Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050708Qwest response admissions requests.pdfC~CEiVED tJJ \! L ;~- '-~ LJ r'- "_.,,- MaryS. Hobson (ISB. No. 2142) Stoel Rives LLP 101 South Capitol Boulevard Suite 1900 Boise, ill 83702-7705 Tel: 208-387-4277 Fax: 208-389-9040 mshobson~stoe1.com JUt -$ Pr'1 3: : 5 In iiG PUBL iC flLITfES GOt-If'~i!SSION Thomas M. Dethlefs Senior Attorney Qwest Services Corporation 1801 California Street - 10th Floor Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 383-6646 Facsimile: (303) 298-8197 Thomas. Dethlefs~qwest. com BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC'S PETITION FOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(B) OF THE COMMUNICA- TIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996, AND THE APPLICABLE STATE LAWS FOR RATE, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS OF INTERCONNECTION WITH QWEST CORPORATION CASE NO. QWE- T -05- QWEST CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO LEVEL 3's REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Qwest Corporation, through its undersigned attorneys, hereby files the attached responses to Level3's Requests for Admissions. " , ~ \ ~ ~ l ~ ~ t'nt- .. QWEST CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO LEVEL 3'8 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Boise-185564.1 0099999-00001 Page 1 DATED this day of July, 2005 Thomas M. Dethlefs Senior Attorney Qwest Services Corporation 1801 California Street, 10th Floor Denver, CO 80202 Tel: 303-383-6646 Fax: 303-298-8197 Thomas .Dethl efs~qw est. COIn Respectfully submitted QWEST CORPORATION By: ~~~ Mary S. Ho n (ISB. No. 2142) Stoel Rives LLP 101 South Capitol Boulevard Suite 1900 Boise, ill 83702-7705 Tel: 208-387-4277 Fax: 208-389-9040 mshobson~stoel.com Ted D. Smith Stoel Rives LLP 201 South Main Street Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Tel: 801-578-6961 Fax: 801-578-6999 tsmith~stoe1.com QWEST CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO LEVEL 3'8 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS- Boise-185564.1 0099999-00001 Page 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing QWEST CORPORATION' RESPONSES TO LEVEL 3'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS was served on the _day of July, 2005 by first class mail, postage prepaid on the following individuals: Jean Jewell, Secretary Hand DeliveryIdaho Public Utilities Commission U. S. Mail 472 West Washington Street Overnight DeliveryO. Box 83720 Facsimile Boise, ill 83720-0074 Email ijewell~puc.state.id. Weldon Stutzman Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 West Washington Street O. Box 83720 Boise, ill 83720-0074 Telephone: (208) 334-0318 we 1 don. stutzman~puc .Idaho. gov -X- Erik Cecil Regulatory Counsel Level 3 Communications, LLC 1025 Eldorado Boulevard Broomfield, CO 80021 Henry T. Kelly Joseph E. Donovan Scott A. Kassman Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 333 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 857-2350 (telephone) (312) 857-7095 (facsimile) Dean J. Miller McDevitt & Miller LLP 420 West Bannock Street O. Box 2564 Boise, ill 83702 Hand Delivery U. S. Mail Overnight Delivery Facsimile Email Hand Delivery U. S. Mail Overnight Delivery Facsimile Email Hand Delivery U. S. Mail Overnight Delivery Facsimile Email Hand Delivery U. S. Mail Overnight Delivery Facsimile Email Stacy L. S mmers Legal Secretary Stoel Rives LLP QWEST CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO LEVEL 3'8 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS- Boise-185564.1 0099999-00001 Page 3 Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C Ol-OOlA INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:COlA The location of the POI between Qwest and Level 3 in Idaho does not determine whether Qwest has an obligation to pay reciprocal compensation to Level 3 forLevel 3' s transport of Qwest' s traffic. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Wi thout waiving the foregoing obj ections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Admitted. Under Qwest's proposed language, the physical location of the called and calling parties determine the nature of compensation. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C Ol-OO2A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0O2A The location of the Level 3' s switch in Idaho does not determine whether Qwest has an obligation to pay reciprocal compensation to Level 3 for Level3' s transport of Qwest' s traffic. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subject for discovery. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Admitted. Under Qwest's proposed language, the physical location of the called and calling parties determine the nature of compensation. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS-L3C Ol-OO3A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0O3A Qwest currently has interconnection agreements with one or more CLECs in Idaho under which those CLECs are permitted to carry mixed intraLATA interexchange, and interLATA interexchange traffic on the same trunk groups. RESPONSE: Admitted. Qwest currently has interconnection agreements with one or more CLECs in Idaho under which those CLECs are permitted to carry mixed intraLATAinterexchange, and interLATA interexchange traff ic . That traff ie, however, is transported on the same Feature Group D trunk groups, and not on LocalInterconnection Service (LIS) trunks. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C 01-004A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0O4A Qwest currently has interconnection agreements with one or more CLECs in Idaho under which Qwest provides transit traffic connection for those CLECsto other carriers. RESPONSE: Admitted. The use of the phrase "transit traffic" in interconnection agreements normally refers only to local transit traffic (i. e., where the called and calling parties are located within the same local calling area ("LCA") ). Transiting toll or interexchange traffic is normally covered by interconnection agreements by provisions related to Jointly Provided Switched Access obligations. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C 01-00SA INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:OOSA Qwest currently has agreements with one or more other incumbent local exchange carriers in Idaho under which Qwest provides transit traffic connection for those incumbent local exchange carriers to other carriers. Customers of Qwest' s own Idaho intrastate FX service do not pay toll charges on their FX interexchange calls, regardless of the distance of the call. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to the form of this request on the basis that it contains two distinct statements that are not appropriately combined in a single request for admission. Without waiving its objects, Qwest provides the following response: Admitted. Qwest currently has agreements with one or more other incumbent local exchange carriers in Idaho under which Qwest provides transit traffic connection for those incumbent local exchange carriers to other carriers. See response to Request No. 4A. Denied. Customers of Qwest' s own Idaho intrastate FX service do not pay toll charges on their FX interexchange calls, regardless of the distance of thecall. Qwest customers of FX service do pay toll charges for interexchangecalls. Calls to and from end users in the local calling area where the FX customer purchases an FX connection are treated as local. All calls to other exchanges are treated as interexchange calls and toll charges would apply. In addition, the FX customer pays for the transport from the LCA where the number is obtained by purchasing special access/private line products contained in the Idaho private line tariffs. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS-L3C 01-00GA INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:OOGA Qwest's position is that Voice over Internet Protocol traffic is subj ect carrier access charges, regardless of the origination and termination pointsof the call. RESPONSE: Denied. It is not Qwest' s position that carrier access charges apply to all VoIP traffic. Local VoIP traffic (based on the physical location of the VoIP provider POP and the physical location of the called party) is not subj ect carrier access charges under Qwest' s proposed language. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS-L3C Ol-OO7A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0O7A Qwest's position is that Voice over Internet Protocol traffic is subj ect carrier access charges only if the traffic originates in one LATA and terminates in another. RESPONSE: Denied. See response to Request No. GA. IntraLATA VoIP traffic is not necessarily local traffic. Indeed, a typical LATA usually has many different LCAs wi thin it. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C 01-008A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0O8A Qwest does not currently pay carrier access charges to other carriers for any of its own Voice over Internet Protocol services. RESPONSE: Denied. Qwest Corporation, the party to this proceeding, does not provide Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") service on either a retail or wholesalebasis. Qwest' s affiliate, Qwest Communications Corporation ("QCC"), offers both wholesale and retail VoIP services. QCC' s retail business and consumer VoIP services use Primary Rate ISDN (" PRI") services to terminate traffic to to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) in accordance with the ESPexemption. QCC currently terminates the traffic from its wholesale VoIP offering using Feature Group D access services. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C 01-009A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0O9A Qwest currently offers Qwest~ OneFlexTM Voice over Internet Protocol services within Idaho which provides customers "the option of choosing up to five additional phone numbers (virtual numbers) that will ring to your phone. Calls placed to a virtual phone number will ring the same phone as calls placed to your primary phone number. A virtual phone number can be beneficial if you have colleagues, friends or family living outside your local calling area. You could request a virtual number wi thin their area and the people who live in that local calling area can call you for a price of a local phonecall. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to these requests on the grounds that they are ambiguous and compound requests and as such are inappropriate requests to admit. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Qwest admits this request as to QCC but denies it as to Qwest Corporation. Idaho Case No. QWE-T-OS- L3C 01-010A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:010A Qwest currently offers Qwest~ OneFlexTM Voice over Internet Protocol services within Idaho that provide "Virtual Numbers" which Qwest describes as follows: Virtual Numbers are alias phone numbers that can be associated with your OneFlexTM phone number. Your friends and family can dial your Virtual phone number and avoid incurring long-distance charges. For example, if you live in Denver and your primary # is 303.xxx.xxxx and your family lives in Omaha, your family has to call long-distance. With OneFlex, you can get a virtual phone number assigned to your account with an Omaha area code, so your family doesn't have to pay long-distance charges. You can have up to 5 Virtual Phone Numbers attached to one primary OneFlex phone number. If your answer is anything other than an unqualifiGd admission, please describe in detail your qualification or denial, and provide any information or evidence which supports your qualification ordenial. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to these requests on the grounds that they are ambiguous and compound requests and as such are inappropriate requests to admit. wi thout waiving the foregoing obj ections, Qwest admits this request as to QCC but denies it as to Qwest Corporation. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C 01-0llA INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:011A Federal law currently does not permit the imposition of carrier accesscharges on information services. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subject for discovery. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Denied. The FCC's ESP exemption provides the ESP can purchase its connection to the local exchange as an end user. To the extent an information service is being provided, the ESP exemption may apply with regard to some accesscharges. However, this does not mean that all calls to and from an information service provider fall under the ESP exemption. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C 01-012A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:012A Interconnection contract language should be as consistent as possible with applicable federal law and regulations. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery.also obj ects on the ground that the request is vague and ambiguous.Qwest Wi thout waiving the foregoing obj ections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Qwest can neither admit nor deny this statement because it is so broad as to be meaningless; without an understanding of the specific context in which the statement may be applied, it is impossible for Qwest to respond with a simple admission or denial. There are, for example, situations in which parties agree to terms and conditions that vary from the requirements of federal law and regulations. Further, given that the parties are entering a contract to define a future business relationship, it is often necessary to provide language that goes beyond the language of the statute and rules. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS-11 L3C 01-013A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:013A Wireline local exchange services offered in Qwest' s 14-state area are provided through legal entities which operate within authorized regions subj ect to regulation by each state in which they operate and by the Federal Communications Commission. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it seeks a characterization of Qwest' s operations in states other than Idaho and is otherwise overlybroad, ambiguous and burdensome. Qwest further obj ects that the request appears to call for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Wi thout waiving the foregoing obj ections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Qwest can neither admit or deny this request. For example, to the extent that the request implies that Qwest uses multiple subsidiaries to provide traditional wireline services within its 14-state ILEC region, Qwest denies the request. For the most part, traditional wireline services are provided by one entity, Qwest Corporation, within the 14-state region. The level and manner of regulation in the 14-state area varies from state to state and from service to service. For example, in some states, the conceptof "authorized regions" no longer exists. On the other hand, to the extent the subject matter of a docket within a given state falls into areas delegated to state commissions by the 1996 Act (as in the case of the current arbitration docket), state commissions play a regulatory role in each of the14 states. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C Ol-014A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:O14A The Qwest regulated subsidiary which provides wireline local exchange services in the State of Colorado is a different subsidiary of Qwest than the Qwest subsidiary which provides wireline local exchange services in the State of Idaho. RESPONSE: Denied. Qwest Corporation is the same entity that provides wireline local exchanges services in both Colorado and Idaho. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C 01-01SA INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:01SA Qwest has transported VoIP traffic over its network in the State of Idaho, Qwest or Qwest' s affiliates have carried VoIP traffic to or from their own customers in the State of Idaho. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to the form of this request on the basis that it contains two distinct statements that are not appropriately combined in a single request for admission. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Admitted. Given the fact that VoIP is provided by a variety of providers (including Qwest's affiliate), Qwest Corporation has certainly transported traffic that meets the proper definition of VoIP (though, given the fact that the traffic may have been handed off to Qwest by a VoIP provider's carrier in TDM, Qwest would be unlikely to know that the traffic was a VoIP call since all TDM traffic appears the same to Qwest's network) Idaho Case No. QWE-OS- L3C 01-016A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:016A While the deployment of VoIP will result in increased competition for Qwest' s core wireline voice services, it also presents growth opportunities for Qwest to develop new products for its customers. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it solicits an opinion on a matter that can only be the subject of speculation. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Qwest can neither admit nor deny the request. There are simply too many variables and unknowns in the future to predict that the result described in the request is probable. The request describes one potential outcome. Idaho Case No. QWE-OS-L3C 01-017A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:017A Qwest favors federal and state legislative and regulatory policies which support the development of facilities-based competition. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is ambiguous and seeks an opinion on a matter that is necessarily subjective and therefore not anappropriate subj ect for a request to admit. Wi thout waiving the foregoing obj ections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Qwest can neither admit or deny this statement because it is so broad as to be meaningless; without an understanding of the specific context in which the statement may be applied, it is impossible for Qwest to respond with a simple admission or denial. That said, Qwest has gone on record in a variety of contexts agreeing with the FCC's conclusion that facilities-based competition is preferable to other forms of competition. However, any legislative or regulatory proposal that supports the development of facilities-based competition would need to be analyzed by Qwest in the context of the overall proposal (including all individual elements of such a proposal). For example, if a regulatory or legislative body proposed facilities-based competition based on confiscation of Qwest' s capital investment, Qwest would oppose such a proposal. Likewise, to the extent state or local governments propose to build infrastructure with tax dollars to compete with infrastructure of private companies, Qwest, as a matter of principle, opposes such initiatives. Idaho Case No. QWE-Os- L3C Ol-018A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUES T NO:018A The FCC's rule defining the "telecommunications" subject to reciprocal compensation is stated at 47 CFR ~ 51.701 (b) . RES PONSE : Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Qwest further obj ects that the cited federal regulations speaks for themselves. Wi thout waiving the foregoing obj ections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Denied. The question implies that 47 C.R. ~ sl.701(b) defines "telecommunications, when in fact it provides a definition for "telecommunications traffic.The term "telecommunications" is defined in section 153 (43) of the Act while "telecommunications service" is defined in section 153 (46). These statutes, along with other statutory provisions, FCC rules, FCC orders, and court decisions are all relevant to the definition of "telecommunications" for reciprocal compensation purposes. Idaho Case No. QWE-Os- L3C 01-019A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:019A FCC Rule 47 CFR ~ 51.701 (b) makes no reference of any kind or in any way to a category of traffic known as "local. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Qwest further obj ects that the cited federal regulations speaks for themselves. Wi thout waiving the foregoing obj ections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Denied. The question implies that 47 C. F. R. ~ 51.701 (b) makes no reference to the difference between local and non-local traffic. In fact, section 51.701 (b) (1) excludes three types of traffic from "telecommunicationstraffic.However, "telephone exchange service" (see section 153 (47)) is not one of those categories. The definition in the Act of "local exchange carrier" includes the provision of "telephone exchange service." (See section 153 (26). Thus, that subsection retains the distinction between local and non-local traffic. Section 51.701 (b) (2) retains the distinction betweenintra-MTA and inter-MTA traffic for reciprocal compensation purposes. Thus, while the term local" is not used, intra-MTA calling is the wireless version of "local" service. Idaho Case No. QWE-Os- L3C 01-020A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:020A The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains no definition of "local" telecommunications, "local" calling, or "local" exchange areas. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. further obj ects that the cited federal regulation speaks for itself.Qwest Without waiving the foregoing objections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Denied. Qwest has not performed a word search of the entire Telecommunications Act of 1934; Level 3 is as capable of doing so as Qwest is. Nonetheless, to the extent the import of the request is to suggest that the concepts of ,,\ local'telecommunications, \ local' traffic, or local; exchange areas'" are alien to federal telecommunications law, Qwest denies the same, as expressed in Qwest's response to Request 19. The concepts of "local traffic" and local exchange" service or areas are well established in federal and state law. Idaho Case No. QWE-Os- L3C 01-021A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:021A Qwest's end office and tandem switches do not store any information indicating the address or location of any end user's premises. RESPONSE: Qwest can neither admit nor deny this request. The telephone numbers that Qwest uses for call routing purposes are assigned to its end users based on NPA-NXXs associated with specific LCAs in thestate. Thus, Qwest' s end office and tandem switches process calls based on information that that in most, but not all, cases identifies the generalgeographic area wi thin which the end users are located. Thus, while switches do not route calls based on specific addresses stored within the switches, the routing and connecting function of switches are based on information concerning a customer's address and location located in other companydatabases. Furthermore, installation facts, repair facts, billing information and other related information related to specific customers are contained in company databases that are based on customer address and location information. Idaho Case No. QWE-Os- L3C 01-022A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:022A Qwest's end office and tandem switches route traffic to other switches and/or to end users on the basis of the dialed telephone number, without any reference to information regarding the address or location of any end user'premises. RESPONSE: Denied. The telephone numbers that Qwest uses for call routing purposes are assigned to its end users based on NPA-NXXs associated with specific LCAs in thestate. Thus, Qwest' s end office and tandem switches route traffic that in most, but not all, cases identifies the geographic location by local calling area within which the end user is located. Idaho Case No. QWE-Os-1l L3C 01-023A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:023A Qwest's end office switches determine whether to route a dialed call to an IXC on the basis of the telephone number dialed, and not on the basis of any information regarding the address or location of any end user's premises. RES PONSE : Denied. See Qwest's Response to Request No. 21A. As noted in the response to Request No. 21A, the telephone number dialed in most, but not all cases, provides information related to the geographic location of the end user being called and of the calling party. Idaho Case No. QWE-Os- L3C 01-024A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:024A All calls to ISPs for purposes of Internet access are subj ect to the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to these requests on the basis that they call for legal conclusions and are therefore not appropriate subj ects for discovery. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Qwest provides the followingresponse: Denied. State commissions have the jurisdiction under the Act to resolve open issues in arbitrations like this case, including issues related to ISPs andISP-bound traffic, through the approval of language in interconnectionagreements.