT LOCAL AND TOLL
MESSAGES CAN SHARE COMMON QUAD LINKS, SHOULD ACCESS
CHARGES APPL Y TO ALL OF THE MESSAGES AS QWEST
SUGGESTS?
, that would be patently unfair to Level 3 , especially since Qwest customers
originate most of the local calls. Local calls should remain on a bill and keep
basis. Only messages for toll traffic should be assessed access rates. The method
I describe above will provide for the correct compensation without the difficulties
of billing each message as Qwest would propose.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
III.
WHAT DOES Qwest SAY ABOUT THE USE OF SS7 QUAD LINKS FOR
LOCAL AND IP TRAFFIC?
Qwest in other states has made the very troubling statement that SS7 quad links
that are used for local traffic cannot be used for IP traffic. Nowhere in the
network today are SS7 messages segregated into IP messages and non-
messages. To segment these messages would require the proliferation of SS7
Quad links throughout the industry. A ruling in favor of this Qwest proposal
could disrupt call flow among many companies, forcing whole network
architectures to change.
WHAT SHOULD THIS COMMISSION DO WITH RESPECT TO THIS
SS7 ISSUE?
The Commission should rule in favor of Level 3' s language, which presents an
efficient and fair way of managing the SS7 network, saving transmission links
and SS7 switch ports in both the Level 3 and the Qwest networks.
Additional Interconnection Trunkine: Issues Raised by Owest
QWEST WITNESSES ST ATE IN THEIR TESTIMONY THAT QWEST
SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR INTERCONNECTION
COSTS WITHIN THE QWEST NETWORK. IS THIS AN EQUITABLE
VIEW OF INTERCONNECTION?
No. Nine years after the Act, Qwest is still trying to treat interconnection as a
new form of access. After divestiture Qwest was allowed to collect access
Ducloo, Re Level 3 Communications, LLC
revenue from all of the IXCs, which made sense at the time as its ILEC
predecessor was not allowed to sell retail interexchange (for which IXCs charged
per minute of use charges) services outside of LATA boundaries. That has
changed, and now Qwest competes nationwide for the provision of service
packages on a nationwide basis. Mr. Gates examines some of these service
offerings in his testimony.
Despite the passage of the Act, enormous change in telecommunications
markets, advent of IP technologies that remove the necessity of most traditional
regulatory distinctions, Qwest still wants to treat its competitors as if they were
interexchange carriers. While I can understand Qwest's motives - what carrier
would not want to reverse compensation flows and receive 50 to 100 times what
its competitor currently charges for the termination of vast amounts of traffic
within each LATA - this is not the way interconnection was set up by the Act, the
FCC or, I believe, by the Commission.
WHICH PARTY PAYS FOR INTERCONNECTION TRUNKING?
As Mr. Gates points out and as Level 3 will prove in its briefs, the FCC, federal
district courts, and federal circuit courts nationwide have repeatedly confirmed
that each party is responsible for its costs of originating traffic to the single point
of interconnection per LATA. In a sense, as Mr. Gates explains, in both his direct
and his rebuttal testimony, the Act, for purpose of intercarrier compensation and
to ensure that ILEC retail offerings were not used to constrain competition
established the LATA as a local calling area for interconnection purposes. This
means that each party pays its own costs of originating traffic to the POI. Where
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
the terminating party is also the presubscribed long distance carner of the
originating ILEC customer, the call is routed via an access tandem to the access
network, in which case rules governing the offering of access services would
apply. In either case, however, the long established rule, and until the rules
change, the party originating a call is supposed to compensate the other party for
transport and termination applies. This means that with respect to locally dialed
traffic handed off at the POI - where the originating customer is not
presubscribed to and paying the terminating carrier an additional per minute of
use charge for what until after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the only
way to receive a competitive telecommunications service - and the originating
carrier pays the freight to get there. So the party originating traffic pays for
transport (trunking) in both networks. While a terminating party pays system is
conceivable, it is likely that regulators have stayed away from it for the very
simple reason that it would lead to regulatory arbitrage because the originating
carrier would have great incentive to shift its costs to the terminating carrier.
WHAT IS QWEST'S POSITION ON CHARGES FOR TRANSPORT AND
TERMINATION?
Qwest's positions result from reverse engineering sound network principles
sound technical principles, as demonstrated in my direct testimony and herein
and rational economic principles as Mr. Gates demonstrates, into a system that
asymmetrically compensates Qwest. When traffic enters the Internet from Qwest
customers dialing into Level 3' s network Qwest would have Level 3 assume
Qwest's costs of bringing the traffic to the POI and/or receive nothing for
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
terminating this traffic. When traffic leaves Level 3's network e. VoIP calls
terminating from the single PO I to Qwest' s network, Qwest would have Level 3
pay terminating access charges that exceed FCC reciprocal compensation rates by
several orders of magnitude. Qwest's contract proposals consistently result in the
competing carrier always paying much more to Qwest - whether Qwest changes
the rules of compensation or disguises their cost shifting via requirements that tie
intermodal competitors to legacy retail distinctions. While such a system might
continue to insulate Qwest from competitive pressures, it is neither mandated by
the Act, pro competitive policy, or sound principles for exchange of traffic.
IS THIS THE REASON THAT LEVEL 3 ADDS LANGUAGE TO THE
CONTRACT IN SEVERAL PLACES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY
THE LIMIT A TIONS ON THE CHARGES QWEST CAN ASSESS TO
LEVEL 3 ON THE QWEST SIDE OF THE POI?
Yes. Level 3 was careful in its revisions to Qwest's proposed agreement to
highlight those areas where Qwest shifts the costs to Level 3 for traffic originating
on Qwest's side of the POI. At several places throughout the contract, Level 3
has added the following language:
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to require CLEC to pay
Owest for any services or facilities on Owest's side of the POI in
connection with the origination of traffic from Owest to CLEC~ and
nothing herein shall be construed to require CLEC to pay for any services
or facilities on Owest's side of the POI in connection with the termination
of traffic from CLEC by Owest. other than reciprocal compensation
payments as vrovided in this Agreement.
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Qwest claims in its testimony that Level 3 is trying to avoid paying Qwest what is
due under the law. While the lawyers can argue over the meaning of the law, one
thing is clear: Qwest's interpretations of the flow of payments make sense only if
one adopts Qwest's view of the law.
IS THERE ANY TECHNOLOGICAL REASON TO ADOPT QWEST'
POSITION THAT LEVEL 3 SHOULD PAY QWEST'S COSTS OF
ORGINA TING AND TRANSPORTING TRAFFIC TO THE POI?
Viewed from a network perspective, Qwest's propositions make no sense: there
can be no sound technological reason for forcing a network built around the
technological reality that transport and switching permit Level 3 (and Qwest
where it deploys IP networks) to control vast networks covering enormous
geographic areas with a few strategically deployed softswitches and related
equipment to vastly increase either the deployment of the equipment or the costs
of using that equipment every time it touches circuit switched networks controlled
by Incumbent LECs.Accordingly, Level 3's language reflects the very
straightforward principle: all traffic is exchanged at the single POI per LATA.
Each party bears its costs for getting to that point. Intercarrier compensation
payments would flow accordingly.
HAS LEVEL 3 EVER CHARGED QWEST FOR TRANSPORT WITHIN
THE LEVEL 3 NETWORK?
No. Level 3 only charges Qwest for termination. By FCC rules, Level 3 could
charge Qwest for transport on Qwest originated traffic.Under FCC rules
Ducloo, Re Level 3 Communications, LLC
reciprocal compensation should pay for transport and termination. Level 3 does
not charge Qwest for transport, only for termination.
MR. LINSE SEEMS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT LEVEL 3'
LANGUAGE ALLOWING DIRECT CONNECTION QWEST
EQUIPMENT. IS THIS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN?
, it is not. Connection to any type of equipment, whether it is to a switch, a
multiplexer, a fiber hub or any other type of equipment, is always accomplished
through a connection block on some type of distribution frame. Typically, Level
3 comes into a Qwest office with fiber facilities that are either terminated on
collocated equipment or to a Qwest fiber panel. The POI or SPOI can be at either
of those facilities. The fiber connects to equipment that converts the optical
signal to an electrical signal and "demultiplexes" (i. e. unpacks the multiple high
speed signals into lower speed component increments) to DS3 or DS 1 speeds (and
signaling parameters). On this side of the Level 3 equipment Qwest coaxial
cables providing operating at those speeds are connected. The POI or SPOI may
be a terminal on the multiplexer, either a Qwest demultiplexer or a Level 3
demultiplexer. Or the POI or SPOI may be on a terminal block or distribution
frame at the DS3 or DS 1 level somewhere in the collocation space or somewhere
in the Qwest office. Generally, Qwest and Level 3 engineers and technicians
decide where the most convenient place is for the actual, physical hand off. Mr.
Linse concern is unfounded.The Level 3 equipment and Level 3'
interconnection with Qwest equipment is not some alien invasion that will
somehow pollute Qwest's network.
Ducloo, Re Level 3 Communications, LLC
MR LINSE SUGGESTS ON PAGE 21 OF HIS TESTIMONY THAT
LEVEL 3 WILL NOT ADD DIRECT TRUNKING WHEN TRAFFIC
VOLUMES WARRANT. IS THIS CORRECT?
, it is not.Level 3 always operates in a manner consistent with good
engineering policy. Level 3 has always added direct trunks when the traffic
warrants. Level 3 typically adds direct trunks when traffic volumes reach 512
BHCCS. There may, however, be circumstances when traffic should be allowed
to increase beyond this point for a period of time. Level 3 may expect a decrease
in traffic to a particular end office, for example. Level 3 does not think that the
512 BHCCS rule should be applied without any consideration of business and
technical realities.
MR. LINSE SPENDS A GOOD BIT OF TIME DEFENDING THE 512
BHCCS THRESHOLD FOR ADDING DIRECT TRUNKING TO END
OFFICES. DO YOU HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE 512 BHCCS
THRESHOLD?
Yes, I do. If you do the calculation, the 512 BHCCS threshold has the CLEC
adding a direct trunk when the equivalent traffic will fill only 14 of the 24
channels in the DS 1 that will be established. This represents slightly less than
60% utilization of the direct trunk.Qwest becomes very concerned when
utilization of any interconnection trunk drops below 50%. So they are having the
CLEC establish a direct trunk when the traffic barely reaches 60% and they want
to disconnect trunks when the utilization falls below 50%. A very small change
Duc1oo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
in business, like the loss of one customer with 20 phone lines, could cause Level
3' s business to a particular end office to change by 10%. So the 512 BHCCS rule
that Qwest is promoting may be a bit too restrictive. The maximum capacity of a
DS1 is 864 BHCCS. A more reasonable threshold would be 75% of this level, or
648 BHCCS instead of 512. In some situations where business is known to be
quite variable, even higher thresholds should be contemplated. The Level
Language is more flexible in dealing with the unique situations that may arise.
DOES MR. LINSE ADMIT THAT LEVEL 3 HAS BEEN COOPERATIVE
WHEN WORKING WITH QWEST ON TRUNKING ISSUES?
Yes, he does. Level 3 plans to continue its cooperation in maintaining efficient
interconnection with Qwest. The Level 3 language allows for more innovation in
doing this.
MR. LINES STATES A CONCERN THAT IF CLECS DO NOT FOLLOW
THE 512 BHCCS RULE, IT WILL EXHAUST QWEST'TANDEM
SWITCHES. IS THIS A REAL ISSUE?
, it is not. Seven years ago, when there were dozens of new CLECs with little
engineering experience, this may have been a concern. Today, with far fewer
CLECs, all of whom have experienced engineering staffs, there is no need to
worry about this issue. CLECs have just as much interest in maintaining an
efficient network as Qwest does. It is more expensive to route traffic through the
Qwest tandem, and CLECs realize this. There are economic constraints that
Duc1oo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
IV.
dictate an efficient network, as well as good engineering practice that everyone
understands.
MR. LINSE SEEMS CONCERNED THAT LEVEL 3 HAS REMOVED
LANGUAGE FROM 7.6 THAT SPECIFIES THE TYPES OF
SWITCHES WHERE TRAFFIC IS TERMINATED. WHY IS LEVEL 3
REMOVING THE SPECIFIC SWITCH TYPE?
There are two reasons. First, as I have mentioned several times before, the Qwest
language is limiting and restrictive. The Level 3 language is permissive and
flexible. Second, it is not clear how the Qwest language would be applied to
switches that carry multiple traffic types. Qwest does not mention switches that
handle both local and toll traffic types. It is also not clear that Level 3 would be
allowed to interconnect with new, VoIP switches that Qwest may install in its
network. Level 3 should have the ability to interconnect with any switch type
either existing or future switch types. Future switches may be called "edge
switches" instead of tandems or end offices, for example. Level 3 should be
allowed to interconnect at any technically feasible point on the west network.
ISSUE 3: VNXX/FX Traffic
MR. BROTHERSON CLAIMS THAT VNXX/FX IS COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT FROM NORMAL FX SERVICE THAT QWEST OFFERS.
WOULD YOU AGREE FROM A TECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW?
, I would not. VNXX and FX are essentially the same in the modern network
where CLECs coexist with Qwest. With both Qwest FX and Level 3 VNXX, the
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
originating party must take their customer traffic to the POI. Mr. Brotherson
makes the point that Qwest does this by selling private line service to the FX
subscriber.Level 3 provides the same type of transport to its VNXX/FX
customers.
HOW ARE THESE VNXX/FX CALLS ROUTED?
VNXX/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 VNXX/FX number being
called is included in the calling switch's table of "locally dialable" NP A-NXXs.
Neither the originating nor terminating switch has any way to know where the end
user with the VNXX/FX service is actually located, nor does it matter for proper
switching and delivery of the traffic.The switch that hosts the VNXX/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 THESE VNXX/FX CALLS BILLED?
Neither CLEC nor ILEC billing systems, nor the FCC for that matter
distinguishes between "local" ISP-bound traffic and "toll" ISP-bound traffic.
Accordingly, carriers bill for ISP-bound traffic based upon billing records
collected from the interconnection trunks and other factors that the parties have
agreed to use. For example, assume that a person signs up for Qwest's wireline
(circuit-switched) telephone service. Assume further that this person decides to
access the Internet via a dial-up account (perhaps DSL or cable modem are too
expensive or not available). They call a telephone number that routes to Level 3'
network. When that person wishes to access the Internet, Qwest's network routes
that call to Level 3' s PO I. As to how these calls might be rated according to
Ducloo, Re Level 3 Communications, LLC
traditional (largely pre-Act) methods, the originating and terminating phone
numbers are assigned to switches.Those switches also have rate centers
associated with them. Rate centers are geographic coordinates that carriers on
circuit switched networks have traditionally used to apply distance sensitive
charges to calls.In that sense, they are economic boundaries, not network
boundaries. Returning to our call flow, if the originating and terminating NP
NXX appear as "local" to each other when the call record data is later examined
then the originating carrier would rate the call as "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 because in
every instance the call is handed to Level 3 at the PO I where Level 3 then carries
this call.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
WHEN DECIDING THE DISPOSITION OF VNXX/FX TRAFFIC?
The use of VNXX/FX allows CLECs and their ISP customers to compete with
Qwest and the Qwest ISP without duplicating the Qwest network or placing
modem banks in every wirecenter. The use of VNXX/FX allows the CLEC and
its customers to provide Internet service in small to medium sized communities
where competitive ISP service would not otherwise be available.
WILL QWEST'S POSITION ON VNXX/FX HARM THE INTERNET?
Yes, it will. Qwest essentially wants to charge access rates for Internet traffic.
This will kill competition among ISPs and will lead to higher prices for Internet
Duc1oo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
servIce. Only ISPs who collocate modem banks at every Qwest office will be
able to compete. This is more expensive and will drive up costs.
AT PAGE 55 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. BROTHERSON SAYS THAT A
VNXX/FX CALL "
...
IS ROUTED AND TERMINATED AS ANY OTHER
TOLL CALL." IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?
No. The call routing and processing requirements for VNXX/FX and toll services
are dramatically different. VNXX/FX calls are routed to the local switch like any
other local call. They are then routed to the foreign exchange via some form of
transport for termination.Further, the VNXX/FX number is almost always
associated with one exchange. However, toll calls such as an 8XX service are
routed from the customer premise, through the local central office to the access
tandem for additional routing and billing instructions. The call requires a Line
Information Database ("LIDB") dip for information on the IXC carrying the call
and the true ten digit terminating routing number associated with the 8XX
number. Plus, unlike VNXX/FX calls, the 8XX calls could be coming from
numerous, even hundreds of exchanges in a large geographic area (i.e. eastern
United States), while VNXX/FX service is generally associated with just one
foreign exchange. Finally, the ILECs have always booked FX revenues and
expenses as local, while they booked 8XX service revenues and expenses as toll.
VNXX/FX and 8XX services also impact the ILEC in different ways. VNXX/FX
service routes calls just like other local calls.There is no need to take a
VNXX/FX call to the access tandem, although depending upon network
configuration, a FX call could be routed through a local tandem. I'm not aware of
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
any ILEC claiming that VNXX/FX calls impose additional costs on their network
or operations. There is an additional cost associated with 8XX service calls
because the toll dialing pattern automatically routes the call to the access tandem.
At the tandem there is the additional cost associated with a database dip and
number conversion.
Level 3' s service, which is provided in essentially the same manner as FX service
is therefore clearly distinct from 8XX service. Customers perceive the service as
local and the ISPs use the service to acquire a "local presence for their
customers, just like Qwest's customers who purchase FX service. (Indeed, one
might wonder why ILECs need to offer FX service when 8XX service is available
to consumers?The reason, of course, is consumer demand to which any
reasonable carrier wants to respond.) The Level 3 service is dialed and routed on
a local, as opposed to a toll basis. Like FX service, the Level 3 service does not
require sophisticated database dips or number conversions, and as such, does not
impose those additional costs on the ILEC. The Level 3 service is associated with
specific exchange, and not hundreds or thousands of exchanges normally
associated with 800 service.
AT PAGE 56 OF HIS TESTMONY, MR. BROTHERSON STATES THAT
LEVEL 3 WANTS THE CALL ROUTED OVER THE PSTN, BUT FEELS
NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING THE TRANSPORT TO THE
DISTANT LOCATION." IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?
Duc1oo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
No. Level 3 is completely responsible for the termination of the call regardless of
the location of the Level 3 subscriber. All Qwest is required to do is to deliver the
call to the POI. Mr. Brotherson s statement completely misstates the way these
calls are routed. He suggests that Level 3 uses Qwest's "toll network", and that is
likewise incorrect. It is Level 3 - not Qwest - that is transporting these calls to
their destination.
ISSUE 8: Deimition of Call Record
WHAT IS THE ISSUE BETWEEN THE COMPANIES ON CALL
RECORDS?
As Mr. Linse indicates in his testimony under this issue, the companies have
differences on the information that should be included in the record of a call.
WHAT IS THE REASON THAT LEVEL 3 NEEDS ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION IN THE CALL RECORD?
There are situations where Level 3 does not know the identification of the carrier
originating a call. Without the information that Level 3 is requesting, Level 3
does not know what party to bill for the call. Level 3 needs the information it is
requesting for proper billing. Qwest should respect this request and provide the
information.
MR. LINSE MAKES A POINT OF SAYING THAT THE INFORMATION
LEVEL 3 IS REQUESTING IS NOT ALWAYS AVAILABLE AND IS NOT
REQUIRED BY CURRENT INDUSTRY STANDARDS. IS THIS TRUE?
Duc1oo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Mr. Linse is incorrect in some of his statements. While the information Level 3 is
requesting in the call record is not available 100% of the time, it is available most
of the time. There are no industry standards on the information that must be
provided.Telecommunications carriers, however frequently tailor such
guidelines to the practical realities of their operating environments. With the
advent of new carriers and different types of call routing, the identification of
originating carriers has become more difficult.The information Level 3 is
requesting is an attempt to solve these problems.
WILL THE QWEST LANGUAGE RESULT IN INCORRECT BILLING
OF CALLS?
Yes, it will. As I stated above, the information Level 3 is requesting is necessary
on an increasing number of calls for proper billing of the correct carrier to occur.
Qwest needs to realize these needs and accommodate them so that proper billing
can go forward.
WILL OTHER CARRIERS NEED THIS INFORMATION IN THE
FUTURE?
Absolutely.Qwest is being short sighted on this issue.
DOES THE QWEST LANGUAGE ON THIS ISSUE ADDRESS ALL OF
LEVEL 3'S CONCERNS AS MR. LINSE SUGGESTS?
No it does not. Level 3 is making a specific request for language that will address
new industry billing problems. These problems should be addressed here and
now, between these companies, and not wait years before the industry advisory
Ducloo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
VI.
bodies decide on changes to the guidelines.Level 3' s language should be
adopted.
ISSUE 20: Sie:nalin2 Parameters
WHAT IS THE MAIN ISSUE ON SIGNALING PARAMETERS?
Level 3 is proposing a new signaling parameter that Qwest and Level 3 could use
to track VoIP traffic. Level 3 believes that there will be a need in the near future
to track VoIP traffic and to treat it differently than normal, PSTN traffic, with
respect to reciprocal compensation.
MR. LINSE RAISES NUMEROUS OBJECTIONS TO LEVEL 3'
PROPOSAL. DO YOU FIND HIS ARGUMENTS PERSUASIVE?
, I don t. The SS7 protocol has many optional fields and many fields in use
with unassigned codes. It is quite appropriate for two companies to decide on the
use of an optional field or the use of an unassigned code in an existing field.
Level 3 is proposing to use the Call Record Information (CRI) field to track VoIP
traffic. This is a perfectly reasonable proposal and could easily be adopted by the
industry as a guideline once Qwest and Level 3 begin using it.
WHY SHOULD THIS BE DECIDED NOW, RATHER THAN WAITING
FOR AN INDUSTRY STANDARD OR GUIDELINE?
It is our expectation that the FCC will rule in the near future on the disposition of
VoIP traffic. When the FCC does rule, it would be very good for the companies
to have experience with a methodology of tracking the amount of VoIP traffic to
Duc1oo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
and from their respective networks for proper billing. The use of CRI is a good
efficient way to communicate to each other when a call is VoIP based.
WOULD THE USE OF A CRI CODE FOR THIS PURPOSE BE A
COLOSSAL UNDERTAKING AS MR. LINSE SUGGESTS?
No. It would be fairly easy. The companies could decide on the use of a non-
assigned CRI code and then program that code into their SS7 networks. The
selection could be done very quickly. Programming a new code in the SS7
equipment is not that difficult since CRI codes are added by the industry
periodically and must be programmed once they are added.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
Yes
Duc1oo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the .Ui-
~y
of September, 2005, I caused to be served
via the method(s) indicated below, true and correct copies of the foregoing document
upon:
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Senior Attorney
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street - 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Thomas. J2.tlhle fs(Q),q west. com
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
llewell~puc.state.id. us
Mary S. Hobson
STOEL RIVES LLP
101 S Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702-5958
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mshobson(Q),stoel.com
Duc1oo, Re
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-OS-l1
L3C Ol-OOIA
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:COlA
The location of the POI between Qwest and Level 3 in Idaho does not determinewhether Qwest has an obligation to pay reciprocal compensation to Level 3 forLevel 3 I S transport of Qwest' s traffic.
RESPONSE:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal
conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subject fo~ discovery.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, Qwest provides the followingresponse:
Admitted. Under Qwest's proposed language, the physical location of the
called and calling parties determine the nature of compensation.
Exhibit 108
Page 1 of 1
Idaho
Case No. QWE-T-OS-
L3C 01-002A
INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC
REQUEST NO:0O2A
The location of the Level 3' s switch in Idaho does not determine whether
Qwest has an obligation to pay reciprocal compensation to Level 3 for Level3 I S transport of Qwest 'S traffic.
RESPONSE:
Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal
conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery.
Wi thout waiving the foregoing obj ection, Qwest provides the followingresponse:
Admitted. Under Qwest's proposed language, the physical location of the
called and calling parties determine the nature of compensation.
Exhibit 109
Page 1 of 1
State Of Iowa
Level 3 Communications, LLC
DATE:
DATA REQUEST
07/25/2005
DOCKET NO:ARB- 05-
REQUEST NO:02 - 138
WITNESS:Easton, Bill
REQUEST:
At page 27 of his testimony, Mr. Easton states, nQwest has no obligation to
permit Level 3 to commingle switched access traffic with. other types of
traffic on the interconnection trunks created under the Agreement. II Please
admit the following: There is no technical reason that would prohibit Qwest
from combining all types of traffic, as suggested by Level 3, on the
interconnection trunks. If your response is anything less than an unqualified
admission, identify: (a) each fact upon which you base your response; (b)
each person having knowledge of those facts; and, (c) each document that
supports your response.
RESPONSE:
From a network perspect i ve, there is no technical reason that would prohibit
Qwest from combining all types of traffic on interconnection trunks. From a
billing perspective, however, Qwest is unable to appropriately bill for
switched access traffic carried on interconnection trunks. See Easton Direct
Testimony, pages 24-32.
Exhibit 110
Page 1 of 1
SS
7

Q
u
a
d

l
i
n
k
s
Le
v
e
l

3
So
f
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
Qu
a
d

L
i
n
k
s
In
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

T
r
u
n
k
s
Fi
g
u
r
e

c.
.
..
.
.
.

0
..
.

~
.,
e ..
.

~
..
c
I

I
)
J
)
~
=
~
~
Qw
e
s
t

E
n
d
-
Of
f
i
c
e

S
w
i
t
c
h
c.
.
~
0
...
.
.
.
..
.

N
..
.

~
-=

~
~
=
~
~
SS
7

S
i
g
n
a
l
i
n
g

f
o
r

l
o
c
a
l

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
Si
g
n
a
l
i
n
g

M
e
s
s
a
g
e
s

f
o
r

"
Lo
c
a
l
"

T
r
a
f
f
i
c
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

"
'
.
'.
'
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
'

..
.
.
'
.
I.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
..
.
.
..

.
.
.
..

.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
~.
.
..

ua

n
s

.
In
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

T
r
u
n
k
s
Le
v
e
l

3
So
f
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
Lo
c
a
l
"

T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Qw
e
s
t

En
d
.
.
Of
f
i
c
e

S
w
i
t
c
h
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

OI
.
.
"
"
"
'
"
.
.
"
"

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
.
Fi
g
u
r
e

2
~
Q
.
,
.

('f
'
)
..
c .,
.

~
-=

CJ
)
~
~
~
~
SS
7

S
i
g
n
a
l
i
n
g

f
o
r

I
n
t
r
a
L
A

A
t
o
l
l

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
Si
g
n
a
l
i
n
g

m
e
s
s
a
g
e
s

f
o
r

"
In
t
r
a
L
A
T
A

T
o
l
l
"

T
r
a
f
f
i
c
.'
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
"
'
"

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.'
.
.
.
'

'
.
"
..
.
,
.
.

."
.
.
..
.
.
.
..

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
"
..
.
..

"
..
'
.
.
.
Qu
a
d

L
i
n
k
s
In
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

T
r
u
n
k
s
le
v
e
l

3
So
f
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
ln
t
r
a
L
A
T
A

T
o
l
l
"

T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ow
e
s
t

E
n
d
-
Of
f
i
c
e

S
w
i
t
c
h
~.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
u
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
u
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

..
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fi
g
u
r
e

3
SS
7

S
i
g
n
a
l
i
n
g

f
o
r

nt
e
r
L
A

T

A

tr
a
f
f
i
c
c.
.
.
.
~
=
..
.
.
.
."
,
.

,J
:
j
.
."
,
.

~
..
c
I

~
~
~
~
~
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
,
.
.
.
.

.
.
..
.
.
.
.,

.'.
.,

.
"
'.
.
..

"
.
.
'
.
'
.
Si
g
n
a
l
i
n
g

m
e
s
s
a
g
e
s

f
o
r

I
I
ln
t
e
r
L
A

T

A

T
o
l
l
"

tr
a
f
f
i
c

.
ti
t
.
Qu
a
d

L
i
n
k
s
In
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

T
r
u
n
k
s
Le
v
e
l

3
So
f
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
ln
t
e
r
L
A

T
j
~
T
o
l
l
"

T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Qw
e
s
t

E
n
d
-
Of
f
i
c
e

S
w
i
t
c
h
~.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

u
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
,
.
.
Fi
g
u
r
e

4
t..
,
.
.
~
=
..
w
.
.
.
.

t(
)
-.
c ..
.
.

~
..
.
c
:
I

~
=
Le
v
e
l

3

C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
Qu
a
d

L
i
n
k
s
In
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

T
r
u
n
k
s
Le
v
e
l

3
So
f
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
Fi
g
u
r
e

5
.
.
Qw
e
s
t

E
n
d
-
Of
f
i
c
e

S
w
i
t
c
h
c.
.
~
Q
.J
:
J
.
..
.

~
..
=

~
~
~
QW
E
S
T

C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
Du
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e

s
e
t

o
f
Qu
a
d

L
i
n
k
s
Qu
a
d

L
i
n
k
s
In
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

T
r
u
n
k
s
Le
v
e
l

3
So
f
t
s
w
i
t
c
h
Qw
e
s
t

E
n
d
-
Of
f
i
c
e

S
w
i
t
c
h
Fi
g
u
r
e

6
,
,