20031210ATT Objections to Qwest Request.pdf

r('~ i\JED, d::. ,.,.' \- \
\ CLLL
(1)
L...i
2UU1DFr. \ 0 P~i \2:
AT&T
Adam Walczak
Docket Manager
[phone]
, i t; "iv I
UTILITIES COI'\r"iISS,
December 9, 2003
Via Overni2:ht Delivery and U.S. Mail
Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise, Idaho 83702-5958
RE: Docket No. GNR-03-
Dear Ms. Hobson:
Enclosed are AT&T's Objections to First Production Request of Qwest
Corporation to AT&T in this matter.
Thank you
lL.k- \~
Adam Walczak
Enclosures
cc: Service List
(Jl)
'6 Recycled Paper
Mary B. Tribby
Letty S.D. Friesen
AT&T Communications of the
Mountain States, Inc.
1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 1575
Denver, Colorado 80202
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Fax)
Robert M. Pomeroy Jr.
Holland & Hart LLP
8390 E. Crescent Parkway, Suite.400
Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2800
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for AT&T
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IPUC RESPONSE TO
FCC ORDER ON REVIEW OF SECTION 251
UNBUNDLING OBLIGATIONS OF
INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE
CARRIERS (CC DOCKET NO. 01-338
NINE-MONTH REVIEW ON ECONOMIC
AND OPERATIONAL IMPAIRMENT
REGARDING ACCESS TO SPECIFIC UNES
CASE NO. GNR-03-
AT&T'S OBJECTIONS TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
OF QWEST CORPORATION
AT &T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. (" AT &T") hereby provides its
objections to First Production Request of Qwest Corporation to AT&T issued November 25
2003.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. AT &T objects to each and every Discovery Request as unduly burdensome to the
extent it requests infonnation in a fonD or of a nature not retained by AT&T in the ordinary
course of business and, therefore, requests information that cannot be provided without
completing a special study or analysis.
2. AT&T further objects to each and every Discovery Request to the extent it seeks
infonnation that is protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other valid privilege
existing within the State of Idaho.
Request No.1: Please state whether the infonnation in the LERG is current and
accurate for the switches that AT&T owns, operates, controls, maintains in Idaho, or from
which you lease dial tone or trunking functionality/capacity. If any of the infonnation is not
accurate, please identify the inaccurate information and provide corrected infonnation
including any additions, deletions or changes. As part of your review of the infonnation in the
LERG, please state whether the CLLI code is accurate for each switch that AT&T owns,
operates , controls, maintains, or from which you lease dial tone or trunking
functionality/capacity. In addition , please state whether the LERG definition of the function
of each switch (i.e., tandem, end office , etc.) is accurate.
A T&T's Response: No objection
Request No.2: For each switch owned or controlled by AT&T that is being used in
Idaho to provide service to customers , please provide the capacity of the switch , with
capacity" defines as: (1) the number of lines installed; (2) the number of lines currently in
use; (3) the number of trunks currently installed; and (4) the number of trunks currently in use.
In addition , for each such switch that you identify, please provide the generic (feature
package) loaded in the switch.
AT&T's Response: AT&T objects to this Discovery Request as set forth in the
General Objections above.
Request No.3: Please provide the average total revenue per line that AT&T received
from its residential customers within Idaho in 2001 and 2002. The average revenue per line
should include revenues associated with the basic retail price charged to residential customers
vertical features, universal service payments, interstate access charges , intrastate access
charges, subscriber line charges, toll , long distance, local number portability, and line
revenues derived from any other sources. Please provide both the total average revenue per
line and a breakdown of the amount of revenue for each category of revenue that comprises
the total. Please produce all documents that reflect , refer or relate to the infonnation provided
in your response to this request.
AT&T's Response: In addition to the General Objections set forth above, AT&T
objects to this Discovery Request to the extent it requests infonnation that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Without limitation
this Discovery Request is designed to elicit information about AT&T's specific revenues.
This infonnation may not be not relevant to this proceeding because the FCC ordered the state
commissions to base their impainnent analysis on the forward-looking revenues of a
hypothetical, efficient competitive provider, not the historic or estimated revenues of anyone
particular actual competitive provider. See e.
g.
TRO Order!JI 517. Given the FCC's Order, to
the extent possible, generally applicable and publicly available infonnation should be used to
estimate the revenues of an efficient CLEC.
Request No.4: Please provide the average total revenue per line that AT&T has
received from its business customers within Idaho in 2001 and 2002. The average revenue
per line should include revenues associated with the basic retail price charged to business
customers , vertical features, universal service payments, interstate access charges , intrastate
access charges , subscriber line charges, toll, long distance , local number portability, and line
revenues derived from any other sources. Please provide both the total average revenue per
line and a breakdown of the amount of revenue for each category of revenue that comprises
the total. If revenues differ depending on the type of business customer (small vs. large),
please provide the total revenues and the breakdown of revenues by type of business
customer. Please provide the infonnation by POTS, DSO, DS1, DS3, OC-, OC-, OC-
and any other relevant categories. Please produce all documents that reflect, refer or related to
the infonnation provided in your response to this request.
AT&T's Response: In addition to the General Objections set forth above, AT&T
objects to this Discovery Request to the extent it requests infonnation that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Without limitation
this Discovery Request is designed to elicit information about AT&T's specific revenues.
This information may not be not relevant to this proceeding because the FCC ordered the state
commissions to base their impainnent analysis on the forward-looking revenues of a
hypothetical, efficient competitive provider, not the historic or estimated revenues of anyone
particular actual competiti ve provider. See e.
g.
TRO Order !JI 517. Given the FCC's Order, to
the extent possible, generally applicable and publicly available information should be used to
estimate the revenues of an efficient CLEC.
Request No.5: Please explain how AT&T defines its business customer segments
and provide any documents that reflect this definition or the criteria AT&T uses to segment or
classify business customers into distinct customer groups. Please produce all documents that
reflect, refer or relate to the information provided in your response to this request.
AT&T's Response: In addition to the General Objections set forth above, AT&T
objects to this Discovery Request as vague and ambiguous with respect to the tenDS "business
customer segments" and "distinct customer groups." The terms are vague because, for
example, it is not clear whether the segmentation contemplated in the Question is based on
technical , operational , marketing, billing, geographic, or some other factor(s).
Request No.6: Please provide the average total cost per line that AT&T incurred in
2001 and 2002 for lines used to serve residential customers within Idaho. These costs
should include costs associated with switching; loops; collocation; transport; hot cuts;
operational support systems ("OSS"); signaling; customer acquisitions; backhauling traffic to
AT&T's switches; maintenance , operations , and other administrative activities; and capital
costs. If available , please provide a breakdown of this information for the following
categories: (1) service provided by UNE-, (2) service provided by UNE-, and (3) service
provided using AT&T's own facilities. In addition , please provide any available breakdowns
of each cost component that is part of the average total cost per line, identifying the type and
amount of each cost. Please produce all documents that reflect, refer or relate to the
infonnation provided in your response to this request.
AT&T's Response: In addition to the General Objections set forth above, AT&T
objects to this Discovery Request to the extent it requests infonnation that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Without limitation
this Discovery Request is designed to elicit information about AT&T's specific costs. This
infonnation is not relevant to this proceeding because the FCC ordered the state commissions
to base their impairment analysis on the forward-looking costs of a hypothetical , efficient
competitive provider, not the historic or estimated costs of anyone particular actual
competitive provider. See e.
g.
TRO Order!JI 517. Given the FCC's Order, to the extent
possible, generally applicable and publicly available information should be used lu eslimale
the costs of an efficient CLEc.
Request No.7: Please provide the average total cost per line that AT&T
incurred in 2001 and 2002 for lines used to serve business customers within Idaho. These
costs should include costs associated with switching; loops; collocation; transport; hot cuts;
operational support systems OSS; signaling; customer acquisitions; backhauling traffic to
AT&T's switches; maintenance, operations , and other administrative activities; and capital
costs. In addition to a total average cost, please provide separate averages for service
provided through UNE-, UNE-, and with AT&T's own facilities. Please provide a
breakdown of each cost component that is part of the average total cost per line, identifying
the type and amount of each cost. If costs differ depending on the type of business customer
(small vs. large), please provide the total cost and the breakdown of costs by type of business
customer. Please produce all documents that reflect, refer or relate to the infonnation
provided in your response to this request.
AT&T's Response: In addition to the General Objections set forth above, AT&T
objects to this Discovery Request to the extent it requests information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Without limitation
this Discovery Request is designed to elicit information about AT&T's specific costs. This
information is not relevant to this proceeding because the FCC ordered the state commissions
to base their impairment analysis on the forward-looking costs of a hypothetical, efficient
competitive provider, not the historic or estimated costs of anyone particular actual
competiti ve provider. See
g.
TRO Order!JI 517. Gi yen the FCC's Order , to the exlenl
possible, generally applicable and publicly available information should be used to estimate
the costs of an efficient CLEe.
Request No.8: To the extent not provided in response to Request Nos. 6 and 7
please identify the types of categories of customer acquisition costs AT&T incurred in Idaho
in 2001 and 2002 to attract new customers , set up their accounts, and establish service to
them , In addition, to the extent not provided in response to Request Nos. 5 and 6, please
provide the per line costs AT&T incurred in 2001 and 2002 for both business and residential
customers for each types of categories of customer acquisition costs.
AT&T's Response: In addition to the General Objections set forth above, AT&T
objects to this Discovery Request to the extent it requests information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. Without limitation
this Discovery Request is designed to elicit information about AT&T's specific costs. This
information is not relevant to this proceeding because the FCC ordered the state commissions
to base their impainnent analysis on the forward-looking costs of a hypothetical, efficient
competitive provider, not the historic or estimated costs of anyone particular actual
competitive provider. See e.
g.
TRO Order!JI 517. Given the FCC's Order, to the extent
possible , generally applicable and publicly available information should be used to estimate
the costs of an efficient CLEC.
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of December 2003.
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
MOUNTAIN STATES, INc.
By: '~:r AvJ
11ary B. 'bby
Letty S.D. Friesen
AT &T Communications of the
11ountain States, Inc.
1875 Lawrence Street, Room 1575
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: Isfliesen(g)att.com
Robert M. Pomeroy Jr.
Holland & Hart LLP
8390 E. Crescent Parkway, Suite.400
Greenwood Vil1age , CO 80111-2800
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: rpomeroy(g)hollandhaJ1.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
GNR-03-
I certify that the original of AT&T's Objections to First Production Request of Qwest
Corporation to AT&T in Docket No. GNR-03-23 were sent by electronic mail and overnight
delivery on December 9, 2003 to:
Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702-5958
mshobson~stoel.com
and a true and correct copy was sent by electronic and Overnight Mail on December 9 2003 to:
Adam L. Sherr
Qwest
1600 7th Avenue, Room 3206
Seattle, WA 98191
asherr~qwest.com
and a true and correct copy was sent by Overnight Mail on December 9 2003 to:
Jean Jewell, Secretary (3 copies)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702-5983
and a true and correct copy was sent by electronic and U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on December
, 2003 to:
Clay R. Sturgis
Moss Adams LLP
601 W. Riverside, Suite l800
Spokane, W A 99201-0663
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420 West Bannock Street
Boise, ID 83702
Marlin D. Ard
O. Box 2190
Sisters, OR 97759
Charles Carrathers
Verizon Northwest, Inc.
1800 4151 Street
Everett, W A 98201
Conley E. Ward
Givins Pursley LLP
277 North 6th Street, Suite 200
Boise, ID 83701
Brian Thomas
Time Warner Telecom
223 Taylor Avenue North
Seattle, W A 98109
c~ \f~rJ"'-