20060206Qwest 2nd requests to Level 3.pdf

STOEL
~~,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
February 6 2006
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, ill 83702-5983
RE:
i~,
:1 Fn I;: 1;6
T! L.!1 i:~
'; ! S S f Ci ,
Docket No. QWE-O5-
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing with this Commission is an original and three (3) copies of QWEST
CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3
COMMUNICATIONS, LLc.
101 S. Capitol Boulevard. Suite 1900
Boise. Idaho 83702
main 208.389.9000
lax 208.389.9040
www.stoeLcom
MARY S. HOBSON
Direct [phone]
mshobson0stoeLcom
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours
11J? (;(;0
Mary s. HJso
:blg
Enclosurescc: Service List
Boise-192634.10061273-00018
Oregon
Washington
California
Utah
Idaho
' ,\- -
Mary S. Hobson (ISB. No. 2142)
Stoel Rives LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard
Suite 1900
Boise, ill 83702-7705
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
mshobson~stoe1.com
~ n". 1 . 1.
- -
- u r t; .\. 'r
, " ;.
j\\'..'Ii:tS CUlii '\ISS\D:;
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Senior Attorney
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street - loth Floor
Boise, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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-05-
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND
SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), requests that Level 3 Communications, LLC ("Level 3"
submit answers to the following data requests by serving the same on its undersigned counsel on
or before February 17, 2006.
INSTRUCTIONS
These data requests shall be deemed continuing in nature, and any answer to a
data request must be supplemented when additional information responsive to the data request
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC -
Boise-192632.10061273-00018
Page 1
comes to your attention or the attention of your attorneys or other representatives while this
docket is pending.
Each data request should be answered fully and independently. If it is not
possible to provide a complete answer to a data request, or portion of a data request, the
remaining part of the data request should be answered and a reason should be stated why only
part of the data request has been answered.
All words used in their singular form shall include the words in their plural form
and all words in their plural form shall include the words in their singular form.
The use of the past tense shall include the present tense, and the use of the present
tense shall include the past tense.
If you contend that you are entitled to withhold any information requested herein
on a claim of privilege, then for each such item of information:
Identify the character of the information that is claimed to be privileged;
State the date and place of any communication which contained the
information;
Identify each person who sent, participated in, overheard, or received the
communication or who now has possession, custody, or control of any
documents relating thereto;
Describe the subject matter of the privileged information;
State the number of pages of any privileged document;
State the basis upon which you contend that you are entitled to withhold
the information.
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC -
Boise-192632.10061273-00018
Page 2
Any objection that you raise should be confined to that portion of the data request
for which you claim a privilege or objection and shall not excuse you from answering the
remaining part of the data request.
If any document requested has been lost or destroyed, state the circumstances of
such loss or destruction and identify each person having knowledge of such loss or destruction.
For any data request answered, identify the person or persons answering the data
request.
DEFINITIONS
As used in these data requests, the term "Level 3" shall refer to the Level 3
Communications, LLC (the Petitioner in this matter), its principals and predecessors in interest
and any person acting on behalf of any of them, including but not limited to their past or present
officers, directors, shareholders, agents, representatives, employees, attorneys, accountants, and
investigators.
As used in these data requests, the term "Qwest" shall refer to Qwest Corporation
its principals and predecessors in interest, including U S WEST Communications, Inc., and the
Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, and any person acting on behalf of any of
them, including but not limited to their past or present officers, directors, shareholders, agents
representatives, employees, attorneys, accountants, and investigators.
The term "data request" or "request" includes an interrogatory, request for
admission, and request for production of documents, as applicable.
The term "document" as used herein also includes, without limitation, papers
books, letters, journals, photographs, correspondence, telegrams, cables, telex messages
facsimile copies, brochures, memoranda, notes, notebooks, work papers, data sheets, bulletins
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC-
Boise-192632,10061273-00018
Page 3
instructions, tape recordings, video tapes, transcripts, minutes or other records of meetings or
conferences, reports, agendas, affidavits, studies, financial statements, press releases, contracts
pamphlets, catalogues, calendars, desk calendars, appointment books, diaries, time records
telephone logs, expense reports, and drafts of all of the above. The term "document" further
includes tapes, disks, and all other computer, electronic, photographic, magnetic, laser, or
mechanical means of storing and recording information, together with program and program
documentation necessary to use or retrieve such information, and printouts of such information.
The words "and" and "" shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively as
necessary to make the requests inclusive rather than exclusive.
The word "including" shall be construed to mean without limitation.
The term "communication" means any oral or written statements, conversations
meetings, speeches, discussions, remarks, questions, answers, telephone calls, letters
memoranda, correspondence, electronic transmissions, or other transmittal of information by
writing or by other means.
The terms "relating to" or "regarding" means constituting, comprising,
containing, consisting of, evidencing, setting forth, proposing, showing, disclosing, describing,
discussing, explaining, summarizing, concerning, reflecting, authorizing, referring to, or in any
way pertinent to that subject matter, either directly or indirectly.
The term "identify," or words of similar import:
When used in reference to a document, shall mean to describe the
document with sufficient specificity to enable it to be requested in a
subpoena duces tecum, including, but not limited to, the type of document
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC -
Boise-192632.10061273-00018
Page 4
its author (and, if different, its signer or signers), its date, its present or last
known location, and its present or last known custodian.
When used in reference to a natural person shall require the person s full
name, present or last known residence address, present or last known place
of employment, and present or last known occupation or job title.
10.The term "person" means any individual, firm, corporation, association
partnership, joint venture, governmental agency, or any other form of entity, together with any
officers, directors, partners, trustees, employees, representatives, or agents.
11.To "state the factual basis" for a claim, denial or defense means to provide a
reasonably detailed statement of the facts, information and matters which you presently believe
support or tend to support that claim, denial or defense. Your summaries should include, where
applicable, references to dates, times, persons and documents.
12.The term "Petition" shall refer to the Petition filed by Level 3 Communications
LLC in this docket.
13.The term "the Act" shall refer to the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
14.The term "this state" or "state " when the context indicates that the request is
referring to one of the fifty states, shall refer to the State of Idaho.
DATA REQUESTS
In his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Gates states: "LeveI3's proposed language was
acceptable to SBC, Verizon, and BellSouth." Gates Reb. at
With regard to that statement, please identify the specific contract
language proposed by Level 3 in this docket that "was acceptable to SBC
Verizon, and BellSouth." Identify such contract language by reference to
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC-
Boise-192632.l 0061273-00018
Page 5
the specific section proposed by Level 3 for the interconnection contract in
this proceeding.
Provide copies of approved interconnection agreements currently in effect
with (a) SBC, (b) Verizon, and (c) BellSouth in which the language
identified in subpart a is incorporated into the agreement. This request
may be satisfied by the production of one agreement for each of the three
ILECs identified.
In his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Gates testified that "(b)y requiring a single POI per
LATA, the FCC has effectively defined the local calling area for interconnecting to CLECs to be
the LATA." Gates Reb. at 12.
Please identify all FCC decisions (by docket number and date of decision)
upon which Mr. Gates relies for the quoted conclusion.
Is Mr. Gates or Level 3 aware of any FCC decisions wherein the FCC has
made the explicit holding that the local calling area for an interconnecting
CLEC is the LATA? Ifso, identify all such FCC decisions by docket
number, date of decision, and paragraph numbers wherein such a holding
was explicitly made.
In his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Gates states: "The FCC has pre-empted the
Commission on intercarrier compensation" for certain traffic. Gates Reb. at 25.
What specific types of traffic types does Mr. Gates claim that the FCC has
preempted the states with regard to intercarrier compensation?
As to each type of traffic identified in response to subpart a, identify the
FCC order or orders (by docket number, date, and paragraph numbers)
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC-
Boise-192632.1 0061273-00018
Page 6
wherein the FCC preempted state commissions on intercarrier
compensation for each specific type of traffic.
In his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Gates has stated that under the ESP exemption
ISPs are allowed to purchase their services from local tariffs. . . ." Gates Reb. at 31. Is Mr.
Gates aware of any Qwest Idaho tariffs or catalogued services" that allow an end user the LA T A-
wide ability to terminate calls without incurring additional charges to those assessed under the
local tariff or catalogue? If so, identify all such tariffs.
In other states, Mr. Gates has testified that Level 3 has agreements with IXCs for
IXC traffic and that "Level 3 is willing to pay access charges for IXC traffic." (Gates Iowa
Rebuttal at 32, lines 1-2). With regard to this statement, please respond to the following
questions:
As used in this specific statement, what describe traffic that falls within
Mr. Gates' definition of"IXC traffic.
Under Mr. Gate s definition of"IXC traffic " would a call from a Qwest
end user in Idaho Falls that is delivered to a Level 3 POI in Boise through
the use of a local Idaho Falls number and then delivered by Level 3 to an
ISP also located in Boise be an "IXC call" under Level3's definition? If
not, why not?
Under Level3's definition, would a call from a Qwest end user in Idaho
Falls that is delivered to a Level 3 POI in Boise through the use of a local
Idaho Falls number and then delivered by Level 3 to an ISP located in
New York City be an "IXC call" under Level3's definition? Ifnot, why
not?
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC-
Boise-192632,10061273-00018
Page 7
In other states, Mr. Ducloo contrasted two calls, one that originates with a Qwest
end user and terminates at the Des Moines Register and one that originates with a Qwest end
user, but "is terminated into the vastness of the Internet." (See Ducloo Iowa Rebuttal at page 7
lines 10-11: R. 123.
Using the quoted language as a hypothetical example, please describe
Level 3' s position as to where a call to the Internet terminates for purposes
ofthe application of compensation under the IS? Remand Order (i., the
location of the POI of carrier serving the ISP, the location of the
equipment of the ISP such as modems, servers, and routers, or the location
of the web sites the end user accesses during the Internet session, or some
other location).
If the termination point is not one of the three alternatives described in
subpart a, please identify the termination point.
Mr. Ducloo testified that "RUF is the concept that applies to entrance facilities
that Level 3 might purchase from Qwest which are dedicated to the exclusive use of the two
carriers." Ducloo Reb. at 10. Is it Level 3's position that RUF does not apply equally to direct
trunked transport (DTT)? If so, please explain why it would apply to entrance facilities and not
to DTT.
The following question relates to VoIP services where Level 3 provides such
service directly to government or business customers or where Level provides service that
enables third party VoIP providers to provide VoIP service:
Does Level 3 take the position in this docket that the physical location
where Level 3 provides the IP to TDM conversion should not be a factor
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICA nONS, LLC -
Boise-192632.10061273-00018
Page 8
in determining whether state or federal access charges apply to particular
VoIP calls exchanged between Level 3 and Qwest? If the response is
anything other than an unequivocal yes, please describe the situations in
which the physical location where Level 3 provides the IP to TDM
conversion should not be a factor in determining whether state or federal
access charges apply to particular VoIP calls exchanged between Level 3
and Qwest.
Does Level 3 consider all traffic carried or that it plans to carry on its network
Idaho to be "information services" traffic? Ifnot, please describe traffic that Level 3 carries or
plans to carry in Idaho that is not "information services" traffic.
10.Does Level 3 generate and store a switch or router-based record for calls
originating from Level 3 customers where the Level 3 customers are not charged per minute
charges? If so, please describe the information captured in the record.
11.The following questions relate to Level3's understanding of the application of its
proposed language with regard to VoIP traffic:
Assume a call is initiated in IP on IP-compatible CPE by a VoIP customer
of Level 3 (or a VoIP customer of a third party VoIP provider served by
Level 3), that customer has a Boise telephone number associated with its
VoIP service, the call enters the PSTN at a Qwest/Level 3 POI in Boise
and is transported by Qwest to a Qwest customer in Idaho Falls (with an
Idaho Falls telephone number). Under Level3's proposed language
would Qwest be entitled to intrastate access charges or would it only be
entitled to receive $.00077
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICA nONS, LLC -
Boise-192632,10061273-00018
Page 9
Assume a call is initiated in IP on IP-compatible CPE by a VoIP customer
of Level 3 (or a VoIP customer of a third party VoIP provider served by
Level 3), that customer has an Idaho Falls telephone number associated
with its VoIP service, the call enters the PSTN at a Qwest/Level 3 POI in
Boise, and is transported by Qwest to Qwest customer in Idaho Falls (with
a Idaho Falls telephone number). Under Leve13's proposed language
would Qwest be entitled to intrastate access charges or would it only be
entitled to receive $.00077
Assume a call is initiated in IP on IP-compatible CPE by a VoIP customer
of Level 3 (or a VoIP customer of a third party VoIP provider served by
Level 3), that customer has a Boise telephone number associated with its
VoIP service, the call enters the PSTN at a Qwest/Level 3 POI in Boise
and is transported by Qwest to Qwest customer in Boise (with a Boise
telephone number). Under Level3's proposed language, would Qwest be
entitled to intrastate access charges or would it only be entitled to receive
00077
Are there any circumstances under Level3's proposed language in which
Qwest would be allowed to assess terminating access charges on a call that
is initiated in IP on IP-compatible CPE by a VoIP customer of Level 3 (or
a VoIP customer of a third party VoIP provider served by Level 3) and
terminated by Qwest to a Qwest customer in Idaho? If so, describe such
situation or situations.
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC -
Boise-192632.10061273-00018
Page 10
12.In circumstances in which Level 3 provides VoIP services directly to large
business or government customers (as opposed to third party VoIP providers), does Level utilize
an interexchange carrier ("IXC") (either affiliated or non-affiliated with Level 3) for any VoIP
traffic.? If not, why not?
13.Assume a Qwest customer initiates a dial-up call to an ISP served by Level 3.
Mr. Gates uses the phrase "cost causer" in his testimony, who is the cost causer for that
particular call?
14.State separately the amount of terminating compensation that Level 3 has
received from SBC, Verizon and BellSouth for terminating ISP-Bound traffic during the most
recent month for which data is available. Also state the rate charged each such RBOC for
terminating ISP-Bound traffic for the month in which the amount of terminating compensation is
provided.
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC -
Boise-192632,10061273-00018
Page 11
DATED this 6th day of February, 2006.
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Senior Attorney
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street, loth Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Thomas. Dethl efs~qwest. com
QWEST CORPORATION
By:
NO"2142)
Stoel ves LLP
101 South CapitolBoulevard
Suite 1900
Boise, ill 83702-7705
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
mshobson~stoe1.com
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC-
Boise-192632.l 0061273-00018
Ted D. Smith
Stoel Rives LLP
201 South Main Street
Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
tsmith~stoe1.com
Page 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing QWEST
CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3
COMMUNICATIONS LLC was served on the 6th day of February, 2006, on the following
individuals:
Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83720-0074
iiewell~puc.state.id.
Weldon Stutzman
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83720-0074
Telephone: [phone]
weldon. stutzman~puc .Idaho. gOY
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
Erik Cecil
Regulatory Counsel
Level 3 Communications, LLC
1025 Eldorado Boulevard
Broomfield, CO 80021
erik.cecil~leve13 .com
Henry T. Kelly
Joseph E. Donovan
Scott A. Kassman
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (facsimile)
hkelly~kelleydrve.com
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2564
Boise, ill 83702
i oe~mcdevitt-miller .com
QWEST CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY
REQUESTS TO LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC -
Boise-192632.l 0061273-00018
Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnight Delivery
Facsimile
Email~/f?/If~
Brandi L. McMaho
Legal Assistant
Stoel Rives LLP
Page 13