20031104Response of MCI.pdf

McDevitt & Miller LLP
Lawyers
!~ECElVEO ~::-ILED 0
2nD3 NOV -t. AN 9:
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, Idaho 83702
i' U i.:) L H..thas. F. McDevitt
UTILITIES COMMID~6)~. (Joe) Miller
November 3 , 2003
Via Electronic Postal Mail
Wayne Hart
Telecommunications Analyst
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Case No. GNR-O3-
Dear Wayne:
On behalf of MCI, I am writing to respond to the staffs proposed procedural schedule for the
Idaho Commission s triennial review (TRO) proceeding.
MCI believes the proposed schedule establishes a reasonable pace of activity and that it does not
create insurmountable conflicts with schedules in other states. Accordingly, MCI supports it.
Our concurrence is based on the assumption that the scope of this proceeding is limited to the
question of whether Qwest can produce sufficient evidence to rebut the FCC finding of impairment
without access to unbundled switching for the mass market. More specifically, this issues for
investigation in this proceeding should be:
Determine the break-off point between the number of lines served for mass
market and enterprise customers in each market (TRO proposed Rule
51.319( d)(2)(iii)(B)( 4)).
Determine the definition of the market (TRO para 495).
Determine whether the Self-Provisioning trigger and/or the Wholesale Facilities
trigger apply (TRO paras 498-505).
Determine whether the potential deployment analysis shows no impairment
(TRO paras 506-520).
Consider, and if appropriate, implement a "rolling" transitional access to local
circuit switching (TRO paras 521-524).
Any matters that may flow from the Commission s decision on switching impairment-pricing,
costing, SGA T revisions, amendments to interconnection agreements, etc.-should be addressed in
separate, subsequent proceedings.
Wayne Hart, IPUC
November 3, 2003
Page 2 of 2
It is also my understanding that MCI, AT&T and Qwest have reached agreement on a joint
proposal for addressing the batch hot cut issue on a regional basis. I believe Qwest has submitted the
written proposal to each commission requesting expedited approval. MCI joins in this request.
MCI also endorses the single evidentiary hearing contemplated by the proposed schedule. All
the issues identified above are interrelated and we believe it would be a mistake to attempt addressing
them through multiple hearings in some sequential fashion.
I can also advise that AT&T, Qwest and MCI have reached agreement on the form of a
protective agreement for materials produced in discovery. The agreement will be filed with the
Commission at the appropriate time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed schedule.
Very truly yours
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
~~ler
DJM/sg