20050916Frontier response staff 1st request.pdf

E, EiVED
"""'"~"
September 15, 2005 2005 SEP t 6 tifi;i ~:SS
, ',
" c' '
" ... ' ,
,;U CUUL, t.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES CGMNIffSSIIDHtlSStQN
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION
TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS
REASONABLE FOR FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS OF IDAHO TO
PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS LOCATED IN
THE TAMARACK RESORT.
CASE NO. CTC-O5-
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
OF IDAHO RESPONSE TO THE
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Following are Frontier Communications of Idaho (Frontier) responses to the request of
the Commission staff dated August 26, 2005.
Request No.1: Please provide all engineering diagrams and other descriptions
indicating the specific plant facilities (conduit, fiber, copper, manhole covers, etc.) that Frontier
installed at Tamarack Resort.
Response: Frontier no longer has in its possession engineering diagrams or other
descriptions indicating the specific plant facilities installed at the Tamarack Resort by Frontier.
All facilities maps and diagrams were provided to the management of Tamarack Resort at the
completion of the project.
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
TO FRONTIER
AUGUST 26, 2005
Request No.2: Please provide a detailed cost analysis indicating how much it would
cost to serve the customers within the Tamarack resort as a facilities-based provider.
Response: Frontier has not conducted a detailed Engineering analysis of the cost to
provide service within the Tamarack Resort. Such an analysis would be very costly and time
consuming. Based on the expert opinion of Frontiers engineering and facilities personnel, the
company has developed the following estimates of minimum costs:
Using existing conduit:
Calix C7 equipment in Donnelly office
Calix C7 equipment at Tamarack
Spares for equipment
Site prep Engineering and installation
Copper cable to feed within Tamarack using their conduit
Labor to place in conduit
Splice points
Placement of splice points
$23 000.
000.
000.
000.
200 000.
100 000.
500.
000.
Frontier would need to obtain permission to access existing conduit from the Tamarack
Resort in order place facilities within that conduit. Permission has not been granted. Any costs
. of such access would be in addition to costs listed above.
If permission to utilize Tamarack's existing conduit were not granted Frontier would
incur the following additional costs to place facilities directly in the ground:
Copper cable within Tamarack Resort based
On trenching within the complex
Asphalt Restoration
$1.2 to $2.0 million
000.
In order to place facilities directly in the ground, Frontier would also need to obtain
rights-of-way within the Tamarack resort. There may be very substantial additional costs
required to obtain such rights-of-way. The amount of these costs cannot be estimated at this time.
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
TO FRONTIER
AUGUST 26, 2005
Request No.3: Please provide a detailed cost analysis indicating how much it would
cost to serve the customers within the Tamarack Resort should Frontier extend facilities to
Tamarack's PBX and interconnect at that point. Include all costs rel~ting to interfacing with the
Tamarack facilities, interconnection expenses and any other incidental costs that Frontier
believes it will incur as a result providing service within the Tamarack Resort through
interconnection. Please specifically identify the equipment and costs Frontier will need to install
in order to interconnect with Tamarack's fiber network.
Response: Frontier, at a minimum, it would incur the following costs to provide service
to Tamarack Resort customers through interconnection with Tamarack's existing facilities:
GR 303 bay in Donnelly office $ 66 900.
NTI Engineering and Installation 000.
Company Engineering and labor 000.
Frontier has no agreements in place with Tamarack Resort that would allow Frontier to utilize
existing facilities of Tamarack to gain access to customers. Charges imposed for such access are
currently unknown and would be in addition to the costs ~isted above.
Request No.4: If conduit is present within the Tamarack Resort, please explain why
Frontier believes it will have to plow in new facilities in order to serve Tamarack Resort
customers.
Response: As stated above, Frontier does not now have access to conduit facilities owned by
Tamarack Resort. The company has no assurance that space is available in that conduit or if
access can be obtained at a reasonable cost. Response to request No.2 above provides cost
estimates based on both utilizing Tamarack's Conduit and the additional cost to install facilities
through new trenches.Responsible respondent to all of the above requests is:
Ingo Henningsen
Manager, Government & External Affairs
3 Triad Center, Suite 160
Salt Lake City, UT 84180
801-924-6357
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
TO FRONTIER
AUGUST 26, 2005
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS REASONABLE FOR
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF IDAHO TO
PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE TO
CUSTOMERS lOCATED IN THE TAMARACK
RESORT
CASE No. CTC. T -05-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this filing dated September 15
2005 by Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho. DBA Frontier
Communications of Idaho, was this day sent by overnight mail via UPS, to the following:
Conley E. Ward
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 W. Bannock Street
O. Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701-2720
Shelby Weimer
Tamarack Video & Telecom
960 Broadway Ave, Ste. 100
Boise, ID 83706
Donald Reynolds
3924 N. Hackberry Way
Boise , I D 83702
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, I D 83702
DATED this 15th Day of September
Citizens Communications Company