Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
Q.
Please state your name, your responsibilities and your professional
2
background.
3
A.
4
Telephone, LLC. I am responsible for overseeing the design and implementation of the
5
Cavalier network as it relates to Maryland, among other regions in the Cavalier footprint.
6
Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
7
A.
I am testifying against Verizon’s improper attempt to remove unbundled
8
dedicated transport from Maryland, particularly in LATA 236. According to my
9
understanding of the FCC’s Triennial Review Order (TRO), if Verizon seeks to eliminate
My name is Matt Ashenden. I am Director of Engineering for Cavalier
10
UNE DS-1 dedicated transport, UNE DS-3 dedicated transport, or UNE dark fiber
11
dedicated transport, then Verizon must first prove that CLECs are not impaired without
12
access to, respectively, UNE DS-1 dedicated transport, DS-3 dedicated transport or dark
13
fiber dedicated transport, on a route-by-route basis. Yet Verizon’s evidence on these
14
issues is inadequate, based upon speculation, and riddled with mistakes. Moreover, my
15
own inquiries to other carriers have revealed that the Maryland market for dark fiber is
16
non-existent, or at best anemic. The result is that Verizon has failed to undermine the
17
FCC’s findings that Maryland CLECs are impaired without access to UNE dedicated
18
transport routes.
19
Q.
20
R. Gilbert and Carlo M. Peduto, which I’ll refer to as Gilbert/Peduto Direct?
21
A.
22
case for why it believes the Commission should eliminate various unbundled network
23
elements in Maryland, including over a hundred UNE dedicated transport routes.
Are you familiar with Verizon’s October 31, 2003 Direct Testimony of John
Yes. The Gilbert/Peduto Direct and its attached exhibits amount to Verizon’s
1
Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
Q.
First, on page 40, lines 7-8 of Gilbert/Peduto Direct, Verizon claims that
2
routes with just “one end in Maryland” would suffice to meet the UNE transport
3
triggers for dark fiber, DS-1 and DS-3 facilities. Do you agree?
4
A.
5
merely by showing that “one end” of the route is in Maryland. In the TRO, the FCC
6
specifically rejected the ILEC proposals that were “based solely on the presence of
7
alternative transport at one end of a route such that when one end of a route is
8
competitive (a central office with fiber-based collocation), no unbundled transport
9
[would] be available in or out of that competitive central office.”1 So the FCC requires
No. Verizon is wrong to claim it should be able to eliminate UNE transport
10
an ILEC to carry its burden of proof as to both ends of a route.
11
District of Columbia Public Service Commission or the Virginia State Corporation
12
Commission disagrees with the Maryland Commission’s conclusions? It is within the
13
realm of possibility that Verizon would rely on the SCC or PSC conclusion it finds most
14
favorable and just ignore the ruling of the other state’s commission. So Verizon’s opened
15
the door here to PSC arbitrage and strong-arming. On basic principles of fairness
16
between the states, as well as federalism, the Commission should avoid eliminating any
17
transport UNE that might involve inter-state transport. On this basis alone, this
18
Commission should reject Verizon’s attempt to eliminate UNE transport between central
19
offices (COs) in Maryland and, for example, the Woodley (WASHDCWL) and Dupont
20
(WASHDCDP) COs in the District of Columbia and the Fairfax CO (FRFXVAFF) in
21
Virginia.
1 Triennial
Review Order, ¶ 401.
2
Moreover, what if the
Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
Q.
Now are you familiar with the documents attached to Gilbert/Peduto Direct
2
as Attachments 7, 7.1, 8 and 8.1?
3
A.
4
in Maryland where the TRO’s “self-provisioning” trigger has allegedly been met for,
5
respectively, LATA 236 and LATA 238. The “self-provisioning” trigger requires 3 or
6
more unaffiliated competing carriers to have transport deployed. Attachments 8 and 8.1
7
purport to show the UNE dedicated transport routes in Maryland where the TRO’s
8
“competitive wholesale” trigger has allegedly been met for LATA 236 and for LATA
9
238. The “competitive wholesale” trigger requires 2 or more alternative, unaffiliated
Yes. Attachments 7 and 7.1 purport to show the UNE dedicated transport routes
10
transport providers immediately capable and willing to provide transport services. The
11
horizontal axis of each Attachment lists the CLECs supposedly satisfying the respective
12
trigger, while the vertical axis of each Attachment shows the particular wire center pairs
13
of the UNE transport routes Verizon seeks to eliminate. Since Cavalier’s Maryland
14
network needs are currently focused in LATA 236, my testimony will focus on the
15
alleged triggers listed on Attachments 7 and 8. But I would expect that much of my
16
testimony would have application in LATA 238 as well.
17
Q.
18
does Verizon claim Cavalier to be a route-specific transport trigger candidate?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Are other CLECs listed as well?
21
A.
Yes. A number of CLECs are listed as supposed trigger carriers on particular
22
routes. From Cavalier’s perspective, the most notable CLECs so listed are [CLEC
Turning your attention to Attachments 7 and 8 to Gilbert/Peduto Direct,
3
Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION BEGINS] [CLEC PROPRIETARY
2
INFORMATION ENDS].
3
Q.
4
CLECs should be listed on Attachments 7 and 8 as satisfying the dedicated
5
transport route-specific triggers?
6
A.
No.
7
Q.
Why not?
8
A.
For a number of reasons, these lists are fundamentally false and deficient.
9
Q.
What do you mean?
10
A.
The methodology Verizon used to decide which companies to list was based on
11
numerous assumptions and not on solid evidence. Verizon admitted as much in its direct
12
testimony. On page 43 and 49 of Gilbert/Peduto Direct, Verizon admitted it did not have
13
“particularized, route-specific evidence” of wholesale transport availability on any given
14
route for any given carrier. So instead of “appl[ying] the switching triggers on a granular
15
basis”, which I understand to be required by the TRO, Verizon speculated about the
16
availability of dark fiber, DS-3 and DS-1 transport based on its “general” observations.
17
For instance, rather than make an affirmative showing that a CLEC was actually
18
providing competitive wholesale dark fiber transport to other CLECs on a particular
19
route, Peduto and Gilbert essentially testified at page 41 of their testimony that Verizon
20
just performed a physical inspection of collocated facilities. With that kind of cursory
21
and theoretical approach, as opposed to confirming actual self-deployment and actual
22
wholesale activity, Verizon was bound to produce erroneous data. Also, I have just
23
learned that apparently, with less than a full day’s notice, Verizon has moved to amend
Do you agree with Verizon’s characterization that Cavalier and these other
4
Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
and supplement Gilbert/Peduto Direct. So, should the Commission allow the amended
2
testimony, which the Commission should not, I will require additional time in which to
3
review Verizon’s supplemental and amended testimony before responding.
4
Q.
5
produced flawed evidence?
6
A.
7
ILEC parse and present a granular analysis as to each type of transport (dark fiber, DS-1
8
and DS-3) over a particular route, Verizon has done no such thing. Instead Verizon has
9
lumped all three types of transport facilities together. For example, if Verizon claims its
10
physical inspection revealed a CLEC to be providing wholesale DS-3 transport between
11
two wire centers, Verizon has simply jumped to the conclusion, without evidentiary
12
basis, that the CLEC is also providing wholesale dark fiber. So, from Attachment 8,
13
Verizon would have the Commission believe that, [CLEC PROPRIETARY
14
INFORMATION BEGINS] [CLEC PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ENDS]
Can you point to any examples of how Verizon’s physical inspection has
Yes. First, the Commission will note that, despite the FCC’s requirement that the
15
16
Q.
Do you think Verizon’s oversights were as to Cavalier only?
17
A.
No, I do not. From my perspective, Verizon has fundamentally mischaracterized
18
the Maryland dark fiber market. If such a market exists at all in LATA 236, at best it is
19
on life support.
20
Q.
Why do you say that?
21
A.
There are several reasons. First, all of Verizon’s data regarding the routes most
22
important to Cavalier are faulty, and show that Verizon has failed to satisfy the triggers
23
for any of those routes. Specifically, Cavalier is most vulnerable as to, and therefore
5
Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
focused upon, the following transport routes, where Verizon’s Attachments 7 and 8
2
identified the corresponding CLECs as allegedly satisfying the “competitive wholesale”
3
(C/W) or “self-provisioning” (S/P) or both (B) triggers:

4
5
Bethesda (CHCHMDBE) to Woodley (WASHDCWL) – Allegiance (B),
Metromedia/Abovenet (B), and MCI/Worldcom (B).

6
7
Berwyn (CLPKMDBW) to Laurel (LARLMDLR) – MCI/Worldcom (C/W)
and Xspedius (C/W).

8
9
Gaithersburg (GTBGMDGB) to Rockville (RKVLMDRV) – Qwest (C/W)
and MCI/Worldcom (C/W).

10
11
Silver Spring (SLSPMDSS) to Dupont (WASHDCDP) – Allegiance (B),
Metromedia/Abovenet (B), and MCI/Worldcom.
12
13
Cavalier thus compared Verizon’s case as to these routes with the Maryland
14
Commission’s census data, which reflected the various CLECs’ own self-reporting of
15
their transport availability and wholesale offerings.
16
Q.
What did your analysis reveal?
17
A.
It was somewhat shocking, particularly as to dark fiber. In short, the data that
18
were self-reported by Verizon’s alleged trigger candidates, which were maintained
19
behind the firewall of the PSC’s website, completely undermined Verizon’s case. For
20
instance, the self-reported census data for [BEGIN CLEC PROPRIETARY] [END
21
CLEC PROPRIETARY]
22
Q.
Were there any other discrepancies?
6
Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
A.
Yes. Verizon would have the Commission believe that [BEGIN CLEC
2
PROPRIETARY] [END CLEC PROPRIETARY]
3
Q.
Might CLECs have an incentive to give false data?
4
A.
No, quite the contrary. If a CLEC were actually providing transport over a
5
particular route, that CLEC would favor the elimination of UNE transport. UNE
6
transport elimination should result in both greater market share and increased pricing
7
power for a CLEC offering transport over a particular route.
8
Q.
9
data as compared to the Verizon case in chief as to the four routes you listed?
So what is the net result of Cavalier’s analysis of the CLECs’ self-reported
In each case, Verizon fails to achieve the requisite number of three “self-
10
A.
11
provisioning” or two “competitive wholesale” transport triggers as it applies to dark fiber.
12
As such the Commission should reject altogether Verizon’s attempt to eliminate UNE
13
transport in LATA 236 or, at the very least, over the four routes I listed.
14
Q.
15
to believe Verizon should be prevented from eliminating UNE transport?
16
A.
17
from this state, I have issued a formal Request For Information for dark fiber in the
18
Maryland market in the event Cavalier were to find itself with lost UNE routes.
19
Q.
20
dark fiber market?
21
A.
22
not mean that CLEC could ever be a competitive provider of dark fiber. The CLEC’s
23
underlying dark fiber provider might very well have prohibited the re-sale of dark fiber.
Apart from the flaws in Verizon’s case in chief, do you have any other reason
Yes. As a direct result of Verizon’s petition to eliminate UNE transport routes
Do you have any particularly noteworthy observations about the Maryland
Yes. Just because a CLEC might have dark fiber available for its own use does
7
Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
For instance, I inquired of [BEGIN CLEC PROPRIETARY] [END CLEC
2
PROPRIETARY]
3
Q.
4
first data and information request, found in [BEGIN PROPRIETARY] [END
5
PROPRIETARY]
6
Q.
Have you found any other problems with Verizon’s data?
7
A.
Yes. On numerous routes, Verizon has listed both Qwest and Allegiance as
8
satisfying the transport triggers. But, as has been widely reported, on December 18, 2003
9
Qwest announced that it will purchase substantially all assets of Allegiance, which will
Turning your attention to Verizon’s response to the Maryland PSC Staff’s
10
bring both companies’ transport facilities under Qwest’s ownership and control. Thus, on
11
all routes where Verizon has listed both companies as satisfying a trigger, Verizon has
12
engaged in double-counting. The Commission should take care to ensure that Qwest-
13
Allegiance never amounts to more than a single trigger for any transport route.
14
Q.
15
transport services (DS-1s and DS-3s) in with dark fiber transport services?
16
A.
17
“dark fiber obtained as an unbundled network element from Verizon counts as the buying
18
carrier’s own fiber if that carrier attaches its own electronics and offers the activated fiber
19
at wholesale.” It is a destructive error in circled logic for Verizon, or anyone, to accept
20
this phrase and to accept Verizon’s data without granularity that breaks apart lit transport
21
services (DS-1s and DS-3s) from dark fiber transport services. This indicates that if a
22
CLEC uses UNE dark fiber, then Verizon counted it toward the trigger that will eliminate
23
UNE dark fiber.
Have you found any other problems with Verizon’s approach of lumping lit
Yes. On page 32 of the Gilbert/Peduto Direct they embrace the order defining that
8
Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
Q.
Are there any other issues you wish the Commission to consider?
2
A.
Yes. As I’ve indicated, the stakes in this case are high. It took Cavalier two years
3
to build its network in Maryland, and it would be highly disruptive if we were forced to
4
find alternative dark fiber facilities, if in fact they even exist. We would need at least 8
5
months from the time that a UNE segment is eliminated for the processes of bidding,
6
decision-making, and re-routing fiber segments.
7
The situation is all the more acute in that, since October 2, 2003, Verizon has
8
engaged in a concerted effort of (a) strong-arming CLECs into accepting Verizon’s
9
unilaterally drafted TRO amendment proposal, (b) refusing to advise CLECs of whether,
10
in the event Verizon is successful, Verizon intends to remove the at-risk facilities
11
altogether and (c) refusing thus far to negotiate over any rates of services already
12
impacted by the TRO. As is generally known in Maryland, Verizon improperly
13
announced to CLECs by October 2 letter that Verizon would condition its compliance
14
with the TRO upon CLECs’ agreeing to Verizon’s self-serving interconnection
15
agreement (ICA) amendment. Verizon’s October 2 letter further indicated that, as to
16
each CLEC, Verizon would refuse to comply with the TRO during its ICA negotiation
17
period. Making Verizon’s tactic all the more offensive, Verizon’s proposed pricing is
18
absurdly expensive for, e.g. the routine DS-1 facilities modifications ordered by the FCC.
19
See Attachment B to my testimony. Since that time Cavalier has repeatedly sent Verizon
20
written requests about whether, if successful, Verizon would eliminate altogether any
21
facilities CLECs have come to rely upon. Cavalier has also asked about how the
22
remaining facilities would be priced. For three months Verizon has failed to answer
23
these basic questions.
9
Public Version Direct Testimony of Matt Ashenden
On Behalf of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC
MD PSC Case No. 8983
1
I think the Commission should therefore take this issue very seriously. To date
2
we have had no indication from Verizon whether, if a particular dedicated transport route
3
is removed from the list of UNEs, CLECs will have any access to that facility at all, let
4
alone at a wholesale price.
5
Q.
6
dedicated transport UNEs in LATA 236?
7
A.
8
methodology, the plain errors in the data and the real-world evidence of a dearth of
9
alternative dark fiber availability – all show Verizon’s case on dedicated transport to be
What is your conclusion about Verizon’s case for the elimination of
The problems I’ve mentioned about Verizon’s evidence– the flaws in
10
untrustworthy. The Commission should not be overturning the FCC’s UNE transport
11
impairment finding based only upon nonvalidated Verizon evidence. The fact that
12
Verizon was incorrect on all 45 examples where Cavalier was used to satisfy the triggers
13
as they pertain to dark fiber should be reason enough to reject the validity of Verizon’s
14
flawed approach. In my opinion, faulty evidence like this cannot support the “specific,
15
affirmative findings” necessary to overturn the FCC’s TRO finding. In short, Verizon
16
has failed to carry its burden of proving the FCC was wrong to conclude that CLECs in
17
Maryland are impaired without access to dedicated transport UNEs.
18
Q. Does this complete your testimony at this time?
19
A. Yes.
10