20090701Transcript Vol I.pdf

ORIGINAL
-BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
QWEST CORPORATION FOR APPROVAL
OF NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTER
LISTS PURSUANT TO THE TRIENNIAL
REVIEW REMAND ORDER
CASE NO.
QWE-T-08-07
TECHNICAL HEARING
c:~ ~-iÕ ~
i
;:m("m
HEARING BEFORE
:::E= 0..
COMMISSIONER JIM D. KEMPTON
COMMISSIONER MARSHA H. SMITH
COMMISSIONER MACK A. REDFORD
oen
"
PLACE:Commission Hearing Room
472 West Washington Street
Boise, Idaho
DATE:June 22, 2009
VOLUME I - Pages i - 259
'-I.i iBI~I.-s~.b~POST OFFICE BOX 578
BOISE, IDAHO 83701
208-336-9208
e HEDRICK
COURT REPORTING
s'tH.v tk ~ M//fll/~ .lffu197
e
e
20
21
22
23
24
e 25
1 AP PEA RAN C E S
2
3 For the Staff:WELDON STUTZMAN, Esq.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702
4
5
For Qwest:MARY S. HOBSON, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
999 Main Street, Suite 1103
Boise, Idaho 83702
-and-
ADAM L. SHERR, Esq.
QWEST CORPORATION
1600 Seventh Avenue, Room 3206
Seattle, WA 98191
6
7
8
9
10
For Integra Telecom:DOUGLAS K. DENNEY,
Director, Costs & Policy
730 Second Avenue South,
Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
11
12
13
14 For 360networks (USA), Inc.:MICHEL SINGER NELSON, Esq.
Associate General Counsel
867 Coal Creek Circle, Suite 160
Louisville, CO 80027
15
16
17
18
19
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
APPEARANCES
1 I N D E Xe2
WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
3
Renee Albersheim Prefiled Testimony 2
4 (Qwest)
5 Rachel Torrence Prefiled Testimony 40
(Qwest)
6 Victoria Hunnicutt Prefiled Testimony 65
7 (Qwest)
8 Douglas Denney Prefiled Testimony 87
(Joint CLECs)
9
Renee Albersheim Prefiled Testimony 170
10 (Qwest-Rebuttal)
11 Rachel Torrence Prefiled Testimony 206
(Qwest-Rebuttal)
12
Victoria Hunnicutt Prefiled Testimony 245e13(Qwest-Rebuttal)
14
15
16
17
E X H I B I T S
18
19 NUMBER PAGE
20
For Qwest:
21 i.2/4/2005 Letter,Carlisle to Lytle Premarked
22 Admitted 1
23 2.Current List of Non-Impaired Wire Premarked
Centers in Idaho Admitted 1
24
3.Transport Impairment Premarkede25Admitted 1
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
INDEX
EXHIBITS
e
e
20
21
22
23
24
e 25
4.1 Multi-State Settlement Agreement,
21 pgs
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
Premarked
Admitted
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5.CONFIDENTIAL (Filed Under Attorney'sCertificate)3
4 6.Fiber-Based Collocation Architectures,
2 pgs
5
7.6/4/08 Letter, Qwest to CLECs, 3 pgs
6
7 8.CONFIDENTIAL (Filed Under Attorney'sCertificate)
8
9.CONFIDENTIAL (Filed Under Attorney'sCertificate)9
10 10.CONFIDENTIAL (Filed Under Attorney's
Certificate)
11
11.CONFIDENTIAL (Filed Under Attorney'sCertificate)12
13
For the Joint CLECs:
14
201.Colorado PUC Docket No. 06M-080T,
Reporter's Transcript, 9 pgs15
16 202.Colorado PUC Docket No. 06M-080T,
Decision No. C08-0969, 113 pgs
17
203.Arizona T-03632A-06-0091, et al.,
Joint CLECs Requests, 4 pgs18
19 204.Washington UTC Docket UT-063061,
Order 18, 26 pgs
205.Minnesota PUC Docket P-421/C-07-370
and P-421/C-07-371 Order, 18 pgs
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
EXHIBITS
e
e
20
21
22
23
24
lt 25
1 BOISE, IDAHO, MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2009, 9:30 A.M.
2
3
4 (The following proceedings were had
5 pursuant to Stipulation.)
6 (Qwest Exhibit Nos. 1-11 and Joint CLECs
7 Exhibit Nos. 201-205, having been premarked for identification,
8 were admitted into evidence.)
9 (The following prefiled direct testimony
10 of Renee Albersheim, Rachel Torrence, Victoria Hunnicutt, and
11 Douglas Denney, as well as the prefiled direct rebuttal
12 testimony of Renee Albersheim, Rachel Torrence, and Victoria
13 Hunnicutt, is spread upon the record.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
COLLOQUY
e
e
e
1 I.IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2 Q.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS AND
3 POSITION WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
4 My name is Renée Albersheim. I am employed by Qwest ServicesA.
5 Corporation, parent company of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), as a Staff Witnessing
6 Representative. I am testifying on behalf of Qwest. My business address is 1801
7 California Street, 24th floor, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
8 Q.PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
9 AND EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE.
10 I have been working in Qwests Global Wholesale Markets organzationA.
11 since December 2003. Before December 2003, I had worked in Qwests Information
12 Technologies Wholesale Systems organzation since joining Qwest in October 1999. As
13 a Staff Witnessing Representative, I provide support for Qwests responses to regulatory
14 issues associated with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, FCC orders, state commission
15 decisions, and other legal and regulatory matters.
16 Prior to becoming a Qwest employee, I worked for 15 years as a consultat on
17 many systems development projects and in a varety of roles, including the following:
18 programer and systems developer, systems architect, project manager, information
19 center manager and softare trainng consultat. I worked on projects in a number of
20 different industres, including: oil and gas; electric, water and telephone utilties;
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 1
QWEST CORPORATION
2
e
e
e
1 insurance; fast food; computer hardware; and the miltar. I also designed and developed
2 a number of applications, including electronic interfaces. During that time, I worked on
3 several of Qwests Operations Support Systems ("OSS") as a consultant on Human
4 Resources and Interactive Access Biling Systems ("lABS") projects.
5 In addition to working full-time at Qwest, I also eared a Juris Doctor degree
6 from the University of Denver College of Law and passed the Colorado Bar Examination
7 in October 2001. Prior to attending law school, I received a Master of Business
8 Administration in Management Information Systems from the University of Colorado
9 College of Business and Administration in 1985 and a Bachelor of Ars degree from the
10 University of Colorado in 1983.
11
12
Q.HAVE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMISSION BEFORE?
A.I fied wrtten testimony with the Commission in a cost docket, Docket
13 No. QWE-T-Ol-ll, but I have not appeared at a hearng in Idaho.
14 Q.OTHER STATEHAVEYOU TESTIFIED BEFORE
15 REGULATORY COMMISSIONS?
16 As a witness for Qwest s Global Wholesale Markets organization, I haveA.
17 filed wrtten testimony and appeared before the commissions in Arzona, Colorado, Iowa,
18 Minnesota New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. In my job as a
19 witness on matters dealing with Qwest s interconnection agreements and operations
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 2
QWEST CORPORATION3
e
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
e
1 support systems, I have also submitted wrtten testimony in North Dakota, South Dakota,
2 Montana, and Nebraska.
3
II. PURPOSE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY
Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?
A. The purose of my testimony is to put this case into context by giving a
high-level sumar and the appropriate background for the case, as well as to introduce
Qwest s other witnesses who will testify in more detail about the specific issues in the
case. For example, I wil explain the impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and
the origins of the FCC's Triennal Review Remand Order ("TRRO") that is at issue in this
proceeding. I will also explain the unbundling and the changes to unbundling mandated
by the TRRO, and will discuss the portion of the TRRO that is being addressed by the
Commission in this proceeding. I will also describe the Settlement Agreement that was
reached between Qwest and a joint group of Competitive Local Exchange Carers
("CLECs"), and that was approved by state public utilities commissions in five states,
and explain how it is relevant here. I wil also describe the methodology established in
the Settlement Agreement that Qwest used to develop counts of business access lines in
Idaho wire centers. And finally, I will explain how this methodology can be used by this
Commission to establish procedures for futue TRRO proceedings.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 3
QWEST CORPORATION4
e
e
e
1 III. A BRIEF HISTORY OF TRO/TRRO
2 Q.WHT IS THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996?
3 A.The Telecommuncations Act of 1996 ("the Act") was a signficant change
4 in the law governng telecommunications in the United States. i The Act's primar
5 purose was to promote competition in local telephone service markets, thereby giving
6 consumers a choice of local service providers.
7 Q.HOW DID THE ACT CREATE COMPETITION FOR LOCAL
8 TELEPHONE SERVICE?
9 A.Among other things, the Act required Incumbent Local Exchange Carers
10 ("ILECs") such as Qwest2 to unbundle, or break apar, the physical fuctional
11 components of their telephone networks, and lease these components, or piece pars,
12 known as Unbundled Network Elements ("UNEs"), to Competitive Local Exchange
13 Cariers ("CLECs").
14 Q.WHAT IS A WIRE CENTER?
15 A.Very simply, a wire center is the physical structure (a building) where a
16 telephone company connects local phone lines to its telephone network. A wire center is
17 also sometimes known as a central office. The wire center usually contains one or more
18 telephone switches, which connect the varous pars of the telephone network together
i Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C.
§§151 et seq.
2 Qwest was known as US WEST at the time the Act was passed.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
. ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 4
QWEST CORPORATION5
-
e
e
1 and route calls to their final destinations. In Idaho, most communties have a single wire
2 center. However, Boise, because of its relative size, has three wire centers serving the
3 community.
4 Q.HOW ARE WIRE CENTERS RELEVANT TO TIDS
5 PROCEEDING?
6 A.As I will discuss in detail below, the FCC implemented the TRRO based
7 on its analysis of the level of competition within wire centers (in other words, based on
8 the number of certain telephone lines and the number of competing telephone companes
9 operating withn a wire center).
10
11
Q.WHAT IS AN UNBUNDLED LOOP?
A.An unbundled loop is a UNE (network element). In its most basic form, a
12 loop is a pair of wires that connect an end-user's (or customer's) telephone to a telephone
13 company switch, which then connects the end-user to the rest of the company's telephone
14 network in order to route calls to their final destinations. If a CLEC (Qwest competitor)
15 leases an unbundled loop from an ILEC (such as Qwest), the CLEC can connect the end-
16 user to its own switch.
17
18 A.
AR THERE DIFFERENT KINDS OF UNBUNDLED LOOPS?Q.
Yes. There are different "sizes" or capacities of unbundled loops. The loop that I
19 described above, for a single end-user, is known as a DSO, or a "voice-grade" loop. In
20 simplest terms, this is one telephone line. These lines can be grouped together into larger
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/l7/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 5
QWEST CORPORATION6
-1 capacities. The next larger capacity is known as a DS 1. A DS 1 is equivalent to 24 DSOs,
2 or 24 lines. The next larger capacity is known as a DS3. A DS3 is equivalent to 672
3 DSOs (i.e., 672 telephone lines, or 28 DSls (28 X 24 = 672)). DSl and DS3 unbundled
4 loops are also known as "high-capacity" loops.3
5 Q.HOW-AR UNBUNDLED LOOPS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE?
6 A.As I will discuss in detail below, the TRRO determines whether or not
7 Qwest is stil required to provide unbundled loops to CLECs in certn wire centers.
8 Q.WHAT IS UNBUNDLED INTEROFFICE TRASPORT?
9 A.For puroses of the TRRO, unbundled interoffce transport is a physical
10 facility that a CLEC can lease from Qwest to create a transmission path from one Qwest
e 11 wire center to another Qwest wire center. Such a transmission path would be used by a
12 CLEC to car its telecommuncations traffc between two wire centers.
13 Q.ARE THERE DIFFERENT KINDS OF UNBUNDLED
14 INTEROFFICE TRANSPORT?
15 A.Yes. Just like unbundled loops, interoffice transport facilties come in
16 different sizes or capacities. The capacities relevant to this case are DS 1 and DS3
17 interoffce transport facilities. These facilities are also known as high-capacity transport
l8 facilities.
3 This. description has been simplified. There are other technical specifications which determine
whether a loop can car voice traffc. Such technical detail is not necessar to this discussion.
e CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 6
QWEST CORPORATION
7
-
e
e
1 Q.HOW is UNBUNDLED INTEROFFICE TRANSPORT RELEVANT
2 TO THIS CASE?
3 A.As I will discuss in detail below, the TRRO determines whether or not
4 Qwest is required to provide unbundled transport between two or more wire centers to
5 CLECs.
6
7
Q.
A.
WHAT is UNBUNDLED DARK FIBER?
Dark fiber is fiber optic cable though which no light is being transmitted,
8 and therefore no signal is being cared. Once dark fiber is connected to the proper
9 electronics to allow the transmission of light, the fiber is then known as lit fiber. ILECs
10 were formerly required by the Act to make unbundled dak fiber available to CLECs.
11 Dark fiber can be used for both loops and transport.
12 Q.
13 CASE?
14 A.
HOW is UNBUNDLED DAR FIBER RELEVANT TO THIS
As I will discuss in detail below, the TRRO determines whether or not
15 ILECs are stil required to provide dark fiber to CLECs.
16 Q.
17 PRICED?
18 A.
HOW ARE UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS (UNES)
The Act requires ILECs to base the prices for UNEs on an economic cost
19 concept known as Total Element Long Run Incremental Costs ("TELRIC"). Put simply,
CASE NO. QWE- T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 7
QWEST CORPORATION
8
-
e
e
1 the price of a UNE is based on a forward-looking cost to provide the UNE. These costs
2 are generally established in cost dockets presided over by state utilities commissions.
3 Q.HOW is PRICING IMPACTED BY THIS CASE?
4 If a UNE is eliminated under the stadards of the TRRO, Qwest is noA.
5 longer obligated to provide that UNE at a TELRIC rate, although Qwest may stil offer an
6 equivalent service at a market-based price (in other words, not at the forward-looking
7 TELRIC cost). Under these circumstaces, the CLEC then has the option of purchasing
8 the commercial equivalent for the UNE from Qwest, purchasing the service or facility
9 from another provider, or self-provisioning the service or facility itself.
10 DID THE ACT INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO REVIEW THE STATEQ.
11 OF COMPETITION?
12 A. Yes. The Act requires the FCC to review the state of competition every
13 three years.4 This is known as a triennial review.
14 Q. PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE GENESIS OF THE FCC'S
15 FIRST TRIENNIAL REVIEW.
16 In 2001, the FCC initiated a proceeding to review its policies onA.
17 unbundling under the Act. 5 The FCC sought "comment on how best to update its rules
4 47 U.S.C. § 257(c).5 Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers,
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment
of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capabilty, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98,
98-147, Notice ofPröposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 22781 (2001) ("Triennial Review NPRM').
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 8
QWEST CORPORATION
9
-
e
e
1 and make them more 'granular' to reflect competitive conditions in different markets."6
2 The FCC's intent was to ensure that its unbundling rules were faithful to the requirements
3 of the Act, but at the same time reflected changes in the marketplace for
4 telecommunications services and advances in technology, and remove unbundling
5 obligations in response to these changes.
7
6 Q.WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE FIRST TRIENNIAL
7 REVIEW?
8 Upon completion of the Triennal Review, the FCC published its TriennialA.
9 Review Order ("TRO") in October 2003.8 This order created a revised list of unbundled
10 network elements or "UNEs" (a revised list of network elements that ILECs like Qwest
11 were required to continue to offer to CLECs at TELRIC (forward-lookig) costs). The
12 TRRO also removed unbundling requirements for broadband services in order to
13 encourage investment in broadband facilities, and established a signficant role for state
14 utilities commissions to determine "impairment. ,,9
6 http://ww.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/triennial review/.
7 In the Matter of Review of Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Order on Remand, CC Docket No. 01-
338, WC Docket No. 04-313,20 FCC Rcd 2533, at 2 (2004).
8 Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers,
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment
of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capabilty, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98,
98-147, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Furer Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd
16978, 17145 (2003) ("Triennial Review Order" or "TRO").
9 "Impairent" is a term used by the FCC to describe the state of competition in a given market.
If the FCC describes a market as "impaired," that means the FCC sees impediments to competition in that
market such that ILECs are required to continue to offer UNs at TELRIC prices to CLECs in order to
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 9
QWEST CORPORATION10
e 1 Q.DID THESE NEW RULES COMPLETE THE TRIENN
2 REVIEW PROCESS?
3 A.No. A number of impacted paries appealed the TRO to the D.C. Circuit
4 Cour of Appeals. The cour upheld a number of the rules that the FCC had established in
5 the TRO, but most relevant to this proceeding, the cour vacated and remanded the FCC's
6 findings of nationwide impairment for "mass market switching" and dedicated
7 transport.
10 The court also vacated the FCC's delegation of authority to state
8 commissions to conduct granular impairment analysis as established in the TRO. United
9 States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (2004) ("USTA Ir'). The cour determined
10 that the FCC did not properly relate the possibility of competitive deployment of facilties
11 in one market to the actual deployment of facilities in similar geographic markets. Id. at
12 575.e
13 Q.
14 A.
15 Rulemaking
HOW DID THE FCC RESPOND TO THE USTA II DECISION?
In August 2004, the FCC issued an Interim Order and Notice of Proposed
("NP RM') eliminating a number of sections of the TRO, and sought
continue to foster competition. Conversely, if the FCC describes a market as being "non-impaired," the
FCC considers that market to be open to competition such that lLECs like Qwest are not required to
continue to offer UNs at TELRIC prices to CLECs.
10 Access to ILEC switching (the use of an ILEC switch, so that a CLEC would not have to deploy
its own switch) was originally a UN, and as such was used by the FCC to measure impairent in the
TRO. In the TRRO, the FCC determined that ILECs were no longer required to unbundle switching. So the
availability of mass market switching is not at issue in this case.
e CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 10
QWEST CORPORATION11
e 1 comment on a response to USTA II. The FCC then published the TRRO on Februar 4,
2 2005.11
3 Q.WHT RULES ESTABLISHED BY THE TRRO ARE RELEVANT
4 TO THIS PROCEEDING?
5 A.Among other things, the TRRO clarfies the obligations of ILECs like
6 Qwest to provide unbundled access to dedicated interoffce transport and high-capacity
7 loops. The TRRO also clarfies the "impairment" stadard. Impairment is now evaluated
8 as it relates to the capabilities of a "reasonably efficient competitor." TRRO, at ir 24. If a
9 market is considered "impaired," there is not suffcient competition in that market to
10 relieve an ILEC of its unbundling obligations. Using this stadard, the TRRO determines
11 whether unbundling is required for dedicated interoffce transport on a route-by route
e 12 basis, depending on the number of "business lines"12 and "fiber-based collocators"13 in
11 In the Matter of Review of Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Order on Remand, CC Docket No. 01-
338, WC Docket No. 04-313, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, (2004) ("Triennial Review Remand Order" or "TRRO").
The TRRO was affirmed by the D. C. Circuit Cour of Appeals on June 16,2006. See Covad
Commns. Co. v. FCC, 2006 U.s. App. LEXIS 14826 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2006). The decision is also
available at http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/bin/opinions/allopinions.asp .
12 47 CFR § 51.5 defies a "business line" as follows: "A business line is an incumbent LEC-
owned switched access line used to serve a business customer, whether by the incumbent LEC itself or by a
competitive LEC that leases the line from the incumbent LEC."
13 47 CFR § 51.5 defines a "fiber-based collocator" as follows: "A fiber-based collocator is any
carier, unaffiliated with the incumbent LEC, that maintains a collocation argement in an incumbent
LEC wire center, with active electrcal power supply, and operates a fiber-optic cable or comparable
trsmission facilty that (1) terminates at a collocation argement within the wire center; (2) leaves the
incumbent LEC wire center premises; and (3) is owned by a par other than the incumbent LEC or any
affliate of the incumbent LEC, except as set forth in this paragraph." Please see the Direct Testimony of
Rachel Torrence for fuher details regarding fiber-based collocators.
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 11
QWEST CORPORATION12
e 1 paricular wire centers. For DS 1 and DS3 loops, the FCC uses a methodology similar to
2 its treatment of high-capacity transport. Specifically, the FCC establishes a wire center-
3 by-wire center analysis method to determine whether a given wire center is subject to
4 actual or potential competition based on specific criteria, including the number of
5 business lines and th~ number of fiber-based collocators in that wire center. These new
6 criteria, and the associated analyses methods, wil be discussed in greater detail in the
7 next section.
8 Q.DID THE FCC REQUIRE ILECs TO TAK AN IMMEDIATE
9 ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THE TRRO?
10 A.Yes. Based on the transition plan outlined in the TRRO at paragraphs 142
11 through 145 and paragraphs 195 through 198, ILECs such as Qwest were required to fie
e 12 a list of non-impaired wire centers coincident with the effective date of the TRRO, March
13 11, 2005. Qwest also received a letter from the FCC requesting the list of non-impaired
14 wire centers. This letter is attched as Qwest Exhbit 1. Qwest fied a list of non-
15 impaired wire centers in Februar 2005. The curent list of non-impaired wire centers in
16 the state of Idaho is attched as Qwest Exhbit 2.
17 Q.WHT HAPPENS WHEN A WIRE CENTER IS DETERMINED TO
18 BE NON-IMPAIRED?
19 A.If a wire center is determined to be non-impaired for certin UNEs, this
20 means that, per the FCC's rules, there is suffcient competition in that wire center and
21 thus Qwest is no longer obligated to provide those UNEs at TELRIC rates in that wire
e CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 12
QWEST CORPORATION13
e
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
e
1 center. The CLEC can purchase an alternative tarffed or commercial service or facility
2 from Qwest, or a service or facility from another competitor; alternatively, the CLEC can
3 choose to self-provision the service or facility.
4 GIVEN THAT THE FCC HAS ESTABLISHED THE RULES FORQ.
5 DETERMINING NON-IMPAIRMENT, WHY HAS QWEST COME BEFORE
6 THE COMMISSION?
A. Qwest is not asking the Commission to issue an order regarding the TRRO
rules themselves. The FCC intended the unbundling rules established in the TRRO to be
largely self-effectuating and implemented though negotiations between ILECs and
CLECs. TRRO, at ~ 233. Rather, Qwest is asking the Commission to approve the list of
wire centers in Idaho that Qwest has determined to be non-impaired in order to
implement the rules that the FCC established in the TRRO.
Following a discussion of the new impairent standards that the FCC established,
I wil also discuss the terms of the Settlement Agreement reached by Qwest and varous
CLECs (including Integra, an intervenor CLEC in this docket) in some of the larger states
in Qwests ILEC terrtory in which Qwest had brought TRRO proceedings to implement
the TRRO. I will also describe the methodology for counting business lines, and I wil
introduce the witnesses who will discuss Qwest's data in support the methodology for
counting fiber-based collocations and the pricing for conversions.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 13
QWEST CORPORATION14
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
e
iv. NON-IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLDS FOR TRANSPORT AND THE
WIRE CENTER TIER STRUCTURE
Q. WHAT is THE WIRE CENTER TIER STRUCTURE THAT THE
FCC ESTABLISHED IN THE TRRO FOR HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSPORT?
A. The FGC created a three-tier structure to classify wire centers based on
their potential to support competitive transport deployment. Per the FCC, "Tier 1" wire
centers are those with the highest likelihood for actual and potential competitive
deployment of alternative services or facilities, including wholesale opportties. "Tier
2" wire centers also show a smaller but stil very signficant likelihood of actul and
potential competitive deployment. "Tier 3" wire centers are those that show a generally
10w likelihood of supporting actual or potential competitive transport deployment.
TRRO, at 1 111.
Q. WHAT CRITERIA DID THE FCC USE TO DETERMINE WHICH
WIRE CENTERS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS TIER 1 WIRE CENTERS FOR
HIGH-CAPACITY TRASPORT?
A. The FCC defines "Tier 1" wire centers as those with four or more fiber-
based collocators, or with 38,000 or more business lines. 47 CFR § 51.319(e)(3)(i). The
FCC determined that these thesholds indicate that very extensive CLEC transport
deployment exists or is likely to exist in these wire centers, and that competitors are
likely to provide transport services on a wholesale basis. TRRO, at 1112.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM,R (Di) 14
QWEST CORPORATION15
e 1 Q.WHT CRITERIA DID THE FCC USE TO DETERMINE WHICH
2 WIRE CENTERS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS TIER 2 WIRE CENTERS FOR
3 HIGH-CAPACITY TRASPORT?
4 A.The FCC defines "Tier 2" wire centers as those with thee or more fiber-
5 based collocators, or' with 24,000 or more business lines. 47 CFR § 51.319( e )(3 )(ii).
6 These thesholds suggest that multiple carers have overcome the costs of deployment
7 and that there are revenues available to substantiate deployment. TRRO, at ~ 118.
8 Q.WHAT CRITERIA DID THE FCC USE TO DETERMINE WHICH
9 WIRE CENTERS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS TIER 3 WIRE CENTERS FOR
1 0 HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSPORT?
11 A.The FCC considers all wire centers that are not Tier 1 or Tier 2 wire
e 12 centers as "Tier 3" wire centers. 47 CFR § 51.319(e)(3)(ii). Put another way, all wire
13 centers with fewer than three fiber-based collocators or with fewer than 24,000 business
14 lines are Tier 3 wire centers.
15 Q.WHT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FCC'S WIRE CENTER
16 TIER STRUCTURE FOR HIGH-CAPACITY TRASPORT?
17 A.The FCC uses these tiers as indicators of non-impairment and bases its
18 unbundling requirements for DS 1, DS3 and dark fiber interoffce transport on these tiers.
19 Please see Qwest Exhibit 3 for an ilustration of the wire center tier strcture and the non-
20 impairment criteria.
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di) 15
QWEST CORPORATION16
-1 Q.WHT AR THE UNBUNDLING REQUIREMENTS FOR DSI
2 TRASPORT?
3 A.The FCC determined that there is no impairment for DS 1 interoffice
4 transport between two Tier 1 wire centers. As a result, ILECs such as Qwest are not
5 obligated to provide unbundled DS 1 interoffce transport on routes connecting two Tier 1
6 wire centers. 47 CFR § 51.319(e)(2)(ii)(A).
7 Q.WHT ARE THE UNBUNDLING REQUIREMENTS FOR DS3
8 TRASPORT?
9 A.The FCC concluded that there is no impairment for DS3 interoffce
10 transport on routes connecting wire centers where both of the wire centers are either Tier
11 1 or Tier 2 wire centers. The FCC determined that competitive transport facilties have
e 12 been or can be deployed between such wire centers, and that signficant revenue
13 opportities make such deployments economically feasible. Therefore, ILECs such as
14 Qwest are not obligated to provide unbundled DS3 interoffice transport on routes
15 connecting either Tier 1 or Tier 2 wire centers. 47 CFR § 51.319( e )(2)(iii)(A).
16 Q.WHT AR THE UNUNDLING REQUIREMENTS FOR DARK
17 FIBER TRANSPORT?
18 A.The FCC concluded that there is no impairment for dark fiber interoffce
19 transport on routes connecting wire centers where both of the wire centers are either Tier
20 1 or Tier 2 wire centers. The FCC determined that competitive transport facilities have
21 been or can be deployed between such wire centers, and that significant revenue
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 16
QWEST CORPORATION17
e
e
e
1 opportties make such deployments economically feasible. Therefore, ILECs such as
2 Qwest are not obligated to provide unbundled dark fiber interoffce transport on routes
3 connecting either Tier 1 or Tier 2 wire centers. 47 CFR § 51.319( e )(2)(iv)(A).
4
5
6
NON-IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLDS FOR UNBUNDLED DSI AND DS3
LOOPS
v.
7 Q.DID THE FCC USE THE WIRE CENTER TIER STRUCTURE TO
8 ESTABLISH NON-IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLDS FOR HIGH-CAPACITY
9 LOOPS?
10 A.No. However, the FCC uses a methodology similar to its treatment of
11 high-capacity transport in that it establishes a wire center-by-wire center unbundling
12 requirement to determine whether a wire center is subject to actul or potential
13 competition for high-capacity loops, based upon the number of business lines and the
14 number of fiber-based collocators in the wire center.
15 Q.WHAT IS THE IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLD FOR UNBUNDLED
16 DSI LOOPS?
17 A.Per the FCC, there is no impairment for DS 1 loops within a service area of
18 a wire center that contains 60,000 or more business lines and four or more fiber-based
19 collocators. 47 CFR § 51.319(a)(4)(i). Therefore, ILECs such as Qwest are not obligated
20 to provide unbundled DS 1 loops in these wire centers.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 17
QWEST CORPORATION18
e 1 Q.WHAT is THE IMPAIRMENT THRSHOLD FOR UNBUNDLED
2 DS3 LOOPS?
3 A.The FCC determined that there is no impairment for DS3 loops within a
4 service area of a wire center that contains 38,000 or more business lines and four or more
5 fiber-based collocators. 47 CFR § 51.319(a)(5)(i). Therefore, ILECs such as Qwest are
6 not obligated to provide unbundled DS3 loops in these wire centers.
7 Q.is THERE AN IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLD FOR UNBUNDLED
8 DAR FIBER LOOPS?
9 A.No. The FCC determined that there is no impairment for dark fiber loops
10 on a nationwide basis. Therefore, ILECs such as Qwest are no longer obligated to
11 provide unbundled dark fiber loops in any wire center. 47 CFR § 51.319(a)(6)(i).
e 12
13 VI.
14
QWEST'S PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISIDNG NON-IMPAIRED WIRE
CENTERS
15 Q.HAS QWEST ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES FOR COUNTING
16 FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS AND THE NUMBER OF BUSINESS LINES IN
17 A WIRE CENTER?
18 A.Yes. Qwest and the paricipating CLECs in the other states that held
19 earlier non-impaired wire center dockets agreed to procedures for counting business lines
20 and fiber-based collocators in the Joint Settlement Agreement, which I will discuss in
21 detail in section VII of ths testimony. In that section, I will also describe the
e CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 18
QWEST CORPORATION19
e 1 methodology that Qwest used to determine business line counts in this case based on the
2 Settlement Agreement.
3 Then, in Section VIII of this testimony, I will discuss the business line count
4 methodology.
5 The FCC-based methodology for counting fiber-based collocators will be
6 discussed in detail by Qwest witness Rachel Torrence.
7 Q.WHAT is THE RESULT OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-
8 IMPAIRMENT FOR DSI OR DS3 TRASPORT OR FOR CERTAIN HIGH-
9 CAPACITY LOOPS?
10 A.Put very simply, the associated circuits that were leased by CLECs as
11 UNEs wil need to be converted from UNEs to alternative Qwest services~: or to
e 12 wholesale services obtained from another carer, or be self-provisioned by the CLEC
13 itself.
14 Q.WHICH QWEST WITNESS WILL DISCUSS THE ACTIVITIES
15 ASSOCIATED WITH CONVERSIONS TO ALTERNATIVE QWEST
16 SERVICES?
17 A.Qwest witness Victoria Huricutt will discuss the activities associated
18 with the conversions of UNEs to alternative Qwest services, including Qwest's
19 assessment of a nonrecurng charge for these conversions.
20
e CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 19
QWEST CORPORATION20
e 1
2
VII. PROCESS FOR UPDATING LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS
BASED ON A MULTI-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
3 Q.QWEST IS PRESENTING AN INITIAL LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED
4 WIRE CENTERS IN THIS CASE. SHOULD QWEST BE ALLOWED TO
5 UPDATE THE LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS?
6 A.Yes, Qwest should be allowed to update the list of non-impaired wire
7 centers as often as necessar. While Qwest and the CLECs agreed in the Settlement
8 Agreement that business line updates will only be done once a year, given that the data
9 upon which business line counts are based (the FCC's Automated Reporting
10 Management Information System ("ARMIS") data) is only prepared and submitted to the
11 FCC once per year, the status of fiber-based collocations are not limited in this way. For
12 example, at any point in time, a new fiber-based collocation could be placed in a wire
e 13 center, thereby changing the status of that wire center to non-impaired.
14
14 Q.DOES QWEST EXPECT TO UPDATE ITS LIST OF NON-
15 IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS IN THE FUTURE?
16 A.Yes, Qwest expects to update its list of non-impaired wire centers to the
17 extent that additional wire centers meet the FCC criteria in the futue. As noted above,
14 The FCC anticipated such changes as well. "We recognize that some high-capacity loops with
respect to which we have found impairent may in the futue meet our thesholds for non-impairent. For
example, as competition grows, competitive LECs may constrct new fiber~based collocations in a wire
center that curently has more than 38,000 business lines but 3 or fewer collocations. In such cases, we
expect incumbent LECs and requesting carers to negotiate appropriate transition mechanisms through the
section 252 process." TRRO, atfn. 519.
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 20
QWEST CORPORATION21
e 1 the FCC determined ~ that the rules in the TRRO are self-effectuating, and that "our
2 unbundling rules are designed to remove unbundling obligations over time."
3 TRRO, at , 3. Indeed, in the five states in which the Settlement Agreement has been
4 approved, Qwest has updated its list of non-impaired wire centers over the past two years,
5 using the terms of the Settlement Agreement as guidance for those updates.
6 Thus, going forward, if updates to the list of non-impaired wire centers are
7 required, Qwest intends to update the list of non-impaired wire centers using the same
8 FCC counting methodologies described in this proceeding.
9 Q.IN THE STATES WHERE QWEST FIRST BEGAN TRRO
10 PROCEEDINGS, DID QWEST AND THE PARTICIPATING CLECs REACH A
11 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING THE TRRO, INCLUDING
e 12 THE PROCESS FOR UPDATING THE NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTER
13 LISTS?
14 A.Yes. Qwest and the CLECsl5 who were involved in the TRRO
15 proceedings in certain other states (known as ''the Joint CLECs") reached a multi-state
16 Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") that established the initial wire center
17 lists in those states, and fuher established an agreed-upon process for updating the lists
18 going forward. Ths Settlement Agreement was approved in five of the six states
19 included withn the agreement, and has been used to update the non-impaired wire center
15 The Joint CLECs included Integra (an intervenor here), Eschelon (which is now par of Integra),
Covad, McLeodUSA, Onvoy, POPP, TDSM and XO.
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 21
QWEST CORPORATION22
e
e
e
1 lists in those states sjnce its approval. 16 I have attched the Settlement Agreement as
2 Qwest Exhibit 4. It was also attached to Qwest's Petition, which initiated ths docket.
3 WHY JS QWEST PRESENTING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTQ.
4 USED IN OTHER STATES TO THIS COMMISSION?
5 Qwest believes that the Settlement Agreement provides a template thatA.
6 ths Commssion can use to implement the TRRO in Idaho.
7 PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTQ.
8 GENERALLY.
9 The Settlement Agreement contains seven sections, each aimed atA.
10 providing terms to implement the TRRO. These sections are:
11
12
13
. Section I-Introduction - describes the basis for the Settlement
Agreement.
. Section II- Definitions - contains defined terms used withi the body
14 of the Settlement Agreement.
15 . Section III- Initial Commission-Approved Wire Center List - contains
16 the paries' agreed-upon initial list of wire centers to be submitted for
17 approval to the six states included in the Settlement Agreement.
18 . Section IV - Non-Recurng Charge for Conversions Using the Initial
19 Wire Center List and For Futue Commission-Approved Additions to
16 The Settlement Agreement was approved in Arona, Minesota, Oregon, Uta and
Washington. The Agreement was not approved in Colorado and the case is stil pending.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 22
QWEST CORPORATION23
e
14 DOES THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDE TERMS TOQ.
15 IMPLEMENT AGREEMENT THE PARTIES'THE WITHIN
16 INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS WITH QWEST?
17 Yes. The agreement includes three attchments, two of which provide forA.
18 interconnection agreement amendments, and one which was designed specifically to
19 insert languge into Eschelon's interconnection agreement, which was in arbitration
20 when the Settlement Agreement was reached. These attchments were filed with
21 Qwest's Petition in this proceeding.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 23
QWEST CORPORATION24
e
e
e
1 Q.DOES THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DEFINE THE
2 METHODOLOGY TO BE USED TO COUNT BUSINESS LINES AND FIBER-
3 BASED COLLOCATORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING NON-
4 IMPAIRMENT?
5 A.Yes. Section V of the Settlement Agreement outlines the methodology
6 that the paries have agreed to use for the puroses of counting business lines and fiber-
7 based collocators. The paries have agreed that this methodology complies with the rules
8 established by the FCC in the TRRO. As noted above, Rachel Torrence wil provide
9 testimony regarding the methodology used to determine whether two wire centers in
10 Idaho (the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers) qualify as non-impaired based on the
11 number of fiber-based collocators in those wire centers. I will provide testimony below
12 regarding the methodology used to identify the same two wire centers in Idao (Boise
13 Main and Boise West) as non-impaired on the basis of the number of business lines.
14 Q.DOES THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT GIV CLECs THE
15 OPPORTUNITY TO DISPUTE CHAGES MAE TO THE LIST OF NON-
16 IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS?
17 A.Yes. Although Qwest does not believe that any pary should have the
18 opportity to re-litigate the methodology set forth by the FCC, the paries to the
19 Settlement Agreement agreed that the Settlement Agreement weighs the need for
20 resolution of disputes with the need to keep the list of non-impaired wire centers up-to-
CASE NO. QWE- T.08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 24
QWEST CORPORATION25
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11e12
13
14
15
16
17
e
1 date. The Settlement Agreement therefore allows an expedited process that provides
2 CLECs with the opportty to dispute additions to the non-impaired wire center list.
Q. PLEASE DISCUSS THE DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE PROCESS TO ADD A WIRE
CENTER TO THE LIST OF NON-IMP AIRED WIRE CENTERS?
A. Section VI of the Settlement Agreement details the process the paries
have agreed to use to add wire centers to the non-impaired list in the future. The
Settlement Agreement includes the following provisions for future filings:
. Qwest may request additions of non-impaired wire centers at any time
based solely on the number of fiber-based collocators.
. Qwest may request additions based in whole or in par on line counts
until July 1 of each year, based on prior year data.
. At least five days prior to a fiing, Qwest will request a protective
agreement for confidential information. The Settlement Agreement
includes a model protective order. 17
. Qwest wil provide notice to all impacted CLECs at least five days
prior to filing.
17 Attchment E to the Settlement Agreement is a template protective order used to allow all the
paries to view the highly-confidential data that is used by Qwest to verify non-impairent. Qwest
understands that Idaho generally prefers protective agreements instead of protective orders. Qwest believes
that a standard protective agreement, such as the one agreed to by the paries in this case, wil work in place
of the standard protective order attached to the Settlement Agreement.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 25
QWEST CORPORATION26
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
. Qwest wil file supporting data outlined in detail in the Settlement
Agreement sufficient to support the counts of fiber-based collocators
and! or line counts.
. Once a filing has been made, paries wil have 30 days to raIse
objections with the applicable state commission to Qwest's request.
. If there are no objections fied, the effective date for non-impairment
will be 30 days after the filing date, uness the state commssion orders
otherwse, and the paries wil jointly request an expedited non-
impairment designation from the commission.
. The CLECs agree that they wil not order non-impaired facilities in the
wire centers on the non-impaired list as of 15 days from the effective
date of the non-impairment designation.
. If any pary disputes Qwest's proposed non-impairment designations,
the parties have agreed to ask the state commission to use its best
efforts to resolve the dispute within 60 days of the date of the
objection.
. If there are no objections fied with the state commission, the paries
have agreed that they will jointly request an expedited order approving
the undisputed designations.
. CLECs agree not to place orders for non-impaired facilties in wire
centers identified on the state commission-approved wire center list 15
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di) 26
QWEST CORPORATION27
e 1
2
days after the effective date of the commission order adding such wire
centers to the list.
3 Q.HAS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ESTABLISHED
4 PROCEDURES FOR TRANSITIONING HIGH-CAPACITY UNEs WHEN
5 ADDITIONAL WIRE CENTERS ARE FOUND TO BE NON-IMPAIRED?
6 A.Yes. CLECs wil have 90 days to transition high-capacity loops and
7 transport to alternative services from the effective date of the initial commission order or
8 a commission order approving additional wire centers. CLECs wil then have 180 days
9 to transition non-impaired dark fiber.
10 Q.WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE TRASITION PERIOD USED
e 11 IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND CAN IT BE CONSIDERED
12 SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW CLECs TO TRAFER SERVICES WHEN WIRE
13 CENTERS ARE ADDED TO THE NON-IMPAIRED LIST?
14 A.The FCC recognized that the initial transition to new services would
15 require significant effort due to the large number of impacted wire centers and therefore it
16 allowed a one-year initial transition. The one-year period outlined in the TRRO was to
17 begin upon the effective date of the TRRO, March 11, 2005. Thus, that transition period
18 has already expired as of March 11, 2006. The FCC did not make any statements with
19 regard to transition periods for subsequent wire centers. However, it follows that since
20 far fewer wire centers wil qualify for non-impairment with each subsequent fiing, the
21 transition for additions to the non-impaired wire center list should be shorter than the
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 27
QWEST CORPORATION28
e
e
e
1 initial transition. Likewise, there wil also be a much smaller subset of services to
2 convert to alternative (non-UNE) services. Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement
3 includes transition periods that Qwest and the Joint CLECs believe are reasonable.
4 Q.SHOULD A DISPUTE PROCEEDING BE ALLOWED TO DELAY
5 THE ADDITION OF NEW WIRE CENTERS TO THE LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED
6 WIRE CENTERS?
7 A.No. The Settlement Agreement includes terms to expedite disputes in
8 order to avoid protracted delays in the addition of wire centers to the non-impaired list
9 when supporting data proves that such additions are waranted.
10 Q.SHOULD RECLASSIFICATION OF A NON-IMPAIRED WIRE
11 CENTER BE PART OF A FUTURE INQUIRY?
12 A.No, there is no need to include such an inquiry within the scope of this (or
13 any futue docket) because in the rules implementing the TRRO, the FCC specifically
14 determined that wie centers may not be reclassified once they have been designated as
15 non-impaired. 18
18 For DSI loops, see 47 CFR §51.19(a)(4)(i) ("Subject to the cap described in pargrph
(a)(4)(ii) of this section, an incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications carier with
nondiscriminatory access to a DS 1 loop on an unbundled basis to any building not served by a wire center
with at least 60,000 business lines and at least four fiber-based collocators. Once a wire center exceeds
both of these thresholds, no future DSI loop unbundling wil be required in that wire center"). (Emphasis
added.)
For DS3 loops, see 47 CFR §51.19(a)(5)(i) ("Subject to the cap described in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)
of this section, an incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications carer with
nondiscriminatory access to a DS3 loop on an unbundled basis to any building not served by a wire center
with at least 38,000 business lines and at least four fiber-based collocators. Once a wire center exceeds
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 28
QWEST CORPORATION29
e
e
e
1
2
VIII. METHODOLOGY FOR COUNTING BUSINESS LINES BASED ON THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
3 Q.IN THE TRRO, DID THE FCC PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF
4 "BUSINESS LINES" FOR PUROSES OF DETERMINING WHTHER A
5 PARTICULAR WIRE CENTER MEETS THE THRESHOLD TEST FOR NON-
6 IMPARIMENT?
7 A.
8 follows:
9
10
11
Yes. At paragraph 105 of the TRRO, the FCC defined "business lines" as
The BOC wire center data that we analyze in ths Order is based on
ARIS 43-08 business lines, plus business UNE-P, plus UNE-Ioops.
12 Furher, the FCC's rules regarding implementation of TRRO requirements (47
13 CFR § 51.5) define "business line" as follows:
14
15
16
17
18
A business line is an incumbent LEC-owned switched access line used to
serve a business customer, whether by the incumbent LEC itself or by a
competitive LEC that leases the line from the incumbent LEe. The
number of business lines in a wire center shall equa the sum of all
incumbent LEC business switched access lines, plus the sum of all UNE
both of these thresholds, no future DS3 loop unbundling wil be required in that wire center"). (Emphasis
added.)
For DSI and DS3 loops, see also Order on Remand, In the Matter of Review of Unbundled Access
to Network Elements, Review of Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers, CC Docket No. 01-338, WC Docket No. 04-313, p. 94, footnote 466 (FCC reI. Februar 4,2005)
("Therefore, once a wire center satisfies the stadard for no DS 1 loop unbundling, the incumbent LEC shall
not be required in the futue to unbundle DSI loops in that wire center. Likewise, once a wire center
satisfies the standard for no DS3 loop unbundling, the incumbent LEC shall not be required in the futue to
unbundle DS3 loops in that wire center.").
For dedicated DSI and DS3 transport, see 47 CFR §51.19(e)(3)(i) (" Once a wire center is
determined to be a Tier 1 wire center, that wire center is not subject to later reclassifcation as a Tier 2 or
Tier 3 wire center.") and 47 CFR §51.319( e )(3) (ii) (" Once a wire center is determined to be a Tier 2 wire
center, that wire center is not subject to later reclassifcation as a Tier 3 wire center."). (Emphasis added.)
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 29
QWEST CORPORATION30
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
loops connected to that wire center, including UNE loops provisioned in
combination with other unbundled elements. Among these requirements,
business line talles:
(l) Shàll include only those access lines connecting end-user customers
with incumbent LEC end-offces for switched services.
(2) Shall not include non-switched special access lines.
(3) Shall account for ISDN and other digital access lines by counting each
64KBPS-equivalent as one line. For example, a DSI line corresponds to
2464 kbps-equivalents, and therefore to 24 "business lines."
Q.IN THE TRRO, DID THE FCC INDICATE A PREFERENCE FOR
15 THE METHODOLOGY TO BE USED TO COUNT BUSINESS ACCESS LINES?
16 A.Yes. The FCC envisioned a streamlined and simple process for
17 determining business line counts. The FCC stated that "business line counts are an
18 objective set of data that incumbent LECs have already created for other regulatory
19 puroses," and that "by basing our definition in an ARIS fiing required of incumbent
20 LECs, and adding UNE figues, which must also be reported, we can be confdent in the
21 accuracy of the thresholds, and a simplified abilty to obtain the necessar information."
22 TRRO, ~ 105. (Emphasis added.)19 Clearly, the FCC's intent is that incumbent LEes
23 should use data "already created for other regulatory puroses," and should follow the
24 FCC's simple and unambiguous definition to count business lines in determining which
25 wire centers meet the non-impairment thresholds established in the TRRO.
19 The ARMIS filing is a report that every ILEC must file with the FCC by April 1 st regarding
various measures, including the number of business lines that the ILEC has at each of its wire centers.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 30
QWEST CORPORATION
31
-1 Q.is THE METHODOLOGY ESTABLISHED IN THE
2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES
3 ESTABLISHED BY THE TRROFOR COUNTING BUSINESS LINES?
4 Section V(A) of the Settlement Agreement establishes aA.Yes.
5 methodology for counting business lines that Qwest and the Joint CLECs agreed is
6 consistent with the FCC's rules established in the TRRO.
7 Q.BASED ON BUSINESS LINE AND FIBER COLLOCATION DATA
8 AS OF DECEMBER 2007, WHICH WAS FILED WITH QWEST'S PETITION IN
9 THIS CASE IN JUE 2008, AR AN QWEST WIRE CENTERS IN IDAHO
10 CLASSIFIED AS NON-IMPAIRED FOR DSI AND DS3 UNBUNDLED LOOPS?
11 Yes. Based on business line and fiber collocation data for DecemberA.
e 12 2007, the Boise Main wire center has met the non-impairment theshold for DS3
e
13 unbundled loops.20
14 THE ABOVE QUESTION REFERS TO DATA FROM DECEMBERQ.
15 2007. SHOULD MORE RECENT DATA BE USED?
16 No. First, according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, whichA.
17 Qwest is asking this Commission to adopt, Qwest is allowed to fie a request for non-
20 Please note that Qwest's Petition in this case inadvertently failed to mention non-impairent
for DS3 loops in the Boise Main wire center. However, since Qwest's Petition indicated that it would
demonstrte that the Boise Main wire center met both stadards for Tier 1 status in that it had more than
38,000 business lines and four or more fiber-based collocators, under the stadards of the TRRO, a finding
that access to DS3 loops is non-impaired in Boise Main necessarly follows from that evidence.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 31
QWEST CORPORATION
32
e
e
e
1 impairment based on business lines only once a year, based on data collected in
2 December of the prior year, and reported to the FCC in its ARIS report by April 1 st of
3 the subsequent year. .In fact, the Settlement Agreement gives Qwest until July 1st of the
4 subsequent year to make its filing. So, consistent with the terms of the Settlement
5 Agreement, Qwest filed its Petition in this proceeding in June 2008, based on data
6 collected in December 2007 and reported to the FCC by April 1, 2008. Also consistent
7 with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and in keeping with the FCC's stated
8 expectation that these matters will be resolved promptly, the paries to the agreement are
9 to request expeditious treatment of these petitions. Qwest does not believe it should be
10 penalized or required to refie the data simply because of the inevitable regulatory lag that
11 may occur as a result of the filing of its Petition. Qwest notes that it filed its Petition in
12 June 2008, although the proceeding has not become active until recently.
13 Second, and perhaps more importtly, requiring more curent data would be
14 counter to the FCC's position that once a wire center has been determined to be non-
15 impaired, that wire center stays non-impaired, and is not reviewed again, even if the data
16 change in the future.21
21 Please see m~ testimony above and footnote 18.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 32
QWEST CORPORATION33
e
e
e
1 Q.BASED ON THE BUSINESS LINE AN FIBER COLLOCATION
2 DATA AS OF DECEMBER 2007, WHICH WAS FILED WITH QWEST'S JUNE
3 2008 PETITION IN THIS CASE, ARE AN IDAHO WIRE CENTERS
4 CLASSIFIED AS "TIER I" OR "TIER 2" FOR INTEROFFICE TRANSPORT?
5 A.Yes. Based on Qwest's analysis, one Idaho wire center, Boise Main,
6 meets the FCC's transport threshold for "Tier 1" non-impairment status. Another Idaho
7 wire center, Boise West, meets the non-impairment theshold for "Tier 2." Both wire
8 centers qualify on the basis of both business line counts and the number of fiber-based
9 collocators in those wire centers.
10 Q.HAVE YOU PREPARD AN EXHIBIT THAT IDENTIFIES THE
11 BUSINESS LINE COUNTS CALCULATED PER THE SETTLEMENT
12 AGREEMENT METHODOLOGY?
13 A.Yes. Highly-Confidential Qwest Exhibit 5 provides the business access
14 line counts for the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers identified above, calculated
15 in accordance with the TRRO definitions and the Settlement Agreement methodology.
16
17 Q.WHAT TYPES OF BUSINESS LINES HAS QWEST INCLUDED IN
18 ITS ANALYSIS OF THESE TWO IDAHO WIRE CENTERS?
19 A.In conformance with the TRRO and the Settlement Agreement, the Qwest
20 analysis includes:
21 (1) Qwest retail business lines,
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di) 33
QWEST CORPORATION
34
e
e
-
1 (2) All UNE loops, and
2
3
4
(3) Business Qwest Local Services Platform ("QLSP"), and other similar
platform product offerings.22
5 A.QWEST RETAIL BUSINESS LINES
6 Q.PER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, HOW ARE RETAIL
7 BUSINESS LINES DETERMINED?
8 A.Qwest business lines are determined using the most recently-filed
9 unadjusted ARMIS data reported to the FCC.i3 In this case, Qwest used the ARIS data
10 calculated as of December 2007 and filed with the FCC in April 2008. Qwest recorded
11 and counted actual retail business lines for ths filing in the same manner as business line
12 data is tracked and recorded at the wire center-level data that Qwest used to develop its
13 statewide FCC ARMIS 43-08 report.i4
22 The Settlement Agreement also includes the count of UNE Platform ("UNE-P") lines, but there
are no UNE-P lines stil in service in Idaho.
23 As I discussed above, ARIS stands for Automated Reporting Management Information
System. ARMIS report are fied with the FCC as required by and according to FCC Rules. Furher
information and detailed instrctions for filing ARMIS reports can be found at
htt://www.fcc.gov/wcb/aris/ .
24 Use of this data is consistent with the TRRO, as the FCC intended the business line counts be
based "an objective set of data that incumbent LECs already have created for other regulatory puroses."
TRRO, ,r 105.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 34
QWEST CORPORATION35
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11e12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
e
B. UNBUNDLED Loops
Q. HAS QWEST INCLUDED ALL UNBUNDLED LOOPS IN ITS
BUSINESS LINE WIRE CENTER IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS?
A. Yes. Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, Qwest included all UNE
loops for each wire center in its business line counts, as the FCC directed in paragraph
105 of the TRRO and in its rule, 47 CFR § 51.5. Consistent with the FCC's "business
line" definition, Qwest did not attempt to "remove" UNE loops that may be used to serve
residential customers. In fact, the clear language in the TRRO and associated rules
specifies that there is no basis to distinguish between "business" UNE loops and
"residential" UNE loops, or switched and non-switched UNE loops, and that all UNE
loops must be included in the business line count for each wire center. In paricular, 47
CFR § 51.5 defines what constitutes "business lines" as follows:
The number of business lines in a wire center shall equal the sum of alI
incumbent LEC business switched access lines, plus the sum of all UNE
loops connected to that wire center, including UNE loops provisioned in
combination with other unbundled elements.
The FCC clearly specifies that "LEC business switched access lines" must be included in
an ILEC's retail line count, but it excludes the "business" quaifier in its mandate
regarding the treatment of UNE loops in the count. In other words, the FCC's rules
require all UNE loops to be included in an ILEC's business line count for puroses of
assessing whether the FCC's non-impairment criteria have been met. The FCC's
discussion ofUNE loops is consistent with the FCC's view that the data should be simple
24 and based on readily-available data sources. Finally, the FCC's rules (47 CFR § 51.5)
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 35
QWEST CORPORATION36
e
e
-
1 clearly state that the sum of all UN loops-- not a subset of UNE loops-- should be
2 included in an ILEC's count of business lines.
3 Q.IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRRO AND THE SETTLEMENT
4 AGREEMENT, DID QWEST INCLUDE ALL 64 KILOBIT VOICE-GRAE
5 EQUIVALENT ("VGE") CHANNELS ASSOCIATED WITH DIGITAL
6 UNBUNDLED LOOPS?
7 Yes. For example, Qwest multiplied all DSI unbundled loops in Qwest'sA.
8 December 2007 wholesale database-the same vintage of data upon which Qwest's retail
9 business line count for its FCC ARIS 43-08 report was based-by a VGE factor 24,
10 consistent with the FCC's guideline (47 CFR § 51.5) that all 64 kbps chanels of capacity
11 in a digital circuit should be counted as separate business lines.25
12 Q.IN ADDITION TO STAND-ALONE UNBUNDLED LOOPS, DID
13 QWEST INCLUDE ENHANCED EXTENDED LOOPS ("EELS") IN ITS
14 UNBUNDLED LOOP COUNT?
15 Yes. An enhanced extended loop, or "EEL," essentially consists of anA.
16 unbundled loop plus interoffice transport, and is used by a CLEC to provide service to a
17 customer located in a particular wire center when the CLEC is collocated in a different
18 wire center. Thus, EEL loops are appropriately included in the count of unbundled loops
25 This also means that DS3 loops are multiplied by a VGE factor of 672.
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 36
QWEST CORPORATION
37
e 1 for the wire center in which the unbundled loop terminates. Again this is consistent with
2 the TRRO and the Settlement Agreement.26
3
4 C.QLSP AND OTHER COMMERCIAL EQUIVALENTS
5 Q.ARE ANY OTHER WHOLESALE SERVICES INCORPORATED
6 INTO THE COUNT OF BUSINESS LINES?
7 A.Yes. Per the Settlement Agreement, and consistent with the TRRO, Qwest
8 incorporates the counts of Qwest Local Services Platform ("QLSP"), and other similar
9 platform products offered to business customers. These products represent commercial
10 services that Qwest offers to CLECs as replacements for UNE Platform (UNE-P")
11 services which the FCC no longer requires Qwest to offer. However, for puroses of this
e 12 docket, Qwest notes that there are no UNE-P lines stil in service in Idaho.
13
14 IX.CONCLUSION
15 Q.PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
16 A.My testimony describes the history of the 1996 Federal Act's unbundling
17 requirement and the FCC's Triennal Review process, as well as the results of the FCC's
18 TRRO. I describe the criteria that the FCC defined to identify non-impaired wire centers.
26 Interestingly, both wire centers contain the same number of EELs. These totals are arived at
via different subtotals leased to different CLECs as can be seen in Highly Confidential Exhibit C attched
to the Affdavit of Bob Brigham fied with Qwests petition in this case.
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERS HElM, R (Di) 37
QWEST CORPORATION
38
e
e
e
1 I identify the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers as non-impaired for interoffce
2 transport on the basis of both business line counts and fiber-based collocators. I also
3 identify the Boise Main wire center as non-impaired for DS3 unbundled loops on the
4 basis of business line counts. Furer, I introduce the Qwest witnesses who will discuss
5 Qwests count of fiber-based collocators. I also introduce and describe the terms of a
6 multi-state Settlement Agreement reached between Qwest and the Joint CLECs that can
7 be adopted by the Commission or that can be used as the basis for the implementation
8 process in Idaho, as it has been successfully used in five other states. And finally,
9 I describe the methodology that Qwest uses to count business lines.
10 Accordingly, Qwest asks the Commission to adopt Qwest's list of non-impaired
11 wire centers in the state of Idao so that Qwest may obtain the unbundling relief that the
12 FCC intended in its TRRO. Qwest also asks the Commission to adopt Qwest's proposed
13 procedures as outlined in the multi-state Settlement Agreement for designation of non-
14 impaired wire centers in the futue.
15
16
Q.DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
A.Yes, it does.
17
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
ALBERSHEIM, R (Di) 38
QWEST CORPORATION39
e
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12e
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
-
1 I.IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2
3 Q.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS AND POSITION
4 WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
A. My name is Rachel Torrence. My business address is 700 W. Mineral Ave.,
Littleton, Colorado, 80120. I am employed as a Director supporting Network Operations
for Qwest Corporation.
Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR WORK EXPERIENCE, TECHNICAL
TRAINING, AND PRESENT RESPONSIBILITIES.
A. I have been employed in the telecommunications industr for 35 years. I began
my career in 1973 and have worked my entire career for Qwest and its predecessors, The
Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company ("Mountain Bell"), and US WEST
Communcations, Inc. For the major par of my career, I have been employed in Network
operations. Within Qwest that organzation is known as the Local Network Organization.
As an employee of the Local Network Organization, I held engineering positions in the
Long Range Planing, Capacity Provisioning and Tactical Planing organizations and
have had responsibility for projects that focused on ensurng network efficiency and
maintaining adequate levels of network capacity. My years in the Local Network
Organization have provided me with an extensive telecommuncations background and
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 4
QWEST CORPORATION
40
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
e
1 much in-depth experience with virtlly all aspects of the public switched telephone
2 network ("PSTN").
In 1997, I accepted a position within the Techncal, Regulatory and
Interconnection Planng Group. My responsibilities as a member of an Interconnection
Negotiations Team included maintaining the network integrity ofthe PSTN and ensuring
the technical feasibility of varous interconnection arangements between Qwest and
wireline and wireless co-providers, with an emphasis on emerging technologies.
In 2001, I accepted my curent responsibilities as a Director, where I am
responsible for providing techncal and network expertise during regulatory proceedings
before the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), state commissions, and
judicial and/or legislative bodies on issues relating to the network elements and
architectures used in both wireline and wireless networks. My responsibilities include,
but are not limited to, ensuring compliance with the 1996 Telecommuncations Act and
the FCC's subsequent Triennial Review Order ("TRO") and the Triennial Review
15 Remand Order ("TRRO").
16
17 Q.WHAT is YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND?
18 A.I attended the University of Arzona, Chapman University and Pima Communty
19 College where I studied Electronic Engineering, Management Theory, and Behavioral
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 5
QWEST CORPORATION
41
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 Science. I am curently enrolled in a Bachelor's Completion Program at the University
2 of Denver pursuing a degree in Public Policy and Social Service. In addition, I have
3 more than 4000 hours of continuing education in the telecommuncations field and I hold
4 various telecommunications certifications in both wieline and wireless disciplines.
5
CASE NO. QWE- T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 6
QWEST CORPORATION
42
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE,ID 83701
e
e
e
1 II.PURPOSE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY
2
3 Q.WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?
4 A.The purose of my direct testimony is multi-faceted. As evidence of the validity
5 and accuracy of Qwest's non-impaired wire center list, I describe the process that Qwest
6 undertook when identifying "fiber-based collocators" within its Idaho wire centers.
7 I explain how Qwest took the FCC's very specific criteria for defining a fiber-based
8 collocator and applied those exact criteria in assessing the number of fiber-based
9 collocators within its Idaho wire centers. I will address how the methodology developed
10 by Qwest was accepted by a coalition of impacted competitive carers, as well as by
11 other state jurisdictions. Finally, for the Qwest Idaho wire centers that have been
12 determined to be non-impaired, my testimony presents the list of fiber-based collocators
13 located in those wire centers.
14
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 7
QWEST CORPORATION
43
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 III. THE TRIENNIAL REVIEW REMAD ORDER SPECIFICALLY DEFINED
2 WHT CONSTITUTES A FIBER-BASED COLLOCATOR
3
4
5 Q. WHAT IS A COLLOCATION?
6 A.Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act"), Qwest and other
7 Incumbent Local Exchange Carers ("ILECs") opened their telecommunications
8 networks to Competitive Local Exchange Carers ("CLECs"). This was accomplished
9 by "interconnecting" Qwest's network with the facilities ofCLECs for the exchange of
10 telecommunications traffic between Qwest customers and CLEC customers. Qwest was
11 also required to offer portions (or piece parts) of its network called unbundled network
12 elements ("UNEs") for use by CLECs at less-than-market rates, and specifically, at a
13 forward-lookig economic cost concept known as Total Element Long Run Incremental
14 Cost ("TELRIC")). In order for CLECs to interconnect with Qwest and/or to access
15 Qwest UNEs, Qwest provided space withn its central offices (or wire centers) for CLECs
16 to place their necessary equipment. This space is known as collocation space, and the
17 placement of such facilities in a Qwest office is called "collocation."
18 There are several collocation types that are offered by Qwest: Physical
19 (sometimes referred to as "Caged"); Cageless; Virtual; Facility Connected; and ICDF
20 Collocations. Each of these types may var in architectual specifics, but all have the
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 8
QWEST CORPORATION
44
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
-
1 same basic fuctionality. Moreover, all of these collocation tyes will support both
2 copper facilities. and fiber facilties.
1
3
4 Q.WHT is A COLLOCATOR?
5 A.A collocator is a CLEC that operates one or more collocation(s) withn a Qwest
6 wire center. This testimony references "fiber-based collocators" in paricular; that is,
7 cariers that operate collocations using fiber facilities and satisfying the FCC's definition
8 of "fiber-based collocators" set forth in the TRRO and its associated rule, 47 CFR § 51.5.
9
10 Q.AR ALL OF THE FIVE COLLOCATION TYPES CONSIDERED WHEN
11 DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS AND
12 WIRE CENTER NON-IMPAIRMENT UNDER THE TRRO?
13 A.No. Facility Connected and ICDF Collocations are not considered because they
14 do not contain the required power element. I discuss the power element later in this
15 testimony.
16
17 Q.WHAT is INTEROFFICE TRASPORT?
1 A complete description of Qwest's collocation offerings can be found at
http://www.gwest.com/wholesale/pcatlcollocation.htmL.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 9
QWEST CORPORATION
45
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 A.Simply put, interoffice transport facilities are the cable connections between wire
2 centers. These cable connections car traffic from one wire center to another.
3 Additionally, interoffce transport is a UNE which has been available to CLECs since the
4 1996 Act. After specific conditions are met, interoffce transport will no longer be
5 available from Qwest as a UNE in wire centers that are "non-impaired." Those
6 conditions are set forth below.
7
8 Q.PLEASE EXPLAIN IN GREATER DETAIL THE FRAEWORK UNDER
9 WHICH CLECs ARE NO LONGER DEEMED "IMPAIRED", AND HOW THE
10 NUMBER OF FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS IS A CRITICAL FACTOR IN
11 MAKING A DETERMINATION OF "NON-IMPAIRMENT".
12 A. In her direct testimony, Renee Albersheim of Qwest gives a more detailed
13 description of the TRO and the TRRO. In addition, the following sumar gives a
14 sumar view of how the number of fiber-based collocators is a critical element of the
15 non-impairments tests as set forth in the TRRO.
16 DSI Transport
17 . DS 1 Transport Unbundling Test. 2 Unbundling of DS 1 inter-offce
18 transport is required on all routes except those connecting two
2 Ms. Albersheim describes DS 1 and DS3 and Dark Fiber transport, as well as DS 1 and DS3
loops, in her direct testimony.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 10
QWEST CORPORATION
46
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
wire centers with four or more fiber-based collocations, or
'38,000 or more business lines (i.e., "Tier 1" wire centers).3
DS3 / Dark Fiber Transport
. DS3 / Dark Fiber Transport Unbundling Test. Unbundling ofDS3
, and dak fiber inter-office transport is required on all routes except
those connecting wire centers where both of the wire centers
contain three or more fiber-based collocations, or 24,000 or more
business lines (i.e., "Tier 1" Qr "Tier 2" wire centers).
DSI Loops
. Available as UNEs except in wire centers with 60,000 or more
business lines andfour or morefiber-based collocations.
DS3 Loops
. Available as UNEs except in wire centers with at least 38,000
business lines andfour or morefiber-based collocators.
19 Simply put, the number of fiber-based collocators and the number of business
20 lines in a wire center are the two determining factors in the FCC's tests for wire center
21 impairment. Qwest Exhbit 3, attched to Ms. Albersheim's direct testimony, is a
22 simplified graphic ilustration of the impairment tests.
23
3 While defined in greater detail in Ms. Albersheim's testimony, depending on the level of
competitive presence in a given wire-center, a wire center wil be raed in one of three tiers. "Tier I"
wire centers serve a minimum of 38,000 business lines or contain a minum of four fiber-based
collocators in the wire center. "Tier 2" wire centers serve 24,000 business lines or contain a minimum of
three fiber based collocators in the wire center. Wire centers not meeting Tier 1 or 2 parameters are
raned as "Tier 3" wire centers.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 11
QWEST CORPORATION
47
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 HOW DID THE TRRO DEFINE A "FIBER-BASED COLLOCATOR" FORQ.
2 PURPOSES OF DETERMINING NON-IMPAIRMENT?
3 The TRRO is quite specific in defining what constitutes a "fiber-based collocator."A.
4 The TRRO defines a fiber-based collocator as any carer, unaffliated with the incumbent
5 LEC, that maintains a collocation arangement in an incumbent LEC wire center, with
6 active power supply,4 and that operates a fiber-optic cable or comparable transmission
7 facility that (l) terminates at a collocation arangement within the wire center; (2) leaves
8 the incumbent LEC wire center premises; and (3) is owned by a par other than the
9 incumbent LEC or any affiliate of the incumbent LEC. TRRO, ii 102. Dark fiber
10 obtained from an incumbent LEC on an indefeasible right of use ("IRU"i basis is treated
11 as non-incumbent LEe fiber-optic cable. TRRO, ii 102, fu. 292. Two or more affiiated6
12 fiber-based collocators in a single wire center are collectively counted as a single fiber-
4 Appendix B of the TRRO, Terms and Definitions, defines a fiber-based collocator as having an
active electrical power supply.
5 The FCC's rule, 47 CFR § 51.19(a)(6) states; "Dark fiber is fiber within an existing fiber optic
cable that has not yet been activated through optronics to render it capable of carring communications
services." An Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) is a contractual agreement between the operators of a
communications cable, such as fiber optic network, and a client, grnting the client exclusive, unrestricted,
and indefeasible right to use the relevant capacity (including equipment, fibers or capacity) for any legal
purose. The right of use is indefeasible, so the right of use canot be voided.
6 Footnote 470 (page 95) of the TRRO states: "As in relation to our transport analysis, we use the
terms affliate and affliated here consistent with the definition set forth in section 3(1) of the Act. See 47
U.S.C. § 153(1)." 47 U.S.C. § 153(1) defies an affliate as "... a person that (directly or indirectly) owns
or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, another person. For
puroses of this paragraph, the term own means to own an equity interest (or the equivalent thereof) of
more than 10 percent."
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 12
QWEST CORPORATION
48
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
-
e
1 based collocator. TRRO,' J 02; see also 47 CFR § 51.5 ("Rule 51.5"). Fixed-wireless
2 collocation arangements are included "if the carer's alternative transmission facilities
3 both terminate in and leave the wire center." TRRO,' 102. Finally, a competitor's
4 collocation arangement counts toward the qualification of a wire center for a paricular
5 tier irrespective of the services that the competing carer offers. ¡d.
6
7 Q.YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE OTHER ELEMENT CRITICAL TO THE
8 IMPAIRMENT TEST IS THE NUMBER OF BUSINESS LINES. WH ARE YOU
9 NOT ADDRESSING THIS ELEMENT?
10 A.Ms. Albersheim of Qwest discusses how business lines were defined within the
11 TRRO in her direct testimony. Furhermore, her testimony details how Qwest compiled
12 the data that it presented to the FCC when identifying which of its wire centers would no
13 longer be subject to unbundling requirements when provisioning dedicated inter-office
14 transport and high-capacity loops.
15
CASE NO. QWE~ T -08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 13
QWEST CORPORATION
49
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
8
9
10
11
12
13--14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
e
1
2
3
iv. QWEST'S PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING FIBER-BASED
COLLOCATORS WAS BASED ON A LITERA READING OF THE
PARAMETERS SET FORTH IN THE TRRO
4
5 Q.HOW DID QWEST IDENTIFY THE NUMBER OF FIBER-BASED
6 COLLOCATORS WITHIN ITS IDAHO WIRE CENTERS?
7 A.When Qwest Undertook the effort of identifying its non-impaired wire centers in
2005, it was necessar to develop a methodology that accurately counted the number of
business lines and fiber-based collocators. In doing so, Qwest took the criteria set forth
in the TRRO for identifying a fiber-based collocator, and adopted the TRRO's definition
for fiber-based collocators verbatim. TRRO, ~ 102. As such, the criteria that Qwest used
in identifying fiber-based collocators within its wire centers were:
a. having a collocation;
b. the collocation is being served by an active electrcal power supply;
c. the collocator is operating a fiber-optic cable or comparable transmission
facilty that:
(1) terminates at a collocation arangement within the wire center,
(2) leaves the incumbent LEC's wire center premises, and
(3) is owned by a pary other than the incumbent LEC or any affiiate of
the incumbent LEC; and
d. in instaces where two or more affiliated fiber-based collocators, or a single
collocator, had multiple collocations in a single wire center, they were
collectively counted as a single-fiber-based collocator.
Qwest Exhibit 6 ilustrates tyical collocation architectures which depict each of
26 the elements identified above.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 14
QWEST CORPORATION
50
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
6
7
8
9
10
11
12e
13
14
15
16
17
e
1 Q.THE TRRO ALSO SET CRITERIA REGARING DARK FIBER USERS
2 AND FIXED WIRELESS PROVIDERS AS FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS.
3 WHY ARE THEY NOT ADDRESSED IN QWEST'S CRITERIA AS OUTLINED
4 ABOVE?
5 A.When Qwest first undertook its initial efforts (in 2005) to identify fiber-based
collocators as defined by the TRRO, Qwest made the decision not to include fixed
wireless providers and dark fiber users in its counts of fiber collocators. Qwest, instead,
took a very conservative approach for the sake of increased accuracy, and thus focused its
attention on the majority of qualifying collocators, which were fiber-based collocators.
Qualifying fixed wireless collocators and dark fiber users operating with an IRU
constitute a very small percentage of the total numbers of collocators. Thus identifying
and verifying these types of collocators would have required an extensive research effort
for little or no added benefit. This time-consuming effort was not practical, paricularly
in light of the short timeframe within which Qwest had to complete its initial 2005 fiing
with the FCC.7 It seemed a more prudent approach to concentrate on compiling an
accurate list of the types of fiber-based collocators that constitute the vast majority of
fiber-based collocators within Qwest's wire centers.
7 In her direct testimony, Ms. Albersheim describes in more detail Qwest's the initial 2005 fiing
with the FCC.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 15
QWEST CORPORATION
51
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 Research that I have since conducted shows that neither fixed-wireless nor dark
2 fiber obtained from Qwest under an IRU have had any impact regarding the non-
3 impairment status of any Idaho wire centers. As such, I will not be addressing that aspect
4 of the TRRO (at least not at this time).
5
6 Q.DESCRIBE THE PROCESS THAT QWEST UNDERTOOK IN
7 IDENTIFYIG THE NUMBER OF FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS IN IDAHO.
8 A.Qwest took the TRRO's very specific definition of a fiber based collocator and
9 developed a methodology that addressed the varous sub-elements that comprised the
10 FCC's definition ofa fiber-based collocator.
11 First, Qwest used an internal database that tracks all CLEC-submitted and
12 approved collocation requests in order to develop a preliminar list of fiber-based
13 collocations. This list was then edited to extract all collocations that did not have a
14 record indicator for fiber entrance facilities (as ths would be an indicator that the fiber
15 was not provided by Qwest or one of its affiiates). After these edits were completed,
16 Qwest had its preliminar list of collocators operating fiber facilties that were not
17 obtaned from Qwest or one ofits affiiates. Data obtained from Qwest's Collocation
18 Project Management Center was then used to verify that collocations on the preliminar
19 list had been provisioned with an active electrical power supply. The presence of active
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 16
QWEST CORPORATION
52
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 power was verified through records indicating an order for power to the collocation and
2 biling for presence of a power supply to the collocation.
3 Throughout this process, any discrepancies were fuer investigated and changes,
4 if necessary, were made. Qwest now had a list of collocators operating a collocation (in a
5 Qwest wire center) with an active electrcal power supply. That is, within these
6 collocations, a carrier was operating fiber facilties, not obtained from Qwest or its
7 affiliates, which terminated in the collocation and left the wire center premises. In short,
8 Qwest had a list of the collocators within its wire centers that met the FCC's definition of
9 a fiber-based collocator.
10 Qwest's list of fiber-based collocators was fuher verified by an on-site physical
11 field validation conducted by Qwest state interconnection managers and/or central offce
12 techncians. Qwest personnel assigned to the wire centers in question were asked to
13 conduct a physical inspection to visually validate that the collocators in question were
14 actually fiber-based collocators and to provide documentation regarding the FCC's
15 criteria. Again, any discrepancies were fuher investigated and changes, if necessar,
16 were made.
17 Next, Qwest analyzed the resulting list to ensure that multiple collocations at a
18 single wire center by affiiated carers, or multiple collocations by a single carer, were
19 counted as only one fiber-based collocator. I note, however, that while Qwest has
20 instituted a process by which a CLEC can inform Qwest of any changes in ownership or
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 17
QWEST CORPORATION
53
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
6
7
8
9
10
11
12e
13
14
15
e
1 responsibility of a collocations space, it is volunta process and CLECs do not always
2 inform Qwest of such changes. As such, Qwest can only use data that is has in its
3 possession, and it may not necessarly be aware of every change in ownership or affliate
4 status. In any case, Qwest makes every reasonable effort to insure that it has accurately
5 counted the number of collocators.
Finally, Qwest sent a letter to each CLEC advising them of the wire centers in
which Qwest showed the CLEC to have a fiber-based collocation as reflected by the data
on the list. In this letter, sent June 4, 2008, Qwest requested that each CLEC verify its
records to ensure that they agreed with Qwest's records, and if any discrepancies were
found, the CLEC could provide documentation regarding the collocation in question to
Qwest. Qwest Exhibit 7 is an example of the June 4, 2008 letter sent to the CLECs.
Of course, Qwest can only ask for the CLECs' cooperation in determining the
number of fiber-based collocators. Unfortunately, many CLECs appear to be reluctat to
respond and thus Qwest is forced to rely on evidence that it can gather independently.
16 Q.is THIS THE SAME METHODOLOGY THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE
17 MULTI-STATE AGREEMENT REGARDING WIRE CENTER DESIGNATIONS
18 AND RELATED ISSUES THAT MS. ALBERSHEIM DISCUSSED IN HER
19 TESTIMONY?
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 18
QWEST CORPORATION
54
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 A.Yes. The Settlement Agreement adopted Qwest's methodology for the
2 identification of fiber-based collocators in its entirety in Section V.B. The following is
3 Section V.B. of the Settlement:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
B.. Collocation -
1. A fiber-based collocator is defined as any carier,
unaffliated with the incumbent LEC (Qwest), that maintains a
collocation arangement in an incumbent LEC (Qwest) Wire
Center, with active electrical power supply, and operates a fiber-
optic cable or comparable transmission facility that:
a. termates at a collocation arangement within the Wire
Center;
b. leaves the incumbent LEC's (Qwest's) Wire Center
premises; and
c. is owned by a pary other than the incumbent LEC (Qwest)
or any affiliate of the incumbent LEC (Qwest), except as
set forth in this definition. Dark fiber obtained from an
incumbent LEC (Qwest) on an indefeasible right of use
basis shall be treated as non-incumbent LEC (non-Qwest)
fiber-optic cable. Two or more affiiated fiber-based
collocators in a single Wire Center shall collectively be
counted as a single fiber-based collocator. For the puroses
of this definition, "affiliate" is defined by 47 U.S.C.
§ 153(1) and any relevant interpretation in that title.
2. Before classifying a carer as a fiber-based collocator in a
Qwest fiing request pursuant to Section VI for Commission
approval of a non-impaired designation, Qwest wil:
a. Confrm that the carer meets the criteria contained in the
defmition of fiber-based collocator in 47 C.F.R. § 51.5 (as
reflected in paragraph B(1) and subpars above);
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 19
QWEST CORPORATION
55
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
b. Conduct a field visit to verify and document the above
(2.a.) criteria; and
c. Validate the criteria against the most recent order and/or
biling data.
3. Express fiber will be counted as a fuctional fiber facilty
for puroses of identifying a fiber-based collocator, if it meets the
definition of fiber-based collocator in 47 C.F.R. §51.5 (as reflected
in paragraph B(l) and subpars above). The Joint CLECs agree not
to raise the lack of Qwest-provided power when there is traffic
over the express fiber as the sole basis to dispute whether express
fiber can be counted as a fuctional fiber facility for puroses of
identifying a fiber-based collocator. For the purose of ths
Settlement Agreement, "express fiber" means a CLEC-owned fiber
placed to the collocation by Qwest that terminates at CLEC-owned
equipment in a collocation and draws power from a remote
location.
4. Before filing a request pursuat to Section VI for
Commission approval of a non-impairment designation, Qwest will
send a letter by certified u.s. mail, retu receipt requested, to
CLECs identified by Qwest as fiber-based collocators, using the
contacts identified by each such CLEC for interconnection
agreement notices, and inform them that they wil be counted by
Qwest as fiber-based collocators in Qwest's filing. The CLEC wil
have a reasonable opportunty (which Qwest will identify in its
letter but which will be no less than ten (l0) business days from
the CLEC's confirmed receipt of Qwest's letter) to provide
feedback to this information before Qwest files its request. In the
absence of a response by the Qwest-identified collocators, Qwest
may rely on the Qwest-identified collocators in its filing. No part
shall use the absence of a response from a CLEC collocator as the
sole basis for its position.
Ms. Albersheim has included the entire Settlement Agreement as Qwest Exhibit 4
38 in her direct testimony.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 20
QWEST CORPORATION
56
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 Q.DID QWEST VARY FROM THIS METHODOLOGY WHN
2 DETERMINING THE NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS IN IDAHO?
3 A.No. This is the process that was followed by Qwest in determining the number of
4 fiber-based collocators in Idaho, which resulted in non-impairment designations for the
5 Boise Main and Boise West wire centers.
6
7 Q.DID ANY CLECs RESPOND TO QWEST'S LETTER REQUESTING
8 VALIDATION OF THEIR FIBER-BASED COLLOCATION DATA IN IDAHO?
9 A.Yes. However, only one of the six fiber-based collocators identified as operating
10 fiber-based collocations in the Boise Main and/or the Boise West wire centers responded
11 to Qwest's June 4, 2008 letter requesting validation of their fiber-based collocation data.
12 The one responding CLEC confrmed its status as a fiber-based collocator. Qwest
13 Highy-Confidential Exhibit 8 is table ilustrating which fiber-based collocators
14 responded (and did not respond) to the June 4,2008 letter and for the one Idaho CLEC
15 who did respond, sumarizing its response.
16
17 Q.PLEASE DESCRIBE, IN FURTHER DETAIL, THE ON-SITE PHYSICAL
18 FIELD VERIFICATION THAT YOU REFERENCED ABOVE.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE,R(Di) 21
QWEST CORPORATION
57
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 A.For each wire center, all identified collocations were entered into a template
2 spreadsheet. The purose of the spreadsheet was to facilitate the documentation of the
3 following via physical field verifications:
4 a. Verification of Operator/Carer Name - What name, if any, was
5 stenciled on the collocation space? If stenciled, did the name on the space
6 match that of the operator/carier on record?
7 b. Verification of Power - Upon visual inspection, was there active power
8 to the collocation space? Were complete electrcal circuits in place to
9 Qwest power systems? Ifnecessar, could power be verified though
10 biling records?
11 c. Verification of Fiber Facilties - Could fiber be visually verified? Was
12 it an express fiber?8 Upon a visua inspection, did the fiber terminate
13 on equipment within the collocation space? Did the fiber leave the
14 wire center premises?
15 While the basic parameters to be verified were taen directly from the criteria set
16 forth in the TRRO in defining a fiber-based collocation, Qwest took it upon itselfto
17 validate additional elements (elements not included in the TRRO definition) to fuher
18 insure that the list of fiber-based collocators was as accurate as possible. These elements
8 Express fiber is a CLEC-provided fiber that is brought directly into the collocation with no
Qwest-provided entrce facilty.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 22
QWEST CORPORATION
58
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 included, but were not limited to, items such as the position/location on Qwest power
2 equipment, the type of fiber entrance facility, and the identification stenciling.
3 During the first week of May 2008, Qwest sent the template spreadsheet
4 document to its Idaho central offce field personneL. Specifically, the central office
5 personnel were direct~d to physically inspect the identified wire centers and to (l) verify
6 the information for the fiber-based collocations identified and listed in the initial FCC
7 fiing, (2) add any fiber-based collocations that met the criteria but that were not captured
8 in the initial list, and to document the collocations, (3) investigate disputes of data, if any,
9 provided by CLECs, and (4) provide any pertinent anecdotal information or comments
10 they may have had regarding any of the collocations. Qwest Highly-Confidential Exhibit
11 9 contains the verification spreadsheets that were populated as the field validations were
12 completed for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 wire centers in Idaho.
13
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 23
QWEST CORPORATION
59
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
V.QWEST FILED A LIST OF NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS WITH
THE FCC THAT REFLECTED A COMPREHENSIVE AND
ACCURTE REVIEW OF FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS
e 1
2
3
4
5 Q.QWEST HAS DETERMINED THAT BOISE MAIN AN BOISE WEST
6 ARE NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS. HOW MA FIBER-BASED
7 COLLOCATORS AR IN EACH OF THOSE WIRE CENTERS?
8 A.Qwest has validated that the Boise Main wire center is a "Tier 1" wire center
9 containing five fiber-based collocators, and that the Boise West wire center is a "Tier 2"
10 wire center containing thee fiber-based collocators.
11
12 Q.DOES EACH OF THE FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS IDENTIFIED IN
13 THE BOISE MAIN AND BOISE WEST WIRE CENTERS MEET THE FCC's
e 14 DEFINTION OF A FIBER-BASED COLLOCATOR AS SET FORTH IN THE
15 TRRO?
16 A.Absolutely. Each collocator maintains a collocation arangement within the
17 Qwest wire center with an active power supply. Withn their collocation, each operates a
18 fiber-optic facility. That fiber-optic facilty terminates in that collocation arangement,
19 and that facility leave the Qwest wire center premises. Finally, that fiber facility is not a
20 Qwest-owned facilty.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 24
QWEST CORPORATION
e
60
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
-
e
e
1 Q.PLEASE PROVIDE THE LIST OF FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS IN
2 IDAHO WIRE CENTERS THAT QWEST USED IN DEVELOPING THE LIST
3 OF NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTERS THAT WAS FILED WITH THE FCC
4 AN THE IDAHO PUC ON JUNE 27, 2008.
5 A.Qwest Highly~Confidential Exhibit 10 is the list of fiber-based collocators in
6 Idaho that Qwest used in determining the final list of non-impaired wire centers in ths
7 state.
8
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 25
QWEST CORPORATION
61
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 VI.SUMMAY OF TESTIMONY
2
3 Q.PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF YOUR TESTIMONY.
4 A.Qwest is requesting that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission validate its list of
5 non-impaired Idaho 'Yre centers as being accurate. Using the criteria set forth by the
6 TRRO, Qwest undertook extensive efforts to compile a comprehensive and accurate list
7 of fiber-based collocators within its Idaho wire centers, one of the determning factors in
8 identifying non-impaired wire centers. That effort resulted in two Idaho wire centers,
9 Boise Main and Boise West, as being non-impaired based on the presence of a suffcient
10 number of fiber-based collocators.
11 With that objective in mind, Qwest used its collocation tracking records and
12 biling data as its baseline data. Simply stated, Qwest applied a literal interpretation of
13 the criteria set forth in the TRRO for determining a fiber-based collocator, and thus
14 adopted the TRRO's criteria as the baseline for its process for identifying fiber-based
15 collocators within those wire centers. The accuracy of this baseline data was validated as
16 Qwest incorporated CLEC responses to Qwest's requests for confirmation of data and
17 actul field verifications of wire centers. Thus, the resulting list of fiber-based
18 collocators in Idaho wire centers is accurate, comprehensive, and has been verified in
19 numerous ways, including through tracking records, power records and biling records
20 and through physical inspections. Qwest undertook extensive efforts to obtain an
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 26
QWEST CORPORATION
62
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
-
e
1 accurate inventory of the fiber-based collocators in Idaho wire centers based on the
2 reasonably-available information to which it had access. This methodology has resulted
3 in accurate non-impairment designations that have been adopted by numerous state
4 commissions, and that was agreed to by a coalition of impacted CLECs in those larger
5 states that had non-impaired wire center proceedings.
6 As such, Qwest respectfully requests that the Commission validate. Qwest's list of
7 its non-impaired wire centers in Idaho and adopt the provisions and methodology
8 contained within the Settlement Agreement attched to Qwest's Petition in this docket
9 and presented in Ms. Albersheim's testimony as Qwest Exhbit 4.
10
11
12
13
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
TORRNCE, R (Di) 27
QWEST CORPORATION
63
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
--
e
e
1
2
3 Q.
4 A,
VII. CONCLUSION
DOES THIS ,CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
Yes, it does. Than you.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
64
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
TORRNCE, R (Di) 28
QWEST CORPORATION
_ 1
10
11e12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
e
2 I.IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
3 Q.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS AND
4 POSITION WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
5 My name is Victoria Huncutt. My business address is 1801 CaliforniaA.
6 Street, Denver, Colorado. I am employed by Qwest Corporation as a Director supporting
7 costs and issues management.
8 Q.PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
9 AND EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE.
A. I have eared a Bachelor of Science in Electrcal Engineering from the
University of Virginia. In addition, I have taen numerous telecommuncations seminars
and classes including graduate courses in Telecommuncations Management.
I have been employed by Qwest (formerly, US West) since 1998. My original
position was with the transport modeling team in the Pricing and Reguatory Matters
deparment as a Cost Analyst. In 1999, I assumed responsibility for the Collocation Cost
Model, programing the model and producing the cost studies for the varous Qwest
Corporation cost dockets. In 2003, I began working on analyses and documentation as
par of the Loop Modeling team. In 2004, I began work as a techncal analyst and
developer in the Public Policy deparent. Presently, my responsibilities include, but are
not limited to, techncal and cost analyses, as well as providing subject matter expert
support on collocation issues in regulatory proceedings.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
HUICUTT, V (Di) 1
QWEST CORPORATION65
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
-
1 Prior to coming to Qwest, I worked as a computer consultat/programer, as well
2 as a resource management consultat for a softare company.
3 Q.HAVE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMISSION BEFORE?
4 A.No, I have not.
5
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09 66
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
HUICUTT, V (Di) 2
QWEST CORPORATION
e 1 II:PURPOSE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY
2 Q.WHT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?
3 A.I have been called upon to describe the signficance of Qwest' s
4 nonrecurng charge ("NRC") to recover the costs that it incurs when implementing the
5 requisite facility conversions for the competitive local exchange carers ("CLECs") that
6 request to remain on Qwest's facilities in the state ofIdaho following a non-impairment
7 finding by ths Commission. In addition, I show that the conversion rate is no longer
8 associated with an unbundled network element ("UNE")I and, therefore, no longer
9 adheres to the UNE rate restrictions. To provide for a better understading of the
10 conversion process, I describe the work activities that Qwest must perform in converting
11 a UNE service to a Qwest-provided commercial equivalent service (i.e., a special
e 12 access/private line circuit). This conversion is required in those wire centers deemed
13 "non-impaired" under the standards set by the Federal Communcations Commission
14 ("FCC") in the Triennial Review Order ("TRO"i and the Triennial Review Remand
15 Order ("TRRO,,).3
16
i Unbundled network elements are identifiable portions of an incumbent local exchange carer's
("ILEC's") network that may be leased or assigned for use by other, competitive local exchange cariers
("CLECs"). The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has required certain (incumbent) telecommunications
cariers to allow other companies to lease UN portions of their network to rapidly deploy new services
and to allow for more competition.
2 Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers,
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment
of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capabilty, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98,
98-147, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Furher Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (adopted
02/20/2003; released: 08/21/2003) ("Triennial Review Order" or "TRO").
3 Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No. 01-338, Order on Remand
(adopted 12/15/2004; released: 02/04/2005) ("Triennial Review Remand Order" or "TRRO").e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P . O. BOX' 578, BO IS E , I D 83701
67
HUICUTT, V (Di) 3
QWEST CORPORATION
-1 III. FCC GOVERNING RULES AND RATE JURISDICTION
2 Q.IS QWEST ENTITLED TO RECOUP THE COSTS FOR SERVICES
3 RENDERED ON BEHALF OF CLECs IN CONVRTING FROM UNE
4 SERVICES TO FEDERALY TARFFED SPECIA ACCESSIPRIVATE LINE
5 ("PRIVATE LINE") SERVICES?
6 A.Yes. Qwest incurs costs in the process of converting the requesting
7 CLEC's UNE transport or high-capacity loops to alternative facilities and arangements
8 and, therefore, should be permitted to assess an appropriate charge.4 If the CLEC
9 chooses to avail itself of facilities other than those offered by Qwest, the CLEC would
10 not be charged because Qwest would not incur the costs of performing the taks
11 associated with conversion of UNE facilties to alternative facilities precipitated by a
e 12 determination of wire center non-impairment.
13 Q.IS THIS DOCKET THE CORRCT VENUE TO DETERMINE
14 THE APPROPRIATE RATE AMOUN TO CHAGE FOR THE CONVRSION
15 PROCESS?
16 A.No, I do not believe so. This docket addresses the non-impairment status
17 of two Idaho wire centers. As I discuss in greater detail below, this is not the appropriate
18 venue to address issues that fall under the FCC's jursdiction. Furermore, the TRRO is
The TRRO reversed the TRO, in par. The TRRO also clarified the impairent stadard adopted in
the TRO and modified its application of the unbundling frmework. Please refer to Ms. Albersheim's
Direct Testimony (Idaho Case No. QWE-T-08-07, dated April 17, 2009) ("Albersheim Direct") for a
sumar of the FCC's TRO and the TRRO.
4 Please see Albersheim Direct regarding UNE trsport and high-capacity loops.
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09 68
HUNICUTT, V (Di) 4
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
e
1 clear that with a non-impairment designation the paries must negotiate, in good faith,
2 reasonable processes and procedures to ensure that the completion of the conversion
3 process is timely.5 As discussed in Ms. Albersheim's Direct Testimony, Qwest and a
4 number of CLECs have negotiated these processes and procedures and arved at a
5 settlement that includes an appropriate conversion charge.
Q. WHAT FCC RULES GOVERN THE PRICING OF UNEs?
A. Sections 251 and 252 of the Act under Part II- Development of
Competitive Markets, address the carrer obligations and the standards for pricing UNEs.
Section 251, Interconnection, details the duties and obligations of all local exchange
cariers, including the obligation of the ILEC to provide unbundled access to any
requesting telecommunications carier in order to fuher the development of competitive
markets. . Section 252 of that same Par, Procedures for Negotiation, Arbitration, and
Approval of Agreements, sets forth the expectations associated with negotiations of rates,
terms and conditions for interconnection, services, and network elements pursuant to
section 251. Under Section 271 of the Act,6 adherence to Sections 251 and 252 was a
requirement for Bell Operating Companes ("BOCs") to enter into interLATA services
such as interLATA long distace. The FCC is clear in sections 251 and 252 that the state
commissions have jursdiction over UNE rates, terms and conditions.
5 See TRRO, ir 233, at page 133.
6 Section 271, Bell Operating Company Entr Into InterLATA Services, falls under Part III-
Special Provisions Concerning Bell Operating Companies and provides a competitive checklist with which
each Bell Operating Company ("BOC") was required to demonstrate compliance with in order to offer
interLA T A long distance services.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
HUICUTT, V (Di) 5
QWEST CORPORATION69
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 Q.ONCE COMPETITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THROUGH
2 THE DESIGNATION OF A NON-IMPAIRED WIRE CENTER, WHAT PRICING
3 RULES GOVERN THE RATES, TERMS AN CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED
4 WITH THE NON-UNE ELEMENT?
5 Sections 201 and 202 under Part I -Common Carrier Regulation, of theA.
6 Act address the stadards for pricing elements that have been removed from the list of
7 Section 251 UNEs (delisted UNEs). Section 201, Service and Charges, addresses the
8 duties of every common carer engaged in interstate or foreign communication to
9 furnish such communication services such that all charges, practices, classifications, and
10 regulations for and in connection with such communcations service shall be just and
11 reasonable.7 The FCC has jursdiction over delisted UNEs that fall under section 271 and
12 which rates are fied in interstate taffs.
13 Q.DOES THE FCC ADDRESS PRICING OF "DELISTED" UNEs
14 (FORMER UNEs THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE LIST OF
15 SECTION 251 UNEs)?
16 Yes, the FCC is clear on this issue. In paragraph 656 ofthe TRO, the FCCA.
17 made the following statement addressing sections 251, 252 and pricing under a non-
18 impairment scenaro:
19 Where there is no impairment under section 251 and a network element is no
20 longer subject to unbundling, we look to section 271 and elsewhere in the Act
7 See the FCC's Communications Act of 1934, Title II - Common Carriers, Part I - Common
Carrier Regulation, Section 201 (b), at page 36.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
HUICUTT, V (Di) 6
QWEST CORPORATION70
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1
2
to determine the proper standard for evaluating the terms, conditions, and
pricing...8 (Emphasis added.)
3 In that same paragraph of the TRO, the FCC is more specific in its discussion of
4 transitional pricing issues:
5 Congress established a pricing stadard under section 252 for network elements
6 unbundled pursuant to section 251 where impairment is found to exist. Here,
7 however, we are discussing the appropriate pricing standard for these network
8 elements where there is no impairment. Under the no impairment scenaro,
9 section 271 requires these elements to be unbundled, but not using the statutorily
10 mandated rate under section 252. As set forth below, we find that the appropriate
11 inquiry for network elements required only under section 271 is to assess whether
12 they are priced on a just, reasonable and not uneasonably discriminatory basis-
13 the stadards set forth in sections 201 and 202. (Emphasis is original.)9
14 In the next paragraph, the FCC specifically addresses the appropriate application of
15 sections 251 and 252 on network elements:
16-17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 252( d)(l) provides the pricing stadard "for network elements for
puroses of (section 251 (c)(3))," and does not, by its terms, apply to network
elements that are required only under section 271. Indeed, section 252(d)(l) is
quite specific that it only applies for the puroses of implementation of section
251 (c )(3) - meanng only where there has been a finding of impairment with
regard to a given network element. (Footnote omitted.) (Emphasis added.)lo
To sumarze my point, before any conversion is required by the FCC ruling, there must
be a non-impaient designation. Once a state commission has confrmed non-
impairment, according to the FCC, the pricing stadards set forth in sections 201 and 202
of the Act (not those in sections 251 and 252) govern.
8 See TRO, , 656, at page 409.
9 See TRO, , 656, at page 409. Although the TRO was reversed in par by the D.C. Circuit in the
USTA II decision, this par of the TRO was not reversed.
10 See TRO, , 657, at page 409.
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09 71
HUICUTT, V (Di) 7
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
-
--
e
1 Q.FOR A NETWORK ELEMENT UNDER SECTION 271 AS
2 DISCUSSED IN THE QUOTATION IN THE PREVIOUS ANSWER, WHT IS
3 THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING AN APPROPRITE RATE?
4 A.The FCC has stated that such elements must "be priced on a just,
5 reasonable and not uneasonably discriminatory basis - the standards set forth in sections
6 201 and 202." (Footnote omitted.)11
7 Q.HAS THE FCC ADDRESSED HOW A BELL OPERATING
8 COMPANY ("BOC") LIKE QWEST MIGHT SATISFY THIS STANDAR?
9 A.Yes, in the TRO, the FCC listed two examples of how a BOC might satisfy
10 this stadard:
11
12
13
14
1. "(Demonstrate) that the rate for a section 271 network element is at or below
the rate at which the BOC offers comparable fuctions to similarly situted
purchasing carers under its interstate access taff, to the extent such
analogues exist," 12 or
15 2. "(D)emonstrate that the rate at which it offers a section 271 network element
16 is reasonable by showing that it has entered into ars-length agreements
17 with other, similarly situted purchasing carers to provide the element at18 that rate.,,13
11 TRO, ii 656, at page 409.
12 TRO, ii 664, at page 412.
13 ¡d.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08.,07
4/17/09 72
HUICUTT, V (Di) 8
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. Q. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
-
1 Q.REGARDING THE FIRST EXAMPLE, ABOVE, CAN QWEST
2 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CONVRSION CHARGE IT INTENDS TO
3 ASSESS IS AT OR BELOW THE RATE AT WHICH QWEST OFFERS
4 COMPARBLE FUNCTIONS TO SIMILARLY-SITUATED CARERS UNDER
5 ITS INTERSTATE ACCESS TARFF?
6 A.Yes. The $25 conversion rate is based on the Design Change Charge
7 found in Qwest's FCC Tariff No. 114 with a 50% rate reduction applied when assessed for
8 the conversion of UNE services to finished Private Line services. The 50% reduction
9 factor applied to the federally tariffed Design Change Charge was a negotiated amount,
10 pursuat to the FCC transitional Rules, and agreed to in the settlement discussions
11 described in Ms. Albersheim's Direct Testimony. The Settlement Agreement that
12 resulted from those discussions has been approved in five states and provides for the
13 conversion rate at $25.
14 Q.REGARING THE SECOND EXAPLE, ABOVE, HAVE
15 SIMILARY-SITUATED CARRERS ENTERED INTO AN ARMS-LENGTH
16 AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THE ELEMENT AT THE SAME RATE?
17 A.Yes, numerous CLECs have entered into the Settlement Agreement,
18 mentioned above, providing for the $25 conversion charge. In addition, 146
19 interconnection agreements containing the same conversion charge have been entered
14 See Qwest's FCC Tariff No. 1, Section 5.2.2.C, at 2nd Revised Page 23. Qwest's FCC Tarff
No. 1 can be found at bttp://tariffs.qwest.com:8000/Q Tariffs/FCC/index.btm. The 50% reduction of
the Design Change Charge is noted in the footnote associated with the rate.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09 73
HUICUTT, V (Di) 9
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 into across Qwest's 14-state region. Of the 146 agreements providing the element at that
2 rate, eight of them were with CLECs operating in Idaho.
3 Q.is QWEST ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO ACKNOWLEDGE
4 ITS RIGHT TO ASSESS AN APPROPRIATE CHARGE FOR THE WORK THAT
5 IT PERFORMS IN THE CONVERSION PROCESS?
6 A.Yes. I am demonstrating with this testimony the natue and cause of the
7 work activities that Qwest wil perform in processing the conversions from UNE services
8 to Qwest Private Line services that will occur at those wire centers the FCC has deemed
9 non-impaired. For the reasons stated above and pursuant to the FCC rules, Qwest
10 believes that its existing, federally tarffed Design Change Charge represents an
11 appropriate, albeit conservative, charge to CLECs for costs incured by Qwest to process
12 these conversions on behalf of the CLECs. Qwest respectfully asks ths Commission
13 merely to acknowledge Qwest's right to assess such a negotiated and federally taffed
14 charge to recoup a portion of its costs incurred for the work that it performs on behalf of
15 the CLEC.
16 Q.IF QWEST BELIEVES THIS is NOT THE PROPER
17 JURISDICTION FOR RATE APPROVAL OF A FORMER UNE, WHY is IT
18 PRESENTING THE RATE TO THIS COMMISSION?
19 The FCC declined suggestions to adopt rules establishing specificA.
20 procedures that ILECs and CLECs must follow to convert to non-section 251 services,
21 with the expectation that both paries have enough incentive to negotiate, and not litigate,
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
HUICUTT, V (Di) 10
QWEST CORPORATION74
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 to establish any necessar procedures to perform conversions. 15 For ths reason, Qwest is
2 neither submitting a cost study nor is it requesting approval of a particular rate. Rather,
3 Qwest is simply asking that this Commission acknowledge that Qwest is entitled to be
4 compensated for the costs that it incurs in the seamless conversion from UNE services to
5 alternative services (such as finished Private Line services) should a CLEC request to
6 remain on Qwest facilities after a non-impairment designation. Qwest makes ths request
7 with the hope that such acknowledgement wil serve the FCC's goal of encouraging
8 ILECs and CLECs to negotiate in good faith regarding any rates, terms, and conditions
9 necessary to implement the FCC rule changes,16 and to ensure that paries do not engage
10 in unecessar delay in implementing the FCC's rule changes,17 though litigation or by
11 other means.
12
15 See TRO, ,r 585, at page 371.
16 See TRRO, ,r 233, at page 133.
17 1d
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09 75
HUICUTT, V (Di) 11
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 iv. UNE TO PRIVATE LINE CONVRSION
2 Q.GIVEN A NON-IMPAIRMENT FINDING, DOES A CLEC HAVE
3 CHOICES OTHER THA TO CONVRT ITS UNE SERVICES TO QWEST
4 PRIVATE LINE SERVICES?
5 Absolutely. A determination of non-impairment means that substatialA.
6 competition exists. For non-impaired wire centers, CLECs have facilities available to
7 them from other carers and no longer remain reliant on the ILEC.
8 For wire centers that this Commission has confrmed to be non-impaired, the FCC
9 has found that sufficient alternatives are available to CLECs in the affected wire centers
10 to preclude CLECs' exclusive reliance on Qwest facilities in order to maintan a
11 competitive marketplace. Not only do CLECs have facilities available to them from
12 other carrers, but CLECs have the option to constrct their own facilties, thereby
13 makng reliance on Qwest's, or any other providers', DS 1 and DS3 facilities unecessar.
14 SHOULD IT CHOOSE TO DO SO, COULD A CLEC REMAN ONQ.
15 QWEST'S FACILITIES RATHER THAN DISCONNECTING AND USING ITS
16 OWN FACILITIES OR THOSE OF OTHER CARERS?
17 Yes, it can. As a result of a non-impairment determination, Qwest is noA.
18 longer required to provide UNE access to DS 1 or DS3 loops, or DS 1 or DS3 inter-offce
19 transport in wire centers that have met the FCC thesholds for non-impairment.
20 However, comparable facilities are stil offered as Private Line services instead of as
21 UNE services. A CLEC may request to remain on Qwest's facilities, but its existing
22 UNE facilities must be converted to federally taiffed Special Access/Private Line
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
HUNICUTT, V (Di) 12
QWEST CORPORATION76
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
-
1 Services. When a CLEC requests to remain on Qwest facilities rather than disconnecting
2 entirely and availing itself of alternative facilities, the CLEC has implicitly decided that
3 converting from UNE services to Qwests Private Line services is the most attactive
4 business choice among varous alternatives. If Qwest were not permitted to charge
5 CLECs for the costs incured to perform the conversion, such no-cost conversions could
6 distort the appropriate economic assessments and create an inappropriate incentive for the
7 CLECs to convert to Qwest's facilties, rather than explore other alternatives, such as
8 building its own facilities. Furermore, if Qwest were required to perform the activities
9 associated with the conversion, but were prevented from recovering the costs of such
10 activities, the economic burden would be inappropriately shifted to Qwest. This
11 inappropriate shift of the economic burden would ultimately and negatively affect
12 Qwest's end-user customers, thus, placing Qwest at a disadvantage in a marketplace that
13 the FCC deemed to be competitive and undermining importt goals of the Act.
14 Therefore, to the extent that Qwest incurs costs to facilitate the CLEC's
15 conversion from a UNE service to a Special Access/Private Line service, Qwest is
16 entitled to assess an appropriate, nonrecurng charge to recover its costs.
17 Q.TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS,
18 WHAT STEPS AR INVOLVED IN CONVRTING A UNE SERVICE TO A
19 SPECIAL ACCESSIPRIVATE LINE SERVICE?
20 The conversion of a UNE service to a Special Access/Private Line serviceA.
21 involves three fuctional areas within Qwest's ordering and provisioning organzations.
22 The personnel within the thee fuctional areas involved with a conversion are: (l) the
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
HUICUTT, V (Di) 13
QWEST CORPORATION77
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
e
1 Service Delivery Coordinator ("SDC"), (2) the Circuit Designer, and (3) the Service
2 Delivery Implementer. Within each of these three job fuctions, there are a varety of
3 steps that Qwest must underte to ensure the data for the converted service is accurately
4 recorded and tracked in the appropriate systems.
Upon the request from a CLEC to remain on Qwest facilities and, therefore,
convert its UNE services to Qwest Private Line services, the SDC reviews and confirms
the data in the Access Service Request ("ASR") and ensures the data is accurately
incorporated into the two service orders required to transfer from the Customer Record
and Information System ("CRIS") biling system (for UNE services) to the Integrated
Access Biling System ("lABS") biling system (for Private Line services). is The SDC is
the primar contact for the CLEC and provides end-to-end order coordination from
request to order completion. In addition, the SDC must change the circuit identifier
("circuit ID") to reflect the fact that the circuit will be tracked, handled and maintained as
a Private Line service rather than a UNE service upon completion of the conversion
process.19 This change in the circuit ID is critical since the circuit identifier determines
the processes and personnel that handle, bil and maintain the circuit going forward. I
18 An ASR is an industr-stadard order form used by a carer, such as a CLEC, for the ordering
of a carier-to-carer service. The CRIS biling system is used for the majority of residential and business
account bils for exchange services. It calculates, prints, and prepares the bils to be sent to individual retail
end-user customers for retail products, and to CLECs for some interconnect (wholesale) products. The
lABS biling system is focused on access or facilty-driven biling, whose fuctionality includes switched
and special service orders, meet-point biling, mechanized adjustments for interexchange carers and other
facilties-based CLEC accounts.
19 The circuit identifier ("circuit ID") is an alpha/numeric identifier whose sequence of letters and
numbers defie the charcteristics of a paricular circuit and indicates attibutes of the circuit, such as the
LATA and jurisdiction, as well as the tye of circuit, service code and service modifiers. In addition, the
circuit ID contains a serial number for the circuit to ensure that no duplication occurs, and an identifier for
the region in which the circuit is physically located. The circuit ID follows Telcordia (formerly Bell Labs)
standards and allows lower-level trcking for maintenance and reporting puroses.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09 78
HUICUTT, V (Di) 14
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 discuss ths in fuer detail later in this testimony. The SDC must then pedorm the
2 validation of Work Force Administration ("WF A") and Service Order Assignent
3 Control ("SOAC") data.
20
4 The Circuit Designer reviews and validates the circuit design and ensures that the
5 design records for the' converted, non-UNE service match the original UNE service. The
6 Circuit Designer also ensures that no physical changes to the circuit are needed and
7 reviews the circuit inventory in the Tru Integrated Record Keeping System ("TIRKS")
8 database to ensure accuracy and database integrty.21 This effort assists other Qwest
9 deparments that are "downstream" from the Circuit Designer to ensure that there is no
10 service interrption for the CLEC's end-user customer.
11 Finally, the Service Delivery Implementer assumes overall control for the order
e 12 provisioning. The SDI verifies the "record-out" and "record-in" orders and completes
the
13 update of the circuit orders in the WF A system.22
20 The Work Force Administration ("WF A") is a mechanzed system that supports and simplifies
the coordination, trcking, pricing, and assigning of work requests, while the Service Order Assignment
Control ("SOAC") is a Telcordia system that controls the flow of service order activity from Qwest service
order processors ("SOPs") to other "downstream" systems. Based on the service order input, SOAC
determines which operations systems need to be involved in activating service, and provides instrctions
and sequencing to those operations systems.
21 The Tru Integrated Record Keeping System ("TIRKS") database is a Telcordia application
that trcks and inventories centrl offce and outside plant facilities. TIRKS contains the inventory
information to update equipment components, frame data circuit assignments, and other data related to
telephone equipment.
22 Record-in and Record-out orders are the in- and out-service orders that establish the "new"
private line servce for the CLEC and that disconnect the existing UN by moving the circuit data from one
biling system to another. These in- and out-service orders also reflect the updated circuit data for all the
various databases which track circuit status/activity.
e CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09 79
HUNICUTT, V (Di) 15
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
e 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-
1 Q.WH MUST THE "CIRCUIT ID" BE CHAGED WHEN
2 CONVRTING FROM A UNE SERVICE TO A PRIVATE LINE SERVICE?
3 A.The FCC rules require that telephone carers accurately maintain records
4 that track inventories of circuits. Specifically, 47 C.F.R. 32.12(b) and (c) provides as
5 follows:
(b) The company's financial records shall be kept with sufcient paricularity to
show fuly the facts pertining to all entres in these accounts. The detal
records shall be fied in such marer as to be readily accessible for
examination by representatives of this Commission.
(c) The Commission shall require a company to maintai financial and other
subsidiar records in such a marer that specific information, of a type not
waranting disclosure as an account or sub-account, wil be readily available.
When this occurs, or where the full information is not otherwse recorded in
the general books, the subsidiar records shall be maintained sufficient detail
to facilitate the reporting of the required specific information. The subsidiar
records, in which the full details are shown, shall be suffciently referenced to
permit ready identification and examnation by representatives of this
Commission (FCC).
Thus, Qwest is required to maintain subsidiar records in sufficient detail to align
specific circuits with the biling, accounting, and jurisdictional reporting requirements
related to the services that these circuits support. These subsidiar records include cable
engineering and assignent records, one of which is the circuit ID. In order to
suffciently maintain its subsidiar records to support its accounting for UNE services
versus its Private Line services, Qwest must maintain accurate circuit IDs that properly
track circuits separately. Furher, the unque circuit ID is maintained as a means of
measurng the different service performance requirements that apply to UNE services and
27 Private Line services.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09 80
HUICUTT, V (Di) 16
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, IO 83701
e
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
-
1 Q.is QWEST'S PROCESS FOR CONVERTING A UNE SERVICE TO
2 A PRIVATE LINE SERVICE TRANSPARENT TO THE CUSTOMER?
3 A.Yes. The process that Qwest has established for converting UNE services
4 to Private Line services is specifically designed to ensure that the conversion is seamless,
5 or transparent, to both the end-user customer and the CLEC serving that customer.
6 However, it is important to note that the efforts to ensure the seamless natue of the
7 conversion require some manual intervention.
Q. TO ENSURE THAT THE CONVERSION PROCESS is
TRANSPARENT TO THE CLEC AND THE CLEC CUSTOMER, WHAT
MAUAL FUNCTIONS MUST QWEST PERFORM?
A. Because conversion necessitates a change from a UNE product to a
Private Line service, and because these services are biled, inventoried and maintained
differently in Qwest's systems, Qwest must process them as a "record-out" and a "record-
in," and change the circuit IDs to move them from one product category to the other. In a
number of Qwest's systems, the TIRKS database and the WFA system, circuit IDs
identify, among other things, whether a circuit is classified as a UNE or a private line,
what tye of testing parameters apply, and which maintenance and repair center is
18 responsible for that circuit.
19 To be certn that the conversion process is transparent (no service disruption) to
20 the CLEC and its customers, Qwest interjects a number of manual activities into the
21 process so that certain automated steps (designed to aid in the provision of other tyes of
22 services) do not occur that could otherwse result in disruption of those services. The
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
HUICUTT, V (Di) 17
QWEST CORPORATION81
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
-
-
1 purose of many of the tasks included in the conversion process is to avoid placing the
2 CLECs' end-user customers' service at risk. To date and to my knowledge, afer more
3 than 1500 conversions involving this tye of service change, there have been no
4 complaints from CLECs about customers whose service has been disrupted as a result of
5 this conversion process.
6
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09 82
HUICUTT, V (Di) 18
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
-
-
1 v.APPLICATION OF UNE PRICING STANDARS TO NON~UNEs
2 Q.IS THE FORWARD-LOOKIG TELRIC COST METHODOLOGY
3 APPROPRIATE FOR QWEST'S CONVRSION CHARGE?
4 A.No. Assigning a Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost
5 ("TELRIC,,)23 rate for the nonrecurng charge associated with a federally tariffed Private
6 Line service would be both an inappropriate application of TELRIC rates and outside the
7 scope of this Commission's jursdiction. Nonrecurrng TELRIC charges are only
8 associated with the establishment of UNE products. In ths case, the product being
9 established is a federally tarffed Private Line service.
10 Q.HAS THE FCC ADDRESSED THE APPLICATION OF TELRIC
11 PRICING FOR NETWORK ELEMENTS THAT AR NO LONGER SUBJECT
12 TO UNE PRICING?
13 A.Yes. In paragraph 656 of the TRO, at page 409, the FCC spoke
14 specifically to the application of TELRIC to delisted UNEs:
15 Contrar to the claims of some commenters, TELRIC pricing for checklist
16 network elements that have been removed from the list of section 251 UNEs is
17 neither mandated by statute nor necessar to protect the public interest. 24
18
23TELRIC is a calculation method that the FCC requires ILECs to use to charge CLECs for
interconnection and collocation that results in forward-lookig rates based on economic cost priciples
applicable to UNs. It provides a pnce ceiling for UN services.
24 TRO, ~ 656, at page 409.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09 83
HUNICUTT, V (Di) 19
QWEST CORPORATION
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 VI.CONCLUSION
2 Q.PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
3 In non-impaired wire centers, Qwest is required to convert the formerA.
4 UNEservice to a finished Private Line service in order to transition the services
5 purchased by CLECs when they request to continue these services with Qwest. The FCC
6 has determined that CLECs are not impaired without access to DS 1 and DS3 UNEs in
7 these non-impaired wire centers. This determination reflects the fact that there are
8 suffcient, competitive alternatives to those UN services beyond Qwest's finished
9 Private Line service offerings. Should a CLEC request to remain on Qwest, finished
10 Private Line facilities, Qwest respectfully asks that this Commission acknowledge
11 Qwest's right to assess an appropriate charge for the activities that it pedorms in the
12 requisite conversion process performed on behalf of the CLEC. The rate Qwest intends
13 to assess for CLEC conversion requests is half of an existing, federally taffed rate, the
14 Design Change Charge.
15 Congress established a pricing standard under section 252 for network elements
16 that are unbundled pursuant to section 251 where impairment is found to exist. Once a
17 state commission has confirmed non-impairment, however, sections 201 and 202 of the
18 Act (which, unike sections 251 and 252, fall under the jursdiction of the FCC), apply
19 and the requisite conversions are trggered. At that point, the FCC has stated that such
20 elements must be priced on a just, reasonable and not uneasonably discriminatory basis
21 and are not subject to UNE rate restrictions such as TELRIC pricing.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
HUICUTT, V (Di) 20
QWEST CORPORATION84
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
e
I have demonstrated that the rate amount at which Qwest offers the conversion
charge, a rate associated with a network element provided under section 271, is
reasonable, albeit conservative, by showing that it has been included in a Multi State
Settlement Agreement approved by varous state commissions and interconnection
agreements with other, similarly-situted cariers. Furer, the rate is below the rate at
which Qwest offers còmparable fuctions to similarly-situted carers under its interstate
access taff, specifically Qwest's FCC Tariff No. 1.
Furher stil, the FCC declined suggestions to adopt rules establishing specific
procedures that ILECs and CLECs must follow to convert to non-section 251 services,
with the expectation that both paries have enough incentive to negotiate, and not litigate,
to establish any necessar procedures to perform conversions.25 For this reason, Qwest is
neither submitting a cost study nor a rate for approval. Rather, as stated above, Qwest is
simply asking that ths Commission acknowledge that Qwest is entitled to be
compensated for the costs that it incurs in the seamless conversion from UNE services to
alternative services (such as finished Private Line services). Qwest makes this request
with the hope that such acknowledgement will serve the FCC's goal of encouraging
ILECs and CLECs to negotiate in good faith regarding any rates, terms, and conditions
necessar to implement the FCC rule changes,26 and to ensure that paries do not engage
25 See TRO, ~ 585, at page 371.
26 See TRRO, ~ 233, at page 133.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
4/17/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
HUICUTT, V (Di) 21
QWEST CORPORA nON85
e
e
e
1 in unecessar delay in implementing the FCC's rule changes,27 through litigation or by
2 other means.
3 Q.DOES. THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
4 A.Yes, it does.
27 ¡d..
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
4/17/09
HUNICUTT, V (Di) 22
QWEST CORPORATION86
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 I.
2 Q.
3 A.
4
5 Q.
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
INTRODUCTION
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAM AN BUSINESS ADDRESS.
My name is Douglas Denney. I work at 6160 Golden Hils Dnve, Golden
Valley, Minnesota.
BY WHOM AR YOU EMPLOYED AN IN WHT CAPACITY?
I am employed by Integra Telecom, Inc., as Integra's Director of Costs and
Policy: My job duties include negotiating interconnection agreements,
monitoring, reviewing and anyzig the wholesale costs Integra or its
subsidiares pay to carers such as Qwest, and representig Integra and its
affliates on reguatory issues.
Integra Telecom, Inc. completed its purchase of Electrc Lightwave, LLC
("ELI"), the afliate doing business in Idao, on Augut 1, 2006. For
convenience, I will generally refer to Integra and its afliates, includig ELI,
as Integra. However, when describing certn dockets and actions of specific
Integra afliates prior to their afliation with Integra, I will refer to
specifically to the affliate. i
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL
BACKGROUN.
I received a B.s. degree in Business Mangement from Phillps University in
1988. I spent thee years doing graduate work at the University of Arzona in
For example, as discussed below, I was employed by Eschelon Telecom, Inc. when it was
purchased by Integr on August 31, 2007. Whe with Eschelon I was involved in TRO
proceedirgs in many states.
87
Page 1
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Deney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
-
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 Economics, and then I transferred to Oregon State University where I have
2 completed all the requirements for a Ph.D. except my dissertation. My field
3 of study was Industral Organzation, and I focused on cost models and the
4 measurement of market power. I taught a varety of economics courses at the
5 University of Arzona and Oregon State University. I was hied by AT&T in
6 December 1996 and spent most of my time with AT&T analyzing cost
7 models. In December 2004, I was hired by Eschelon Telecom, Inc., which
8 was subsequently purchased by Integra Telecom, where I am presently
9 employed.
10 I have. paricipated in over 40 proceedings in the 14-state Qwest region. Much
11 of my prior testimony involved cost models - including the HAl Model,
12 BCPM, GTE's ICM, U S WEST's UN cost models, and the FCC's Synthesis
13 ModeL. I have also testified about issues relating to the wholesale cost of local
14 service - including unversal service fudig, unbundled network element
15 pricing, geogrphic deaveraging, and competitive local exchange carer
16 access rates. I have filed testimony regarding Qwest's "non-impaed" ..wire
17 center lists and related issues, including the Five-State Settlement Agreement,2
18 in dockets in Uta, Oregon, Colorado, Minesota and Arzona.
19 Q.HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED IN IDAHO?
2 The Multi-State Settement Agreement Regardig Wire Center Designations and Related Issues
("Settlement Agreement"), is attched to Ms. Albersheim's testiony as Exhibit Qwest-4, and
is heavily and improperly relied upon by Qwest witnesses as their dirt evidence in ths case.
This agreement wil be discussed in more detail in Section II, and referenced thoughout this
testimony.
88
Direct Testiony of Douglas Deney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 2
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1 A.Yes. Whle workig for AT&T, I fied testimony and paricipated in
2 workshops in dockets GNR-T-97-22 / GNR-T-00-2 regardig unversal
3 servce. More recently, while working for Integra, I filed comments in QWE-
4 08-04 regarding Qwests SGAT and pedormance assurance plan.
5 Q.
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
PLEASE DESCRIE INEGRA'S PRESENCE IN IDAHO.
In Idaho, Integr serves alost 2,000 customers with nearly 40,000 access
lines using a combination of its own facilties and network elements leased
from Qwest. Integra's investment in facilties includes building collocations
in 4 Qwest central offices. Integra accesses its end user customers via "last
mile" facilties or Unbundled Network Element ("UN") loops purchased
from Qwest and connects these customers to its DMS500 switch in Idao.
Integra serves the Boise Metropolita area includig Boise, Meridian, Nampa,
Caldwell, Eagle, Kuna, Middleton and Sta. In addition, Integra also supplies
services outside of the Treasure Valley, reachig to Mountain Home, Twi
Falls, Pocatello, Idao Falls and nort to Coeur d Alene. Curently Integra
employs nearly 40 people in the state.
17 ORGANIZATION OF TESTIMONY
18 Q.PLEASE DESCRIE HOW YOUR TESTIMONY IS ORGANZED.
19 A.My testimony is organzed into eight sections. Section I introduces the
20 testimony. Section II discusses the Five-State Settlement Agreement and
21 explai the history of the Five-State Settlement Agreement, how the
22 negotiated terms of the agreement prohibit its use as evidence with regard toe23certn issues in ths docket, and how the passage of tie, including CLEC
89
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 3
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
-
1
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
experience in multiple TRR03 dockets in multiple states has provided ideas
2 that will allow ths Commssion to improve upon the issues raised in the Five-
3 State Settlement Agreement for Idao. Section III explains the flaws in
4 Qwest's switched business line counts, specifically how Qwest includes
5 residential and non-switched lines when countig Competitive Local
6 Exchange Carer ("CLEC") switched business lines. In addition, ths section
7 will discuss the diffculties in validatig Qwest's switched business lines.
8 Section IV discusses fiber-based collocations and describes problems Qwest
9 has had in other states properly counting fiber-based collocators. Ths section
10 will also discuss the diffculties in validating Qwest's fiber-based collocation
11 data. Section V explais the appropriate transition period for movig away
12 from UNs when UNs are no longer available. Ths section will explai
13 why the transition period in the TRRO Five-State Settlement Agreement is too
14 short and why a transition period of one-year, as outlined in the TRRO, would
15 be more appropriate. Section VI discusses why ths Commssion has
16 jursdiction over the transition from UNs to Qwest alternative servces. In
17 addition, ths section explains why ths conversion is simply a biling change
18 and thus there is no need to change circuit IDs or charge for these
19 conversions. Section VII explais improvements to Qwest's proposal
20 regarding the most effcient process going forward, for intaces where Qwest
3 TRO refers to the FCC's Triennial Review Remand Order. (i.e. In the Matter of Unbundled
Access to Network Elements, WC Docket No. 04-313; Review of the Section 251 Unbundling
Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 01-338; Order on Remand,
FCC 04-290, Febru 4, 2005.
90
Page 4
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Dirct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
-
Cas No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 seeks to expand the list of wie centers. Finally, section VIII concludes the
2 testiony and sumared my recommendations.
SUMMY OF TESTIMONY
Q. AR THERE AN EXHITS TO YOUR TESTIMONY?
A. Yes. The exhbits to my testiony are described below:
EXHIT 201: Excerpts from the hearng transcript in Colorado regarding the Five-State
Settlement Agreement
EXHIT 202: Decisions of the Colorado Commssion regardig TRO Non-Impaired
Wire Center Issues and the Five-State Settlement Agreement
EXHIT 203: Qwest Data Responses to Joint CLECs in Arzona TRO Wire Center
Docket regardig fiber-based collocations.
EXHIT 204: Washigton Commssion Order in Qwest/schelon Arbitration regarding
Commngling.
EXHIT 205: Minnesota Commission Order Regarding Jursdiction over Conversions
EXHBIT 206: Highy Confdential- Integr Estiate of Switched Business Lines as a
Percent of Loop Capacity
EXHBIT 207: Highy Confdential -- 2007 and 2008 Qwest Line Counts with
Adjustments
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Q.WHT ISSUES DOES TIDS COMMISSION NEED TO ADDRESS IN
21 THIS DOCKET?
22 A.Ths Commssion need only decide whether Qwest has properly supported the
23 classification of the Boise Mai and Boise West wie centers. Qwest has
requested tht Boise Mai be classified as Tier 14 and that Boise West be24
4 Albersheim Direct, p. 33, lines 5-6.
91
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 5
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
classified is Tier 2.5 In addition, Qwest has requested tht DS3 loops be
classified as non-impaied in the Boise Mai wie center.6
A wie center is classified as Tier 1 if it has either 4 or more fiber-based
collocations or at least 38,000 switched business lines. DSI UN tranport is
considered non-impaied between Tier 1 wire centers.7 In other words, Qwest
no longer ha to offer DS 1 tranport at UN rates when both offces at the end
of the tranport route are classified as Tier 1.
A wie center is classified as Tier 2 when it ha either 3 or more fiber-based
collocations or at least 24,000 switched business lines. DS3 UN tranport
and dark fiber transport is considered non-impaired between offces classified
as either Tier 1 or Tier 2.8 In addition, there is a limt of 10 DS 1 UN
transport routes in offces where DS3 transport is considered non-impaired.9
For example, if Qwest were to prevail on its request to classify Boise Mai as
Tier 1 and Boise West as Tier 2, CLECs would no longer be able to purchase
DS3 UN tranport or dak fiber between these two wie centers and would
be limited to 10 DS 1 UN transport circuits.
5 Alberheim Direct, p. 33, lies 6-7.
Albersheim Direct, p. 31, lies 11-13.
TRRO, Executive Sumar, ,r 5, p. 4 and'r 126.
TRRO, Executive Sumar, ,r 5, p. 4 and ,r,r 129 & 133.
TRRO, ,r 128.
6
7
8
9
92
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 6
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 A wire center is considered non-impaired with respect to DS3 UN loops if it
2 ha 4 or more fiber-based collocations and at least 38,000 switched business
3 lines.
10
4 Q.PLEASE SUMZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
5 A.Based on review of the supporting information provided by Qwest, the Joint
CLECs curently do not disputell tht Boise Mai and Boise West have the6
7 mium number of fiber-based collocators to be classified as Tier 1 and Tier
8 2 respectively. The only remaing non-impaied designation in dispute is
9 DS3 Loop non-impaient in Boise Mai.
DS3 loop non-impairment designtion is dependent upon switched business
line counts in tht wie center. Qwest ha improperly counted switched
business lines. First, because Qwest did not make its request for DS3 non-
impaient until its April 17,2009 testimony, Qwest should have relied upon
end of year 2008 switched business line counts rather than end of year 2007.
Second, Qwest improperly counts CLEC loops by includig residential loops
and non-switched capacity (both used and unused) in its CLEC switched
business line counts. Thrd, Integra is unable to verify Qwest s Integra
specific switched business line counts and as of the date ths testimony is
filed,. signficant discrepancies exist between Integra's data and the data
Qwest provided.
10
11
TRRO, Executive Sumar, ,r 5, p. 5 and'r 174.
The Joint CLECs may update their position based on the testiony of other pares in ths
docket.
93
Page 7
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11-
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 The Commssion should reject Qwest's request to classify the Boise Mai
2 wie center as non-impaied for DS3 100ps.
No fuer action is requied in ths docket at this time. If, however, the
Commssion intends to address the issues improperly raised by Qwest though
the use of the Five-State Settlement Agreement, then the Commission should
deterne that the transition period of converting from UNs to alternative
services should be no less th six month. In addition, as UN conversions
to Qwest alternative facilties is nothg more th a biling chage, Qwest
should not change the circuit identification for the converted circuit and
Qwest should not bil CLECs a non-recurg charge for a change that is
performed for Qwest's benefit (i.e. higher recurg rates).
Because Qwest is reviewig its own data on at least an anua basis to
determne whether additional wie centers meet the FCC's non-impairment
thesholds, Qwest should provide inormation to CLECs regarding wie
centers that are near a non-impaied theshold. Qwest should notify CLECs
anualy of all wire centers with 5,000 business lines of 24,000, 38,000 or
60,000 switched business lines. In addition, Qwest should notify CLECs of
wire centers when they are withn one fiber-based collocation of reachig Tier
2 statu. By providing ths information, both Qwest and CLECs will have
access to similar market information regarding the potential for futue non-
impaient determations and CLECs will be able to tae this inormation
into account when formulating their business plans, as Qwest can do today.
94
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 8
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interverors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 Qwest' has historically provided CLECs with notice and the opportty to
2 dispute, when Qwest plans to request a change to a wie center non-
3 impairent designation based upon a CLEC has a fiber-based collocation.
12
4 The Joint CLECs propose steps to be included in Qwest's process to ensure
5 that the notice and opportty to dispute serves its purose. First, Qwest
6 should ensure that the proper individuas at a CLEC are inormed of Qwest's
7 reliance on the CLEC's collocation. Ths can be done by sending the notice to
8 at least those persons identified by a CLEC to receive interconnection
9 ageement notices. Second, Qwest should not only inorm CLECs of its
10 reliance upon their collocation but also when it intends to rely upon CLEC
11 switched business lines as par of a request for a change in non-impairment
12 designtion. In so doing, Qwest should include the specific line counts on
13 which it relies. This will help ensure tht CLECs are informed of Qwest's
14 reliance on their data and increase the likelihood that a CLEC will have the
15 opportty to review and validate its own data upon which Qwest relies.
16 II.
17
THE FI-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CANOT BE USED
AS PRECEDENT IN TIS DOCKET
18 FIVE-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
19 Q.QWEST'S TESTIMONY MAS NUROUS REFERENCES TO
20 THE FIV-STATE TRRO NON-IMPAID WIRE CENTER
21 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ("FIV-STATE SETTLEMENT
12
Though ths is a term of the Five-State Settlement Agreement, Qwest provided th notice with its
intial non-impaied wie center lists in 2005, before the ageement. In addition, Qwest provided
notice as par of ths case in Idao (see Torrence Direct, p. 16, lines 6-11).
95
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 9
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1 AGImEMENT,,).13 PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE TIDS
2 SETTLEMENT.
3 A.Ths Five-State Settlement Agreement was reached between Qwest and a
group ~f CLECS14 for six states and was approved by the corresponding state4
5 commssions in five of them (Arzona, Minesota Oregon, Uta and
6 Washigton), with the Colorado Commission not approving the proposed
7 settlement agreement as filed. Qwest submits the Five-State Settlement
8 Agreement with its Petition as evidence (marked as Exhbit Qwest-4), even
9 though it expressly provides tht it may not be used as evidence (as discussed
below).
15 Without waiving any objections and to faciltate discussion of the10
11 problems with Qwest's testimony about the Five-State agreement, I describe
-12 here that it is broken into seven sections as follows:
13 Section i. Introduction - Ths section establishes the context for the agreement. The
14 agreement stemmed from simultaeous TRRO cases in six sttes (Arzona,
15 Colorado, Oregon, Uta and Washigton) tht began in the beging of 2006.
16 Section il. Defitions - Ths section provides definitions for the terms used thoughout
17 the agreement.
18 Section ill. Intial Commission-Approved Wire Center List - This section deals with
19 Qwest's initial list of non-impaied wie centers and their effective dates. The
20 intial list was based upon Qwest's Febru 4,2005 fiing at the FCC.16
21 Section iV. Non-recurg Charge for Conversions using the Intial Wire Center List and
22 for Futue Commssion-Approved Additions to that List - ths section
13
e 15
16
See Albersheim Directpp. 3, 13, 18 -29,31-38 and Exhibit Qwest-4 (a copy of the Agreement);
Torrence Direct pp. 19,20 and 27; and Hunicutt Direct, pp. 9 and 21.
This group included Covad, Eschelon, Integra, McLeodUSA, Onvoy, POPP, TDS Metrocom
and XO Communications.
Settlement Agreement, Exhibit Qwest-4, p. 16.
Ms. Albersheim references ths filig and attches the cover letter for the fig as Exhbit
Qwest-4.
14
96
Direct Testiony of Douglas Deney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 10
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interemors
Case No. QWET-08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1
2
establishes a chage for converting from UN to an alternative servce or
product offered by Qwest.
3 Section V. Methodology - Ths section is broken into two pars and describes the
4 settlement methodology used for futue additions to the non-impaied wire
5 centers. The fist par deals with the settlement methodology for counting
6 switched business lines and the second par deals with the methodology for
7 countig fiber-based collocations.
8 Section VI. Futue Qwest Filigs to Request Commission Approval of Non-Impaient
9 Designations and Additions to the Commission-Approved Wire Center List -
10 Ths section of the agreement describes when Qwest can make futue filings
11 for non-impaied wie centers, the methodology that Qwest should use,
12 process for requesting a protective order, advance notice to CLECs, the data
13 that should be provided, time frames for objecting to Qwest's request,
14 proposed tie frames to resolve disputes, lengt of the tranition period to
15 move from UNs to alterntive products or services and the rate to apply16 durg the tranition period.
e
17 Section VII. Other Provisions - Ths section describes how the agreement relates to
18 carers' interconnection agreements, and processes for the settling paries to
19 implement chages to their interconnection agreements. The section also
20 specifies that Qwest will make these provisions available to other CLECs,
21 though it does not provide tht other CLECs are bound by these provisions.
22 Ths section also clarfies that the settlement is a settlement of controversy and
23 may not be used as evidence in futue proceedings. Finally, ths section
24 contas some conditions related to conversions of UNs that occured based
25 upon Qwest's origial proposed non-impaied wie center list, but that would
26 not have been necessar under the non-impaied wie center list contaed as
27 par of the settlement agreement.
28 Q.WHT WAS YOUR INOLVEMENT WITH THE FIV-STATE
29 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT!
30 A.Durg the intial TRRO wie center dockets that commenced shortly after the
32
Triennal Review Remand Order ("TRRO"), I testified on behalf of a number
of CLECS17 regarding Qwest's intial wire center list and issues pertg to
31
33 "non-impaient" classifications. Qwest's initial request involved 76 wie
e 17 36Onetworks was not a par to the Settlement Agreement.
97
Page 11
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interemors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
-
e
1
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
center~. 18 Durg the course of these initial proceedings, Qwest and the
2 CLECs actively involved in those proceedings began discussions in an attmpt
3 to resolve disputed issues. I was the lead negotiator for the CLECs and was
4 involved in all aspects of the Five-State Settlement Agreement. Two of the
5 original six states, Arzona and Colorado, held heargs on the Five-State
6 Settlement Agreement. In those heargs, I was the witness for the CLECs
7 that signed the agreement.
8 Q.CAN THE FIV-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BE USED AS
9 EVIENCE REGARDING DISPUTED ISSUES IN TIS
10 PROCEEDING?
11 A.No, while the Five-State Settlement Agreement is a publicly filed document,
12 section VLB restrcts its use.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
This Settlement Agreement is a settement of a controversy. No
precedent is established by ths Settlement Agreement, whether or not
approved by Commssions. The Settlement Agreement is made only
for settlement puroses and does not represent the position that any
Par would tae if ths matter is not resolved by ageement. Ths
Settement Agreement may not be used as evidence or for
impeachment in any futu proceeding before a Commssion or any
other adnistrative or judicial body, except for futue enforcement of
the terms of ths Settlement Agreement after approval.19
Ths section specifically acknowledges that paries20 to the Five-State22
23 Settlement Agreement agreed that no precedent is established by the
18 Note that, of the 76 wir centers identified by Qwest, only 66 of them were designated as non-
impaied as a result of intial Commssion decisions and the Settlement Agreement. Of those 66,
a number of them had changes in non-impaient designations or the initial effective date.
Settlement Agreement, Exhbit Qwest-4, p. 16.
Qwest was a par to the settement ageement. See Settlement Agreement, Exhibit Qwest-4, p.
1.
19
20
98
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 12
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e 1
2
3
4 Q.
5
6
7
8 A.
9
10
11
--
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30e31
32
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
agreellent; paries may tae other positions when a settlement is not reached;
and the ageement will not be used as evidence, except for enforcement of the
terms (which is not the case here).
IN STATES WHRE THE FIV-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WAS APPROVED, WAS IT THE PARTIES' INTENT THAT TH
FIV-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT APPLY TO CARERS
THAT WERE NOT A PART OF THE AGREEMENT?
No. All paries to the agreement recognzed that the intent of the Five-State
Settlement Agreement was that it only apply in the states and to the pares tht
negotiated the agreement. Qwest's attorney in the Colorado hearg on the
settlement sumed it up nicely:
Are the moving paries simply askig for approval of ths settlement
agreement only with respect to the signtory paries or are the moving
paries askig for approval of ths settlement agreement so tht it
would apply to all CLECs in the state ofColorado? And the anwer to
the question is, we are only askig for approval of ths settlement
agreement with respect to the paries that have executed the settlement
agreement.
Not only that, it ha been made clear to me in my discussions with the
settling paries over the past couple of days tht any effort by a settling
par to assert tht the agreement should be applied to a CLEC that is
not a signg pary would be viewed as a breach of the settement
agreement. And I refer specifically to Section VII-B of the settlement
ageement. Furermore, any effort by a setting par to use the
settlement agreement as evidence or as precedence in any Commssion
proceedig would also be viewed as a breach of VII-B in the
settlement ageement.
Now, VII-B provides tht the agreement is a settlement of controversy,
no precedent is established; the ageement is for settlement puroses
only. It shall not be used as evidence or for impeachment in any
proceedig before the Commssion or any other adstrative or
judicial body except for futue enforcement.
99
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 13
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
8
9
10 A.
11
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1
2
3
4
So I think that's a cntical piece of inormation to have, because I th
tht answers one of stas critical theshold questions with respect to
the settlement, which is, Who does it apply to? It only applies to the
signatory paries.21
5 QWEST'S REQUEST IN TIDS CASE is PROmBITED BY THE FIV-STATE
6 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
7 Q.WHT is QWEST ASKIG TIDS COMMISSION TO DO WITH
RESPECT TO THE FIV-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN
IDAHO?
Qwest asks ths Commission to approve the terms of the Five-State Settlement
Agreement as resolution to the disputed issues in ths case, which can only be
done by using the agreement as a precedent in violation of its own terms.
Specifically, Ms. Albersheim states, "I will explain how ths (settement)
methodology can be used by ths Commssion to establish procedures for
futue TRRO proceedings."22 In addition she states, "First, according to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, which Qwest is asking ths Commssion
to adopt....,,23 Ms. Albersheim concludes her testimony explaig that,
"Qwest also asks the commission to adopt Qwest's proposed procedures as
outlined in the multi-state Settlement Agreement for designation of non-
impaied wire centers in the futue. ,,24 Ms. Torrence requests the Commssion
"adopt the provisions and methodology contained with the Settlement
Agreement atthed to Qwest's Petition in ths docket and presented in Ms.
21 CO Docket 06M-080T, Reporter's Trascrpt Volume I, openig statement of Qwest attorney
David McGan pp. 7, lie 14 though p. 8 line 21. See Exhibit 201, pp. 7-8.
22 Albersheim Direct p. 3, lines 18-19.
23 Albersheim Direct, p 31, lines 16-17.
24 Albersheim Direct, p. 38, lies 12-14.
100
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 14
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervernors
e
6 Q.
7
8
9 A.
10
11e12
l3
14
e
1
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
Albersheim's testimony as Qwest Exhbit 4.,,25 Ms. Huncutt claim to have
2 demonstrated th Qwest's proposed conversion charge is reasonable, "by
3 showig tht it has been included in a Multi State Settement Agreement
4 approved by varous state commissions and interconnection agreements with
5 other, similarly-situted carers.,,26
SHOULD THE COMMSSION TAK ACTION REGARING
QWEST'S USE OF THE FIV-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
IN TIDS DOCKET?
Yes. Qwest should not be relyig on the Five-State Settlement Agreement as
evidence in ths case, and Qwest's testimony related to the Five-State
Settlement Agreement should be strcken or given no weight. To the extent
Qwest seeks in its response testiony to provide evidence that should have
been provided in its diect case, that responsive testiony should also be
stricken from the record.
15 Q.DOES QWEST MA AN STATEMENTS THAT MISREPRESENT
THE SETTLEMT AGREEMENT!16
17 A.Yes, Qwest does it on numerous occasions. For example, Ms. Albersheim
18 misrepresents the Five-State Settlement Agreement by claig tht "(t)he
19 paries have agreed that ths methodology (the Settlement methodology of
20 counting business lines and fiber based collocators) complies with the rues
25
26
Torrence Direct, p. 27, lines 7-9.
Hunicutt Direct, p. 21, lines 1-5.
101
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 15
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
established by the FCC in TRRO.,,27 In fact, the opposite is tre - the Five-
State Settlement Agreement makes no such claims, and instead states that it
"does not represent the position that any Par would tae if this matter is not
resolved by agreement.,,28 Furer, in the Colorado wire center proceeding on the
settlement, I testified on behalf of the Joint CLECs that the business line count
methodology contaed in the agr~ment was inconsistent with the FCC rules,
outlined in the TRRO, regarding how business lines should be counted?9 (I wil
fuer discuss the proper methodology for counting business line counts in Section
III of this testimony.)
Another example is Ms. Hunicutt's claim that Qwests proposed rate for
conversions of UNs to non-UNs - i.e. half of its federaly taifed design change
charge - "is reasonable, albeit conservative, by showig that it ha been
included in a Multi State Settlement Agreement approved by varous state
commissions and interconnection agreements with other, similarly-situted
carers.,,30 Again, the Five-State Settlement Agreement makes no such claims,
and in fact, the term "Design Change Charge" is not even mentioned in the Five-
State Settlement Agreement. Instead, the Five-State Settlement Agreement talks
about a "non-recurrg charge for conversions.,,31 In addition, the $25 conversion
charge outlined in the settlement was only mandatory for ''te years from the
27 Albersheim Direct p. 24, lines 5-8. A simar fae statement is also made at p. 31, lies 5-6 of
Albersheim Direct.
Settlement Agreement, Exhbit Qwest-4, p. 16.
Colorado Settlement Hearing Transcript, pp. 195-198. The relevant pages are attched as par
of Exhbit 201.
Hunicutt Direct p. 21, lines 1-5.
Section iv of the Settlement Agrement.
28
29
30
31
102
Page 16
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1
2
3
4
5 Q.
6
7
8 A.
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Case No. QWE-T-08-Q7
May 22, 2009
Effective Date of ths Settement Agrement.,,32 The "Effective Date of this
Settlement Agreement" was derined as the date of a Commission order approving the
settlement. 33 Some of the states approving the agreement did so in 2007 and
therefore the $25 rate could expire next year.
EVEN ASSUMG THE FIV-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
COULD BE USED AS EVIENCE, DID QWEST FOLLOW TH
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT IN TIDS DOCKET?
No. In addition to the fact that Qwest acted contrar to the term of the Five-
State Settlement Agreement by using it as advocacy in ths docket, Qwest
failed to even follow the Five-State Settlement Agreement with regard to its
request for non-impaied statu for DS3 loops in Boise Main.
Section VLD of the Five-State Settlement Agreement states,
In order to provide all interested pares adequate notice of the scope of
the requested protective order and the anticipated Wire Center update
proceeding, Qwest will provide CLECs (Joint CLECs and other
potentially afected Competitive Local Exchage Carers), including
at least the contacts identified by each such carer for interconnection
agreement notices, via its email notification chanels, with at least five
(5) business days notice prior to fiin~lroposed non-impairment or tier
designations for Commission review.
Qwest did not notify CLECs of its proposal to classify DS3 loops in Boise
Main as non-impaied. The fit time I became aware of ths request was
when reading Qwest's direct testimony in ths docket. To the best of my
e
32
33
34
TRRO Settlement Agreement, Section IV.A, Qwest Exhibit-I, p. 5.
TRRO Settlement Agreement, Section II, Qwest Exhbit-I, p. 3.
TRRO Settlement Agreement, Section VI.D, Qwest Exhibit-I, pp. 9-10.
103
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 17
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interemors
Case No. QWE- t -08-07
May 22, 2009
knowledge, Qwest stil ha not notified CLECs of its proposal to classify DS3
loops in Boise Mai as non-impaired.
Remarkably, Ms. Albersheim's indicates in footnote 20 of her testimony that
CLECs should have been able to figue ths out by vire of Qwest's filing,
even though it took Qwest almost 10 months to figue it out for itself.35 Ms.
Albersheim wrtes:
Please note that Qwest's Petition in ths case inadvertently failed to
mention non-impaient for DS3 loops in the Boise Mai wie center.
However, since Qwest's Petition indicated tht it would demonstrate
that the Boise Mai wie center met both stadads for Tier 1 status in
that it had more th 38,000 business lines and four or more fiber-
based collocators, under the stadads of the TRRO, a finding tht
access to DS3 loops is non-impaied in Boise Main necessarly follows
from that evidence.36
In addition, Qwest ignores the very Five-State Settlement Agreement provision
that it advocates should apply when it states, "Qwest may request addition of
Non-Impaied Wire Centers based in whole or par upon line counts at any
time up to July 1 of each year, based on prior year line count data.,,37 Qwest
did not request non-impaied statu for DS3 loops in Boise Main until Apnl
17,2009. However, Qwest relied upon line count data from December 2007
rather than December 2008.
e
35
36
37
Qwest filed its initial petition on June 27,2008 and its Direct Testiony on April
17, 2009.
Albersheim Direct p. 31, footnote 20.
Settlement Agreement, Exhbit Qwest-4, Section VI.A.2.
104
Page 18
Deney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 COMMSSION DOES NOT NEED TO DECIDE ISSUES RASED IN THE FIV-
2 STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
3 Q.DOES TIDS COMMSSION NEED TO RULE ON USE OF THE FI-
4 STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN TilS DOCKET?
5 A.No. The only issue the Commssion needs to decide in ths docket is the non-
6 impainent statu of the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers. Other
7 issues, such as those Qwest raises though its filing of the Five-State
8 Settlement Agreement, can be negotiated by CLECs and Qwest as par of
9 provisions in their interconnection agreements or can be resolved in a future
10 proceeding regarding a request for a non-impaied wie center when the
11 specific issue actuly is in dispute.
12 Q.IF TIDS COMMSSION WERE TO RULE ON THE ISSUES
13 OUTLIND IN THE FIVE-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
14 WOULD YOU ADVOCATE AN POSITIONS DIFFERENTLY THA
15 THOSE CONTAID IN THE AGREEMENT?
16 A.Yes. Pares completed negotiation of the Five-State Settlement Agreement in
17 June of 2007. Since tht time, Qwest has made requests for fuer non-
18 impaired wie centers in multiple states in both 2007 and 2008. As a result,
19 many provisions of the agreement shifted from abstraction to reality. For
20 example, as will be discussed in more detal, the 90 day transition period is a
21 near physical impossibilty. In addition, numerous CLECs have spoken out
22 agait the agreement, the Commssion sta in Arzona and Colorado
23 expressed concerns regarding the agreement, and the Commssion in Colorao
24 rejected the agreement as filed. As a result, if ths Commission intends to rue
105
Dirct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 19
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 on the merits of the issues contaned in the Five-State Settlement Agreement
2 over CLEC objection, then the Joint CLECs would make at least the following
3 proposals:
4 .The methodology for counting switched business lines should be adjusted to
5 conform with 47 CFR § 51.5 defining business lines as was ordered by the
6 Colorado Commssion.38 Specifically, residential and non-switched business
7 lines should be excluded from the switched business line counts. Ths issue is
8 discussed in more detal in section III of ths testimony.
9 .The methodology for identifyg fiber-based collocators should be adjusted to
10 conform with 47 CFR § 51.5 defing fiber-based collocations. Specifically
11 the reference to Express Fiber should be removed, as it is not in the Federal
12 Rules and ha led to confsion rather th clarfication. Ths issue is
13 discussed in more detal in section iv of ths testimony.
14 .The transition period outlined in the Five-State Settlement Agreement is too
15 short. It is diffcult to make any signficant network chages in the 90 day
transition period. The FCC adopted I-year transition period in the TRRd9
and a 6-month transition period in the Omaha UN Forbearance.4o The
16
17
38 Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Docket No. 06M-080T. In The Matter Of The Joint
Competitive Local Exchange Carer' Request Regardig The Status Of Impairent In Qwest
Corporaion's Wire Centers And The Applicabilty Of The Federal Communcations
Commission's Triennial Review Remand Order, Decision No. C08-1164, Order On Application
For Rehearg, Rearguent Or Reconsideration, adopted date October 29, 2008 ("Colorao
RR Ordef'), pp. 2-6. The Arbitrtor Recommended Decision, Decision No. R08-164, The
Commission Decision on Exceptions, C08-0969, and the Colorado RR Order are attched to
ths testimony as Exhbit 202.
TRO, 1 5. Note that the FCC set an 18-month trsition period for Dark Fiber Traport
Omaha Forbearce Order (Memoradum Opinion and Order FCC 05-170, WC Docket No. 04-
233, September 26, 2005), 1 74.
39
40
106
Page 20
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Inteerors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1
2
3
4 .
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cae No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
TRO transition period is preferable, but either transition period would better
allow for paries to identify, plan and transition impacted circuits. Ths is
discussed in more detal in section V of ths testimony.
The conversion from a UN to an alternative arangement offered by Qwest is
simply a biling change that benefits Qwest. Nothng about the physical
facilty changes. As determed by the Colorado Commssion, Qwest should
not be able to charge CLECs for ths conversion. Furher, as determned by
the Washigton Commission, Qwest should not be allowed to change a
CLEC's circuit ID when a facilty is converted. Ths imposes unecessar
cost upon the CLEC.. This is discussed in more detal in section VI of ths
testimony.
Regarding the procedures for futue requests for non-impaied wire center
designtions (Section VI of the Agreement), ths Commssion should fid, as
ordered by the Colorado Commssion, tht Qwest should provide notice to
CLECs of wie centers nearg the "non-impaient" thesholds. The
Colorado Commssion ordered Qwest to provide a list of wie centers withn
one fiber-based collocation or 5,000 business lines of reaching a non-impaired
designation. Ths list should be provided anually durng the tie frame that
Qwest fies its TRRO wire center non-impaient petitions with the states
commissions. In addition, Qwest's process for providig notice to CLECs
when Qwest intends to count tht CLEC as a fiber-based cOiiocator should be
expanded to include advanced notice to CLECs whose line counts Qwest is
relyig upon to meet line count thesholds. Ths will help CLECs understad
107
Direct Testimony of Douglas Deney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 21
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
-
2
3
4 III.
Cas No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
the extent to which Qwest relies upon their data and faciltate review of
Qwest's non-impaied wire center support. These recommendations will be
discussed in greater detal in section VII of ths testimony.
SWITCHED BUSINSS LINES
5 DEFINITION OF BUSINESS LINS
6 Q.
7
8
9 A.
10e11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Q.
25
26
27 A.
e
HOW DOES TH FCC DEFINE A SWITCHED BUSINSS LIN FOR
THE PUROSES OF DETE~G NON-UMAID ~RE
CENTERS?
The FCC defines a Business Line as followS:41
A business line is an incumbent LEC-owned switched access line used
to serve a business customer, whether by the incumbent LEC itself or
by a competitive LEC tht leases the line from the incumbent LEC.
The number of business lines in a wie center shall equa the sum of all
incumbent LEC business switched access lines, plus the sum of all
UN loops connected to that wire center, including UN loops
provisioned in combination with other unbundled elements. Among
these requiements, business line talies (l) shall include only those
access lines connecting end-user customers with incumbent LEC end-
offces for switched services, (2) shal not include non-switched
special access lines, (3) shall account for ISDN and other digital access
lines by counting each 64 kbps-equivalent as one line. For example, a
DS 1 line corresponds to 24 64-kbps-equivalents, and therefore to 24
business lines.
DOES QWEST PROPERLY RELY UPON SWITCHED BUSINSS
LINES TO DETERMNE "NON-IMPAIRMENT" FOR THE BOISE
MA AN BOISE WEST WIRE CENTERS IN IDAHO?
No. There are a number of problems with Qwest's switched business line
41 47 C.F.R. § 51.5, Terms and Defitions, Business Line.
108
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 22
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 counts, used in ths docket. First, Qwest makes two related errors that lead
2 Qwest to overstate CLEC switched business line counts and thus maes
3 Qwest's total switched business line counts uneliable. Second, I have been
4 unable to validate Qwest's Integra specific UNE loop counts and have arved
5 at numbers signficantly different than those provided by Qwest. Third,
6 Qwest should have used December 2008 line counts, rather than December
7 2007 line counts, to support non-impaired status for DS3 loops in the Boise
8 Mai wie center.
9 Q.DOES QWEST COUNT SWITCHED CLEC BUSINESS LINS
PROVISIONED OVER UNE LOOPS OR ALL UN LOOPS IN ITS10
11 BUSINSS LIN COUNS IN IDAHO?
12 A.Ms. Albersheim is clear tht Qwest counted all UN loops in its count of
13 business lines.42 By doing so, Qwest improperly inates the count of business
14 lines in the followig ways:
15 .Qwest improperly counts UN- L lines that are used to serve residential and
16 not business customers.
17 .Qwest improperly counts unutilied capacity and capacity used to provide
18 data servces in its UN- L line counts.
19 These are some of the issues pointed out in the Colorado Decision.
20 Q.BEFORE YOU PROCEED TO DISCUSS THSE ISSUES, PLEASE
EXPLAI THE EXTENT TO WHCH BUSINSS LINE COUN21
42 Albersheim Direct, p. 34, line 1.
109
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 23
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
--
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 PROBLEMS AFFECT QWEST'S PROPOSED LIST OF NON-
IM AID WIRE CENTERS.2
3 A.Though Qwest claied to support its Tier designations with both business lie
4 counts and fiber-based collocations,43 the fact is one or the other is required,
5 not both. If Qwest meets the fiber-based collocation stadads for Tier 1 and
6 Tier 2 designations, which it curently appears Qwest did, then business line
7 counts with respect to the tier designtions are effectively irelevant.
8 However, to classify a wie center as non-impaired for DS3 loops, both a
9 business line and fiber-based collocation theshold must be met. Therefore,
10 Qwests business line counts are relevant with regard to Qwest's request to
11 classify Boise Mai as non-impaired for DS3 loops. As discussed previously,
12 in order to meet ths non-impaient theshold, Qwest must have at least
13 38,000 business lines and 4 or more fiber-based collocations.
14 RESIDENTIA LOOPS SHOULD NOT BE COUNED IN THE SWITCHED
15 BUSINSS LIN COUNS
16 Q.PLEASE EXPLAI WH IT IS IMROPER TO COUN UN LOOPS
17 USED TO SERVE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
18 A.It is improper because the point of the TRRO's line count measure is to size
19 the business (not residential) maket. This is evident from the fist sentence of
20 the FCC's business line defition, which is as follows:
21
22
23
24
25
A business line is an incumbent LEC-owned switched access line
used to serve a business customer, whether by the incumbent LEC
itself or by a competitive LEC that leases the line from the
incumbent LEC. The number of business lines in a wie center shal
equa the sum of all incumbent LEC business switched access lines,
43 A1bersheim Direct. p. 33, lines 7-9.
110
Page 24
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interverors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
plus the sum of all UN loops connected to tht wie center, including
UN loops provisioned in combination with other unbundled
elements. Among these requiements, business line talies (1) shal
include only those access lines connecting end-user customers with
incumbent LEC end-offces for switched services, (2) shall not include
non-switched special access lines, (3) shall account for ISDN and
other digita access lines by countig each 64 kbps-equivalent as one
line. For example, a DSI line correfFonds to 24 64 kbps-equivalents,
and therefore to 24 "business lines."
10 Qwest reads the second sentence of the above rue in isolation from the rest of
11 the definition to prop up Qwest's proposal to include CLEC residential and
12 non-switched lines (served via Qwest UN loops) in the switched business
13 line count. As correctly observed by the ALJ in the Colorado Wire Center
14 Case, while on the surace the second sentence may suggest counting all UN
15 loops, a complete reading of ths rue indicates the exact opposite. Below I
16 reproduce the Colorado Commssion's explanation of why UN loops servg
17 residential customers should be excluded:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
According to the AL's reasonig, to include residential loops in the
cour of business lies in a wie center would impermssibly confict
with the first sentence and would not give meaing to the entire rue.
Consequently, the ALJ determned tht the term "business lines" in the
second sentence must restrct the subsequent phrase "such that all
UN loops must be confed with the scope of business line as
defined in the first sentence of the paragraph."... As such, the ALJ
concluded that given the plai languge of 47 C.F.R. § 51.5, it is
ilogical to conclude that a residential line is a business lie. A non-
switched UN loop providig service to a residential customer
conficts with both the first sentence of the rue, as well as the thd
sentence; therefore, the UN loop component of the business line
calculation by wie center, is to be modified to exclude residential and
non-switched lines. 4S
44
4S
47 C.F.R. § 51.5 Term and Definitions, Business Line. (emphasis added).
Colorado RR Decision, p. 3 (footnote referencing the specifc paraph of the ALJ
Recommended Decision is omitted), attched to ths testimony as par of Exhbit 202.
111
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page2S
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Inteemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 The FCC's rule requies tht the business line counts include only lines used
2 to serve business customers tht are switched. In contrast, Qwest's business
3 line count methodology includes lines used to service residential (not
4 business) customers as well. as lines that are not switched. In addition to
5 violatig the express languge of the rue and being inconsistent with the
6 intent of the rue, Qwest's clai that a residential or non-switched line should
7 be counted as a switched business line simply does not make sense.
8 Q.COULD QWEST HAVE EASILY REMOVED RESIDENTIA LOOPS
9 FROM ITS SWITCHED BUSINSS LIN COUNS?
10 A.Yes. When a CLEC orders a loop from Qwest there is a mandatory field on
11 the Local Service Request ("LSR") where the CLEC indicates whether the
12 loop will be used to serve a business, residence or governent customer.
13 Thus, Qwest has information in its possession to enable it to remove
14 residential loops from its calculation of switched business line counts.
15 NON-SWITCHED CAPACITY OF LOOPS USED TO SERVE BUSINSSES
16 SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN SWITCHED BUSINESS LIN COUNTS
17 Q.WHT is YOUR PRIMAY CONCERN ON TIDS ISSUE?
18 A.Qwest counts all UN- L at their maimum potential capacity and assumes
19 that ths ful capacity is dedicated to serve voice switched demand, which
20 mean that Qwest counts all high-capacity/digita DSI UNE-L as 24
21 individua business switched lines. This approach inappropriately counts
22 chaels on the high-capacity/digita UNEs that do not provide switched
23 business servces - a prerequisite to a line being counted as a business line.
112
Direct Testimony of Douglas Ðeney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 26
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e 1
2
3
4
5
6 Q.
7
8 A.
9
10
11e12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20
21
46e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
Ths method inappropriately assumes that every available chanel on an
unbundled high-capacity loop (or its equivalent digital capacity) is being used
to support switched business servces, when in fact, much of that capacity
might not be used at all (vacant), and some portion of that capacity in most
circumstace will almost certy be used for data servces.
WHT METHOD OF COUNING BUSINSS LINS SHOULD BE
USED INSTEAD OF QWEST'S METHOD?
The lines that are included in the business line count must comply with the
entire definition of business line, which means tht these lines must be: (1)
used to serve a business customer; and (2) used to provide switched servces
(i.e., voice); and to the extent consistent with these requirements, (3) each 64
kbps chanel should be evaluated as one line. In addition, as discussed above,
whether a line is counted as a business line or not, should not depend upon
whether the customer is served by Qwest or the CLEC.46 Qwest must use the
same methodology for counting CLEC lines as it does in counting its own
business lines.
is THE FCC CLEAR THAT QWEST RETAIL LINES AN UNE-L
ARRGEMENTS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAM?
Yes. Imediately afer identifying the tyes of lines that are candidates to be
counted as business lines, the defition adopts limting languge with the
phre "among these requiements," thereby makg clear tht the limtig
This parity requiement is contaed with the fit sentence of the business line defition: "an
incumbent LEC-owned switched access lines used to serve a business customer, whether by the
incumbent LEe itself or by a competitive LEC that leases the line from the incumbent LEC."
113
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 27
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors'
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 criteria' of the defition apply equally to UNE-L arangements as well as
2 ILEC retal line counts.
3 Q.HAS QWEST APPLIED THESE LIMITING CRITERI
4 CORRCTLY?
5 A.No. Just like the above discussed case of UN loops that serve residential
6 customer, Qwest's application of the FCC definition is based on reading
7 isolated components of the definition of business line in a way tht conflcts
8 with other provisions:
9 First, Qwest places great emphais on the second sentence of the defition
10 which, when read in isolation, states:
11
12
13
14
The number of business lines in a wie center shal equa the sum of alI
incumbent LEC business switched access lines, plus the sum of all
UN loops connected to tht wie center, including UN loops
provisioned in combination with other unbundled elements.
15 As interpreted by Qwest, it claims that the sentence permts it to count all
16 UN-L, without regard to whether the lines satisfy any of the requiements to
17 be considered a "business line."
18 Second, Qwest exploits an example in the defition as an unconditional
19 directive that the maxum potential capacity of high-speed digita servces
20 should be counted, again without regard to whether any of the theshold
21 requiements to be counted as a business line are being satisfied.
22 Importtly, however, there ar no absolute intrctions in the defition tht
23 requie that all UN loops - much less every 64 kbps chael - be counted as
114
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 28
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interverors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 a busIness line, whether or not they otherwse meet the requirements of the
2 definition. As I explained above, the defintion applies additional
3 requirements to both UN loop arangements and Qwest's retal lines tht
4 also must be satisfied before "a line" can be counted as a "business line."
5 Ths is tre for individua anog lines, as well as each digita line to which
6 Qwest ha counted at its maximum, theoretical capacity.
7 Q.
8
9
10 A.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
AR YOU SAYIG THAT QWEST is INCORRCT BY COUNTING
EVERY DSI LOOP BY ITS MAMUM POTENTIAL CAPACITY (i.e.,
AS 24 BUSINSS LINS IN ALL INSTANCES)?
Yes. Qwest counts every high capacity/digita UN loop assuming that the
maximum potential capacity is used to provide switched business line service,
when it understads fuly, that such a circumstace is by far the exception, as
opposed to the rule, in today's marketplac. Qwest appears to base its view
on its selective reading of the fi instrction, which indicates that the
business line count:
...shall account for ISDN and other digita access lines by counting
each 64 kbps-equivalent as one line. For example, a DSI line
corresponds to 24 64 kbps-equivalents, and therefore to 24 "business
lines."
Importtly, a proper readg of the above inction does not direct Qwest to
count each chael in a high capacity circuit as a "business line." The critical
sentence in the quote cited above is that Qwest "shall account for ISDN and
other digital access lines by counting each 64 kbps-equivalent as one line"
(emphais added). This requirement, however, does nothig more than what it
115
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 29
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 plainly states, i.e., that each 64 kbps-equivalent should be considered "one
2 line." Whether or not these lines should be counted as business lines,
3 however, depends upon whether the remaig requiements of the FCC
4 definition are satisfied.
5 The fact that the definition provides an example of how the analysis might
6 count a DS 1 does not require that Qwest or the Commission, ignore situtions
7 in which a similar DS 1 might provide very litte switched business servce.
8 Indeed, ha the FCC wanted to declare all high capacity serces and circuits
9 as business lines, it could have easily simplified the definition to say so. But
10 the FCC did not. It diected that each 64-kbps equivalent be considered one
11 line, and then directed that other criteria - most specifically, that the line also
12 be used to provide switched access line servce to a business customer (i. e.,
13 voice service) - be used to determe whether each "line" should be
14 considered a business line.
15 Q.DOES ARS COUNT DIGITAL LINS AT THEIR MAMUM
16 POTENTIA CAPACITY?
17 A.No. The ARS instrctions permt Qwest to count "only those access lines
18 connecting end-users with their end offces for switched services,',47 which is
19 the same requiement as in the FCC's defition of "business lines" for its
20 unbundling framework.48 And as I explaied earlier, the FCC's business line
47
48
htt:llwww.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/documents/2004PDFs/4308c04.pdf at page 20.
The fist limtig fator in the FCC's defition of a business line is tht "business lines": "shall
include only those access lines connectig end-user customer with incumbent LEC end-offces
for switched servces." 47 C.F.R § 51.5.116
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 30
Deney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 defition diects that lines be counted whether the line is served by the ILEC
2 or the CLEC. Thus, whether the line is a Qwest retal line, or a UN loop
3 arangement used by a CLEC to provide servce, the same cntena apply.
4 Importantly, the term "business switched access lines" is a defied term in
5 ARIS 43-08, which is the report that the FCC diected be used to measure
ILEC retal lines.49 The ARS reportng instrctions requie that Qwest6
7 report'its lines in voice-equivalents,
50 but, importtly, does not permt Qwest
8 to count empty circuits or data circuitS.51 Simply put, Qwest may not count
9 empty or data circuits on a DS 1 used to provide servce to one of its customers
10 (it may only count the activated circuit-paths) That is perfectly consistent
11 with the FCC's rues with respect to counting business access lines relative to
12 impaient, unortately, that is not the process Qwest undertook.
13 Q.AR THERE AN OTHER LOGICAL FLAWS IN ALLOWIG
14 QWEST TO COUN EMPTY CmCUITS OR NON-SWITCHED
15 CIRCUITS IN ITS UN-L COUNTS?
16 A.Yes. Since empty (unused) and non-switched circuits would not be counted
17 under Qwest's retal line counts, but would be counted under CLEC UNE-L
18 counts, Qwest would be allowed to count empty capacity and data circuits
19 simply because the customer switched to the CLEC.
49 TRRO, 1 105, fn. 303.
See http://ww.fcc.gov/wcb/aris/documents/2004PDFs/4308c04.pdf (page 21) defiing
ARMS 43-08 Business Switched Access Lines as "total voice-gre eguivalent analog or digital
switched access lines to business customers." (emphasis added)
Page 200fthe intrctions for ARS 43-08 -like the FCC's business lie defition - makes
clear that Qwest may count "only those lies connecting end-user customers with their end
offces for switched servces."
50
51
117
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 31
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
8 Q.
9
10
11 A.e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 CLECs do not use high capacity UN-L at their maximum potential capacity
2 for puroses of providing exclusively switched business servces. CLECs
3 provide sophisticated data servces (e.g., high speed internet access, web
4 hosting, IP address, DNS, email services) over these loops. These servces,
5 while utilizing bandwidth (or 64 kbps chaels) on the CLEC's DSI loop, are
6 not switched business lines, and should therefore not be included in the count
7 of business lines.
IF QWEST DOES NOT KNOW WHTHER A CLEC is USING THE
FULL BANWIDTH OF THE UNE LOOPS, DOES THAT JUSTIFY
COUNTING THE FULL CAPACITY OF THE UN LOOP?
No. Complying with the FCC's ful and complete defintion of "business
line" is not simply a matter of convenience. The rue makes clear that only
switched business lines are to be counted - not the maximum potential
capacity which would include empty circuits and data circuits. Hence, even if
Qwest does not know the utilzation rate of CLEC UN-L for switched
business lines, Qwest canot simply toss out par of the FCC's defintion and
count all UNE-Ls at their maxum potential capacity regardless of whether
they meet the other applicable criteria.
19 Q.HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THAT TH CLEC UN LOOP COUNTS
20 BE ADJUSTED TO BETTER REFLECT THE FACT THAT UNE
21 LOOPS MAY BE USED TO PROVISION NON-SWITCHED DATA OR
22 SPECIAL ACCESS SERVICES?
118
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 32
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Inteemors
e 1 A.
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
There are a number of options available to the Commssion. First, ths
2 Comtssion could requie the CLECs that have lines Qwest included in its
3 line count totas provide voice acess lines associated with loops it purchaes
4 from Qwest. CLECs have to supply voice access lines for each state as par of
5 the FCCs 477 reportg requiements. Ths number can then be compared to
6 the loop capacity for the entire state to estimate the percentage of voice lines
7 to loop capacity. I have performed this calculation estimate for Integra as par
8 of Exhbit 206.
9 Table 1: Highly Confidential - Integra Estimate of Switched Business Lines as a
10 Percent of Loop Capacity.
11 See Highly Confidential Exhibit 206.
ti 12 Alternatively, the Commssion could rely on the experience of a large CLEC
13 in the state, such as Integra, to estimate results for all CLECs in the stte.
14 INTEGRA CAN NOT VERIFY QWEST'S LOOP COUNTS IN BOISE MAN
15 AND BOISE WEST
16 Q.
17
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23e24
PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE HA
VALIDATING QWEST'S INTEGRA SPECIFIC UN LOOP COUNTS
IN THE BOISE MAN AND BOISE WEST WIRE CENTERS.
Attempting to validate Qwest's CLEC specific loop counts is a time
consuming, labor intensive endeavor. Business data storage practices were
generaly developed for different puroses and not with these non-impairment
designtion proceedigs in mind. Integra's internal data is tyically stored by
customer, not by the Qwest loop facilty upon which tht customer's servce
rides, and contas information regarding the collocation in which the
119
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 33
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
9
10
11e12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
e
Case No. QWE- T -08..7
May 22, 2009
1 customer's service is connected, but not the Qwest wire center in which the
2 customer actuly resides. For example, when a CLEC purchaes from Qwest
3 an EEL circuit, i.e. a combination of an unbundled loop and trsport, the
4 wie center where the customer is located is different from the wie center
5 where the circuit terinates. Integra purchases many EEL circuits from
6 Qwest that termte at the Boise Mai and Boise West wire centers, though
7 the customers being served by these EELs reside in wire centers other than
8 Boise Main or Boise West.
Thus, in order to validate Integra specific loop counts, I may attempt to check
Qwest biling data to determine whether it is consistent with Integra intern
data. Qwest biling data presents other chalenges, as Qwest bils do not
clearly identify the wire centers to which a circuit belongs; there are often
multiple bils for each entity with a state; each bil has a unique bil date
which is not the December 31 tie being investigated; and bils may have
missing data and/or components tht make circuit validation diffcult. Despite
these diffculties, in most non-impaient cases when I have used ths
comparson method, I have been able to verify Qwest's Integra specific line
counts to such a degree that any discrepancies were minor and would not
impact the proposed non-impaient designation. An exception is the Eagan-
Lexington wie center in Minesota where Integra along with another CLEC
found signficant discrepancies with Qwest's data that Qwest was forced to
120
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 34
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
-
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 withdraw its non-impaient proposal for that wie center adttg that its
2 intial line count estimates were in error.
52
3 Qwest's loop count data for Integra in the Boise Main and Boise West wire
4 centers is proving diffcult to validate, as was the case with Eagan-Lexington.
5 For example, Qwest shows a signficant number of EEL circuits associated
6 with these two wie centers, while I canot find a single EEL circuit
7 associated with a customer tht resides in those wie centers.
53 In addition, I
8 have identified signficantly more DS 1 loop and 2-wie loop circuits than
9 Qwest ha counted for Integra in these wie centers. The table below shows
10 the percent of Integra specific loop counts tht I have been able to validate at
11 ths time basd both on Qwest's December 2007 filing provided as par of
12 Qwest's June 27, 2008 filing and Qwest's December 2008 data provided in
13 response to Staff data request STF 1-3.
14 Table 2: Percent of Qwest's Integra Loop Counts Validated by Integra
Percent of Intee:ra Loop Caoacity Validated
Wire Center December December
200 200
7 8
Boise Main 43.2%51.7%
Boise West 28.2%71.2%
15
52 Minesota Docket No. 07-865, Qwest Letter Withdrwig Wire Center, March 7, 2008. It is
importt to note that no signal CLEC had enough disputes to alter Qwests lie counts beyond
the non-impairent theshold, but because two CLECs closely reviewed their data in
combination the discrepancies were enough to challenge and force a withdrwal of Qwests
filing.
Note that we have a number of EEL circuits terinatig to the Boise Mai and Boise West wie
center serving customers tht reside in other wie centers. However, these should not be
included in the Boise Mai and Boise West loop counts. Ths has not been a point of contention
in the past and it is not clea that th is the cause of the discrepancy in ths case.
121
53
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 35
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 LINE COUNT DATA SHOULD BE REFLECTIV OF TIME PERIOD OF THE
2 REQUEST FOR NON-IM AIRED WIRE CENTER DESIGNATION
3 Q.DID QWEST USE LIN COUNT DATA FROM DECEMBER 2008 TO
SUPPORT ITS APRIL 2009 REQUEST FOR DS3 LOOP NON-4
5 IMPAIRMNT IN BOISE MA?
6 A.Surrisingly, no. Despite Qwest's stated desire to use the provisions of the
7 Five-State Settlement Agreement in Idao, Qwest ignored the provision of the
8 agreement that would have required Qwest to use the most recent line count
9 data available when makg a new non-impairment clai. That Five-State
10 Settlement Agreement provision states, "Qwest may request addition of Non-
11 Impaired Wire Centers based in whole or par upon line counts at any time up
12 to July 1 of each year, based on prior year line count data.,,54 Qwest did not
13 request non-impaired statu for DS3 loops in Boise Mai until April 17,2009.
14 However, Qwest relied upon line count data from December 2007 rather th
15 December 2008.
16 Q.WH IS THE TIMIG OF THE COUNTS OF SWITCHED BUSINSS
17 LINES AN FffER-BASED COLLOCATORS IMPORTAN AS
18 QWEST FILES TO CLASSIFY ADDITIONAL WIRE CENTRS AS
19 NON-IMPAID?
20 A.The issue of the appropriate tie period to review both the switched business
21 line count and the fiber-based collocation data is crucial as updates are made
22 to Qwest's Wire Center List. Ths Commssion should make clear tht, as
23 Qwest makes updates to its list, Qwest should use data that is
54 Settlement Agreement, Exhibit Qwest-4, Section VI.A.2.
122
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 36
Deney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 contemporaneous with Qwest's clai for "non-impaied" status. First, Qwest
2 should not be allowed to go fishing back though tie in attempts to classify
3 wire centers as non-impaied that do not curently meet the non-impaient
4 status. As described above, it is diffcult for CLECs to validate Qwest's line
5 count ,data. It becomes exponentially more diffcult the older the data
6 becomes. Second, Qwest should not be allowed to select one set of data from
7 one time period and another set of data from a different time period and then
8 yet another time period to actuly make its clai for non-impaient. For
9 example, suppose there exists a wire center today tht has four fiber-based
10 collocators, but fewer than 60,000 lines. Suppose that the wie center
11 surasses 60,000 lines in the futue, but by ths time there are only thee fiber-
12 based collocators. Qwest should not be allowed to choose line counts from
13 the present and fiber-based collocators from the past. The determation of
14 "non-impaired" sttus should be made at the point in tie that Qwest is
15 claig an offce is "non-impaired," not from a combination of counts from
16 different time periods that best advantages Qwest.
17 Allowig Qwest to selectively choose the time period and data upon which it
18 chooses to rely would put CLECs at a fuher substantial disavantage
19 regardig validation of Qwest's data. It would also disadvantage CLEC
20 business plan as to when and how to expand its presence in Idao since it
21 would have to tae into account not only the curent conditions of the market,
22 but also the conditions as they existed in the past.
123
Page 37
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1 ADJUSTED QWEST LINE COUNTS
3
HOW DO YOUR FININGS AFFECT QWEST'S NON-IMPAIRMENT
REQUEST FOR THE BOISE MA AN BOISE WEST WI
2 Q.
4 CENTERS IN IDAHO?
5 A.By makg the chages described below to the CLEC loop count data Boise
6 Main does not meet the 38,000 line count theshold to be classified as non-
7 impaired for DS3 loops. In addition, the Boise West Tier 2 designation is not
8 supported by line counts and it is unclear whether the Boise Mai Tier 1
9 designtion is supported by line counts.
10 Change 1: Remove residential loops from the CLEC loop counts
e 11 Change 2: Remove disputed circuit counts from the CLEC loop counts. Ths
13
can be accomplished by applyig the Integr disputed circuit percent (one
mius the validated percent) to all CLEC loop counts.55
12
14 Change 3: Remove non-switched capacity from the loop capacity counts.
15 Ths can be accomplished by applyig the Integra ALE to capacity percent to
16 the existing CLEC loop capacity counts.
17 Change 4: For DS3 loops in Boise Main, rely upon December 2008 line count
18 data consistent with the time penod in which Qwest made its request for non-
19 impaient.
55 Integr hopes to narow ths dispute thoughout the coure of this case. However, a subset of
CLECs should not be punshed by being forced to rely upon CLEC loop counts for CLECs that
failed to underte a review of their own data. Until such tie that disputes can be resolved
(and in all cases thus far they have been resolved), disputes should be applied to all CLECs not
only the CLECs diputing their counts.e
124
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 38
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intererors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 Exhbit 207 sumares the impact of the changes described above.
2 Table 3: IDghly Confidential -- 2007 and 2008 Qwest Line Counts with
3 Adjustments
4 See Highly Confidential Exhibit 207.
5 A NON-IMPAIRMNT FINING IS NOT REVERSIBLE
6 Q.THERE IS UNCERTAITY REGARING QWEST'S SWITCHED
7 BUSINSS LIN COUNTS AN THE PROPER MAGNITUE OF
8 THE ADJUSTMENTS YOU RECOMMND. HOW SHOULD TH
9 COMMSSION DEAL WITH TilS UNCERTAITY?
10 A.It is importt to stess tht once a wie center is classified as non-impaired,
11 this classification is ireversible. S6 Once a finding of non-impairment at a wire
12 center is approved by the Commssion, CLECs would be forever (or until a
13 change in law) prohibited from purchaing cert UNs for any "non-
14 impaired" wie centers.
15 The Commssion should tae exta care to ensure tht that it does not make a
16 finding of non-impaient when impaient actuly exists (or approve a
17 counting methodology that would lead to such a result).
18 Q.WHY SHOULD THE COMMSSION BE MORE CONCERND
19 ABOUT MAG A FALSE FIING OF NON-IMPAIRMNT?
20 A.A fiding of non-impaient is ireversible. As mentioned above, once wi
21 centers are classified as "non-impaied," the Commssion canot fid
S6 CFR §5L.319(a)(4)(i), §51.19(a)(5Xi), §51.319(e)(3)(i) and §5L.319(eX3Xii). See also
Albersheim Direct, p. 28, lines 12-15.
125 Page 39
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
-
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 impaient for those transport routes in the futue. On the other hand, if the
2 Commission erroneously fids impaient, the only risk is tht requesting
3 carers will be able to obta unbundled access to high capacity loops and
4 transport at TELRIC rates longer th they should, i. e., until the ILEC
5 petitions the Commssion agai to reclassify the wie center (which Qwest
indicates it plan to do periodically as conditions chage). 57 In other words,6
7 an erroneous fidig of impaient where none exists is correctible, and the
8 potential risk of makg such an error is less signficant than potential
9 consequences arsing from an erroneous finding of non-impairment tht
10 canot be corrected.
11
12 IV.FIBER BASED COLLOCATIONS
13 IMP ACT OF QWEST'S FIBER-BASED COLLOCATION SUPPORT DATA
14 Q.WHT ROLE DOES THE NUER OF FffER-BASED
15 COLLOCATORS PLAY IN THE DETERMATION OF WI
16 CENTER "NON-IMPAIRMENT" STATUS?
17 A.The number of fiber-based collocators in each Qwest wire center plays a
18 crucial role in determning a wie center's "non-impaient" status. If a wie
19 center ha thee fiber-based collocators, then tht wie center is automatically
20 classified as Tier 2, and the presence of four fiber-based collocators
57 Albersheim Direct p. 21, lines 3-5.
126
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 40
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
7 Q.
8
9 A.
10
11e12
13
14
15
16
e
1
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
automatically classifies a wie center as Tier 1.58 Wire centers with four fiber-
2 based collocators and the requisite number of switched business lines (60,000
3 for DSI loops and 38,000 for DS3 loops) are classified as "non-impaired"
with respect to DS 1 and/or DS3 UN loops.
59 Both the Tier 1 statu for Boise4
5 Main and the Tier 2 status for Boise West curently appear to be supported by
6 the number of fiber-based collocations in those offces.
WHT INFORMTION DID QWEST PROVIDE FOR REVIEWING
ITS COUNS OF FffER-BASED COLLOCATORS?
Qwest Highy Confdential Exhbit 9 and 10 to Ms. Torrence's diect
testimony contas a list of the names of the fiber-based collocators for each
offce on the Qwest Wire Center List. Ths exhbit also conta the results of
Qwest's field verification which includes the tye of collocation, whether
there is express fiber, whether the fiber is termted in the collocation,
whether the fiber exits the Qwest central offce, whether power can be
visualy verified at the cage, whether power can be venfied at the BDFB as
well as other notes. In addition, Qwest Highly Confdential Exhbit 8
58 In the Mater of Review of Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Cariers, Order on Remand, CC Docket
No. 01-338, WC Docket No. 04-313, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, (2004) ("TRRO") 166. The Tier status
determines the avaiabilty of DS 1, DS3 and Dark Fiber UN trport. DS 1 UN trsport is
not available between Tier 1 wir centers. DS3 and Dark Fiber UN trport is not available
between wire centers designated as Tier 1 and/or Tier 2. Line counts can also play a role in
determing the Tier status of a wie center and did so for most of the wie centers on Qwests
list for Arizona. Offces with more th 38,000 switch business lines ar classified as Tier 1 and
offces with between 24,000 and 38,000 business lines are classified as Tier 2.
TRR01146.59
127
Page 41
Deey,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 includes the results of Qwest's letter to CLECs attempting to verify the fiber-
based status of the CLEC.6o2
3 Q.WHT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE REACHED FROM A REVIEW OF
4 THE QWEST FIBER-BASED COLLOCATION DATA?
5 A.Based upon a review of the fiber-based collocation data provided by Qwest, it
6 curently appears that Qwest ha at least four fiber-based collocators in Boise
7 Mai and at least thee in Boise West, which would support Qwest's request
8 for Tier 1 and Tier 2 status respectively.
9 CONCERNS REGARING QWEST'S PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING FffER-
10 BASED COLLOCATIONS
11 Q.DO YOU HAVE AN CONCERNS WITH QWEST'S PROCESS FOR
12 IDENTIFNG FIBER-BASED COLLOCATIONS AN THE
13 PROVISIONS RELATING TO FIER-BASED COLLOCATIONS IN
14 THE FIV-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT!
15 A.I do have a few general concerns and corrections to Qwest's "non-impaied"
16 wire center list.
17 1) Qwest sent a letter to carers that Qwest stated it believed were fiber-
18 based collocators and asked the carers to verify whether or not the carer is
a fiber-based collocator.61 Qwest counted a caer as a fiber-based collocator19
60 It is importt to note that if a CLEC did not respond to Qwests request for verfication of a
fiber-based collocation, and most CLECs did not respond, Qwest interpreted ths as CLEC
agreement, rather than a CLEC dispute. As a result, Qwest counted these CLECs as fiber-based
collocators.
Torrence Direct, p. 18, lines 6 - 11.61
128
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 42
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
ti 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
even if the carer failed to conf 62 ths statu. In Qwest Highy
Confdential Exhbit 8, Qwest provides non-confdential information tht only
one of the six carers responded to Qwest's lettr. Though Ms. Torrence
indicates Qwest regrets tht "CLECs appear reluctat to respond," Qwest
Highy Confdential Exhbit 8 shows no indication of any action taen by
Qwest to obta a response. It is also unclear how Qwest chooses the
company representative to whom to send its lettr. For example, despite my
having worked with Qwest on numerous non-impaient cases across Qwest
region, Qwest failed to include me on the notice sent to Integra requesting
verification of fiber-based collocations in Idao. Furher, as far as I am aware,
Qwest mae no attempt with anyone at Integra to follow up regarding
Integra's lack of response to Qwest's request for verication. The letter
serves little purose if it is not reachig the intended individuas at the CLECs
who could provide a substative response to Qwest's clais. I will discuss
what steps could be taen to improve ths request for verification process in
Section VII regarding the most effcient process going forward.
17 2) Qwest attempted a field verification of the fiber-based collocations in
18 question. To do ths, Qwest asked its Centr Offce Techncian and State
Interconnection Manger to verify the fiber-basd collocations.63 The letter19
20 Qwest sent was wrtten in a way that encouraged Qwest employees to err on
62 Torrence Direct, p. 18, lines 13 - 14.
Torrence Directp. 17, lies 10-16.63
129
Page 43
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 the side of fiding fiber-based collocations.64
2 This letter casts doubt on whether Qwest's verification process was performed
3 in an objective maner. In a wie center in Colorado, Qwest's field
4 verification confed there was fiber, confrmed the fiber left the Qwest
5 centrat offce and confed the carer ha power. However, ths carer
6 disputed its status as a fiber-based collocator explaig tht it had copper, not
7 fiber. Upon a fuer field verification, Qwest agreed that this carer should
8 not be counted. Though Qwest eventuly correctly designated ths carer in
9 Colorado, it does not change the fact that the intial field verification found
10 fiber where none existed.
11 Another example that casts doubt on Qwests field verifications occured in
12 Miesota durg the first round of requests for non-impaied statu. At that
13 time Qwest claied its intial list of fiber-based collocators represented
carers "operating from December 2003 though Febru 2005,,,65 but an14
15 example involving Eschelon proves that ths was not the case. For two wie
16 centers in Minesota Qwest counted Eschelon as a fiber-based collocator
17 even though Eschelon did not have power connected to its equipment on
18 March 11, 2005. Eschelon was in the process of establishig the collocations
19 as fiber-based collocations but the collocation sites were not fiber-based
20 collocations "from December 2003 though Febru 2005" nor was Eschelon
64 Qwest has treate the act letter as confidential and did not provide it as par of its fiing in
Idao, though it ha been provided in other states.
Exhbit 203, Qwest Responses to Joint CLEC Data Requests in Arna. JCDR 01-032.
130
65
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 44
Deney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interemors
e
-
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 a fiber::based collocator on March 11,2005. Despite communcating this fact
2 to Qwest, Qwest continued to count Eschelon as a fiber-based collocator.
3 3) In some states, Qwest continues to count carers as fiber-based collocators
4 even when the verification worksheets indicate otherwse. In Arzona Qwest
5 counted carers as fiber-based collocators even though Qwest was unble to
6 verify the carers had power at the Battery Distrbution Fuse Bay ("BDFB").
7 Qwest stated tht the purose of the spreadsheet was to verify varous aspects
8 of the collocation including an inpection of the name, power, and fiber
9 facilties.
10 4) In some states, Qwest clarfied tht it did not count any CLEC-to-CLEC
11 connections as par of its fiber-based collocations.66 However, contr to the
12 TRRO, Qwest counted such an arangement in a wie center in Colorao.
13 When one carer simply relies upon the fiber of another fiber-based
14 collocator, it is inappropriate to count both carers as fiber-based collocators.
15 Counting both carers amounts to double countig. Based on my review of
16 the Idaho fiber-based collocation data I curently do not believe Qwest
17 counted CLEC to CLEC cross connects for ths request, but Qwest should
18 expressly confrm ths fact and, in any event, ths issue could playa role in the
19 futue as Qwest updates the list.
20 47 C.F.R § 51.5 defies a fiber-based collocator as follows:
66 Exhibit 203, Qwest Responses to Joint CLEC Data Requests in Arna, JCDR 01-033.
131
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 45
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Inteemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A fiber-based collocator is any carer, unliated with the incumbent
LEC, that maitas a collocation arangement in an incumbent LEC
wie center, with active electrcal power supply, and operates a fiber-
optic cable or comparable transmission facilty that (1) termtes at a
collocation argement with the wie center; (2) leaves the
incumbent LEC wie center premises; and (3) is owned by a par
other th the incumbent LEC or any afliate of the incumbent LEC,
except as set fort in ths paragraph. Dark fiber obtaned from an
incumpent LEC on an indefeasible right of use basis shall be treated as
non-incumbent LEC fiber-optic cable. Two or more afliated fiber-
based collocators in a single wire center shall collectively be counted
as a single fiber-based collocator. For puroses of ths paragraph, the
term afliate is defied by 47 U.S.C. § 153(1) and any relevant
interpretation in ths Title.
15 Paragraphs 93 though 102 of the TRRO explai the FCC's rationale for ths
16 definition. Paragraph 95 states, "Our fiber-based collocation test captues
17 intermodal competitors' trsport facilties..." Paragaph 101 states,
18 "Additionaly, we find that fiber-based collocation provides a reasonable
19 proxy for where signficant revenue opportties exist for competitive
20 LECs..." In paragraph 1 02, the FCC first defines fiber-based collocators.
21 Footnote 292 to ths pargraph clarfies the conditions that must exist in order
22 for a carer to be considered a fiber-based collocator: "We find that when a
23 company ha collocation facilties connected to fiber transmission facilties
24 obtaned on an indefeasible right of use (IRU) basis from another carer,
25 including the incumbent LEC, these facilties shal be counted for puroses of
26 ths anysis and shall be treated as non-incumbent LEC fiber facilties."
27 A CLEC-to-CLEC connection does not fall with the FCC's defition of a
28 fiber-based collocator and should not be counted as separate fiber-based
29 collocations.
132
Page 46
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interverors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 5)If the Commssion reaches the issue of the Five-State Settlement
2 Agreement over CLEC objection, the Five-State Settlement Agreement
3 contas a provision regarding Express Fiber that is not in the FCC rues and
4 which should be removed. This provision reads, "Express fiber will be
countéd as a fuctional fiber facilty for purses of identifyng a fiber-based5
6 collocator, if it meets the defition of fiber based collocator in 47 C.F.R.
7 §51.5 (as reflected in paragaph B(l) and subpars above). The Joint CLECs
8 agree not to raise the lack of Qwest provided power when there is trafc over
9 the express fiber as the sole basis to dispute whether express fiber can be
10 counted as a fuctional fiber facilty for puroses of identifying a fiber-based
11 collocator. For the puroses of ths Settement Agreement, 'express fiber'
12 mean a CLEC-owned fiber placed to the collocation by Qwest that terminates
13 at CLEC-owned equipment in a collocation and draws power from a remote
14 location.,,67 It does not clarfy the application of the fiber-based collocation
15 rue. Qwest's testimony provides no support for ths provision, other than the
16 fact that it is in the Five-State Settlement Agreement (Le., an impermssible
17 use of the agreement as evidence and precedent). Ths provision should be
18 not be adopted here in Idaho.
19 V.TRASITION PERIOD
20 90 DAY TRASITION PERIOD TO CONVRT FROM UNS TO AN
21 ALTERNATIV FACILITY IS NOT SUFFICIENT
22 Q.IS THE NITY DAY TRASITION PERIOD FOR IDGH-
67 Settlement Agreement, Exhbit Qwest-4, Section V.B.3.
133
Page 47
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Dirct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1
2
3
4 A.
5
6
7 Q.
8
9
10 A.
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
CAPACITY LOOPS AND TRASPORT68 PROPOSED BY QWEsr'
SUFFICIENT TO PROPERLY TRASITION IMPACTED CIRCUITS
FROM UNES TO ALTERNATIV ARGEMENTS?
No. Based on my experience in workig to implement changes to wie center
non-impaient designations, the 90 day trsition period is impracticable for
a number of reasons.
PLEASE DESCRIE WHT MUST HAPEN IN ORDER TO
TRASITION NON-IMP AIRED FACILITIES FROM UNES TO
ALTERNATIV SERVICE ARGEMENTS.
Until the Commssion issues its order, the non-impaient designation of a
wire center and effective date can not be known with certty. It would be
ineffcient and potentially costly for CLECs to begin transition plan for wie
centers that may not end up being classified as non-impaied. Once a
designation has been ordered, then impacted circuits must be identified. The
tak of identifying impacted circuits can be diffcult and tie consumg for
both Qwest and CLECs.7o For example, in Arzona, on multiple occasions,
Qwest sent Integra a list of what it claied were non-impaied circuits that
contaed hundreds of errors.
Once circuits are identified, the CLEC needs to put together a plan for
trsitionig away from UNs that are no longer available. This may involve
-68
Qwest proposes a trition perod of 180 days for dak fiber trport.
69 Albersheim Direc p. 27, lines 6-9.
See the discussion above regardig diffculties in validatig Qwests non-impaired circuit list.
134
70
Direct Testimony of Douglas Deney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 48
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
e 71
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
a tranition of converting circuits to an alternative service or product offered
by Qwest. When placing a large number of orders involvig Qwest circuits,
CLECs coordiate the project with Qwest. Given resource availabilty and the
tye of conversion, there may be limts to the number of circuits that are
processed in a given day. Typically, in Integra's experience, no more than 20
circuits can be converted in a given day. Both CLEC and Qwest resource
limitations can delay the time that it taes to complete a conversion.
Conversions may also be more complex th switchig to another Qwest
product. The CLEC may determe that adding equipment to an existig
collocation will allow the CLEC to serve existing customers in an alterntive
maner. New equipment needs to be purchased, instaled and tested before
orders can even be placed to convert circuits to use the new equipment.
The CLEC may determe that instalation of a new collocation is waranted
to deal with impacted circuits. A new collocation can elimate the need for
EEL tranport. Qwest taes up to 125 days to instal a new collocation for a
CLEC.71 Collocations do not come with workig equipment. In addition to
waiting for Qwest to intal the collocation, the CLEC needs to purchae,
instal and test equipment that will be put into the collocation to serve
customers. Once the new collocation is working with CLEC instaled
equipment, the CLEC can sta placing orders to convert circuits to use the
new collocation space.
See Qwests Service Interval Guide, p. 43
(htt://ww.qwest.comlwholesale/downloads/2009/090413/lterconnSIG PV95 .doc ).
135
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 49
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interverors
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1 MI SIX l\ONTH TRASITION PERIOD IS RECOMMNDED
2 Q.WHT TRASITION PERIOD WOULD YOU RECOMMND?
3 A.For the reasons outlined above, for single wire centers, ths Commssion
4 should establish a transition period of a year, or at least six months as was
5 used by the FCC in the Omaa Forbearance Order.72 When multiple wie
6 centers are involved (impacting multiple high capacity transport routes or high
7 capacity loop circuits in multiple offces), a one year tranition period, as was
8 used by the FCC in the TRRO 73 would be more practical.
9 VI.UNE CONVRSIONS
10 UN CONVRSION DEFINED
11 Q.WHT IS A UNE CONVRSION, AN WHT CONCERNS DO
e 12 CLECS HAVE REGARING QWEST'S PROPOSED PROCESS?
13 A.A conversion happens when a circuit that was formerly available as a UN
14 must be converted to a non-UNE alternative arangement, as the result of a
15 fiding of "non-impaient." By defition, conversions will tae place on
16 live circuits that are up and rug and curently supporting service to End
17 User Customers. Therefore, a seamess and error free conversion is crucial
18 because, if problems arse durng the conversion, the likelihood that a CLEC
19 customer will be placed "out of service" is high.
72 Omaa Forbearce Order (Memoradum Opinion and Order FCC 05-170, WC Docket No. 04-
233, September 26,2005),174.
TRO, 15. Note that the FCC set an 18-month trition period for Dark Fiber Tranport. In
the Omaha Forbearce Order (Memoradum Opinon and Order FCC 05-170, WC Docket No.
04-233, September 26, 2005) the FCC established a six-month trsition period for carer to
establish alternative argements.
73
e
136 Page 50
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interverors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Deney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
Furer, it is importt to note the "conversions" discussed in this testimony
involve only changing the rate charged for the facilty and, in the vast majority
of circumstaces, the CLEC and its End User Customer should be using the
same facilty that was used prior to the conversion. These conversions are
requied solely for puroses of implementing a reguatory constrct and have
nothng to do with improvig or otherwse maning the customer's service -
in essence, the conversion is intended to re-Iabel as somethng different what
was before a UN. These facts reinforce the need for conversions to be
transparent to the CLEC's End User Customers, as any disruption in servce
would be completely unexpected and diffcult to explain. In other words,
even though these conversions are being underten to effectute Qwest's
reduced legal obligations relative to UNs, it is the CLEC who bears all the
13 risk of failure. The Joint CLECs, therefore, are highy motivated to ensure
14 that conversions can be accomplished seamessly, reliably, effciently and
15 cost-effectively.
16 UN CONVRSION PROPOSALS
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23
WHT AR THE JOINT CLEC PROPOSALS FOR UNE
CONVRSIONS?
The Joint CLECs propose that, for a conversion from a UN to a non-UNE
product or servce offered by Qwest, the circuit identification ("circuit ID")
will not chage. In addition, the Joint CLECs propose tht, when Qwest
converts a facilty to an analogous or alternative service arangement as a
result of a non-impaient fiding, the conversion will be in the maner of a
137
Page 51
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1 pnce chage on the existing records and not a physical conversion. Finally,
2 the Joint CLECs propose that the rate Qwest charges the CLEC to convert a
3 UN to a higher priced analogous or alterntive service be set to zero.
4 Q.IF THE COMMSSION CONSIDERS THE FlVE-STATE
5 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OVER CLEC OBJECTION, DOES THE
6 AGREEMENT ADDRESS THSE ISSUES?
7 A.Not entirely. The Five-State Settlement Agreement only addresses the issue of
8 the rate to be chaged for the conversion of a UNE to an anogous or
9 alternative servce arangement (i.e., regardless of how the conversion is
10 performed).74 The Five-State Settlement Agreement does not address the issue
11 regarding maitanig the same circuit il and limiting these tyes of
e 12 conversions to a pnce chage. Regarding the rate, the Five-State Settlement
13 Agreement specifically recognzes that,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Paries may disagree as to the amount of the applicable non-recurng
charge after thee years from the Effective Date of ths Settlement
Agreement, and each Par reserves all of its rights with respect to the
amount of charges after that date. Nothg in ths Settlement
Agreement precludes a Par from addressing the non-recurg charge
afer thee years from the Effective Date of ths Settlement Agreement.
A different non-recurng charge will apply only to the extent
authorized by an applicable reguatory authority, or agreed upon by the
Pares.75
23 Q.WHT IS QWEST'S PROPOSAL FOR CONVRSIONS?
e 75
See section IV.A of the Settlement Agreement, Exhibit Qwest- 1. As dicussed previously, the
Settlement Agreement established a rate of $25 for each converted circuit to be applied for a
thee year time period. As previously discussed the Settlement Agreement wa not intended to
be used as evidence outside of the six staes in which it was originally negotiated.
Settlement Agreement, Section IV.C, Exhibit Qwest-4, p. 6.
138
74
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 52
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Inteerors
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1 A.On the one hand, Qwest argues that ths docket is not the proper venue to
determine the appropriate amount to chage for the conversion process 762
3 while, on the other hand, Qwest asks the Commssion to "acknowledge
4 Qwest"s right to assess an appropriate charge for the activities tht it performs
5 in the requisite conversion process performed on behaf of the CLEC.',7 In
6 addition, Qwest argues tht the circuit il must be changed durng a
7 conversion.
78
8 Q.
9
10 A.
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
PLEASE DECRIE THE TYPE OF CONVRSIONS ADDRESSED BY
TIDSDISPUTE.
Ths dispute applies to conversions from a UNE facilty to an anogous or
alterntive servce arangement. These conversions would occur when there
is agreement, or it is determined in dispute resolution, that the UNE is
impacted by a finding of non-impaient. Anogous or alterntive service
arangements include access products purchased from Qwest's access taff.
For intace, a UN DSI loop could be converted to a DSI special access
circuit if it is determed tht the applicable non-impaient thesholds are
met for a paricular wie center (see 47 CFR § 51.319(a)(4)).
18 UN CONVRSIONS AR WlTmN TIDS COMMSSION'S JUSDICTION
19 Q.IS TIDS TRASITION AWAY FROM UNES WITmN THE SCOPE
20 OF SECTIONS 251 AND 252 OF THE ACT?
e
76 Huncutt Direct, p. 4, lines 13-16.
Huncutt Direct, p. 20, lines 10-12.
Hunicutt Dirct: p. 16.
77
78
139
Page 53
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervernors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 A.Yes. The FCC found that "as contemplated in the Act, individua carers will
2 have the opportty to negotiate specific terms and conditions necessar to
3 translate our rues into the commercial environment, and to resolve disputes
4 over apy new contract language arsing from differig interpretations of our
5 rules.,,79 Similarly, Qwest recently challenged the Washington Utilties and
6 Trasporttion Commssion ("WUTC") decision in the Eschelon/Qwest
7 arbitration80 regarding ths very issue, UN Conversions. The WUTC found,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
As in our Fin Order, we reject Qwests contention that we exceeded
our authority under Section 252 to address these issues. In that Order,
we followed the FCC's specific gudace to carers and state
commssions to address, though the Section 252 process, the
tranition from UN services to non-UN services and establish any
rates, terms, and conditions necessar to implement the changes
prescribed by the FCC. As envisioned by the FCC, we appropriately
exercised our jursdiction to provide CLECs a reasonable tranition
process away from UNs and ensure a seamess effect on services
provided to their end-users.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
We believe that Qwest continues to exaggerate the distinction between
UNE and non-UN terms and conditions. We reiterate the FCC's
conclusion, and our own, tht the priar difference between the two
is the rate at which Qwest is entitled to bil for services; a rate which
was formerly limited by TELRIC pricing. By overstating the
distinction between UN and non-UN terms and conditions, Qwest
misinterprets the basis and scope of our authority.81
79
80
TRO,'7.
In the Matter of the Petition of: QWEST CORPORATION and ESCHELON TELECOM, INC.
Puuat to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(b), Docket No. UT-063061.
WUTC Order No. 19, Order on Reconsidertion in the EschelonlQwest Arbitration, Janua 30,
2009 , " 20 - 21. Pages from the WUTC Order No. 18 and Order No. 19 regarding UN
Conversions are atthed to this testiony as Exhibit 204.
140
81
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 54
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Interemors
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
e 17
18
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 Simlarly, in a Minesota docket regardig terms and conditions surounding
2 UNE Gonversions the Commssion found,
Afer briefing by all paries, the Admstrative Law Judge found tht
ths Commission ha jursdiction in both cases. On the conversion
issue, she found as follows:
The Admstrative Law Judge has concluded, based on the provisions
of the TRO and the TRRO, that the FCC has expressly directed the
negotiation of rates, terms, and conditions relating to conversion
processes in interconnection agreements, and consequently the
Commssion ha legal authority under § 252 to address these issues in
ths docket.
The Commssion has carefuly examed the Admsttive Law
Judge's recommended order and the record on which it is based. Her
recommended order is closely reasoned in its analysis and compellng
in its conclusions; the Commission will accept and adopt it.
82
CONVRSIONS SHOULD NOT IMPACT END USER CUSTOMERS
Q.SHOULD AN CHAGES BE MAE BY QWEST DURG A
19 CONVRSION THAT COULD RESULT IN SERVICE DISRUPTION
20 FOR CLEC END USERS?
21 A.No. When it has been determed that a UNE facilty needs to be converted to
22 an anogous or alternative servce arangement, CLEC and its End User
23 Customer should continue to use the same physical facilty.83 Therefore, the
24 change required to effectute the FCC's reguatory requiements can be
82 In the Matter of Qwest Corporation's Conversion of UNEs to Non-UN Es and In the Matter of
Qwest Corporaon's Argements for Commgled Elements, ORDER ADOPTINGADMISTRATIVE LAW ruGE'S RECOMMNDED ORDER ON MOTION FOR
SUMY DISPOSITION, Docket Nos. P-421107-370 & P-421107-371, March 23,2009. pp.
2-3. The Commission's Order and the reference AU Order are atthed to ths testimony as
Exhibit 205.
Ms. Huncutt apparently agrees that the conversion process should be transparent to the
customer. See Huncutt Direct. p. 17, lines 1-5.
141
83
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 55
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Inteemors
e 1
2
3 Q.
4
5
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11e12
13
14
15
16 Q.
17
18
19
20 A.
21
e 84
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
accomplished with a record-only change (i.e., changing the price of the UN
facilty being converted to a non-UN).
PLEASE ELABORATE ON WH CONVRSIONS SHOULD NOT
ENTAI WORK THAT WOULD PUT CLECS' CUSTOMERS OUT OF
SERVICE?
The conversions at issue are conversions from UN to non-Section 251
alternative/analogous service (e.g., access product). The "conversion" in ths
instace is really a conversion from cost-based UN prices (i.e., TELRIC
based prices) to special access prices (e.g., conversion from UN rates for
DSI loop to access rates for DSI special access circuit). However, since the
physical facilty otherwse remai unchaged - indeed, the end user should
not even know that it has been "converted" - no other changes should be
requiied for conversion. Given that ths re-pricing should not afect the
operation of the facilty itself, Qwest should not be allowed to change the
facilty curently being provided.
DOES THE FCC AGREE THAT CONVRSIONS SHOULD INOLVE
RECORD CHAGES AN AVOID NETWORK-RELATED CHAGES
THAT COULD PUT CLECS' END USER CUSTOMERS OUT OF
SERVICE?
Yes. The FCC addressed the issue of conversions in the TRd4 and found tht
conversions should be seamess from the end user's perspective, and should
The TRO addressed conversions from UNs to wholesale services and from wholesale servces
toUNs.
142 Page 56
Deney,Di
Joint CLECs, Inteerors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 involve only biling changes from Qwest's perspective. At paragraph 586 of
2 the TRO, the FCC discussed the seamessness of conversions:
3
4
5
Converting between wholesale services and UNs or UN
combintions should be a seamless process tht does not afect the
customer's perception of service quaity.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The FCC codified the requiement that conversions should be seamess from
the perspective of the CLEC's end user in 47 CFR §51.316(a) as follows:
(b) An incumbent LEC shall perform any conversion from a wholesale
service or group of wholesale servces to an unbundled network
element or combination of unbundled network elements without
adversely affectig the service quaity perceived by the requesting
telecommuncations carer's end-user customer.
14 And at paragraph 588 of the TRO, the FCC addressed the notion tht
15 conversions are biling changes:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
588. We conclude that conversions should be performed in an
expeditious maner in order to minimize the rik of incorrect
payments. We expect carers to establish any necessar tieframes to
perform conversions in their interconnection agreements or other
contracts. We decline to adopt AL TS' s suggestion to requie the
completion of all necessar biling chages with ten days of a
request to perform a conversion because such time frames are better
established though negotiations between incumbent LECs and
requesting carers. We recogniz. however. that convertg
between wholesale services and UNs (or UN combinations) is
largely a billg function. We therefore expect carrers to establih
appropriate mechanisms to remit the correct payment after the
conversion request, such as providig tht any pricing changes sta
the next biling cycle following the conversion request.
30 It is clear from the languge above that the FCC's concern was diected at
31 ensurg proper payment for the facilty, depending on whether it is a Section
32 251 UN or a wholesale servce (e.g., access product), and did not envision
143
Dirct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 57
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
work or physical changes on the ILEC's par leading to the potential for
2 customer disruption.
85
3 IT is UNCESSARY TO CHAGE A CIRCilT il FOR PURPOSES OF A
4 UN CONVRSION
5 Q.
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11 Q.e 12 A.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
WHT IS A CIRCilT il AN WHT IS ITS PURPOSE?
The term is somewhat self-explanatory. A circuit il is just tht, a number or
code that identifies a specific circuit, generally by defining its two end points
- referred to as the "A" and "Z" location. Both CLEC and Qwest use ths
circuit ID thoughout their operationa support systems to identify that circuit
for numerous activities includig biling and repai mattrs.
SHOULD A CIRCilT ID CHAGE DURG A CONVRSION?
No. As described above, in the vast majority of circumstances in which
CLECs will be requied to convert an existing circuit from a UN to an
alterntive service arangement, the physical facilty need not (and should not)
chage. As such, the circuit il need not (and should not) chage either. This
is importt from Integra's perspective because Integra specifically tracks that
paricular facilty and the customer it serves via the circuit ID. Numerous
Integra systems rely on that circuit ID in providig ongoing biling and
customer service to the customer. To the extent Qwest is allowed to (a)
e
85
The FCC did mention in pargrph 586 of the TRO that there may be an increas in the rik of
customer diruption caused by CLECs grooming inter-exchange trffc in order to comply with
the eligibilty crtena. However, th potential for disruption stems from decisions made by the
CLECs, not Qwest. The fact that the FCC mentioned the potential for End User Customer
disruption caused by CLEC groomig, yet did not mention the possibilty for disruption caused
by Qwest (and indeed requies conversions to be seamess), indicates tht the FCC never
envisioned the potential for Qwest-caused customer disruption because from Qwests
perspective, the conversion involves simply changig the rate that applies to the facilty.
144
Dirct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 58
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interverors
e
-
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 unecessarly chage the underlyig facilty simply to effectute what should
2 be accomplished by a biling chage and then (b) assign a new circuit ID to
3 the same arangement, Integra's systems will be substatially, adversely, and
4 unecessarly afected. Ths will be accompaned by notable cost and
5 inconvenience. Likewise, unecessarly re-aranging facilties puts the
6 customer at risk of losing service - a customer who never asked to be
7 converted and should not even realize tht it happened.
8 Q.
9
10 A.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PLEASE EXPLAI HOW CHAGING CIRCUIT IDS DURING
CONVRSIONS COULD AFFECT CLECS' END USER CUSTOMERS.
Chaging the circuit ID for a circuit that is aleady in place and workig well
for a customer in connection with "converting" the circuit from a UN to an
alternative argement, signficantly increases the risk of customer
disruption. For instace, Qwest processes circuit ID changes using
"disconnect" and "new" service orders. A simple tying error in an order
could send the order to Qwest facilties assignent with a "disconnect" on the
order, and the cuStomer will be erroneously disconnected and put out of
service. In addition, if records are not correctly and tiely updated to show
new circuit IDs in either Qwest or CLEC systems, problems are likely to arse
in the areas of maintenace and repair. For example, if six month afer the
conversion, the end user notifies the CLEC that its circuit is in need of repai,
but the circuit ID is incorrectly stored in either the CLEC or Qwest systems as
a result of an unecessar physical conversion, it is likely tht the CLEC and
Qwest will be unable to effectively open a trouble-ticket. As a result, the
145 Page 59
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1 repair fuction will be delayed and is likely to requie substatial additiona
2 resources to resolve, as compared to a normal repai ticket. All of ths can be
3 avoided by makg sure that Qwest does not chage circuit IDs for
4 conversions.
5 Q.HAS QWEST ALREADY PROCESSED CONVRSIONS WITHOUT
6 CHAGING CIRCUIT IDS?
7 A.Yes. When Qwest fist converd special access circuits to UNs, the origin
8 circuit IDs did not chage. To date Qwest ha been unable to explain why the
9 circuit ID must be chaged in the curent sitution when no such chage was
10 requied in previous conversions.
e 11 Q.
12
13 A.
14
15
16
17
IS QWEST REQUIRED BY FCC RULES TO CHAGE THE CIRCUIT
IDS FOR CONVRTED CIRCUITS?
No. Qwest contends that 47 C.F.R. § 32.12(b) and (c) requies Qwest to
change the circuit identifier.
86 Ms. Huncutt opines that "(i)n order to
sufciently maita its subsidiar records to support its accounting for UN
services versus its Private Line servces, Qwest must mainta accurate circuit
IDs that properly track circuits separately." 87
18 However, the FCC provisions cited only requie Qwest to maita orderly
19 records with sufcient detaL. The FCC does not prescribe how Qwest is to use
20 circuit identifers to mainta orderly records. Huncutt's conclusory
21 statement that accurate accountig and reporting requires chaging circuit
e 86
87
Huncutt Direct, p. 16, lines 3-5.
Huncutt Direct, p. 16, lines 22-25.146
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 60
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12 Q.
13
14
15
16 A.
17
18
19
20
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
identifiers begs the question of whether chaging the circuit identifier is
necessar. Presumbly Qwest is able to maita orderly records for its QPP
products without chaging the circuit identifier of the underlying line. As
previously stated, prior to April 2005, Qwest did not require a change to the
circuit IDs when a CLEC requested a conversion from Prvate Line/Special
Access to an EEL. When Qwest implemented its new process to chage the
circuit ID, CLECs were given the opportty to opt out of the changes to
their embedded base of circuits.88 When given ths opportty all CLECs
chose to opt out of ths change in circuit ID, 89 because no CLEC wants to put
its end user customers at risk, especially when there is no change in the
fuctionaity of the circuit.
YOU DESCRIBED THE RISK OF DISRUPTION FACING CLECS'
CUSTOMERS IF QWEST CHAGES THE CIRCUIT IDS FOR
CONVRSIONS. WOULD QWEST'S RETAIL CUSTOMERS FACE
TIDS SAM RISK?
No, and ths is a very importt point. Conversions only apply to the facilties
used by CLECs, and not facilties used by Qwest, and therefore, Qwest's retal
customers would face none of the risks that are inherent in Qwest's proposal
to chage circuit IDs durg conversions. The FCC recognzed ths very point
when addressing conversion chages in paragraph 587 of the TRO:
e
88 See Exhbit 203, Qwest Response to Joint CLEC Data Request 01-022 in Arona Wire Center
Proceeding.
See Exhibit 203, Qwest Response to Joint CLEC Data Request 01-023 in Arona Wire Center
Proceeding.
89
147
Page 61
Deney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Deney
HEDRICK CÒURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13e
14 Q.
15
16 A.
17
18
19
20
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
Becaus,e incumbent LECs are never requied to perform a conversion
in order to continue servng their own customers, we conclude that
such charges are inconsistent with an incumbent LEC's duty to
provide nondiscritory. access to UNs and UN combintions on
just, reasonable, and nondiscriatory rates, terms, and conditions.
The FCC was speakg to conversion charges that ILECs may attempt to
assess, but the same reasonig holds tre with respect to circuit ID changes.
Qwest is never requied to perform a conversion in order to contiue serving
its own customers, and therefore, Qwest's proposal to change circuit IDs for
conversions to CLEC circuits: increaes the risk for CLEC customer (not
Qwest customer) disruption; undermines the FCC's requirements for seamess
conversions; and fails to comply with Qwest's obligation to provide access to
UNs on just, reasonable, and nondiscriatory rates, terms and conditions.
WIL CHAGING CIRCUIT IDS FOR CONVRSIONS IMOSE
COSTS ON TH JOIN CLECS?
Yes. If Qwest chages circuit IDs for conversions, the Joint CLECs will be
forced to modify its systems and its records to account for the new circuit ID.
Qwest complains about purorted costs tht it would incur to leave the circuit
ID unchanged, but ignores the costs imposed on CLECs by changing the
circuit ID for the same facilty.
21 QWEST SHOULD NOT CHAGE CLECS TO CONVRT UNS TO IDGHER
22 PRICED ALTERNATIV FACILITIES SOLD BY QWEST
23 Q.
24e
SHOULD CLECS BEAR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CIRCUIT
IDCHAGES?
148
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 62
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 A.No. 1)e physical circuit aleady exists and CLECs paid substatial non-
2 recurg chages to establish tht circuit. There is no techncal need to
3 chage tht circuit just to convert it from one service-type (U) to another
4 (special access). It is Qwest's decision to make a physical chage (or change
5 unecessary the ID for that circuit), and it is Qwest who should bea the
6 costs. Otherwse, there will be no economic discipline associated with
7 Qwest's decision. In a circumstace in which Qwest can foist additionàl costs
8 on its competitors like 360networks or Integra, while at the sae time
9 endangerig the servce provided by its competitors by requig a physical
10 conversion, all the while garerig additiona fees for unecessar non-
11 recurg charges, why wouldn't Qwest requie an unecessar physical
12 change in every circumstace? Unforttely, al of these additional fees and
13 expenses will have to ultimately be paid by Qwests competitors and/or their
14 End User Customers. and, therefore, the Commssion should adopt the process
15 which is most effcient and least likely to disrupt customer servces.
16 Q.DID QWEST FILE COST SUPPORT TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS
17 PROPOSAL TO CHAGE CLECS FOR UN CONVRSIONS?
18 A.No. Ms. Huncutt explais, "Qwest is neither submittg a cost study nor is
19 it requesting approval of a parcular rate.,,90 Instead, as described above,
Qwest is "simply askig that ths commssion acknowledge tht Qwest is20
21 entitled to be compensated. . . ,,91
90 Huncutt Direct, p. 11, lines 1-2.
91 Huncutt Direct, p. 11, lines 3-4.
149
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 63
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
8
9
10
11
12
13e14
15
16
17
18
19
e
Case No. QWE-T-Q8-07
May 22, 2009
1 Q.DOES QWEST CHAGE THE DESIGN CHAGE CHAGE TO ITS
2 SPECIA ACCESS CUSTOMERS IN ORDER TO CHAGE A
3 CIRCUITID?
4 A.No. Qwest proposes to chage its Interstate Access Design Change Charge
5 times a factor of 50% for conversions from UNs to Qwest alterntive
6 servces,92 however, Qwest's Interstate Special Access taff clearly states
7 that there will be no charge for a change in circuit il.
Administrtive changes will be made without chargee s) to the customer.
Administrative changes are as follows:
. Change of customer name (Le., the customer of record does not change
but rather the customer of record changes its name - e.g., XYZ Company
to XYZ Communications),
. Change of customer circuit identification, .. .93
Thus, for Qwest's special access customers, including Qwest's retal
customers who purchase out of Qwest s special access taff, not only does
Qwest not requie the customer to change circuit identification numbers as a
result of the TRRO, if the customer were to change the circuit identification,
Qwest would not chage.
92
Huncutt Direct, p. 9, lines 1-13. It should also be noted that Ms. Hunicutt's description of the
derivation of the $25 charge from the Settlement Agreement is factully incorrct. First, it
should be noted that Ms. Hunicutt was not a par of the Settement Agrement negotiations.
Second, at no time durg the settlement agreement dicussions did CLECs indicate that Qwests
design change chage was appropriate. In addition, at no time did the CLECs discuss a factor
tht should be applied to the Design Chage charge. The CLECs did agree to a $25 charge and
allowed Qwest leeway as to how it implements tht chage, which Qwest has chosen to do so
though the Federa taff and a factor.
Qwest Tar FCC #1, Section 7.1.1.A.2.C(3). Qwests taff is available on-line at
(htt://taffs.gwest.com:8000/idc/groups/public/documents/tafffcc 1 s007p021.pdtPage= 1 &
PageMode=bookmarks).
93
150
Dirct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 64
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1 QWEST'S DESIGN CHAGE CHAGE IS INAPPROPRITE FOR UN
2 CONVRSIONS
3 Q.is QWEST'S DESIGN CHAGE CHAGE AN APPROPRIATE
CHAGE FOR CONVRSIONS FROM UNS TO AN4
5 ALTERNATIV PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
6 A.No. Qwest's defintion of a Design Change indicates that it is intended to
7 recover for engineering activity and no engineerig activity is necessar to
8 record circuit information.
9 Qwest's FCC Interstate Tarff#1 defies ths "Design Chage Chage" as:
10
11
12
e 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"(A )ny change to an Access Order which requires engineerig
review. An engineerig review is a review by Company personnel of
the service ordered and the requested chages to determne what
chage in the design, if any, is necessar to meet the changes
requested by the customer. Design changes include such thngs as a
change of end user premises with the same serving wie center, the
addition or deletion of optional featues, fuctions, BSEs or a chage
in the tye of Tranport Termtion (Switched Access only), tye of
chanel interface, tye of Interface Group or techncal specification
package." 94
Because the UN circuits are converted "as is," no physical change to the
circuit is requied. Ths change is a record change only in order to update the
Qwest systems. The circuit is up and workig as a UNE. Since there is no
need to change the circuit il, there is no need to "review" or "validate" the
circuit design or to ascert whether "physical chages to the circuit are
needed."
e 94
Qwest Tarff FCC No.1, section 5.2.2C. (emphasis added).
151
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 65
Deney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
-
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
Ms. Huncutt describes thee positions involved in a conversion: a Service
Delivery Coordiator (SDC), a Designer, and a Servce Delivery
Implementer,95 but no activity that any of them do associated with a
conversion is "engineerig design."
First, Qwest requies CLECs to place an order. The SDC processes the order
to remove the circuit from the CRIS biling and put it into IAS biling and
changes the circuit identifier,96 both of which are solely for Qwest's
convenience or advantage rather th being techncally necessar.
Ms. Huncutt describers the Designer as conducting a review of a workig
circuit operating without trouble in order to determe whether any "physical
changes to the circuit are needed." 97 A more unecessar step could scarcely
be imagined. Ms. Huncutt also identifies two other taks involving the
Designer. She states tht the Designer "ensures tht the design records for the
converted, non- UNE service match the origial UN service"98 and tht the
Designer "reviews the circuit inventory in the Tru Integrted Record
Keeping System ("TIRKS") database to ensure accuracy and database
integrty." 99 It appears that what the Designer does is tae the opportty to
correct errors in Qwest's database at CLEC expense. CLECs have already
paid intalation chages when the UNE circuit was intially purchased.
95
96
Huncutt Direct, pp. 13, line 22 - 14, lie 2.
Hunicutt Direct, p. 14, lines 5-15.
Hunicutt Dirct, p. 15, lines 4-10.
Huncutt Direct p. 15, lines 4-5.
Hunicutt Direct, p. 15, lies 7-8.
97
98
99
152
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 66
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Inteemors
e
e
e
10
11
12
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 CLECs now are to be charged agai to correct any errors in Qwest's systems
2 from earlier activity.
3 The Service Delivery Implementer has "overall control for order
4 provisionig."ioo Because no provisionig is requied, there is nothg for the
5 Implementer to control. The Implementer also "verifies the Record-In and
6 Record-out orders and completes the update of the circuit orders in the WF A
7 system." 101 In essence, the Implementer checks to see tht the Coordinator's
8 work was correct. However, because the Coordinator pricipally processes
9 CLEC orders before they go into Qwest's systems, it would seem more
sensible to check the accury of the order before it is submitted. If an
accurate order does not flow though to update Qwest's systems properly, tht
is a system issue and cost, not a conversion cost.
13 In other words, Qwest wants to impose an engineering charge on CLECs to
14 recover the costs of undertng unecessar work that does not actully
15 involve any engieering. The chage is inappropriate and the Commssion
16 should not allow it.
17 SEAMESS CONVRSIONS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH A SIMPLE
18 BILLING CHAGE
20
21
19 Q.IS THE JOINT CLEC PROPOSAL THAT CONVRSIONS CAN BE
ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH A BILLING CHAGE, SUPPORTED
BY THE FCC'S FIINGS ON CONVRSIONS?
100 Huncutt Direct, p. 15, lines 11-12.
101 Hunicutt Direct, p. 15, lies 12-13.
153
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 67
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 A.Yes. As explaied above, the FCC has found in paragrph 588 of the TRO
2 tht conversions afect the biling of rates - not physical changes in the
3 facilties.
4 Q.WH is IT CRITICAL TO ENSURE SEAMESS CONVERSIONS?
5 A.For staers, seamess conversions are required by the FCC (see, TRO, ir 586).
6 In addition, a conversion is a regulatory constrct and not a change requested
7 by a CLEC or its customer, and because only the price of a facilty is
8 changing, service to end users should not be put at risk. The Joint CLEC
9 proposal prohibits Qwestfrom putting CLECs' customers at risk by
10 performing unecessar physical reargements. Furermore, since Qwest's
11 customers will not face any of the same risks (because ILECs do not need to
12 perform conversions to continue to serve their customers), CLEC's End User
13 Customers will face a higher likelihood of service outage problems th will
14 Qwest's customers. These problems will be directly attbutable to Qwest's
15 insistence on makg physical facilty changes when the FCC has aleady
16 found tht record-only changes are required.
17 Q.YOU HAVE EXPLAINED ABOVE THAT CONVRSIONS INOLVE
18 A BILLING CHAGE AN NOT A CHAGE IN PHYSICAL
19 FACILITY. is THERE A SIMPLE, TECHNCALLY FEASIBLE WAY
IN wmCH QWEST COULD EFFECTUATE TIDS BILLING
CHAGE AND IMPLEMENT THE CONVRSION?
20
21
22 A.Yes. Qwest can accomplish ths conversion (or re-pricing) though the
23 application of an adder or surcharge to bil the difference between the old rate
154
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 68
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e 1
2
3
4 Q.
5
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11e
12 Q.
13
14
15
16 A.
17
18
19
20
21
22e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
and new rate (i.e., pre and post conversion rates). For instace, if a DSI UN
loop was converted to a DS 1 special access circuit, the adder or surcharge
would reflect the difference between the UN rate and the special access rate.
HAS QWEST ALREADY USE SUCH AN ADDER/SURCHAGE
APPROACH TO REFLECT PRICE CHAGES?
Yes. Qwest has aleady demonstrated ths with its implementation of the
Qwest Platform Plus ("QPP") ageements. Under those agreements, QPP
circuits are subject to anua rate increases. Qwest does not physically
convert the circuits to convert to the new rates. Instead, Qwest re-prices the
circuits by using an "adder" or "surcharge" for biling the difference between
the previous rate and the new rate.
is THE USE OF ADDERS UNER THE QPP AGREEMENTS
STRONG SUCH RE-PRICINGEVIDENCETHATA
METHODOLOGY COULD BE USED TO IMPLEMENT
CONVRSIONS?
Yes. The rate changes involved with QPP are signficantly more complex
than rate changes involved in converting UNE rates to analogous/alterntive
servce rates. That is, QPP rates differ depending on whether the End User
Customer is a residential or a business customer, and depend upon whether
the CLEC has met cert volume quota. Implementing such are-pricing
methodology should be easier to implement for conversion adders, which
would not var based on these factors.
155
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 69
Deney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interemors
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
e 1 OTHER STATES HAVE FOUN A CHAGE FOR UN CONVRSIONS IS
2 INAPPROPRITE
3 Q.HAVE OTHER STATES FOUND THAT ILECS SHOULD NOT
4 CHAGE A CONVRSION CHAGE FOR CONVRTING UNES TO
5 ALTERNATIV FACILITIES OFFRED BY THE ILEC?
6 A.Yes. The Californa Public Utilties Commssion found many of the concerns
7 mentioned sufcient to prohibit the ILEC from assessing charges for
8 converting UNE circuits to special access. The Californa Commssion
9 explaied:
10
11
12
13e14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
We concur with the FCC's fidig in , 587 of the TRO . . . that
because ILECs are never required to perform conversions in order to
continue serving their own customers, such charges are inconsistent
with Section 202 of the Act, which prohibits carers from subjecting
any person or class of persons to any undue or uneasonable prejudice
or disadvantage. In the followig paragraph, the FCC also reiterates
tht the conversions between wholesale services and UNs are
'largely a biling fuction.' Given the FCC's fiding cited above, it is
inappropnate to charge a nonrecurg charge for record changes.
Therefore, we conclude that no charges are warrnted for
conversions and transitions that to not involve physical work. . . .
102
The Colorado Commssion also found, citing the ALl's conclusions below,
that Qwest canot charge for conversion ofUNEs to pnvate lines.103
24
25
26
A well-recognzed reguatory priciple is tht the cost causer should be
requied to bear the resultig cost. If cost causation is impossible to
determe, then costs should be borne by the beneficiar. There ha
e
102 Application of Pacifc Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a SBC California for Generic Proceeding
to Implement Changes in Federal Unbundling Rules Under Sections 251 and 252 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Decision Adopting Amendment to Existing Interconnecton
Agreement (Jan. 26, 2006) (CA Arbitration Decision) at 35 (emphasis added).
103
Colorado Order on Exceptions, ~ 62, fiding, "we agree with the ALl's reasonig on ths issue.
A non-impairent determation wil alady signifcantly increase the recurg charges paid
by CLECs to the benefit of Qwest. We fid no reason to requie an adtional non-recurg
charge." Ths decision is attched as par ofE~~t 202.
Direct Testiony ofDou~las DenneyHEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 70
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 VII.
21 Q.
22
23 A.
24
25
26
e
27 Q.
28
29
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
been no showing that CLECs caused any required change to continue
their existing service and that no direct benefit will be derived by any
change required. Rather, the conversion of services exposes only
CLEC customers to potential risk of service disruptions during
transitiQn. The evidence is unebutted that Qwest, at least initially, is
the beneficiary of lesser regulation from the FCC's determination that
a marketplace is non-impaired. It is also unrebutted that a non-
impairment determination wil signficantly increase Qwest
competitors' recurrng charges. It has not been shown that Qwest's
initially increased revenue from this extraordinary event will not
recover transition costs.
Qwest has not demonstrated that the NRC should be recoverable from
CLECs or that costs must be recovered from a conversion charge.
Because UNE- P conversions are caused by Qwest, or the FCC to the
benefit of Qwest, to the detriment of CLECs, it is just and reasonable
that Qwest bear the cost of transitioning in the most effcient means.
In any event, Qwest has not justified imposition of the NRC as a direct
conversion cost. 104
PROCESS GOING FORWARD
DOES THE COMMISSION NEED TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS IN
THIS PROCEEDING, AS SUGGESTED BY QWEST105?
No. The Commission need not establish a process for future fiings in this
docket. Idaho already has procedures establish for Qwest to make filings
before the Commission, just as Qwest was able to do with the request that
established this docket.
DID QWEST PROVIDE AN SUPPORT TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF
THE FIVE-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS IN TIDS
DOCKET?
e
104 Colorado ALJ Order in TRRO Docket 06M-080T, Decision No. R08-0164, ,¡~ 116-117. This
decision is attched as part of Exhibit 202.
ios
Over CLEC objection, and in spite of the agreement's terms, Qwest is proposing that the process
established in Section VI of the Settlement Agreement be used in Idaho. Albersheim Direct, p.
22, lines 5-6.
157 Page 71
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 A.
2
3
4 Q.
5
6
7
8
9
10 A.
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
No, Qwest simple refers to the fact that it was agreed upon by CLECs in other
states and approved by some state Commissions,106 without recognzig its
own agreement tht it would not make ths very arguent.
BASED UPON YOUR EXPERINCE IN OTHER STATES
REGARING THE PROCESS FOR UPDATING QWEST'S NON-
IMPAIRED DESIGNATIONS, DO YOU RECOMMND AN
IMPROVEMENTS UPON THE PROCESS OUTLIND IN THE FlVE-
STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IF THE COMMSSION
CONSIDERS IT OVER CLEC OBJECTION?
Yes. Section VI.A of the Five-State Settlement Agreement describes when
Qwest may request additions of Non-Impaied Wire Centers. Ths section
allows Qwest to make requested updtes at any time based on fiber-based
collocations, but only once a year, up to July 1 based on prior year line count
data. I recommend that, in addition, Qwest be requied to provide anualy, to
CLECs doing business in Idao, all wie centers that are with 5,000 lines of
reaching a new non-impaied designtionl07 or with one wire center of
reachig Tier 1 or Tier 2 statuS.108 This will enhance CLEC business plang
106 Albersheim Direct, pp. 21, lie 19 though 22, line 2. As discussed previously, th is a violation
of the Settlement Agreement.
107 The relevant lie counts are 24,000 lines (Tier 2),38,000 lines (Tier 1 or par ofDS3 Loop Non-
Impairent), and 60,000 lies (a par ofDS1 Loop Non-Impairent.
108 Ths would be a list of wire centers with 2 or 3 fiber-based collocators.
158 Page 72
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 and prpvide CLECs with the same inormation as is possessed by Qwest
2 regarding potential futue non_impaient.I09
3 Section VLE.l of the Five-State Settlement Agreement requires Qwest to
4 provide a copy of the letter sent by Qwest "to collocator(s) identified by
Qwest as fiber-based collocator(s) requesting validation of status,,,110 and5
6 "responses.,,11 As discussed previously, Qwest should make more of a
7 serious effort in order to obta verifications from CLECs. This can be
8 accomplished by sending a notice to at least the contacts identified by each
9 carer for interconnection agreement notices, via Qwest's email notification
10 chaels.
1 12 Qwest should also be required to follow up with carers, if
11 Qwest receives no response from that carer. In addition, Qwest should
12 notify any CLEC that Qwest intends to rely upon tht CLEC's business line
13 counts in its request for a new non-impairment designtion.
14 Section VI.G describes the lengt of the transition period for new non-
15 impaient designations. As discussed in section V to ths testiony, the
16 Joint CLECs recommend at least a six month transition period, or longer
17 depending on the number of new designations.
109
Qwest would obtain ths information anually though its deteration whether it has met the
FCC's non-impaient thesholds as par of its determination whether to make a fiing on or
before July 1 each year.
110 Settlement Agreement, Section VLE.1.d,Exhbit Qwest-4, p. 10.
111 Settlement Agreement, Section VLE.1.e, Exhbit Qwest-4, p. 10.
112 This notification process is used in Section VLD of the Settlement Agreement, p. 9-10, to alert
carers of a pendig request for changes to non-impairent designations.
159
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX '578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 73
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Case No. QWE- T-08~07
May 22, 2009
e 1 QWEST SHOULD PROVIDE NOTICE OF WI CENTERS NEARG THE
2 FCC'S NON-IMPAIRMNT THRSHOLD
3 Q.
4
5
6
7 A.
8
9
10
11
12
e 13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18
19
e
WIL THE REQUIMENT FOR QWEST TO PROVIE NOTICE
TO CLECS OF WIRE CENTERS NEARG A NON-IMAINT
DESIGNATION REQUIRE EXTRA TIM CONSUMG WORK
FROMQWEST?
No. Qwest has aleady admtted that it plans to make requests for new non-
impaired designations, assuming a wie center meets the non-impaied
criteria, based on line counts each year before July 1.113 In order to make a
determation as to whether any new wie centers meet the FCC's non-
impaient criteria, Qwest must determe the number of fiber-based
collocations and business line counts for each wie center. As a result, Qwest
already has in its possession the inormation that the Joint CLECs are
requesting. The effort to single out wie centers that are near the non-
impaient thesholds and provide notification to CLECs would be
.. 1114mia.
WHY IS INORMATION REGARING WIRE CENTERS NEARG
THE FCC'S NON-IMPAIRMNT THRSHOLDS OF VALUE TO
CLECS?
113 Albesheim Direct, pp. 31, lie 16 though 32, line 6. Note that Qwest may make new requests
based upon fiber~based collocations at any time. (Albersheim Direct, 25, lines 9-10.)
114 Qwest could use the same notification process it uses to inform CLECs that Qwest intends to fie
a new request for non~impaired wie center designtion(s). See Section V.D of the Settlement
Agreement (Exhbit Qwest-4, pp. 9-10). Note that Qwest has aleady used this process in Idao
even though there is no Settlement Agreement. If Qwest is opposed to the miimal work
requied to report only those wie centers withi a certin theshold of the non~impairent
criteria, Qwest could provide line count and fiber-based collocation information for all wire
centers and CLECs could then determe whether any wie centers are close to being requested
for a non~impaied designation.
160 Page 74
Deney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
-
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 A.The taffed rates Qwest has proposed to charge for delisted UNs are
2 signficantly higher than the UN rates. For example, the curent DSI UN
tranport rate is $26.99 for ten miles of transport. lls The correspondig rate3
4 from Qwest's interstate access taff for ten miles of transport is $252.00,1l6
5 more than nie ties the UN rate. Signficant changes in costs will affect
6 CLECs' profitabilty and thus their business plan. Collocation builds are
7 expensive and time consumg. CLECs have limited capita dollars to deploy
8 to expanding their markets in Idao and these dollars must be used wisely and
9 put to what is expected to be their most effcient use. Uncertty as to futue
10 UN availabilty will deter CLEC investment in facilties. Providig CLECs
11 with inormation on the statu of wire centers with respect to business access
12 lines and fiber-based numbers will allow them rationally to plan futue
13 investment.
14 Q.INFORMTION CLECS AR REQUESTINGISTHE
15 CONFIDENTIA ?
16 A.No. For ths notification process, specific line count totas by CLEC or
17 identification of fiber-based collocators is not requied. The only requiement
18 is aggregate inormation for cert wie centers. In addition, Qwest aleady
19 makes available its switched business line counts by wie center on its
llS See Section 9.6.1 ofQwest's SGAT Exhbit A. The rates are $24.69 fied plus $0.23 per mile.
Note, the same ras ar contained in the Exhbit A for Qwests negotiations template. These
rates were approved by the Commission in docket QWE- T -01-11.
116 See FCC Tarff#l, Section 17.2.1L.C.1.a
(htt://taiffs.gwest.com:8000/idc/groups/public/documents/tarfffcc 1 sO 17p081.pdffPage= 10&
PageMode=bookmarks ).
161
Direct Testimony of Douglas Deney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 75
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
It 1
2
3
4
5
6 Q.
7
8
9 A.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22. 2009
website.l i 7 These lines are used in par to determe whether Qwest meets the
FCC's non-impaient thesholdsYs There is no reason that tota switched
business lines would be proprieta while Qwest's switched business lines are
not. Furher, CLECs are only requesting tht Qwest indicate those wie
centers withn 5,000 business lines of reaching a non-impairment designtion.
COULD CLECS USE INORMTION TO ALTER BUSINSS PLANS
TO ASSURE THAT A WI CENTER IS NOT DESIGNATED AS
NON-IMP AIRED IN THE FUTUR?
No. This arguent does not make sense. First, if a CLEC were to attmpt to
do this, it would mean restraig from competing in a wire center. Qwest
would be the beneficiar of any reduction in competition. For CLECs
competition and wig customers is the key to success. CLECs can't game
the system by failing to compete - ths is how CLECs lose. Second, CLECs
do not operate in the competitive environment as a single entity, but as
competitors.119 If one CLEC were to pull back, another CLEC would likely
step in. Finly, notification regarding wie centers near non-impairment
thsholds would likely spur investment and competition in that wie center.
A CLEC could invest in a collocation or become a fiber-based collocator in
117 htt://www.qwest.comlcgi-biniconniconncentraloffce.pl?fuction=3
LIS Qwest's -switched business lines are only par of the equation, and thus alone canot be used
reliably by CLECs to determine what wire centers have the gratest potential for becomig non-
impaied.
119 Qwest identified a number of CLECs doing business in the Bois Mai and Boise West wire
centers. See Highy Confidential Exhibit Qwest-5 and Highly Confdential Exhbit Qwest-10.
162
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 76
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Inteemors
e
8
9
10
11
12
13
14e15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 order to provide itself some protection from the dramatic price increases it
2 would face if it remaied wholly dependent upon Qwest's network.
3 Q.HAVE AN OTHER QWEST STATES REQUIRED QWEST TO
PROVIDE TIDS TYPE OF INFORMTION TO CLECS?4
5 A.Yes. The Colorado Commission upheld its ALJ fiding that Qwest should
6 provide notice to CLECs as wie centers near a non-impaient theshold.12o
7 The ALJ in Colorado found,
Changes in costs will afect CLECs' business plans. Collocation
builds are expensive and tie consuming. The expected retu from a
collocation will be dratically lower if high-capacity loops, UNs, or
UNE tranport were suddenly to become unavailable. Uncertty as
to futue UNE availabilty will also afect CLEC investment in
facilties. Providig CLECs with inormation on the status of wie
centers with respect to business access lines and fiber-based numbers
will allow them the maximum opportty to rationally plan futue
investment.
121
BEFORE A REQUEST FOR A NON-IMPAIRMNT DESIGNATION, QWEST
SHOULD NOTIFY CLECS OF ITS INTENT TO RELY UPON BOTH THE
CLECS FIBER-BASED COLLOCATION AN THE CLECS BUSINSS LIN
COUNTS
Q. SEPARTE FROM THE NON-EVIDENTIAY FIVE-STATE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, HAS QWEST AGREED TO PROVIDE
NOTICE TO CLECS IF IT INENDS TO RELY UPON A CLEC'S
FmER-BASED COLLOCATION IN ORDER TO REQUEST A WIRE
CENTER NON-IMPAIRMNT DESIGNATION?
120 Colorado Wire Center Docket, Colorado Order on Exceptions, , 66. Ths order is atched to
this testimony as par of Exhbit 202.
121
Colorado Wire Center Docket, Recommended Order of the ALJ, , 121. Ths order is atthed
to this testimony as par of Exhibit 202.
163 Page 77
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Inteernors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK CQURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 A.
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
Yes.122 Providlig CLECs with an opportty to review, and either confirm
2 or dispute their statu as a fiber-based collocator is crucial in the process for
3 determinng futue non-impaied wire center designations. Based on
4 responses provided by CLECs in other states, Qwest has revised its fiber-
5 based collocation count. 123 Previously, in section IV of ths testimony, I
6 discussed some of the problems with Qwest's curent notifcation process.
7 These problems were that it was unclear as to who Qwest chooses to send its
8 notice and tht Qwest undertok no effort to follow up with CLECs to receive
9 a response verifyng or denying its statu as a fiber-based collocator.
10 Q.
11
e 12
13
14 A.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
IF THERE AR PROBLEMS WITH QWEST'S CURNT
NOTIFICATION REGARING THE USE OF FIER-BASED
COLLOCATION INORMTION, WH DO YOU RECOMMND
EXPANDING TIDS NOTIFCATION TO BUSINESS LIN COUNTS?
As discussed, providing CLEC with notice that its data is being relied upon is
important. Ths gives CLECs an incentive to paricipate in the case,
understad that their customers may be impacted by a change in a wire centers
non-impaient designation, and potentially provide inormation tht can
narow disputes regarding futue designations. The Joint CLEC concerns
about the process had to do with Qwest's lack of effort in soliciting a
response, rather than with the concept of providig notification. In response
to the issues identified, the Joint CLECs recommend (1) that Qwest expand
e 122 Torrence Dirct, p. 18, lies 6-11.
123 The specific responses are confidentiaL.
164 Page 78
Deney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
e the list of individuas at a company to whom it provides notice tht it intends
2 to rely upon a CLEC's fiber-based collocation by including at least the
3 contats identified by each carer for interconnection ageement notices and
4 those on the service list in wire center proceedigs if a proceeding is pending;
5 and (2) Qwest send a follow up notice to the CLEC if it fails to receive a
6 response verifying or disputing that it is a fiber-based collocator.
7 As with the fiber-based collocation notice, notifyg CLECs that Qwest
8 intends to rely upon their business line counts may encourage CLEC
9 paricipation and help naow futue disputes. For example, each CLEC only
10 has the abilty to review Qwest's count of its own business line count data
11 CLECs are not provided with the names of other carers doing business in a
e 12 wie center. Allowig other CLECs to know tht their inormation is being
13 relied upon and specifically what inormation is being relied upon (i.e. that
14 CLECs specific line counts) may faciltate review of Qwest s data and lead to
15 fewer disputes and quicker resolution of Qwest's futue requests for non-
16 impaient designations.
17 VII.
18 Q.
19
20 A.
21
e
CONCLUSION
WHT AR YOUR RECOMMNDATIONS TO THE IDAHO
COMMSSION?
Ths Commission should only decide on the non-impaied statu of Boise
Main and Boise West. Based on review of the supporting information
Direct Testimony of Douglas Deney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
165 Page 79
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors83701
e
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
e
1
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
provided by Qwest, the Joint CLECs curently do not dispute124 that Boise
2 Mai and Boise West have the mium number of fiber-based collocators to
3 be classified as Tier 1 and Tier 2 respectively. The only remaig non-
4 impaied designation at dispute is DS3 Loop non-impairment in Boise Main.
DS3 loop non-impairment is dependent upon switched business line counts in
tht wire center. Qwest has improperly counted switched business lines.
First, because Qwest did not make its request for DS3 non-impaient until
its April 17, 2009 testimony, Qwest should have relied upon end of year 2008
switched business line counts rather than end of year 2007. Second, Qwest
improperly counts CLEC loops by including residential loops and non-
switched capacity (both used and unused) in its CLEC switched business line
counts. Thd, Integr was unble to verify Qwest's Integr specific switched
business line counts and as of the filing of ths testimony has signficant
discrepancies between its data and the data Qwest provided. One example is
that Qwest identifies a number of EEL circuits being purchaed by Integra
serving customers in the Boise Mai wie center, despite the fact tht Integra
does not use EELs to serve these customers.
18 The Commssion should reject Qwest's request to classify the Boise Main
19 wie center as non-impaired for DS3 loops.
20 Qwest's testimony largely improperly relies upon a Five-State Settlement
21 Agreement (not including Idao) negotiated by CLECs in 2007, and Qwest
124 Integr may update its position based on the testiony of other paries in ths docket.
166
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 80
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
--
e
Case No. QWE- T -08-07
May 22, 2009
1 fails to provide independent testimony in support of its positions. Qwest's
2 reliance upon the Five-State Settlement Agreement as evidence is contrar to
3 the commitment that Qwest mae in that agreement, which reduces
4 confdence in Qwest's futue aderence to the agreement. That agreement
5 specifically provides tht (1) it was a settlement of controversy; (2) does not
6 represent the positions a par may tae in jursdictions outside of the
agreement; and (3) tht the agreement is not to be used as evidence.
125 Ths7
8 Commission need not rue on the issues raised in the Five-State Settlement
9 Agreement, as CLECs and Qwest may negotiate and, if necessar arbitrate,
10 these issues as par of their interconnection agreements.
11 If the Commssion nonetheless considers the Five-State Settlement Agreement
12 over CLEC objection, there are a number of issues, contaned in the Five-State
13 Settlement Agreement, that can be improved upon. The trsition period of
14 90 days is too short to actuly transition impacted facilties. The Joint
15 CLECs recommend a transition period of six month or, if multiple non-
16 impaient designtions are determed simultaeously, one year. The FCC
17 used a one-year transition period in the TRRO and a six-month tranition in
18 the Omaha Forbearance Order.
19 Conversions from UNs to Qwest alternative facilties are with ths
20 Commssion's jursdiction. These conversions are done for the benefit of
21 Qwest.
125 Settlement Agreement, Section VII.B.
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
167
Page 81
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Inteerors83701
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
e
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
Conversions should be seamess to the CLEC End User Customer. A
conversion involves re-pricing a facilty - a facilty that is operationa and
serving an End User Customer - from UN prices to the price of the
alternative/analogous servce, and it should not involve any work tht would
result in servce disruption for the End User Customer. Qwest and its
customers do not bear any risk of disruption or costs from conversions
because Qwest does not convert its circuits. Qwest should not be allowed to
place the CLEC's end-user customer at risk, for the convenience of Qwest, by
chaging the circuit il on UN circuits impacted by the "non-impaient"
determnation. In addition, Qwest should not be allowed to charge CLECs for
Qwest to perform taks that Qwest is performg for its own benefit.
Because Qwest is reviewing its own data on at least an anual basis to
determe whether additional wie centers meet the FCC's non-impaient
thesholds, Qwest should provide inormation to CLECs regarding wie
centers that are near a non-impaired theshold. Qwest should notify CLECs
anualy of all wie centers within 5,000 business lines of 24,000, 38,000 or
60,000 switched business lines. In addition, Qwest should notify CLECs of
wie centers with one fiber-based collocation of reachig Tier 2 status. By
providing ths inormation, both Qwest and CLECs will have access to simlar
market information regarding the potential for futue non-impaient and
CLECs will be able to tae into account ths inormation in formulatig their
business plan, as Qwest can do today.
168
Direct Testiony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 82
Denney,Di
Joint CLECs, Interverors
e
e
-
Case No. QWE-T-08-07
May 22, 2009
1 Qwest has agreed in testimony to provide notice to CLECs, and the
2 opportty for CLECs to dispute, when Qwest relies upon its belief that a
3 CLEC ha a fiber-based collocation in an offce tht Qwest plans to request a
4 chang~ in its non-impaired designation. First, Qwest should improve this
5 process to ensure tht the proper individuas at a CLEC are inormed of
6 Qwest's reliance on its collocation. Ths can be done by sendig the notice to
7 at least those persons identified by a carer for receiving interconnection
8 agreement notices and persons on the service list in pending wie center
9 proceedigs. Second, Qwest should also inform CLECs when it intends to
10 rely upon CLEC switched business lines, and the line counts it is relying
11 upon, as par of a request for a change in a non-impairment designtion. Ths
12 will assure that CLECs are inormed of Qwest's reliance upon their data and
13 increase the likelihood tht a CLEC will review its own data upon which
14 Qwest relies.
15 Q.DOES TIDS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
16 A.Yes.
169
Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
Page 83
Denney, Di
Joint CLECs, Intervemors
e
e
e
1 I.IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2 Q.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAM, BUSINSS ADDRESS AN
3 POSITION WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
4 A.My name is Renée Albersheim. I am employed by Qwest Services
5 Corporation, parent company of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), as a Staf Witnessing
6 Representative. I am testifyg on behalf of Qwest. My business address is 1801
7 California Street, 24th floor, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
8 Q.DID YOU SUBMIT DIRECT TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE ON
9 APRIL 17, 2009?
10 A.Yes.
11 II.PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
12 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?Q.
13 A.The purose of my testimony is to respond to the Direct Testimony of
14 Douglas Denney, submitted on May 22,2009. Specifically, I will respond to Mr.
15 Denney's testimony regarding the multi-state settlement agreement and the business line-
16 count methodology for puroses of establishing "non-impairment" pursuant to the
17 Triennial Review Remand Order ("TRRO"). i Rachel Torrence of Qwest will respond to
18 Mr. Denney's testimony regarding the methodology for counting "fiber-based
i See In the Matter of Review of Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Order. on Remand, CC Docket No. 01-
338, WC Docket No. 04-313, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, (2004) ("Triennial Review Remand Order" or "TRRO").
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
170 ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 2
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 collocators" at non-impaired wire centers. Finally, Victoria Huncutt if Qwest will
2 respond to Mr. Denney's testimony regarding the conversion charge to convert
3 unbundled network elements ("UNEs") to alternative services such as private line or
4 special access services afer a wire center has been designated as non-impaired.
5 il. THE MULTI-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
6 Q.MR DENNEY CLAIMS THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR TIDS
7 COMMISSION TO DECIDE ALL OF THE ISSUES REGARING TRRO
8 IMPLEMENTATION IN THIS CASE, AND THT THE COMMSSION ONLY
9 NEED DETERMINE WHETHER CERTAIN WIRE CENTERS AR NON-
10 IMPAIRED.2 DO YOU AGREE?
e 11 A.No. Qwest believes that it is most effcient, and the best use of ths
12 Commssion's time and resources, to settle all questions pertaig to the implementation
13 of the TRRO in this proceeding. That is how Qwest has approached the implementation
14 of the TRRO in all of Qwest s states. And that is how the TRRO has been implemented in
15 the five states in which the state utilty commissions adopted the multi-state settlement
16 agreement that I outlined in my direct testimony.3 Using the procedures established in
e
2 Direct Testimony of Douglas Denney ("Denney Direct"), at page 19.
3 See Arizona Wire Center Docket (phase /), Arizona Corporation Commission, Docket Nos. T-
03632A-06-0091, T -04302A~06-0091, T -03406A-06-0091, T -03402A-06-0091, T -0 105IB-06-0091,
Opinion and Order, May 16, 2008, page 22; In the Matter o/CLECs' Request/or Commission ofILEC
Wire Center Impairment Analysis; In The Matter of a Commission Investigation Identifing Wire Centers
in Which Qwest Corporation Must Offer High-Capacity Loop or Transport UNEs at Cost-Based Rates,
Minesota Public Utilties Commission, Docket No. P-5692, 5340, 5643, 5323, 465, 6422/M-06-211,
Docket No. P-999/CI-060685, Order Adopting Settlement, October 5, 2007, at page 5 ("Minnesota
Settlement Approval'); In the Matter ofCovad Communications Company, Eschelon Telecom Of Oregon,
Inc., Integra Telecom of Oregon, Inc., McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc., andXO
Communications Services, Inc. Requestfor Commission Approval of Non-Impairment Wire Center List,
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
171 ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 3
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
-
1 the agreement, Qwest has proposed additions to the non-impaired wire center lists in all
2 five states. In each case, the process established by the agreement was used successfuly
3 to star dockets, disseminate confdential information, allow for objections, and come to
4 resolution regarding the additions to the non-impaired wire center lists in various states.
5 The experience for Qwest and the CLECs in these five states in the past two years (non-
6 impaired wire center updates in 2007 and 2008) has been a productive one with a
7 minimum of litigation and process.4
Oregon Public Utility Commission, Docket UM 1251, Order on Reconsideration, Order No. 07-328, July
31,2007, at page 5; In the Matter of the TRRO/Requestfor Commission Review and Approval of Wire
Center Lists, Utah Public Service Commission, Docket No. 06-049-40, Report and Order Approvig
Settlement Agreement, July 31, 2007, at page 5; In the Matter of the Petition ofQwest Corporation For
Investigation Concerning the Status of Competiton and Impact of the FCC's Triennial Review Remand
Order on the Competitive Telecommunications Environment in Washington State, Washigton Utilties and
Tranporttion Commission, Docket No. 073035, Order 05, Initial Order Accepting, Subject To
Conditions, Multi-Part Settlement Regarding Wire Center Designations And Related Issues, March 21,
2008, at ~ 26.
Qwest has also proposed the use of the settlement agreement as a template to implement the TRRO
in Iowa. That case is stil pending. The only state where Qwest is not using the settlement agreement as a
template to implement the TRRO is in New Mexico, where there were two undisputed wire centers
considered non-impaied on the basis of fiber-based collocators, and Qwest does not anticipate futue
updates to the list of non-impaired wire centers in that state.
4 See, for example, Arizona- In the Matter of the Application of Dieca Communications DBA
Covad Communications Company, Eschelon Telecom of Arizona Incl., McLeodUSA Telecommunications
Services, Inc., Mountain Telecommunications, Inc., XO Communications Services, Inc. and Qwest
Corporation's Request for Commission Process to Address Key UNE Issues Arisingfrom Triennial Review
Remand Order, Including Approval ofQwest Wire Center Lists (Phase II), Arizona Corporation
Commission, Docket Nos. T-03632A-06-0091, T-04302A-06-0091, T-03406A-06-0091, T-03402A-06-
0091, T-0105lB-06-0091, Order, Februar 4,2009 ("Arizona Wire Center Docket"); Minnesota- In the
Matter of Qwest's Petition for Approval of Additions for 2008 to the Non-Impaired Wire Center List,
Minnesota Public Utilties Commission, Docket No. P-421/AM-08-726, Order Approving Petition to
Reclassify the Little Falls Wire Center as Tier 2 Impaired, Januar 8, 2009; Oregon- Petitionfor
Commission Approval of2007 Additions to Non-Impaired Wire Center List, Oregon Public Utilty
Commission, Docket UM 1326, Final Order, September 18, 2009; Utah- (1) In the Matter of Qwest
Corporation's Petition for Commission Approval of 2007 Additions to Non-Impaired Wire Center List and
Motionfor Expedited Issuance of Protective Order, Utah Public Servce Commission, Docket No. 07-049-
30, Report and Order Approving Tier 2 Designation of Qwests Orem Main Wire Center, November 20,
2007; (2) In the Matter ofQwest Corporation's Petition for Commission Approval of2007 Additons to
Non-Impaired Wire Center List and Motionfor Expedited Issuance of Protective Order, Docket No. 07-
049-30, Report And Order Approving Tier 2 Designation of Qwests Midvale Main Wire Center, October
1,2007; Washington- In the Matter of the Petition ofQwest Corporation, For Commission Approval of
2007 Additions to Non-Impaired Wire Center List, Washington Utilties and Transporttion Commission,
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
172 ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 4
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 Q.WHT WOULD BE TH CONSEQUENCES IF THIS
2 COMMSSION WERE TO FOLLOW MR. DENNEY'S SUGGESTION AND
3 ONLY DECIDE THE ISSUE OF NON-IMPAIRMENT FOR THE TWO WIRE
4 CENTERS IN QUESTION IN THIS CASE?
5 A.The re'sult would be an excess of futue litigation before ths Commssion.
6 Every year that Qwest seeks to update its list of non-impaired wire centers in Idaho, the
7 same issues that were raised here would be raised again, and another lengty litigation
8 could ensue. This is in stark contrast to the states in which the commissions have
9 adopted the settlement agreement as I discussed above, where resolution was reached
10 quickly in each case where updates were made to the non-impaired wire center lists.
11 Each lengty litigation would serve the CLECs' interests as this would allow them more
e 12 time to continue to tae advantage of UN pricing in the wire centers at issue, but ths
13 would be the only benefit of puttg off resolution of these issues now. Unnecessary
14 additional litigation would also only serve to take additional time and resources away
15 from other matters before this Commission. Qwest does not believe this is an efficient
16 use of this Commission's resources.
17 Q.MR. DENNY CLAIMS THAT THE STATEMENT IN YOUR
18 TESTIMONY THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT COMPLIES WITH
e
Docket No. UT-073033, Initial Order Granting Petition for Approval of Additions to Non-Impaired Wire
Center List, July 30, 2008.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
173 ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 5
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 THE RULES ESTABLISHED BY THE TRROWASINERROR.5 PLEASE
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
-
2 RESPOND.
A. Mr. Denney is incorrect. No par to the settlement agreement would have
signed an agreement that did not comply with the FCC's rules. To suggest otherwse is
to suggest that a pary is willng to violate the FCC's rues or applicable law.
I paricipated in the negotiations that resulted in the multi-state settlement agreement.
Without disclosing any confdential settlement discussions or information, I can say
generally that during those negotiations, all paricipants made it very clear that the end
result must comply with the FCC's rues. The statement in the settlement agreement that
Mr. Denney uses to support his assertion simply pertains to the fact that the document
was in fact a settlement, a compromise of differing views, and thus that the paries
entered into the negotiations taking different positions.6 Nevertheless, that does not mean
that simply because a pary was willng to compromise on its original (pre-settlement)
position, the end result of the compromise does not comply with the TRRO. The
statement that Mr. Denney refers to has no bearng as to whether the settlement
agreement is compliant with the FCC's rules or the FCC's TRRO.
5 Denney Direct, at page 15.
6 Denney Direct, at pages 15-16 (the settlement agreement "does not represent the position that
any par would take if this matter is not resolved by agreement").
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
174 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 6
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 Q.MR. DENNEY CLAIMS THAT QWEST is SOMEHOW "IN
2 VIOLATION" OF THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY
3 REFERENCING IT IN TIDS PROCEEDING.7 is HE CORRCT?
4 A.No, not at all. With all due respect, Mr. Denney, who is not a lawyer, is
5 incorrect regarding his legal conclusion. To be clear, Qwest is simply using the
6 settlement agreement as an example of a set of procedures that ths Commssion can use
7 to implement the TRRO. Qwest is not using the settlement agreement as "evidence"
8 agail?st a pary or as "impeachment, ,,8 nor is Qwest attempting to use the settlement as
9 any type of legal precedent. Whle the agreement prohibits those actions, the agreement
10 does not prevent a pary from referring to it or recommending that a state commission use
11 it as a template for futue non-impairment proceedings, as Qwest is doing here. Qwest is
_ 12 merely advising ths Commssion (1) of the undisputedfactthatthe agreement has been
13 entered into (which the agreement does not prohibit and indeed, which is publicly-
14 available information, as it was publicly-filed, as Mr. Denney admits),9 and (2) that
15 Qwest believes these are reasonable methods and procedures that this Commission may
16 want (but is certainly not obligated) to consider and adopt.
17 To allay Mr. Denney's concerns, Qwest acknowledges that "no precedent is
18 established" by the settlement agreement. Indeed, nowhere is Qwest arguing that this
19 Commssion is somehow "obligated" to adopt the methods and procedures in the
20 agreement, much less the agreement itself Again, Qwest is simply presenting the
e
7 See, for example, Denney Direct, at page 12.
8 Denney Direct, at page 12.
9 Denney Direct, at page 12.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
175 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 7
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 methods and procedures from that settlement agreement, with Qwest's two-year
e
--
2 experience having used it with numerous CLECs in those five states, to show the
3 Commssion that, rather than "reinvent the wheel" every year there is a non-impairment
4 proceeding, the Commission should use these methods and procedures (some or all of
5 them, at the Commssion's discretion) as a way to evaluate such future non-impairment
6 proceedings.
7 Q.DOES MR. DENNEY PROVIDE TIDS COMMISSION WITH AN
8 ALTERNATIVE SET OF PROCEDURES TO USE TO IMPLEMENT THE TRRO
9 IN FUTURE NON-IMPAIRMENT PROCEEDINGS?
10 No. As I noted above, it appears that Mr. Denney would rather have theA.
11 Commission not establish procedures for futue updates to the list of non-impaired wire
12 centers. Apparently, Mr. Denney and the Joint CLECs would prefer to litigate the same
13 issues with each non-impairment fiing.
14 MR. DENNEY ALSO CLAIMS THAT QWEST IS IN VIOLATIONQ.
15 OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
16 PLEASE RESPOND.
17 Remarkably, Mr. Denney claims that the CLECs had not received noticeA.
18 that Qwest is seeking non-impairment for DS3 unbundled loops in the Boise Mai wire
19 center until they reviewed my direct testimony. As I noted in my direct testimony, the
20 business line counts that Qwest provided with its petition in ths proceeding clearly
21 indicated that the threshold for DS3 unbundled loops was reached in the Boise Main wire
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
176 ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 8
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 center. As I will discuss fuer below, however, there are curently no DS3 unbundled
5
6
7
8
9
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
e
2 loops in the Boise Main wire center. Given that fact, and the fact that Mr. Denney does
3 not want to be governed by the settlement agreement, I believe his indignation is
4 overblown.
Q. WHT DOES QWEST RECOMMND TO THIS COMMISSION
REGARING THE MULTI-STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT?
A. Qwestand (to date) five state commissions consider the multi-state
settlement agreement to be a proven guide for establishing procedures to implement the
FCC's mandates in the TRRO. Qwest believes that the multi-state settlement provides a
comprehensive blueprint for TRRO implementation. The negotiations that resulted in the
settlement agreement established procedures that ensured fair treatment of all paries, and
all of these state commissions clearly found them to be reasonable and in the public
interest when they approved the agreement. Qwest wanted to ensure that futue non-
impaient proceedings could not be used simply to delay non-impairment designations,
and the CLECs who entered into the settlement agreement wanted to ensure that they
would obtai sufficient data and receive suffcient time to ensure that Qwest s non-
impaient designations were valid. These competing needs were recognized by the
Minnesota Commission; for example, in its order adopting the settlement:
Applying the FCC's standards in a mutually-agreeable way, CLECs have
acknowledged where Qwest s duties to provide UNEs have now Expired. And
Qwest has acknowledged the legitimate interest of CLECs in procedural
safeguards and transition periods for implementing changes in Qwest's
unbundling obligations.
10
10 See Minnesota Settlement Approval, at page 5.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
177 ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 9
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1
2 Indeed, the fact that all the paries agreed to the resulting terms necessarily indicates that
3 they all believed their concerns were faily dealt with, as each pary entered into the
4 settlement agreemenf of its own volition and no par was compelled to enter into it.
5 Therefore, Qwest recommends that the Commission establish procedures for
6 implementing the TRRO for futue non-impairment proceedings consistent with those
7 established in the multi-state settlement agreement and which are curently in use in five
8 other states.
9 iv. BUSINESS LIN COUNT METHODOLOGY
10 Q.MR. DENNEY RELIES HEA VIL Y ON A COLORAO
e 11 COMMISSION DECISION TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT QWEST
12 DOES NOT COUNT BUSINESS LINES PROPERLY.ll PLEASE RESPOND
13 GENERALY.
14 A.First, I should note that the Colorado Commission was the only state
15 commission to reject the multi-state settlement agreement. One aspect of this rejection
16 was the Colorado Commission's erroneous belief that the settlement agreement did not
17 establish a proper methodology for counting business lines. Although Mr. Denney did
18 not mention it, Qwest notes that ths Colorado decision is presently being reviewed by the
19 U.S. District Cour in Colorado.12
e
11 See for example, Denney Direct, at pages 11, 12-13, and 16.
12 See Qwest Corporation v. Colorado Public Utilties Commission, et. al., United States District
Court, District olColorado, Civil Action Number: 08-CV-02653-RPM-KLM.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09BEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
178 ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 10
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
8
9
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
e
1 Q.WHT DID THE COLORAO COMMISSION ORDER
2 REGARING THE BUSINESS LINE COUNT METHODOLOGY?
3 A.The Colorado Commission found that residential and non-switched lines
4 should be excluded ftom the count ofUNE loops in Qwests business line calculations.
5 The data in the FCC ARMIS 43-08 report, from which Qwests retail business lines are
6 counted, is a business line count and already excludes residence lines. The Colorado
7 Commission order was specific to UNE loops. 13
Q. THE COLORAO AL RELIED ON A MICIDGAN COMMISSION
DECISION.14 IS THE MICIDGAN DECISION STILL IN EFFECT?
A. No. The Michigan decision, on which the Colorado Commssion heavily
relied, was overturned by a federal distrct COur.15 Regarding the Michigan
Commission's decision on business line counts, the cour stated:
The Cour disagrees with the Defendant Intervenors, and concludes that the
September Order improperly confses the definition of a business line with the
procedure that is used for counting it as specified in the governing regulation, 47
C.PR. 51.5. Unfortately, the September Order ignores the plain language of
the regulation, and transforms an otherwse unambiguous phrase, "all UNE
loops," to mean only some UN loops. Moreover, the Cour concludes that the
13 See In the Matter of the Joint Competitive Local Exchange Carriers' Request regarding the
Status of Impairment in Qwest Corporation's Wire Centers and the Applicabilty of the Federal
Communications Commission's Triennial Review Remand Order, Colorado Public Utilties Commission,
Decision No. C08-0969 Order on Exceptions, September 17, 2008, ~~ 15-17.
14 See In the Matter of the Joint Competitive Local Exchange Carriers' Request Regarding the
Status of Impairment in Qwest Corporation's Wire Centers and the Applicabilty of the Federal
Communications Commission's Triennial Review Remand Order, Colorado Public Utilties Commission,
Recommended Decision, Februar 19, 2008, ~ 70.
15 See Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d//a AT&T Michigan v. Michigan Public Service
Commission, et al., Case No. 06-11982,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71272. (E. D. Mi. 2007), p. 28.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
179 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 11
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
7
8
9
10
11e
12
13
14
e
1
2
MPSC, in misconstring the regulation, has violated existing federal law.
Accordingly, this par of the September Order must be voided.
16
3 Indeed, one of the flaws of the Colorado Commission's September 2008 decision is
4 that it erroneously relied on the Michigan Commission's decision, even though the
5 Michigan Commission decision had already been overted (on May 8, 2007) by the
6 Michigan federal cour.
Q. HAS AN OTHER STATE COMMISSION AGREED WITH THE
COLORAO COMMISSION REGARING BUSINESS LINE COUNTS?
A. Only one other state commission, the North Carolina Public Utilities
Commssion, has agreed with the Colorado Commssion.17 The Nort Carolina decision
was not appealed.
Q. IN CONTRAST, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER COURTS OR
COMMISSIONS THAT HAVE AGREED WITH THE MULTI-STATE
SETTLEMENT'S POSITION REGARING THE COUNING OF BUSINESS
15 LINES?
16 Yes. In fact, by my count, in addition to the five Qwest state commissions that
17 have approved the settlement agreement, there have been 15 separate decisions (two by
18 cours and 13 by state commissions) that have ruled that business lines should be. counted
19 in a maner consistent with the methodology supported by the multi-state settlement
16 /d., aq¡ 17. (Emphasis added.)
17 See In the Matter of Proceeding to Consider Amendments to Interconnection Agreements
Between Bel/South Telecommunications, Inc. and Competing Local Providers Due to Changes of Law,
Order Concerning Changes of Law, Docket No. P-55, Sub. 1549 (NC P.U.C., March 1,2006), at p. 5.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09~EDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
180 ALBERSHEIM,R(Di-Reb) 12
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1 agreement. 18 For example, in reversing the Michigan Commission's order, the cour
2 stated as follows:
3
4
5
6
The MPSC's position confses the defintion of a business line with the
procedure used for counting a business line as specified in the governng
regulation. "A business line is an incumbent LEC-owned switched access line
used to serve a business customer." See 47 C.P.R. 51.5. Based upon this
18 See (1) Texas- See Logix Communications, L.P., V. The Public Utility Commission of Texas, et.
al., Docket No. 06-51697 (5th Cir. 2008), slip op. p 7-8; (2) Michigan- Michigan Bell Telephone
Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al., Case number 06-11982,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71272 (E. D. Mi. 2007), p. 28; (3) Missouri- Report and Order, In the Matter of the
Application of Nu Vox Communications of Missouri, Inc. for an Investigation into the Wire Centers that
AT&T Missouri Asserts are Non-Impaired under the TRRO, Case No. TO-2006-0360 (Mo. P.S.C., March
31,2008), pp. 5-6; (4) Indiana- Final Order, Petition of Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated
for Expedited Resolution of Dispute with Nuvox Communications Inc. Regarding Non-Impaired Wire
Centers, Docket No. 42986 (Ind. V.R.C., August 15,2007), pp. 48-55; (5) Order, In theMatter of the
Indiana Utilty Regulatory Commission's Investigation of Issues Related to the Implementation of the
Federal Communications Commission's Triennial Review Remand Order and the Remaining Portions of
the Triennial Review Order, Cause No. 42857 (Ind. U.R.C, Januar 11,2006); (6) Ohio- Finding and
Order, In the Matter of the Petiton ofXO Communications, Inc. Requesting a Commission Investigation of
Those Wire Centers/hat AT&T Ohio Asserts are Nonimpaired, Docket No. 05-1393-TP-UNC (P.U.C Oh.
June 6, 2006); (7) Arbitration Award, In re Establishment of Terms and Conditons of an Interconnection
Agreement Amendment, PUCO, Case No. 05-887-TP-UNC (p.U.C. Oh. Nov. 9, 2005), at:6; (8) Kansas-
Order Determining Proper Method for Fiber-Based Collocator and Business Line Counts, In the Matter of
Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution of Southwestern Bell Telephone LP Against Nuvox
Communications of Kansas, Inc. Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcations, Docket No. 06-SWBT-
743-COM (Kansas Corp. Com., June 2, 2006); (9) Texas- Order Approving Methodology to Determine
AT&T Texas Wire Centers which are Non- Impaired, Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution Proceeding
Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcation, PUC Docket No. 31303 (Tex. P.U.C., April 7, 2006), pp. 30
and 32-33; (10) South Carolina- Order Addressing Changes of Law, In Re: Petiton of Bell South
telecommunications, Inc. to Establish Generic Docket to Consider Amendments to Interconnection
Agreements Resultingfrom Changes of Law, Docket No. 2004-316C, Order No. 2006-136 (SC P.S.C.,
March 10, 2006), at p. 44; (11) Florida- Order No. PSC-06-0 172-FOF- TP, Petition to Establish Generic
Docket to Consider Amendments to Interconnection Agreements Resultingfrom Changes in Law by
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Fla. PUC, Docket No. 041269-TP (Fl. P.S.C., March 2,2006), p. 37;
(12) Georgia- Order on Remaining Issues, Generic Proceeding to Examine Issues Related to BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc's. Obligations to Provide Unbundled Network Elements, Docket No. 19341-U
(Ga. P.S.C., Februar 7, 2006), pp. 19-20; (13) California- Decision Adopting Amendment to Existing
Interconnection Agreement, Application of Pacifc Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a SBC California for
Generic Proceeding to Implement Changes in Federal Unbundling Rules Under Sections 251 and 252 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Application 05-07-024, Decision 06-01-143 (p.U.C. CaL., Januar 26,
2006), pp. 10-11; (14) Ilinois- Arbitration Decision, Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with Ilinois Bell Telephone Company to Amend Existing
Interconnection Agreements to Incorporate the Triennial Review Order and the Triennial Review Remand
Order, Docket No. 05-0442 (Il Commerce Com., Nov. 2, 2005), p. 32; (15) Mississippi- Final Order, In
Re: Order Establishing Generic Docket To Consider Change-Of-Law To Existing Interconnection
Agreements, DocketNo. 2005-AD-139, 2006 Miss. PVC LEXIS 680 (October 20, 2006),pp. 76-69. See
also footnote 3 for the five Qwest state commissions approving the settlement agreement.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20109~EDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
181 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 13
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
definition, the MPSC concluded that the phrase "all UN loops connected to that
wire center" included only those UNE loops that can be shown to serve business
clients."
This interpretation ignores the plain language of the regulation. If the
FCC wanted to include only business switched-access lines, it would have said so.
The Cour declines to transform the unambiguous phrase "all UNE loops" to
mean only sonie UNE loops. Furer support for the reading of the regulation
advanced by AT&T can be gleaned from the FCC's rejection of an approach
requiring "detailed and potentially subjective building-by-building and loop-by-
loop evaluations" as impracticaL. TRRO at ir 159. The FCC instead based its
business line count on data established by objective ILEC filings, concluding that
"by basing our definition (of business line counts) on an ARIS filing requied of
incumbent LECs and adding UNE figures, which must also be reported, we can
be confdent in the accuracy of the thesholds, and a simplified ability to obtain
the necessar inormation. ¡d. at ir 105. In contrast, the MPSC's approach
requires the loop-by-Ioop analysis that the FCC explicitly rejected because the
information ìs neither readily available or verifiable. The fact that AT&T, unlike
many other ILECs, has that information, does not alter the approach ariculated in
theTRRO and regulation. Finally, the interpretation adopted by the MPSC has
been rejected by the state commissions of Alabama, Californa, Florida, Georgia,
Ilinois, Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Washington,
D.C. (Citation omitted). 19
Likewise, the Missourì Commission noted:
Between the two arguments presented on this issue, the Commssion is most
persuaded by that of Staff and AT&T. In both the definition of "business line"
and in the FCC's TRRO, the phrase "UNE-Ioop" is not modifed by the word
"business." This is true, despite that "switched access lines", in the definition, is
modified by the word "business", as is "UNE-P, in the TRRO paragraph. It is
therefore the FCC's intent that UNE-loops serving both business and residential
customers be included when counting "business lines." Also weighing in
AT&T's favor is the FCC's intent that the information on business lines be
objective and readily available. AT&T knows the capacity of the lines sold to
CLECs. If it is something other than voice grade, then AT&T might assume the
line is serving a b:usiness. However, as discussed durg the hearing, a voice grade
line might also serve a business. It follows that the distinction between a business
loop and one that serves a residential customer will blur at times. As pointed out
by AT&T, it was the FCC's intention that an approach be adopted that "relies on
objective criteria to which the incumbent LECs have ful access, is readily
19 Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan v. Michigan Public Service
Commission, et al., Case number 06-11982,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71272 (E. D. Mi. 2007), p. 28.
CASE NO. QWE- T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
182 ALBERSHEIM,R(Di-Reb) 14
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
available by competitors. . . ." Furher, the FCC discourages the "loop-by-Ioop"
evaluations that would be necessary to determine whether a loop serves a business
or residential customer. (Citations omitted and emphasis added.)20
And finally, the Kansas Commssion ruled:
55. The Commission concludes that there is no confict between the fist
and second sentences of the "business line" definition. The FCC defined the term
in the first seÍitence and then, in the second sentence, provided the means by
which business lines would be counted in an incumbent LEC's wire center. The
FCC determed that the sum of incumbent LEC' s business switched access lines
and UN loops was appropriate because this set of data was objective and already
in existence for other regulatory requirements. (fn The FCC adopted the most
objective criteria possible in order to avoid complex and lengthy proceedings that
are administratively wastefu and add only marginal value to the unbundling
analysis.
Thus the Commission concludes that Nu Vox's attempt to link the phrase "among
these requirements" to the first sentence of the rule is wrong. NuVox' s
interpretation would limit the business line count to only SWBT-owned switched
access lines used to serve business customers, whether by SWBT itself or by a
CLEC that leases lines from SWBT. This limitation is clearly not the intention of
the FCC because an inquiry would be required as to which CLEC-Ieased lines
were used for business customers and which lines were leased for switched access
or data puroses. This information is held only by the CLECs in Kansas (fn and
clearly is not the "objective set of data that incumbent LECsalready have created
for other regulatory puroses" envisioned by the FCÇ. As the FCC observed,
relative to fiber-based collocation data: "Moreover, unlike information regarding
fiber-based collocation, the information necessary to implement the previous self-
employment trggers was possessed entirely by a span of competitive LECs and
was not easily verifiable." That observation is equally germane to the business
line count in a SWBT wire center. Depending upon data that is not objective
criteria to which SWBT does not have ful access, that is not readily confrmable
by competitors and that does not make appropriate inferences regarding potential
deployment does not comply with FCC intentions in the analysis of unbundled
transport impaient. (Citations Omitted and Emphasis added.il
20 Report and Order, In the Matter of the Application of Nu Vox Communications of Missouri, Inc.
for an Investigation into the Wire Centers that AT&T Missouri Asserts are Non-Impaired under the TRRO,
Case No. TO-2006-0360 (Mo. P.S.C., March 31, 2008), pp. 5-6.
21 Order Determing Proper Method for Fiber-Based Collocator and Business Line Counts, In the
Matter of Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution of Southwestern Bell Telephone LP Against Nuvox
Communications of Kansas, Inc. Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcations, Docket No. 06-SWBT-
743-COM (Kansas Corp. Com., June 2, 2006), 2006 Kan. LEXIS, at p. 16.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
183 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 15
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
8
9
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
e
1 Q.CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, HOW
2 SHOULD BUSINESS LINES BE COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
3 ESTABLISHING NON-IMPAIRMNT?
4 As I stated in my direct testimony, and as stated by the TRRO itself and inA.
5 the rules implementing the TRRO, "business lines" for TRRO non-impairment puroses,
6 should include all retail business lines as reported in the ILEC's FCC ARIS Report 43-
7 08, all business UNE_P,22 and all UNE 100ps.23
Q. MR. DENNY QUOTES THE RELEVANT RULE AND CLAIMS
THAT QWEST PLACES TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE SECOND
SENTENCE IN ISOLATION FROM THE REST.24 IS HE CORRCT?
A. No. In fact, reading Mr. Denney's testimony, it is the CLECs who are the
ones who would have the Commssion read the first sentence of the rule in isolation from
the rest of the rule.i5 The rule at 47 C.F.R. § 51.5 states in its entirety as follows:
A business line is an incumbent LEC-owned switched access line used to serve a
business customer, whether by the incumbent LEC itself or by a competitive LEC
that leases the line from the incumbent LEC. The number of business lines in a
wire center shall equal the sum of all incumbent LEC business switched access
lines, plus the sum of all UNE loops connected to that wire center, including UNE
loops provisioned in combination with other unbundled elements. Among these
requirements, business line talies:
22 As UN.P is no longer a UNE, Qwest includes a count of business QPP lines. QPP is the
commercial product that Qwest offers in place ofUN-P. This is consistent with the terms of the
settlement agreement and the TRRO.
23
See TRRO, at~ 105 and 47 C.F.R. § 51..
24 Denney Direct, at page 28.
25 Denney Direct, at page 24.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
ALBERS HElM, R (Di-Reb) 16
QWEST CORPORATION
184
83701
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(l) Shall include only those access lines connecting end-user customers
with incumbent LEC end-offices for switched services.
(2) Shall not include non-switched special access lines.
(3) Shall account for ISDN and other digital access lines by counting each
64 kbps-equivalent as one line. For example, a DSlline corresponds to
24 64 kbps-equivalents, and therefore to 24 "business lines." (Emphasis
added.)
11 Contrary to Mr. Denney's assertion, Qwest reads the rue in its entirety, and Qwests
12 business line-count methodology as captued in the settlement agreement is entirely
13 consistent with the rule. This mean that, per the rule, and consistent with the findings of
14 the vast majority of jursdictions where this issue has been decided, Qwest counts "all
15 UNE 100ps connected to that wire center," and not just switched business UNE loops, as
16 Mr. Denney advocates. Thus, all of Mr. Denney's speculation or wishfl thinng about
17 what he believes the FCC "intended" is irrelevant- the rue says what it says.
18 Furermore, Mr. Denney ignores the fact that CLECs do not obtain residential or
19 business lines from Qwest. They purchase UNE loops. A loop is simply a network
20 element. Qwest is sellng what amounts to a generic offering that CLECs are free to use
21 for whatever business purose they choose. As such, Qwest and the FCC appropriately
22 recognize that all UNE loops are correctly counted under the business line category.
23
24
25
Q.MR. DENNEY ALSO CLAIMS THAT QWEST IMPROPERLY
INCLUDES "SPARE CAPACITY" AND NON-SWITCHED LINES IN ITS
BUSINESS LINE COUNS.26 IS QWEST'S COUNT IMPROPER?
26 Denney Direct, at page 26-33.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09~EDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
185 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 17
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1 A.No. The FCC's rule is very clear that business line tallies:
2
3
4
5
(3) Shall accout for ISDN and other digital access lines by counting each 64
kbps-equivalent as one line. For example, a DSlline corresponds to 24 64 kbps-
equivalents, and therefore to 24 "business lines." (Emphasis added.)
6 Mr. Denney may disagree with ths approach, or believe that it is not logical or
7 competition-frendly,27 but this is the approach that the FCC established. This is also the
8 approach implemented to count UNE loops in the multi-state settlement agreement that
9 five state commissions in Qwests terrtory have approved. In the 10 cases where ths
10 issue has been raised, all have agreed with Qwests interpretation of the FCC's rue on
11 counting high capacity loops?8 For example, the Fifth Circuit Cour of Appeals said:
27 See Denney Direct, at page 33.
28 See (1) Texas- See Logix Communications, L.P., V. The Public Utilty Commission of Texas, et.
al., Docket No. 06-51697, slip op. (5th Cir. 2008); (2) Missouri- Report and Order, In the Matter of the
Application of Nu Vox Communications of Missouri, Inc. for an Investigation into the Wire Centers that
AT&T Missouri Asserts are Non-Impaired under the TRRO, Case No. TO-2006-0360 (Mo. P.S.C., March
31,2008); (3) Indiana- Final Order, Petition of Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporatedfor
Expedited Resolution of Dispute with Nuvox Communications Inc. RegardingNon-Impaired Wire Centers,
Docket No. 42986 (Ind. u.R.C., August 15,2007; (4) Ohio- Finding and Order, In the Matter of the
Petition of XO Communications, Inc. Requesting a Commission Investigation of Those Wire Centers that
AT&T Ohio Asserts are Nonimpaired, Docket No. 05-1393- TP-UNC (Oh. P.U.C, June 6, 2006;
(5) Kansas- Order DeterIining Proper Method for Fiber-Based Collocator and Business Line Counts, In
the Matter of Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution of Southwestern Bell Telephone LP Against Nuvox
Communications of Kansas, Inc. Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcations, Docket No. 06-SWBT-
743-COM (Kansas Corp. Com., June 2, 2006); (6) Texas- Order Approving Methodology to Determine
AT&T Texas Wire Centers which are Non- Impaired, Post-Interconnection Dispute Resolution Proceeding
Regarding Wire Center UNE Declassifcation, PUC Docket No. 31303 (Tex. P.U.C., April 7, 2006); (7)
South Carolina- Order Addressing Changes of Law, In Re: Petition of Bell South telecommunications, Inc.
to Establish Generic Docket to Consider Amendments to Interconnection Agreements Resultingfrom
Changes of Law, Docket No. 2004-316C, Order No. 2006-136 (SC P.S.C., March 10,2006); (8) Florida-
Order No. PSC-06-0172-FOF-TP, Petition to Establish Generic Docket to Consider Amendments to
Interconnection Agreements Resultingfrom Changes in Law by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Fla.
PUC, Docket No. 041269-TP (Fl. P.S.C., March 2,2006); (9) Georgia- Order on Remaining Issues,
Generic Proceeding to Examine Issues Related to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc's. Obligations to
Provide Unbundled Network Elements, Docket No. 19341-U (Ga. P.S.C. ,Februar 7,2006); (10) IIinois-
Arbitration Decision, Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 with Illnois Bell Telephone Company to Amend Existing Interconnection Agreements to Incorporate
the Triennial Review Order and the Triennial Review Remand Order, Docket No. 05-0442 (Il. Commerce
Com., Nov. 2, 2005); (11) Mississippi- Final Order, In Re: Order Establishing Generic Docket To
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09REDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
186 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 18
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
the requirement at issue provides that "business line tallies . . . (s )hall
account for ISDN and other digital access lines by counting each 64 kbps-
equivalent as'Ûne line." 47 C.F.R. § 51.5. The regulation does not indicate that
ILEC's or CLEC's should, for the first time, undertake building-by-building, end-
user analysis. In-stead, the plain language indicates that all lines in a high-
capacity loop should count as business lines.29
And the Florida Commssion stated:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
We also agree with BellSouth that unused capacity on chanelized high
capacity loops should be counted in the business lines. As noted by BellSouth
witness Tipton, the FCC rules specifically state that lithe business line talies . . .
shall account for ISDN and other digital access lines by counting each 64 kbps-
equivalent as one line. ii ( 47 CFR 51.5) The FCC rue furter explains by way of
example that a DS 1 line should be counted as 24 business lines because it
corresponds to 24 64 kbps-equivalents.3o
17 Q.MR. DENNEY ALSO TRIES TO PARSE THE RULE TO DIVIDE
e 18 HIGH-CAPACITY CIRCIDTS BETWEEN BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL
19 LINES.3! DOES EVEN A BROAD READING OF THE RULE SUGGEST THE
e
20 DATA SHOULD BE SO DIVDED?
21 No. Mr. Denney is correct that each 64 kbps-equivalent should beA.
22 considered as one line, as the FCC rule already states.32 But Mr. Denney then tres to
Consider Change-Ol-Law To Existing Interconnection Agreements, Docket No. 2005-AD-139, 2006 Miss.
PUC LEXIS 680 (October 20, 2006).
. 29 See Logix Communications, L.P., V. The Public Utilty Commission o/Texas, et. al., Docket
No. 06-51697, slip op. (5th Cir. 2008).
30 Order No. PSC-06-0172-FOF-TP, Petition to Establish Generic Docket to Consider
Amendments to Interconnection Agreements Resultingfrom Changes in Law byBellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc., Fla. PUC, Docket No. 041269-TP (pi. P.S.C., March 2, 2006); pp. 78-79.
31 Denney Direct, at page 27.
32 Denney Direct, at page 27 (contradicting his position that spare capacity should not be counted).
CASE NO. QWE- T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
187 ALBERS
HElM, R (Di-Reb) 19
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 parse the rule to read that only those lines "intended for business use" should be counted.
7
8
9
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
e
2 Nothing in the rule eStablishes that requiement.
3 Q.MR. DENNY CLAIMS THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO
4 VALIDATE QWEST'S COUNT OF INTEGRA'S LINES.33 HAS MR. DENNEY
5 BEEN ABLE TO VALIDATE LIN COUNTS IN OTHER STATES IN OTHR
6 CASES?
A. Yes. In several states where Qwest has filed to update its list of non-
impaied wie centers, Qwest and Integra have shared data and been able to determe
whether or not Qwest s line counts were accurate. In fact, I have worked directly with
Mr. Denney on an analysis of a wie center in Arizona, and we both agreed in that case
that Qwest did have enough lines to declare that wire center non-impaired.
Q. WHY DO YOU THINK MR DENNEY NOW CLAIS HE WAS
NOT ABLE TO PERFORM THE SAME VALIDATION IN IDAHO?
A. I canot know for certain, as Mr. Denney's testimony does not provide a
great deal of detaiL. However, I have to question his use of Qwest biling data to perform
his validation.34 It makes much more sense, and is more likely to produce more accurate
results, if one were to use a database of one's own circuit inventory. Such a database
would at the very least provide a list of curent circuits. I would then look at a database
containing transaction history, and look for new connections (to eliminate circuits that are
33 Denney Direct, at pages 33-35.
34 Denney Direct, at page 24.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
188 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 20
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 too new) and disconnections (to find circuits that were connected at the time of Qwest's
8
9
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
e
2 filing, but have subsequently been disconnected). I am not familiar with Integra's
3 computer systems, but databases such as the ones that I have described should be
4 included in any telecommunications company's systems.
5 Q.CAN YOU TIDNK OF AN OTHER REASONS THAT MR.
6 DENNEY WAS NOT ABLE TO VALIDATE QWEST'S COUNTS OF
7 INTEGRA'S LINES IN IDAHO?
A. I am certain that there was an impact based on the timing of the data. Mr.
Denney strongly advocated changing the timing ofthe data to be used in TRRO cases,
which I will discuss that shortly, but I thnk that such advocacy is driven in par by the
age of this case. Qwest filed its request for non-impairent in June 2008. That filing
included year-end 2007 data (December 2007), as required by the TRRO. It is now June
2009. It would have been prudent for Integra to collect its own data at the time that
Qwest made its fiing a year ago. It is evident, however, from the data provided by
Integra in response to Qwest s data request in May 2009 that Integra did not collect data
until very recently. That creates a more than signficant time gap between Integra's data
and Qwest's, making a data comparison much more difficult.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
18 9 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 21
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1 ****BEGIN IDGHL Y CONFIDENTIAL****
18 ****END IDGHLY CONFIDENTIA****
19 Q.MR. DENNEY CLAIMS THAT QWEST DID NOT USE THE
20 CORRCT VINTAGE OF DATA IN ITS FILING, AND THAT QWEST WAS
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/mDRICK COURT REPORTING¥. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
190 ALBERS HElM, R(Di-Reb) 22
QWEST CORPORATION
e 1 "SELECTIVE" IN ITS USE OF DATA, AND HE SUGGESTS THAT THE DATA
2 FOR TIDS CASE SHOULD BE BASED IN 2008.35 DO YOU AGREE?
3 A.No, not at alL. Qwest made its filing using the rues established by the
4 TRRO and agreed to by the paries in the settlement agreement. Ths means that Qwest
5 made its filing based in par on the ARMIS report that Qwest is requied to file with the
6 FCC in the spring of each year using data collected in December of the previous year.
7 Followig those rules, Qwest filed this case in June 2008. As I stated in my direct
8 testimony, Qwest should not be penalized for the delays or inevitable regulatory lag
9 inherent in a Commssion proceeding. To suggest that data should be re-collected after a
10 case schedule is established would only create an incentive for delay by CLECs and
11 would create a perpetually moving target for Qwest. Qwest made its filing for non-
e 12 impairment in good faith, and Integra could have exercised due dilgence and collected
13 data to perform its validation much earlier than it did. To penalize Qwest now because
14 Integra failed to take action when Qwest first filed its petition is hardly reasonable.
15 Q.MR. DENNY REDUCES QWEST'S BUSINESS LINE COUNTS
16 BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESS LINES HE WAS ABLE TO
17 V ALIDATE.36 PLEASE RESPOND TO HIS RECOMMENDATION.
18 A.Mr. Denney admtted that he had diffculty validating Qwest's data.
19 Based on that and my discussion of his methods above, I do not believe it is appropriate
20 for Integra to make such a reduction to Qwest s counts. What I find most tellng
e
35 Denney Direct, at page 37.
36 Denney Direct, at page 35.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
191 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 23
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 regarding Mr. Denney's analysis is that he must combine both his argument regarding the
2 vintage of Qwest s data, along with his arificial percentages, to achieve line counts
3 below the thesholds for non-impairment that Qwests line counts achieve.37 His
4 adjustments place the Boise Main just 60 lines below the Tier 1 theshold, which suggests
5 à manufactued result.
6 Q.GIVEN THAT INTEGRA CLAIMS IT COULD NOT PROPERLY
7 VALIDATE QWEST'S DATA, is IT APPROPRIATE FOR TIDS COMMISSION
8 TO APPLY INTEGRA'S SUGGESTED CHANGES TO QWEST'S BUSINESS
9 LINE COUNTS?
10 A.No. Integra provides no convincing support to validate its own
e 11 methodology, and Integra apparently bases its methodology on the assumption that Qwest
12 has not used the proper vintage of data. Qwest has used its counting methodology for
13 several years now, and this methodology has been approved in five Qwest states, and
14 even Integra agreed to it when it entered into the settlement agreement. This same
15 methodology has also been used several times in those states to update the lists of non-
16 impaied wie centers. Therefore, it is appropriate for ths Commission to rely on the
17 business line counts provided by Qwest.
18
e 37 See the right-hand colum of Exhibit Joint-CLEC 207.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/0~EDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
192 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 24
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
-
e
1 V.TRASITION PERIOD
2 Q.MR. DENNEY CLAIMS THAT CLECs SHOULD BE GIVEN SIX
3 MONTHS TO TRAsITION CIRCUITS FROM UNEs TO NON-UNE SERVICES
4 ONCE WIRE CENTERS AR DECLARD NON-IMPAIRED.38 PLEASE
5 RESPOND GENERALY.
6 A.Mr. Denney suggests that six months is a reasonable transition period,
7 apparently because the FCC allowed one year for the initial transition when the TRRO
8 was first implemented in 2005. Whle this fact may be tre, I should note that the FCC
9 established the one;.year initial period based on its valid assumption that there would be
10 large numbers of circuits to be converted durng the initial transition. That is not the case
11 in Idaho, however, where only two wire centers are at issue. Also, most large wire
12 centers in Qwest states have aleady been transitioned due to non-impairent of those
13 wire centers.
14 Q.ARE THERE AN UN SERVICES TO BE TRANSITIONED IN
15 IDAHO AT THE PRESENT TIME?
16 A.No. There is presently no DS3 or dark fiber transport between the Boise
17 Main and Boise West wire centers, and there are no DS3 unbundled loops in the Boise
18 Main wire center. As such, there are no servces that will need to be transitioned at the
19 present time. This might seem somewhat counter-intuitive, especially given the numbers
20 of business lines that we have been discussing in order to establish non-impairment. It is
38 Denney Direct, at page 50.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09~EDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
193 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 25
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
9
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
e
1 important to recognize, however, the difference between the criteria to establish non-
2 impairent, such as the number of business lines and the number of fiber-based
3 collocators at a wire center, and the services that will no longer be available as UNEs if
4 non-impairment is established. If the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers are
5 determined to be non-impaired as requested by Qwest, then the following UNEs would
6 have to be converted: DS3 transport between the Boise Main and Boise West wie
7 centers, dark fiber transport between the Boise Mai and Boise West wire centers, and
8 DS3 unbundled loops in the Boise Main wie center.
Q. IF THERE ARE CURRNTLY NO SERVICES TO BE
CONVERTED IF THESE WIRE CENTERS AR DECLARD NON-IMPAIRED,
DOES THIS MEAN THAT CLECs AR NOT IMPACTED BY THIS
PROCEEDING?
A. No. The impact of the fact that there are curently no services to be
converted would be that CLECs would no longer be able to purchase DS3 or dark fiber
tranport between the Boise Main and Boise West wire centers, and they would no longer
be able to purchase DS3 unbundled loops in the Boise Mai wire center. Instead, CLEC
will be able to obtain equivalent facilities from Qwest by purchasing tarffed services, or
purchasing equivalent services from another provider, or CLECs can self-provision the
services themselves by building their own facilties.
20 SO, IF THERE AR NO SERVICES TO BE CONVERTED AT THEQ.
21 PRESENT TIME, IS THE TRANSITION PERIOD NECESSARY?
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
194 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 26
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 A.Yes. A transition period may be necessary in the futue should additional
2 wire centers with existing services be declared non-impaired. The paries to the
3 settlement agreement established a 90-day transition period for such circumstances.
4 Qwest believes that such transition period should be more than adequate, as it is not
5 likely there will be signficant services impacted by futue declarations of non-
6 impaient in Idaho.
7 VI. UNE CONVRSIONS
8 Q.PLEASE COMMENT ON UNE CONVERSIONS GENERALY.
9 A.First, it is important to keep in mind that the primary discussion regarding
10 UNE conversions and the conversion charge is contaied in Ms. Hunicutt's testimony.
e 11 My testimony on ths subject is limited to a discussion of
the changes to the UNE
12 conversion process advocated by Mr. Denney (specifically, regarding the Circuit ID).
13 Q.GIVEN THAT NO UNE CONVRSIONS WIL TAKE PLACE AT
14 THE PRESENT TIME WHEN THE BOISE MAIN AND BOISE WEST WIRE
15 CENTERS ARE DECLARD NON-IMPAIRED AS REQUESTED BY QWEST, IS
16 IT EVEN NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE UNE CONVRSION PROCESS?
17 A.Yes. While there are currently no circuits to convert from a UNE to an
18 alternative service this year, there is the potential that circuits would need to be converted
19 when the list of non-impaired wire centers is updated in the futue. Stil, the fact that no
20 circuits will be converted ths year makes Mr. Denney's desire to retai the Circuit il for
21 a converted circuit seem over-stated.-
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/0QHEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
195 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 27
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1 Q.WHAT is A "CIRCUIT (ID.)"?
2 A.The Circuit ID, more formally known as the Common Language Circuit
3 Identification (CLCI), is used to unquely identify every circuit in Qwest's inventory.
4 Qwest maintains ths inventory.in the TIRKS (Tru Information Record Keeping
5 System) database, a computer system licensed to Qwest by Telcordia.39 Qwest is
6 required to follow Telcordia's stadards for the CLCI in order to maintan its inventory
7 properly. In its most widely-used form, the Circuit ID, which is applicable to unbundled
8 loops, is a 22-letter identifier that is made up of several Telcordia approved codes.4o It is
9 importt to note that this format is an industry standard and is not specific to Qwest.
10 Deviation from these standards jeopardizes industry interoperabilty.
11 Q.DOES THE TIRKS APPLICATION ALLOW QWEST TO LEAVE
12 THE CIRCUIT ID UNCHANGED WHEN THE SERVICE PROVIDED ON THE
13 CIRCIDT CHANGES?
14 A.No. This is the critical problem with Mr. Denney's recommendation that
15 the Circuit ID remain unchanged. As I described above, the Circuit ID contains a
16 Telcordia code for the service provided over the circuit. If a circuit is converted from an
17 unbundled loop to a tariffed service, that code must change to comply with Telcordia's
39 Telcordia is the former Bell Labs, which established many processes and systems for use by the
telephone companies of the former Bell system. Many companies, including the Bell Operating Companies
like Qwest, still use many Telcordia systems and processes.
40 The information provided here is documented in "Common Language Special Servce Circuit
Codes, Telcordia Technologies Practice BR-795-402-100, Issue 21, 2008." This document must be
purchased from Telcordia.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
5n&O~EDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
196 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 28
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
e 11
12
e
1 requirements and to make such a change work properly in the TIRKS system.41 Mr.
2 Denney's description of the retention ofthe Circuit il as a simple biling change is
3 grossly overstated.
Q. WHT is THE BILLING CHAGE THAT MR. DENNEY
DESCRIBES?42
A. The biling change that Mr. Denney discusses is a work-around that Qwest
was required to implement in order to comply with an order by the Washington Utilties
and Transportation Commission in the interconnection arbitration between Qwest and
Eschelon (one of Mr. Denney's former employers and a company later acquired by
Integra). I note, however, that this order is curently on appeal in federal cour, and thus
the final outcome of the case has not been determined yet.43 I also note that the
Washington Commission approved the TRRO settlement agreement but without reference
13 to the Eschelon arbitration order.
14 In any event, the biling change is not simple. Qwest is, however, implementing
15 ths work-around to leave the Circuit ID unchanged for UNE conversions for Eschelon
16 and any other CLECs that opts into Eschelon's interconnection agreement, as required by
41 TIRS is not the only application that uses the Circuit ID. It is central to a number of other
applications, both written by Qwest and leased from softare vendors such as Telcordia. These include the
Customer Record Information System (CRlS), the Interexchange Access Biling System (lABS), and the
Work Force Administration System (WFA), to name a few.
42 Denney Direct, at page 67.
43 See Qwest Corporation v. Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission, Case
No. 3:09-cv-05259-RBL, United States District Cour, Western District of Washington.
CASE NO. QWE- T-08-07
5/20/09~EDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
197 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 29
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 the Washington Commission order.44 This work-around does not apply to any other
7
8
9
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
e
2 CLECs, however. Even though Qwest is required to perform this work for a small subset
3 of carers, the work that it must underte to accomplish the changes is complex, and it
4 will not be implemented in Qwests systems until April 2010. Once the system changes
5 have been implemented, Qwest will need to underte signficant manual administrative
6 work to deal with the resulting converted circuits.
Q. MR DENNEY CITES A BILLING CHANGE RELATED TO
QWEST'S QPP PRODUCT AS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT A SIMPLE
BILLING CHAGE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE CIRCUITS IN
QUESTION IN THIS CASE.45 DO YOU AGREE?
A. Absolutely not. Mr. Denney is comparing apples to oranges. What Mr.
Denney fails to mention with his example is that the conversion ofUNE-P to QPP
involved the conversion of one finished service to another finished service. A finished
service contains all of the components needed to establish a telecommuncations service.
In the case ofUNE-P, this includes the loop, transport and switching, makg it
equivalent to a basic telephone line. Ths is as opposed to an unbundled loop, which is
only comparable to the loop portion ofUNE-P. In the example that Mr. Denney cites, the
TRRO declared that ILECs were no longer required to provide UN-P. Thus, Qwest
44 This Eschelon-specific work-around wil cost Qwest approximately $100,000 to implement.
This estimate, however, does not even include the costs ofthe administrative efforts that Qwest wil be
required to undertake once this change has been implemented. No provision has been made to compensate
Qwest for these costs, however.
45 Denney Direct, at page 69.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/CWEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
198 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 30
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11e
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
e
created a commercial product that CLECs could use as an alternative to UNE-P. One
more distinction is that a fInished servce uses a different kind of Circuit iD that is more
equivalent to a telephone number. Finally, in the case that Mr. Denney cites, the entire
product known as UNE-P was eliminated, and replaced with QPP. Ths was one instance
when a simple biling change ""as possible. In the case of non-impaient, however, an
entire unbundled element is NOT being elimnated. It is only being made unavailaple in
a given wire center. Qwest must stil be able to identify these unbundled elements as
products in wie centers that remai "impaired" separately from the alternative services
offered in non-impaired wire centers. That is the fuction of the Circuit ID. Agai, a
product is not being eliminated, as in the example that Mr. Denney cites. The product is
being replaced with an alternative service in a given wire center.
Q. is QWEST REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DATA TO THE FCC
BASED ON THE CIRCUIT ID?
A. Yes. There are a number of reports that Qwest is required to provide to
the FCC along with the ARIS 43-08 report.46 All of the ARIS reports pertaining to
network infastructue are dependent on the Telcordia codes for the components of the
Circuit ID, which are used to identify the various elements of all carers' networks.
Another example is the Form 477 report, which collects information about broadband
connections to end-user locations, wired and wireless local telephone services, and
46 See for example http://ww.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/instructions/ for curent instrctions for the
preparation of ARS reports.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/0ßEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578~ BOISE, ID
199 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 31
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
e
1 interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, in individual states.47 This
2 report also relies on the proper identification of network components which is dependent
3 on Circuit ID coding.
Q. SO, is QWEST IMPACTED IF THE RULES FOR THE CIRCUIT
ID AR NOT FOLLOWED?
A. Absolutely. If the Commission were to require Qwest to maintain the
Circuit il afer the service is changed, in violation of Telcordia's processes, Qwest
would need to seek significant systems changes from Telcordiain order to make these
changes work in Telcordia's TIRKS system. Moreover, Qwest would then be required to
implement these changes for all CLECs in Idaho, as this docket impacts all CLECs in
Idaho, not just one CLEC (Eschelon/lntegra), or a few CLECs (those that opt into the
Eschelon agreement), as is the case in Washington. The Joint CLECs, however, have not
offered to compensate Qwest for this systems work, nor did Eschelon make any such
offer in Washington. These costs, of course, were not anticipated when Qwest's rates for
tariffed services were established, nor were they factored into the cost studies for UNEs.
These costs are also not included in the conversion charge discussed in Ms. Huncutt's
testimony. These costs would be incured by Qwest and would not be recovered.
47 Interestingly, Mr. Denney identifies the Form 477 report as one the CLECs are also required to
prepare, and suggests this would be a good source for the CLECs to use to report their circuits to estimate
Qwest business lines. (Denney Direct, at page 33.) Mr. Denney fails to mention, however, that this report
is intended to tell the FCC about the deployment of specific tyes of services, as I have listed here.
Gleaning inventory figures from this report makes about as much sense as using another company's biling
data to identify circuits. As I stated in my testimony above, it makes more sense to use one's own
inventory to count circuits. The specifications for the Form 477 report can be found at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf .
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
200 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 32
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
5
6
7
8
9
10
e 11
12
13
e
1 In short, the TRRO did not contemplate leaving the Circuit ID unchanged, it did
2 not even discuss the Circuit ID, and it certinly did not anticipate the need for
3 uncompensated system changes in order to implement the TRRO. It is therefore
4 inappropriate for Mr. Denney to raise this issue here.
Q. WHT DOES QWEST RECOMMEND TIDS COMMISSION
REQUIRE REGARING CIRCUIT IDs AND UN CONVRSIONS?
A. At the present time, there would be no UN conversions resulting from
the designation of the Boise Main and Boise West wie centers as non-impaired, and the
likelihood of futue conversions is minmal. Given these facts, and the significant
impacts to Qwest if the Commission were to order Qwest to alter its use of the Circuit ID
as discussed above, Qwest recommends that this Commission permt Qwest to change.the
Circuit ID when a UNE is converted to a tariffed servce, per Qwest s curent, industr
standard process.
14 VII. PROCESS GOING FORWAR
15 Q.MR. DENNEY WANTS THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE
16 QWEST TO PROVIDE "ADVANCE NOTICE" WHN A WIRE CENTER IS
17 WITHIN 5,000 LINES OF REACIDNG A NON-IMPAIRMNT THRESHOLD.
18 PLEASE RESPOND.
19 A.Although Mr. Denney does not want this Commission to address anything
20 other than the designation of the two non-impaied wire centers, and thus does not want
21 the Commission to address the process for futue non-impairment proceedings, he does
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
201 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 33
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 inconsistently ask the Commission to impose additional requirements on Qwest in the
2 futue. The first of these additional requirements is his request for "advance notice" to
3 CLECs when a wire çenter is withn 5,000 business lines of becoming non-impaired.
4 There is absolutely no legitimate reason to add this admnistrative burden upon Qwest,
5 and numerous state commissions other than the Colorado Commission have not accepted
6 the recommendation that Mr. Denney makes here, and that he unuccessfuly made in
7 those other intial non-impairment proceedings in 2006 and 2007.
8 Additionally, the threshold that the Mr. Denney set forth is not meanngfu. This
9 is especially so because a wire center being within 5,000 lines or one fiber collocator
10 from non-impairment48 does not mean that a change in the impairment classification for
11 that wire center is imminent. The Commission should recall that Qwest only collects the
e 12 business line counts once a year. Thus, while a wire center may be within 5,000 lines of
13 a non-impairment threshold in December of any given year, that certainly does not mean
14 the wire center will meet or exceed the threshold in the following year, or even that it will
15 likely do so.
16 Furer stil, advance notification could allow a CLEC to attempt to "game" the
17 system by changing its business plans so that the wire center would be unikely to meet
18 the theshold. Whle Mr. Denney notes that the Colorado Commission agreed with his
19 proposal, he conveniently fails to mention that he has advocated ths recommendation
20 since 2006 (in the intial non-impairment proceedings) and yet no other state commission
21 has accepted the recommendation or imposed this burden upon Qwest.
48 Qwest assumes Mr. Denney meant to refer to one fiber-based collocator, rather than one wire
e center.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/0~EDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
202 ALBERSHEIM,R (Di-Reb) 34
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
7
8
9
10
e 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
e
1 The FCC set fort the non-impairment thesholds, and requirng an ILEC to report
2 in addition to that theshold is an undue burden that the FCC clearly does not require. It
3 should be suffcient that when Qwest becomes aware that a wire center has actually met
4 the non-impairment requirements to warant a change its impairment status, Qwest will
5 notify this Commssion and CLECs that Qwest is seeking a change in the wie center's
6 impairment designation.
Q. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO MR. DENNEY'S CLAIMS THAT
QWEST SHOULD BE REQUID TO MAKE DATA AVAILABLE EVERY
YEAR, AND IDS CLAIMS (AT PAGE 76) THAT QWEST ALREADY DOES SO
AND THAT IT POSTS THAT DATA ON ITS WEBSITE. IS HE CORRCT?
A. No. Mr. Denney is referring to Qwest's ICONN database.49 However,
there is no relationship between the data provided in the ICONN database and the data
that Qwest collects for TRRO non-impairment business line counts. The "Central Offce
Find" fuction in the ICONNdatabase, to which Mr. Denney referred, simply tracks
Qwest residential and business lines connected to a switch in a wire center. The data,
however, contains no data for unbundled loops, or for wholesale servces like UNE-P,
QPP or QLSP. The line counts reported in the ICONN database were defined years
before the TRRO and do not comply with the FCC's TRRO business line definition, and
they canot be used to determne the business line counts. Mr. Denney's assumption that
Qwest already provides the business line count data publicly is invalid.
49 The ICONN database contains a set of reports that provide information regarding Qwest's
network.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
203 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 35
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1
2 VIII. CONCLUSION
3 Q.PLEASE SUMMAZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
4 A.My testimony responds to the testimony of Mr. Douglas Denney presented
5 on behalf of Integra and 360networks. My testimony rebuts his contention that the
6 Commission should only determine the non-impairment status of the Boise Main and
7 Boise West wire centers, and not establish procedures for implementing the TRRO in the
8 futue. Instead, based on the reasonableness of the process in the multi-state settlement
9 agreement that I have discussed (a reasonableness that numerous CLECs, including
10 Integra, recognzed in various states), I recommend that the Commission use the
11 settlement agreement as a framework for establishing procedures to implement futue
e 12 non-impairment proceedings the TRRO in Idaho. Using that framework, the Commission
13 should also approve the non-impairment of the Boise Main wire center as a Tier 1 wire
14 center and the Boise West wire center as a Tier 2 wire center, and fuer, the
15 Commission should approve the Boise Main wire center as being non-impaired for DS3
16 unbundled loops based on Qwest's business line counts and the number of fiber-based
17 collocators in that wie center.
18 My testimony also rebuts Mr. Denney's claims regarding the methodology used to
19 count business lines. Thus, the Commission should adopt the business line process in the
20 settlement agreement, and find both wire centers (Boise Main and Boise West) as non-
21 impaired based on such business line counts and process.
e
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/0~EDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
204 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 36
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1 Accordingly, I recommend that the Commission adopt the methodology
2 established in the multi-state settlement agreement, which is consistent with the rules
3 established by the FCC in the TRRO, and that the Commission find and declare the Boise
4 Main wire center to be non impaired as a Tier 1 wire center and the Boise West wire
5 center to be non-impaired as a Tier 2 wire center, and finally, to declare the Boise Main
6 wire center to be non-impaired for DS3 unbundled loops.
7 DOES TIDS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?Q.
8 A.Yes, it does.
9
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
5/20/09HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
205 ALBERSHEIM, R (Di-Reb) 37
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 , I.IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2
3 Q:PLEASE STATE YOUR NAM, BUSINESS ADDRESS AN
4 POSITION WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
5 A:My name is Rachel Torrence. My business address is 700 W. Mineral
6 Ave., Litteton, Colorado, 80120. I am employed as a Director supportg Network
7 Operations for Qwest Corporation.
8
9 Q:DID YOU PREVIOUSLY FILE DIRECT TESTIMONY IN THS
10 DOCKET?
11 A:Yes. I filed Direct Testimony in ths docket on behalf of Qwest
e 12 Corporation on April 17, 2009.
e
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 4
QWEST CORPORATION
206
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 II.PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
2
3 Q:WHT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
4 A:The purose of my rebuttal testimony is to address the direct testimony of
5 Mr. Douglas Denney, filed on behalf of Integra and 360Networks (USA) Inc. ("Joint
6 CLECs"), regarding, Qwests methodology for identifyng and countig fiber-based
7 collocators for wire center non-impairment puroses pursuant to the Triennial Review
8 Remand Order ("TRRO"). i In his direct testimony, Mr. Denney confirms the validity of
9 the evidence presented by Qwest and which support the tier designation of the Boise
10 Mai and Boise West wire centers, based on the number of fiber-based collocators in
11 those wire centers, and as such, their non-impaient status. However, while agreeing
12 with the end results of Qwest's efforts, he proceeds to attck the methodology that Qwest
13 used to produce these accurate and valid results.
14 Unfortately, in attacking Qwests comprehensive efforts to obtan the accurate
15 identification and count of fiber-based collocators in those two wire centers, Mr.
16 Denney's testimony mischaracterizes Qwest s actions and intentions. He also presents
17 testimony which contradicts itself, in an ultimately misguided effort to rework the
18 language of the FCC and the TRRO to benefit the Joint CLECs. My rebuttal testimony
i See In the Matter of Review of Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Order on Remand, CC Docket No. 01-
338, WC Docket No. 04-313, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, (2004) ("Triennial Review Remand Order" or "TRRO").
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 5
QWEST CORPORATION
207
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
3 Additionally, I will respond to the Joint CLECs' assertion that Qwest should be
4 required to provide "advance notification" to CLECs when a wire center is nearing a non-
5 impairent theshold. My testimony will show that such notification is immaterial and
6 unecessar and seeks to impose an undue requirement on Qwest for no benefit to Qwest,
7 or for that matter, the CLECs.
8 Finally, I will respond to Mr. Denney's request regarding a provision in the
9 Settlement Agreement addressing "express fiber."
10 Whle I am responding to the fiber-based collocation element of Qwests
11 methodology, Ms. Albersheim's testimony wil respond to Mr. Denney's testimony
e 12 regarding the multi-state settlement agreement and the business line-count methodology
13 and Ms. Hunicutt will respond to Mr. Denney's testimony regardig the conversion
14 charge.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 6
QWEST CORPORATION-
208
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
14
15e16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
e
1
2
3
4
5
III. THE JOINT CLECs DO NOT DISPUTE THE NON-IMAIRMENT
STATUS OF THE BOISE MA AN BOISE WEST WI CENTERS
Q: DO MR. DENNEY AND THE JOINT CLECs DISPUTE THE NON-
6 IMPAIRMNT STATUS OF THE TWO IDAHO WIRE CENTERS AT ISSUE IN
7 TIDS DOCKET?
8
9 states:
10
11
12
13
A: No. In fact, on page 41, lines 4-6, of his direct testimony, Mr. Denney
Both the Tier 1 status for Boise Main and The Tier 2 statu for Boise West
curently appear to be supported by the number of fiber-based collocators in those
offces.
Later in his testiony, on page 42, lines 5-8, he provides fuer confrmation of the
accuracy of Qwest s data.
Based upon a review of the fiber-based collocation data provided by Qwest, it
curently appears that Qwest has at least four fiber-based collocators in Boise
Main and at least thee in Boise West, which would support Qwest's request for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 status respectively.
Q: SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARING THE NON-
IMPAIRMENT STATUS OF THESE TWO WIRE CENTERS, WHT AR MR.
DENNY'S PURORTED CONCERNS?
A: Simply stated, the Joint CLECs attck the methodology by which Qwest
has identified and counted the fiber-based collocators on which the non-impairment
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 7
QWEST CORPORATION
209
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 status is based. Additionally, while one of the Joint CLECs, Integra, was a signatory to
2 the Multi-State Settlement Agreement regarding Wire Center Designations and Related
3 Issues ("the Settlement Agreement") which memorialized Qwest s and numerous
4 CLECs' agreement on the methodology for identifying and counting fiber-based
5 collocators, and the parameters for futue non-impairment filings, the Joint CLECs
6 apparently would like to have that methodology readdressed in Idaho. The Joint CLECs
7 would have this methodology reexamined, despite the fact that the use of ths
8 methodology has resulted in an accurate count of fiber-based collocators in Idaho and
9 numerous other states. They would have ths methodology reexamed despite the fact
10 that it has been accepted by numerous other state commissions in Qwest s ILEC region.
11 Furer, they would have the methodology reexamined despite the fact that Qwest makes
e 12 every reasonable effort to obtan an accurate count, not in a unilateral vacuum, but by
13 actively soliciting the affected CLECs' paricipation. In short, the Joint CLECs are
14 essentially asking that all paries, including ths Commission, "reinvent the wheel" not
15 only for this proceeding, but for any subsequent updates to the non-impairment list.
16 Thus, it appears that the Joint CLECs are seeking to increase the chance of maintaining
17 the status quo of impairment by seeking to insert additional complexity into what the
18 FCC intended to be a largely simple and self-effectuting process for identifying
19 competition in a telecommuncations market.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 8
QWEST CORPORATIONe
210
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1
2
iv. QWEST'S CURNT PROCESS YIELDS ACCURATE RESULTS
3 Q:MR. DENNEY CLAIMS THE JOINT CLECs HAVE FIVE MAJOR
4 ARAS OF CONCERN WITH QWEST'S METHODOLOGY FOR
5 IDENTIFYNG FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS. WHT IS YOUR GENERA
6 RESPONSE?
7 A:Mr. Denney purorts to have concerns with five aspects of the
8 methodology that Qwest uses to identify and count fiber-based collocators. His concerns
9 center on (1) the distribution and use of Qwests letter to CLECs regarding their fiber-
10 based collocations, and Qwest s actions when a CLEC fails to respond to Qwest's
11 requests for validation of its findings, (2) Qwests instructions to field personnel
e 12 regardig collocation verification and the validity of the collocation verifications, (3) the
13 counting of CLEC-to-CLEC connections, (4) the advance notification of impending non-
14 impairment and (5) a.Settlement Agreement provision regardig express fiber. Generally
15 speakg, however, Mr. Denney's concern are unfounded. His testimony relies on
16 mischaracterizations of Qwest's actions and intentions. His testimony also contradicts
17 itself. And, finally, his testimony shows a tendency to either ignore the language of the
18 TRRO, or to bend that languge in the order to benefit the interests of the Joint CLECs.
19 I will address each of his five concerns individually and in greater detail in the following
20 five subsections.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 9
QWEST CORPORATIONe
211
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1
2
3
4
A. QWEST'S LETTERS TO CLECs REQUESTING VALIDATION OF ITS
FINDINGS AR A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO SOLICIT CLEC
PARTICIPATION
5 IN IDS DIRECT TESTIMONY, MR. DENNY TAKS ISSUEQ:
6 WITH QWEST'S METHODOLOGY IN THE EVENT THAT A CLEC ELECTS
7 NOT TO RESPOND TO QWEST'S LETTER ASKING FOR VALIDATION OF
8 THE CLEC'S DESIGNATION AS A FIBER-BASED COLLOCATOR. HOW DO
9 YOU RESPOND?
10 A:Mr. Denney's testimony completely mischaracterizes Qwests position
11 and its actions in the event that a CLEC chooses not to respond to Qwest's inquiries.
12 First, at page 43, footnote 62, Mr. Denney erroneously cites my testimony, misstating that
13 "Qwest counted a carier as a fiber-based collocator even if a carier failed to confirm ths
14 status." He also erroneously states at page 42, footnote 60, that in the absence of a CLEC
15 response, Qwest interprets the non-response as CLEC agreement, rather than a CLEC
16 dispute. With these misstatements, he wrongly insinuates that Qwests letters to CLECs
17 play no serious role in determinig the count of fiber-based collocators. Ths could not
18 be fuher from the trth.
19 In developing its process for identifying and counting fiber-based collocators,
20 Qwest wanted to ensure that it made every reasonable effort to arve at an accurate
21 number of fiber-based collocators in a given wire center. Recognizing that the only
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 10
QWEST CORPORATION
212
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
_ 1 definitive proof regardig a collocator's status can only come for the collocator itself,
2 Qwest sought to obtain that proof via a letter requesting not only validation of a CLEC' s
3 status as a fiber-based collocator as the FCC defined it in the TRRO, but also the CLEC's
4 afliations with other cariers, and the terms under which it may be obtaining facilities.
5 That inormation was then incorporated into Qwest's count.
6 If a collocator presents Qwest with information that it is not a fiber-based
7 collocator for any of the reasons outlined in the request letter, such information is fuer
8 investigated and, when necessar and appropriate, the CLEC is removed from the list.
9 However, when a carer has chosen not to respond to Qwest's inquiry letter, whether or
10 not it remains on the list of fiber-based collocators depends on varous factors. For
11 example, if Qwest obtains suffcient evidence, gained independently of the collocator's
e 12 affirmation that it is a fiber-based collocator, the collocator remains on the list. If
there is
13 insufcient evidence of a CLEC's status as a fiber-based collocator, regardless of
14 whether the collocator has or has not responded to Qwest's letter, that collocator would
15 not have been included on the list of fiber-based collocators. Qwest does not believe that
16 a fiber-based collocator's choice not to respond to Qwest's request for information should
17 be sufficient reason for it to be removed from Qwest's list of fiber-based collocators,
18 especially if Qwest is already in possession of other substatiating evidence that the
19 CLEC is indeed a fiber-based collocator. Otherwse, there would be absolutely no
20 incentive for any CLEC to respond to Qwests letter. Afer all, a CLEC's failure to
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 11
QWEST CORPORATIONe
213
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 respond may be a pl.osefu attempt to avoid being designated a fiber-based collocator
2 for TRRO non-impairment puroses. It is certy logical, therefore, to assume, as the
3 FCC directed, that a carer is a fiber-based collocator as defined in the TRRO when,
4 despite the fact that "a collocator chose not to respond, Qwest can provide independent
5 evidence that: (1) the carier is occupyig a collocation space, (2) the carer is being
6 biled, and is paying, for that space, as well as for power to that space, (3) the collocation
7 has fiber facilities entering and terminating in that space, and (4) those fiber facilties
8 leave the central office.
9
10 Q:PLEASE RESPOND TO MR. DENNEY'S CONCERNS
11 REGARING QWEST'S LETTERS BEING APPROPRIATELY ROUTED TO
e 12 THE APPROPRIATE INDIVDUALS.
13 A:Like the Joint CLECs, Qwest also believes it is important that its requests
14 for validation are sent and routed to the appropriate individuals within the companies that
15 Qwest sends these letters to. As such, Qwest makes every reasonable effort to ensure that
16 the letters are sent to the appropriate CLEC personneL. Qwest sends its letters to the
17 contact of record for a paricular CLEC collocator, and the letters are sent in compliance
18 with the provisions in each CLEC's specific interconnection agreement regarding
19 notifications. For a few collocators, Qwest has received specific instrctions regarding
20 who is to receive this tye of request, and Qwestsends these letters to them accordingly.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 12
QWEST CORPORATIONe
214
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 In isolated instances, however, the letters have been inadvertently misdirected, but Qwest
2 certaiy has made every reasonable effort to reroute them to the correct individual, and
3 has made alternate accommodations for responding when requested by a CLEC.
4 In his testimony, Mr. Denney also complains that despite his ongoing
5 involvement with non-impaient dockets before other state utility commissions in
6 Qwest's region, he has not been included in the distrbution of these letters, presumably
7 to his employer, Integra. I do note, however, that Mr. Denney never claims that Integra
8 did not receive the letter in question for Idaho.
9 Again, however, these letters are sent to the each CLEC's contact of record and
10 are sent in compliance with provisions of the specific interconnection agreement for his
11 paricular employer, Integra, as with all other CLECs. I am not aware that Mr. Denney
e 12 ever made any request to be the recipient of these letters to Integra in the past or going
13 forward. Moreover, given his past and ongoing involvement in non-impairment dockets,
14 and his knowledge of my role in faciltating the count of fiber-based collocators and as a
15 witness in these types of dockets, I would have thought he would have at least contacted
16 me earlier in this (or other past) proceeding if he wanted to receive ths letter. To my
17 knowledge he had never done so. And I do not believe that Qwest was somehow
18 obligated to anticipate that Mr. Denney wanted to be the contact person for Integra
19 simply because he has been involved in these non-impaient proceedings in the past.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 13
QWEST CORPORATIONe
215
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 Regardless, going forward should he wish to become the offcial contact for Integra, he
2 can easily let me know to make such an arangement.
3
4 Q:PLEASE ADDRESS MR. DENNEY'S COMMENTS REGARDING
5 ATTEMPTS BY QWEST TO "FOLLOW UP" WITH INTEGRA WHEN IT
6 FAILED TO RESPOND.
7 A:As noted in my direct testimony and as Mr. Denney himself
8 acknowledges, CLECs are often reluctant to respond to Qwest's inquiries, and
9 unortately, Qwest canot force a CLEC to respond. Qwest can only make its best
10 efforts to try to enlist the cooperation of any of the impacted CLECs. Here, Qwest did alI
11 it could have reasonably done, and will continue to do so in the futue, to validate the
e 12 existence of fiber-based collocators in a wire center. The Joint CLECs' implication,
13 therefore, that it is somehow Qwest's obligation to "baby-sit" CLECs is seriously flawed
14 in that it essentially ignores a vital circumstance that signficantly affects Qwests ability
15 to obtain independent validation; that it is often in the CLECs' interests not to respond.
16 Moreover, although thesecollocators are in Qwest wie centers, Qwest may not have
17 fist-hand knowledge as to how a collocator is using its space. Ths is paricularly so if
18 that collocator is not purchasing services from Qwest, as would be the case with most
19 fiber-based collocators, since Qwest has no physical access to those carriers' networks
20 (beyond what Qwest may be providing) or operations data to defintively verify each of
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 14
QWEST CORPORATIONe
216
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
_ 1 these facts; it is only the carers themselves that are in a position to defitively affirm
2 their network architectues, corporate affiliations, and thus their status as fiber-based
3 collocators. Notably, numerous carers have readily affired their status as fiber-based
4 collocators. Others, however, have apparently chosen not to respond.
5 Here in Idaho, Integra did not respond to Qwests letter (although, again, Mr.
6 Denney does not state that Integra never received it, and does not deny that it did receive
7 it). The letter, however, was sent to Integra's contact(s) of record, who had responded
8 not only to previous letters, but also to another letter sent in a more recent filing, and
9 thus, subsequent to the letter in question. Given this previous pattern of responses from
10 Integra, it would be diffcult to believe that Qwest's letter did not reach the intended
11 individual, as Mr. Denney implies at page 43, lines 13-14. Furhermore, the letters are
e 12 sent via certified mail, and indeed, Qwest is in possession of a signed receipt from
13 Integra. Thus the most 10gical and reasonable conclusion is that Integra chose not to
14 respond for ths paricular proceeding.
15 It is also reasonable that once Qwest has received confrmation that its letter was
16 indeed received by Integra, Qwest is under no obligation to undertake fuer action. The
17 TRRO imposes no such obligation. It was Qwest, in an effort to perform due diligence,
18 that voluntarly opted to solicit the CLECs' cooperation. Ironically, the "obligation" to
19 send these letters was only memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, whose validity
20 Mr. Denney and Joint CLECs are vehemently objectig to in his testimony. Finally, by
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 15
QWEST CORPORATIONe
217
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 choosing inaction, Integra canot absolve itself of the responsibilty for compliance with
2 an FCC order, nor should it attempt to shift the obligation for fuer action onto Qwest.
3
4 Q:WHT is QWEST'S RESPONSE TO THE JOINT CLECs'
5 RECOMMENDATION REGARING ADDITIONAL FOLLOW-UP WHN
6 OBTAINING VALIDATION FROM CLECs OF THEIR STATUS AS FffER-
7 BASED COLLOCATORS?
8 A:At page 73, lines 6 though 11, Mr. Denney states that Qwest should make
9 more of a serious effort to obtan verification from CLECs. However, as stated, Qwest
10 already takes these efforts very seriously. Interestingly enough, however, he never
11 mentions that CLECs, such as his employer Integra, should make more of a serious effort
e 12 to facilitate the intent of the TRRO by dilgently providing the data that Qwest is
13 requesting. Nor does he ask ths Commission, the only entity with authority to obligate
14 CLECs to cooperate in determining the tre nature of their collocator status, for
15 assistance in obtaining the data that Qwest is requesting. Instead, he recommends that
16 Qwest send "a notice to at least the contacts identified by each carier for interconnection
17 agreement notices." However, as I have already testified, Qwest has already done so, as
18 ths is already par of Qwests methodology.
19 Mr. Denney goes on to state that Qwest should be required to follow up with
20 cariers if Qwest receives no response. He does not state, however, exactly what tye of
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 16
QWEST CORPORATIONe
218
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 follow-up that he and the Joint CLECs believe should be requied. Neverteless, Qwest
2 notes that it sends its notifications via certified U.S. MaiL. Qwest then receives a signed
11
12e13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
e
3 receipt upon the letter having been delivered to the CLEC's contact of record.
4 In short, Qwest knows the CLEC received the letter, and thus the ball is squarely
5 in the CLEC's proverbial cour. Qwest has very little, if any, recourse at ths point. If a
6 CLEC, such as Integra, chooses not to respond, or fies the letter in a drawer and forgets
7 about it, it is ultimately the CLEC that should be held accountable. That accountabilty
8 should not be shifted to Qwest, paricularly in light of the fact that Qwest has made a
9 diligent effort to solicit each CLEC's cooperation.
10
B. COLLOCATION FIELD VERIFICATIONS WERE COMPREHENSIVE AN
PERFORMED IN AN OBJECTIV MAER
Q: WERE QWEST'S PHYSICAL FIELD VERIFICATIONS OF
FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS CONDUCTED IN AN OBJECTIV MANR?
A: Absolutely. Mr. Denney (at pages 43 and 44 of his testimony) wrongly
accuses Qwest of attempting to come to predetermined outcomes when he states that
Qwest was "encouraging its employees to err on the side of finding fiber-based
collocations." However, apar from the offensive, unair and groundless natue of Mr.
Denney's accusation, it becomes abundantly clear if one reads the instrction letter that a
brief explanation regarding why Qwest field personnel are asked to perform a tak
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 17
QWEST CORPORATION
219
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 outside of their day-to-day fuctions is entirely appropriate.2 In addition, these Qwest
e
e
2 personnel were given specific instrctions regarding what data to validate. I take strong
3 exception to Mr. Denney's apparent accusations that Qwest employees were "encouraged
4 to err" and believe these accusations are inappropriately infamatory and insulting, and,
5 at a minimum, they are simply wrong. Confdential Exhbit 11, attched to my rebuttal
6 testimony, is a copy of the letter in question.
7
8 Q:AT PAGE 44 OF HIS TESTIMONY, MR. DENNY POINTS TO AN
9 INSTANCE THAT HE BELIEVES CALLS INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY
10 OF THE PHYSICAL FIELD VERIFICATIONS CONDUCTED BY QWEST.
11 PLEASE ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
12 A:Mr. Denney is referencing an instance where a collocator in Colorado was
13 intially mis-designated as a fiber-based collocator in Qwest's initial 2005 filing. He is
14 incorrect, however, in claiming that the field verification in that case erroneously
15 validated a copper-based collocation as a fiber-based collocation. Before rebutting Mr.
16 Denney's testimony, it is important to recognize that this issue is irrelevant to this Idaho
17 docket, and we are not here to deal with the specifics of any non-Idaho wire center, but
2 It has been my experience that if employees are given a clear understandig regarding why they
are being asked to a complete a given task, especially one that is not par of their usual day-to-day
responsibilties, they tend to perform better and produce a better product.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 18
QWEST CORPORATION
220
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 since Mr. Denney ràised it, we are forced to rebut it so that the Commission does not
2 believe there is any merit to ths non-Idaho example.
3 The mis-designation in question occured durng Qwests first non-impairment
4 filing in February 2005, when Qwest was stil developing its methodology immediately
5 afer the FCC had issued its TRRO. Specifically, upon release of the TRRO on Febru
6 4, 2005, Qwest had a relatively short two-week timeframe before it was to file a final
7 determination of the number non-impaired wire centers with the FCC, based solely or in
8 par on the number of fiber-based collocators. Given the very limited time that Qwest
9 had between receipt of the FCC's Februar 2005 request for a wire center list and the
10 date that Qwest was required to submit that list to the FCC, Qwests developed an initial
11 list that was the result of data gathered from its collocation tracking and inventory records
e 12 and biling data, and filed that list on Februar 18, 2005. The collocator referenced by
13 Mr. Denney was included in ths initial list. At ths point, comig just days after the FCC
14 had issued the TRRO, the methodology did not necessarly include an on-site physical
15 field verification, but rather, verification by field personnel who mayor may not have
16 been onsite. Due to the rushed and rather conservative nature of Qwest s initial list of
17 fiber-based collocators, Qwest necessarily decided that it would modify its list by way of
18 a secondary effort comprised of a comprehensive validation of the data compiled during
19 the initial effort, in addition to incorporating CLEC responses to Qwest s requests for
20 confrmation of data and the results of actual on-site field verifications of wire centers. It
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 19
QWEST CORPORATIONe
221
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 was afer the physidi.l on-site verification was instituted that the collocation in question
e
e
2 was identified as being copper-based (and not fiber-based). Ultimately, however, the
3 field verification, in conjunction with the collocator's response to Qwest's letter, resulted
4 in Qwest correctly designating the collocation as copper-based and thereafter, the filing
5 of an accurate list of fiber-based collocators. In fact, and contrary to Mr. Denney's
6 mistaken assertions, the methodology as set fort, including the field verification,
7 ultimately yielded a correct count. Ths one instance also demonstrates that the
8 methodology Qwest ultimately arved at and used in ths proceeding, has checks and
9 double checks that minimize (if not eliminate) errors, ultimately yielding an accurate list
10 of fiber-based collocators.
11
12 Q:PLEASE ADDRESS MR. DENNEY'S MINNESOTA EXAPLE, AT
13 PAGES 44 AND 45 OF IDS TESTIMONY, WHERE HE AGAI CALLS INTO
14 QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF QWEST'S FIELD VERIFICATIONS.
15 A:First, it is important to note once again, that the circumstances In
16 Minnesota have absolutely no bearing on the proceedings here in Idaho, as they were
17 specific to Minnesota and to one CLEC only. However, since Mr. Denney raises the
18 issue, Qwest is once again forced to rebut it so that the Commssion has the full pictue of
19 what happened there. Second, I can only conclude that his comments are either a blatat
20 and intentional mischaracterization of the applicable facts, or evidence of Mr. Denney's
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 20
QWEST CORPORATION
222
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 selective memory re.garding the actual facts of Qwest's intial filings in Minnesota, the
2 outcome of that filing, and their lack of impact in Idaho.
3 In any event, the Minnesota example to which Mr. Denney is referring was also
4 par of Qwests initial non-impairment fiing in 2005. As I stated above, however, upon
5 release of the TRRO in February 2005, Qwest had a relatively short two-week timeframe
6 before it was required to file a list of non-impaired wire centers with the FCC. Given that
7 limited time period, Qwest developed an intial list that was the result of data gathered
8 from its collocation tracking and inventory records and billng data. This effort resulted
9 in a list of fiber-based collocators that were operating from December 2003 though
10 February 2005 and that Qwest filed on Februy 18, 2005. The data on which Qwest
11 relied showed that the collocations in question had scheduled target completion dates in
e 12 late February 2005, fitting well with in the stated timeframe. Subsequent to the mid-
13 Februar 2005 filing, however, with the collocation space and power already provisioned
14 and in place for ths one CLEC, the completion dates were pushed out into early March
15 2005 because of delays in bringing in and termnating the fiber. The termination of the
16 fibers in the two collocations was completed and the collocations were handed off to the
17 collocator before the March 11, 2005 effective date of the TRRO. Also, as stated earlier,
18 in an effort to expand on the limted initial filing effort, Qwest altered its methodology to
19 include a comprehensive validation of the data compiled during the initial effort, as well
20 as incorporating CLEC responses to Qwest s requests for confirmation of data, and actu
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 21
QWEST CORPORATIONe
223
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e Ion-site field verifications of wire centers. The final product was a list of fiber-based
2 collocators in operation as of March 11,2005, the effective date of the TRRO. Included
3 in that list were the two Eschelon collocations that Mr. Denney referred to.3
4
5 Q:HOW ACCURTE AR MR. DENNY'S CLAIMS THAT QWEST
6 CONTINUES TO COUNT CARERS WHEN THE FIELD VERIFICATIONS
7 INDICATE OTHERWISE?
8 A:Once again, Mr. Denney is mistaen, and once again he refers to a historic
9 instace in another state in an apparent attempt to distract from the issues here.
10 Specifically, at page 45, lines 3-9, Mr. Denney points to one instance in Arizona (in
11 which Qwest could not provide as proof, specific techncal information regarding the
e 12 location of fuses on the power plant) to allege that Qwest is ignoring its own field
13 verification worksheets. However, ths was merely one instace out of the hundreds of
14 collocators and collocation worksheets that Qwest has filed as evidence in numerous non-
15 impairment proceedings in nine different states since 2005. Again, it appears that Mr.
16 Denney is attempting to distract this Commission from the issues here, through techncal
3 Interestingly enough, Mr. Denney continues to dispute that the collocations were, in fact,
operational as of the effective date of the TRRO, March 11, 2005. He does so even though Qwest is in
possession of documents proving that Eschelon (Mr. Denney's former employer which Integra later
acquired) took possession of the two Minesota collocations at issue before March 11, 2005, proving
therefore that they met the FCC's definition for a fiber-based collocator. Furermore, the wire centers in
question were accepted as non-impaired by the Minesota Commission, despite Mr. Denney's testimony to
the contrar.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 22
QWEST CORPORATIONe
224
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, iO 83701
e 1 discussions of an isolated incident in another state that have nothng to do with the issues
2 here, and thus force Qwest to rebut ths example, lest the Commssion believe there is
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
e
3 any merit to these contentions. With that in mind, Qwest is forced to rebut ths non-Idaho
4 example so that ths Commssion can have the complete pictue of what happened there
5 and to allay any concern the Commission may have about Qwest s process to identify a
6 fiber-based collocator.
In his testimony in the Arzona proceeding which he refers to, as well as his
testimony here in Idaho, Mr. Denney erroneously claims that Qwest has mistakenly
counted carers as fiber-based collocators when it appeared that Qwest was unable to
"verify that the carers had power at the BDFB (Battery Distrbution Fuse Board)." Mr.
Denny makes this claim despite the fact that active power was verified and it was only a
carer's location on the BDFB that was not validated. Once again, Mr. Denney and the
Joint CLECs stray from the TRRO's definition of a fiber-based collocator.
Qwest agrees that the purose of the (verification) spreadsheet is to verify aspects
of a collocation, specifically, the criteria set fort by the TRRO which define a fiber-
based collocator. Notably, but ignored by Mr. Denney, the spreadsheet does indeed
document the specific criteria definig a fiber-based collocator as set fort in the TRRO:
(1) an existing collocation arangement, (2) active power, (3) the existence of fiber
facilties, and (4) the fiber facilities both terminating and exiting the wire center.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 23
QWEST CORPORATION
225
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 However, and of paricular importance here, the spreadsheets also contain
2 information that the' TRRO does not require as necessar in definig a fiber-based
3 collocation. This additional inormation is simply additional data, such as the type of
4 fiber (i.e., express fiber), cross-connect information, and verification of connections at the
5 Battery Distribution Fuse Board (the BDFB on the worksheet), that Qwest collects as
6 further substatiation of the fiber-based collocator designation. Mr. Denney's testimony
7 erroneously implies that the absence of this paricular inormation (specifically, the
8 verification and location of connections at the BDFB) somehow must mean that Qwests
9 collocation verification has failed. This is certainly not the case.
10 If one 100ks at the spreadsheets, in all instaces, power has been visually verified
11 at the collocation, whether or not it was traced back to the BDFB. That means that the
_ 12 equipment in the collocation was "on"and operationaL. The mere fact that a techncian
13 may not have completed a physical trace of a single cable though the central offce
14 racking to the BDFB does not mean that the collocation was not actively powered; it
15 simply means that circumstaces, such as racking congestion, may have prevented the
16 techncian from completing the tracing of the cable. Therefore, contrar to Mr. Denney's
17 mistaen assertions, in this Arzona example, Qwest verified the existence of active
18 power to all the fiber-based collocations that it counted in its Arzona wie centers, as
19 Qwest counted only valid fiber-based collocators.
20
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 24
QWEST CORPORATIONe
226
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 C. CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNCTIONS
2
3 Q:AT PAGE 45 OF IDS TESTIMONY, MR. DENNEY TAKES ISSUE
4 WITH QWEST'S TREATMENT OF "CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNECTIONS."
5 DOES MR. DENNEY BELIEVE THAT EITHER OF THE IDAHO WI
6 CENTERS IN QUESTION AR IMPACTED BY CLEC-TO-CLEC
7 CONNECTIONS?_
8 No. At page 45, lines 15-17, Mr. Denney states: "Based on my review ofA:
9 the Idaho fiber-based collocations data, I curently do not believe Qwest counted CLEC
10 to -CLEC cross connections for this request."
11
12 Q:WHAT IS A "CLEC- TO-CLEC CONNECTION"?
13 A CLEC-to-CLEC connection allows a collocated CLEC to interconnectA:
14 its network to any other collocated telecommunications carier in the same wire center.
15 A CLEC-to-CLEC connection also allows a CLEC to connect its own multiple
16 collocations within a single Qwest wîre center. Figue 1 is a diagram ilustrating a
17 typical wire center arangement, including CLEC-to-CLEC arangements.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 25
QWEST CORPORATION
227
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1
UNEs
Figure 1
Qwest Wire Center
Collo
-l CLECB
CLEC B,CLECC Colio48 Fibers UNEs
24 Fiber CLECC
I FierOIs'P.... I
~L~i;~-,
Colio",i="A UNEs
24 Fibers CLECA
I FlerO"'P.... I
Shal8 EntrncaI-Facility
1"'''1' A awst 144 Fibers
ffce 72 Fibers
\. MHiPOI
(48 Spars Fibers)
ute CLECA
24 Fibars
Inter
Ro
2 As ilustrated, fiber-based collocators brig their fiber facilities to a Qwest
3 facility, usually though a manole, commonly referred to as a point of interconnection
4 ("POI"). At the POI, the collocators will splice their fiber cable to a shared entrance
5 facility. This shared facilty is a cable shared by the CLECs as a means to enter the
6 Qwest wire center. Ths is a common and effcient method for fiber-based collocators
7 to enter the wire center. Once inside the wire center, the fibers are once again broken
8 out for the individual CLECs and terminated at their respective collocations. Ths is
9 ilustrated by the fiber configuations for CLEC A and CLEC B. CLEC A and CLEC B.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R(Di-Reb) 26
QWEST CORPORATION
228
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 deploy optronics to their fiber facilty, connect to UNs, and transport traffic from this
2 Qwest wire center. '
3 However, in ths example, CLEC C, obtains its fiber from CLEC B. In effect,
4 CLEC C has obtained a fiber facility from CLEC B, and that fiber facilty extends from
5 CLEC C's collocation though CLEC B's collocation and out of the Qwest wire center
6 to whatever end-point it has aranged with CLEC B. In ths example, CLEC B retans
7 48 of its original 72 fibers, and CLEC C obtains the remaining 24 unit fibers for its
8 use. CLEC C is therefore free to connect its own optronics to that fiber facility,
9 connect UNEs to that fiber facilty, and transport traffic across that facility. Here,
10 CLEC C is operating a fiber facility, as are CLECs A and B. In other words, both
11 CLECs B and C are fiber-based collocators, even though they are cross-connected.
e 12 Figue 1 ilustrates CLEC-to-CLEC connections between fiber-based collocators only.
13 Any of the CLECs shown in Figue 1 may also be connected with other non-fiber-based
14 collocators.
15
16 Q:WHT ROLE WOULD CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNCTIONS PLAY
17 IN A COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUICATIONS MAT?
18 A:In a wire center where a CLEC or CLECs are offering alternative transport
19 facilties in competition with an ILEC (such as Qwest), a CLEC-to-CLEC connection is a
20 viable and relatively easy way for carers to obtain facilties from someone other than the
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 27
QWEST CORPORATIONe
229
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 ILEC. CLEC-to-CLEC connections facilitate the use of alternative facilties with a
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
-
2 minium of investment and constrction efforts by leveraging architectures already in
3 place. As demonstrated in Figue 1, it is exactly what the FCC intended: easily
4 obtainable competitive alternatives.
5
6 Q:WOULD QWEST'S METHODOLOGY CORRCTLY IDENTIF
7 FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS, OR EXCLUDE NON-FilER-BASED
COLLOCATORS, EVEN IF CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNCTIONS AR PRESENT?
A: Yes.. Qwest's methodology for identifyng and counting fiber-based
collocators looks for very specific criteria. If a collocator meets these very specific
criteria, it is counted as a fiber-based collocator. If it does not meet the specific criteria, it
is not counted as a fiber-based collocator. If a collocator is cross-connected to another
collocator in the same wire center and it otherwse meets these very specific criteria, one
or both will be counted, and legitimately so. Again, if the CLEC does not meet these
very specific criteria, it will not be counted as a fiber-based collocator.
Qwest is confdent that its methodology accurately identifies and counts fiber-
based collocators. Contrary to Mr. Denney's assertion, Qwestsmethodology does not
promote "double-counting" or erroneous counting of fiber-based collocators.
Furermore, CLEC-to-CLEC connections, do not, in and of themselves, negate a
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 28
QWEST CORPORATION
230
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 collocator from being. counted as a fiber-based collocator if it otherwse meets the criteria
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
e
2 set fort by the FCC in the TRRO.
3
4 Q:DOES MR DENNY CONTRAICT HIMSELF WHN HE
5 DISCUSSES FIBER-BASED COLLOCATORS USING CLEC-TO-CLEC
6 CONNECTIONS?
A: He absolutely does. At page 46, lines 27-29, Mr. Denney states: "A
CLEC-to-CLEC connection does not fall within the FCC's defition of a fiber-based
collocator and should not be counted as separate fiber-based collocations." However,
iIlediately above ths statement, at page 46, lines 21-26, he quotes the TRRO and the
conditions that must exist in order for a carier to be considered a fiber-based collocator.
Specifically, he quotes footnote 292 to paragraph 102 of the TRRO, as stating:
We find that when a company has collocations facilties connected to fiber-
transmission facilities obtained on an indefeasible right of use ("IRU") basis from
another carier, including the incumbent LEC, these facilities shall be counted for
puroses of ths analysis and shall be treated as non-incumbent LEC fiber
facilties.
Based on this clarfication, a collocator obtaning facilities from another carier, meetig
these conditions, is operating non-incumbent fiber facilities. An effcient method for
obtaining these facilties would be with a CLEC-to-CLEC connection as described in
Figure 1 above. As such, if a collocator utilzes a CLEC-to-CLEC connection to obtain
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 29
QWEST CORPORATION
231
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 non-incumbent fiber.facilties, while otherwse meeting the criteria set fort by the FCC
2 in the TRRO, it would be a legitimate fiber-based collocator.
3
4 Q:PLEÀSE RESPOND TO MR. DENNEY'S ALLEGATION AT PAGE
5 45 THAT CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNCTIONS RESULT IN "DOUBLING
6 COUNTING" OF FmER-BASED COLLOCATORS?
7 A:Mr. Denney is mistaen. If we look back at my Figure i, we can see that
8 if we removed CLEC C entirely, both CLEC A and CLEC B would stil meet the FCC's
9 definition of a fiber-pased collocator in all respects. Now, assume that CLEC C is back
10 in the picture. Perhaps the CLEC-to-CLEC connection was simply a revenue-boosting
11 move (understandable in today's economy) that may have prompted CLEC B to offer
e 12 fiber facilties to CLEC C. Regardless, the result here would be that both CLEC B and
13 CLEC C would be operating fiber facilties, both have deployed optronics that support
14 those fiber facilties, and both are servng customers in the same wire center. Thus, if
15 both collocators otherwse meet the FCC's definition as fiber-based collocators, both
16 should be counted as a fiber-based collocator for non-impairment puroses.
17
18
19
20
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 30
QWEST CORPORATIONe
232
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15e16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e
Q: DOES THE FCC'S LANGUAGE SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION?
A: Absolutely. Paragraph 408 of the TRO clarifies the conditions under
which to view and count a CLEC that may obtain facilties from a carer other than the
ILEC. Paragraph 408 of the TRO (unchanged by the TRRO) states:
We find, however, that when a company has obtained dark fiber from another
carier on a long-term IRU basis and activated that fiber with its own optronics,
that facility should be counted as a separate unafliated facilty. (Emphasis
added.)
A CLEC-to-CLEC connection is one method a collocator can use to access unaffiliated
11 fiber-based facilities.
12 Paragraph 408 fuer states:
. . . the record suggests that competing carers are able to engage and have
engaged in joint efforts to deploy transport, so that imposing a trigger that
requires each facilty on a route to have been separately deployed would fail to
consider and may inhibit such cooperative deployment efforts.
Therefore, the FCC makes clear that even if two CLECs connect together, the
arangement may stil yield multiple fiber-based collocators.
Q: THE JOINT CLECs APPEAR TO BE ASKIG FOR QWEST TO
EXPRESSLY CONFIRM THAT CLEC-TO-CLEC CONNECTIONS WERE NOT
COUNED IN THIS PROCEEDING, AS WELL AS IN FUTURE
PROCEEDINGS. HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 31
QWEST CORPORATION
233
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
-
1 A:Frany, I am a bit confsed. It is unclear whether Mr. Denny is askig
2 that Qwest confirm that CLEC-to-CLEC connections were not a factor in ths filing, or
3 whether he is asking that Qwest confirm its intention to exclude such connections in
4 futue updates. In eìther case, it is Qwest s position that if a collocator otherwse meets
5 the very specific definition of a fiber-based collocator, it is counted as such. If it does not
6 meet these criteria, it is not counted as a fiber-based collocator. Moreover, if a collocator
7 is cross-connected to another collocator in the same wire center, and both collocators
8 otherwse meet these very specific criteria defining fiber-based collocators, both will be
9 counted. Again, if one or the other of the cross-connected CLECs does not meet these
10 very specific criteria, it will not be counted as a fiber-based collocator. Qwest is
11 confident that its methodology accurately captues fiber-based collocators.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 32
QWEST CORPORATION
234
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
10
11
12
e 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
e
1
2
3
D. NOTIFICATION OF IMPENDING NON-IMPAIRMENT
. IS UNECESSARY
4 Q:HOW DOES QWEST RESPOND TO THE JOINT CLECs'
5 RECOMMENDATION THAT QWEST SHOULD PROVIDE "ADVANCE
6 NOTICE" OF WIRE CENTERS NEARG THE FCC'S NON-IMPAIRMNT
7 THRSHOLD?
8 A:Qwest believes that such notification is completely unecessar and
9 immaterial. Mr. Denney and the Joint CLECs' state (at page 75, lines 12-13) that they
require such information so that they can rationally plan futue investment. However,
notifying CLECs of when a given wire center is within one fiber-based collocator of a
Tier 2 designation is immaterial since being within one fiber-based collocator of the
theshold in a wire center does not necessarly indicate an iminent change in that wire
center's impairment classification. My research indicates that, overall, a substatial
percentage of Tier 3 wire centers with fiber-based collocators have already been
identified as being withn one fiber-based collocator of becomig a Tier 2 wire center (in
other words, these wie centers have two fiber-based collocators and thee are needed to
become a Tier 2 wire center). Of these Tier J wire centers which are withn one fiber-
based collocator of meeting the non-impairment theshold (in other words, wie centers
with two fiber-based collocators), the vast majority have been within one fiber-based
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 33
QWEST CORPORATION
235
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1
icollocator since 2005 when the TRRO was issued, rendering the one-more-collocator
2 notification requiement immaterial.
3 My research, as well as previous non-impairment filings, also show that changes
4 in tier designations are often the result of more than one fiber-based collocator being
5 provisioned in a wie center in the relatively short timeframe between Qwests filings of
6 non-impaired petitions, thus agai makng the one-more-collocator notification
7 requirement moot (assuming that notification is undertaken simultaneously with a
8 fiing).4 Finally, one canot ignore that advance notification could facilitate the ability of
9 a CLEC to take "creative advantage" of the situation by changing business its plans and
10 network architectues to make it less likely that a particular wire center ever reaches a
11 given theshold, or, at the very least, delay the inevitable change of a wire center's
e 12 impairment status.
13
14 Q:HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO MR. DENNEY'S TESTIMONY
15 THAT IT WOULD NOT MA SENSE FOR CLECs TO ALTER THEIR
16 BUSINESS PLANS TO IMPACT A WIRE CENTERS NON-IMPAIRMNT
17 STATUS?
4 The research cited here is a review of existing data gathered in support of previous non-
impairent filings and not a separate intiative to compile a list of wire centers approaching the non-
impairent thresholds.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 34
QWEST CORPORATIONe
236
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 A:His argument canot be taken seriously or withstand credible scrutiny.
2 One example is the mere fact that the Joint CLECs are intervenors in ths proceeding, and
3 that they have attempted to complicate what was intended to be a simple and self-
4 effectuating process, clearly in an attempt to maintain access to UNEs at below market
5 rates for as long as possible.
6 Mr. Denney's clais that wire centers nearng non-impairment status would
7 likely spur investment and competition also ring hollow. For example, if one looks at
8 many of the smaller wie centers across Qwests terrtory, one sees a pattern of merging
9 or acquiring of existing companes withi the same wire centers in order to expand those
10 companies' customer bases, instead of additional investment in new infastrctue (as
11 claimed by Mr. Denney), which therefore lessens the number of actual competitors in a
e 12 given wire center and thus the possibilty of attning a non-impairment status. The type
13 of notification being recommended by the Joint CLECs can reasonably be seen as a road
14 map for "gamng" the system.
15
16 Q:DOES THE TRRO CONTAI A REQUIREMENT FOR AN ILEC
17 TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION WHEN WI CENTERS APPROACH A NON-
18 IMPAIRMENT THRSHOLD?
19 A:No. It is apparent that the FCC did not contemplate any such notification
20 since the TRRO does not contan any such requirement. Furer, to my knowledge, and
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 35
QWEST CORPORATION
e
237
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 as noted by Mr. Denney, only the Colorado Commission has imposed such a requirement.
2 Moreover, I know for a fact that in the initial set of non-impaient proceedings in five
3 other states in 2006 and 2007, prior to the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Denney had
4 advocated on behalf of his then-employer for such an advance notice requirement, but
5 none of the other state commissions accepted ths recommendation. And, of course, the
6 settling CLECs who were par of the original non-impairent dockets, including Integra,
7 agreed not to include any such advance notification requirements.
8
9 Q:DOES REQUIRING SUCH ADVANCE NOTIFICATION PLACE
10 AN UNDUE, AND ARGUABLY DISCRIMINATORY, BUREN ON QWEST?
11 A:Yes. Requiring that Qwest notify CLECs when a wire center is within one
e 12 fiber-based collocator of non-impairment would place an undue burden on Qwest, both
13 operationallyand from a resource perspective. Not only would Qwest have to mobilize
14 and fud such an effort beyond its curent efforts in support of a non-impairment fiing,
15 but it would do so for no material benefit to itself or to CLECs. Notably, CLECs located
16 in Qwest wire centers can already undertake essentially the same effort of counting fiber-
17 based collocators in any given wire center without Qwests involvement. Additionally,
18 they too can seek validation from the CLECs collocated withn the same wire centers.
19 Finally, in his testimony (beginnng at page 74), Mr. Denney goes on in detail as
20 to the limited capital dollars that CLECs have to invest in Idaho. Mr. Denney apparently
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 36
QWEST CORPORATION
e
238
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 ignores the fact that Qwest is also in very much the same position. Neverteless, he and
2 the Joint CLECs seek to impose additional operational and resource requirements on
3 Qwest, but for their sole (albeit, extremely limited) benefit. Essentially, the Joint CLECs
4 are asking that Qwest subsidize their business planing and the direction of their futue
5 investment. This is wholly inappropriate.
6
7 E. PROVISIONS OF THE MULTI STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT8 REGARING EXPRESS FIBER
9
10 Q:HOW DOES QWEST RESPOND TO THE JOINT CLECs'
11 RECOMMENDATION THAT A PROVISION IN THE SETTLEMENT
12 AGREEMENT REGARDING EXPRESS FIBER SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED
e 13 IF THE COMMISSION ADOPTS THE PROCEDURS OF THE SETTLEMENT
14 AGREEMENT IN IDAHO?
15 A:At page 47, of his testimony, Mr. Denny cites a provision in the
16 Settlement Agreement regarding how "express fiber" will be treated for puroses of non-
17 impairment. 5 Whle the Settlement Agreement was intended to have broad application
18 across multiple states, the provision regarding "express fiber" was included to address
5 "Express fiber,: as par of the provision in question, was defined as a CLEC-owned fiber placed
to the collocation by Qwest that terminates at CLEC-owned equipment in a collocation and that draws
power from a remote location. This should not be confused with an "express fiber entrance facilty," which
is included as one of the verification criteria on the Collocation Verification worksheet.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 37
QWEST CORPORATION
e
239
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 specific circumstances that to date has been unque to one state. Additionally, the express
2 fiber provision does not apply to any of the fiber-based collocators identified in Idaho.
3 Thus, if the Commission adopts the procedures of the Settlement Agreement in Idaho,
4 Qwest would not be opposed to excluding the "express fiber" provision. as Mr. Denney
5 requests in his testimony.
e
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 38
QWEST CORPORATIONe
240
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
e
1 v.SUMMAY OF TESTIMONY
2
3 Q:PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF YOUR
4 TESTIMONY.
5 A:The Joint CLECs do not dispute the non-impairment designations of the
6 Boise Main and Boise West wire centers, which are based on the number of fiber-based
7 collocators at those wire centers. However, while agreeing with the results, they attack
8 the methodology that Qwest used to obtain those accurate results. In attacking elements
9 of the methodology that Qwest used, Mr. Denney and the Joint CLECs mischaracterized
10 events and Qwests processes and intentions. My testimony shows that Qwests
11 methodology is sound and yields accurate resnlts.
The letters that Qwest sends to collocators asking for validation of their status as
fiber-based collocators and of their afliate status represent a reasonable effort by Qwest
to secure accurate information prior to its filing of its list of non-impaired wire centers.
These letters also represent Qwest s effort to obtain definitive proof from the only source
capable of providing such proof (the CLECs themselves). When sending the validation
request letters to a CLEC, Qwest ensures that the letter is sent to the contact of record for
that CLEC, and that the CLEC has indeed received the letter. Qwest then incorporates
the response into its list of fiber-based collocators. If a CLEC chooses not to respond,
that is its choice, but Qwest may, or may not, stil include that CLEC as a fiber-based
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 39
QWEST CORPORATION
241
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 collocator, depending on additional evidence that Qwest may have gathered regarding
2 that CLEC's collocation. However, Qwest does not, as Mr. Denney suggests, take a
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
-
3 CLEC's unesponsiveness as agreement that it is a fiber-based collocator, but rather,
4 Qwest considers such lack of response as only one factor before compiling its final list of
5 fiber-based collocators.
In addition, Qwests physical field verifications provide a comprehensive and
accurate validation of the presence of fiber-based collocators in a given wire center.
These verifications have resulted in not only the validation of legitimate fiber-based
collocators, but also in the removal of collocators that may have been initially
misidentified. In short, these verifications perform the fuction for which they were
designed. Furhermore, contrar to Mr. Denney's inflammatory rhetoric, Qwests field
verification process is conducted in an objective maner. This objectivity has been
proven repeatedly by the resulting modification of the list of non-impaired wie centers
based on information subsequently obtained durng field verifications.
Furer, while no CLEC-to-CLEC connections were present in either of the Boise
Main or Boise West wire centers, ths in no way negates the fact that a collocator
utilzing a CLEC-to-CLEC connection, and otherwse meeting the TRRO's criteria, is a
valid fiber-based collocator. Additionally, this position is supported by FCC's language
in the TRRO.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 40
QWEST CORPORATION
242
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e 1 Additionally, the TRRO places no obligation on ILECs, such as Qwest, to provide
2 advance notification of impending changes in a wie center's non-impairment statu.
3 Such notification is unecessar and immaterial. Additionally, while providing little, if
4 any, benefit to CLECs or Qwest, such a requirement would place a discriminatory and
5 undue burden on Qwest, paricularly since CLECs can arve at the same information
6 independently and without Qwests involvement. It is no wonder, therefore, that every
7 state commission but one has rejected Mr. Denney's recommendation for such "advance
8 notification."
9 Finally, the express fiber provision of the Settlement Agreement does not apply to
1 0 any of the fiber-based collocators identified in Idaho. If the Commission adopts the
11 procedures in the Settlement Agreement in Idaho, Qwest would not object to the
e 12 exclusion of ths paricular provision.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 41
QWEST CORPORATIONe
243
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
e
e
e
1 VI. CONCLUSION
2
3 Q: DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
4 A: Yes, it does. Than you.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
244
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
TORRNCE, R (Di-Reb) 42
QWEST CORPORATION
e
e
e
1 I.IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
2 Q:PLEASE STATE YOUR NAM, BUSINSS ADDRESS AN
3 POSITION WITH QWEST CORPORATION.
4 A:My name is Victoria Huncutt. My business address is 1801 Californa
5 Street, Denver, Colorado. I am employed by Qwest Corporation as a Director supporting
6 costs and issues management.
7 Q:DID YOU PREVIOUSLY SUBMIT DIRECT TESTIMONY IN TIDS
8 CASE ON APRIL 17, 2009?
9 A:Yes, I did.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
245
HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 1
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
-
1 II.PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
2 Q:WHT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
3 A:The purose of my testimony is to respond to the Direct Testimony of
4 Douglas Denney ("Denney Direct"), submitted on May 22,2009. Specifically, I address Mr.
5 Denney's testimony regarding Qwest s charge to convert an unbundled network element
6 ("UNE") service to a private line or special access service in those Idaho wire centers that
7 have been designated "non-impaired" pursuant to the Triennial Remand Review Order
8 ("TRRO"). i
i See In the Matter of
Review of Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review bISection 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Order on Remand, CC Docket No. 01-338,
WC Docket No. 04-313, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, (2004) ("Triennial Review Remand Order' or "TRRO").
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
246 HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 2
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
-
e
e
1 III. CLARFICATION OF UNE-TO-PRI ATE LINE SERVICE CONVERSIONS
2 Q:DO THE JOINT CLECs AGREE WITH QWEST'S ASSERTION THAT
3 THE FORMRL Y-t\ VAILABLE UNE SERVICES MUST BE CONVRTED TO AN
4 ALTERNATIVE, NON-UNE ARGEMENT AS A RESULT OF A NON-
5 IMPAIRMENT AFFIRMATION BY TIDS COMMISSION?
6 A:Yes, but only if the CLEC requests to remain on Qwest facilties. The Joint
7 CLECs, though Mr. Denney in his Direct Testimony, agree that a "conversion (is possible)
8 when a circuit that was formerly available as a UN must be converted to a non-UNE
9 alternative arangement, as the result of a finding of 'non-impairment.",2 For clarfication,
10 two corrections need to be made to Mr. Denney's characterization ofUN-to-private line
11 conversions. First, in quoting Mr. Denney above, I replaced "happens" with "is possible."
12 Mr. Denney implies that the conversion automatically occurs without affirmative input from
13 the CLEC leasing the facilities. Qwest canot assume the CLEC leasing the facilities wants
14 to remain on Qwest facilties and thus unlaterally convert CLEC-Ieased facilities. Choosing
15 to remai on Qwest's facilities and choosing the non-UNE services that the former UNs are
16 converted to are business decisions that only the CLEC leasing the Qwest facilities can make.
17 Second, a key variable is missing from Mr. Denney's conversion definition: choice.
18 With a finding of non-impairment, there is affrmation that competition exists, thereby
19 recognzing the fact that CLECs have alternatives to remaining on Qwest s facilities. Should
20 the CLEC decide it is in its best interests to remai on Qwest facilties, in lieu of its other
21 options, the CLEC then formally requests to do so.
2 Denney Direct,
at page 50, lines 13-15.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
247
HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 3
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1 To sumarize, clarify and correct Mr. Denney's statement (at page 50, lines 13-15),
2 I would say as follows: A UN-to-private line conversion is one of three options available to
3 the CLEC as a result of a finding of non-impaient. That is, a circuit that was formerly
4 available as a UNE must either be (l) obtained though Qwest by formally requesting the
5 conversion of former UNE services to non-UNE alternative arangements on Qwests
6 facilities, (2) obtaned though facilty providers other than Qwest, or (3) obtaned though
7 self-provisionig the facilities.
8 Q:WILL THE CLECs BEAR THE TOTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
9 THE CONVERSION, AS MR. DENNEY IMPLIES?3
10 A:No, they will not. The UN-to-private line conversion rate is a negotiated
11 rate. As a result, both parties bear the costs incured as a result of the conversion process. In
12 the case of the $25 conversion charge, however, Qwest actually assumes a larger portion of
13 the conversion costs incured.
14 DO THE JOINT CLECs ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THEQ:
15 $25 UNE-TO-PRI ATE LINE CONVRSION RATE IS A NEGOTIATED RATE
16 VERSUS A COST-BASED RATE?
17 A:Yes, as confired though Mr. Denney's Direct Testimony, the Joint CLECs
18 concede that the $25 UNE-to-private line conversion charge was agreed to durng a
3 Denney Direct, at page 62, lines 23-24.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
248
HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 4
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 negotiations process, and Mr. Denney fuher states that the CLECs agreed to allow Qwest
2 "leeway as to how it implements tht charge.,,4
3 Q:HOW DID QWEST CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT THE UN-TO-
4 PRIVATE LINE CONVRSION RATE?
5 A:The negotiated UNE-to-private line conversion rate be found in Qwests FCC
6 No.1 taiff, in Section 5.2.2(C), Design Change Charge. This rate has been in effect and has
7 remained unchallenged since April 29,2006.
8 Q:IS QWEST'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS CONVERSION RATE
9 APPROPRIATE?
10 A:Yes. Mr. Denney acknowledges (as shown above) that Qwest was given
e 11 "leeway" by the CLECs to choose how to implement the negotiated rate, but the Joint CLECs
12 (by way of Mr. Denney's Direct Testimony) then criticize Qwests implementation of that
13 same rate.5 Although Mr. Denney implies otherwise, for Qwests special access customers,
14 including Qwests retail customers who purchase out of Qwests special access tariff, the
15 Design Change Charge is applicable when the "customer requests a design change to the
16 service ordered" and when a CLEC requests a "conversion of a UNE circuit to a special
17 private line service.,,6 Ths would have been apparent in Mr. Denney's Direct Testimony7
e
4 Denney Direct, at page 64, fn. 93 ("The CLECs did agree to a $25 charge and allowed Qwest leeway
as to how it implements that charge, which Qwest has chosen to do so through the Federal tariff and a factor.").
5 Denney Direct, at page 65, lines 6-7.
6 See Qwest Tariff FCC No.1, Section 5.2.2(C), which states:
Design Change Charge
The customer may request a design change to the service ordered. A design chage is any change to an
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6110/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
249 HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 5
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1 had he not neglected to include the last sentence in his citation of the Design Change Charge
2 definition. The final sentence states: "The Design Change Charge also covers activities
3 associated with the conversion of a UNE circuit to a special private line service." (Emphasis
4 added.)
5 Q:SHOULD QWEST FILE COST SUPPORT TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS
6 PROPOSAL TO CHARGE CLECs FOR UNE- TO-PRIVATE LINE CONVRSIONS,
7 AS MR. DENN IMPLIES?8
8 A:No, it would not be appropriate to file a cost study here for a federally-tarffed
9 rate. Furer, more importtly, and as mentioned above, the UNE-to-private line rate is a
10 negotiated rate to help cover costs incured as a direct result of the CLEC-requested
11 conversion process. It is not a cost-based rate.
Access Order which requires engieering review . An engineerig review is a review by Company
personnel of the service ordered and the requested changes to determine what change in the design, if
any, is necessar to meet the changes requested by the customer. Design changes include such things
as a change of end user premises within the same serving wire center, the addition or deletion of
optional featues, fuctions, BSEs or a change in the tye of Transport Termation (Switched Access
only), tye of chanel interface, tye ofInterface Group or technical specification package. The
Design Change Charge also covers activities associated with the conversion of a UN circuit to a
special private line service."
This section ofQwests FCC tariff can be accessed at:
(http://tariffs.qwest.com:8000/idc/groups/public/docu ments/ta riff/fccl s005p021.pdf#Page= I &PageMode
=bookmarks)
7 Denney Direct, at page 65, lines 10-19.
8 Denney Direct, at page 63, lines 16-17.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. Q. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
250
HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 6
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1 Q:MR. DENNY REFERS TO SECTION 7 OF THE FCC NO.1 TARFF
2 IN IDS DISCUSSION OF QWEST'S "INTERSTATE ACCESS DESIGN CHAGE
3 CHAGE.,,9 IS THIS SECTION OF THE TARF APPLICABLE TO THE UNE-
4 TO-PRIVATE LINE CONVRSION CHAGE?
5 A:No, the section that Mr. Denney references has no reference to, nor does it
6 include, the UNE-to-private line conversion charge. The correct section of Qwests FCC No.
7 1 tarff is section "5.2.2(C) Design Chage Charge." Apparently from Mr. Denney's
8 excerpt, the section is referrng to "administrative changes," not activities associated with the
9 conversion of a UN circuit to a special private line service as specifically indicated in the
10 definition of "Design Change Charge" in section 5.5.2.
11 Q: MR DENNY ASSERTS THAT "QWEST REQUIRS CLECs TO
PLACE AN ORDER."io DO YOU AGREE WITH HIS ASSERTION?12
13 A:No, I do not agree at alL. For the same reasons, I do not agree with Mr.
14 Denney's assertion that the conversion, and thus, its requisite processes, is "not a change
15 requested by a CLEC."ii Although Qwest would prefer to retain a CLEC as a customer, it
16 canot "require" a CLEC to remai on its facilities. With a finding of non-impaient, there
17 is affirmation that competition exists, thereby recognizing the fact that CLECs have
18 alternatives to remaining on Qwest s facilties. Should a CLEC decide it is in its best
9 Denney Direct, at page 64, lines 4-7 and fn. 93.
10 Denney Direct, at page 66, line 5.
i I Denney Direct, at page 68, lines 6-7.
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
251 HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 7
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1
interests to remain on Qwest facilties, in lieu of its other options, the CLEC then formally
2 requests to do so.
3 Furer, the FCC, in both the TRO (Triennial Review Order) and the TRRO, referred
4 to the CLEC as the "requesting carer," a label referred to numerous times arising from the
5 fact that the CLEC makes a conscious business decision in light of competition to request to
6 remain on Qwest s facilities, thereby forgoing its other options of availing itself of other
7 facilties in a marketplace that is deemed competitive, or of self-provisioning with its own
8 facilities.12 This CLEC decision to either remain on Qwest's facilties, both expected by the
9 FCC and initiated by the CLEC, clearly demonstrates that the CLEC determines whether or
10 not the conversion will take place.
11 Q: MR. DENNEY POINTS OUT13 THAT THE RATE DOES NOTe12REFLECT THE TASKS INOLVED IN THE CONVRSION. DO YOU AGREE
13 WITH HIS OBSERVATION?
14 A:Yes, I do, but for completely different reasons. Qwest maintains, and the
15 Joint CLECs have confirmed, that the $25 UN-to-private line conversion charge is a
16 negotiated rate, not a cost-based rate. In recogntion of the fact that ths is not a cost docket,
17 nor is it the proper venue for a fact-intensive inquiry as to the reasonableness of a federally-
18 taiffed rate, along with the fact that the $25 conversion rate is a negotiated rate, Qwest did
19 not submit a cost study in support of the $25 rate amount. Having said that, however, and as
12 The following phrase is but one example of the many instaces in the TRO and TRRO where the
FCC has referred to the CLEC as the "requesting carier": "... the list ofUNs that incumbent LECs must
provide to requesting carriers. .." TRRO, ir 10, at p. 8. (Emphasis added.)
13 Denney Direct at page 66, line 9 though page 67, line 16.e
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
252 HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 8
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
5
6
7
8
9
10
11e12
13
14
15
e
1 a show of good faith that Qwest incurs substantial costs in the conversion process, I have
2 previously sumarized in my direct testimony the myriad tasks that Qwest employs in a
3 proven conversion pr?cess. Furermore, this $25 rate amount reflects only a fraction of the
4 costs that Qwest incurs.
Q: MR DENNEY ADVOCATES14 THAT THE CONVRSION RATE
SHOULD BE "SET TO ZERO." HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THIS ARGUMENT?
A: I respond in thee pars: (1) the $25 UN-to-private line conversion rate is a
negotiated rate that is included in multiple interconnection agreements, (2) a "zero rate"
would be uneasonably discriminatory to other, similarly-situated carers, which is
disallowed under the FCC Rules,15 and (3) the resulting effect of a "zero rate" on economic
incentives and its impact on facilities-based competition does not support the preferable goal
of the Act.
To begin, the $25 UNE-to-private line conversion rate was agreed to in negotiations,
and is included in 146 interconnection agreements across Qwest's 14-state region. Of the
146 agreements providing the element at that $25 rate, eight of the approved agreements are
16 with CLECs operating in Idaho.
14 Denney Direct, at page 52, line 3.
15 The FCC is specific in its discussion of transitional pricing issues:
Congress established a pricing stadard under section 252 for network elements unbundled pursuant to
section 251 where impairment is found to exist. Here, however, we are discussing the appropriate
pricing standard for these network elements where there is no impairent. Under the no impairent
scenario, section 271 requires these elements to be unbundled, but not using the statutorily mandated
rate under section 252. As set fort below, we find that the appropriate inquir for network elements
required only under section 27 i is to assess whether they are priced on a just, reasonable and not
uneasonably discriminatory basis - the stadads set fort in sections 201 and 202. TRO, ir 656, at
p.409. (Emphasis in original.)
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
253 HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 9
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 Next, as stated by the FCC,16 where non-impairment is affrmed, the appropriate
2 inquiry for network elements is to assess whether they are priced on a just, reasonable and
3 not unreasonably discriminatory basis. Therefore, requiring Qwest to perform services
4 requested by the CLEC at no charge in a non-impaired marketplace, as Mr. Denney
5 advocates, would have the effect of forcing Qwest to uneasonably discriminate against other
6 similarly-situted carers (e.g., interexchange cariers) who are charged the Design Change
7 Charge for changes to their existing facilties.
8 Finally, if Qwest were not allowed to charge a CLEC for the costs incured to
9 perform the conversion per the CLEC's request, the CLEC's economic assessment of the
10 alternatives would be distorted. This could possibly lead the CLEC to choose Qwests
11 facilties in situations where another alternative, such as the CLEC self-provisioning its own
e 12 facilities, is more economically sustanable and would fuer the preferable goal of
the Act
13 (specifically, "genuine, facilities-based competition").17
16 TRO, , 656, at p. 409.
17 The D. C. Circuit sumarized the purose of the Act when it stated:
After all, the purose of the Act is not to provide the widest possible unbundling, or to guantee
competitors access to ILEC network elements at the lowest pnce that governent may lawfully
mandate. Rather, its purpose is to stimulate competition-preferably genuine, facilties based
competition." (Emphasis added.) United States Telecommunications Association v. FCC, 359 F.3d
554 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("USTA Il').
e CASE NO. QWE- T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 10254
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e
e
e
1 HAVE STATES, OTHER THA CALIFORNIA AN COLORAO,18Q:
2 ALLOWED ILECs TO CHARGE FOR CONVERTING UN SERVICES TO
3 ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES OFFERED BY THE ILEC?
4 A:Yes. As mentioned above, the UNE-to-private line rate is a negotiated rate
5 and exists in 146 interconnection agreements thoughout Qwest s 14-state region, including
6 eight interconnection agreements in Idaho. Furher, other ILECs charge for the UN-to-
7 private line conversion. For example, Verizon's template interconnection agreement19
8 includes charges for conversions from UNE services to special access services,20 which
9 include a conversion service order charge, a per circuit charge for the conversion, and, if
10 applicable, a circuit re-tag charge per circUit.21
18 Denney Direct, at page 70, line 3 though page 71, line 18.
19 An example ofVerizon's template interconnection agreement can be obtaed at:
(http://www.puc.state.nh.us/telecomIilngslInterconnection %20AgreementsIDT%2007-
091 %20Neutral%20Tandem%20NH.pdO
20
Id at pages 16 and 17.
21
Id at page 135.
CASE NO. QWE- T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 11
QWEST CORPORATION
255
83701
e
e
e
1 IV.CONCLUSION
2 Q:PLEASE SUMMAZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
3 A:In sumary, I have addressed Mr. Denney's assertions regarding Qwests
4 charge to convert an unbundled network element ("UN") service to a private line or special
5 access service in those Idaho wire centers that have been designated "non-impaired" pursuant
6 to the TRRO. In doing so, I have demonstrated that choosing to remain on Qwests facilties,
7 and requesting a UN-to-private line conversion is only one of thee options available to the
8 CLECs as a result of a finding of non-impairent. Should the CLEC decide it is in its best
9 interests to remain on Qwest facilties once the UNE services are no longer available after a
10 finding of non-impairment, the CLEC then submits a request formally acknowledging its
11 choice to remain on Qwest s facilities, and the conversion process begins.
12 Moreover, as a direct result of converting CLEC circuits from UN servces to non-
13 UNE services, Qwest incurs costs. In recogntion of these costs, Qwest and numerous
14 CLECs in those states that initially had TRRO non-impairment proceedings pending before
15 their state utility commssions negotiated a $25 rate to offset the costs that Qwest incurs (i.e.,
16 the costs are shared between the CLEC and Qwest). Furer, in that same negotiation
17 process, it was agreed to allow Qwest "leeway" in how it implements the conversion rate.
18 Thus, the conversion rate is a negotiated rate, and not a cost-based rate, nor is the negotiated
19 rate required to be substantiated by its associated costs.
20 Finally, in a non-impaied marketplace, the non-UNE elements are not bound by
21 UNE pricing standards. Instead, the appropriate pricing stadard is to assess whether the
22 element is priced on a just, reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory basis, which
CASE NO. QWE-T-08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
256 HUICUTT, V (Di-Reb) 12
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
e 1 would not be the case if
the conversion was a "zero rate." Furer, since this rate is a
2 jèderally-tariffed rate, the assessment falls under the FCC's jursdiction, not ths
e
e
3 Commission's jursdi.ction.
4 For these reasons, Qwest is merely asking that the Commission simply acknowledge
5 that Qwest is entitled to be compensated, at least in par, for the costs incurred in the
6 demonstrated, seamless conversion from UN servces to alternative services (such as
7 finished private line services). Qwest makes this request with the hope that such
8 acknowledgement will serve the FCC's goal of encouraging ILECs and CLECs to negotiate
9 in good faith regarding any rates, terms, and conditions necessary to implement the FCC rule
10 changes,22and to ensure that paries do not engage in unecessar delay in implementing the
11 FCC's rule changes,23 through litigation or by other means.
12 Q:DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
13 A:Yes, it does.
22 See TRRO, ,r 233, at page 133.
23 See TRRO, ,r 233, at page 133.
CASE NO. QWE- T -08-07
6/10/09
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID
257
HUCUTT, V (Di-Reb) 13
QWEST CORPORATION
83701
1 (The following proceedings were hade2pursuanttoStipulation. )
3 (The hearing concluded at 9: 30 a. m. )
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24-25
258
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING COLLOQUY
P.O.BOX 578,BOISE,ID 83701
e 1 AUTHENTICATION
2
3
4 This is to certify that the foregoing is a
5 true and correct transcript to the best of my ability of the
6 proceedings held in the matter of the Petition of Qwest
7 Corporation for approval of non-impaired wire center lists
8 pursuant to the Triennial Review Remand Order, Case No.
9 QWE-T-08-07, commencing on Monday, June 22, 2009, at the
10 Commission Hearing Room, 472 West Washington, Boise, Idaho, and
11 the original thereof for the file of the Commission.
12 Accuracy of all prefiled testimony as
e 13 originally submitted to this Reporter and incorporated herein
14 at the direction of the Commission is the sole responsibility
15 of the submitting parties.
19
20
21
22
23
24
e 25
16
17
18
ot ry Public
in and for the ate of Idaho,
residing at Meridian, Idaho.
My Commission expires 2-5-2014.
Idaho CSR No. 475
259
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 578, BOISE, ID 83701
AUTHENTICATION