20041124Complainants Respone to Qwest Request to AT&T Nos. 17-27(Part 2).pdf

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONNO.17:Referring to your response to Interrogatory No.
22,provide copies of all documents that refer or relate to any such order,including but not
limited to any written submission to Qwest ordering such conduit.
Claimants'Response:Claimants object to this document production request on
the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in the
proceeding and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,Claimants direct Qwest to their
response to Qwest Interrogatory No.22.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 80
INTERROGATORY NO.23:With regard to Article 18 -Assignment of Rights
(contained in Exhibit 2,page 13 attached to the Complaint),do you contend that The
American Telephone and Telegraph Company or AT&T Corp.complied with this provision
in allowing any of its affiliates to use the conduit?If so,please describe the measures taken
by The American Telephone and Telegraph Company or AT&T Corp.to comply,including
the types of communications exchanged,the persons involved in the communications and the
dates of the communications you contend constitute compliance.If you do not contend that
The American Telephone and Telegraph Company or AT&T Corp.complied with Article
18,explainwhy that was not done.
Claimants'Response:Claimants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that
it assumes facts concerning steps that Qwest believes Claimants were required to take,
and conclusions of law,specifically,that such a request for assignment was required.In
addition,Claimants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in the proceeding and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.Subject to and without
waiving the foregoing objections,Claimants do not contend that notice of assignment
was provided under Article 18 or that such notice was required.Based on the facts and
circumstances of the parties'relationship,Qwest's predecessor-in-interest was fully
aware that AT&T Communications of the Mountain States,Inc.occupied the conduit at
issue in the Complaint and that Article 18 of the Agreement does not apply.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 8 1
REQUESTFOR PRODUCTION NO.18:Provide copies of all requests for assignment
made by The American Telephone and Telegraph Company,AT&T Corp.,or any other
AT&T affiliated entity to allow AT&T Communications of the Mountain States,Inc.or any
other AT&T affiliate to use the conduit pursuant to the General License Agreement.
Claimants'Response:Claimants object to this request for production on the
grounds that it assumes facts concerning steps that Qwest believes Claimants were
required to take,and conclusions of law,specifically,that such a request for assignment
was required.In addition,Claimants object to this request for production on the grounds
that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in the proceeding
and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.Subject to
and without waiving the foregoing objections,Claimants direct Qwest to their response
to Qwest Interrogatory No.23,supra.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 82
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.19:Provide copies of all Qwest responses to
requests for assignment made by The American Telephone and Telegraph Company,AT&T
Corp.,or any other AT&T affiliatedentity,which either allowed or denied AT&T
Communications of the Mountain States,Inc.or any other AT&T affiliateto access the conduit
pursuant to the General License Agreement.
Claimants'Response:Claimants object to this request for production on the
grounds that it assumes facts and conclusions of law,specifically,that such a request for
assignment was required.In addition,Claimants object to this request for production on
the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in the
proceeding and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,Claimants direct Qwest to their
response to Qwest Interrogatory No.23,supra.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 83
INTERROGATORY NO 24:What portion of the Idaho conduit is occupied by
AT&T Corp,AT&T Communications ofthe Mountain States,Inc.or any other AT&T entity?
Claimants'Response:Claimants object to the term "Idaho conduit"as vague
and undefined.Subject to their objection,Claimants direct Qwest to their response to
Qwest Interrogatory Nos.19(b)and 19(d),supra.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 84
INTERROGATORY NO 25:With regard to paragraph 18 of the Complaint,provide
a specific description of the efforts of Complainants or any other AT&T entity to renegotiate
conduit rental rates with Qwest in Idaho.In that regard,please describe what specifically
happened in February 2000.
Claimants'Response:After Claimants'representatives realized that they were
being charged conduit lease rental rates far in excess of what they were being charged by
other carriers,Claimants sent US West (predecessor to Qwest Corp.)a letter by email on
February 11,2000.1 The February 1lth letter specifically requested conduit lease rate
reductions to the levels that US West had advertised on its website as available to all
carriers for facilities in US West conduit.2 Claimants requested that US West respond
by February 18,20003 and attempted to engage US West on this issue.US West did not
provide a substantive response to Claimants'request until May 9,2000.On that date,
US West's Scott Schipper sent Claimants'John Blaszczyk an email stating that
US West's basis for refusing to open negotiations on the conduit rates was:"Section
224(d)(3)."4 US West provided no further explanation.
Claimants were not satisfied with this response and followed up with another
letter that they emailed to Qwest on June 24,2000.6 On September 12,2000,Mr.
I See Letter from John Blaszczyk,AT&T to Scott Schipper,US West (Feb.I1,2000)(produced herewithbearingBatesnumbers4-2;see also 4-3,4-3A,4-3B 4-3C).
2 See id.
3 See id.
4 See emails nom Scott Schipper to John Blaszczyk (produced herewith bearing Bates numbers 4-4).
*See Letter from John Blaszczyk,AT&T to Scott Schipper,US West (June 23,2000)(produced herewithbearingBatesnumbers4-5&6).
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 85
Blaszczyk contacted Mr.Schipper again about the matter.6 In reply,Mr.Schipper
reiterated his response from his May 9,2000 email and stated that if Claimants'position
was that current contracts were not valid,then it was a matter for attorneys to discuss.'
Claimants'Mr.Blaszczyk replied on September 12,and again on September 15,2000,
that Claimants were interested in having a business-based,open discussion to re-negotiate
without involvingattorneys.Mr.Blaszczyk further asked Mr.Schipper to identifyhow
Qwest would be implementing Section 224 rates in accordance with the Communications
Act of 1934,as amended."Mr.Blaszczyk reiterated his questions again by email on
October 17,2000 and specifically asked Mr.Schipper "How can we make progress on
this issue?"
On November 8,2000,Mr.Schipper from Qwest called Mr.Blaszczyk and
indicated that Qwest would agree to meet with Claimants'representatives to discuss the
conduit rate issue.However,Mr.Schipper told Mr.Blaszczyk that Qwest would not
agree to reduce its revenue stream without offsetting increases elsewhere and further
asked what Claimants would be willingto give up to get the conduit rate reduction.Mr.
Schipper explained that Qwest believed that the license agreements were valid and that it
was under no obligation to adjust rates to Section 224 levels.
During the Spring of 2002,Claimants again attempted to open negotiations with
Qwest.On April 15,2002,Qwest's Pam Delaittre responded to Claimants'inquiries and
stated that Qwest was "looking at the contracts"and would have an answer soon.In
6 See eriail ñom John Blaszczyk,AT&T to Scott Schipper,Qwest (September 11,2000)(producedherewithbearingBatesnumbers4-7).
7 (pTOduced herewith bearing Bates numbers 4-8).
(produced herewith bearing Bates numbers 4-8,9,10,11,12 &13).
(produced herewith bearing Bates numbers 4-14 &15).
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 86
addition,Ms.Delaittre stated that,during Qwest's internal discussions about the rate,the
company expressed an interest in obtaining high level route maps to see whether Qwest
would be interested in leasing facilities from Claimants.'°
On April 18,2002,Qwest's Pam Delaittre cautioned Claimants that "there is no
guarantee that Qwest will be interested in any renegotiation,"and reminded Mr.
Blaszczyk that "last time that this was on the table,there was no interest at all.""In
early May,Ms.Delaittre continued to express doubt that Qwest would engage in conduit
rate negotiations,but was still seeking confirmation.12 On June 19,2002,Ms.Delaittre
provided that confirmation,stating:"the answer is that Qwest is not interested in
renegotiating the innerduct leases."
Claimants continued to reiterate their concerns about the discrepancy between the
conduit rental rates Qwest was charging Claimants in several states and the rates Qwest
made available to all other telecommunications carriers in its SGATs,by letter dated May
2,2003.14 In response to this letter,Qwest identified Theresa Atkins as the appropriate
person within Qwest to contact.Subsequently,J.D.Thomas,undersignedcounsel for
Claimants,exchanged telephonecalls and correspondence with Ms.Atkins on May 15
and 16,2003.
10 See email from Pam Delaittre to John Blaszczyk dated April 15,2002)(produced herewith bearing Batesnumbers4-16).
"See emails between John Blaszczyk,AT&T and Pam Delaittre,Qwest (April 15,April 18 and May 9,2002)(produced herewith bearing Bates numbers 4-16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 &24).
12 Id
"See email from Pam Delaittre to John Blaszczyk (June 19,2002)(produced herewith bearing Batesnumbers4-25).
14 See Letter from M.Harris to N.Curtright,dated May 2,2003 (produced herewith bearing Bates numbers4-26,27,28 &29).
"See Letter from J.D.Thomas to T.Atkins,dated May 16,2003 (produced herewith bearing Batesnumbers4-30).
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 87
During a May 22nd telephone conversation,Ms.Atkins and Mr.Thomas discussed
the rate discrepancy and Ms.Atkins acknowledgedthat Qwest should be charging
Claimants the SGAT rates for conduit occupancy.l6 In the course of that telephone call,
Ms.Atkins informed Mr.Thomas that the conduit rate that should be applicable to
Claimants in the states that they were discussing on that call were the SGAT rates.
During that call,Ms.Atkins identified the exact rates (all of which were well below one
dollar per half-duct foot)as well as state PUC websites or legal citations where those
SGAT rates were set forth.After this confirmation,Mr.Thomas verified the accuracy of
both the rates and the citations that Ms.Atkins provided.
On October 15,2003,Mr.Thomas sent a letter to Ms.Atkins requesting that
Qwest apply the SGAT rate to Claimants'conduit charges in Washington,consistent with
the Ms.Atkins'commitment for other Qwest states during the May 22nd telephone call.
Mr.Thomas attempted to contact Ms.Atkins at least five times in writing,identifying the
discrepancy between the SGAT conduit occupancy rates and the rates Qwest is currently
charging Claimants in the customary invoicing process.By those letters Mr.Thomas
sought confirmation that Qwest would change Claimants'invoices,including invoices for
Qwest's Washington conduit,to conform to the corresponding SGAT rates.
16 See Letter from J.D.Thomas to T.Atkins,dated May 29,2003 (produced herewith bearing Batesnumbers4-31,32).
"See Letter from J.D.Thomas to T.Atkins,dated July 11,2003 (produced herewith bearing Batesnumbers4-33,34);Letter from J.D.Thomas to T.Atkins,dated August 15,2003 (produced herewithbearingBatesnumbers4-35 &36);Letter from J.D.Thomas to T.Atkins,dated October 15 ,2003(produced herewith bearing Bates numbers 4-37 &38).
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 88
Qwest did not respond to these requests until October 16,over four months after
the initial request."In the October 16 email response,Ms.Atkins did not confirm that
Qwest would modify Claimants'invoices to reflect the SGAT rates.Instead,Ms.Atkins
instructed Claimants to file a billing dispute claim in accordance with Qwest's tariff.
On October 17,21 and 24,2003,Ms.Atkins exchanged additional correspondence with
undersigned counsel for Claimants,Brian M.Josef and Mr.Thomas,however,Qwest
failed to confirm that the SGAT rates apply to Claimants.20
"See Email from T.Atkins to J.D.Thomas,dated Oct.16,2003 (produced herewith bearing Batesnumbers4-39).
19 See Id.
20 See Email from T.Atkins to B.Josef,dated October 24,2003 (produced herewith bearing Batesnumbers4-40);Letter from J.D.Thomas to T.Atkins,dated October 24,2003 (produced herewith bearingBatesnumbers4-41,42 &43);Email from T.Atkins to B.Josef,dated October 21,2003 (produced
herewith bearing Bates numbers 4-44);Letter from J.D.Thomas to T.Atkins,dated October 17,2003(produced herewith bearing Bates numbers 4-45 &46);Email from T.Atkins to B.Josef,dated October 17,2003 (produced herewith bearing Bates numbers 4-47 &48).
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 89
INTERROGATORY NO 26:Referring to paragraph 21 of the Complaint,
please identify each AT&T entity that "competes directly"with Qwest "in providing local
exchange ...telecommunications service in the state of Idaho"and describe the form of
competition (i.e.,resale,unbundled elements,CLEC-owned facilities etc.),the geographic
areas in which competition is present,and which sections of the Qwest conduit,if any,are
used in the provision of such local exchange service.
Claimants'Response:Claimants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that
Qwest has already admitted in its Response to paragraph 21 of the Complaintthat it
competes with Claimants in providing local exchange and long distance
telecommunications services in the State of Idaho.Claimants further object on the
grounds that more specific information regarding the provision of local exchange services
in Idaho is information that is publicly available from the Public Utilities Commission
and is therefore imposed solely for the purpose of harassment.Subject to and without
waiving the foregoing objections,Claimants direct Qwest to their response to Qwest
InterrogatoryNo.13(a).
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 90
REQUESTFOR PRODUCTION NO.20:Provide copies of all documents in the
possession of Complainants relating to the attempted negotiations described in paragraph 18
of the Complaint.
Claimants'Response:Claimants direct Qwest to their response to the
documents bearing Bates stamp numbers 4-1 through 4-48 attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 91
INTERROGATORY NO.27:In its Prayer for Relief,subparagraph c,on page
8 of the Complaint,the Complainants seek recovery back to September 15,1998,a date that
is described as "when Qwest committed to providing AT&T with non-discriminatoryrates."
Describe in detail the act that Qwest allegedlycommitted on September 15,1998 that
allegedlyresulted in Qwest's commitment to provide non-discriminatoryrates.
Claimants'Response:Qwest has been obligated to charge justand reasonable
rates since the adoptionof the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the application
of 47 U.S.C.§224 to conduit access by telecommunications providers in February 1996.At
least as early as the InterconnectionAgreement between the parties (adopted September 15,
1998),Qwest committed to make its conduit available in accordance with the requirements
of Section 224 of the Act,47 U.S.C.§224,at non-discriminatoryrates.Specifically,
pursuant to Section 224,the InterconnectionAgreement memorialized the requirementthat
Qwest provide Claimants "equal and non-discriminatory access to poles,ducts,conduit
and ROW and any other pathways on terms and conditions equal to that provided by
[Qwest]to itself or to any other Person."However,Claimants emphasize that their claim
of recovery is not based upon the InterconnectionAgreement.Rather,Claimants have
merely identified the InterconnectionAgreement as a reasonable time marker for
calculating Claimants'recovery of conduit rental overcharges.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 92
REQUESTFOR PRODUCTION NO.21:Provide all documents in Complainants'
possession that support the claim made in subparagraph c of Complainants'Prayer for
Relief.
Claimants'Response:Claimants direct Qwest to the relevant portion
of the 1998 Interconnection Agreement,attached as Exhibit 5 of their
Complaint.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 93
REQUESTFOR PRODUCTION NO.22:Provide all documents in
Complainants'possession that support a claim that Qwest has denied AT&T
Communications of the Mountain States,Inc.access to conduit under
interconnection agreement between the two companies,including any
documentation that Qwest has denied orders made by AT&T Communications of
the Mountain States,Inc.,to Qwest for such conduit pursuant to the interconnection
agreements between AT&T Communications ofthe Mountain States,Inc.and
Qwest.
Claimants'Response:Claimants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that
it is based on a misstatement of,or incorrect assumption regarding,Claimants'claims.In
addition,Claimants object that the request seeks information that is not relevant to the
claims or defenses in the proceeding and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.Specifically,Claimants do not allege a breach of an
interconnection agreement obligation and do not assert a "claim that Qwest has denied
AT&T Communications ofthe Mountain States,Inc.access to conduit under
interconnection agreement...."Thus,whether AT&T Communications of the Mountain
States,Inc.has made orders under an interconnection agreement,and whether Qwest has
denied access under an interconnection agreement is irrelevant.AT&T Communications
of the Mountain States,Inc.need not have made any such order pursuant to an
interconnection agreement in order for the statutory requirements of Idaho Code
§§61-301,61-315,61-514 and 61-641 to apply to Qwest's conduit rental rates.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 94
INTERROGATORY NO.28:With regard to complainant'srequest for attorneys'
fees (Prayer for Relief,subparagraph d),identify (1)all contractual provisions upon which
Complainants rely for such relief;(2)all statutory provisions upon which Complainants rely
for such relief;and (3)all IPUC orders or regulations upon which Complainants rely for such
relief
Claimants'Response:AT&T states that Article 21(A)of the Conduit License
Agreement (Complaint Exhibit 2)provides that the prevailing party in an action brought
pursuant to the terms of the agreement shall be entitled to recover any and all reasonable
attorneys'fees.Article 21(B)provides that the agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the laws of the Idaho.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of vember,2004.y
Mary or ,Esq.(I No.5020)
HO LA D &H T,LLP
Suit 00,U.S.Bank Plaza
101 South Capitol Boulevard
Post Office Box 2527
Boise,Idaho 83701
Telephone:[phone]
Facsimile:[phone]
T.Scott Thompson,Esq.
Brian M.Josef,Esq.
Rita Tewari,Esq.
Cole,Raywid &Braverman,LLP
1919 PennsylvaniaAve.,N.W.
Second Floor
Washington,D.C.20006
Telephone:[phone]
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&T
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN STATES,INC.Page 95
Meredith R.Harris,Esq.
AT&T Corp.
One AT&T Way
Bedminster,New Jersey 07921
[phone]
Robert M.Pomeroy,Esq.(CSB No.
7640)
HOLLAND &HART,LLP
8390 E.Crescent Parkway,Suite 400
GreenwoodVillage,CO 80111-2800
Telephone:[phone]
Facsimile:[phone]
Attorneys for AT&T Corp.and
AT&T
Communicationsof the Mountain
States,Inc.
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&TCOMMUNICATIONSOFTHEMOUNTAINSTATES,INC.Page 96
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 2th day of November,2004,an original,three (3)true
and correct copies of COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS were delivered to:
Jean D.Jewell,Secretary U.S.Mail
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Electronic Mail
472 West Washington Street Hand Delivered
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074 Overnight Mail
[e-mail] Telecopy (Fax)
Weldon Stutzman U.S.Mail
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Electronic Mail
472 West Washington Street Hand Delivered
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074 Overnight Mail
[e-mail] Telecopy (Fax)
Mary S.Hobson U.S.Mail
Curtis D.McKenzie
.Electronic MailStoelRivesLLP
.Hand Delivered101S.Capitol Blvd-Overnight MailSuite1900Telecopy(Fax)Boise,Idaho 83702
[e-mail]
Adam L.Sherr .U.S.MailQwestCorporationElectronic Mail16007thAvenue-Room3206 Hand DeliveredSeattle,WA 98191 Overnight [e-mail] Telecopy (Fax)
V.Y
COMPLAINANTS'RESPONSE TO QWEST'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTSFORPRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTSTOAT&T CORP.,AND AT&T
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN STATES,INC.Page 97
2-18-04 lO:36AM ;9082347833 #1/2
940 4 20000
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF THE
PH -32 CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
UNDER SECTION 1304 OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW)
BILLED
APR201994
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COM NY295NORTHMAPLEAVENUEBASKINGRIDGE,NEW JERSEY 07920
1 940420000 1
EXHIBIT
2-18-04;1O:36AM;;9082347833 ¢‡2/2
PH -32 Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation
American Telephone and Telegraph Company
Under Section 805 of the Business CorporationLaw
940420000
We,the undersigned,being a Vice President and an Assistant Secretary respectively,
of American Telephone and Telegraph Company,do hereby certify as follows:
FIRST:The name of the corporation is American Telephone and TelegraphCompany.
SECOND:The Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation was filed by theDepartmentofStateonMarch3,1885.
THIRD:The Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation is hereby amendedbychangingthenameofthecorporationtoAT&T Corp.
FOURTH:To accomplish the foregoing amendment,Article FIRST of theCertificateofIncorporationofthecorporationisamendedtoreadasfollows:
"FIRST.The name of the corporation is AT&T Corp."
FIFTH:The manner in which the foregoingamendment of said Certificate ofIncorporationofthecorporationwasauthorizedwasbyvoteoftheholdersofamajorityofalloutstandingsharesofthecorporationentitledtovotethereonatameetingofshareholders,subsequent to the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors.
IN WITNESS WHERBOF,we have subscribed this document on April 20,1994 anddoherebyaffirm,under the penalties of perjury,that the statements contained therein havebeenexaminedbyusandaretrueandcorrect.
By
.p °c
Se r Vice resident-Law
By
Assistant Secretary
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
CERTIFICATE
I,Donetta Davidson,as the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado,hereby certify that,according to the records of this office,
AT&T COMMUNICATIONSOF THE MOUNTAINSTATES,INC.
is a
Corporation
formed or registered on 09/21/1983 under the law of Colorado,has complied with all applicablerequirementsofthisoffice,and is in good standing with this office.This entity has beenassignedentityidentificationnumber19871538764.
This certificate reflects facts established or disclosed by documents delivered to this office onpaperthrough11/17/2004 that have been posted,and by documents delivered to this officeelectronicallythrough11/24/2004 @ 10:56:35 .
I have affixed hereto the Great Seal of the State of Colorado and duly generated,executed,authenticated,issued,delivered and communicated this official certificate at Denver,Coloradoon11/24/2004 @ 10:56:35 pursuant to and in accordance with applicable law.This certificate isassignedConfirmationNumber6095560.
18 7 6 Secretary of State of the State of Colorado
****************************************End of Certificate****************************************
Notice:A certificate issued electronically from the Colorado Secretary ofState's Web site is fullv and immediatelv valid and effective However,as an option,the issuance and validity of a certyicate obtained electronically may be establishedby visiting the Certgicate Confirmation Page oftheSecretaryofState's Web site,hup://www.sos.srate.co.us/biz/CertificateSearchCriteria.do entering the certgicate's confirmation numberdisplayedonthecertgicate,andfollowing the instructions displayed.Confirmine the issuance of a certificate is merelv optional and is notnecessarytothevalidandeffectiveissuanceofacertificate.For more information,visit our Web site,hup://www.sos.state.co.us/click BusinessCenterandselect"Frequently AskedQuestions."
EXHIBIT
6
801.0.fEi-i.0F STATI
53876 521:0.
L hrr-
ARTICLBS OF INCDEPORATION
CF
AT&T COMtWICATIONS OF TR MDWTAIN STRES,INC.
WER THE COLORADO CORPORTION ACF
I,TE mm2BIGNED,being a natural person of,the
age of eighteen years or more,acting as incorpo a or of a
corporation unier the Coloralo Corporation Act,a PL thefollowingArticlesofIncorporationforsuchoorporation:
First.The name of the corgerition is ÃT&T
Communications «¿the Noentain States,Inc.
Second.The period of its duration is perpetual.
Third.The purposes for which the oorpormálon isorganismiistotransactanyoralllawfulbusinesefor
which corporations may be incorporated pursuant to eColoradoCorporationCode.
Fourth.The aggregate analar of shares of abockwhichthecorporationshallhaveauthoritytoissueisone
(1)·hare Ëthout par value.'
Pitth.Cumulative voting of shares of sto k isL
r not authorized.
-2-
Sixth.The address of the initial registeredofficeoftheCorporationintheStateofColoradois1700Broadway,Room 816,Denver,Colorado,80296'and the name ofitsregisteredagentatsuchaddressisThecorporation
compamy.
Seventh:The number of directors constituting theoriginalboardofdirectorsofthecorporationisseven,rndthenamesandaddressesofthepersonswhoaretoser.;asdirectorsuntiltheEirstannualmeetingokshareholdersorantiltheirsuccessorsareelectedandqualityares
M.Tanennamt 295 North Maple Avenue,Basking Ridge,N.J.07920
R.H.Gaynor Rt.202/206,Bedminster,N.J.07921
A.A.Green 295 North Naple Avenue,Basking Ridge,N.J.07920J.E.Barrington 295 North NapleAvenue,Basking Ridge,N.J.07920R.W.Kleinert Rt.202/206,Badminster,N.J.07921
A.C.Partoll 295 North Maple Avenue,Basking Ridge,N.J.07920S.R.Willcoxon 295 North Maple Avenue,Basking Ridge,N.J.07920
Eighth:The name and address of the incorporator18:R.Victor Bernstein,195 Broadway,ex York,N.Y.10007
Dated September 16,1983 ·~'
/i.Victor Bernstein
e e
STATE OP New York)as.
COUNTY OF New York)
I,C Ad-,a notary public,hereby
certify that on the 16th day of September,1983,personally
appeared before se R.Victor Bernstein,who being by me first
duly sworn,declared that he/she is the person who signed the
foregoing document as incorporaars,an!thaL the at ents
therein contained are true.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and
seal this 16th day of September,1983.
My commission expires ,
enmaco ma
Pubtr.State et New Tert
No MGMqurt.as is lanes
conunisaien Espues Welt '
1875 LawrenceStreet
Denver,CO 80202
February 11,2000
Scott Schipper
General Manager --AT&T Account Management
US WEST
70 West 4th Street,Suite 1B
St.Paul,MN 55102
Re:Use of US WEST Innerduct
Dear Scott:
I have been advised that AT&T has in effect with US WEST license agreements for theoccupancyofUSWESTconduitineachofthefourteenstatesintheUSWESTservingterritory.Those agreements were entered into at various times ten or more years ago.Under each such agreement,AT&T occupies certain US WEST innerductpursuant tolicensesforseparatesegmentsofinnerduct.The rates that AT&T pays for US WESTinnerductcurrentlyrangeroughlyfrom$2.20 to $4.00 per foot per year.We have beenadvisedbyUSWESTpersonnel,and we have observed on US WEST's website forcarriersandinterconnectors
(http://www.uswest.com/carrier/guides/interconnect/html/POL4-A.html),that US WEST
has made generally availableinnerduct lease rates that are substantially lower than theratesitchargesAT&T.The rates posted on US WEST's website range from $0.24/foot
per year in Iowa to $0.53/footper year in Oregon.
Since US WEST is required by Section 224 of the Communications Act to provide alltelecommunicationscarrierswithnondiscriminatoryaccesstoUSWESTinnerduct,AT&T would like to reprice all ofits current licenses whereby it occupies US WESTinnerducttotheratespublishedonUSWEST's website.I am aware that some of thecurrentagreementsimposeterminationliabilityintheeventaparticularoccupancyisterminated.This letter is not intended to terminate any such right of occupancy.We seekonlytorepricethearrangementstomakethemconsistentwiththecurrentlyavailablepricingandUSWEST's legal obligations to provide nondiscriminatory access.Ifappropriate,we are prepared to renegotiate the existing agreements to be substantiallysimilartothosemadeavailablebyUSWESTtoitselfandothertelecommunicationscarriers,consistent with US WEST's legal obligations.The passageof the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 fundamentallychanged US WEST's obligationsrelatingtotheprovisionofpoles,ducts,conduits and rights-of-way to
telecommunications carriers.This change in law requires that US WEST make its
C:\ietemp\Temporary Intemet Files\OLKDD\USW Innderduct 2.G.00.doc .
Ex.4-1
current pricing for innerduct availableto AT&T.We expect this rate adjustment to bemadeeffectiveasofthetimewhenUSWESTfirstofferedsuchreducedratestoothertelecommunicationscarriers.We would expect this to have occurred shortly after theTelecommunicationsActof1996waspassed,February 8,1996.
AT&T has a project in the states of Oregon and Washington that is currentlybeingresearchedbyUSWEST.While it may take a certain amount of time to renegotiate theexistingarrangements,AT&T expects that the new occupancy ofUS WEST innerduct inthisprojectwillbedoneusingthelowerratespostedonUSWEST's website.Since itappearsthatUSWESThasoverchargedAT&T for quite some time,it may beappropriateforAT&T to juststop paying for innerduct until we sort through thenumbers.Please advise.Please also keep in mind that in seeking to use these reducedrates,AT&T does not waive its right to challenge these rates in any appropriate forum asbeinginconsistentwithapplicablelaw.
Please identify a point of contact within US WEST who is knowledgeableon this topic
so that we can work through the details.I would appreciate your response as soon aspossible,but in any event no later than February 18,2000.
Sincerely,
John Blaszczyk
C:\ietemp\Temporary Internet Files\OLKDD\USW Innderduct 2.10.00.doc
Ex.4-2
Genevieve Sapir
From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO [[e-mail]]Sent:Friday,Februan/11,2000 3:11 PM
To:[e-mail]
Cc:[e-mail]:InnerductRates
importance:High
USW Innerduct.doc
(27 KB)
<<USW Innerduct.doc>>
1
Ex.4-3
Genevieve Sapir
From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO [[e-mail]]
Sent:Wednesday,February23,2000 1:05 PM
To:[e-mail]
Subject:FW:Innerduct Rates
importance:High
USW Innerduct.doc
(27 KB)Any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
John B
>-----Original Message-----
>From:Blaszczyk,John,NCAM
>Sent:Friday,_February 11,2000 1:11 PM
>To:'[e-mail]'
>CC:Field,Charlotte I,NCAM
>Subject:Innerduct Rates
>Importance:High
>>.><<USW Innerduct .doc>>
1
Ex.4-3A
Genevieve Sapir
From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO [\[e-mail]]
Sent:Friday,March 24,2000 3:43 PM
To:[e-mail]
Subject:FW:InnerductRates
Impodance:Hiigh
USW Innerduct.doc
(27KB)I'd like to set up a meeting between your folks and some AT&T folks next weektogetthisissuegoing.What dates/times work for USW's folks?Thanks,John
>-----Original Message-----
>From:Blaszczyk,John,NCAM
>Sent:Wednesday,February 23,2000 11:05 AM
>To:'[e-mail]'
>Subject:FW:Innerduct Rates
>Importance:High
>Any thoughts on this?
>Thanks,
>John B
>-----Original Message-----
>From:Blaszczyk,John,NCAM
>Sent:Friday,February 11,2000 1:11 PM
>To:'[e-mail]'
>Cc:Field,Charlotte I,NCAM
>Subject:Innerduct Rates
>Importance:High
>>><<USW Innerduct.doc>>
1
Ex .4-38
Genevieve Sagir
From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO [\[e-mail]]
Sent:Tuesday,April 11,2000 11:34 PM
To:[e-mail]
Subject;InnerductRates
We need to establish a meeting to kick start this issue.Please let me know youravailabilityforThursdayorFriday.
Thanks,
John
1
Ex.4-3C
Genevieve Sapir
From:Scott Schipper[sschipp@uswestcom]Sent:.Tuesday,May 09,2000 10:55 AMTo:Blaszczyk,John -NEOSubject:Re:FW:InnerductContracts
John,
Here is the answer to your question on the cite in the Federal Telcom Act.If an AT&TattorneywouldliketospeakdirectlytoaUSWattorneyregardingthisIcanarrangeit.Let me know.
Thanks -Scott 612-663-3026
----------------------Forwarded by scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 05/09/2000 09:58AM---------------------------
Laura Ford05/08/2000 06:02 PM
To:Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US@USWEST
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts (Document link:Scott Schipper)
,Section 224(d)(3)
1
Ex.4-4
1875 LawrenceStreet
Denver,CO 80202
June 23,2000
Scott Schipper
General Manager -AT&T Account Management
US WEST
70 West 4th Street,Suite 1B
St.Paul,MN 55102
Re:Use of US WEST Innerduct
Dear Scott:
This follows my letter to you dated February 11,2000 on the same subject.WhileIneverreceivedaformalresponsefromUSWEST,I understand US WEST's position
to be that it is under no legal obligation to renegotiate the rates under the existinginnerductleaseagreementswithAT&T.Laura Ford provided you with a reference to 47USC§224(d)(3).Our attorneys have reviewed this provision and we will reserve ourrightsastoitsapplicationinthisinstance.Giventhe fact that US WEST is extendingratesthatareaslowas1/10*of the rates AT&T is paying today,US WEST has aresponsibilitytoreasonablydiscussbringingAT&T's rates in line with what appearsto
be the current market rate -whether US WEST believes it is under a legal obligation or
not.I would like to commence such discussions as soon as possible.
I have also been advised that the FCC has new rules going into effect on February
8,2001.In the event that US WEST is unwillingto reasonably discuss reduced rates forAT&T's innerduct leases,we wish to discuss the applicationof these rules on the ratesundertheinnerductleaseagreements.Please contact me to discuss a schedule fordiscussionsandtoidentifythepersonnelwhoshouldbeinvolved.I would appreciate aresponsebyJune30.
Sincerely,
John Blaszczyk
Ex.4-5
Genevieve Sagir
.From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO ([e-mail]]Sent:Saturday,June 24,2000 1:40 PMTo:[e-mail]
Subject:InnerductRates
importance:High
USW Innderduct
6.9.00.doc (25 ...
1
Ex.4-6
Genevieve Sagir
From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO [[e-mail]]:
Sent:Monday,September11,20002:04PMTo:[e-mail]:FW:InnerductRates
impod:ance:High
USW Innderduct
6.9.00.doc (25 ...I am following up on this memo from June and can not find your response.ThisisanimportantissueforAT&T as the rates under the innerduct lease agreements are sofaroutofalignmentwithratesQwestiscurrentlycharging.We need to work to align theinnerductleaseagreementrateswiththeratesQwesthaspublishedtoday.I really needtogetthisgoingandneedaresponsebyWednesday9-13.Please call with any questionsonthis.
Thanks,
John Blaszczyk
>-----Original Message-----
>From:Blassczyk,John,NCAM
>Sent:Saturday,June 24,2000 11:40 AM
>To:'[e-mail]'
>Subject:Innerduct Rates
>Importance:High
>><<USW Innderduct 6.9.00.doc>>
1
Ex.4-7
Genevieve Sapir
From:Scott Schipper[[e-mail]]
Sent:Tuesday,September 12,2000 10:25 AM
To:Blaszczyk,John-NEO
Subject:Re:FW:InnerductContracts
John,
This is the only memo I have remaining in my folder.Did you want to have an AT&TattorneytalktoQwest?
Scott
----------------------Forwarded by Scott schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 09/12/2000 09:29
AM ---------------------------
Scott Schipper05/09/2000 09:54 AM
Sent by:Scott Schipper
To:[e-mail]
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
Here is the answer to your question on the cite in the Federal Telcom Act.If an AT&TattorneywouldliketospeakdirectlytoaUSWattorneyregardingthisIcanarrangeit.
Let me know.
Thanks -Scott 612-663-3026
----------------------Forwarded by Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 05/09/2000 09:58
AM ---------------------------
Laura Ford05/08/2000 06:02 PM
To:Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US@USWEST
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts (Document link:Scott Schipper)
Section 224(d)(3)
1
Ex.4-8
Genevieve Sapir
From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO [[e-mail]]
Sent:Tuesday,September 12,2000 1:51 PMTo:ScottSchipper
Subject:RE:FW:InnerductContracts
I was trying to do this without attorneys being in the middle of it (more of a business tobusinessapproach).Just to make sure I'm not missing something,is Qwest's positionstillthattheywillnotre-negotiate the lease agreement rates even though they are wayoffoftheratesQwestisprovidingtodayforinnerductleasing?Please let me know ifthisisQwest's final position.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From:Scott Schipper [mailto:[e-mail]]Sent:Tuesday,September 12,2000 8:25 AM
To:Blaszczyk,John,NCAMSubject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
This is the only memo I have remaining in my folder.Did you want to have an AT&T
,attorney talk to Qwest?
Scott
----------------------Forwarded by Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 09/12/2000 09:29
Scott Schipper05/09/2000 09:54 AN
Sent by:Scott Schipper
To:[e-mail]
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
Here is the answer to your question on the cite in the Federal Telcom Act.If an AT&TattorneywouldliketospeakdirectlytoaUSWattorneyregardingthisIcanarrangeit.Let me know.
Thanks -Scott 612-663-3026
----------------------Forwarded by Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 05/09/2000 09:58AM---------------------------
Laura Ford05/08/2000 06:02 PM
To:Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US@USWEST
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts (Document link:Scott Schipper)
Section 224(d)(3)
1
Ex .4-9
Genevieve Sapir
From:Scott Schipper [[e-mail]]Sent:Tuesday,September12,20002:02PMTo:Blaszczyk,John -NEO
Subject:RE:FW:InnerductContracts
John,
Qwest has taken no position on this issue other than the contracts were established priortotheFederalTelecommunicationsActof1996andarevalid.Is it AT&T's position thatthecontractsarevalidandlegal?If the answer is no,AT&T does not agree,then it isattorneys.If the answer is yes,the contracts are valid,who from AT&T would contactQwesttodiscussoptions?If I know the direction (ie department,authority,legal etc)AT&T is coming at this from I can arrange a contact(s)for Qwest.
Scott
"Blaszczyk,John,NCAM"<johaboatt.com>on 09/12/2000 12:51:11 PM
To:Scott schipper <sschippouswest.com>
cc:
Subject:RE:FW:Innerduct Contracts
I was trying to do this without attorneys being in the middle of it (more of a business tobusinessapproach).Just to make sure I'm not missing something,is Qwest's positionstillthattheywillnotre-negotiate the lease agreement rates even though they are wayoffoftheratesQwestisprovidingtodayforinnerductleasing?Please let me know ifthisisQwest's final position.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----From:Scott Schipper (mailto:sschipp©uswest.com]Sent:Tuesday,September 12,2000 8:25 AMTo:Blaszczyk,John,NCKW
1
Ex .4-10
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
This is the only memo I have remaining in my folder.Did you want to have an AT&TattorneytalktoQwest?
Scott
----------------------Forwarded by Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 09/12/2000 09:29AM---------------------------
Scott Schipper05/09/2000 09:54 AM
Sent by:Scott Schipper
To:[e-mail]
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
Here is the answer to your question on the cite in the Federal Telcom Act.If an AT&TattorneywouldliketospeakdirectlytoaUSWattorneyregardingthisIcanarrangeit.Let me know.
Thanks -Scott 612-663-3026
----------------------Forwarded by Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 05/09/2000 09:58AM---------------------------
Laura Ford05/08/2000 06:02 PM
To:Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US@USWEST
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts (Document link:Scott Schipper)
Section 224(d)(3)
2
Ex .4-11
Genevieve Sapir
From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO [e-mail]]Sent Friday,September15,20003:03PMTo:ScottSchipperSubject:RE:FW:InnerductContracts
importance:High
AT&T would like to have an open discussion with Qwest in an effort to re-negotiate theinnerductleasecontracts.Due to the huge difference in the rates in the contracts.compared to the current rates Qwest is publishing for innerduct leasing,we need toaddresshowandwhenwecanre-negotiate the contract rates to match the current Qwestrates.In addition,we also want to understand how Qwest intends to implement the FCC'snewpricingrulesforpoles,conduits,ducts,and ROW that go into effect in Feb 2001.Please let me know when your SME's are available to start discussing the two issues above.I would like to have something set up for next week.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----From:Scott Schipper (mailto:[e-mail]]Sent:Tuesday,September 12,2000 12:02 PMTo:Blaszczyk,John,NCAMSubject:RE:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
Qwest has taken no position on this issue other than the contracts were established priortotheFederalTelecommunicationsActof1996andarevalid.Is it AT&T's position thatthecontractsarevalidandlegal?If the answer is no,AT&T does not agree,then it isattorneys.If the answer is yes,the contracts are valid,who from AT&T would contactQwesttodiscussoptions?If I know the direction (ie department,authority,legal etc)AT&T is coming at this from I can arrange a contact(s)for Qwest.
Scott
"Blaszczyk,John,NCAM"<johnb©att.com>on 09/12/2000 12:51:11 PM
To:Scott Schipper <[e-mail]>
cc:
Subject:RE:FW:Innerduct Contracts
1
Ex.4-12
I was trying to do this without attorneys being in the middle of it (more of a business tobusinessapproach).Just to make sure I'm not missing something,is Qwest's positionstillthattheywillnotre-negotiate the lease agreement rates even though they are wayoffoftheratesQwestisprovidingtodayforinnerductleasing?Please let me know ifthisisQwest's final position.
Thanks,John
-----Original Message-----
From:Scott Schipper (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Tuesday,September 12,2000 8:25 AMTo:Blaszczyk,John,NCANSubject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
This is the only memo I have remaining in my folder.Did you want to have an AT&TattorneytalktoQwest?
Scott
----------------------Forwarded by Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 09/12/2000 09:29AM---------------------------
Scott Schipper05/09/2000 09:54 AM
Sent by:Scott Schipper
To:[e-mail]
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
Here is the answer to your question on the cite in the Federal Telcom Act.If an AT&TattorneywouldliketospeakdirectlytoaUSWattorneyregardingthisIcanarrangeit.Let me know.
Thanks -Scott 612-663-3026
----------------------Forwarded by Scott Schipper/GROUPKARE/USWEST/USon 05/09/2000 09:58AM---------------------------
Laura Ford05/08/2000 06:02 PM
To:Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US@USWEST
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts (Document link:Scott Schipper)
Section 224(d)(3)
2
E×.4-13
Genevieve Sapir
From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO [[e-mail]]Sent:Tuesday,October 17,2000 11:58 AMTo:[e-mail]:FW:FW:InnerductContracts
How can we make progress on this issue?
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From:Blaszczyk,John,NCANSent:Tuesday,September 12,2000 11:51 AMTo:'scott schipper'Subject:RE:FW:Innerduct Contracts
I was trying to do this without attorneys being in the middle of it (more of a business tobusinessapproach).Just to make sure I'm not missing something,is Qwest's positionstillthattheywillnotre-negotiate the lease agreement rates even though they are wayoffoftheratesQwestisprovidingtodayforinnerductleasing?Please let me know ifthisisQwest's final position.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From:Scott Schipper (mailto:[e-mail]]Sent:Tuesday,September 12,2000 8:25 AMTo:Blaszczyk,John,NCAMSubject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
This is the only memo I have remaining in my folder.Did you want to have an AT&TattorneytalktoQwest?
Scott
----------------------Forwarded by Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 09/12/2000 09:29AM---------------------------
Scott Schipper05/09/2000 09:54 AM
Sent by:Scott Schipper
To:[e-mail]
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts
John,
Here is the answer to your question on the cite in the Federal Telcom Act.If an AT&TattorneywouldliketospeakdirectlytoaUSWattorneyregardingthisIcanarrangeit.Let me know.
Thanks -Scott 612-663-3026
----------------------Forwarded by Scott Schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US on 05/09/2000 09:58
1
Ex .4-14
AM ---------------------------
Laura Ford .05/08/2000 06:02 PM
To:Scott schipper/GROUPWARE/USWEST/US@USWEST
cc:
Subject:Re:FW:Innerduct Contracts (Document link:Scott Schipper)
Section 224 (d)(3)
2
Ex.4-15
Genevieve Sapir
From:Pam Delaittre [[e-mail]]
Sent Monday,Apdl15,20027:17F4A
To:Blaszc;pik,John-NEO
Subject:Re:Renegotiation of InnerductLeases
Hi John -
I have been discussing with our network partners the renegotiation of AT&T's innerductleases.They are looking at the contracts and I will have a response for you soon.Duringthediscussions,one question did arise that I hope you can help me with.Qwest isinterestedinobtainingsomehighlevelroutemapsoftheAT&T network (no capacities oranythinglikethat)to see if there are any areas where Qwest might be interested inleasingfacilitiesfromAT&T.
Would you be able to help us obtain such a map or put my network contact,Rob Larson,intouchwithsomeonewhocouldhelp?
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Pam DeLaittre(612)663-5357
1
Ex.4-16
Genevieve Sapir
From:Pam Delaittre ([e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,April 18,2002 1:19 PM
To:Blaszczyk,John -NEO
Subject:RE:FW:Renegotiationof InnerductLeases
Hi John -
I will explore reviewing one state at a time.I do not have a timeline.Please understandthatthereisnoguaranteethatQwestwillbeinterestedinanyrenegotiation,but Network
is at least willing to look at the leases this time.As you will recall,last time this
was on the table,there was no interest at all.
I am keeping the communication going with my Network partners.
Pam DeLaittre
[phone]
"Blaszczyk,John,NCAM"<[e-mail]>on 04/18/2002 09:43:13 AM
To:Pam Delaittre <[e-mail]>
cc:
Subject:.RE:FW:Renegotiation of Innerduct Leases
Perhaps a way to move this forward quickly would be to take one state at a time.Do youhaveatimelinethatIcanprovideasastatustoGreg?
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From:Pam Delaittre [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,April 18,2002 6:51 AM
To:Blaszczyk,John,NCAMSubject:Re:FW:Renegotiation of Innerduct Leases
Hi John -
Thanks for finding a contet re:facility leasing.The two Qwest contacts
are:
Rob Larson -Director-Qwest Engineering -[phone]TonyHolmes-Manager -Qwest Engineering -[phone]
In regard to the renegotiation of the innerduct leases,there are around 60 leases all
over the region and it will take some time for our engineers and planners to go over them.They are working on that now.I will let you know our progress as they get back to me.
Thanks,
Pam DeLaittre
[phone]
1
Ex .4-17
"Blaszczyk,John,NCAM"<[e-mail]>on 04/17/2002 03:12:40 PM
To:[e-mail]
cc:
Subject:FW:Renegotiation of Innerduct Leases
I have the correct contact within AT&T that is ready to discuss leasing opportunities withQwest.Who should I have them contact with Owest?Also,any news on the re-negotiation ofinnerductrates?This is very important to AT&T and we need to make some positivemovementonit.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----From:Blaszczyk,John,NCAM
Sent:Tuesday,April 16,2002 10:31 AM
To:'Pam Delaittre'Subject:RE:Renegotiation of Innerduct Leases
Thanks for the follow-up on this request.I have a call in for the person I believe canassistwithyourrequest.I order to ensure I am going down the correct path I need tobetterunderstandwhatQwestisseeking.For example,is Qwest interested in leasingfiberbetweentwocities,leasing DS1s or DS3,or dark fiber,or etc....If you couldclarifywhatQwestisafteritwouldhelpmegetthisgoing.
I look forward to hearing what your network partners'response is on renegotiating ourinnerductleases.
Appreciate the Help,John
-----Original Message-----
From:Pam De1aittre [mailto:[e-mail]]Sent:Monday,April 15,2002 5:17 PMTo:Blaszczyk,John,NCAMSubject.:Re:Renegotiation of Innerduct Leases
Hi John -
I have been discussing with our network partners the renegotiation of AT&T's innerductleases.They are looking at the contracts and I will have a response for you soon.Duringthediscussions,one question did arise that I hope you can help me with.Qwest isinterestedinobtainingsomehighlevelroutemapsoftheAT&T network (no capacities oranythinglikethat)to see if there are any areas where Qwest might be interested inleasingfacilitiesfromAT&T.
Would you be able to help us obtain such a map or put my network contact,Rob Larson,intouchwithsomeonewhocouldhelp?
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Pam DeLaittre(612)663-5357
2
Ex.4-18
Genevieve Sapir
From:Pam Delaittre ([e-mail]]Sent:Thursday,April 18,2002 8:51 AMTo:Blaszczyk,John -NEOSubjectRe:FW:Renegotiationof InnerductLeases
Hi John -
Thanks for finding a contet re:facility leasing.The two Qwest contactsare:
Rob Larson -Director-Qwest Engineering -(303)707-É774TonyHolmes-Manager -Qwest Engineering -[phone]
In regard to the renegotiation of the innerduct leases,there are around 60 leases allovertheregionanditwilltakesometimeforourengineersandplannerstogooverthem.They are working on that now.I will let you know our progress as they get back to me.
Thanks,
Pam DeLaittre(612)663-5357
"Blaszczyk,John,NCAM"<[e-mail]>on 04/17/2002 03:12:40 PM
To:[e-mail]
cc:
Subject:FW:Renegotiation of Innerduct Leases
I have the correct contact within AT&T that is ready to discuss leasing opportunities withQwest.Who should I have them contact with Qwest?Also,any news on the re-negotiation ofinnerductrates?This is very important to AT&T and we need to make some positivemovementonit.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----From:Blaszczyk,John,NCAMSent:Tuesday,April 16,2002 10:31 AMTo:'Pam Delaittre'Subject:RE:Renegotiation of Innerduct Leases
Thanks for the follow-up on this request.I have a call in for the person I believe canassistwithyourrequest.I order to ensure I am going down the correct path I need tobetterunderstandwhatQwestisseeking.For example,is Qwest interested in leasingfiberbetweentwocities,leasing DSis or DS3,or dark fiber,or etc....If you couldclarifywhatQwestisafteritwouldhelpmegetthisgoing.
I look forward to hearing what your network partners'response is on renegotiating ourinnerductleases.
1
Ex .4-19
Appreciate the Help,
John
-----original Message-----From:Pam Delaittre [mailto:[e-mail]]Sent:Monday,April 15,2002 5:17 PMTo:Blaszczyk,John,NCAMSubject:Re:Renegotiation of Innerduct Leases
Hi John -
I have been discussing with our network partners the renegotiation of AT&T's innerductleases.They are looking at the contracts and I will have a response for you soon.Duringthediscussions,one question did arise that I hope you can help me with.Qwest isinterestedinobtainingsomehighlevelroutemapsoftheAT&T network (no capacities oranythinglikethat)to see if there are any areas where Owest might be interested inleasingfacilitiesfromAT&T.
Would you be able to help us obtain such a map or put my network contact,Rob Larson,intouchwithsomeonewhocouldhelp?
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Pam DeLaittre(612)663-5357
2
Ex.4-20
Genevieve Sapir
From:Blaszczyk,John -NEO ([e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,May 09,2002 12:07 PM
To:Pam Delaittre
Subject:RE:FW:InnerductRate Renegotiation
I just heard from our innerduct planner and he doesn't have any locations at this time
that we don't need.With that,I have to assume that Qwest is not willing to renegotiate
these rates.Please let me know if that's incorrect or iffwhen Qwest's position changes.
Thanks for the help,
John
-----Original Message-----
From:Pam Delaittre [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Wednesday,May 08,2002 5:27 PM
To:Blaszczyk,John,NCAMSubject:Re:FW:Innerduct Rate Renegotiation
Hi John -
I am in contact with network regarding this process.there is very limited interest inrenegotiatingtheleasesbutIdonothaveafirmresponseforyouatthistime.Are you
aware of any locations that AT&T is interested in exiting,because the innerducts are no
longer being used?
Pam DeLaittre
[phone]
"Blaszczyk,John,NCAM"<[e-mail]>on 05/07/2002 05:02:43 PM
To:[e-mail]
cc:
Subject:FW:Innerduct Rate Renegotiation
>Pam
>I am getting pressure to make progress in renegotiating the contract
rates
>for innerduct facilities.I need a status on where we are with
>reviewing each of the states in the attachment.As you can see,we
>are paying over $9M annually for these services (ranging from $2.50 to
>$4.5 per foot depending on the state).When you consider Qwest's
>published rates are,in some cases,a factor of 10 less (e g.24 -53
>cents per foot),AT&T is being charged an exorbitant amount for these
>facilities.Also,Qwest is by far the most expensive supplier that
>AT&T deals with for innerduct.Most of the other suppliers have,on
>their own,reduced their rates over the past couple of years.
>I am asking that Qwest enter into renegotiations to bring their
>innerduct rates more in line with today's rates.As you can see from
>the attachment,AZ and UT are the two highest states.I would request
>that
we
1
Ex.4-21
>look at these two states first.I know you have been working with
>your network folks on this issue and I appreciate you championing this
>effort.Would you please e-mail me a status of where we are with this
>effort?I need to understand if Qwest is serious about working with
>AT&T to get
more
>reasonable rates established.I do not want to have another month or
>two go by only to find out Qwest's position is not to renegotiate.
Thanks for the help,
John
><<ROW-RatereductionOO.x1s>>
(See attached file:ROW-Ratereduction00.xls)
2
Ex .4-22
Genevieve Slipir
From:Pam Delaittre [[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,May 09,2002 5:00 PM
To:Blaszczyk,John -NEO
Subject:RE:FW:InnerductRate Renegotiation
Hi John -
Before we say "no,"we are looking at a couple of other alternatives.Give me a couple
more days,please.
Pam DeLaittre(612)663-5357
"Blaszczyk,John,NCAM"<[e-mail]>on 05/09/2002 11:07:04 AM
To:Pam Delaittre <[e-mail]>
cc:
Subject:RE:FW:Innerduct Rate Renegotiation
I just heard from our innerduct planner and he doesn't have any locations at this time
that we don't need.With that,I have to assume that Qwest is not willing to renegotiate
these rates.Please let me know if that's incorrect or iffwhen Qwest's position changes.
Thanks for the help,
John
-----Original Message-----
From:Pam Delaittre [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Wednesday,May 08,2002 5:27 PM
To:Blaszczyk,John,NCAMSubject:Re:FW:Innerduct Rate Renegotiation
Hi John -
I am in contact with network regarding this process.there is very limited interest in
renegotiating the leases but I do not have a firm response for you at this time.Are you
aware of any locations that AT&T is interested in exiting,because the innerducts are no
longer being used?
Pam DeLaittre(612)663-5357
"Blaszczyk,John,NCAM"<[e-mail]>on 05/07/2002 05:02:43 PM
To:[e-mail]
cc:
Subject:FW:Innerduct Rate Renegotiation
1
Ex.4-23
>Pam
>I am getting pressure to make progress in renegotiating the contractrates
>for innerduct facilities.I need a status on where we are withreviewing
>each of the states in the attachment.As you can see,we are paying
over
>$9M annually for these services (ranging from $2.50 to $4.5 per foot
>depending on the state).When you consider Qwest's published ratesare,
>in some cases,a factor of 10 less (e.g.24 -53 cents per foot),AT&Tis
>being charged an exorbitant amount for these facilities.Also,Qwestis
>by far the most expensive supplier that AT&T deals with for innerduct.
>Most of the other suppliers have,on their own,reduced their rates
over
>the past couple of years.
>I am asking that Qwest enter into renegotiations to bring theirinnerduct
>rates more in line with today's rates.As you can see from the
>attachment,AZ and UT are the two highest states.I would requestthat
we
>look at these two states first.I know you have been working withyour
>network folks on this issue and I appreciate you championing thiseffort.
>Would you please e-mail me a status of where we are with this effort?I
>need to understand if Qwest is serious about working with AT&T to get
more
>reasonable rates established.I do not want to have another month ortwo
>go by only to find out Qwest's position is not to renegotiate.
Thanks for the help,
John
><<ROW-RatereductionOO.xls>>
(see attached file:ROW-RatereductionOO.xls
Ex -4-24
Genevieve Sapir
From:Pam Delaittre [[e-mail]]
Sent:Wednesday,June 19,2002 12:52 PM
To:Blaszczyk,John -NEO
Cc:ScottSchipper
Subject:Re:FW:InnerDuctRate Reduction
Hi John -
My apologies for not responding sooner on this issue.I have been trying to be sure that
there are no opportunities for renegotiating the leases.I have not been able to come up
with anything creative,so at this time,the answer is that Qwest is not interested inrenegotiatingtheinnerductleases.
Thanks for your patience.
Pam DeLaittre(612)663-5357
"Blaszczyk,John,NCAM"<[e-mail]>on 06/19/2002 09:29:34 AM
To:[e-mail]
cc:
Subject:FW:InnerDuct Rate Reduction
I take it that no response means there isn't any hope in moving this along?
Thanks,
John
>-----Original Message-----
>From:Blaszczyk,John,NCAM
>Sent:Friday,May 31,2002 10:42 AM
>To:'Pam Delaittre'
>Subject:InnerDuct Rate Reduction
>Any status on this request for renegotiations of innerduct rates?
>Thanks,
>John
E×.4-25
ID:-MAY 06'03 11·1 No.001 P.04
Meredith R.Hurria
37 Christopher Road
Senior Rights-of-Way Counsel
Ridgefield.CT 06877
POS 438·0165
FAX 203 430,0173
May 2,2003 hurlemeau.corn
i
I
I
\
FIRSTCLASS MAIL
Norm Curtright.Esq.
Senior Attorney
Qwest Communications
1801 California Street
Room 4900
Denver,CO 80202
Re:Qwest,Arizona Conduit Rate
Dear Mr.Curttight:
AT&T Communications of the MountainStates,Inc,is in the process of reviewing its
annualconduit occupancyrates.As part of our review effort,we are asking that each
company that owns conduitín which we haveinstalled our facilities provide us with an
explanation of its conduit rental rate,including calculations,input data and any other relevant
source materials.This information will allow us to perform an independent review of
Qwest's annualconduit rental rates,which currently vary between $2.10 and $12.15,to
ensure thät they are "just and reasonable,"in accordance with 47 U.S.C.§224.
We would appreciateyou earliest responso,but in any case no later than May 16,
2003.
Sincerely,
Meredith R.IIatris
Ari uit Rate Review ktter.DOC
Rocycled Paper
li
EX.4-26
ID:MAY 06'03 ·22 No.001 P.05
Meindith R,Harris 27 Ondstopher Road
Senior Rights-of-Way Counsel Bldgefield,CT OSBTT
ses mies
FAX 203 43&o173
nardemeau.com
May 2,2003
FIRSTCLASS MAIL
Norm Cadright,Esq.
Senior Attomey
Qwest Communications
1801 Califomia Street
Room 4900
Denver,CO 80202
Re:Qwest,Colorado Conduit Rate
Dear Mi.Curtright:
AT&T Communications of the Mountain States,Inc.is in the process of reviewing its
annual conduit occupancy rates.As part of our review effort,we are asking that each
company that owns conduit in which we have installed our facilities provide us with an
explanation of its conduit rental rate,including calculations,inputdata and any other relevant
source materials.This information will allow us to perform an independent review of
Qwest's annual conduit rental rates,which currently vary between $2.50 and $3.78,to ensure
that they are "just and reasonable,"in accordance with 47 U.S.C.§224,
We would appreciateyou earliestresponse,but in any case no later than May 16,
2003.
Sincerely,
MeredithR.Harris
Col duit Rato Review Letter.ROC
Recycled Paper
IV
Ex.4-27
ID:MAY 06'03 '""22 No.001 P.06
MeredithR.Harris 37 ChfÎEtopher Raad
SerderRights-of-Way Colinsel Ridgeñald,CT 068TI
W3 435-0165
May 2,2003
nSaÊcomm
MRST CLASS MAIL
Norm Curtright,Esq.
Senior Attorney
Qwest Communications
1801 CaliforniaStreet
Room4900
Denver,CO 80202
Re:Qwest,NebraskaConduit Rate
Dear Mr.Curtäght:.
AT&T Communications of the Midwest,Inc.is in the process of reviewing its annual
conduit occupancyrates,As part of our review effort,we are asking that each companythat
owns conduit in which we have installed our facilities provide us with an explanation of its
conduit rental rate,includingcalculations,input data and any other relevant source materials.
This information will allow us to perform an independentreview of Qwest's annualconduit
rental rates,which currently vary between $2.65 and $4,05,to ensure that they are "just and
reasonable,"in accordancewith 47 U.S.C.§224.
We would appreciateyou earliest response,but in any case no later than May 16,
2003.
Sincerely,
Meredith R.Harris
N t Rate Review Letter.DOC
Recyclad Paper
Ex.4-28
ID MAY 06'03 ''3 No.001 P.07
MemdIth R.Harde
37 Christophat Road
sonlor Rights-of-way Counsel
Ridgettold,CT 06877
aos camas
FAX [phone]
harrismoottcom
May2,2003
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Norrn Curtright,Esq.
Senior Attorney
Qwest Communications
1801 Califomia Street
Room 4900
Denver,CO 80202
Re:Owest,MinnesotaConduit Rate
Dear Mr.Curtright:
AT&T Communications of the Midwest,Inc.is in the process of reviewing its annual
conduit occupancy rates.As part of our mview effort,we are asking that each company that
owns conduit in which we have installed our facilities provide us with an explanation of its
conduit antal rate,including calculations,input data and any other relevant soutce materials.
This information will allow us to perform an independentreview of Qwest's annual conduit
rental rates,which currently vary between$2.20 and $3.75,to ensure that they are "just and
reasonable,"in accordancewith 47 U.S.C.§224.
We would appreciateyou earliestresponse,but in any case no later than May 16,
2003.
Sincerely,
Meredith R.Harris
Mi CondultRam Review Letter.DOC
Recycled Paper
EX -4-29
COLE,RAYWID &BRÁVERMAN,L.L.P.
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
1919 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,N.W.,SUITE 200
WASHINGION,D.C.20006-3458 asa i o
va.m
TELEPHONE(2O2)6594750 EL SEGUNDO.CAUPOftNIA 00245-4290202-8289873 FA× (2O2)452-0067 ''"""°""3'°'[e-mail] FAXX310)643-7997WWW.CRBLAW.COM
May 16,2003
Theresa Adkins,Esq.
Qwest Communications
180 I California Street
Room 4900
Denver,CO 80202
Re:Conduit Rates
Dear Ms.Adkins:
-On May 2,2003 my client Meredith Harris of AT&T wrote to Norm Curtright requestingconduitrentalrateinformationforArizona,Colorado,Minnesotaand Nebraska,including
Qwest's calculations,input data and relevant source materials.You called Meredith yesterday
and at her request I called you and left a voicemail message to you requesting that either you
provide Qwest's calculations with supporting state-specific ARMIS data,or justthe state-specific
ARMIS data so that we can run the calculations ourselves.In this follow-up,we ask that youprovidesuchmaterialstousnolaterthanWednesdayMay21,2003.
J.D.Thomas
165250 1.DOC
Ex.4-30
COLE,.RAYWID BRAVERMAN,L.L.P.
ATTORNEYSAT LAW
1919 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,N.W.,SUfΠ200d.D.THoMAs WASHINGTON,D.C.20006-3458 Los ANGELES OFFICE
202-8289873 TELEPHONE[phone] m.sEGUNDO,CAUFORHMOO245-42OO
Fax <aoa)452-0067 TREPMoNe (31O)[e-mail] Fax caloi e42-7eo7www.cRat.Aw.coM
May29,2003
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Theresa Adkins,Esq.
Qwest Communications
180l Califomia Street
,Room 4900 ·
Denver,CO 80202
Re:Conduit Rates
Dear Ms.Adkins:
This note follows up on our May22,2003 telephone conversation during which we
discussed the conduit rates applicable to my clients AT&T Communications of the Mountain
States and AT&T Communications of the Midwest ("AT&T").Specifically,you indicated that
the following(half-duct)per-foot conduit rates applied to AT&T:
>Arizona:$.36
>Colorado:$.34
>Minnesota:$21
>Nebraska:$.28
As you suggested,we confirmed that these were the rates that Qwest charged for conduit
occupancy in these states.Given that these rates appear to correspond with rates calculated
under the FCC's conduit rate formula,and that these are the rates that are to be applied to AT&T,
please be sure that current AT&T conduit rental invoices contain these rates and AT&T will
prepare to pay at these rates.Also as we discussed,I have made sure that Meredith Harris,who
contacted you initiallyabout this matter,is in the loop on this.
165723_LDOC
Ex.4--31
COLE,RAYWID &BRAVERMAN «A
Theresa Adkins,Es¿l.
May 29,2003
Page 2
Thank you again for your assistancein resolvingthis matter.
Sincerely,
J.D.Thomas
copy:Meredith R.Harris
I 65723 1.DOC
Ex.4-32
COLE,RAYWID BRAVERMAN,L..P.
ATTORNEYSAT LAW
1919 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,N.W.,SUfTE 2OOLD.THoMAs WASHINGTON,D.C.20006-3458 (DS GEt.ESOFFICE238iROSERAKsAVENUE,SunE IIO
Danect DIAL TELEPHONE(2O2)659-9750 a.s€GUNöo,CAUFORNRGO245-429O
*2-8 28-98 73 FA× [phone] °"
[e-mail] Www.cRetAW.COM
July 11,2003
DERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
l'heresa Adkins,Esq.
2west Communications
l801 California Street
Room 4900
Denver,CO 80202
Re:Qwest Conduit.Rates in Utah
Dear Ms.Adkins:
We recently spoke about conduit rates that were being charged to my clients AT&T
Communications of the Mountain States and AT&T Communications of the Midwest ("AT&T")
in Arizona,Colorado,Minnesotaand Nebraska and you indicated that the rates that AT&T
should be charged are set forth by PUC in those states.I wrote to you confirming our
conversation,and requesting that AT&T's invoices be adjusted to reflect the rates that you
indicated.On further review of AT&T's Utah billingrecords,we noticed that Qwest has been
charging AT&T innerduct conduit occupancy rates of $2 10 -$2.98 per-foot per year.We have
checked Qwest's most recent Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditionson file
with the Utah Public Service Commission.(Seventh Revision,Oct.31,2002)and have confirnied
that Qwest's per-foot conduit rates that we believe should be appliedto AT&T are $0.33.
Consistent with your approach in Arizona,Colorado,Minnesotaand Nebraska,we request that
you please adjust AT&T's conduit occupancy charges to reflect this $0.33 per-foot annual rate
and make the necessary adjustments to current invoicing.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
-J.D.Thomas
-167055 LDOC
EX.4--33
-BMaWfreMFRI-BR ddmM11--i--IMI Faf!MTIN¢¾fl¢fdM TMah'ÞfdWI4tVd-----i-E
a Òompleteitems 1,2,and 3 Alsetemplete A.St G/
item estricted Delivery is.desired'X
00 Agent
a Prig ,name and addrey,pa (fre reverse O
so th e can retum the card to you...Date i
-Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,g :
or on the front if space permits.Ë /-S :
D.is deivery adcÑss d ent om i nW Ë ÝÁs
YES,enter denyety addoss belour ËTNo
O Û 0 0 Re stemd Receipt for Merc¾se
Llk O 2ß2
oMelverf
)OYes
es F 81 Do 62sss ore 2soa
UNITED STATEs PösTAL SERVICE First-Class Mailestage-seer
Sender:Please print yo r na e d /ess,and Z +4 in this box
o
Ex.4-34
COLE,RAYWID &BRAVERMAN,L.L.P.
ATTORNEYSAT LAW
1919 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,N.W.,SUffE 2OOJ.D.THOMAs WASHINGTON,D.C.20006-3458 ases o us us une no
DIRECT OtAL TELEPHONE[phone] ELSEOUNoo,CAuroaN 902454290
2Q2-828-9873 FAX (202)452<)O67
[e-mail] WWW.cRBLAW.COM
August 15,2003
CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Theresa Adkins,Esq.
Qwest Communications
1801 California Street
Room 4900
Denver,CO 80202
Re:AT&T Communications of the Midwest and AT&T Communications of theMountainStatesConduitRentalPayments
Dear Ms.Adkins:
I have not yet heardback from you regarding our conduit rental rate conespondenceearlierthisspringandsummer.I wish to follow-up,becausemy client,AT&T,recentlyreceived
an invoice from Qwest for conduit space rental in Minnesota.This letter is to inform you ofAT&T's intention to pay for its Minnesotaconduit rentals at the annual rate of $0.21 per-foot,asagreeduponinourMay22,2003 telephone.conversation and my May 29,2003 letter (attached).As we also agreed,upon receipt of conduitrental invoices for Arizona,Colorado and Nebraska,AT&T will remit rental payments at the amounts set forth in my May29,2003 letter to you.
In addition,I contacted you on July 11,2003 (correspondence attached)regarding ratesforAT&T's rental of Qwest conduit space in Utah and wanted to confirm Qwest's adjustment ofAT&T's current and future invoices to $0.33 per-footper-year,as listed in Qwest's currentStatementofGenerallyAvailableTermsandConditions("SGAT").
Finally,the conduit rental rates of other Qwest states,North Dakota and Montana,areregulatedbytheFederalCommunicationsCommissionanditscorrespondingrentalrates.Based
on our previous understanding for other Qwest states,Qwest's SGAT conduit rental rates forNorthDakotaandMontanaapplyandAT&T intends to pay current and future invoices atQwest's SGAT rate of $0.33 per-footper-year for North Dakota and $0.32 per-foot per-year forMontana.
E×.4--35
CoLE,RAYWID &BRAVERMA .L.
TheresaAdkins,Esq.
August 15,2003
Page 2
Thank you in advance for your attentionto this matter.
ly,
J.D.Thomas
cc:Meredith R.Hatris,AT&T
E×.4--36
COLE,RAYWID &BRAVERMÀN,L,.L.P.
ÄfTORNEYS AT LAW
1919 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,N.W.,SUriE 2OOd.D.IHow WASHINGTON,D.C.20006-3458 i.OS ANGELES OFFICE238IROSECRANEAVENUE,Surre llo
Danser a TEL.EPHONE (202)659·9750 et.sEGUNDO,CAUFORNIA GO245-4290
202-828-9873 FA× [phone] Te =PNon=¤tole4370eo
[e-mail] WWW.cRBLAW.COM moloze4s-yoo7
October 15,2003
VIA FEDEX
TheresaAdkins,Esq.
Qwest Communications
1801 CaHforniaStreet
Room 4900
,Denver,CO 80202
Re:AT&T Communications of the Midwest and AT&T Communications of the
Mountain States Conduit Rental Payments
Dear Ms.Adkins:
I am writing on behalf of my client,AT&T,to request your immediate response to a
string of past correspondenceregarding Qwest's conduit space rental rates in a number of states.
This letter follows our May 22,2003 telephoneconversation,in which you agreed that AT&T
should be paying conduit rates as specified in Qwest's.current Statements of Generally Available
Terms and Conditions ("SGATs"),and subsequentletters sent May 296,July 11 ,and August
15,2003 notifyingyou of the correctedannual,per-foot SGAT rates,requestingyour
confirmation of these rates,and seeking Qwest's adjustmentof current and future conduit rental
invoices.The appropriate SGAT conduit rental rates described in those letters,are summarized
below:
>Arizona:$0.36
>Colorado:$0.34
>Minnesota:$0.21
>Nebraska:$0.28
>Utah:$0.33
>North Dakota:$0.33
>Montana-$0.32
Futther,the conduit rental rates of Iowa,New Mexico,Wyoming and South Dakota are
also regulatedby the FederalCommunications Commission and its correspondingrental rates.
170261 1.DOC
E×.4-37
CoLE,RAYWID &BRAVERMAN,L.LP.
TheresaAdkins,Esq.
October 15,2003
Page 2
In accordance with our understanding for re-adjustingthe invoices of other Qwest states,
Qwest's SGAT conduit rental rates apply to these states and AT&T intends to pay current and
future invoices at the following per-foot,per-yearrates.
>Iowa:$0.19
>New Mexico:$0.28
>Wyoming:$0.27
>South Dakota:$0.28
Finally,please confirm that Qwest will invoice AT&T at the corresponding SGAT rates
in the remaining Qwest-territory states.Thoseper-foot,per-yearrates are:
>Idaho:$0.30
>Oregon:$0.45
>Washington:$0.39
I am concernedabout the lack of response to my letters,and neither I nor AT&T has
received the requested conduit rate confirmation or adjusted invoices.Please verify within ten
(10)days of the date of this letter your agreement to bill AT&T at the corrected SGAT fates and
adjust Qwest's current and future invoices.If I do not hearfrom you within that time,I have
been directed by my client to take all appropriatesteps necessary to enforce its rights to the
SGAT conduit rates.
I look forward to your prompt response confirming your agreementto the conduit rental
rates specified aboveand your adjustment of AT&T mvoices.
Sinc ely,.
J.D.Thomas
Brian M.Josef
cc:MeredithR.Harris,AT&T
170261_f.DOC
Ex.4-38
Message
From:Atkins,TheresaA [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,October16,2003 5:44 PM
To:DaveThomasSubject:AT&T conduit rental rates .Importance:High
Mr.Thomas,I am in receiptof your letter dated Octobei 15th.I was underthe impression that the followinginformationhadalreadybeenforwardedtoyou.I apologizeif that is not the case.Followingare the most current calculated conduit
rates.These are the 2002 publishedrates,which are based on 2001 ARMIS data.The 2003 rates have not yet beenreleased.Therefore,the 2002 rates are the most currentavailable.Theseare the annual rates per linear foot of conduit .
attachment:
Arizona $.44
Colorado $.35
Idaho$.29
lowa $.18
Minnesota $.21
Montana$.33
Nebraska$.27
New Mexico $.36
North Dakota $.30
Oregon $.45
South Dakota $.27
Utah $.37
Washington $.39
Wyoming $.33
Some of the rates listed in your letter are outdated based on 1999 and 2000 data.If AT&T has billing disputes regarding
invoices,it should follow the standardbilling dispute process set forth in Qwest's tariffs.
10/17/2003
Ex.4-39
Message Page 1 of 1
Brian Josef
From:Atkins,Theresa A [[e-mail]]
Sent:Friday,October 24,2003 6:04 PM
To:Brian Josef
Cc:Dave Thomas
Subject:RE:AT&T Conduit Rental Rates
Mr.Josef,I am a bit confused by your repeated references to SGAT rates now that we both realize that AT&T hasenteredintonegotiatedcontractsforconduitrates.I apologize if I didn't realize earlier that AT&T had longstandingcontractsinplacebutsinceyourinitialcorrespondencegavenoindicationofthatfactandonlyreferred
to SGATs I assumed that was not the case,I suggest you speak to your client about their contracts and thendetermineifinvoicedisputesexist.Without identification of specific invoices and examination of the applicablecontractsandnegotiatedrates,Qwest cannot provide any determination as to the accuracy or inaccuracy ofconduitrentalbillings.If AT&T desires to renegotiate its existing conduit agreements,please advise.In thealternative,upon expiration of the agreements,AT&T is free to lease conduit pursuant to Qwest's SGATs or enterintonewagreements.
-----Original Message-----
From:Brian Josef [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Friday,October 24,2003 3:39 PM
To:[e-mail]
Cc:DaveThomas
Subject:AT&T Conduit Rental Rates
Please see the attached correspondence.
Regards;
Brian M.Josef
COLE,RAYWID &BRAVERMAN,LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW
Washington,DC 20006
[e-mail]
direct:202.828.9874
fax:[phone]
main:202.659.9750
***************************************************************************
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or
privileged information.If you believe that you have received the
message in error,please notify the sender by reply transmission
and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
************************‡**************************************************
Ex.4-40
10/8/2004
COLE,RAYWID 6e BRAVERMAN,L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1919 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,N.W.,SUfTE 200d.D.THOMAS WASHINGTON,D.C.20006-3458 (.OS ANGERS OmarzaaiR-Avmum,surre no
DiftECT OfAL T NE 2O2 659-9750 r-L .cAuronssa sommano
202-828-9873 FAX ŒO2)452-0067 wealorewa-7eonFaxtato)e42-7ogyarrBOMASCROUW.COM WWW.CRBMW.COM
October24,2003
VIA E-MAIL AND FEDEX
TheresaA.Atkins,Esq.
Qwest Communications
1801 California Street
Room 4900
Denver,Colorado 80202
Re:AT&T Communications of the Midwest and AT&T Communications of the
Mountain Staites Conduit Rental Payments
Dear Ms.Atkins:
We receivedyour October 17 and October 21,2003 e-mails responding to our October
17,2003 letter.We do not agree with your characterizationof our dialogue on this issue and
believe that Qwest has dramatically back-trackedon the issues that we have spent the last several
months trying to confirm.Specifically,when I initiallycontacted you by letter dated May 16,
2003 and subsequently by telephoneon May 22,2003,I made clear that this firm was conducting
a review of the actual conduit rental rates paid by AT&T (our client)to Qwest.The reason for
the review was clear:the invoice rates Qwest was charging AT&T grossly exceeded those
permitted by the FederalCommunication Commission's conduit rental rate formula.I explained
that we were unable to locate Qwest's state-specificARMlS account data to run an independent
rate calculation underthe FCC's formula,and thenrequested that you provide either (1)Qwest's
rate calculationswith supporting state-specificARMIS data,or (2)Qwest's most recent state
ARMIS data so that I could conduct my own calculations.
During the May22nd ÉCÏCPEORO COHVOTS3ÍÎOn,you stated that the conduit rental rates listed
in Qwest's SGATswere calculatedusing Qwest's most recent state-specific ARMIS data and the
FCC formula.You also stated that Qwest shouldbe charging AT&T those rates.In that call,we
only discussed Arizona,Colorado,Minnesota and Nebraska.On May 29,2003,I wrote you to
confirm this understanding.My subsequent correspondenceon July 11 ,August 15*and
October 15,2003,which addressed other Qwest states,had a similar purpose.
171084 LDOC
Ex.4--41
CoLE,RAYwlo &BRAVERMAN,L.L.P.
TheresaA.Atkins,Esq.
October 24,2003
Page 2
For more than five months,we have attempted to work with Qwest to adjust AT&T's
rental invoices to reflect lawful rental rates and until last week's surprising and inaccurate
emails,Qwesthas ignored AT&T's good-faith efforts at closure.Qwest's "offer"-after five
months of silence -to considerentertaining separate invoice billing disputes is not acceptable.
As indicated previously,our client has directedus to take all steps necessary to ensure
that Qwestcharges the SGAT rates specified in our prior correspondence,or those rates
produced by application of the FCC's conduit formula.Absent Qwest's unequivocal written
confirmation received by us no later than October29,2003,that Qwest will both adjust future
invoices to these levels and refund to AT&T for past overchargesin the states and as of the dates
indicated in the attached Appendix,AT&T will pursue all appropriaterelief.
J.D.Thomas
Brian M.Josef
171084 1.DOC
Ex:4-42
APPENDIX
Refund Dates
May 22,2003:
Arizona:$0.36
Colorado:$0.34Minnesota·$0.21
Nebraska:$0.28 .
July 11,2003:
Utah:$0.33
August 15,2003:
North Dakota'$0.33
Montana:$0.32
October 15,2003:
Iowa:$0.19
New Mexico:$0.28
Wyoming:$0.27
South Dakota:$0.28
Idaho:$0.30
Oregon:$0.45
Washington:$0.39
Ex.4-43
Message Page 1 of 1
Brian Josef
From:Atkins,Theresa A [[e-mail]]
Sent:Tuesday,October 21,2003 6:26 PM
To:Brian Josef
Cc:Dave Thomas;Dickman,Curt
Subject:RE:AT&T conduit rental rates
Mr.Josef:As stated in my last communication,my prior responses to you were in connection with your initial
inquiry as to Qwest's conduit rate calculations based on ARMIS data.As you know,ARMIS data is used todetermineQwest's SGAT rates.However,after checking further with our Joint Use Group,it appears that AT&T
has been leasing conduit pursuant to separate negotiated agreements and rates in each state.These negotiated
rates may or may not be the same as the SGAT rates,I cannot provide specific rates because rates were
typically negotiated on a per project basis in connection with separate licenses,attached to the master state
agreements and which identified the projects,footage and applicable rates.However,your client should be able
to provide you copies of the agreements at issue.Once the applicable contract and project/licensehasbeenidentified,the corresponding invoices in dispute should be sent to Qwest.If you forward them to me I will
make sure the appropriate operational department receives the same.Thereafter,to the extent consistent with
the applicable agreements and Qwest's legal obligations,we can make corrective adjustments,if any.
-----Original Message-----
From:Brian Josef [mailto:[e-mail]]
'Sent:Friday,October 17,2003 4:13 PM
To:[e-mail]
Cc:DaveThomasSubject:AT&T conduit rental ratesImportance:High
Please see the attached correspondence.
Regards,
Brian M.Josef
COLE,RAYWID &BRAVERMAN,LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW
Washington,DC 20006
[e-mail]
direct:202.828.9874
fax:[phone]
main:202.659.9750
***********************************************************************gggg
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or
privileged information.If you believe that you have received the
message in error,please notify the sender by reply transmission
and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
***************************************************************************
E×.4-44
10/8/2004
COLE,RAYWID BRAVERMAN,L.L.P.:e
ATlURNEYSAT LAW
1919 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,N.W.,SUfΠ200BauNM.elosEF WASHINGTON,D.C.20006-3458 maa:LA no
DIRECT DIAL ThLEPHONE [phone] m.seauseo,camore naamaso
202-828-9874 FAX (202)452<>O67 ***
SJOSET OR WW.COM WWW.CRBMW.COM
October 17,2003
VIA E-MAIL AND FEDEX
TheresaA.Atkins,Esq.
Qwest Communications
1801 California Street
Room 4900
Denver,Colorado 80202
Re:AT&T Communications of the Midwest and AT&T Communications of the
Mountain States Conduit Rental Payments
Dear Ms.Atkins:
I am writing to you to acknowledgereceipt of your e-mail datedOctober 16,2003,in
which you provided Qwest's 2002 conduit rates.We appreciateyour e-mail and expect that your
publicly available Statement of Generally AvailableTerms and Conditions ("SGAT")
information will be updatedto reflect the 2002 rates.
That notwithstanding,we do not believe that your e-mail provided an adequate response
to the letter we seat to you on October 15,2003.For severalmonths now,we have been in
contact with you by telephone,mail and e-mail in an attempt to reviseAT&T's rental invoices to
reflect Qwest's SGAT conduit rental rates.We reiteratewhat we stated in our October 15*
letter.We request that Qwestimmediately (1)verify Qwest's agreementto bill AT&T at the
SGAT conduit rentalrates,and (2)confirm that Qwest will adjust and re-invoice its current and
future invoices at these rates.
Your October 166 e-mail does not address our requests,as it neither confirms the rates as
applied to AT&T nor commits to adjustingAT&T's invoices.As a result,and as stated in our
October 15 letter,we are obligatedto adhere to our client's direction to take all steps necessary
to enforce its rights unless you provide us this confirmation and re-invoicing by October 25,
2003.
170922_LDOC
Ex.4-45
CoLE,RAYWID BRAVERMAN,L.L.P.
TheresaA.Atkins,Esq.
October 17,2003 .a
Page 2
In addition,your October 16*e-mail directs us to follow the standardbilling dispute
process set forth in Qwest's tariffs.First,despite our prior telephonecalls and correspondence
spanning severalmonths,this is the first referenceyou havemade to a standardbilling dispute
process.If this was a proper method of addressingAT&T's request,the appropriate time to raise
this would have been during our May 22,2003 telephoneconversation.:;g
Second,our review of Qwest's tariffs indicates that,in the event of a billing dispute,
AT&T must submit a claim to Qwest identifyingthe disputedamount.Qwest would then be
obligated to resolve the dispute and,if resolved in favor ofAT&T,issue a credit.We believe .
that our May 22nd telephonecall and subsequent letters sent May296,July116,August 15*and
October 15,2003 constitute such billing dispute submissions.Qwest has had nearly 5 months to
processand resolve AT&T's claim.Qwest's failure to even responduntil yesterday's e-mail
indicates to us a lack of seriousness in resdlving this matter.
In sum,please respondto our requests within the time frame set forth in our October15
letter.Otherwise,AT&T will immediately pursue actions to enforceits rights to the conduit
rates listed in Qwest's SGATs.
Brian M.Josef
170922 1.DOC
E×.4-46
Message Page 1 of 2
Brian Josef
From:Atkins,Theresa A [[e-mail]]
Sent:Friday,October 17,2003 7:01 PM
To:Brian Josef
Cc:Dave Thomas
Subject:RE:AT&T conduit rental rates
Mr.Josef:Please refer to your prior correspondence and that of Meredith Harris regarding this matter.Your
initial communications to me indicated that AT&T was conducting an annual audit and inquired about the
methodology used to determineAT&T conduit rates.You indicated that you could not find the rates in ARMIS.
As you now know,ARMIS data is used to determine rates but the rates themselves are found in the SGATs.Depending on the cost docket proceedings in each state different ARMIS year data may have been utilized for
different states.The cost dockets and Qwest testimony are public record and have always been fully available to
AT&T.Of course,as you know,the parties are free to negotiate their own rates;the FCC formula and rules that
govern the SGAT rates are used as a default if the parties cannot agree on rates.Since you were inquiring about
methodology,as opposed to negotiated rates,I assumed the SGAT rates applied to AT&T.You should confirm
this with your client.I will also check with the Qwest Joint Use team as to whether AT&T has negotiated a rate or
is buying pursuant to a tariff or SGAT.As stated in the SGAT,any billing disputes must be identified and
submitted in writing to Qwest prior to the bill due date.I believe this information is noted on each invoice.Since
this was part of an annual audit,I assume you were conducting this inquiry outside of the regular billing dispute
process.And,in fact,you never provided specific invoices in dispute and only provided general statements
regarding the rates that AT&T had been billed.I am quite confident that AT&T is fully aware of the regular billing,payment and dispute processes set forth in agreements between AT&T and Qwest and/or pursuant to tariffs and
SGATs.If you are looking for a statement that Qwest intends to bill AT&T accurately for conduit usage under an
existing agreement or the SGAT,whichever is applicable,please consider this to be the same.As to past bills,I
will inquire as to what business team would handle AT&T billing disputes and suggest that the Qwest and AT&T
billing teams handle the disputes on specific invoices,as well process any credits or debits that may be
warranted.
-----Original Message---
From:Brian Josef [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Friday,October 17,2003 4:13 PM
To:[e-mail]
Cc:DaveThomasSubject:AT&T conduit rental ratesImportance:High
Please see the attached correspondence.
Regards,
Brian M.Josef
COLE,RAYWID &BRAVERMAN,LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW
Washington,DC 20006
[e-mail]
direct:202.828.9874
fax:[phone]
main:202.659.9750
Ex.4-47
10/8/2004
Message Page 2 of 2
***************************************************************************
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or
privileged information.If you believe that you have received the
message in error,please notify the sender by reply transmission
and delete the message withoutcopying or disclosing it.
***************************************************************************
Ex.4-48
10/8/2004