1494
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In the matter, on the Commission's
own motion, to facilitate the
implementation of the Federal
Communications Commission's Triennial
Review determinations in Michigan
_____________________________________/
Case No. U-13796
Proceedings had in the above-entitled
matter before James N. Rigas, J.D., Administrative
Law Judge, at the Michigan Public Service Commission,
6545 Mercantile Way, Lansing, Michigan.
- - SESSION OF THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2004
VOLUME 6
- - -
APPEARANCES:
CRAIG A. ANDERSON, J.D.
444 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48226
and
MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAWE LLP
By CHRISTOPHER BINNIG, J.D.
THEODORE A. LIVINGSTON, J.D.
190 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603-3441
Appearing on behalf of SBC Michigan
1495
APPEARANCES:
(Continued)
JOHN J. REIDY III, J.D.
WILLIAM A. DAVIS, II, J.D.
222 West Adams, #1500
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Appearing on behalf of AT&T Communications of
Michigan and TCG Detroit
JAMES R. DENNISTON, J.D.
205 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Appearing on behalf of MCImetro Access Transmission
Services, LLC, MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., and
Brooks Fiber Communications of Michigan, Inc.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
By HENRY T. KELLY, J.D.
333 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Appearing on behalf of Talk America, Inc. and
Z-Tel Communications, Inc.
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS, PC
By STEWART A. BINKE, J.D.
222 N. Washington Square, Suite 500
Lansing, Michigan 48933
and
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
By RANDALL B. LOWE, Partner
Suite 450
1500 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1272
Appearing on behalf of Bullseye Telecom, Inc.
1496
APPEARANCES:
(Continued)
LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, PC
By GARY L. FIELD, J.D.
232 S. Capitol Avenue
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Appearing on behalf of Superior Spectrum, Inc.,
LDMI Telecommunications, Inc., TelNet Worldwide, Inc.,
Quick Communications, Inc., and Climax Telephone Co.,
CMC Communications, and Zenk Group Ltd., d/b/a Planet
Access
CLARK HILL PLC
By HARAN C. RASHES, J.D.
2455 Woodlake Circle
Okemos, Michigan 48864
Appearing on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc.
MICHAEL E. MOODY, J.D.
Assistant Attorney General
Special Litigation Division
525 W. Ottawa, 6th Floor
Lansing, Michigan 48913
Appearing on behalf of Attorney General Michael A. Cox
STEVEN D. HUGHEY, J.D.
Assistant Attorney General
6545 Mercantile Way, Suite 15
Lansing, Michigan 48911
Appearing on behalf of the Commission Staff
- - -
1497
I
N
D
E
X
WITNESS
EXAMINER
TYPE
PAGE
John P. Lube
Lowe
Kelly
Denniston
Rashes
Binnig
Davis
Field
Kelly
Cross
Cross
Cross
Cross
Redirect
Recross
Recross
Recross
1502
1523
1550
1567
1617
1626
1627
1632
Michael Starkey
Denniston
Livingston
Direct
Cross
1642
1826
Ramont Bell
Binnig
Rashes
Binnig
Direct
Cross
Cross
1857
1889
1909
EXHIBIT NO.
MARKED OFFERED REC'D
A-104 - A-123
1641
I-124 - I-134
1641
I-136 - I-137
1642
I-131
I-132
I-133
CONFIDENTIAL Objections and
Responses to Discovery Requests
COSB 034
1509
1641
SBC.com, Business Customers,
Voice, data and network
solutions that meet the
unique needs of your business
1509
1641
SBC.com, Business Customers,
Voice, data and network
solutions that meet the uniq
needs of your business
1515
1641
1498
I
N
D
E
X
(Continued)
EXHIBIT NO.
I-134
I-135
I-136
I-137
I-138
I-139
I-140
I-141
I-142
MARKED OFFERED REC'D
SBC.com, Business Customers,
Voice, data and network
solutions that meet the unique
needs of your business
1515
Michtel Communications, LLC's
Responses to ACN Communications,
Inc., Z-Tel Communications, and
Talk America, Inc's First Set
of Discovery Requests to the
Companies Identified by SBC as
a Self-Provisioning Competitive
Local Exchange Carrier (1.01)
1536 **1633
OMB Bulletin No. 03-04, June 6,
2003
1550
1642
Theoretical CLEC "Coverage"
Calculation Examples
1550
1642
Unisphere Networks SMX-2100
Internet Offload Switch data
sheet
1571
1633
*1641
Cisco AS5800 Access Server,
Overview
1571
1633
*1641
Lucent Technologies PacketStar
PSAX 2300 Access Concentrator
1571
1633
*1641
March 11, 2004 letter to Haran
Rashes with attached Lawful
UNEs Amendment to Interconnection Agreement Between SBC
ILEC d/b/a SBC State and CLEC
1585
1642
(MS-1) Michael Starkey
curriculum vitae
1642
1857
*Exhibits not admitted.
**Offer withdrawn.
1641
1499
I
N
D
E
X
(Continued)
MARKED OFFERED REC'D
EXHIBIT NO.
I-143
I-144
A-145
A-146
(MS-2) Microsoft Windows 2000
Server Documentation
1642
1857
CONFIDENTIAL (MS-3) SBC
Response to MCI 3rd
1642
1857
Third Report and Order and
Fourth Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking - FCC
1841
1857
(SL/MS-2) Response Testimony of
Sherry Lichtenberg and Michael
Starkey
1852
1857
- - -
1500
1
Lansing, Michigan
2
Thursday, March 18, 2004
3
9:00 A.M.
4
- - -
5
6
(The hearing was resumed pursuant to the
adjournment.)
7
JUDGE RIGAS:
8
Good morning.
9
We'll go on the record.
This is a continued hearing
before the Michigan Public Service Commission in Case No.
10
U-13796.
This matter is being continued from the session
11
held yesterday, March 17, 2004.
12
My name is James N. Rigas.
I'm an
13
administrative law judge for the Michigan Public Service
14
Commission.
15
May I have the appearances, please.
16
MR. ANDERSON:
Good morning, your Honor.
17
Craig Anderson on behalf of SBC Michigan.
18
Chris Binnig from the law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe &
19
Maw, also on behalf of SBC Michigan.
20
MR. REIDY:
With me is
Good morning, your Honor.
21
John J. Reidy III on behalf of AT&T Communications of
22
Michigan, Inc. and TCG Detroit.
23
not at counsel table, is William A. Davis.
24
MR. FIELD:
25
Also with me, although
Good morning, your Honor.
Gary L. Field of Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis & Gotting,
1501
1
PC, appearing today on behalf of the Michigan-Based CLEC
2
Coalition and Climax Telephone Company.
3
MR. LOWE:
Good morning, your Honor.
4
Randy Lowe on behalf of Bullseye Telecom, here with co-
5
counsel Stewart Binke, also on behalf of Bullseye Telecom.
6
MR. KELLY:
Hank Kelly with Kelley, Drye &
7
Warren, appearing on behalf of Sage -- strike that --
8
appearing on behalf of ACN Telecom, Talk America, and
9
Z-Tel Communications.
10
11
12
MR. HUGHEY:
Steven Hughey on behalf of
the Commission staff.
MR. DENNISTON:
Jim Denniston on behalf of
13
MCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC, Brooks Fiber
14
Communications of Michigan, and MCI WorldCom
15
Communications, Inc.
16
MR. RASHES:
Good morning, your Honor.
17
Haran C. Rashes of the law firm Clark Hill, PLC, and I am
18
on behalf of Sage.
19
of Roderick S. Coy on behalf of AARP, who will be joining
20
us later this morning.
21
22
23
24
25
I'd also like to enter the appearance
MR. MOODY:
Good morning, your Honor.
Michael Moody on behalf of Michael Cox, Attorney General.
JUDGE RIGAS:
other appearances?
Thank you.
Are there any
I hear none.
Anything before we continue with the
1502
1
cross-examination this morning?
2
Nothing.
Very well.
- - -
3
J O H N
P.
L U B E
4
resumed the stand as a witness called on behalf of SBC
5
Michigan and, having been previously duly sworn, testified
6
further as follows:
7
JUDGE RIGAS:
8
stand.
Mr. Lube has resumed the
Good morning, sir.
9
THE WITNESS:
Good morning.
10
JUDGE RIGAS:
You are, of course, still
11
under oath.
12
You had some additional questions, Mr.
13
Lowe?
14
MR. LOWE:
15
JUDGE RIGAS:
16
Yes, your Honor.
Please continue.
- - -
17
CROSS-EXAMINATION
(Continued)
18
BY MR. LOWE:
19
Q
Mr. Lube, good morning.
20
A
Good morning, Mr. Lowe.
21
Q
I wanted to, if I may, clarify your testimony, a piece of
22
your testimony yesterday asked of you by Mr. Field.
Was
23
it your testimony that the language in the FCC's rules
24
does not contain or, I should say that instead the FCC
25
rules do not contain the language that's in the TRO that
1503
1
says cutoff of four lines is the default cutoff "absent
2
significant evidence to the contrary"; do you remember
3
that testimony?
4
A
I vaguely remember talking about what we had called the
5
default, and I honestly don't remember whether we were
6
talking about rules at the same time.
7
Q
We might have been.
Do you know whether or not the language "absent
8
significant evidence to the contrary" is contained in the
9
rule pertaining to the cutoff?
10
MR. BINNIG:
11
Your Honor, that was asked
and answered yesterday.
12
MR. LOWE:
Well, that's what I was asking
13
for clarification on, your Honor.
14
seem to remember.
15
16
JUDGE RIGAS:
A
17
18
The witness doesn't
I'll allow it.
Go ahead.
I don't recall seeing that in the actual language of the
rules, no, sir.
Q
(By Mr. Lowe)
What is your testimony, if I may ask, if
19
language is in the TRO but not in the rule, which
20
controls?
21
A
Well, once again I'm not sure if there is a legal way to
22
make that determination, but from my opinion, I look first
23
at the rule.
24
part of the TRO that's the adopting language for the rule.
25
Then after I look at the rule I look at the
And just as a for instance, for the
1504
1
trigger part of the rule, I believe the paragraphs that
2
are somewhere around 498 to 503 or maybe it's 499 to 503
3
-- let me just look and see real quickly.
4
Well, to be more specific, like for the
5
self-provisioning trigger paragraphs 501 to 503, but for
6
trigger in general, 498 through 500, that's what I think
7
of as the adopting language in the TRO.
8
second.
9
Q
10
11
So I look at that
And are you then testifying that the TRO -- in this case
the TRO needs to be read in conjunction with the rules?
A
I suppose in some instances it gives us a little more of
12
what the FCC's reasoning or explanation for the rule they
13
adopted.
14
reasons, specific reasons why they adopted the bright line
15
objective trigger for self-provisioning.
16
I look at that as providing some more insight or
17
explanation as to why they developed the rule that they
18
did.
19
Q
For example, in paragraph 501 they provide
Thank you, Mr. Lube.
So in that sense
Moving on, if I may, to a somewhat
20
different subject, you cite in your testimony on at least
21
two occasions, in particular on your 12/19 testimony, the
22
various integrated access offerings of various CLECs.
23
you recall that testimony?
24
25
A
I do recall listing several or describing several
different integrated access service offerings.
Do
1505
1
Q
2
3
Did you testify to that effect to show that there is no
demand for multiple DS0 services?
A
No, sir.
In fact, I did not address the demand for
4
multiple DS0 services one way or the other.
I basically
5
was trying to show that there is a demand among small
6
businesses.
7
medium businesses, according to some of the references I
8
have used to develop my testimony.
In fact, I guess it even ranges up through
9
But yes, it's small businesses that are
10
larger than those very small businesses that are part of
11
the mass market.
12
integrated services and can take advantage of those
13
because CLECs are offering those services.
They do indeed have a demand for
14
Q
Demand in addition to a demand for multi-line DS0 service?
15
A
No, sir.
16
17
When I say integrated, that includes the multi-
line DS0 services, integrated voice and data.
Q
Do you agree that there is demand out there for multi-line
18
DS0 services separate and apart from integrated access
19
services?
20
A
I suspect there probably would be.
21
Q
Have you done an analysis or a study of that demand?
22
A
No, sir.
23
Q
Do you know how those integrated access services are sold
As I mentioned, I had not addressed that.
24
by the CLECs, again those that you cite in your testimony,
25
but integrated access services provided by the CLECs in
1506
1
general?
2
are they sold through telemarketing efforts or specific
3
sales representatives or account representatives?
4
they sold by CLECs, do you know?
5
A
More particularly, are they widely advertised,
How are
I imagine it could be a combination of all of those.
I
6
know they do have web sites that have those services
7
advertised.
8
third-party web sites that you can go to that will link
9
you into specific CLECs' products that are integrated
10
There is also, I guess I would call it,
access services, so they advertise in that manner as well.
11
I believe from what I saw, they have 800
12
telephone numbers that can be called.
13
As far as telemarketing and other types of
14
ways to advertise it, I did not specifically go to look
15
for that to see.
16
presence of those services.
17
Q
18
19
I was just trying to identify the
By the same token, Mr. Lube, do you know how CLECs sell
DS0 services?
A
I don't want to sound like I've ever worked for a CLEC,
20
because as you know I haven't, but I assume that they
21
would sell them through their web site, through an 800
22
number, through whatever other means they choose, whether
23
that be telemarketing or newspaper ads or whatever.
24
25
Q
But you don't know?
I mean you used the word "imagine."
I'm assuming, therefore, that you are guessing as opposed
1507
1
2
to knowing?
A
3
Well, let me explain this.
I made no study of the full
range from A to Z of methods of advertising, no, sir.
4
I was looking from a technical aspect to
5
form this analysis to see if there were products out
6
there.
7
sites and did not make an advertising study or an analysis
8
beyond that.
9
Q
And I did find them.
And I found them through web
Just to be clear, Mr. Lube, you've referred to advertising
10
and that's fine, I did ask you about that.
11
asking about sales channels as well.
12
the same if I asked it more specifically about sales
13
channels in addition to advertising?
14
A
No, sir.
But I was also
So is your answer
The DS0 analysis that's described in the FCC
15
rule, as I read it, it's asking when or under what
16
circumstances, and including additional revenue, these
17
kinds of services warrant the use of a DS1 -- in other
18
words, where a DS1 could be economically provided.
19
fact, the word "could" is in the rule.
20
did not see that I needed to do a full analysis of sales
21
channels of how these services are sold.
22
sure that those services exist, and I had to make sure I
23
knew what kinds of prices were being charged for those
24
services, so I did do that, and that's, as I've mentioned
25
several times, I found that on the Internet.
In
So to do that I
I had to make
1508
1
Q
Mr. Lube, I won't move to strike that answer, but I want
2
you to understand that I didn't ask you at all about the
3
DS0 analysis.
4
you know how CLECs market and sell DS0 services completely
5
in a vacuum, meaning irrespective of the DS0 cutoff or any
6
other analysis that you conducted.
7
A
8
9
All I asked you about was whether or not
Other than the web sites I've seen and the 800 telephone
numbers that those might refer to, no, I do not.
Q
10
O.K.
Are you familiar with any CLEC sales and marketing
plans?
11
A
No, sir.
12
Q
Have you ever participated in writing or implementing a
13
sales and marketing plan for a CLEC?
14
A
No, sir.
15
Q
Are you familiar with or ever participated in any market
16
studies or demand studies for a CLEC?
17
A
Of course not, no, sir.
18
Q
Do you know whether or not customers continue to demand
19
multi-line DS0 services, and in this case I mean more than
20
three DS0 lines?
21
A
22
23
they probably do, although I made no analysis of that.
Q
24
25
Well, as I answered that question a minute ago, I think
Do you know whether or not SBC serves customers with more
than three DS0s?
A
Oh, I'm sure they do.
1509
1
Q
2
3
And only DS0s, meaning absent any other integrated access
services as you refer to?
A
4
Yes, sir, I'm sure they do.
I don't think that's
relevant, but I'm sure they do.
5
MR. LOWE:
6
Your Honor, I'd like to have
marked if I may -- I think we're up to 127, I-127.
7
MR. BINNIG:
8
MR. LOWE:
9
MR. ANDERSON:
10
131?
JUDGE RIGAS:
11
131.
Sorry.
Or I-131.
Yes.
We'll go off the
record.
12
(Documents were marked Exhibits I-131 and
13
I-132 by the reporter.)
14
JUDGE RIGAS:
15
MR. LOWE:
16
No.
Q
17
(By Mr. Lowe)
We'll go back on the record.
Thank you, your Honor.
Mr. Lube, do you have in front of you
what's been identified as Exhibits I-131 and I-132?
18
A
Yes, sir, I sure do.
19
Q
I'd like to refer you to I-131, in particular what's
20
marked in the upper right-hand corner as page 1 of 1,
21
which I believe is the second page of the exhibit.
22
A
Yes, I've got that.
23
Q
And do you see on there numerous line sizes and numerous
24
25
locations associated with those line sizes?
A
I do.
1510
1
Q
2
3
And indeed, are there line sizes greater than four serving
more than one location?
A
4
And let me make sure I know from the question that was
asked in the data request.
5
Yes, O.K., these are DS0 voice grade
6
7
services.
Q
8
9
Mr. Lube, I'll just interject if I may to remind you that
this is confidential information.
A
Yes.
I just wanted to make sure where it says line size,
10
I wanted to triple check to make sure I knew this was
11
speaking of DS0 voice grade lines, and going by the
12
question asked, it appears that it would be.
13
14
I'm sorry, your question?
Q
That's all right.
The question is, does this indeed show
15
that there are locations with lines, DS0 lines, greater
16
than three?
17
A
Yes, it does.
18
Q
I'd like to refer you now, if I may, to what's been marked
19
as Exhibit I-132.
Do you have that in front of you?
20
A
I do.
21
Q
As has been the custom in this proceeding so far, will you
22
take it on my word that in fact this was pulled off of the
23
SBC web site?
24
A
It does appear to be that, so yes, I will.
25
Q
And I'd like to refer you to the sixth page of that
1511
1
exhibit.
Do you have that in front of you?
2
A
I sure do.
3
Q
On the top of that page is it labeled "SBC Business"?
4
A
Yes, that is written on here, probably in a couple of
5
6
places.
Q
Yes, sir, that's correct.
And indeed, in the block in the
7
middle of the page it's entitled "SBC Business Unlimited";
8
is that correct?
9
A
Yes, it is.
10
Q
And do you see the line below the paragraph just before
11
the 1-800 number, and if so, could you read that into the
12
record for me, please?
13
A
14
15
It says:
"If your business has 1-10 lines, get SBC
Business Unlimited by calling 1-800-661-0919."
Q
And one could assume, can they, by this statement that
16
SBC, as you testified a moment ago, sells more than three
17
--
18
A
To some customers I'm sure they do.
19
Q
O.K., thank you very much, Mr. Lube.
20
Do you know how SBC, other than possibly
21
22
through their web site, sells DS0 services?
A
I am not personally familiar with all of their marketing
23
channels.
I know of some ways that they do that, but as
24
with CLECs, I do not have knowledge of all the ways that
25
that's done.
1512
1
Q
Do you know whether or not they sell through mass
2
advertising, do they sell through telemarketing, do they
3
sell through account executives?
4
A
5
6
Well, as I said, I do not know all the ways that they do
that.
Q
Changing subjects slightly on you, Mr. Lube, I'd like to
7
refer you to your use or reference to the SBA, Small
8
Business Administration, definitions of small businesses.
9
A
Yes, sir.
10
Q
I think it's contained in your February 10th testimony on
11
pages 39 and 53, just to name two examples.
12
those references, Mr. Lube, not that you necessarily need
13
to go to them, because I don't think the question is going
14
to require you to do so.
15
I give you
My question to you simply, though, is
16
whether or not those definitions look to or include DS0
17
service providers such as CLECs.
18
A
19
20
Which definitions -- are you referring to the SBA's
definitions of types of customers?
Q
There are two definitions that you give us.
One is very
21
small business and the other one is small business, and my
22
question to you is, do you know whether or not, when the
23
SBA created those definitions, they incorporated CLECs
24
selling DS0 services?
25
A
I'm not really sure I understand your question but I will
1513
1
attempt to answer by saying --
2
JUDGE RIGAS:
3
Are you asking him did the SBC definition
5
include CLECs selling DS0 services?
6
MR. LOWE:
7
JUDGE RIGAS:
8
MR. BINNIG:
9
MR. LOWE:
Yes, sir.
JUDGE RIGAS:
11
MR. LOWE:
A
13
Well, now I'm confused.
As small businesses?
SBA.
SBA.
10
SBA.
Yes.
If you're referring to whether
SBA thought a CLEC was a small business --
14
JUDGE RIGAS:
15
MR. LOWE:
16
I'm uncertain
what that question is.
4
12
Well, wait.
A
That's what he's asking.
Yes, sir.
I assumed that their definition applies to any business.
17
So in my mind that would include CLECs, but I want to make
18
sure I know which definition we're speaking of.
19
They have a definition of a very small
20
business, which if I recall is up through -- well, subject
21
to check in my own testimony, it was like 15 or 16
22
employees.
23
contrast to a very small business, would begin at that
24
point and go up.
25
ceiling of small business is in the SBA's definition, but
That would indicate that a small business, in
And I frankly don't recall what the
1514
1
if there were businesses that are called CLECs that had
2
more than let's say 17, or 17 or more employees, and
3
beneath the ceiling what the SBA defined as a small
4
business, then yes, they would be included.
5
I don't think they -- well, I can't say
6
what they took into consideration.
7
they would have segmented out different industries and
8
different types of companies within each industry.
9
think they just did it as a general proposition.
10
Q
11
12
I
So these definitions, it's your understanding, are
generic, not specifically applicable to CLECs?
A
13
14
I cannot imagine that
I don't know that they're applicable to any type of
company.
Q
So yes, I guess I would regard them as generic.
I want to refer to your March 5 testimony, in particular
15
your answers to a Question No. 185, the text of which I
16
believe is on page 105.
17
it is inconceivable that the FCC's enterprise market would
18
be satisfied with dial-up data -- I believe that's on
19
lines 1 through 4 -- and that what you call UBR, I think
20
it's ADSL offering by SBC is -- and I'm quoting you again
21
-- "very well suited for residence and some very small
22
business customers."
23
You state in there, testify that
In the process I think you continue on and
24
imply that fractional T1 is for businesses larger than
25
very small businesses.
Do you see that language?
1515
1
A
I do see that language, yes, sir.
2
Q
Do you know whether or not SBC sells dial-up services to
3
4
businesses?
A
Not firsthand.
But if a business said that that was what
5
they wanted and would not consider any other alternative
6
type of data service, I suspect we would sell it to them.
7
Q
8
9
Do you know whether or not SBC sells DSL services to small
businesses?
A
10
I'm sure some small businesses have requested that, yes,
sir.
11
MR. LOWE:
12
marked, if I may, as I-133 and -134 two exhibits.
13
JUDGE RIGAS:
14
All right.
We'll go off the
record.
15
(Documents were marked Exhibits I-133 and
16
I-134 by the reporter.)
17
JUDGE RIGAS:
18
We'll go back on the record.
Mr. Lowe.
19
20
Your Honor, I'd like to have
MR. LOWE:
Q
(By Mr. Lowe)
Thank you, your Honor.
So as not to confuse you, Mr. Lube, I want
21
to explain that Exhibits 132 and now -- which I trust you
22
have in front of you, I-132 -- and now I-133 and I-134,
23
have the same first page.
24
A
I understand, yes, sir.
25
Q
The reason is because that's the beginning of the web site
1516
1
that you then click through to get to the subsequent pages
2
which are there.
3
A
Yes, sir.
4
Q
Do you have in front of you I-133?
5
A
Yes, I do.
6
Q
Will you again, as is custom in this proceeding, take it
7
8
on my word that in fact these are from SBC's web site?
A
Yes, I will.
9
MR. BINNIG:
Your Honor, if it would save
10
time, we certainly stipulate, if Mr. Lowe is simply going
11
to ask Mr. Lube to read from this, we certainly stipulate
12
the documents say what they say.
13
JUDGE RIGAS:
14
MR. LOWE:
15
JUDGE RIGAS:
16
That's fine, your Honor.
That's as to both exhibits,
Mr. Binnig?
17
MR. BINNIG:
18
JUDGE RIGAS:
19
MR. LOWE:
20
Is that sufficient?
Q
(By Mr. Lowe)
Yes, your Honor.
Very good.
Thank you, counselor.
Mr. Lube, on page 65 of your February 10
21
testimony, lines 11 through 12, I believe also on page 60,
22
lines 18 through 22, you allude, state to the fact that it
23
is "... the CLEC's choice as to the type of physical plant
24
to be used to provide those services."
25
A
Actually, no.
Do you see that?
I was trying to catch up with the two cites
1517
1
you gave me when you started asking the question.
2
frankly was not able to do that.
3
Q
Just wave your hand at me.
4
A
I think you said page 65?
5
Q
I did, of your February 10.
6
A
I have that, yes, sir.
7
I
And I think you said lines 11
through 12; is that correct?
8
Q
Yes.
9
A
Then there was another page.
10
Q
Page 60, lines 18 through 22.
11
A
I'm taking just a second to make sure I understand the
12
context of those lines.
13
Q
Yes, please do.
14
A
Yes, sir.
15
16
O.K.
I've had a chance to look at those, thank
you.
Q
Could you explain the basis for that statement that it is
17
indeed the CLEC's choice as to the type of physical plant
18
to be used to provide those services?
19
20
21
A
I guess maybe the easiest way to explain that is to even
just look at a voice-only type service example.
If there is a customer out there that
22
wants a certain number of voice lines, if the CLEC had the
23
ability and the desire to use a single DS1 loop to serve
24
that location, and there was space at that particular
25
customer's premises for the CLEC to locate some network-
1518
1
type equipment, then they could use a T1 type of facility.
2
If the CLEC chose not to do that, which
3
I'm sure is a lot of the time, they would choose to use
4
individual voice-grade loops to serve each of those
5
services to that customer.
6
What that explanation was trying to say
7
is, when the customer tells the carrier this is the type
8
of service I want, the carrier then looks at the
9
circumstances and says, O.K., what is the most appropriate
10
way for me to deliver that set of services the customer
11
wants to that customer's location.
12
Q
13
14
Do you believe that there are circumstances where it would
be the customer's choice?
A
There are circumstances when the customer's choice might
15
dictate a type of facility.
16
said "I would like to buy your integrated access service,"
17
you could not provide that just over voice-grade loops;
18
you would have to use a T1 or DS1 loop to provide that
19
service.
20
customer's choice would dictate the type of facility.
21
Q
Thank you.
For example, if a customer
So there are instances I think where the
Do you know whether or not it would be or have
22
you analyzed whether or not it would be economic for a
23
CLEC to provide multi-line DS0 services using a self-
24
provisioning switch, meaning either its own switch or a
25
switch of a third-party other than SBC?
1519
1
A
I personally have not done a full analysis that includes
2
the cost of the switch and everything else that has to be
3
used with that self-provided switch to serve that
4
customer, no, sir.
5
Q
Back, if I may, briefly to my reference earlier to dial-up
6
and DSL services sold by SBC, do you know whether or not
7
those services are sold to meet a customer's data needs,
8
or is there another purpose for selling those services?
9
A
I believe you said dial-up data and DSL, is that correct?
10
Q
Yes.
11
12
Let's take them separately, dial-up on the one hand
and DSL on the other.
A
Well, I presume -- well, I think I can simply answer that
13
both of those would be for Internet access, and in that
14
sense, to the extent that that's data, yes, sir.
15
Q
Let me then, if I may, refer you to your conclusion -- and
16
I'm going to use approximately 80 because I think in one
17
access area it is 76 and for another it was 86 and another
18
it was 80.
19
would have to take in approximately 80 more dollars in
20
additional data revenue in order to be cost-effective at
21
four DS0s and above -- and I refer you to your December 19
22
testimony, page 46, lines 5 through 7, and what's been
23
marked and I think then entered into the record as Exhibit
24
A-110, page 8 of 8.
25
refer you to either one.
But your conclusion that on average a CLEC
It's the same data.
I just want to
1520
1
A
Yes, sir, I've got the one in my testimony, thank you.
2
Q
Could you please explain to me, when you say $80 more per
3
4
month of data revenue, what you mean by data revenue?
A
Well, in my analysis this is the incremental, in other
5
words, additional amount of revenue the CLEC could obtain
6
by virtue of selling an integrated access service to a
7
customer that includes data.
8
customer already has voice service.
9
Because I presume the
I believe I stated that in Exhibit A-114.
10
I think I described it, subject to check.
I'd have to
11
look and find the exact paragraph and read it from there.
12
But I recall describing that this is a customer that has
13
voice service today, and when this customer subscribes to
14
integrated access service, the additional services data
15
and the additional revenue the CLEC gets for the service
16
compared to what it got from the voice service before
17
would be by virtue of serving that data.
18
Q
Is it the same -- what I'm really after, Mr. Lube, when
19
you use the word "data," is it used in the same context as
20
I asked you earlier about DSL or dial-up serving the data
21
needs of the customer, meaning is that the type of revenue
22
that you're referring to?
23
A
In my analysis, no.
I was looking at the type of data
24
that you would receive over an integrated access service,
25
which is perhaps of a larger bandwidth than what you're
1521
1
going to get with DSL; certainly larger than what you're
2
going to have with dial-up data or dial-up integrated
3
access.
4
But I don't know.
Data is data.
If we're
5
including Internet access in data, these numbers here are
6
not based on dial-up data or DSL load.
7
Q
8
9
They're just based on Internet, integrated access service
as a package?
A
Well, that's what I looked at.
Again I was trying to see
10
under the circumstance of providing data and voice, under
11
a DS1 loop, because this whole analysis is about trying to
12
determine whether it's economic to provide a DS1 loop.
13
It's not at what point is it economic to provide multiple
14
DSL lines over a copper loop.
15
analysis is doing.
16
That's not what the DS0
So because it's asking us to look at when
17
it becomes economic to use a DS1 loop, again I looked at
18
the types of data capabilities you could have with an
19
integrated access service, which go beyond what you can
20
get with a dial-up data or DSL.
21
Q
But it could include dial-up or DSL?
22
A
It could not include DS -- well, I'm sorry.
23
24
25
I do not
understand your question.
Q
Well, quite frankly, Mr. Lube, I don't know what you mean
when you use the word "data" with revenues, which is what
1522
1
I am after here, trying to understand or have you define
2
for me your use of the word data in that context.
3
A
I'm referring to the type of data capabilities that a
4
customer can obtain through the use of integrated access
5
service over a DS1 loop.
6
Q
Thank you, Mr. Lube.
You refer -- and I want to change
7
the subject on you yet again here briefly -- in your
8
direct testimony, page 27, I believe it is lines 21
9
through 23, you refer to traditional media outlets, in
10
particular radio, television, newspapers, typically
11
reaching the areas about the size of an MSA.
12
that language?
Do you see
13
A
I'm sorry, which lines again were those?
14
Q
I believe 21 through 23.
15
A
I see that language, yes, sir.
16
Q
Could you give me the basis for that statement that in
17
18
fact they typically reach areas about the size of an MSA?
A
I believe that was based on conversations with Dr. Taylor,
19
who has more experience in advertising and media outlets
20
certainly than I do.
21
But I was just citing that as -- and to
22
me, intuitively, from my personal life experience, I know
23
that newspapers are distributed well beyond the very
24
center of a metropolitan area.
25
outlying areas.
They are distributed to
I know that radio waves intuitively can
1523
1
reach areas larger than just the very center of a
2
metropolitan area.
3
So I guess it's a combination of my
4
discussions with Dr. Taylor and my own personal life
5
experience.
6
Q
I take it then that in the state of Michigan, for example,
7
you didn't analyze or specifically look at newspapers,
8
radio stations, television stations, to see what their
9
reach is?
10
A
That's correct.
11
MR. LOWE:
12
Your Honor, I have no further
questions of Mr. Lube.
13
JUDGE RIGAS:
14
Mr. Kelly.
15
MR. KELLY:
Thank you, Mr. Lowe.
Thank you.
16
- - -
17
CROSS-EXAMINATION
18
BY MR. KELLY:
19
Q
20
Good morning, Mr. Lube.
My name is Hank Kelly and I'm the
attorney representing ACN Talk America and Z-Tel.
21
A
Good morning.
22
Q
I want to talk about three different areas, some of which
23
you have already talked about, but the DSL cutoff, the
24
geographic market, and some of the questions with respect
25
to the trigger analysis that you have applied.
O.K.?
1524
1
A
Yes, sir.
2
Q
Let's first start with the geographic market on the
3
issues.
SBC has proposed the MSA as the appropriate
4
geographic market for the Commission to look at in
5
applying the trigger analysis, correct?
6
A
That is correct.
7
Q
And the way you have come about that is you have looked at
8
five data points or data characteristics in making the
9
recommendation for an MSA.
You have looked at the NXX
10
assignments, ported numbers, collocations, number of
11
voice-grade loops that have been ordered by CLECs, as well
12
as the CLECs' switch deployment; is that true?
13
A
I have looked at all of these, yes, sir, that's correct.
14
Q
And aggregating that data, based on that data you have
15
made the recommendation that MSA is the appropriate market
16
definition, fair?
17
A
Yes, sir, I think that's fair.
18
Q
Now, just to be clear also, this data that you gathered
19
and presented to the Commission was aggregated and
20
presented, broken down on a wire center basis, correct?
21
A
I'm pausing to think of the different varieties just to
22
make sure.
I do not believe the CLEC switch data had any
23
correlation with SBC wire centers, but the collocations,
24
the ported numbers, the coverage of the CLECs and access
25
code assignments, and the unbundled loops, yes, that data
1525
1
was gathered on a wire center basis because that's
2
typically how it's maintained.
3
Q
O.K.
And so the wire center basis is really the building
4
block that you relied upon, that SBC relied upon in
5
measuring data points and making the recommendation of MSA
6
as the appropriate market definition?
7
A
Yes.
I think that's fair to say, that that is the
8
building block.
9
block.
10
Q
11
12
CLECs don't order NXX codes on an MSA basis, do
they?
A
13
14
O.K.
Not the end goal, but it's a building
No.
An NXX code serves a rate center, which is one or
more wire centers.
Q
O.K.
So for all intents and purposes, when a CLEC orders
15
NXX codes, they really order the NXX codes on a wire
16
center basis?
17
A
18
19
No, sir, on a rate center basis, which is one or more wire
centers.
Q
When numbers are ported to the CLEC from an SBC -- SBC as
20
a customer, the numbers get ported, how does the ordering
21
of that ported number take place?
22
A
23
24
25
I'm sorry.
Do you mean how does the end-user customer
request or how does the CLEC request?
Q
How does the CLEC request that the number be ported?
What's the process by which that happens?
1526
1
A
I'm not familiar with the service order flow and all of
2
the intricate details of that.
3
the work, but I'm not an expert on all the ordering level
4
details.
5
Q
I know the end result of
With respect to collocations, CLECs don't order
6
collocations or begin the process of implementing
7
collocations on an MSA basis, correct?
8
A
9
I think that would be fair.
I think what they do is, they
decide what offices -- office or offices -- they want to
10
serve at a specific point in time, and they request
11
collocations there.
12
offices, they then request collocations in those other
13
locations, so I think it's kind of a progressive process.
14
Q
15
16
If they want to expand to other
But it's primarily on an office-by-office basis that the
collocations get implemented?
A
17
Well, certainly, because it's within the central office
that serves only a wire center.
18
Let me rephrase that.
The collocation
19
space is within a central office, which serves just a wire
20
center.
21
Q
So in that respect, yes, sir.
And when CLECs order their voice-grade loops on a UNE-L
22
basis, which is one of the other data points that you
23
measured in your analysis, they really do that through
24
their collocation space for the most part, right?
25
A
For the most part, yes.
There are some yields that would
1527
1
take them to a different location, perhaps a distant
2
collocation spot.
3
through the collocation space, in the same office where
4
the loop is.
5
Q
But yes, for the most part it would be
Is it fair to say that the number of yields that you have
6
on a UNE-L mass-market loop basis is extremely small
7
compared to the overall number of loops that SBC makes
8
available to CLECs?
9
A
10
It's very small.
I don't know how small extremely small
is, but I will agree that it's very small.
11
Q
O.K.
12
A
In comparison.
13
Q
What I'd like to do now is talk a little bit about how you
14
applied your trigger analysis and kind of go through that.
15
Now, you discussed earlier in talking with
16
Mr. Lowe that generally what you do when you're applying
17
the FCC's rules, you just start with the rule, correct?
18
A
Yes, sir.
19
Q
All right.
20
Let's go if you could, please -- do you have a
copy of the TRO in front of you?
21
A
I sure do.
22
Q
Go to page 21 of the rules that are embodied in that
23
order, and specifically I'd like to turn your attention to
24
the state commission analysis section.
25
A
Yes, sir, I've got that.
This is iii.
1528
1
Q
All right.
Now, subparagraph A of that starts off "Local
2
switching triggers," and there are two tests to determine
3
whether a requesting carrier is impaired without access to
4
switching.
5
trigger, and then the second test is the competitive
6
wholesale trigger, right?
The first test is the self-provisioning
7
A
Yes, sir, that's correct.
8
Q
And I think you also said that the paragraphs 499, 500 and
9
a couple other paragraphs are where the FCC goes through
10
11
its analysis and ultimately adopts this rule.
A
12
13
Yes.
I think I described those as the adopting language,
yes.
Q
O.K.
Hold your place at that rule, because I just want to
14
compare some of the language with the rule.
And if you
15
could, I'd direct your attention to paragraph 499.
16
there's a sentence in paragraph 499 that starts off and
17
says:
18
providers should be actively providing voice service to
19
mass market customers in the market."
"Moreover, the identified competitive switch
Do you see that?
20
A
Yes, sir, I do.
21
Q
And that wasn't affected in any way by the errata,
22
23
Now,
correct?
A
What I believe I'm looking at is the version that includes
24
the effect of the errata, and yes, in fact let me reread
25
that to make sure.
1529
1
"Moreover, the identified competitive
2
switch providers should be actively providing voice
3
service to mass market customers in the market," yes, sir.
4
Q
O.K.
Now, focusing on the words "should be actively
5
providing voice service to mass market customers," that's
6
language that's not in the rule itself, correct?
7
A
8
9
correct.
Q
10
11
All of those words are not in the rule, yes, sir, that's
And in fact, the term "actively providing" is not in the
rule, correct?
A
Where I think the rule covers those words is where it says
12
"serving mass market customers."
13
rule.
14
Q
O.K.
Those words are in the
But you would agree, though, that the Commission,
15
when applying the trigger analysis, even though it doesn't
16
say it in the rule, should apply the terms "actively
17
providing voice service to mass market customers"?
18
A
I agree that 499 says that.
I think we disagree what
19
"actively serving" -- or, I'm sorry -- "actively
20
providing" means.
21
Q
O.K.
And that's fine, we can disagree as to what
22
"actively providing" means.
But you would agree at least,
23
though, that the Commission, when applying the trigger
24
analysis determining whether a CLEC meets the triggers,
25
should apply the words "actively providing," whatever that
1530
1
2
means?
A
3
4
Well, I think they would apply it in the same way that the
rule states it at the same time.
Q
O.K.
What about if you go to paragraph 500.
The last
5
sentence of that paragraph says:
6
to be examined by state commissions is whether the
7
providers are currently offering and able to provide
8
service, and are likely to continue to do so."
9
that?
10
A
Yes, sir, I do.
11
Q
O.K.
"The key consideration
Do you see
Now the terms "offering and able to provide service,
12
and are likely to continue to do so" is not in the rule,
13
correct?
14
A
15
16
I grant you that that those exact words are not in the
rule, that's correct.
Q
But you would also agree with me that the TRO says that
17
"The key consideration to be examined by state commissions
18
is whether the providers," et cetera, right?
19
that?
Do you see
20
A
I do agree it says that.
21
Q
Would you agree also, then, that one of the factors that
22
the state public service commissions need to take into
23
consideration when implementing the rule is that they
24
should examine whether the providers are currently
25
offering and able to provide service and are likely to
1531
1
2
continue to do so?
A
Yes, actually I think they should do that but in the
3
manner described in the rest of that paragraph that you're
4
reading from.
5
Q
O.K.
So I guess my point is that you've got a rule and
6
that there are factors that the FCC has laid out in the
7
order that state commissions should apply in implementing
8
the exact words of the rule.
9
A
10
Yes, I think some of that language is pertinent.
I sure
do.
11
Q
And we've gone through two examples.
12
A
Yes, sir.
13
Q
And there are probably others in the order as well,
14
correct?
15
A
Well, it depends on where they are in the order.
16
Q
But you would agree that there are probably other factors
17
that the state commissions should also apply in the order
18
itself?
19
A
Well, there would be some like the ones that you pointed
20
out.
I would note that my previous comment meant that the
21
FCC describes a lot of different things that it took into
22
consideration.
23
adopting language or in the rule, then in that instance I
24
think it would not be appropriate for that to be applied
25
as part of the trigger.
But if it did not include that in any
1532
1
Q
All right.
I'd like to then focus your attention on some
2
of the companies that you've identified as self-
3
provisioning triggers.
4
You would agree, wouldn't you, that a
5
company witness or representative that appears before this
6
Commission in this case would likely have better knowledge
7
than you of their own company's operations?
8
A
If your question is limited to knowledge of their company
9
operations, but not if your question -- as long as your
10
question doesn't include that they're properly applying
11
that knowledge to the framework of the TRO, I would agree
12
with you.
13
Q
O.K.
So you've got Mr. Finefrock here, who is with LDMI.
14
He will present some testimony as an officer of LDMI, and
15
you would agree that he would have better knowledge of his
16
company's operations than you or SBC, correct?
17
A
He would --
18
Q
With respect -- go ahead, finish your answer.
19
A
I think we were going to say the same thing.
I'm sorry.
Yes, with
20
the qualification that I don't agree with how he applies
21
his knowledge of that company to the framework of the TRO,
22
I would agree that he certainly has firsthand knowledge of
23
his company's operations.
24
25
Q
And the same would be true of other carriers that have
presented information in the context of this case through
1533
1
discovery or whatever, companies like XO, KMC.
2
like that would also have better knowledge of their own
3
internal operations than you or SBC?
4
A
5
6
They should.
Companies
Not that any of that, or not that all of
that applies again to this framework, but they should.
Q
Now, assuming -- this is hypothetical, clearly
7
hypothetical because we're here for a reason -- now,
8
assuming that there is agreement between the company
9
witnesses on the meaning of the regulations and the
10
factors that the state commissions should look at in
11
applying those regulations, and it then only turns to
12
matters of fact of whether a company is or is not within
13
the definition of a trigger, who would have better
14
knowledge of LDMI's operations, for example, in that
15
circumstance?
16
A
I think if we both agreed on exactly how to apply the
17
rules and it were purely fact-finding, I think once that
18
representative of that company presented those facts, we
19
both would.
20
Q
And so assuming agreement on the rules and the factors and
21
applying those rules, if LDMI comes to the Commission and
22
says, "I'm not a trigger," making that assumption, SBC
23
would have no basis -- strike that -- SBC would have less
24
knowledge than Mr. Finefrock in reaching a conclusion on
25
how to apply the rule or the regulations, correct?
1534
1
A
Here's the only way I know to answer that.
2
Q
Yes or no, do you think you'd have less knowledge than Mr.
3
Finefrock, assuming complete agreement on how to apply the
4
regulations and the rules?
5
6
MR. BINNIG:
Q
(By Mr. Kelly)
Less knowledge of what?
Less knowledge of the company's
7
operations, whether that company fits within the trigger
8
analysis.
9
A
I already agreed, yes, that he would have more knowledge
10
about his company, and I for right now will accept your
11
hypothetical that we agree on the rules.
12
don't.
13
the pure facts, no subjectivity but the pure facts of his
14
company, then I will know as much as he does as it relates
15
to the rules.
16
works there.
17
Q
Obviously we
And as soon as he shares that information about
But he will know it initially because he
Now, the same would also be true of XO.
If XO asserts
18
that it is not a trigger, assuming a common understanding
19
of the application of the rules, you would defer to their
20
understanding of their own company's operations, correct?
21
MR. BINNIG:
I'm going to object to the
22
vagueness of the question.
I mean this series of
23
questions began with a reference to operations, and then
24
we made this logical jump to do they satisfy triggers, and
25
I think the question assumes the two are one and the same,
1535
1
and I think that's just too vague to make that assertion.
2
MR. KELLY:
Your Honor, it's the same
3
question I asked with respect to LDMI, it's just a
4
different CLEC.
5
entitled to ask the witness a hypothetical question,
6
assuming the common understanding of the rules, who would
7
have better knowledge of the application of that trigger
8
analysis.
9
It is a hypothetical question, but I'm
JUDGE RIGAS:
And if I'm clear, the
10
central part of your hypothetical question is that the
11
parties agree on what the rules provide; is that true?
12
MR. KELLY:
Right.
13
JUDGE RIGAS:
Well, that's why I don't see
14
the point of this, because any hypothetical question must
15
somehow be grounded in the facts or the theories of the
16
case for it to have any meaning.
17
So unless we get to a point sometime in
18
this case where everybody tells me "We all agree what the
19
TRO and the rules provide," that's fine.
20
think we're going to get to that point, are we?
21
MR. BINNIG:
22
JUDGE RIGAS:
23
No.
O.K.
So we're really not
doing anything.
24
25
But I don't
MR. KELLY:
Q
(By Mr. Kelly)
All right, I'll move on.
Let me just ask you this question.
More
1536
1
specifically, XO has asserted in response to discovery
2
requests -- and it's attached as Exhibit No. 21, or for
3
identification purposes anyway as Exhibit No. 21 to Mr.
4
Kelley's testimony -- that the circumstances under which
5
it may order DS0 capacity loops, XO would have a better
6
understanding of those facts than you or SBC, correct?
7
A
8
Of what kinds of loops they are and under what
circumstances?
9
Q
Yes.
10
A
They would.
11
But as they apply that information to the
rules, as you know, I disagree with that.
12
MR. KELLY:
13
Your Honor, I would like to have an
14
exhibit marked if I may, please.
15
16
JUDGE RIGAS:
All right.
This will be
135.
17
18
O.K.
(A document was marked Exhibit I-135 by
the reporter.)
19
JUDGE RIGAS:
20
MR. RASHES:
We'll go back on the record.
Your Honor, I just want to
21
put on the record that this discovery response Mr. Kelly
22
has just passed out was not -- at least it wasn't served
23
on any of my clients.
24
other parties to this case.
25
deny that, but I just wanted to put that on the record.
I don't think it was served on any
Other parties can confirm or
1537
1
And no proof of service thereof was filed either.
2
MR. KELLY:
Well, first of all, let me
3
identify it for the record.
This has been marked as
4
Exhibit No. I-135.
5
Michtel Communications, LLC in response to our discovery
6
requests.
7
was received by e-mail to us I believe sometime last week
8
from Michtel themselves.
It is a discovery response from
I will represent to the Commission that this
9
This is an excerpt.
I can produce the
10
original -- or the full version in an e-mail version today
11
later on to the parties.
12
did or didn't serve it on anybody, but this was a response
13
that they provided to us.
14
I can't represent whether they
I didn't take it upon myself to serve
15
everybody else.
To be quite frank, this is the first time
16
it occurred to me that it may or may not have been served
17
on other parties.
18
JUDGE RIGAS:
19
MR. KELLY:
All right.
So I don't think counsel for
20
Michtel is here.
21
an attorney but by the company.
22
23
JUDGE RIGAS:
Q
24
25
I don't think it was presented to us by
(By Mr. Kelly)
All right, go ahead.
Let's go to your Exhibit JPL-15, which now
has been marked as Exhibit A-118.
A
Yes, sir, I'm looking at JPL-15.
1538
1
Q
2
3
Now, you have identified Michtel as a triggering CLEC in
the Ann Arbor MSA, correct?
A
4
I'm going to verify that, but it's not anything that can
be verified in confidential JPL-15.
5
If I look at highly confidential -- well,
6
this is highly confidential.
7
it are highly.
8
I'm not sure which parts of
In JPL-14 is where I show which CLECs have
9
been identified as a trigger in which MSAs.
10
So to answer your question, I would have
11
to look at JPL-14, not JPL-15.
12
Q
O.K.
13
A
I agree with 14, yes, sir.
14
Q
O.K.
15
A
And yes, I have identified -- well, actually I assume this
16
They're identified in JPL-14.
is not confidential.
17
MR. ANDERSON:
18
Can we go off the record
for a minute?
19
JUDGE RIGAS:
20
(There was a discussion off the record.)
21
JUDGE RIGAS:
22
Q
(By Mr. Kelly)
Let's go off the record.
We'll go back on the record.
Now, directing your attention to the
23
Michtel discovery response, they indicate in response to
24
Request No. 1.07 whether they actively market to mass
25
market customers, and their answer is no, correct?
1539
1
A
That's what it says.
2
Q
You'd have no reason to dispute that?
3
MR. BINNIG:
Well, I guess, your Honor, I
4
have a question about the use of a document that's not a
5
document that was ever -- it's not an SBC response to a
6
data request.
7
that this witness has ever seen this document before, and,
8
you know, I think it's inappropriate for counsel to be
9
asking questions about a data request response that he's
10
never seen from a party who's not here.
11
12
I don't think it's even been established
JUDGE RIGAS:
That raises some interesting
questions.
13
MR. KELLY:
Well, I can certainly ask him
14
whether he took this into account in formulating his
15
opinions and whether or not it changes his opinion.
16
MR. BINNIG:
You asked him whether he's
17
ever seen it before.
18
means by definition he didn't take it into account.
19
20
He's never seen it before.
JUDGE RIGAS:
MR. KELLY:
22
JUDGE RIGAS:
Certainly I can establish -One at a time, and when it's
me, it's --
24
25
Not unless he got the
information from some other source.
21
23
That
MR. KELLY:
record.
I thought we were off the
1540
1
JUDGE RIGAS:
No, we're not.
2
I'm going to sustain the objection.
I'll
3
allow you to continue to pursue this area, but you'll need
4
to rephrase your question.
5
MR. KELLY:
6
Q
(By Mr. Kelly)
Thank you, your Honor.
I'll represent to you and I'll provide a
7
full version of the response later to the Commission, but
8
this was a formal response to a discovery request that
9
Michtel provided to ACN, Talk America, and Z-Tel, and did
10
you take this information into account in formulating your
11
opinions yesterday and today about whether Michtel is or
12
is not a triggering CLEC?
13
A
Well, I have not seen this until today, and I believe you
14
said it was received by e-mail a week or so ago.
15
not have taken this document into account, especially
16
since I made my determination back before December 19th.
17
JUDGE RIGAS:
I could
Let me ask, do you have any
18
independent knowledge of any of the information that's set
19
forth in that proposed exhibit?
20
A
The best way for me to answer that is no.
But even if
21
they say they don't actively market, that would have been
22
inconsequential to me because we disagree with Mr. Kelly's
23
client that that's pertinent.
24
25
Q
(By Mr. Kelly)
But you would agree at least that to the
extent that there is disagreement about whether that's
1541
1
pertinent, that that information is relevant for purposes
2
of the Commission's analysis?
3
A
Well, that's kind of a hard question to answer because
4
that's asking me to say that anything that you would want
5
to make up is relevant if it's relevant in your mind.
6
It's not relevant in my mind.
I think
7
it's up to the Commission to decide whether they would
8
make it relevant, but we certainly don't believe that it
9
has anything to do -- I'm talking about actively
10
marketing.
11
anything to do with passing the trigger, the self-
12
provisioning trigger.
13
and I would have to tell you the very same answer.
14
Q
O.K.
We don't believe that actively marketing has
You could name me 30 more things
I'll skip that other analysis and what I'd like to
15
do instead now is to go to the DS0 cutoff questions if I
16
could, please.
17
A
Yes, sir.
18
Q
Now, let's start back, and I'd like to direct your
19
attention to page 19, beginning at subparagraph (d) of the
20
rule.
21
A
Yes, sir, I'm there.
22
Q
Up at the top, and I just want to give some structure and
23
then we'll ultimately get to the part of the rule that
24
talks about the DS0 cutoff point.
25
incumbent" -- in subparagraph (d) it says:
It says:
"An
"An incumbent
1542
1
LEC shall provide a requesting carrier with non-
2
discriminatory access to local circuit switching," and
3
then it continues.
4
And then at subparagraph (2) it says:
"An
5
incumbent LEC shall provide access to local switching on
6
an unbundled basis to a requesting carrier serving end
7
users using DS0 capacity loops ..."
8
Now, stopping right there, you would agree
9
at least up to that point there is a direction by the FCC
10
rule that SBC make available switching to CLECs?
11
A
In the mass market at DS0 level capacity, yes, sir.
12
Q
O.K.
13
A
At the beginning of subparagraph (2) "DS0 capacity (i.e.,
14
15
mass market)."
Q
16
17
It doesn't say that in the rule itself, though, it just
says it in the title, correct?
A
18
19
Where does it say "mass market" in the rule itself?
Well, I consider the title to be part of the rule, but I
don't know whether there's any legal aspect to that.
Q
O.K.
But you would agree at least in the subsequent
20
language excluding the title part, in the language itself
21
that the term "mass market" is not there.
22
that.
23
We'll stipulate
You don't have to answer that.
But up to that point at least, if you take
24
into consideration just the wording of the language, SBC
25
must provide DS0 capacity loops?
1543
1
A
2
3
I'm sorry, I only accept that under the parameters laid
out by the title, which says "mass market."
Q
O.K.
Now, there's a couple exceptions:
"Except where the
4
state commission has found, in accordance with the
5
conditions set forth in paragraph (d)(2), that requesting
6
carriers are not impaired in a particular market,"
7
correct?
8
A
That's correct.
9
Q
And then the other exception is the transition exception?
10
A
Yes, sir.
11
Q
O.K.
12
13
in, right?
A
14
15
That's correct.
Q
O.K.
Now, what part of the rule is it that actually
identifies the DS0 cutoff analysis?
A
18
Let's see if I can get all the alphabet stuff here
correct.
19
It would be (d)(2)(iii), however that's
20
21
In fact, it extends from page 19 all the
way through page 24.
16
17
Now, the (d)(2) section is the section that we're
said, (B)(4).
Q
O.K.
Now, when you say (B)(4), (B) is the paragraph
22
that's entitled "Additional state authority," and that's
23
the potential deployment part of the rule, correct?
24
25
A
I just want to make sure I'm not missing some language
that I don't normally refer to.
1544
1
Q
Sure.
2
A
Yes.
I think, generally speaking, the contents of this
3
section are addressing issues or things to be looked at
4
with respect to a potential deployment test.
5
Q
6
7
subparagraph (A) of that page.
A
8
9
Now, SBC has put on only the trigger analysis embodied in
Yes, we have -- well, O.K.
We have done a trigger
analysis and a DS0 analysis.
Q
10
But you've done the trigger analysis.
You're not putting
on a potential deployment case.
11
A
Correct, we're not putting on a potential deployment case.
12
Q
O.K.
So you're really only limiting your case to a
13
commission making a finding of no impairment under
14
subparagraph (A), correct?
15
A
16
17
based on the language in (d)(2).
Q
18
19
Yes, but we believe (B)(4) still applies to a trigger case
O.K.
And in (d)(2) you're talking about the parenthetical
part where it says "i.e., mass market"?
A
Well, I'm also talking about the part where it says
20
"except where the state commission has found, in
21
accordance with the conditions set forth in paragraph
22
(d)(2) of this section," and that includes the trigger
23
test as well, "that requesting telecommunications carriers
24
are not impaired in a particular market."
25
So I read as one of the exceptions the
1545
1
trigger case, and so the trigger case would be an
2
exception, and where non-impairment is found, that would
3
be an exception to providing mass market switching to all
4
DS0 capacity loops.
5
Q
All right.
Let's go to subparagraph (B), sub (4), which
6
says "Additional state authority" is (B), and (4) says
7
"Multi-line DS0 end users."
Do you see that?
8
A
I do see that, yes, sir.
9
Q
What does multi-line DS0 end users mean to you, just those
10
11
four words?
A
O.K., those words mean customers who are served by DS0
12
voice-grade loops, and when I say loops, plural, more than
13
one.
14
Q
O.K.
Now, this paragraph starts off and it says:
"As
15
part of the economic analysis set forth in
16
(d)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of this section, the state commission
17
shall establish a maximum number of DS0 loops for each
18
geographic market," and it goes on.
19
A
I see those words, yes, sir.
20
Q
All right.
21
Do you see that?
Now, doesn't it say to you that the -- and
this section is the cutover analysis, right?
22
A
(B)(4)?
23
Q
Yes.
24
A
Yes, it describes the DS0 cutover analysis.
25
Q
And it refers specifically to "the economic analysis set
1546
1
forth in (d)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of this section, the commission
2
shall establish a maximum number of DS0 loops," and it's
3
referring to the section immediately prior to that or the
4
paragraph immediately prior to that paragraph, right?
5
A
I see that, yes.
6
Q
All right.
So it's really only referring in this
7
paragraph (4), Multi-Line DS0 End Users, it's really
8
referring only to the prior paragraph, "Economic
9
barriers," which is part of the potential deployment case,
10
11
right, the language of the rule itself?
A
For that part of your question at the end there, yes.
The
12
economic barriers is part of the potential deployment case
13
as it's described in (B)(3).
14
Q
Where does it say in paragraph (4) that the Commission
15
shall undertake a cutoff analysis as part of the trigger
16
case?
17
A
It doesn't, does it?
It doesn't explicitly give the paragraph number for the
18
trigger analysis in paragraph (4).
19
that's true.
20
think it's just logical that if under any circumstance
21
you're going to analyze non-impairment, be it via a
22
potential deployment test or a trigger test, that you have
23
to establish the customer market, just as you have to
24
establish the geographic market.
25
Q
I agree with you that
As we've said, it says what it says.
But I
So your answer is that you have to look at the DS0 cutoff
1547
1
point in the trigger analysis because it's important for
2
determining whether there's impairment or not?
3
A
4
5
establish whether the trigger has been met.
Q
6
7
Well, you have to know the DS0 cutoff to be able to even
Because it's important to look at impairment questions in
looking at the trigger in applying the trigger analysis?
A
No.
What I'm saying, what I'm saying is with respect to
8
the triggers, the FCC has already considered many, many,
9
many factors and decided that the presence of -- in the
10
case of a self-provisioning trigger -- the presence of
11
three CLECs shows that the barriers to entry have been met
12
and that that there is no impairment.
13
about that is before you can analyze the trigger you have
14
to define the market, and there's the geographic market
15
and then there's the customer market.
16
But what I'm saying
In other words, how else could you
17
establish which carriers are trigger CLECs if you don't
18
know which carriers are serving mass market customers?
19
Q
But you would agree that the rule itself only describes
20
that the DS0 cutoff analysis should be applied in the
21
economic barrier section of potential deployment?
22
rule itself only refers to that economic barrier, correct?
The
23
A
That's what it does.
24
Q
And it's only your logic that leads you to make a case
25
that the cutoff analysis should be applied also in the
1548
1
2
trigger case?
A
It is my logic because I suspect they placed it there
3
because they anticipated that the ILECs would in fact be
4
doing a potential deployment case, because in some regards
5
a potential deployment case is actually easier to meet
6
than -- because the CLECs don't have to -- well, let me
7
think how to say that.
8
9
When you're doing a potential deployment
case, you don't have hard and fast triggers, objective
10
triggers that have to be met.
11
of economic and operational situations.
12
instances that may even be easier to satisfy, and I think
13
they contemplated that carriers -- that the ILEC, excuse
14
me -- would be doing potential deployment cases.
15
You look at other factors
And in some
We have decided that we would approach the
16
non-impairment issue in Michigan based on the trigger
17
analysis because of the data that we have been able to
18
collect that shows that the triggers are met.
19
still logically believe that you have to define the market
20
to even be able to see if the trigger can be pulled.
21
MR. KELLY:
But we
Your Honor, I would ask that
22
the part about -- he started with an answer, and then he
23
said in some respects.
24
be stricken.
25
I would ask that the rest of that
JUDGE RIGAS:
No.
I won't do that.
1549
1
2
MR. KELLY:
Then I have no further
questions.
3
JUDGE RIGAS:
If we're going to debate
4
about what the TRO says and what the rules say, how should
5
they be understood and applied, we're going to be here for
6
a long time.
7
MR. KELLY:
8
JUDGE RIGAS:
9
I have no further questions.
And again, while I can
tolerate some of this discussion because I think some of
10
it is helpful, I'm getting to the point where I'm starting
11
to understand that that's the primary focus of this case,
12
and we're not going to finish if we continue to do this.
13
That, coupled with the fact that the D.C.
14
Circuit has thrown the whole thing out, O.K., and then I'm
15
going to -- and if that eventually becomes the state of
16
affairs that we have to contend with, we have all wasted
17
an enormous amount of time.
18
So I have been patient, I have listened to
19
some of this, you know.
I have had this gentleman on the
20
stand for a day and a half now, and he's taken a position
21
that is his position.
22
with counsel trying to persuade him to adopt some other
23
position.
And we can spend a lot of time here
Are we going to get there?
24
O.K.
25
MR. KELLY:
I rather doubt it.
You have concluded your cross?
I have.
1550
1
JUDGE RIGAS:
Very good.
Take a break.
2
When we come back, let's see if we can get this gentleman
3
out of here.
4
We'll recess for 20 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
5
- - -
6
(Documents were marked Exhibits I-136 and
7
I-137 by the reporter.)
8
JUDGE RIGAS:
9
We'll go on the record.
have concluded your cross-examination?
10
MR. KELLY:
11
JUDGE RIGAS:
12
MR. HUGHEY:
13
JUDGE RIGAS:
14
MR. DENNISTON:
15
- - -
16
CROSS-EXAMINATION
17
BY MR. DENNISTON:
18
Q
19
Good morning, Mr. Lube.
Yes, your Honor.
Thank you.
Mr. Hughey?
No questions, your Honor.
Very well.
Mr. Denniston.
Thank you, your Honor.
My name is Jim Denniston.
I'm
representing MCI.
20
A
Good morning, Mr. Denniston.
21
Q
You see we have marked as Exhibit I-136 a document from
22
the Office of Management and Budget.
23
A
Yes.
24
Q
Is this the same document that you reference on page 8,
25
You
I've got that, thank you.
line 18 of your opening testimony?
1551
1
A
I'll turn to that and make sure.
From the description at
2
the top of this document it looks like the same one I
3
looked at.
4
The one I used was read from the Internet
5
web site, and I think it might have been formatted
6
slightly differently, but it appears to be the same
7
information.
8
Q
9
O.K.
Would you go to page 3 of that document.
There is a
paragraph that begins at the top of the page there, and
10
I'd ask you to read the last full sentence on that
11
paragraph, please, beginning with "The Metropolitan."
12
A
O.K.
And this is the top paragraph on page 3?
13
Q
Correct.
14
A
"The Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area
15
Standards do not equate to an urban-rural classification;
16
many counties included in Metropolitan and Micropolitan
17
Statistical Areas, and many other counties, contain both
18
urban and rural territory and populations."
19
Q
For the seven MSAs that are at issue in this proceeding,
20
do these include both urban and rural territory and
21
populations?
22
A
From my analysis of the wire centers that are in each of
23
the MSAs, and also looking at what access areas -- in
24
other words, like the UNE rate zone that they fall in, it
25
appears that there are some metropolitan and some rural
1552
1
areas, the rural be more likely out on the outskirts of
2
the MSA.
3
MR. DENNISTON:
Your Honor, with the
4
understanding that this will be admitted into evidence, I
5
won't ask any further questions on this, just in the
6
interest of moving along.
7
8
JUDGE RIGAS:
Q
9
Go ahead.
I'd next like you to look at two
portions of your direct testimony at pages 17 to 18, and
10
11
(By Mr. Denniston)
All right.
your response testimony at page 26.
A
12
Just to make sure I'm in the right place, in the direct
testimony it was page what?
13
A
17 to 18.
14
A
17 to 18.
15
Q
Page 26.
And in the response testimony it was?
And instead of re-reading into the record what's
16
there, my focus is on the 83-percent figure that you have
17
on page 26 of the response.
18
similar issue you have on page 17 of your direct.
19
I think it's the same, a
I guess the focus is on the 83-percent
20
number on line 11, page 26, of your response testimony.
21
A
Yes, and also at line 5, it looks like.
22
Q
Correct.
I want to make sure I understand what that 83
23
percent that you call a ratio represents.
Would this be
24
where the numerator is the sum of all the ILEC retail
25
loops for the wire centers in which the CLECs are shown as
1553
1
serving a positive number of mass market UNE-L loops?
2
And let's bifurcate the question.
3
4
Is that
what the numerator is?
A
Yes.
In fact, let me replay that in my words and see if
5
we're exactly in the same place.
It is the sum of the SBC
6
lines or the lines that are on SBC switches as I described
7
yesterday that are in the wire centers where CLECs are
8
serving mass market customers with unbundled loops.
9
Q
O.K.
And the denominator is?
10
A
Well, in this instance let me make sure.
I believe the 83
11
-- I've got to go back to my direct testimony to verify
12
this.
13
The denominator is the sum of the SBC
14
switched lines.
15
in all of the wire centers, in all of the seven MSAs.
16
In other words, the lines on SBC switches
In fact, we probably need to explain the
17
numerator.
18
MSAs combined.
19
believe you said either way, but I want to clarify that
20
both the numerator and the denominator are based on CLECs
21
of all seven of the trigger MSAs.
22
23
24
25
Q
The 83 percent is really the seven triggered
It's not an individual MSA.
I don't
I think I understand the question and your answer, and if
not, the subsequent questions might help bring that out.
I'd like to walk you through a
hypothetical MSA.
That's the focus of what we have marked
1554
1
as Exhibit I-137.
2
correct?
You do have that in front of you,
3
A
Yes, sir, I sure do.
4
Q
This exhibit has three different tables on a single page.
5
Let's start with Table 1 that, if you will, we can call
6
the base case.
Now the first column in Table 1 just lists
7
the wire centers from one to 10.
8
number of mass market loops that CLECs in each wire center
9
serve using UNE-L.
The second column is the
And the third column is just the total
10
number of ILEC retail loops in each wire center, which
11
would include all loops served off of the SBC switch.
12
MR. BINNIG:
Just so we are clear on the
13
record, that number in that last column, you say ILEC
14
retail loops, you say all loops served off the switch,
15
you're including UNE-P loops and retail?
16
17
MR. DENNISTON:
Q
18
(By Mr. Denniston)
Correct.
That would be similar to what your
understanding is of the analysis?
19
A
That would be consistent with my analysis, yes, sir.
20
Q
At the bottom of Table 1 there are two numbers.
The first
21
number is the CLEC coverage, and that's 83.17 percent.
22
you see that number?
23
A
I sure do, yes, sir.
24
Q
Now if you can do the math here, I have tried to do the
25
math similar to what my understanding is as to how you
Do
1555
1
came up with your 83-percent number.
2
If you can, can you just verify the way
3
that we calculate the number is similar to how you did
4
yours?
5
A
I can tell you very simply how I would have done mine,
6
because I don't have a calculator with me to verify that
7
the numbers come out exactly that, but to get the 83.17
8
percent, if this were my calculation, I would add the
9
30,000 that's out there to the right of the 200 with the
10
60,000 underneath it and the 75,000 and the next 30,000,
11
and then drop down to the 150,000 and then drop down to
12
the 75,000.
13
have been my numerator.
I would have added all those up.
14
Then the sum of that entire column, which
15
16
Those would
is the 505,000, would have been my denominator.
Q
17
And subject to check, assume that that's what we have done
there.
18
A
O.K.
19
Q
And to come up with the 4.95-percent number, what would
20
you have done?
21
A
Well, I didn't calculate such a number, but --
22
Q
O.K.
23
A
In my testimony I did not --
24
Q
In your testimony, if you go to your response testimony,
25
page 26.
1556
1
A
Yes, sir, I'm there.
2
Q
You have on line 12, for example -- oh, I see, Ms.
3
Murray's approximate 4-percent number, I see.
4
Do you understand how Ms. Murray came up
5
6
with her approximate 4-percent number?
A
Well, what I understand that she did was to sum your
7
middle column, which is the total of 25,000, and divide it
8
by the 505,000, which by the way would not be -- it is an
9
apples-to-oranges comparison because if she was trying to
10
-- I mean if this example is trying to show what I did in
11
terms of CLEC coverage to get 83 percent, those are all
12
lines switched off of SBC switches, including all
13
enterprise lines or enterprise market lines switched on
14
those switches.
15
And the middle column, as you can see from
16
your heading there, is mass market only.
17
that's comparing a piece of the mass market to the
18
combination of the mass market and the enterprise market.
19
Q
O.K.
So it's a ratio
So let's go back to the question I asked then.
The
20
4.95 percent would be the manner in which Ms. Murray came
21
up with the, I guess, the sum of the UNE loops over the
22
ILEC retail loops as depicted in Table 1.
23
so far?
24
25
A
Yes, sir.
That's what it appears she did.
Are you with me
I was just
explaining that that was an apples-to-oranges comparison.
1557
1
Q
Now let's turn to Table 2.
In there we have reduced the
2
CLEC mass market loops in each wire center with the CLEC
3
presence to five loops.
4
the ILEC or SBC has won back all the loops except for five
5
lines per wire center.
And basically I've assumed that
Are you with me so far?
6
A
I understand you're saying that's what this represents.
7
Q
Right.
And the third column shows all the lines that the
8
ILEC has won back, so that for each wire center with the
9
CLEC presence, it's just the total number of CLEC lines
10
from Table 1 minus the five lines that we assume that the
11
CLECs have retained.
12
Do you understand how we have come up with
13
the number in the third column?
14
A
The 24,970?
15
Q
Yes.
16
A
Yes, I understand how you all have done that.
17
Q
Now in the fourth column is the total number of ILEC
18
retail loops, and there we calculate this by taking the
19
ILEC retail loops from Table 1 and adding the win-back, so
20
to speak, with the third column of Table 2.
21
me so far?
Are you with
22
A
Yes, I am.
23
Q
And so basically the only difference between Table 1 and
24
25
Table 2 are taking into account the win-back lines.
A
The hypothetical win-back lines in this example, right?
1558
1
Q
Right.
So let's take a look at the CLEC coverage
2
percentage at the bottom of Table 2.
3
calculated exactly in the manner that we just discussed in
4
Table 1.
5
And this was
The new coverage figure is 83.96 percent.
6
That's what's shown on the chart here?
7
A
Well, yes, sir, that's what this says.
8
Q
O.K.
9
Now would you agree with me, subject to checking the
arithmetic, that the new coverage figure is higher than
10
the coverage in Table 1?
11
continue to serve the same number of wire centers, six out
12
of 10 wire centers here or 60 percent of the wire centers,
13
but they lose most of their customers to the ILEC, the
14
coverage percentage actually goes up?
15
A
16
17
It goes up slightly.
In other words, if CLECs
That's what I assume is observed
here with the example of 83.17 to 83.96.
Q
O.K.
Now take a look at the third table.
There we have
18
kept the number of CLEC mass market loops exactly equal to
19
the number for each center in Table 1.
20
the heading on the table, you'll see that we have grown
21
the number of ILEC retail loops, as we defined, in each
22
wire center by 20 percent in the largest wire centers.
23
other words, there's growth.
24
the smaller wire centers.
25
But if you look at
In
And by 10-percent growth in
You could think of this chart as a
1559
1
hypothetical situation showing that ILEC winning all of
2
the growth in the market.
3
saying so far?
4
A
Yes.
Do you understand what I'm
In fact, I will agree with you that what you have
5
hypothetically portrayed here with an increase in ILEC
6
retail loops shows an increase, an additional increase in
7
CLEC coverage.
8
But I guess to me it's pertinent, what I
9
mean by CLEC coverage.
10
This is the addressable market
that is available to CLECs to win customers on their own.
11
In other words, they have the capability, because of
12
their existing switching and collocations, to literally
13
address that growing market.
14
Q
O.K.
For the sake of time, let's move on.
15
MR. DENNISTON:
Your Honor, I'm going to
16
show to the witness what will be marked later as an
17
exhibit.
18
24 and 23, which are confidential.
19
20
It's part of Terry Murray's prefiled exhibits,
Since this was prefiled, I don't have
copies for everyone.
I do have a couple extra, though.
21
(Documents were distributed.)
22
MR. KELLY:
23
MR. DENNISTON:
Who are the companies?
It's the triggers.
In the
24
bundle that is paper clipped, that is the attachment which
25
is TLM-24, and we'll mark that later on --
1560
1
JUDGE RIGAS:
2
MR. DENNISTON:
3
4
Yes.
-- as part of Terry
Murray's testimony when we bind in her testimony.
Q
(By Mr. Denniston)
TLM-24 contains a number of pages, one
5
for each of the -- I guess you can call them triggers
6
identified by SBC.
7
some of these, just to highlight my understanding as to
8
what these representations are.
9
certain CLEC --
10
And if you just briefly go through
MR. BINNIG:
The first one shows a
Your Honor, I've got a
11
problem with the line of questioning.
12
witness to highlight his understanding of his own witness'
13
exhibit.
14
MR. DENNISTON:
15
No, not at all.
That's
not it.
16
JUDGE RIGAS:
17
Go ahead.
Re-start your
question.
18
19
He's asking this
MR. DENNISTON:
Q
(By Mr. Denniston)
Sure.
I want to make sure that I understand
20
what the SBC factual representations are in this case.
21
The first page of this, for example, shows a collocation
22
footprint, if you will, of one of the triggers.
23
have seen this before, correct?
24
25
MR. BINNIG:
is Ms. Murray's exhibit.
Now, you
I still have a concern.
This
This is not Mr. Lube's exhibit.
1561
1
JUDGE RIGAS:
2
anything improper yet.
3
something.
4
A
5
6
He hasn't done
When he gets there, you can say
Did you refer to collocation footprint in your -- in what
you just asked me a second ago?
Q
(By Mr. Denniston)
7
Correct.
JUDGE RIGAS:
8
9
That's O.K.
Well, the question was:
he seen this before.
A
I have glanced at Ms. Murray's maps.
I did not study them
10
or analyze them or do a reconciliation or comparison or
11
anything like that, sir.
12
Q
(By Mr. Denniston)
So where Ms. Murray has indicated
13
on these maps showing the footprint of various CLECs
14
within MSAs, you have not verified whether or not her
15
representation of the footprint of the CLEC is
16
accurate; is that correct?
17
Has
A
No.
Quite frankly, I did not take each of the maps that
18
were -- in fact, I'm not even sure -- was this part of her
19
response testimony?
20
either way, I did not take all of the maps that I recall
21
seeing attached to her testimony and do a side-by-side
22
comparison of her maps.
23
Q
I think you might have said -- well,
So then you don't know whether or not these maps would
24
accurately represent, or whether or not you would have any
25
dispute as to whether or not these maps accurately
1562
1
represent the extent of the collocations of the individual
2
trigger CLECs, correct?
3
A
Well, I couldn't say either way.
In other words, I
4
couldn't dispute or confirm.
5
one doesn't say collocation on it.
6
asking you, you know, whether or not you had for sure
7
mentioned collocation.
8
Q
9
A
Well, the wire centers for which the CLECs provide their
Well, maybe I'm on the wrong page.
blind.
Q
14
15
That's why I was
that at the bottom of each page.
12
13
This
own facility-based service, I guess the legend refers to
10
11
In fact, I'm not sure.
I'm sorry if I appear
I cannot find the word "collocation" on mine.
The legend refers to wire centers where the various
triggers provide service, and that is in the legend.
A
I guess the distinction I'm trying to draw is, looking
16
at the title at the top of the pages, it looks like a
17
footprint per mass market loop data, which is not
18
necessarily the exact same footprint as collocation
19
data.
20
I mean I would agree that what your
21
document says is it's the footprint for mass market loop
22
data.
23
24
25
Q
Good enough.
O.K.
I'll accept that.
If you go on to Terry Murray's prefiled
Exhibit TLM-23, which we will mark later on.
1563
1
A
Yes.
2
Q
This is also a confidential exhibit.
3
four colored maps behind its cover page.
4
Now, have you had an opportunity to
5
6
Now this exhibit has
analyze this exhibit before?
A
I saw what it was and what it attempted to do, but I did
7
not make a side-by-side detailed wire center-by-wire
8
center, MSA-by-MSA comparison.
9
Q
10
11
What is your understanding as to what the first page
attempted to do?
A
Well, just from reading her title at the top, she says
12
it's a replication of my Exhibit JPL-13, which is A-116,
13
which I'm going to open up in case I need to look at it,
14
or I'm going to turn to it rather.
15
I don't know.
I mean other than going by
16
what she says this is, if this is what she says it is, it
17
would be a representation with a little more granularity
18
than what I have shown on JPL-13, which is A-116, which is
19
to show the wire centers in each MSA where CLECs are
20
present serving mass market loops with their own switches
21
in each of those MSAs.
22
23
24
25
Q
O.K.
Let's just take a look at one MSA here, like the
Lansing MSA.
Do you understand this to be consistent
with your data showing that four exchanges or wire centers
1564
1
within the Lansing MSA have three or four CLECs per the
2
data that you provided?
3
A
Well, I would have to go back to my more granular data to
4
see the quantity of CLECs by wire center.
5
JPL-13, which is A-116, does not show whether it is -- or
6
does not show the quantity of CLECs by wire center.
7
My Exhibit
So I believe the four that you're
8
referring to would be those that are dark blue on Ms.
9
Murray's.
10
11
I would have to find my data that's by CLEC by
wire center to see if that is correct.
Q
Similarly, for those that are shaded light blue, the
12
several wire centers within the Lansing MSA, you would
13
have to go back to your own data to confirm that there
14
were no CLEC triggers being identified at those several
15
wire centers, correct?
16
A
Well, I could either use that data or I suppose it's
17
possible to sit here and just look back and forth to see
18
if it looks like the same shapes.
19
asking that I do?
20
Q
No.
I was asking:
Is that what you were
I'm sorry.
You would have to go back to your data
21
to confirm whether or not the likely shaded areas reflect
22
those areas that had no CLECs being identified as being
23
triggers?
24
25
A
Well, I see.
The reason I answered the way I did by
looking back and forth is her light-shaded, which in her
1565
1
legend is no CLECs -- you mean light blue, don't you?
2
Q
Correct.
3
A
Which is zero CLECs, that would be her equivalent to my
4
light blue.
5
mine, her light blue would correspond to my light blue.
6
So as I said, I could either look at the data to confirm
7
that or we could just look back and forth and see if it
8
looked like the same shapes.
9
Q
10
So if hers is accurate to mine or the same as
Let's save time.
Let's skip the next page and go to the
third out of four maps.
11
Now you understand that Ms. Murray applied
12
what she called screens, correct?
13
A
Yes, I do.
14
Q
Looking at this map, this map is where she applied screens
15
showing the active unaffiliated UNE-L providers that serve
16
residential customers.
17
Now, understanding that you don't agree
18
with her screen, do you dispute as to whether or not this
19
map accurately shows what would happen if her screen for
20
residential customers, as indicated on the caption, were
21
applied?
22
A
To do what you have just asked, because this picture
23
includes multiples of her screens, to do what you just
24
asked I would have to review each screen to see why she
25
eliminated each wire center the way she did.
I mean it
1566
1
could be done, but it would take some time to do that.
2
Q
You have not done that analysis, correct?
3
A
No, sir.
4
5
As I explained before, I have not done a side-
by-side with hers.
Q
And certainly, going on to the last page -- and this is my
6
last -- close to the end here -- you similarly have not
7
done any analysis as to this last screen where she shows
8
active unaffiliated UNE-L providers with at least 1
9
percent market share that serve residential customers?
10
You have not done an analysis to confirm, understanding
11
that you disagree with her methodology, you have not done
12
an analysis whether or not she correctly applied her
13
analysis, correct?
14
A
15
16
Yes, sir.
It's for that very reason, because I disagreed.
I did not look to see whether she had done this correctly.
Q
17
And if she did do it correctly, it would show -- well, I
withdraw the question.
18
I think it's self-evident.
Now in this case SBC is not claiming to
19
have found any wholesale -- any wholesale local switching
20
provider, correct?
21
A
Yes, sir.
22
Q
O.K.
That's correct.
And it's your position that local switching prices
23
should be market-based where UNE switching is not
24
available?
25
A
My understanding of the Act is that -- well, O.K.
I guess
1567
1
I need to qualify what I think your question meant.
2
said unbundled, and I presume you mean unbundled on a
3
Section 251 basis, TELRIC pricing.
4
Q
You
If SBC no longer was required under 251 to provide
5
unbundled local switching, it's your understanding that if
6
SBC chose to provide it, it would be at market base rates?
7
A
Yes, sir, that's my understanding.
8
Q
Do you know what market base rates SBC is proposing?
9
A
Well, from what I understood Mr. Whitaker's letter to be,
10
he was saying it was negotiable, like commercially
11
negotiated wholesale rates.
12
MR. DENNISTON:
13
That's all the questions I
have, your Honor.
14
I just would request admission of the two
15
exhibits at the appropriate time.
16
JUDGE RIGAS:
17
All right.
Mr. Rashes, any
questions?
18
MR. RASHES:
Thank you, your Honor.
19
- - -
20
CROSS-EXAMINATION
21
BY MR. RASHES:
22
Q
Good morning, Mr. Lube.
23
A
Good morning.
24
Q
I'm going to try to go along here and find stuff that's
25
been already asked, but unfortunately I don't think
1568
1
there's that much that has already been asked.
2
Is it correct that prior to your
3
retirement from SBC you worked your entire career with SBC
4
or its predecessor incumbent local exchange companies?
5
A
Yes.
I never worked for a CLEC, but I did work for SBC
6
Long Distance for a period of time, which is not a local
7
exchange carrier.
8
Q
9
And you have somewhat answered this but I want to confirm.
You said you haven't worked for a CLEC, but since your
10
retirement have you engaged in consultation for any CLECs?
11
A
No, sir, I have not.
12
Q
Do you have any formal education or training in survey
13
sampling and social demographics?
14
A
No, sir.
15
Q
If you could please look to your exhibit, confidential
16
Exhibit JPL-3, which I believe has been marked A-106.
17
Just a preliminary question on that, because I'm not a
18
hundred-percent sure.
19
staying with the confidentiality rules:
20
type associated with the company confidential, or is that
21
part of the LERG?
22
A
I want to get my bearings for
Is the switch
Quite frankly, everything on this page came from the LERG,
23
but we classified it as confidential because I had
24
understood some parties had desired that classification.
25
Q
O.K.
I'm going to assume then that I can actually ask
1569
1
companies associated with switches and we're not -- or
2
within the LERG as opposed to within the -- I'll try to
3
steer around that.
4
A
I might need some guidance in answering.
As I said, this
5
all came from the LERG, but I understand that I'm supposed
6
to treat it as confidential.
7
here.
8
Q
O.K.
I don't want to mess up
I'll stick with the confidentiality.
9
As you look down this list, I want you to
10
look specifically at the switch type column.
11
reference at least once in the switch type, and actually,
12
if I can find it, to an SMX 2100 digital switch?
13
about the sixth or seventh line down.
14
A
Yes, I see it.
15
Q
Are you familiar with that switch at all?
16
A
Not that one, no, sir.
17
Q
O.K.
Do you see a
It's
So you wouldn't know if that switch could or could
18
not support analog lines to mass market customers, would
19
you?
20
A
It's my opinion, the way it was treated in the LERG
21
documentation as a circuit switch, that it could support
22
that, so I have no reason to believe that it cannot
23
support analog lines.
24
25
I might clarify that as I prepared this
exhibit, if the LERG coding guide showed that it was a
1570
1
packet switch, I did not refer to it as digital.
2
refer to it as packet.
3
circuit switch, I showed digital, especially if it was not
4
one that was very commonly known, like the 5 ESS or
5
something like that.
6
But if it referred to it as a
MR. RASHES:
7
I would
Your Honor, if I could have
my exhibit marked.
8
JUDGE RIGAS:
9
MR. RASHES:
10
Yes.
This, I believe, would be
138, correct?
11
JUDGE RIGAS:
12
(A document was marked Exhibit I-138 by
13
14
Yes.
the reporter.)
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
What I've handed you, Mr. Lube, is a
15
product data sheet from the Unisphere Networks SMX-2100
16
Internet offload switch.
17
document?
Have you ever seen this
18
A
No, sir, I have not seen this before.
19
Q
Based on what we have previously done, would you take my
20
21
word for it that I downloaded it off the Internet?
A
It certainly -- well, I don't see a URL at the top or
22
bottom of each page, but it looks like it could have been
23
gotten there.
24
25
Q
Each of these was an Adobe Acrobat file so it doesn't have
a URL on the bottom.
1571
1
A
I see.
2
MR. RASHES:
3
for one second, your Honor?
Could we go off the record
4
JUDGE RIGAS:
5
(There was a discussion off the record.)
6
(Documents were marked Exhibits I-139 and
7
Off the record.
I-140 by the reporter.)
8
JUDGE RIGAS:
9
10
Yes.
Back on the record.
Rashes.
Q
11
(By Mr. Rashes)
Take a look at the document I've given
you, I-138.
12
A
That would be the SMX-2100; is that correct?
13
Q
Yes.
14
15
Mr.
How did Unisphere, right at the top, right above the
picture of the switch itself, describe the switch?
A
As an Internet offload switch.
16
MR. ANDERSON:
As I indicated off the
17
record, we do object to these.
There's no foundation
18
whatsoever to these documents.
There is no foundation
19
that the witness has ever seen these.
20
foundation as to authentication, as to where they came
21
from.
22
There's no
And other than representations of counsel
23
that they were taken off the Internet, I don't think
24
that's simply sufficient.
25
evidence rules to the point where somebody can just walk
We've opened up so far the
1572
1
in and say "take this."
2
exhibit and the prefiled testimony with the switch types
3
identified.
4
this to their testimony, identified it and authenticated
5
it.
6
7
Now certainly they had Mr. Lube's
Certainly their witnesses could have attached
They didn't.
on us here.
They just kind of dropped it
I have no way of knowing, no way of checking.
8
MR. DENNISTON:
9
JUDGE RIGAS:
All right.
Your Honor --
Just for the
10
record, we're at this point in time discussing only
11
proposed Exhibit I-138.
12
13
14
15
MR. ANDERSON:
And my objections apply to
all three.
JUDGE RIGAS:
Well, we haven't had an
attempt to authenticate those other two.
16
Mr. Rashes.
17
MR. RASHES:
Your Honor, those documents
18
did come off the Internet.
19
documents, these were taken off the Internet.
20
As has been raised with other
If it's going to come down to where
21
they're going to challenge the authenticity of documents
22
off the Internet, I'm going to ask that they bring an
23
Internet connection in here and authenticate every single
24
document that they have proposed off the Internet before I
25
will not object to its admission.
That's No. 1.
1573
1
No. 2, the witness has already stated that
2
his opinion is that an MSX-2100 that is on his Exhibit
3
JPL-3 can support analog mass market.
4
directly rebut that assertion by the witness.
5
product sheet from the company.
6
company's web site.
7
These documents
It's the
I mean I got it from the
They do not have a URL.
That's an Adobe
8
Acrobat file, which when an Adobe Acrobat file is
9
downloaded the URL does not come along with it because
10
it's supposed to look exactly like the product sheet that
11
a salesman would hand to you.
12
MR. ANDERSON:
In response, your Honor,
13
very briefly, I think when we've agreed to accept
14
authenticity of a document, it's been SBC's web site, and
15
I'll do that where it has the SBC logo and I think
16
previously where they had the AT&T logo with the parties
17
here in the room.
18
With all due respect, I have no idea where
19
they came from, and I don't think simply saying they came
20
off the Internet is -- jeez, anything on the Internet is
21
all of a sudden admissible in this case?
22
we've just gotten rid of the rules of evidence completely.
23
24
25
JUDGE RIGAS:
I think then
Anything further, Mr.
Rashes?
MR. RASHES:
These are the product data
1574
1
sheets for products that he raised in his exhibit.
2
MR. ANDERSON:
3
MR. RASHES:
Prove it.
Your Honor, we have a live
4
Internet connection here.
5
them by showing them to SBC's counsel that that's where
6
they came from.
7
8
I'm willing to authenticate
JUDGE RIGAS:
All right, we'll go off the
MR. ANDERSON:
I don't have an Internet
record.
9
10
connection.
11
MR. RASHES:
12
JUDGE RIGAS:
13
I can show you right here.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
We're off
the record.
14
(There was a discussion off the record.)
15
JUDGE RIGAS:
16
The record should show that we're
We'll go back on the record.
17
basically where we were when we went off the record.
18
document that's proposed in proposed Exhibit I-138 has not
19
been authenticated to this witness, it appears it will not
20
be.
21
Q
The
The objection is sustained.
(By Mr. Rashes)
Mr. Lube, would it surprise you to learn
22
that Unisphere, the maker of SMX-2100, own literature
23
shows that it cannot support analog mass market lines?
24
MR. ANDERSON:
25
MR. RASHES:
Objection.
No foundation.
Your Honor, he just said that
1575
1
it did support.
2
I'm asking him -JUDGE RIGAS:
Well, then ask him and
3
establish a foundation as to his knowledge to this piece
4
of equipment.
5
Q
6
7
Mr. Lube, you claim in the qualifications
that you are a switching specialist, correct?
A
8
9
(By Mr. Rashes)
I have worked with a number of types of switching, but not
this variety personally.
Q
What did you base your statement a few minutes ago that
10
the SMX-2100 could support mass market analog switching
11
upon?
12
A
13
Well, first of all, I believe I said that I had no reason
to believe that it could not.
14
Q
But you have no reason to believe it does?
15
A
Well, but please let me explain.
The two criteria that I
16
used to include any switch in this exhibit -- any switch
17
type, excuse me -- in this exhibit were, first, if the
18
LERG documentation characterized this type of a switch as
19
a circuit switch and not a packet switch, I would show it
20
as digital here and include it in that manner.
21
And the second criterion was that if the
22
switch showed that it had any NPA NXX codes assigned to
23
it, having an NPA NXX code assigned to a switch is a good
24
indication that it is capable or intended to provide some
25
form of basic local exchange service -- telephone number
1576
1
2
in service.
Q
3
Does merely having an NPA NXX assigned to a switch ensure
that that switch is capable of handling outbound calls?
4
A
It would not necessarily ensure that.
5
Q
Does having an NPA NXX assigned to a switch ensure that
6
7
that switch can handle analog mass market?
A
It's a good relative indication, without digging further,
8
that it could.
But I guess maybe what's needed here is an
9
explanation that this list of switches that I put
10
together, as you can tell, I'm sure, from all of my
11
prefiled testimony, I did not use switches per se to
12
qualify any specific CLEC in any specific geographic
13
location.
14
What I tried to demonstrate with this list
15
is that CLECs have switches that are capable of serving
16
mass market customers, and, you know, subject to check, if
17
this is a type of switch that cannot originate outbound
18
traffic, then perhaps it would not be one that would
19
qualify for showing that it is serving the mass market.
20
But I would note that in this particular instance that
21
CLEC has a number of other switch types that absolutely
22
can serve the mass market anywhere in the state they
23
wanted to.
24
25
So I think this might really become a
genuine debate if this type of switch were a trigger
1577
1
2
CLEC's only switch in the state.
Q
Did you investigate any of these type of switches that you
3
listed?
4
any of these switches?
5
A
I mean have you looked at product literature for
I did for some of these for a different reason.
I was
6
researching the geographic reach of a switch, how far a
7
remote terminal or remote module, rather, switching
8
module, could be located from a host switch, and as such I
9
looked at some literature on the Lucent 5 ESS and the
10
Nortel DMS family.
11
there's any others -- the Siemens EWSD.
12
I did not look at every switch type on
13
14
I looked at the -- let's see if
here.
Q
15
I will tell you that point-blank.
Are you aware of the capabilities of the Siemens EDS 4500?
Is that one of the ones you looked at?
16
A
No.
17
Q
Did you look over literature for the Cisco Modem Bank AS
18
19
The EWSD, which is a regular circuit switch.
5800?
A
No.
In fact, I did not look at -- I can tell you I did
20
not look at manufacturer literature for any of the packet
21
switches on here.
22
happens to have a packet switch in the state also happens
23
to have a known circuit switch.
24
that they have a couple of packet switches that may
25
genuinely or in reality not be serving a mass market
But every trigger carrier I have that
So, you know, the fact
1578
1
customer was of no consequence because they did have self-
2
provision switching that could in the state.
3
Q
4
Is there any correlation between the non-packet switches
that you looked at and what MSAs they're serving?
5
A
I did not do any special correlation for that, no, sir.
6
Q
So it is possible that someone you list as a trigger in
7
one MSA may only be serving that MSA with a packet switch,
8
correct?
9
A
Well, what you may not understand is the only way I
10
qualified a -- well, I shouldn't say the only way -- but
11
one of the criteria of mine that had to be met was they
12
had to be using unbundled voice-grade local loops.
13
they're using unbundled voice-grade local loops, then if
14
they have a circuit switch anywhere in this state or even
15
outside of this state, they could reach those mass market
16
customers.
17
Q
18
19
How many of the switches identified on JPL-3 are packet
switches?
A
20
21
I have not made a count of that.
Q
Well, I think you've identified them on here, so I can
count them up from the exhibit.
23
able to support analog lines?
25
If you would like, I may
-- I mean I can.
22
24
If
A
But are packet switches
There are packetized voice services, VOIP, that can be
served by packet switches.
They have to reach the
1579
1
customer somehow.
2
through a loop.
3
Q
4
5
So they would reach that customer
Is it correct that carriers who don't engage in serving
the mass market may have NXXs?
A
Absolutely.
In fact, there's a number of carriers on here
6
that are not on my JPL-13, which -- I'm sorry, JPL-3,
7
which is A-106, that are not trigger carriers.
8
Q
9
10
Isn't it correct that a carrier who's no longer in
business may be shown in the LERG as having NXXs?
A
I don't have any personal knowledge of how a CLEC that is
11
no longer in business is handled in the LERG.
12
understanding is that this is a national routing guide,
13
and if there are NPA NXX codes that are described in the
14
LERG, that they are being used or intended to be used or
15
they would be recovered and made available to some other
16
carrier or maybe a different carrier using the same
17
switch.
18
Q
My
So isn't it possible that when a carrier goes bankrupt or
19
out of business or ceases operation, it sells off its
20
switching assets to another carrier, and that carrier
21
continues operating it under the original carrier's name
22
in the LERG?
23
A
I'm trying to think of some examples.
24
Q
I'd be happy to give you some examples.
25
now --
In fact, right
1580
1
A
Well, if I may, I know, for example, that LDMI purchased
2
the assets of M Power Michigan, and in the LERG, as I
3
recall, that appears as LDMI.
4
Q
5
Correct.
But is it possible that they could still appear
under the original carrier's name in the LERG?
6
A
You know, I really don't know.
7
Q
How did TCG appear in the LERG, as TCG or as AT&T?
8
A
Well, if you'll look in my left-hand column, it says CLEC
9
10
I just don't know.
names shown in LERG, that's how they appear in the LERG.
Q
11
Would it surprise you to find out that some of the
carriers you have on this list are no longer in business?
12
A
Can you give me an example, please?
13
Q
On page 1, the fourth one up from the bottom, the one
14
that's in the 248 area code with two NXXs, are you aware
15
that that company went bankrupt and sold off its assets?
16
MR. BINNIG:
I object, your Honor.
17
There's no foundation for that question.
18
representation that there's no factual foundation for.
19
JUDGE RIGAS:
20
MR. RASHES:
He's making a
Mr. Rashes?
Your Honor, I'm trying to
21
establish that some of these companies are no longer in
22
business.
23
out of business.
I'm asking him if he's aware that they've gone
24
JUDGE RIGAS:
25
MR. RASHES:
O.K.
He just established -- you
1581
1
know, we've had this whole dialogue as to what companies
2
are listed on this list.
3
JUDGE RIGAS:
4
whether he knows this or not.
5
that.
Do you recall the question?
A
Do I know the --
8
9
JUDGE RIGAS:
Q
10
11
(By Mr. Rashes)
Don't say the name.
Do you know if that company is still in
business or not?
A
12
13
I don't have a problem with
The objection's overruled.
6
7
Well, you can ask him
I do not know, but I can tell you they're not a trigger
carrier, and that my trigger carriers are in business.
Q
Turning to a trigger carrier, the next page, page 2, the
14
fourth line up by coincidence again, in the last column we
15
have 25 total NXXs.
16
trigger, correct?
That mystery carrier is listed as a
17
A
Yes, sir, that's correct.
18
Q
Do you know if that carrier has declared Chapter 7 and
19
dissolved in bankruptcy?
20
A
No, I do not.
I do not know that.
21
Q
Would it surprise you to learn that?
22
A
I don't know.
I guess since I have seen just today data
23
request responses from this company, yes, I guess I would
24
be surprised to learn that.
25
Q
Did you take into consideration whether or not the
1582
1
carriers you listed as triggers were licensed carriers in
2
Michigan, licensed to provide basic local exchange
3
service?
4
A
Yes, I did.
I'm not sure I checked all 11 of my trigger
5
carriers, but I checked very many of them.
I figured MCI
6
was probably licensed, so I didn't check MCI.
7
Q
How did you check if those companies were licensed?
8
A
I obtained from SBC Michigan employees copies of their
9
10
Commission orders that certificated them.
Q
11
12
And did you check the name on the company in that license
against the company's current operating name?
A
No, sir.
Well, I made an association.
I'm not sure that
13
I could tell you if there were any specific ones that had
14
a slight deviation in the name of the carrier, or even a
15
large deviation in the name of the carrier.
16
Q
17
So it's possible that one or two of these carriers are
operating without a license?
18
A
That would surprise me.
19
Q
But you didn't check all of them, correct?
20
A
No.
21
22
25
I
didn't check MCI, for example.
Q
23
24
I said I didn't check every single one of them.
Do you know if you checked this mysterious carrier that's
the fourth line up on page 2?
A
I don't believe I did.
I could be forgetting, but I don't
believe I checked that one specifically.
1583
1
Q
I'd like to turn to EELs for a few minutes, and on page 16
2
of your March testimony you speak about Mr. Crowne's
3
discussion regarding EELs and contest his position that,
4
quote, Facilities-based CLECs simply cannot operationally
5
provide mass market service using self-provisioned
6
switches where they are not collocated, close quote.
7
Mr. Lube, isn't EELs a lawful UNE
8
combination?
9
A
I'm sorry, did you say isn't it?
10
Q
Yes or no, is an EEL a lawful UNE combination?
11
A
Well, at least the kinds I'm familiar with, I understand
12
they are.
13
Q
What do you consider the elements of an EEL?
14
A
An EEL is the combination of an unbundled local loop and
15
an unbundled dedicated transport.
16
Q
Would you consider a cross-connect part of an EEL?
17
A
Well, physically, yes, there is a cross-connect, and I
18
believe there's a cross-connect charge, although I don't
19
have all the tariffs memorized.
20
you have to have a cross-connect to connect the loop to
21
the transport.
22
But I believe -- well,
So physically it's part of it.
I don't know that the cross-connect is an
23
unbundled element unto itself, I cannot remember that, but
24
perhaps in Michigan it is.
25
Q
You said that dedicated transport is a part of an EEL,
1584
1
correct?
2
A
Yes, I did.
3
Q
In this proceeding isn't SBC disputing whether or not they
4
5
have to provide dedicated transport as a UNE?
A
My understanding is they are doing that only where there
6
is proof of self-provisioning or wholesale provisioning
7
that a CLEC could take advantage of.
8
Q
9
Are you aware if SBC has recently sent out any
communications to all CLECs regarding what UNEs should and
10
should not be available under the TRO?
11
A
Are you referring to Mr. Whitaker's letter by chance?
12
Q
No.
13
A
It seems like there was an accessible letter that was
14
associated with Mr. Whitaker's letter.
15
whether -- I have not read that accessible letter, if
16
that's what you're referring to.
17
MR. RASHES:
18
I don't know
If I could have an exhibit
marked, your Honor.
19
JUDGE RIGAS:
20
MR. RASHES:
21
(A document was marked Exhibit I-141 by
22
25
And I believe this is 141.
the reporter.)
23
24
Yes.
JUDGE RIGAS:
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
We'll go back on the record.
Mr. Lube, have you seen this letter that
was sent out last week from SBC?
1585
1
A
2
I know of it and I've heard descriptions of it, but I have
not actually seen or read the letter.
3
MR. RASHES:
Just for the record, your
4
Honor, the copy I passed out, rather than get a faxed copy
5
up from Sage, I used the copy that was sent to me.
6
is identical to what was sent to all -- I believe it's
7
similar to what was sent to all carriers.
8
Q
9
10
(By Mr. Rashes)
Mr. Lube, do you know what the nature of
this letter was?
A
11
But it
You said you've heard about it.
Well, let me qualify what I think I heard about.
I heard about -- and I think we've all
12
heard about the letter that Mr. Whitaker sent to companies
13
and maybe even put out on a web site perhaps that offered
14
to enter into commercial negotiations to establish
15
wholesale prices for network elements that might, as a
16
result of all of the court action and whatnot that's going
17
on, and perhaps even this Commission's action in the
18
context of those court actions, to the extent that those
19
network elements were no longer available as unbundled
20
network elements.
21
Q
If you could please turn in this document to page 3 of 5
22
of the attachment.
23
this name -- "Lawful UNEs."
24
25
It's an amendment titled -- and I love
MR. ANDERSON:
Your Honor, I would object
to Mr. Rashes' characterization that he loves the name of
1586
1
it.
I don't know what that has to do with anything.
2
As I indicated off the record, I'll
3
stipulate to the authenticity of this document.
4
used in the arguments before the Commission on Monday, a
5
different version.
6
many of its wholesale customers, I believe most, who have
7
interconnection agreements with us.
8
It was
It is a document that SBC provided to
But I would strenuously object to
9
questioning Mr. Lube on it.
He said he never saw it, he
10
doesn't know the circumstances of it, wasn't involved in
11
the drafting of it and isn't familiar with it.
12
question what possible relevance cross-examining Mr. Lube
13
on this may have.
14
JUDGE RIGAS:
All right.
So I would
Counsel
15
stipulated to the authenticity of the document, Mr.
16
Rashes.
17
you going to ask this witness to read portions of it into
18
the record?
Is there any reason to ask this witness -- were
19
MR. RASHES:
20
brief.
21
JUDGE RIGAS:
22
MR. RASHES:
23
24
25
I'm sure I can use it on
That would be fine.
That would speed things up,
your Honor.
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
On page 2 of your direct testimony you
state that you plan to provide, quote, evidence to support
1587
1
SBC Michigan's definition of the appropriate geographic
2
markets, end quote.
3
markets you propose?
4
A
5
Are you familiar with the geographic
I'm familiar that we proposed MSAs and I'm familiar with
where they are and so forth.
6
Q
Have you personally been to any of these MSAs?
7
A
Well, I've been in two of them.
8
Maybe more driving
between the first one and the second one.
9
Q
As to what route you took, actually.
10
A
Exactly.
11
Q
I'm correct that SBC offers basic local exchange service
12
13
I've not made a tour of the state, sir.
in each of these MSAs, correct?
A
In each of the ones that -- well, let me back up.
14
There's 15 in the state.
We do not offer
15
service in all of those, but I think we've listed those
16
that -- well, yes, let me answer this way:
17
we have listed in my direct testimony we have service
18
territory in.
19
Q
All those that
I'd forgot what the question was.
But it's correct that you don't offer it throughout all
20
the seven that you identified for purposes of this
21
analysis?
22
A
For my trigger analysis?
23
Q
Correct.
24
A
My recollection is we do not offer service throughout
25
every square mile of all seven of those, that's correct.
1588
1
Q
Are the zone and exchanges, is how we refer to service
2
areas in Michigan, within each of the seven MSAs in which
3
SBC offers service contiguous?
4
A
I could tell by looking at one of my attachments to my
5
direct, and if I understood your question correctly, every
6
exchange in a given MSA that SBC Michigan operates in, are
7
those exchanges all touching each other.
8
Q
9
Right.
Another way of putting it would be in any of these
MSAs are there sort of islands of SBC service in the midst
10
of other ILECs?
11
MR. BINNIG:
Your Honor, I think that
12
second question is different from the first, and I think
13
the witness was trying to answer the first.
14
THE WITNESS:
15
out which question I should answer.
16
JUDGE RIGAS:
17
18
Then I probably need to find
Do you understand the
question that's before you?
A
Yeah, are they contiguous to each other, which means they
19
are touching, they abut, and there's none that are islands
20
of -- as I look, and I'll explain where I am.
21
at Exhibit JPL-13, which is A-116, and unless I've missed
22
others within these seven MSAs, it looks like there could
23
be one very large wire center that's in the northern, more
24
or less, end of the Detroit-Warren-Livonia MSA that might
25
be out there by itself.
I'm looking
1589
1
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
If you could just for clarification also
2
look over to the right of that one.
3
one in the Detroit-Warren MSA?
Do you see another
4
A
Do you mean another one that's dark blue?
5
Q
Right.
6
A
Yes, but it's surrounded by light blue, which are also
7
8
ours.
Q
O.K., I'm sorry.
9
That's correct.
On page 7 of your direct testimony you
10
stated that SBC Michigan believes that the geographic
11
areas used by the Commission should have, quote, well-
12
established geographic boundaries.
13
the SBC Michigan service areas within each MSA have well-
14
established geographic boundaries?
15
A
Do you believe that
For the purposes of implementing relief from unbundling or
16
versus unbundling, yes, I think those are distinct
17
boundaries.
18
those are, but I think the carriers --
I don't pretend that customers know where
19
Q
My next question.
20
A
O.K.
21
Q
Let me ask, would the average customer know where the
22
boundary is to a wire center?
23
A
I would suspect not.
24
Q
Do any of the Michigan service areas in each MSA cross the
25
MSA's border?
1590
1
A
2
Well, yes, there probably are quite a few that have
territory that extend outside of the border.
3
And as I explained in my direct testimony,
4
we handled those by pinpointing the location of the
5
central office building that serves that wire center.
6
the central office building is inside the MSA, then the
7
wire center would be inside the MSA.
8
Q
On page 25 of your testimony --
9
A
Was that my direct, sir?
10
Q
Your direct.
11
A
Thank you.
12
Q
You opine that competitive local exchange carrier
If
13
applications in Michigan show that competitive carriers
14
enter the market on a broader basis than wire centers.
15
that a correct assessment of what you say at Question 49?
16
A
Yes.
What that was referring to is what they had shown in
17
their applications for licensing to be their intended
18
service area.
19
Q
20
21
How many license applications did you review to make that
assessment?
A
I don't remember the exact count.
I know I refer to some
22
of them here explicitly.
23
quantity of applications or licensing orders that I
24
reviewed.
25
Is
Q
I don't recall exactly the total
If we could look at some of the triggers that you
1591
1
2
mentioned, did you examine the application of Comcast?
A
I'm going to say I did because I had to look at something
3
to discern that they were licensed as a CLEC in this
4
state.
5
Q
6
7
So I guess I must have looked at that one.
Do you know the geographic basis upon which Comcast
requested its license?
A
I don't recall.
And I don't believe that's -- let me see
8
if that's one of the ones -- I guess I did not list that
9
one here, but I'm looking to make sure.
10
Q
You didn't.
11
A
O.K.
12
Q
Did you look at the geographic basis upon which McLeodUSA
13
14
I don't see it either.
So I don't recall, sir.
Telecommunications Services requested its license?
A
I don't remember if that was one of the ones I looked at,
15
and I'm not trying to be coy.
I looked at these like
16
probably last September, and I don't remember exactly
17
which ones I did look at.
18
them all here so I threw in a few in my Q and A, but I
19
just don't remember how many total I looked at.
I know I didn't want to list
20
Q
Do you know offhand if you looked at Michtel, Inc.?
21
A
I don't believe I looked at that one, but I could even
22
23
be wrong about that.
Q
24
25
When you looked at these, what were you actually looking
at when you say license applications?
A
Well, to be actually more explicit about that, most often
1592
1
I guess I was looking at the Commission order that granted
2
the license, and as I recall, in every instance of an
3
order that I looked at, it repeated back what the carrier
4
had proposed in its application to be the area in which it
5
would be licensed, the geographic area in which it would
6
be licensed.
7
Q
8
I agree with you, it's a current assessment as to what the
Commission does.
9
Would it surprise you to learn that most
10
11
carriers request licenses on a statewide basis?
A
Oh, actually I'm sure there would be some of those.
In
12
fact, I probably had discussions with SBC employees about
13
that.
14
Q
Would it surprise you to learn that not a single license
15
-- and I went through almost all of them -- requested
16
service areas based on MSAs?
17
A
That would not surprise me, and that's why I looked for
18
things like LATA, which was generally much larger than
19
MSA.
20
Q
In fact, it is in Michigan.
Would it surprise you that of those carriers who did not
21
request license on a statewide basis, they asked for it by
22
zone or exchange basis?
23
A
24
25
I don't recall looking at any that did that.
I suppose
they could.
Q
On page 53, I think it's your direct testimony, but let me
1593
1
double check.
2
JUDGE RIGAS:
3
interrupt here.
4
lunch.
5
6
All right, I'm going to
We have reached the customary time for
How much more do you have there, Mr.
Rashes?
7
MR. RASHES:
I am exactly halfway done.
8
JUDGE RIGAS:
Do you have any questions
9
for this gentleman, Mr. Moody?
10
MR. MOODY:
11
JUDGE RIGAS:
12
MR. BINNIG:
There's going to be some
JUDGE RIGAS:
We'll stop for lunch.
short redirect.
15
16
Is there going to be
redirect?
13
14
No, your Honor.
reconvene at 1:30.
17
(At 12:00 Noon, the hearing was recessed
18
until 1:30 P.M. of the same day, Thursday, March 18,
19
2004.)
20
21
22
23
24
We'll
- - -
1594
1
Lansing, Michigan
2
Thursday, March 18, 2004
3
1:30 P.M.
4
- - -
5
(The hearing was resumed pursuant to the
6
recess.)
7
- - -
8
J O H N
9
P.
L U B E
resumed the stand as a witness called on behalf of SBC
10
Michigan and, having been previously duly sworn, testified
11
further as follows:
12
JUDGE RIGAS:
13
Mr. Rashes.
14
We'll go back on the record.
- - -
15
CROSS-EXAMINATION
16
BY MR. RASHES:
17
Q
(CONTINUED)
Continuing back to where I was, did you not state in your
18
testimony that most of the customers in SBC Michigan's
19
territory, like CLECs served from their own switches, are
20
located in the 13 MSAs in the state?
21
A
22
23
24
25
So I don't misquote, can you point me to where you're
referring?
Q
Unfortunately, I was afraid you would ask me that.
Just
give me a second, I had it open on my screen before lunch.
I'll try to find it again.
Give me one second.
1595
1
While I'm trying to find that, I'll go
2
with:
3
Michigan's territory that are served by CLECs are located
4
in the 13 MSAs in Michigan?
5
A
6
Do you believe that most of the customers in SBC
Well, first of all, do you mean with UNE-L or UNE-P or
both?
7
Q
In general.
8
A
I know that's true with UNE-L.
9
And you said within the 13
MSAs, if I recall your question exactly, does that sound
10
right?
11
Q
Correct.
12
A
I don't have any UNE-P statistics with me right now.
13
that follows the same pattern as UNE-L, that would be
14
true.
If
15
I mean when I say the same pattern, if the
16
CLECs' activity has been concentrated in the same areas as
17
-- excuse me -- as the CLECs' UNE-P activity has been
18
concentrated in the same areas as their UNE-Ls, that would
19
be true.
20
Q
21
By UNE-L you mean carriers who serve from their own
switches?
22
A
Yes, sir.
23
Q
Do you know what percentage of SBC Michigan customer lines
24
25
are located in those same 13 MSAs?
A
I don't believe -- I don't believe I have made that
1596
1
calculation.
2
Q
You haven't.
I'm asking if you know it.
3
A
Oh, no.
4
Q
On page 29 of your direct testimony --
5
A
Yes, sir.
6
Q
-- you opine the CLEC can enter such markets with a
I don't believe I do.
7
predictable pattern of customer opportunity consistent
8
with what a provider would encounter in a properly-defined
9
market.
10
Do you consider Michigan MSAs to be the
11
12
market you're talking about?
A
Can you tell me which lines you were referring to, please.
13
I think I have found it down towards the
14
bottom, the words I recall that you said.
If you --
15
Q
At the very bottom of 29, continuing on to 30.
16
A
O.K.
17
Q
Sure.
18
A
Yes, sir, I have read that.
19
Q
What is the market you're talking about in that line?
20
A
Where I say CLECs can enter such markets, is that where
21
Let me read that, if you don't mind.
you're specifically questioning?
22
Q
Right.
23
A
I'm talking about MSAs.
24
Q
O.K.
25
A
In regard to what measure?
Do you consider MSAs too homogenous?
1597
1
Q
Let's start with patterns of telephone usage.
2
A
I really don't know about telephone usage.
I imagine --
3
now you're talking about just like minutes of use,
4
telephone usage?
5
Q
That's one example, yes.
6
A
Well, I think I could, based on my opinion, I could draw a
7
conclusion that where you have a sparse population
8
relative to the more urbanized part MSA, that as far as
9
the area of population within the MSA it would perhaps
10
likely generate fewer minutes of use of telephone usage.
11
So in that sense I guess I could -- I guess I could reason
12
that there might be a non-homogeneity in the telephone
13
usage across the entire MSA.
14
Q
You talk about -- on 29 continuing on to 30, the way CLECs
15
enter markets.
16
CLECs as developed in your testimony?
17
MR. BINNIG:
18
JUDGE RIGAS:
20
Mr. Rashes, I think that was
asked and answered.
Q
22
23
I'll object, your Honor.
That was asked and answered by Mr. Lowe.
19
21
Did you examine any marketing plans of
(By Mr. Rashes)
O.K.
Specifically, did you examine the
marketing plans of Sage?
A
If I recall Sage -- well, in fact I'm pretty sure Sage is
24
a UNE-P only provider and I did not study their
25
information much at all.
1598
1
Q
2
You claim -- and I'm sure you want me to find it, so one
second.
3
You claim that MSAs represent an economic
4
5
community of interests, don't you, in your testimony?
A
Well, my claim to that effect I'm pretty sure is actually
6
the terminology used by the Office of Management and
7
Budget.
8
Q
Do you believe it's true?
9
A
Well, I haven't -- I have no reason to not believe it's
10
true.
11
economic community of interest being commerce, where
12
people commute to shop, employment where they commute to
13
go to work, and then in addition to that, community of
14
interests, whether it's educational or social or whatever.
15
But, yes, I would think that they knew what they were
16
17
In my opinion, I think they're talking about any
talking about.
Q
Would you think that there are any areas in the MSAs that
18
you have identified as trigger MSAs that don't hold true
19
to that model?
20
A
I would think that those areas would not have been
21
included in those MSAs by OMB, Office of Management and
22
Budget, had it been so untrue that it would have distorted
23
their definition of an MSA.
24
25
Q
What about communities near MSA borders where MSAs abut
them?
Do you think that those communities might hold with
1599
1
2
one MSA and not the MSA they're in?
A
3
4
I'm sorry.
Can you explain your question to me a little
bit differently?
Q
Sure.
I'll give you an example of that.
5
The community of Lapeer, Michigan, very
6
near Flint.
7
possible that Lapeerians -- or however you pronounce
8
someone from Lapeer -- would identify more closely with
9
Flint than with the Detroit MSA?
10
A
It's part of the Detroit MSA.
Would it be
Well, naturally I can't speak for everybody in Lapeer, but
11
I would imagine that the OMB had a -- had cause or reason
12
to include them in the Detroit MSA.
13
I'm not trying to sit here and say that
14
there is no one that lives in Lapeer that doesn't work or
15
shop in Flint.
16
Q
On page 33, lines 16 and 17, you note that MSAs have been
17
used in a variety of regulatory matters associated with
18
telecommunications competition, including in local
19
markets.
20
Commission orders that use MSAs as a determining factor?
21
A
22
No.
Did you examine any Michigan Public Service
I don't recall seeing any Michigan Commission-
specific orders.
23
Q
Do you know if there are any?
24
A
Actually, no, I do not know if there are any or not.
25
mean there could be; there may not be.
I
1600
1
Q
In your discussion of DS0 cutoff, you stated that "The
2
small business market partly consists of very small
3
businesses, including home offices with demand for
4
just a few lines and simple service."
5
Do SBC customers who have home offices
6
generally purchase off SBC business or residential
7
tariffs?
8
A
9
I don't know the answer to that question.
I guess I'm
saying I don't know if there's any enforcement of
10
preventing a home office business from purchasing out
11
of a residential tariff.
12
regulations to that effect in the tariff, but I don't
13
know whether they allow it or even check it or what.
14
Q
There may be some
At page -- Question 76, page 39 of your direct testimony,
15
you talk about small businesses requiring multiple line
16
with more robust features, larger bandwidth, so on and so
17
forth.
18
conclusion?
Upon what empirical data did you base this
19
A
And I apologize, did I hear you say page 76?
20
Q
No.
21
A
O.K.
22
Q
Answer 76, page 39.
23
A
I think I heard it the other way around, so that's why I
24
25
Question 76.
wanted to make sure.
And I apologize.
Again, can you please
1601
1
2
repeat your question for me?
Q
Lines 5, 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 of that page, you talk about
3
small businesses requiring multiple lines with features
4
such as large bandwidth, data transfer, web posting, so on
5
and so forth.
6
conclusion?
7
A
Upon what empirical data did you base this
I based this conclusion on the types of data services that
8
were shown in some CLEC Internet advertising for
9
integrated access services.
These are some of the types
10
of things that are offered to customers, and also, in
11
discussions with individuals -- with individuals within
12
different departments in SBC -- to talk about the data
13
needs of slightly larger small businesses.
14
Q
15
16
So if I just understood you, you relied on Internet data
for this?
A
When I personally went to web pages that showed integrated
17
access service products offered by CLECs, some of these
18
kinds of things are listed as what those CLECs offer to
19
those customers.
20
Q
21
22
And so yes, sir, that is part of it.
And those were regularly-conducted-business operational
web sites of these CLECs?
A
Yes, sir.
I assume they must be.
I'm not sure when you
23
say regularly conducted, that's sort of a new terminology
24
to me, but --
25
Q
Going on to an example here, would you consider a
1602
1
2
convenience store a small business?
A
Well, it is a business and it is small, so I guess if we
3
need to get to a distinction between a very small business
4
and a slightly larger small business -- I might have to
5
have more facts to tell you where I think they would fall.
6
Q
Let's talk about a small, very small, you know, mom-and-
7
pop store, whether it's a convenience store or not.
8
you believe they would have a demand for large bandwidth
9
for Internet access?
10
A
Do
Well, if they were a mom-and-pop convenience store small
11
business, I guess the image that I have in my mind of that
12
type of business is maybe a business that has three or
13
fewer voice-grade lines, maybe several employees, not very
14
many employees, as a matter of fact.
15
consider that a very small business.
16
Q
So I guess I would
You refer to a Dun & Brad -- still on page 39 of your
17
testimony -- you refer to a Dun & Bradstreet study about
18
small business computer owners and having a web site.
19
many of the 85 percent of the companies in that study that
20
have a web site host their own web site?
How
21
A
I don't recall seeing that statistic in that study.
22
Q
Do you know or did that study talk about how many of those
23
24
25
businesses use Internet over dial-up lines?
A
I don't recall.
To be very blunt, I went to the part of
the study that was talking about the small businesses that
1603
1
they were addressing that have and use web sites for their
2
own commerce.
3
the entirety of that study.
4
Q
So I really cannot tell you what else is in
Do you know what percentage of the wire centers identified
5
as being in the trigger MSAs does SBC make DSL service
6
available?
7
A
No, I do not know that statistic.
8
Q
Would you agree with the assessment that many of the small
9
businesses are using DSL cable modems for dial-up to get
10
11
to the Internet?
A
You know, personally I would imagine that there are small
12
businesses that use all of those things that you said, and
13
I think what's happening in that market right now or in
14
that type of product market is CLECs and ILECs alike are
15
realizing that there are certain of those businesses or
16
certain sizes of those businesses that can use integrated
17
access services, and I think that will be another one of
18
the trends of things that we see in the future.
19
don't contest that they use those kinds of things today
20
and that some will continue in fact.
21
Q
22
23
But I
Do you believe that most small businesses today expect or
require combined voice and data services?
A
Well, when you say expect, I believe that most small
24
businesses don't even realize that they can obtain
25
combined voice and data unless approached by their
1604
1
carrier.
2
Do they need?
3
4
I think there's very many
of them that have a genuine need for that, in my opinion.
Q
Sage doesn't offer combined voice and data services.
Mr.
5
Lube, are you surprised that Sage is successful with that
6
strategy?
7
A
With a strategy of not offering combined?
8
Q
Correct.
9
A
Do you know I'm really not because of the study that was
10
presented in testimony by Dr. Rosenbloom and Mr. Weber,
11
which confirmed virtually all of Sage's customers have
12
three or fewer lines.
13
very consistent.
14
Q
15
So actually I would find that to be
Do you personally have any sales experience with combined
voice and data services?
16
A
Me personally, no sir.
17
Q
In your February 10th testimony on page 14, Question 16,
18
you responded to Sage's witness Mr. Sturges that is a,
19
quote, red herring, quote, that many operational problems
20
must be addressed and solved at the wire center level
21
before consideration is given to the methods of extension
22
of the service area to a wider area.
23
any informal interconnection complaints that were received
24
by SBC Michigan from competitive local exchange carriers?
25
A
No, I have not.
Have you examined
1605
1
Q
2
3
What did you then base the fact that you're calling this a
red herring on?
A
4
Well, if I may, let me go ahead and read the context of
why I made that claim and then I can respond.
5
(After reviewing testimony)
Reviewing
6
what I had said here to make sure I recall correctly, Mr.
7
Sturges' testimony, at least all of it that I could find,
8
provided absolutely no substantiation for just a broad
9
general claim that there would be variations in the
10
operational issues or situations that would come up from
11
one central office to another.
12
Seeing no substantiation in his testimony,
13
to bring that up as cause for -- and let me make sure that
14
-- I presume we're talking geographic market here, but I'm
15
trying to make sure.
16
markets.
17
Yes, we're talking geographic
Yeah, I guess all I'm saying is for him to
18
have made that claim in his testimony with no
19
substantiation, and to bring that up as a reason why the
20
wire center should be an individual geographic market for
21
purposes of the TRO is a red herring, because it doesn't
22
really say to me anything as to why that would be a reason
23
to make individual wire centers the geographic market.
24
25
Q
But you didn't examine any documents to rebut his
assertion, did you?
1606
1
A
Well, he gave me no specifics to attempt to rebut.
2
Q
Would you agree that for CLECs that rely on the ILEC loop
3
but not unbundled local switching, collocation of
4
facilities in the ILEC's central office is essential to
5
the provision of local service?
6
A
7
8
Well, either that or the use of an EEL.
One way or the
other the CLEC has to get to that loop.
Q
9
Were SBC's central offices engineered and sized for a
marketplace where UNE-P was available?
10
A
When you say were SBC's central offices --
11
Q
I mean in the design of SBC's central offices, isn't it
12
correct that the current collocation arrangements that
13
CLECs have installed are what was used for engineering the
14
size of those offices, recently built offices at least?
15
A
I think you're going to probably want to address that
16
question to Ms. Marshall, who is a lot more expert on
17
Michigan collocation specifics.
18
tell you how many central office buildings have been
19
recently built in Michigan.
20
Q
I, for instance, cannot
Perhaps not very many.
Would you agree that if UNE-P is eliminated, UNE-P CLECs
21
who are not already collocated in each central office will
22
be required to establish brand-new collocation
23
arrangements from scratch to utilize their own switches?
24
25
A
Well, let me say this:
For them to access loops, they
would need collocated equipment or the use of EELs.
But,
1607
1
as you know, there are multiple forms of collocation.
2
There is shared or cageless collocation, which doesn't
3
require each company to have its own unique cage space.
4
There's virtual collocation.
5
Ms. Marshall could give you a much better description of
6
those options, and so forth.
7
Q
8
9
If you take away UNE-P, would SBC expect an increase in
collocation requests?
A
I think they would expect that, yes, sir.
10
MR. RASHES:
11
Give me one second to find
something, please.
12
13
Beyond that, though, I think
(There was a brief pause.)
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
I can't find the exact cite in your
14
testimony, but I believe it's page 14 but I'm not sure
15
which testimony.
16
deployment proves beyond a doubt that economies of scale
17
do not allow CLECs to serve as a single wire center.
18
you say something similar to that?
19
A
you said?
21
answer to that.
22
it right.
Q
Did
Since we don't have the exact cite, can you repeat what
20
23
You stated that CLECs' actual switch
Because I think I can give you a pretty direct
I just want to make sure I heard all of
Do you believe that the current CLEC switch deployment
24
proves that economies of scale do not allow CLECs to serve
25
just one wire center?
1608
1
A
Yes, because they serve more wire centers than they have
2
switches, and if I did not say that, I would have said so
3
for that reason.
4
Q
5
Am I correct to assume that you have no formal economic
educational background?
6
A
Just a couple of courses, but no degrees in economics.
7
Q
On page 15 of your reply testimony you stated that every
8
CLEC has its own business strategy that it wishes to
9
pursue and that defines where it chooses to build or lease
10
facilities to reach customers.
11
would you agree that economies of scale may not be the
12
only reason that CLECs choose to build or lease
13
facilities?
14
A
So by your own statement
Well, to me that's a rather broad question, but I think
15
economies of scale would certainly be a factor they would
16
consider.
17
instance, if they already have certain businesses that
18
they have decided they're going to target for services.
19
mean I think there could be a lot of different factors
20
that they look at, but I certainly think that the
21
economies of scale -- and by the way, when I refer to that
22
personally, I'm talking about engineering/economic type of
23
considerations whereby, for instance, you would not want
24
to buy a switch and serve a very small area with it
25
because you would most likely not be able to get enough
But they may as well have other factors.
For
I
1609
1
customers on that switch to justify the cost of that
2
switch.
3
Q
4
So I'm just using that type of reference.
I'd like you to turn to JPL-15, which has been pre-marked
as --
5
6
MR. ANDERSON:
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
-- 118.
118,
Thank you.
I would like you to
7
look at the very right-hand column of that exhibit, the
8
column you list as "Mass Market UNE-Ls in Wire Center."
9
What do you mean by that?
10
A
Those are the quantities -- like let me start again.
11
For a given wire center, those are the
12
quantities of stand-alone unbundled loops used by the
13
trigger CLECs, all of the trigger CLECs within that wire
14
center, where there are three or fewer such unbundled
15
loops serving a single customer location.
16
Q
Did you take into account any other factors besides the
17
three or fewer quantification in determining whether or
18
not the line was a mass market line when you counted them?
19
A
Yes, as a matter of fact we did.
There are some stand-
20
alone unbundled loops where there are three or four per
21
customer location that we actually excluded as what we
22
believed to be an appropriate measure of conservatism when
23
these loops were being used by who we believed to be data-
24
only CLECs.
25
loops that are DSL-capable, we excluded those loops as
And in addition, any stand-alone unbundled
1610
1
2
well.
Q
3
4
number of lines per order?
A
5
6
Did you look at the number of lines per customer or the
We looked at the number of lines per customer address,
which would be a cumulative snapshot.
Q
Is it possible that a company who orders an extra fax line
7
in addition to several T1s for data would show up as a
8
mass market UNE-L, using your methodology?
9
A
Yes; and it is my belief that that DS0 fax line would be
10
appropriately counted as a mass market loop because the
11
barriers to overcome to provision that single fax line to
12
that customer are the same as providing that quantity of
13
DS0s to any other location.
14
A
15
16
Are you certain that all of the lines you list as mass
market UNE-Ls in wire centers are used for POTS service?
A
I believe they are because of the deliberate measures that
17
we took to exclude any DSL usage of those services, and
18
I'm sure you understand from my testimony that I consider
19
a fax line, for example, to be a voice-grade DS0 service
20
because it's switched and is a voice band type of service,
21
voice frequency type of service.
22
Q
Looking at JPL-15, in your totals of mass market UNE-Ls in
23
wire centers how many of those had residential E911
24
listings?
25
included in column 2?
In other words, how many of column 3 are
1611
1
A
Zero.
2
Q
So you're saying there isn't a single residential line in
3
4
We made that exclusion based on carrier name.
Michigan that uses UNE-L?
A
I'm not saying that at all.
What I'm saying is the
5
residence E911 lines listed in the next-to-last column,
6
based on I'm sure what you've seen in all the rest of my
7
testimony, those are cable telephony providers only.
8
is not labeled as such here.
9
that.
Actually I apologize for
But yeah, there is no overlap between those two
10
columns, but that does not mean that there's zero
11
residents in the last column.
12
Q
13
14
It
If you turn to JPL-4, you list a total number of lines
ported to CLECs, correct?
A
I'm sorry, are you looking at the last page of that
15
exhibit?
I thought you said total number of lines.
16
mishear you?
17
Q
Well, you total them per MSA as well, correct?
18
A
Yes, I do.
19
Q
Even at the end you have total MSA.
Did I
On the very last page
20
you also list the total quantity of ported numbers; is
21
that correct?
22
A
23
24
25
Well, let's see.
do.
Q
I've got MSA total, total MSA, yes, I
I've got several different kinds of totals there.
How would you think that total number correlates?
take the Detroit MSA as an example.
Let's
Without giving you
1612
1
the actual number, how would you think that total number
2
correlates, total number of quantity of ported to the
3
total number of UNE-Ls provided to -- or mass market
4
UNE-Ls provided to CLECs?
5
rather small number?
6
A
7
8
Is it a great number or a
Well, I think it shows right here.
It's a larger number
than mass market UNE-L.
Q
9
You also total, for example, the CLECs reported numbers
for the MSA, for each MSA, then at the bottom.
10
Do you
know how many CLECs are licensed in Michigan?
11
A
Actually, offhand I don't know that number.
12
Q
Is this number at the bottom, or the last page of this
13
exhibit so you didn't total it for the whole state?
14
just take the Detroit MSA.
15
for CLECs with ported numbers, is that number cumulative
16
of all the lines above it or is that number representing
17
the numbers of CLECs who have ported numbers in the
18
Detroit MSA?
19
A
20
Let's
Is that number the MSA total
Well, I frankly am not sure I understand your question,
but let me try this.
On MSA total on page 4 of 8 --
21
Q
Right.
22
A
For Detroit-Warren-Livonia, there is a quantity there.
23
That quantity is the sum of all of the numbers above that
24
total, extending backward to the beginning of that MSA,
25
which starts about two-thirds of the way down on page 1.
1613
1
Q
2
3
ported numbers in the Detroit MSA, correct?
A
4
5
So that's clearly not the total number of CLECs who have
Well, maybe I misunderstood.
That column is titled
"Quantity of Ported Numbers."
Q
6
No.
I'm talking about -- I'm one over, CLECS with Ported
Numbers, one column to the left.
7
A
Excuse me, my fault.
8
Q
It's a little bit different when I can't tell you to look
9
10
O.K.
Let's try it again.
at this number.
A
I'm going back to page 4, if you give me a second.
That
11
total down there is a simple addition of the numbers above
12
it, and as such would represent the unique CLEC wire
13
center combinations.
14
Q
15
16
So it does not represent the total number of CLECs in that
MSA who have ported numbers?
A
Absolutely.
Because you can tell from the column heading,
17
it's Collocated in Wire Center.
18
MSA to show me how many combinations of CLECs in wire
19
centers there were.
20
MR. RASHES:
I only totaled that by
Can we go off the record for
21
one second so I can assess the confidentiality of the
22
question?
23
JUDGE RIGAS:
We'll go off the record.
24
(There was a discussion off the record.)
25
JUDGE RIGAS:
Back on the record.
1614
1
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
You have given us on this list the number
2
of mass market UNE-Ls in each wire center, but do you know
3
how many wire centers are in the Detroit MSA?
4
centers.
SBC wire
5
A
Yes, there are 88.
6
Q
Are all 88 represented on this sheet?
7
A
You mean are they all named on this sheet with a unique
8
row?
9
Q
Right.
10
A
Yes, sir, they are.
11
Q
Do you show UNE-L on all of those?
12
A
No.
13
14
There are some wire centers that do not have UNE-L in
either of the UNE-L columns.
Q
By my count, and I may or may not be right or wrong, it's
15
approximately 54 that show UNE-L in wire centers.
16
happened to the remainders?
17
A
Well, first may I ask:
What
Are you referring to the mass
18
market UNE-L or the total UNE-L?
19
exhibit, and there's some differences between the two
20
columns for a given wire center.
21
Q
Let's look at mass market.
Because both are on this
I'm not sure how many then.
22
My number may be off.
23
UNE-L in those that don't show it?
24
25
A
But why isn't there any mass market
I would have to ask the CLECs that question, sir.
I'm trying -- I'm not trying to be cute.
I mean
The CLECs have
1615
1
obviously not sold any services there that use mass market
2
loops, or they haven't chosen to serve customers there, or
3
they have not one customer in those offices.
4
which.
5
Q
6
7
I'm not sure
To your knowledge did the FCC identify other factors
beside line count in determining mass market UNE-L?
A
From my reading of the TRO, and of course the FCC's rules,
8
the demarcation line between the mass market and the
9
enterprise market is drawn by the DS0 cutoff; in other
10
words, the ceiling of the mass market is the cutoff value.
11
And that equates to your question, which was number of
12
13
lines.
Q
14
15
Do you consider lines used only for analog voice
applications as mass market?
A
16
17
So I believe that's it.
I think you might have asked me that, and I said yes
because we excluded DSL, for example.
Q
Mr. Field asked quite a few questions yesterday about the
18
specific equipment that's used in moving customers from
19
DS0 to DS1.
20
Who, when SBC moves the customer from DS0
21
to DS1, who incurs the cost of purchasing that customer
22
site-based equipment?
23
A
24
25
For example -- well, you mean the integrated access
device?
Q
Yes.
1616
1
A
SBC owns that equipment, so it buys that equipment.
2
Q
And where is that equipment located again?
3
A
At the customer's premise.
4
5
it's at the customer's premise.
Q
6
7
It's network equipment, so
Does SBC pay the customer rent for housing that equipment
at the customer's site?
A
I don't know.
I've never heard of that being done, nor
8
have I heard of all of the CLECs that offer that same
9
service paying customers to allow them to locate the IAD
10
11
on their premises.
Q
So if the CLEC or SBC is not paying a customer, the
12
customer incurs some space -- they have to give up some
13
space to house this thing, correct?
14
A
Not very much, though.
15
Q
But they do have to give up some, correct?
16
A
Well, yes, sir.
17
18
of a 500-sheet ream of paper.
Q
19
20
As I said in my testimony, about the size
Do they have to do any rewiring of this internal phone
system to accommodate these IADs?
A
I wouldn't think they would do any rewiring because the
21
way you install these IADs is, like on the AdTran 850,
22
with which I'm most familiar, there's a 50-pin connector
23
on that device, and it's cabled out to a punch-down block
24
typically.
25
lines are already appearing at the punch-down block where
And if that customer's different telephone
1617
1
they used to connect to the individual loops coming in,
2
then they could just be rejumpered over to where the IAD
3
is terminated on the block.
4
Q
5
6
And a regular $9.99 phone that I pick up at Target will
work off of this?
A
Well, if it's wired to the punch-down block and connected
7
at the block to the correct pins that go into that,
8
through that connector into the IAD, yes.
9
IAD has to be equipped with cards that will provide voice
10
I mean now the
services, which it would be.
11
Q
And who pays for those cards?
12
A
The cards are part of the IAD, so it's all part of the
13
carrier's purchase.
14
15
MR. RASHES:
Thank you, your Honor. I have
nothing further.
16
JUDGE RIGAS:
17
Redirect?
18
MR. BINNIG:
Can we have about a minute?
19
JUDGE RIGAS:
We'll go off the record.
20
(A brief recess was taken.)
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
- - JUDGE RIGAS:
We'll go back on the record.
Is there redirect?
MR. BINNIG:
There is, your Honor.
Some
of the redirect is -- well, I'll let Mr. Lube describe it,
1618
1
but it was to correct -- I don't know if you want Bill
2
here for this.
3
earlier on his cross-examination by Mr. Davis.
4
minor, but Mr. Davis may want to -- there he is.
It's to correct some testimony he made
It's very
5
MR. REIDY:
He's here.
6
(Mr. Davis entered the hearing room.)
7
- - -
8
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9
10
BY MR. BINNIG:
Q
Mr. Lube, do you have up there what has been marked as
11
Exhibit A-108, which was Exhibit JPL-5 to your direct
12
testimony?
13
A
Yes, sir, I do.
14
Q
Do you recall early in your cross-examination yesterday
15
that counsel for AT&T, Mr. Davis, asked you about some of
16
the numbers on this exhibit, and in particular asked you
17
about the numbers in the second and third column of this
18
exhibit?
19
A
20
21
Yes, sir.
It was actually on page 2, I believe, of the
exhibit.
Q
22
Page 2.
And the cumulative total for all seven trigger
MSAs was what you were questioned about?
23
A
Yes, that's correct.
24
Q
Now, do you recall Mr. Davis asked you a question about if
25
the Commission agreed with SBC's position that triggers
1619
1
had been met in the seven MSAs, the number of potential
2
UNE-P opportunities that would no longer exist, and I
3
believe you referred to the second and third columns --
4
A
Yes.
5
Q
-- of this exhibit?
6
A
Yes.
7
Q
Do you have any correction you'd like to make to that?
8
A
Yes, sir.
9
As I recall, Mr. Davis had asked me if the
second column of numbers down there at the bottom on that
10
bottom row would represent the number of lost UNE-P
11
opportunities, and I said yes.
12
And in fact the number of lost
13
opportunities in the total of all seven of those MSAs is
14
the bottom number in the first column of numbers.
15
other words, in all the wire centers and MSAs, not just
16
the wire centers where the CLECs already have existing
17
services or UNE-L services.
18
Q
In
And then you recall being asked a number of questions by
19
Mr. Field yesterday afternoon.
Do you recall being asked
20
questions about an SBC Michigan win-back promotion?
21
A
I recall those questions, yes, sir.
22
Q
And I believe he described the win-back promotion to you
23
as addressing customers of up to 15 lines.
24
that?
25
A
I believe that was the number.
Do you recall
It was up to a certain
1620
1
2
number of lines, I believe that's right.
Q
Do you know if that tariff limits the promotion to 15
3
lines at a single location or whether it would also
4
include 15 lines total disbursed among multiple locations
5
of customers?
6
A
I really don't know.
7
Q
Now I'd like you to turn to, I think, what's been marked
8
It could be the latter.
for identification as Exhibit I-127.
Do you have that?
9
A
Yes, sir, I do.
10
Q
This was the cross exhibit that was marked by Mr. Field
11
that he used with you for a series of questions yesterday
12
relating to the pricing of the AdTran 850 integrated
13
access device.
Do you remember that?
14
A
Yes, sir, I do.
15
Q
Did you have an opportunity to visit NexTag's web site
16
after the hearing yesterday?
17
A
Yes, I did.
18
Q
O.K.
19
I looked at that web site last night.
Were you able to put in the same search that Mr.
Field did for the AdTran 850 chassis bundle?
20
A
Yes, I did.
21
Q
And?
22
A
Or yes, I was.
23
Q
What did you get as a result when you did that?
24
A
When I put that same search in I got the same -- what
25
turns out to be like two and a half pages of items, I
1621
1
2
believe it's like 29 matching items.
Q
3
4
And what do these 29 items represent to you, having viewed
their web sites?
A
Well, actually you can tell both from the paper and from
5
the web site that each of these items is a different
6
package or configuration of this equipment.
7
plug-in cards included, some without, but just different
8
ways you can purchase this equipment.
9
Q
Some with
By the way, I would call your attention for each of these
10
items on the first two pages of Exhibit I-127 there's a
11
button that appears to the right that says, "Compare
12
prices at _____ number of sellers."
Do you see that?
13
A
Yes, sir, I do.
14
Q
Did you find on here a chassis configuration that was
15
consistent with the chassis configuration you used for
16
your pricing analysis?
17
A
18
Yes, sir, I did.
It was the bottom one on the first page
of the paper exhibit from yesterday.
19
Q
And that shows a price range of what?
20
A
$994 to $1119.
21
Q
And how do those prices compare?
And that price range is
22
from six different sellers, is that what the exhibit
23
shows?
24
A
Yes, sir, that's correct.
25
Q
How do those prices compare to what you used in your
1622
1
2
analysis in your testimony?
A
3
The range of price from NexTag that was in my prefiled
testimony for this equipment was $1800 through $1220.
4
In other words, the price that's shown for
5
that same equipment now is actually lower than what it was
6
when we filed this testimony back in December.
7
Q
Now if you go to the fourth page, this is the sheet that
8
Mr. Field indicated was one of the configurations of the
9
AdTran chassis that he selected?
10
A
Yes, sir.
11
Q
Does this show for this particular configuration each of
12
the sellers in the first column on the left, the name of
13
those sellers, and then it shows the price at which those
14
sellers were offering the particular configuration that
15
Mr. Field selected?
16
A
Yes.
And to clarify, this page, which is the fourth
17
sheet, would be reached by clicking on one of the little
18
boxes that says "Compare Prices" back on the first sheet
19
we were talking about.
20
that shows the specific merchants where this equipment can
21
be purchased from.
22
And so therefore it's this page
In other words, it's not purchased from
23
NexTag.
24
equipment that are out there.
25
Q
NexTag only identifies the sellers of this
And in the right-hand corner of the page is the price
1623
1
history trending graph?
2
A
Yes, sir, there is.
3
Q
And when you selected this page for the particular
4
configuration that you used in your original testimony,
5
was there a similar price trend price history indicator?
6
A
Somewhat similar.
Definitely a downward trend, perhaps
7
not as steep as this one or this particular configuration,
8
but definitely a downward trend in price.
9
There are some spikes that occur, that go
10
up from time to time based on demand, I suppose, but yes,
11
generally trending downward.
12
Q
And let's go to the last page of this exhibit, and this is
13
a page for the AdTran quad FXS card.
14
it says (Express 5210).
15
Then in parentheses
First of all, is this page similar to the
16
fourth page that we just looked at in this exhibit, in
17
that it reflects not the search for the AdTran quad FXS
18
card, but the selection of one of the potential
19
configurations that would appear when you do that search?
20
A
Yes.
In other words, to get to this page you would have
21
to do a search that would give you a page with a list of
22
multiple matches to the search.
23
card -- it was the search that got this -- and the one
24
that is shown on this last page did in fact come back on
25
that search, but it turns out that this one that I was
And AdTran quad FXS
1624
1
asked about that shows $500 from the first merchant there,
2
this is an Express 5210.
3
last night, and the 5000 series equipment for AdTran is
4
used only for frame relay.
5
here that I was asked about is not even for an AdTran 850.
6
The very next item on the search list that's beneath this
I went to the AdTran web site
So the page that was presented
7
5210 was in fact the AdTran -- in fact it showed AdTran
8
TA, which stands for total access, 750 and 850 quad FXS
9
card.
And the price range for that one is $142 to $225.
10
And that compares with my prefiled testimony that was $146
11
to $225.
12
The point there being that one hasn't
13
changed a lot in price, but it is definitely different
14
than the piece of equipment that I was questioned about
15
yesterday.
16
Q
So just to be clear, the last page which reflects the
17
items selected by Mr. Field, what's your understanding of
18
whether that is the quad FXS card, whether that's the
19
right card for the 850 IAD?
20
A
As I said just a second ago, it definitely is not the
21
right card.
22
relay equipment, not in the AdTran 750 or 850 integrated
23
access device.
24
25
Q
The one they selected is used only in frame
And then very briefly, Mr. Lube, do you recall being asked
a series of questions by Mr. Kelly as to whether CLECs
1625
1
order NXX codes or order collocation or order unbundled
2
loops on a MSA basis?
Do you recall those questions?
3
A
Yes, sir, I generally recall those.
4
Q
To your knowledge, can a CLEC request multiple NXX codes
5
covering multiple wire centers throughout an MSA at the
6
same time?
7
A
8
9
NXX codes.
Q
10
11
They do not have to get them one at a time.
To your knowledge, can CLECs collocate in multiple central
offices throughout an MSA at the same time?
A
12
13
They can if they show a use, a need and a use for those
Yes, sir.
They can request collocation for more than one
at the same time, that's correct.
Q
Likewise, to your knowledge can CLECs order multiple
14
unbundled loops in multiple wire centers throughout an MSA
15
a the same time?
16
17
18
19
20
A
For multiple customers even, yes, sir, they can.
MR. BINNIG:
I have no further questions
at this time, your Honor.
JUDGE RIGAS:
Very good.
Anything further
for this witness?
21
Mr. Davis, something further?
22
MR. DAVIS:
23
24
25
One or two, your Honor.
- - -
1626
1
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
2
BY MR. DAVIS:
3
Q
4
Mr. Lube, first of all, thank you for the correction to
our discussion yesterday of A-108.
5
A
Yes, sir.
6
Q
I'd ask you, looking at page 2 of the bottom of that first
7
column that you just addressed, JPL-5 --
8
A
Yes, sir, I've got it now.
9
Q
I would ask you and your counsel -- this is a public
10
number, right?
11
MR. BINNIG:
Yes.
12
A
Yes, we have not held it confidential.
13
Q
So I can say on the record the total number of retail
14
lines that would be not eligible for UNE switching and
15
therefore UNE-P would be 3,914,990 lines; is that correct?
16
A
Yes, sir, that's correct.
17
Q
I don't recall, do you at any point in your testimony
18
quantify the total number of SBC retail lines in the state
19
of Michigan?
20
A
No.
In fact, I think I was asked that even just a little
21
while ago by a different attorney, and I do not know that
22
number.
23
Q
As of what date was this data compiled, do you know?
24
A
This data, as I recall, subject to check, it was September
25
of 2003.
1627
1
MR. DAVIS:
2
THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
3
JUDGE RIGAS:
Anything further from any
4
Thank you very much.
counsel?
5
MR. FIELD:
6
I have some additional
questions, your Honor.
7
JUDGE RIGAS:
Mr. Field.
8
- - -
9
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
10
BY MR. FIELD:
11
Q
Mr. Lube, would you turn to the exhibit that's been marked
12
as I-127, which your counsel just asked you some questions
13
about.
14
A
Yes, sir.
I've still got it right here.
15
Q
When I asked you yesterday which one of these 29 products
16
you had used, you were not able to answer my question.
17
How is it that you were able to answer it today?
18
A
I went to the AdTran web site to refresh my memory on what
19
the different abbreviations, like the bank control unit,
20
there's a List 1, there's a List 2.
21
differences, I did not want to misspeak yesterday, but
22
when I was able to go back and read at the AdTran web site
23
what these different configurations and list numbers and
24
so forth were, I could tell which one that we had used
25
before.
And because of those
1628
1
Q
Well, on page 1 of Exhibit I-127, why did you select the
2
last chassis bundle on that page in comparison to, say,
3
the second chassis bundle?
4
A
The second up at the top?
5
Q
The second from the top.
6
A
Well, the one that we used in our analysis was a bank
7
control unit with just a T1 interface, which turns out to
8
be the List 1.
9
bottom, because that's what it was.
10
11
And it's an AC
configuration.
Q
12
13
And that's why I chose the one down at the
Well, the one, the second one from the top is an AC
configuration as well, though?
A
Yes, sir, that's correct.
But we did not price a router
14
control unit type of chassis or chassis bundle in our
15
analysis.
16
Q
Your selection then of chassis bundles had nothing to do
17
with the fact it was the lowest price, though, of the 29
18
options?
19
A
Well, we basically tried -- at the onset we basically
20
tried to find the unit that would do what we needed to do,
21
which was to provide capability for some fractional T1
22
data and multiple voice lines, and what we identified at
23
the onset was that you need this equipment that's shown at
24
the bottom.
25
And like I say, there are other
1629
1
configurations of even that.
2
them involves a DSX type of jack termination, and we don't
3
need that.
4
the onset of this analysis and again last night that this
5
one is the match.
6
Q
But, for instance, one of
So that's why I was able to identify both at
Did you bring with you today the sheets that you looked at
7
yesterday on the Internet -- I mean last night -- that you
8
testified today concerning?
9
A
I did not have an ability to print them from my hotel
10
room, so I did not.
11
you're interested in the FXS comments that I made, if you
12
do your initial search on the AdTran quad FXS card, the
13
one that you gave me yesterday is the very first item in
14
that list.
15
But I will say, for instance, if
The very second item in that list is the
16
one that we used, and it's the one that we need.
It's the
17
right one.
18
the package that you handed me yesterday as Exhibit I-127.
And that particular printout was not part of
19
Q
Well, I'm not sure I follow you, but that's O.K.
20
A
No, I would like to be clear.
You cannot reach this page
21
right here until you go to the page that shows all the
22
different configurations.
23
configuration will you get the page that shows the
24
merchants.
25
Q
O.K.
I understand.
Only when you click on a given
You said there are different FXS
1630
1
2
cards; is that correct?
A
AdTran manufactures a number of different kinds of FXS
3
cards, and some of those work only in certain of their
4
shells and other cards work only in other shells.
5
Like I say, their 5000 series product is a
6
frame relay product, which is a totally different animal
7
than an integrated access device.
8
Q
9
the record yesterday that some of the options included
10
11
On this first page of Exhibit I-127 I think you noted for
quad FXS cards; is that correct?
A
Yes, sir, I think I pointed that out myself.
And some of
12
them have three quad cards, some of them six quad cards.
13
I see one that's got two quad cards, so yes, there are
14
various combinations shown on there.
15
Q
16
17
Do you have any information or can you tell what kind of
quad FXS cards those are from the descriptions?
A
Well, yes, sir, I sure can.
I can tell you, for example,
18
if you look at the -- let's just look at the one that is
19
one, two, three, four, five up from the bottom on the
20
first page.
21
FXS cards.
It says with that package you get six quad
22
Those quad FXS cards are those that are
23
made to work with the AdTran TA 850, which, by the way,
24
they also work with the 750, but that's how you can tell
25
the difference there.
Or I mean they're not going to sell
1631
1
frame relay cards with a TA 850 chassis.
2
silly.
3
Q
4
5
That would be
How may quad FXS cards do you need with one chassis
bundle?
A
Depends on how many voice circuits you want to serve.
We
6
picked one card to handle four because it's a quad card,
7
meaning it handles four voice lines.
8
Q
9
So if the Commission were to decide that the cutoff point
is higher than four, under that analysis they'd have to
10
include the cost of the additional cards, other than the
11
one card that you have included in your analysis?
12
A
Hypothetically, yes, sir, that would be true.
13
Q
And how many -- I assume the FXO card, which is indicated
14
as a quad card, then also would support four voice lines?
15
a
Yes, sir, that's correct.
16
Q
So the same would be true if the cutoff point is higher
17
than four, additional quad FXO cards would have to be
18
included?
19
A
Yes, sir.
I suspect that would be right.
20
MR. DAVIS:
21
JUDGE RIGAS:
22
I have no further questions.
counsel?
23
MR. KELLY:
24
JUDGE RIGAS:
25
Anything further from any
Yes, your Honor.
- - -
All right.
Go ahead.
1632
1
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
2
BY MR. KELLY:
3
Q
In SBC's opinion, where CLECs have NXX codes, UNE-L loops,
4
and ported numbers, those would be an indication of which
5
wire centers CLECs are operating in, correct?
6
A
I'm trying to think.
7
Q
No.
8
A
Oh, and ported numbers.
9
NXX codes, UNE-L loops, and ported numbers.
Well, yes, those are some of the
indications that show -- and of course the NXX codes cover
10
11
You said NXX codes, collocation --
rate centers, which would be more than one wire center.
Q
O.K.
If CLECs don't have NXX codes, UNE-L loops, and
12
ported numbers, that would be an indication that CLECs are
13
not providing service within those wire centers or rate
14
centers, correct?
15
A
Yes, sir.
I think that would be true.
16
17
MR. KELLY:
JUDGE RIGAS:
counsel?
Any other
Thanks for your patience, Mr. Lube.
You're excused.
22
23
Very good.
All right, thank you.
20
21
Thank
you.
18
19
No further questions.
THE WITNESS:
You're welcome, sir.
Thank
you.
24
(The witness was excused.)
25
JUDGE RIGAS:
All right.
The following
1633
1
exhibits are under consideration at this time, assuming
2
they're all offered.
3
through A-123, I-124 through I-141, assuming they're all
4
offered.
They are proposed Exhibits A-104
5
Are there any objections?
6
MR. ANDERSON:
Yes, your Honor.
7
object to several of those.
8
Michtel discovery response Mr. Kelly introduced.
9
MR. KELLY:
We would
The first is I-135, the
Your Honor, with respect to
10
that, let me point out for the record, I have distributed
11
signed versions of those discovery responses.
12
notarized copies of those.
13
that exhibit.
14
15
16
I even have
However, we will not offer
JUDGE RIGAS:
All right, very good.
other objections?
MR. ANDERSON:
Yes, your Honor.
We object
17
to 138, 139, and 140.
18
specifications that we discussed, Mr. Rashes and I.
19
20
Those are the technical
JUDGE RIGAS:
MR. RASHES:
22
JUDGE RIGAS:
24
25
All right.
Mr. Rashes, do
you want to offer them at this time?
21
23
Any
Yes, I do.
Would you address the
objection, please.
MR. RASHES:
Their main objection was
authentication of the document as the real thing.
Your
1634
1
Honor, we have had a witness who just testified that he
2
relies regularly on the Internet in developing his
3
testimony.
4
to correct his answers to questions made by Mr. Field.
He went to the Internet last night to rebut or
5
If I were to bring in the original slick
6
version of these things -- and when I say slick, I mean
7
the glossy paper -- or to bring in something faxed from
8
Lucent or Unisphere or Cisco, we wouldn't have this
9
objection today.
10
The common practice in business is to put
11
your marketing brochures nowadays on the Internet.
They
12
were used to rebut directly an assertion made by the
13
witness.
They're appropriate in that manner.
14
And their argument, as I understand it, is
15
authenticity.
16
authenticity than the courts.
17
these are the regularly conducted business documents, and
18
they are a business document of these three businesses,
19
and the witness has said he relies on documents such as
20
these.
21
This Commission has a lower standard of
MR. ANDERSON:
And even in the courts
Your Honor, there's no
22
showing they're a business record, business document.
Mr.
23
Rashes' suggestion that if they were faxed, I don't think
24
that would solve a thing.
25
he'd have a problem if he had a witness.
The fact is that I don't think
1635
1
2
JUDGE RIGAS:
All right, all right.
That's enough.
3
MR. ANDERSON:
4
JUDGE RIGAS:
5
and 140 are sustained.
6
7
The objections to 138, 139
They will not be received.
The exhibits that will be received at this
time --
8
9
MR. ANDERSON:
JUDGE RIGAS:
11
MR. ANDERSON:
to.
One more?
One more that I objected
I was doing them in groups.
13
14
Your Honor, I still have
one more.
10
12
Thank you.
MR. FIELD:
And I have an objection as
well, your Honor.
15
JUDGE RIGAS:
All right.
16
MR. ANDERSON:
I object to Exhibit I-141,
17
which is the SBC lawful UNE amendment letter, and that is
18
relevance.
19
The letter that was sent on March 11th to
20
CLECs under their interconnection agreement relating to
21
renegotiation based on the D.C. Circuit has no relevance
22
to this proceeding.
23
relevance to this proceeding.
I can't even see the purported
24
MR. RASHES:
25
JUDGE RIGAS:
Your Honor -Just a minute.
One at a
1636
1
time, O.K.?
2
3
What other objections are there out there,
then?
4
5
MR. FIELD:
admission of A-114 and -- excuse me -- A-113 and A-114.
6
7
Your Honor, I object to the
JUDGE RIGAS:
And your grounds for your
objection?
8
MR. FIELD:
9
based on expert testimony.
They've not been shown to be
The foundation is not the type
10
of evidence that experts typically rely upon.
11
background support is double and triple hearsay.
12
evidenced by discovery responses -- I don't know if you
13
want me to get into the whole thing right now.
14
15
16
17
18
JUDGE RIGAS:
The
As
Well, if you want your
objection to be sustained, you're going to have to.
MR. FIELD:
I didn't know if you were
calling for anything more than the identification.
Let me indicate, then, fully if we look at
19
-- well, first off, let me point out that Mr. Lube has
20
introduced this DS0 calculation in which he's taken these
21
figures from various sources, and basically they are three
22
Internet articles, and he testified he has no personal
23
knowledge of the accuracy of those sources.
24
personal knowledge of the churn rate, he didn't conduct
25
any studies himself regarding the churn rate.
He has no
1637
1
I have an objection, too, to the factor as
2
far as the cost of the equipment.
3
showing that this is sources that people purchase.
SBC
4
apparently doesn't purchase through these sources.
The
5
witness was not able to testify that any CLEC purchased
6
through these sources.
7
supposedly expert calculation are totally without basis.
8
9
Again there's been no
So the underlying numbers on his
If the witness wanted to introduce, for
example, this particular Internet article for the truth of
10
the matter asserted that there's a low churn rate when
11
customers are taking IAD service, this is pure hearsay.
12
Let me read to you, for example, on one of
13
the discovery requests, 37.
14
JPL-10, which is A-113.
15
his premise that the IAD -- the most widely used IAD is
16
the AdTran 850.
17
article made up by some -- I'm not even sure what the
18
source was -- and then a one-line quote from another
19
Internet article.
20
between Allegiance -- he didn't even identify the person
21
at Allegiance -- and a consultant.
22
yesterday that he talked to a consultant who talked to
23
someone at Allegiance, who supposedly said something about
24
the AdTran 850 being the IAD of choice.
25
This was in reference to
The question asked him to support
His response was this one Internet
And his third support is a conversation
And we learned
So I mean none of the --
1638
1
JUDGE RIGAS:
Are you suggesting to me,
2
Mr. Field -- let's cut to the chase here -- that because
3
he doesn't have independent knowledge of each and every
4
underlying fact in the study, he's incapable of sponsoring
5
the study?
6
MR. FIELD:
7
JUDGE RIGAS:
8
No.
What I'm suggesting is --
Because isn't that what we
do all the time in these cases?
9
MR. FIELD:
I am suggesting one of the
10
questions we typically ask when an exhibit is introduced
11
is whether the exhibit was prepared by him or under his
12
supervision, and it goes to trying to verify the accuracy
13
of what's being introduced.
14
You can go on the Internet, your Honor,
15
and get two, three hundred different cites, and you can
16
pick three of them that say something that you want to be
17
said.
18
can do it.
19
consultant and pay them X amount of dollars per hour and
20
all of a sudden that becomes valid admissible evidence
21
that can be introduced for the truth of the matter
22
asserted.
I mean you can do it, I can do it, my fifth grader
23
But that doesn't mean that then you can hire a
JUDGE RIGAS:
This is an interesting
24
debate.
So are you suggesting to me, then, that the
25
standard should therefore be that if you're going to
1639
1
sponsor some type of study in a proceeding of this nature,
2
that you must be able to represent that you surveyed the
3
entire body of knowledge that lies outside in order to do
4
so?
5
MR. FIELD:
6
JUDGE RIGAS:
7
10
MR. FIELD:
What's the cutoff, then --
No.
I think the point is,
your Honor, it's not how many you survey, it's whether the
sources you're relying on are reliable.
11
12
But I am saying --
10, 10 sources?
8
9
No.
JUDGE RIGAS:
All right.
I've heard
enough.
13
MR. FIELD:
O.K.
14
JUDGE RIGAS:
15
MR. FIELD:
Any other objections?
I was just going to say you
16
wanted us to facilitate the brief writing, so I'm trying
17
to do that.
18
19
JUDGE RIGAS:
O.K.
I mean to any other
exhibits.
20
MR. FIELD:
21
JUDGE RIGAS:
22
Any other objections to exhibits out
23
All right.
there?
24
25
No.
JUDGE RIGAS:
responses, then.
Mr. Rashes.
All right, I'll hear some
1640
1
MR. RASHES:
Your Honor, I have about 20
2
minutes' worth of questioning on the SBC lawful UNE
3
amendment.
4
start reading some stuff from it.
5
going to ask him to start reading stuff?"
6
the interest of time, if there's no objections, and Craig
7
said, "This is fine, I'll just have it admitted as" --
8
9
When we got to that point, I asked him to
MR. ANDERSON:
authenticity of it.
10
You said, "Are you
And I said in
I said I stipulate to the
But that doesn't go to the relevance.
MR. RASHES:
It goes to the relevance,
11
your Honor, in that this admission from SBC states within
12
that they are looking to no longer offer at UNE prices
13
certain UNE combinations or parts thereof that Mr. Lube
14
claims is the alternative to UNE-L if UNE-P goes away.
15
Clearly those alternatives will no longer be available at
16
UNE, based on SBC's own admission contained herein.
17
MR. ANDERSON:
And Commissioner Nelson
18
said on Monday that that would be before the Commission in
19
another proceeding.
20
21
JUDGE RIGAS:
Anything further, Mr.
Rashes?
22
MR. RASHES:
I'll just add there is no
23
current proceeding and they are asking people to sign this
24
document.
25
document himself but he has heard about it and is familiar
He did state that he is not familiar with the
1641
1
with what's in it.
2
JUDGE RIGAS:
3
MR. BINNIG:
All right.
Thank you, your Honor.
Well,
4
I don't want to repeat what you pointed out, but I think
5
that the objections that I heard to Exhibits 113 and 114
6
are not well founded.
7
did this analysis, by the way, as part of his direct
8
testimony, provided this exhibit as part of his direct
9
testimony.
This witness did an analysis.
He
The parties had ample opportunity through
10
discovery, through their own witnesses to respond to this,
11
and in fact they have in their testimony.
12
And the test for admissibility of a study
13
like this is not whether the witness has firsthand
14
knowledge of every item that's relied on for the study.
15
The fact that he may not have firsthand knowledge may go
16
to the weight that's placed on the evidence but not its
17
admissibility.
18
19
JUDGE RIGAS:
heard?
No one?
Anyone else wish to be
Good.
20
The objections, as I indicated previously,
21
to proposed Exhibits I-138, I-139 and I-140 are sustained.
22
23
They will not be received.
The other objections I've heard are
24
overruled, and the exhibits that will be received at this
25
time, then, are A-104 through A-123, I-124 through I-134,
1642
1
I-136, I-137, and I-141.
2
We'll take a break.
3
We'll reconvene in 15
minutes, and at that time we're going to have --
4
MR. BINNIG:
5
MR. DENNISTON:
6
JUDGE RIGAS:
7
gentlemen.
Mr. Bell.
Or Mr. Starkey?
All right, you sort it out,
Fifteen minutes.
8
(A recess was taken.)
9
- - -
10
(Documents were marked Exhibits I-142
11
through I-144 by the reporter.)
12
JUDGE RIGAS:
13
Mr. Denniston, call your witness.
14
MR. DENNISTON:
15
We'll go back on the record.
Yes.
Michael Starkey,
your Honor.
16
- - -
17
M I C H A E L
S T A R K E Y
18
was called as a witness on behalf of MCImetro Access
19
Transmission Services, LLC and MCI WorldCom
20
Communications, Inc. and, being first duly sworn by the
21
Reporter/Notary Public, testified as follows:
22
DIRECT EXAMINATION
23
BY MR. DENNISTON:
24
Q
Could you state your name for the court reporter, please.
25
A
My name is Michael Starkey.
1643
1
Q
And what is your business address?
2
A
It is 243 Dardenne Farms Drive in St. Charles, Missouri.
3
4
The ZIP code is 63304.
Q
And have you submitted prefiled testimony in this matter
5
consisting of your direct testimony in both public and
6
confidential versions on December 19th, totaling
7
approximately 68 pages, and consisting of rebuttal
8
testimony and public and confidential versions dated March
9
5, 2004, consisting of approximately 16 pages?
10
A
Yes, I have.
11
Q
And associated with this prefiled testimony have you also
12
submitted proposed Exhibits MS-1, which we have marked as
13
I-142, MS-2 which we've marked as I-143, and MS-3 that
14
we've marked as I-144?
15
A
Yes, I have.
16
Q
Do you have any corrections or changes to any of your
17
18
testimony?
A
I just have one small correction or change.
19
bottom of page 10.
20
very last word on line 202.
21
customer loops."
22
and replace that with the word "DS0."
23
sentence reads a confidential number of DS0 loops.
24
25
Q
It's on line 202.
It's on the
It begins on the
It begins "mass market
I would remove "mass market customer"
So that that
And taking that change into account, other than that
change, if I were to ask you the questions set forth in
1644
1
your prefiled testimony today, would your answers be the
2
same?
3
4
A
Yes, they would.
MR. DENNISTON:
Your Honor, I would ask
5
that his prefiled testimony be bound into the record, and
6
I would ask that his exhibits also be admitted, and I
7
submit this witness for cross-examination.
8
9
10
11
12
JUDGE RIGAS:
exhibits had been marked?
Did you indicate that the
You did.
Is there any objection to binding this
gentleman's testimony in?
I hear none.
The prepared direct testimony of Mr.
13
Michael Starkey in Case No. U-13796 -- that would be the
14
prepared direct and rebuttal testimony in Case No.
15
U-13796, consisting of some 82 pages of questions and
16
answers, will be bound into the record.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- - -
1645
In the matter, on the Conmission’s own motion, )
to facilitate the iinpleinentation of the Federal
)
Coimnunications Commission’s Trieiinial Review )
determinations in Michigan.
1
CaseNo. U-13796
PUBLIC VERSION
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
Michael Starkey
Ope~afioizal
I~iipai~ineizt
On behalf of
MCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC
MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.
December 19,2003
,
1646
..
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
11.
111.
V.
INTRODUCTION
ILEC HOT CUT P
OPERATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES RE
TRANSPORT RELATED IMPAIRMENT ....
THE ENHANCED LINK (“EEL”) AS A DSO LOOP TRANSPORT TOOL .............. ..............._59
(i) The Advantages of Coilcentrated EELS......................................................................................... 65
~
1647
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
I.
INTRODUCTION
3
Q.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS ROR THE RECORD.
4
A.
My name is Michael Starkey. My business address is QSI Consulting, Inc., 703 Cardinal
1
2
Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-3748.
5
6
7
Q.
THE FIRM?
8
9
WHAT IS QSI CONSULTING, INC. AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION WITH
A.
QSI Consulting, Inc. C'QSI'') is a consultiug firm specializing in regulated industries,
10
econometric analysis and computer aided modelinig. I currently serve as the fmn's
11
President.
12
13
Q.
AND RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE.
14
15
PLEASE PROVIDE A SYNOPSIS OF YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
A.
Included with this testimony as Exhibit -(MS-l)
is a thorough description of my
16
educational background and relevant work experience. In brief, in the past I2 years I
17
have been employed by three separate state utility coinmissions (Missouri, Illinois and
18
Maryland), most recently serving as the Director of Telecommunications for the
19
Maryland Public Service Commission and before that, as Senior Policy Analyst for the
20
Illinois Commerce Commission (Office of Policy and Planning). My experience with
21
each of these state commissions included substantive analysis of federal and state
22
administrative rules and law governing the relationship between incumbent local
23
exchange carriers ("ILECs") and new-entrant, competitive carriers. In addition, I have
24
substantial experience with issues surrounding unbundled network elements ("Es")
1 of68
1648
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
2s
and their role in facilitating competition in the local exchange marketplace. Likewise, as
26
a consultant for the past 7 years, I have represented competitive carriers, citizen groups,
27
equipment manufacturers, state commissions and a host of other entities with respect to
28
numerous telecommunications issues. Much of my experience with QSI’s clients has
29
involved direct implementation of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
30
(liereafter “TA96” or “the Act”), the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC’s”)
31
rules further implementing the Act‘s pro-competitive objectives, and a number of
32
individual state requiremeiits aimed at fostering competition in the local exchange
33
marketplace.
34
35
Q.
OPERATIONAL IMPAIRMENT?
36
37
DO YOU HAVE DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH ISSUES RELATED TO
A.
Y e s , I do. Since 1996 I have representednumerous clients attempting to enter the local
38
exchange market relying upon a UNE-L strategy. I have negotiated the requisite
39
interconnection agreements, assisted in the developinent of processes required to access
40
and utilize UNE loops and I have been involved in nnnierous litigations related to poor
41
perromance on the part o€ the ILEC. Indeed, I have over the past 4 years worked
42
extensively with competitive carriers who chose to migrate their primary service delivery
43
architecture from UNE-L to UNE-P, even in areas where they employed their own
44
switches, simply because they could not overcome the operational issues I discuss in this
4s
testimony relative l o impairment.
46
47
Q.
ON WHOSE BEHALF WAS TAIS TESTIMONY PREPARED?
48
A.
This testimony was prepared on behalf of MCI.
49
2 of68
.^
i’
i
1649
-
PUBLIC VERSJON Direct Testimony of
Miellael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
50
Q.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
51
A.
At paragraph 419 of its ZYiennialReview Order,’ the FCC found, on a national basis, that
52
competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”) are impaired without access to unbundled
53
local switching (“ULS”) when attempting to serve the “mass market.” The FCC pointed
54
specifically to certain economic and operational criteria that served as the basis for its
55
impainnent finding, and asked state commissions to review these issues in more detail as
56
they contemplate whether tlie findmg of impainnent should be overturned in any of the
57
telecommunications markets within their jurisdictions.’ At paragraph 476 of its TRO, the
58
FCC describes a number of economic and operational factors, including for example,
59
issues related to ILEC unbundling performance, collocation and the lack of processes and
60
procedures facilitating the transfer of loops kom one CLEC’s switch to another CLEC’s
61
switch. The FCC specifically identified these types of issues as those it believed could
62
add to the impairment faced by CLECs attempting to provide services via a UNE loop
63
(“UNE-L”) as coinpared to the relative ease with which CLECs can provide such services
64
utilizing the UNE platform (“UNE-F”’). I understand that SBC is requesting the
65
Michigan Public Service Commission (“hereafter “Commission”) to enter a finding of
66
%on impairment’’ wit11 respect to ULS for inass market customers in certain areas within
67
the state as well as tlie removal of ULS from the list of available UNEs. The purpose of
68
this testimony is to describe why operational, network and in some cases technological
69
factors give rise to impairment, and to describe how CLECs generally, and MCI
70
specifically, are impaired in their effort to serve the mass market without access to UNE
’
In the Matter ofReview of the Section 251 Uizbui?dlingObligations of Zncunibeiit Local Exchange
Carriers, Impleinenlatioii of lhe Local Coinpelition Proi,isions of the Teleconlarunicaliol?s~icatio~~s
Acl of 1996, and
Deploynreiit of Wireline Seivices Offering Advanced Teleconm~unicalio~~s
Capabiligl, CC Docket Nos. 01338,96-98 & 98-147, Report and Order and Order on Reinand and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC 03-36 (rel. Aug. 21,2003) (“TrieimiolReview Order” or “TRO”),43.
Id., 7493
3 of 68
1650
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
71
switching in today’s environment. This testimony also describes ways in which MCI
72
believes many of the factors leading to today’s impairment can be overcome with active
13
oversight on the part of the Conmission and cooperation of the industry.
14
15
Q.
THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF DISCUSSION IN THE FCC’S TRIENNIAL
76
REVIEWORDER REGARDING “TRIGGERS” AND ANALYSIS RELATED TO
I7
“ACTUAL DEPLOYMENT.” IS YOUR TESTIMONY PERTINENT TO THOSE
I8
ISSUES?
19
A.
Absolutely. As Ms. Murray discusses in her testimony, the trigger analysis is meant to
80
examine whether mass markets consumers have thee real and current choices available
81
to them by facilities-based carriers.’ The stated intention ofthe trigger analysis is to give
82
weight to evidence that carriers in the real world are actually providing service to mass
83
market customers without UNE-P, and that those carriers could continue to serve mass
84
market customers within the identified market if UNE-P were discontinued. If these
85
“triggering” carriers are able to provide services without UNE-P within the relevant
86
market today (and have the ability to continue providing it in the future) those alleged
87
“triggering” companies must have overcome, m some way, operational issues related to
88
accessing the ILEC’s loop facility. Nonetheless, to qualify as a legitimate “trigger,” the
89
carrier would be required to overcome these obstacles on a going forward basis: and
90
perhaps to overcome them in areas of the market wherein it does not currently offer
Or in a less likely circumstance, whether carriers have two wholesale alternatives froin iacilities based
carriers within the relevant market.
See Triennial Review Order, 7500 wherein it states: “The key consideration to be examined by state
coinmissions is whether the providers are currently offering and able lo provide service, mid are Iikely fa
eoni;nue to do so.” [emphasis added]
4 of G8
~~
1651
PUBLlC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
91
services.' As such, in evaluating tbe legitimacy of an identified trigger, the Coinmission
92
needs to understand what operational issues exist relative to a UNE-L delivery strategy,
93
and how the identified trigger fares relative to overcoining those obstacles Ihroughout the
94
market, both today and in tlie future.
95
96
Q.
GENERAL COMMENTS?
97
98
BEPORE SUMMARIZING YOUR TESTIMONY, DO YOU HAVE ANY
A.
Yes, I do. I believe it is critical to highlight the fact that UNE-P is successful today as a
99
tool for mass market competition in large part because (1) a ]lost oftalented people and
100
an enonnous number of resources (Commission resources, CLEC resources and ILEC
I01
resources alike) were dedicated to its development as a commercially viable delivery
102
platform over a period of many years (with the last four years exhibiting the most focused
103
efforts) and (2) because it involves the end to end lease of ILEC facilities, UNE-P
104
provides CLECs access to the customer's loop in inuch the same inanner as that available
105
to the ILEC.6 Further, it should be noted that much of the success of UNE-P must be
106
attributed to the cooperation (however reluctant) on the pad of the ILECs to overcome
107
operational and business-related baniers, based almost solely on their desire for $271
108
relief.
109
110
To assume that UNE-L, which requires the connection of an unbundled loop facility with
111
the CLEC's switch, will overcome more challenging operational, technical and network
112
hurdles in a mere 9 month timekame is not sensible. Further, to assume such hurdles can
'
See Triennial Review Order, 7499 wherein it states: "They should be capable of economically serving the
entire inarket, as that market is defined by the stale commission. This prevents counting switch providers
that provide services that are desirable only to a parlicular segment ofthe market."
5 of 68
1652
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
113
be overcome in this limited limeframe without similar incentives on the part of the ILECs
I14
who have, for the most part, already been released from market restrictions via $271 is
115
even more difficult l o support. Similar to our experience with UNE-P, it is more logical
1 I6
to assume that the operational and technological issues giving rise to impainnent will be
117
resolved over time, and lrue loop portability - as described throughout this testimony -
118
will become a reality only with the guidance and oversight of state commissions and
119
proper incentives for ILEC cooperation.
120
121
Q.
ARE TKERE PARTICULAR ISSUES THE COMMISSION SHOULD KEEP IN
122
MIND RELATIVE TO IMPAIRMENT FOR MASS MARK32 T SWITCHING AND
123
EFFORTS MADE TO MITIGATE THAT IMPAIRMENT OVER TIME?
124
A.
Yes. To the extent this Commission determines that the UNE-L strategy should become
125
more widely implemented, it must recognize that transferring a customer’s service from
126
the local switch of one carrier to that of another relies upon numerous Operational
127
Support Systems (“OSS”), processes and procedures as well as the availability and
128
reliability of network elements, comprising a chain of connectivity between the customer
129
and hisilier local service provider of choice. Because of this necessary chain of
130
connectivity, even if one assumes that ILEC hot cut processes can become seamless at
131
soine point in the future, CLECs are likely to remain impaired as a result of not one but
132
numerous other operational and technological issues affecting loops, collocation and
133
transport? Hence, it is absolutely imperative that the Commission remain focused on
134
each of these individual issues when evalualing impairment, and keep an unwavering eye
Here, coiiunercially viable is mean1 lo address efficiency from both the ILEC and CLEC perspeclives,
reliability, linieliness and economics.
Indeed, lhe FCC found that hot culs are no1 the only issue which may give rise l o iiiipainnenl. See TRO.
7476.
’
6 of68
1653
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimany af
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
135
on the primary objective - to ensure mass market consumers can, at ever increasing
136
volumes, transfer their services fTom one facilities-based local service provider to another
137
without service disruption or other service impacting problems.
138
139
Q.
ARE THERE? BENCHMARKS AGAINST WHICH W E - L PROVISIONING
140
PROCESSES LIKE THE BATCH HOT CUT PROCESS SHOULD BE
141
MEASURED RELATIVE TO THE SEAMLESSNESS AND RELIABILITY YOU
142
ALLUDE TO ABOVE?
143
A.
I will, tlmughout this testimony, point the Commission to the largely seamless and
144
reliable nature of the existing UNE-P process as the benchmark to which UNE-L
145
provisioning processes should be held if impairment is to be overcome. A finding of no
146
impairment in the absence of ULS and a move to UNE-L as a mass market delivery
147
method simply cannot occur until the ILEC's daily processes can support the seamless
148
and reliable provisioning of loops to multiple carriers at commercial volumes on a day-
149
to-day basis consistent with the manner in which they currently accommodate CLEC
150
orders via UNE-P. As such, MCI recommends that the Commission maintain the
151
national finding of impairment throughout all telecommunications markets in the state of
152
Michigan until such time as UNE-L can realistically replace UNE-P as a tool for serving
153
mass market customers. This will, at a minimum, require resolution of the mauy
154
operational issues that I address in the remainder of this testimony, as well as those
155
discussed by MCI witness Ms. Lichtenberg.
I56
157
158
Q.
PLEASE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
7 of 68
1654
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
159
A.
As discussed in Ms. Lichtenberg’s testimony, MCI intends to move toward serving its
160
mass market customers using its own switching, collocation and transport facilities in
161
combination with ILEC provided unbundled loops. MCI intends to pursue this strategy
162
aggressively in locations where certain operational and economic hurdles can be
163
overcome. However, this strategy is critically dependent upon reliable access to the
164
customer’s loop and the OSSs, processes, procedures and other facilities needed to ensnre
165
that loops can be successfully extended to CLEC switching facilities and maintained on
166
an on-going basis.
167
168
Q.
EFFECTIVE HOT CUT PROCESS?
169
170
ARE THE ISSUES YOU’RE ALLUDING TO ALLEVIATED WITH AN
A.
No, they are not. While an improved hot cut process is critical to a workable UNE-L
171
platform, there are numerous other operational issues that also exist which give rise to the
172
impairment CLECs face today without access to UNE switching. The Commission
173
should recognize that moving fiom a UNE-P to a UNE-L strategy requires a true
174
paradigm shift for both the CLEC and its underlying loop provider, the ILEC. And,
175
based upon the operational issues described in this testimony, as well as the customer
176
impacting issues discussed in Ms. Liclitenberg’s testimony, MCI is wholly uncomfortable
177
sanctioning a migration of its sizeable UNE-P customer base to a UNE-L strategy in the
178
near future. MCI simply has no confidence that were it required to rely upon the ILEC
I79
for timely provisioning of high quality loop facilities, outside of a LINE-€’ arrangement,
180
that its customers would continue to receive the quality of service they have come to
181
expect. Simply put, MCI sees no reasonable way in which it can, in the near term,
182
migrate its approximately ***BEGIN PROPRIETARY
183
PROPRIETARY*** Michigan UNE-P customers to a UNE-L delivery platform without
END
8 of68
1655
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
184
massive service disruption, service impacting errors and a dramatic decrease in general
185
customer service. Moreover, it is unlikely that it would not be economic for MCI to do
186
so. Until the W E - L process becomes as seamless as W E - P , MCI, as well as other
187
CLECs, remain operationally impaired without access to unbundled local switching as a
188
means to access the ILECs' local loops.
189
190
Q.
WILL THE PARADIGM SHIFT YOU DISCU SSED IN YOUR PREVIOUS
191
ANSWER HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON COMPETITION NATIONALLY AND
192
IN MICHIGAN?
193
A.
It certainly has the potential to do so. The seamlessness and efficiency associated with
194
UNE-P has, for the first time, made it possible for CLECs to enier the marketplace in a
195
meaningful way, with UNE-P based market penetration outpacing UNE-L based market
196
penetration by about 2.5 to 1 on a national basis as depicted below.
197
9 of 68
1656
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starlcey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
UNE-L & UNE-P in the US
from Dec 99 Dec 02
-
r
8,000,000
ln
.-Js
W
6,000,000
---F
4,000,000
UNE-L
2,000,000
Dec99
Jun00
Dec00
Jun01
Dec01
Jun02
Dec02
Souice: IATD, Trends m Telephony, Irend803.pdi. Table 8.4
http:/~.fccgov/Bureaus/CommopCamer/R~p~~~/FCC~
slsre_Li"k~AWl~~dEO3.~~
In order for this type of entry to remain sustainable, and for customers to enjoy the
resultant economic benefits, the ease by which CLECs can participate in the market via
UNE-P must be reproduced via the UNE-L strategy. That is, loop portability must
become an operational and economic reality. If that benchmark is not attained, the
competitive market, and more importantly, consumers will suffer. Indeed, CLEC market
share would likely take a significant step backward and the benefits attributable to CLEC
entry would likely diminish accordingly.
10 of 68
1657
-
PUULIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Micliael Starlcey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
209
Q.
HAS THE SEAMLESSNESS AND EFFICIENCY OF UNE-P HAD AN IMPACT
210
ON COMPETITION IN THE LOCAL EXCIIANGE MARKET IN MICHIGAN IN
211
MUCH THE SAME MANNER AS IT HAS NATIONALLY?
212
A.
It certainly bas. In fact, as the chaas included below demonstrate, CLEC penetration
213
rates for Michigan have more than doubled during Ihis same time period while UNE-P
214
growth has comprised nearly all o€ SBC's competitive losses even after accounting for
215
the declining resale market. Indeed, the CLEC penetration rate in Michigan as depicted
216
in the chart below has increased fiom 3% to 21% over the past three years, according to
217
FCC data
CLEC Market Share in Michigan
Dec 1999 Dec 2002
-
Dec-99
Jun-00
Dec-00
Jun-01
Dec-01
Jun-02
Dec-0;
Source: Table 7 of the FCC's Local CompetiflonStatus as of December 31,2002 repod
htlu~~fcc.soV/Bureaos/Common
Camer'Reuorts/FCC-State l~nWlADflcomO6O3.~o'f
218
219
220
Moreover, the chart below highlights the fact that the entirety of this aggressive growth
221
results directly €Tom UNEP and its success in overcoming the operational (and
11 of68
1658
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
222
economic) barriers that had restrained growtli from resale and UNE-L alternatives
223
previously.
224
CLEC UNE based competitive entry in
SBC Michigan (Dec 99 Dec 02)
-
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
UNE-L
H UNE-P
VI
m
c
2
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Dec-99
Dec-00
Dec-01
Dec-02
Source: Selected RBOC Local Telephone Data (Dee 99 -Dec 02)
h n p : / / w fCC.gDV/~b/iat~~omp.html
225
226
227
228
229
230
23 1
Q.
ARE THERE IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN UPON WHICH THE
232
COMMISSIONSHOULD FOCUS IN EVALUATING IMPAIRMENT RELATIVE
233
TO MASS MARKET CUSTOMERS AND THE CHALLENGES THAT EXIST
234
WITH A UNE-L DELIVERY STRATEGY?
235
236
A.
Yes, there are. For puIposes of clarity, I have identified three broad areas of concern the
Coinmission should consider when evaluating the operational and technical impairment
12 of 68
1659
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
237
that exists for caniers attempting to utilize UNE-L in order to serve mass market
238
customers:
239
240
24 1
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
25 1
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
265
267
268
269
270
271
212
273
274
275
276
217
278
279
280
(1) Loop Provisionine Issues:
While the FCC in its TXO focused primarily on “hot cuts” and the
impairment resulting froin the inability of CLECs to reliably, seamlessly
and economically cut loops in large numbers (i.e., in a “batch”), this is
but one ofthe provisioning issues giving rise to impairment without
UNE switching. Issues related to untested provisioning processes
operating at dramatically increased volumes on a day-to-day basis (not
only for “batch” cuts but for future provisioning requirements), the
increased reliability issues associated with substantial manual
intervention in the provisioning process when compared to UNE-P which
is largely automated, and the need to manage multiple provisioning
scenarios (i.e., CLEC-to-CLEC, UNE-L to Line Splitting, etc.) are also
worth noting. Solutions to all of these issues must be in place (and tested
for proper performance) before UNE-L can be said to exist as a viable
mass market delivery platform.
(2) Loou Facilities:
ILEC’s have argued for years that end user loops served via Integrated
Digital Loop Camer (“IDLC”) technology cannot be unbundled and
provided to CLECs for UNE-L provisioning, because those loops are
permanently combined (i.e., “integrated”) witli their local switching
facilities. Instead, of admitting that IDLC can technically be unbundled
and thereafter working to address the remaining operational aspects of
any necessary solutions, they insist “work-arounds” must be
implemented before a customer served via IDLC can be reached by a
competitor. These workarouiids are often time consuming, costly and
fraught with technological deficiencies. To fudher exacerbate this
problem, ILECs appear to be employing IDLC technology with
increasing frequency. For example, it has been our experience that IDLC
is used to serve as many as 40% to 60% of the end users in some central
offices.’
Because of these technological challenges associated with unbundling
IDLC loops, ILECs have consistently suggested that UNE-L requests for
loops served via IDLC must “fall out” of any provisioning process
(including “batch” hot cuts) and be provisioned via an extremely
expensive and time-consuming manual process. These issues must be
addressed and resolved before a fmding of non impairment can be
entered.
8
MCI anticipates that the ILECs will, in the near tenn, provide responses to its pending discovery, thereby
providing Michigan wire center specific data relative to IDLC deployment.
13 of 68
1660
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkcy
MPSC Case No. U-13796
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
3 14
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
It is worth noting that these issues do not arise in a UNE-P environment.
Because IDLC loops are integrated with tlie ILEC’s switch andUNE-P
uses both the loop and switch facility, Ihis connection between the hyo
need not be broken to provide a working circuit in a UNE-P
environment. For this reason, the myriad issues !hat arise with respect to
unbundling IDLC are unique to a UNE-L strategy and, clearly, these
issues must be addressed and resolved before it can be decided that
impairment has been overcome specific to UNE switching.
Moreover, there are specific concerns regarding the ability of CLECs
who employ UNE-L to provision xDSL services or dial up services at
comparable levels of quality as tlie JLECs are able to provide. As such,
the CLEC’s ability to offer adequately “bundled” packages of services
which are increasingly demanded by customers is threatened.
(3) CollocatiodTransuort Complexities
A workable UNE-L architecture requires the CLEC to procure and place
numerous telecommunications assets for purposes of aggregating and
transporting UNE loops from the ILEC’s central office to its own
switching facility. Many of these facilities can be purchased and
managed by the CLEC itself (i.e., loop aggregation equipment), while
others are likely to be purchased from the ILEC and managed consistent
with interconnection agreements and tariffs (e.g., collocation, transport
and EEL capacity). The Commission should consider that both of these
types of facilities are unique to a UNE-L architecture and are not
required either by the ILEC in serving its own retail customers, or by a
CLEC relying upon UNE-P. As such, the operational processes and
resultant costs of procuring, placing and managing these facilities are
over-and-beyond those costs incurred by the ILEC or by a CLEC using
UNE-P. This is important to understand because tlie additional
complexity associated with procuring and managing these facilities is not
only important from a perspective of operational impairment (in some
circumstances), but must also be considered for purposes of economic
impairment?
Additionally, the availability and extent to which such services are
currently deployed in relationship to the mass market must be
contemplated when addressing impainnent from an operational
standpoint, particularly if ILEC policies, procedures and abilities are
limiting factors.
’
While other testimony may describe how the issues above relate to economic impainnent, my present
testimony describes the need for those facilitiesand the extent to which costs associated with those
facilities are unique to a W E - L delivery slralegy.
14 of 68
1661
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Micliael Starlcey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
11.
325
326
321
328
Q.
ILEC HOT CUT PROCESSES ARE INADEQUATE AND LEAD TO
IMPAIRMENT
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES IN THIS PROCEEDING RELATED TO
329
HOT CUTS. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE HOT CUT PROCESS AND EXPLAIN
330
WHY TIXJISE ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT.
331
A.
The term "hot cut" describes the near-simultaneous disconnection of a working loop from
332
a poit on one carrier's switch and the reconnection of that loop to a port on a different
333
carrier's switch, without any significant out-of-service period. A hot cut must also
334
include some type of notification made to the appropriate number administrator
335
informing the administrator that the customer's telephone number is now assigned to a
336
different carrier, thereby allowing the customer to receive incoming calls at hidher
337
existing telephone number. In a hot-cut scenario, regardless of w l m e switch the
338
customer is moving from, and to, the ILEC must perform two manual wiring activities at
339
the main distributing frame ("MDF"); (1) pre-wiring and (2) the actual loop cutover.
340
341
During the pre-wiring stage the technician places a jumper between the CLEC tie facility
342
connecting the CLEC's collocation cage to the ILEC central office, and the customer
343
loop. The jumper is terminated at the tie facility but not at the loop side. When the cut is
344
scheduled to begin, the jumper that is COMeCted to the loop side of the existing loop/port
345
arrangement is disconnected and the jumper connected to the receiving CLEC's tie
346
facility is terminated in its place. This completes a circuit between the CLEC facility in
347
its collocation cage and the customers loop, thereby accomplishing the cut. As discussed
348
above, Local Number Portability ("LNP")translation activities are typically involved
349
with this type of transaction and have traditionally been the responsibility o f the
1Sof68
1662
PUBLlC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Micliael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
350
receiving canier. The diagram below provides a high level depiction oflhe process
351
described above.
352
353
UNE-P to UNE-L
HOT CUT
3 54
355
356
357
358
359
360
L--
n
A\
.,................. .
,......,...
,.
Y
361
\I
Y
UNE Loop
UNE Switching
..,...... l j
UiriE TTi?l:bpOti
362
363
364
Q.
PARAGRAPH 488 OF THE FCC’s TRIENNIAL REVIEW ORDER (“TRO”)
3 65
DIRECTS STATE COMMISSIONS TO APPROVE “BATCH” HOT CUT
366
PROCESSES TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY ILECS. ARE THESE PROCESSES
3 67
DIFFERENT FROM THE EXISTING PROCESSES?
368
A.
Yes, they should be significantly different. These new processes - once approved,
369
implemented and tested - will serve two distinct purposes. MCI uses the term Trunsitian
370
Butch Hat Cut Process to address the FCC’s requirements that a “seamless, low-cost
371
batch cut process for switching mass market customers from one camer to another” be
372
approved which - when implemented - will allow CLECs an opportunity to compete
373
effectively in the mass market. (TXO at paragraph 487). This process should be
16of68
1663
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
3 74
implemented in order to effectuate a transition of customers off of UNE-P and onto UNE-
375
L in large quantities, or “batches.” A variant of this process should also transcend
3 76
migrations 0 7 ntasse in order for CLECs to be able to effectively compete for mass
317
market customers 011 an ongoing, day-to-day basis. This daily process is referred to as a
378
Mass Market Hot Cut Process. To the extent that ILECs are unable to implement
379
Tvonsitional Batch Hot Cut Processes, the initial mass transitioning of customers from
380
UNE-P to UNE-L will not be manageable. Moreover, if an effective, permanent process
381
is not established, CLECs will remain impaired in their ability to address t h e mass market
3 82
for all of the reasons cited in the TRO. Given that the FCC based its national finding of
383
impairment, at least in part, upon the absence of adequate hot cut processes, this
384
Conmission should evaluate any proposed processes in this context. Moreover, the
385
Commission should ensure that hot cut processes are not only “identified” and
386
“documented” but that they are actually tested and implemented prior to contemplating
387
whether a fuiding of non-impairment in the absence of ULS is appropriate.
388
389
Q.
IS THE COMMISSION SOMEHOW CONFINED TO AN EXAMINATION OF
390
HOT CUT PROCESSES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF “TRIGGERANALYSES”
391
ORLIMITED TO ANALYSES OF “BATCH” PROCESSES THAT ARE
392
DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE BATCH MIGRATION DESCRIBED ABOVE?
393
A.
No. The Commission is not restricted in either sense. As described above, state
394
Commissions must approve hot cut processes independent of trigger analyses. Moreover,
395
the FCC found that carriers are impaired without access to ULS when attempting to
396
address mass market customers due - in part- to inadequate hot cut processes. In
397
directing the coinmissions to examine issues of impairment more generally, tlie FCC
398
indicated that state commissions should perform more granular analyses to determine
17 of 68
1664
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
399
whedm a finding of“no impairment” should be granted and, in doing so, directed the
400
commissions to examine other factors which include - in part - “difficulties in
401
performing customer migrations between competitive LECs.” (TRO, 1424 at footnote
402
1298,). Such difficulties may well arise outside of the “batch” concept discussed above
403
and will likely lead to impairment absent some intervention by the Commission. Hence,
404
the Commission should view its responsibility relative to hot cuts as twofold: (1) The
405
Commission must, within 9 months, approve a Troirsition Batch Hol Cut process that
406
would, given a fniding of non-impairment, alIow carriers to migrate customers en masse
407
from UNE-P to UNE-L, however, the Commission should also (2) evaluate the extent to
408
which on a going fonvard, day-to-day basis, carriers would still be impaired unless a
409
seamless, efficient and low cost Mass Morkef Hot Cut process was also in place (it is my
410
understanding that no similar 9 mouth window constrains the Commission review in this
411
regard). Without the successful implementation of both processes, the type of loop
412
portability needed to make W - L a suitable replacement for UNE-P cannot become an
413
operational and economic reality. Moreover, as discussed in Ms. Murray’s testimony, the
414
extent to which UNE-L is viable for the mass market will be dependent, at least inpart,
415
on the costs incurred during the hot cut process. As such, a diligent application of the
416
FCC’s existing TELRIC rules must also accompany the development of both the
417
Transitioizal and Moss Market processes.
418
419
Q.
PROCESSES USED BY SBC?
420
42 1
HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE EXISTING HOT CUT
A.
Only to a limited degree. MCI doesn’t have substantial experience with SBC Michigan’s
422
existing hot cut process. Nonetheless, as discussed in Ms. Lichtenberg’s testimony, MCI
423
believes the existing processes are inadequate and would not effectively measure-up to
18 of68
1665
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
424
the FCC’s requirements. In fact, Ms. Lichtenberg identifies many customer impacting,
425
operational issues that involve the exchange of intiormation that must take place in a
426
UNE-L migration that make the current processes unworkable for the mass market in
427
particular. MCI has serious concerns regarduig the extent to which ILECs will be
428
successtiil in designing, testing and implementing Transitional Batch Hot Cut processes
429
which will be capable of seamlessly transferring customers’ loops from one carrier’s
430
switch to another canier’s switch, to which I refer as loop portability, on an economic
43 1
basis. Likewise, MCI is concerned about the extent to which ILECs will successfully
432
implement a Mass A4ar.ket Migration Hot Cut process that will be necessary to address
433
tlie increasing daily migration and chum related volumes that will no doubt exist in a
434
dynamic competitive market where W E - L is used to serve tlie mass market.
435
436
Q.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MAIN ISSUES THE
437
COMMISSION SHOULD CONTEMPLATE WHEN DETERMINING THE
43 8
PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE EMPLOYED TO PERFORM BATCH HOT
439
CUTS?
440
A.
In addition to the numerous issues described in Ms. Lichtenberg’s testimony, MCI’s
441
concerns regarding ILEC hot cut process can generally be categorized as follows: (1)
442
workability; (2) availability; (3) costs; and (4) scalability.
443
444
Q.
CONCERNS.
445
446
447
PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAIL REGARDING EACH OF MCI’S
A.
Given that in markets where MCI chooses to serve its substantial mass market customer
base via UNE-L a hot cut will be required for each new customer it wins, in addition to
19 of 68
1666
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
448
tlie migration of existing UNE-P customers to UNE-L en masse, the capabilities of the
449
ILECs’ systems and processes to accommodate this substantially increased volume of hot
450
cuts in a timely manner without customer service intemption is paramount. Using
451
existing ILEC processes, manual intervention will be required for each loop cutover. In
452
other words, an ILEC technician will need to be dispatched to accommodate the frame
453
manipulation for eveIy single loop that must be transitioned from one carrier to another
454
(in some states this will be literally millions of loops in a transition and hundreds of
455
thousands each month thereafter). Concerns regarding the ILECs’ ability to handle
456
liun&eds ofthousands of these types ofmanual orders on an ongoing basis are legitimate.
457
This is especially troubling given that most ILECs have in the past accomplished very
458
few of these hot cuts in a commercial setting, and almost none on a mass markets basis
459
because most l o t cuts have been primarily used to accommodate limited numbers of
460
enterprise customers.
461
462
Q.
PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS RELATIVE TO “WORKABILITY.”
463
A.
A hot cut is, by defmition, a coordinated effort on the part of SBC and the CLEC to “cut”
464
a loop with minimal disconnection time ( i q the time wherein the customer is connected
465
to no switch or is connected to a switch wherein hidher telephone number is no longer
466
active). For this reason, the SBC hot cnt process must be specifically designed to
467
minimize not only the time and cost specific to SBC’s activities, but also those associated
468
with the CLEC (both CLEC representatives and CLEC systems). In short, the SBC
469
process must work well not only for SBC, but for the CLEC as well.
470
471
Q.
PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT “AVAILABILITY.”
20 of68
1667
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
472
A.
As SBC’s proposed hot cut process begins to talce shape via the regional collaborative
473
process, it is becoming clear ihat SBC intends to limit its hot cut process such that: (1)
474
CLEC-to-CLEC, UNE-L based migrations would not be available via the hot cut process;
475
(2) lines currently involved in a “ l i e splitting” arrangement could not be cut via the hot
476
cut process; (3) hot cuts for loops served via IDLC will require special engineering and
477
potentially extended provisioning timeframes; (4) lines to be provisioned over Enhanced
478
Extended Links (“EELS”) would not be available; and (5) requests €or loops greater than
479
50-100 per day per central office (“CO”), per carrier (and greater than 200 day as an
480
industy) would, in most circumstances, not be available without significant “negotiation”
481
and departure from existing provisioning and performance intewals. All of these
482
restrictions, and others, substantially reduce the benefit provided by the hot cut process
483
and could severely limit the efficiency by which CLECs could offer mass market services
484
on a UNE-L basis. In short, hot cut processes with these types of restrictions do very
485
little to help overcome the FCC’s national finding of impairment and should not be
486
approved by state commissions toward that end.
487
488
Q.
EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS RELATIVE TO HOT CUT COSTS.
489
A.
After substantial time and effofort, CLECs and many state commissions have waded
490
through a plethora of ILEC data to conclude that UNE-P provisioning costs were closer
491
to $0.35 in a migration situation, as opposed to the more than $100 originally advocated
492
by SBC.’O The lesson to be learned from that experience is that ILECs have an
493
overpowering incentive to dramatically exaggerate the costs associated with provisioning
494
UNEs and their estimates tend to be based on cost studies that incorporate inefficient
495
procedures or technologies. Likewise, their studies are generally defined by duplicative
21 of68
1668
PUBLIC VERSlON Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
~
496
work steps, exaggerated estimated work times and inany other errors all tending toward
497
non-recurring charges substantially in excess of efficiently incurred costs. The same will
498
undoubtedly be true of the hot cut process and the cost studies that accompany them. For
499
that reason, it is critical that this Commission understand that the hot cut process will, for
500
the most part, take the place of a UNE-Pmigration (i.e., the method by which most mass
501
market customers are changed from one camer to another today). Thus, to the extent
502
NRCs for the hot cut process substantially exceed existing UNE-P migration charges,
503
UNE-L will suffer from an economic disadvantage relative to UNE-P and relative to the
504
ILEC’S retail services that are, in large part, similar to a LN3-P migration. MCI is
505
concerned that existing hot cut costs -to the extent they might be applied in the future -
506
and any hot cut charges which may be determined in future proceedings will be
507
inappropriately based upon inefficient processes and technologies and, as a consequence,
508
set at rates which are too high to allow for economic use of the UNE-L strategy for mass
509
market customers.
510
511
Q.
CUT MIGRATIONS WILL NOT POSE ANY PROBL EMS?
512
513
HAVEN’T ILECS MADE STATEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT THESE HOT
A.
Yes. Though ILECs claim that they can handle large volumes of hot cuts, the facts
514
simply don’t support their bravado. For example, in New York, even based upon its own
515
calculations, Veriton anticipates the need to hire and train literally thousands of new
516
employees just to accommodate the increased volume of hot cut demands.” It seems
517
clear that this type of substantial force increase will not be unique to Verizon, hut will be
518
required of any ILEC whose hot cut process relies primarily upon maiiual frame work.
lo
See M.P.S.C. No. 20R, Part 19, Section 15, Original Sheet 9.
22 of 68
1669
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
519
Given not only that the new hot cut processes will be largely unieskd and untried, but
520
that tbey will, in many circumstances, be performed by new employees with limited
521
training and experience, there can be no assurance these processes will meet even today’s
522
hot cut standards, let alone standards comparable to the relatively seamless WE- P
523
provisioning standard which has fueled the level of competition that exists for mass
524
market customers today.
525
526
Q.
PLEASE EXPLAIN IN MORE DETAIL.
521
A.
From the information I’ve seen to date from ILECs across the country, typically, only
528
individual hot cuts are given standard completion intervals. Bulk hot cut project
529
completion due dates are normally negotiated, which allows the ILEC to spread its work
530
load to meet the throughput restraints of the underlying process. The manual
531
requirements of the process dictate the need to match the appropriate number of
532
technicians and other personnel with the volume of work that is requested and, as such, it
533
is the manned workforce that provides the restraining factor in upward scalability. As
534
volumes increase, a workload strain is placed on the existing work force, eventually
535
leading to transfers from other jobs witbin the ILEC or through new hires, in order to
536
meet demand. Unfortunately, simply “throwing more bodies” at the problem is only
537
helpful to a limited degree, as real-world constraints on the number of technicians that
538
can work on a given frame at a given time come into play. To the extent the LEC’s
539
process cannot keep up with the dramatically increased demand for hot cuts, the
540
compounding effect of missed cut dates would create long LJNE-L provisioning intervals
541
and an enormous backlog of hot cut requests.
I’ See Verizon’s Panel Testimony filed October 24,2003, New York Case No. 02-C-1425, Exhibit V-A,
Force Load Model (“FLW).
23 of 68
1670
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
542
543
Q.
ON THE PART OF THE ILECS?
544
545
WHAT IS THE MAJOR OBSTACLE TO A SCALABLE HOT CUT PROCESS
A.
The major bottleneck in the hot cut processes advocated by the ILECs exists at the MDF.
546
As described before, from an operational standpoint (absent installation of new
547
technology that I will discuss later), in a UNE-L environment each customer’s line must
548
be rewired manually for purposes of connecting tbe UNE loop to the receiving CLEC’s
549
collocation cage or EEL arrangement. This raises another important factor specific to
550
scalability, i.e., differences between large hot cutjobs undeflalcen today (or in the past)
551
by the ILECs, versus the very different hot cut requirements they will face in a market
552
without UNE-P. Currently, large project hot cuts typically involve one or a limited
553
number of individual multi-line business customers wherein the cut, though potentially
554
impacting many loops, is specific to a given customer. Frequently, the loop MDF
555
connections for these groups of multiple lines are centrally located on the frame and
556
typically, all of the customers’ loops are relatively conceiit~atedgeographically on the
557
frame, because they terminate at the same premises. Conversely, a hot cut for a large
558
group of residential, single lime customers will generally appear at random frame
559
locations. It is easy to envision multiple frame technicians working on a number of
560
individual large business hot cuts concentrated on a given loop count; however, it is
561
equally as easy to envision the potentially chaotic siiuation that could develop as a result
562
of multiple technicians working simultaneously on a number of large residential single
563
lme hot cut projects involving loops appearing in random locations on the frame.
564
565
566
Q.
ARE THERE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO THIS
COMMISSION REGARDING THE LONG TERM USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO
1671
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
567
REDUCE LABOR TIMES, EXPENSES AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ERROR IN
568
THE HOT CUT PROCESS?
569
A.
Yes. Ifpolicy makers truly intend €or UNE-L to replace WE-P, such that millions of
570
loops will be “poited” from one canier to another on a regular basis, technology that
571
automates the loop cutover €unction is the only way in which to reach that objective.
572
Today’s “hot cut processes” as briefly described above remain largely manual, or labor
573
intensive, and can be made only marginally more efficient with system and process
574
related improvements. While many of these process and systems changes are impoaant,
575
and can lead to a more efficient, scalable and low cost hot cut methodology, they
576
completely ignore the largest manually intensive step in the process, i.e., the work of the
577
frame technician to actually cutover the loop.
578
579
Q.
CAN YOU PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF THE SYSTEM OR PROCESSES
580
IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE FOR PURPOSES OF IMPROVING
581
THE HOT CUT PROCESS?
582
A.
SBC has suggested that it will improve its existing pre-ordering systems (by including a
583
scheduling tool), as well as its Provisioning Web Site rPWS”) system in an eEfort to help
584
the two companies involved in a hot cut f i s t schedule the appropriate activities, and then
585
track the progress of the activities on a near-real-time basis.
586
systems is to mitigate the need for a three-way conference call that has generally existed
587
between the CLEC, the ILEC frame technician and an ILEC provisioning agent on the
588
day of the cut (as well as other manual coordination steps). Further, these systems should
The intention of these
l2 SBC is furhering the development of its Provisioning Web Site (“PWS”) system. This has been
heralded by SBC as a solution l o many oflhe coordination steps that were heretofore performed manually.
MCI continues to evaluate each of these systems and bas made recommendations to SBC regarding
iinproveinents that would further remove manual intervenlion throughout the coordination function.
25 of 68
1672
PUBLIC VERSlON - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
5 89
help to reduce if not eliminate any up-front “negotiation” required between the CLEC
590
and tlie ILEC in choosing the most efficient lime for a given CLEC’s hot cut orders to be
591
provisioned. While SBC has described these systems and their potential enhancement
592
generally, much still needs to be learned about these systems and their capabilities (i.e.,
593
can they operate in a system-to-system mode without monitoring by CLEC personnel,
594
can they provide near-real-time, if not real-time, access to work step completion
595
infomation, etc.).
596
597
Q.
DO THE SYSTEMS YOU’VE DESCRIBED ABOVE ADDRESS MANUAL WORK
598
STEPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTUAL PRE-WIRING AND LOOP
599
CUTOVER ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY A FRAME TECHNICIAN?
600
A.
No, they do not. Though tlie pre-wiring and cutover functions undertaken by the ILEC’s
601
fiame technician represent the most substantial barriers to proper scalability, reliability
602
and cost reduction, MCI is not aware of any ILEC who is proposing some type of
603
mechanization or automation of any of these functions within its hot cut process.
604
605
Q.
THESE FUNCTIONS?
606
607
DOES TECHNOLOGY EXIST THAT COULD BE USED TO AUTOMATE
A.
Yes, and many of the ILECs utilize these technologies for purposes of provisioning retail
608
products, with the specific intention of removing manual work steps from their
609
provisioning process. For example, Verizon within ib network today employs the two
610
most common types of technology that can be used to cutover a loop without manual
611
interventioii: ( 1 ) automated or mechanized frame systems and (2) electronic loop
612
provisioning via GR-303.There are numerous vendors that provide these automated loop
613
provisioning systems and, not surprisingly, each vendor describes in detail bow its
26 of68
1673
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
614
system can obviate the need for mauual intervention in the culover process. Examples of
615
vendors who provide electromechanical and micro-relay type frame systems include
616
NHC (www.nl~c.com)and Simpler Networks (www.simnlenietworks.com),respectively.
617
There are many others as well.
618
619
Q.
TECHNOLOGY FOR MORE WIDESPREAD USE.
620
621
PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LIMITATIONS CURRENTLY HINDERING THIS
A.
For the most part, it appears the largest hindrance with respect to these automated
622
systems is one of incentive, not of technology. Unless required to provide a W E - L
623
provisioning process approaching the automated efficiency of their retail or UNE-P-based
624
services, ILECs have little incentive to consider a technology that will make UNE-L a
625
more viable option. Indeed, ILECs are motivated to delay lhe implementation of such
626
advances, claiming such advancements are unnecessary, too costly or impossible. As
621
long as ILECs can convince state commissions that the substantially limited manual
628
processes, and the enonnous non-recurring charges they may require, are sufficient, the
629
ILECs have little incentive to automate the process or improve it to any degree beyond
630
that required on a regulatory basis. As such, ILECs spend the majority of their time
63 1
pointing to the limitations of existing equipment rather than describing how it could be
632
improved or trialing innovative alternatives.
633
634
Q.
THE MIGRATION IS FROM ONE CLE C TO ANOTHER?
635
636
ARE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH HOT CUTS EXACERBATED WHEN
A.
The potential for increased complication for CLEC-to-CLEC cuts certainly exists. The
631
amount of coordination, the information required and a number of other complicating
63 8
factors are magnified with the introduction of CLEC-to-CLEC hot cuts as well as with
21 of 68
1674
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
639
myriad other scenarios (e.g., hot cut from a liue sharing CLEC to a CLEC handling both
640
tlie broadband and narrowband application, moves from one CLEC to another wherein
641
the receiving CLEC is serving via the ILEC’s resale services and many others). In many
642
oftliese scenarios, three or more individual cauiers as well as providers of ancillary
643
services such as W A C and PSAPs,are required to cooperate, in real time, for purposes
644
of accommodating this largely manual process. A failure at any one of the numerous
645
steps can result in a customer losing service.
646
647
Q.
T O THE EXTENT UNE-L BECOMES MORE WIDELY IMPLEMENTED; WILL
648
CHURN IMPACT THE ILECS’ ABILITY TO KEEP-UP WITH THE DEMAND
649
FOR HOT CUTS?
650
A.
Absolutely. As Ms. Lichteiiberg describes in more depth, chum will become increasingly
65 1
important and will ultimately drive the rate at which W E - L migrations grow. Moreover,
652
while the ILECs would have this Commission ignore CLEC- to- CLEC UNE-L
653
migrations, it should not. In fact, the FCC specifically cited such migrations as a
654
potential area of impairment. (See, e.g.. TRO, at paragraph 476.) Based upon SBC’s
655
positions as stated at the multi-state batch hot cut collaboratives, SBC does not intend to
656
support CLEC-to-CLEC migrations within their improved hot cut processes. As such,
657
once a customer is served by a CLEC on UNE-L facilities, the ability of that particular
658
customer to move to another carrier in the fnture without significant service-impacting
659
problems is in serious doubt. All of the issues which lead to the FCC’s finding of
660
impairment without U L S come into play in such a situation and are compounded by the
661
fact that a third carrier is now involved. Yet>SBC, who by the very nalure of its control
662
of the local loop are critical to the process, appears content (indeed, resolute) to leave this
663
issue unaddressed. Clearly, ifthe Commission intends for a customer’s loop to be truly
28 of 68
1675
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
664
podable in a W E - L enviroiunent, this critical issue must be addressed and included in
665
all hot cut processes evaluated, designed, tested, implemented and certified by tlie
666
Commission.
661
668
Q.
THIS COMMISSION EXCLUDE ANY PARTICULAR ORDER TYPES?
669
670
SHOULD THE HOT CUT PROCESSES ULTIMATELY IMPLEMENTED BY
A.
Generally, no. While there might be a legitimate reason to exclude some particular order
type, such exclusion should be the exception as opposed to the rule.
671
672
673
Q.
WHY IS THIS ISSUE IMPORTANT?
674
A.
To the extent CLECs intend to implement a UNE-L strategy, the economics (and perhaps
675
even the FCC‘s rules) require them to move their embedded base ofUNE-P based
676
customers to UNE-L. Customers served by UNE-P today are not homogeneous with
677
relation to service type, customer type, or loop type. As such, if SBC is allowed to
678
exclude certain order types (i.e., CLEC-to-CLEC, line sharing, elc.) there could be a large
GI9
number of existing UNE-P customers who will not be able to use the hot cut process.
680
Further, to maintain their customers over any length of time on a going fonvard basis,
681
CLECs need to be able to address all customer types represented in their market. That
682
would include, at a minimum, all types of lines that are currently contained within their
683
embedded base.
684
685
Q.
IT WILL DISRUPT THE CLEC’S BUSINESS IF MAINTAINED?
686
687
688
CAN YOU PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF AN EXCLUSION AND EXPLAIN WHY
A.
Yes, I can provide two very important examples. First, I understand that any line that is
currently being used for both voice and data services (line sharing or line splitting) will
29 of 68
-
1676
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
689
be excluded from SBC’s proposed hot cut processes. Second, I also understand that
690
SBC does not intend to support hot cuts where the receiving carrier is not collocated in
691
the office where an end user’s loop is lenninated, i.e., they will not allow for hot cuts to
692
take place where EELS are used to gain access to end users (or in many circumstances,
693
they have simply not developed the processes needed to provide hot cuts in a situation
694
wherein a carrier uses an EEL).
695
696
By including tbese - and potentially olher - prohibitions on the use of hot cut processes,
697
SBC has substantially reduced the percentage of cuxrent and future customers’ loops that
698
could potentially benefit from the processes which are being designed to mitigate
699
impairment. Moreover, to the extent the CLECs are denied a hot cut process for a
700
substantial portion of the network seriously calls into question whether economies of
701
scale will be sufficient enough to warrant any attempt on the part of CLECs to implement
702
UNE-L for the remainder of the market, even those customers for which the hot cut
703
process might be available.
704
705
Q.
BY WHICH THE ILEC HOT CUT PROCESSES SHOULD BE EVALUATED?
706
707
DO THE ISSUES BRIEPLY OUTLINED ABOVE ADDRESS ALL ATTRIBUTES
A.
No, they do not. Ms. Lichtenberg addresses a number of additional issues in her
708
testimony. Likewise, MCI is continuing to participate in the Midwest hot cut
709
collaborative (as well as all others) and is providing input and recommendations in any
710
forum where provided the opportunity. Hence, this testimony should not be considered
711
the final word on the topic of hot cuts. Additionally, I intend lo address issues pertaining
712
specifically to loops, collocation and tlansport later in this testimony. As such, the list of
713
properties to be included in ILEC’s upcoming Transition Batch Hot Cut and Muss
30 of 68
1677
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
714
MurlcetHot Cut processes will be expanded as a pari of those discussions. Finally, MCI
715
will comment more fully on this subject once it has had the opportunity to review tlie
716
final, detailed proposals of the ILECs relative to their various hot cut proposals.
717
718
Q.
HOT CUT PROPOSALS?
719
720
DO YOU ADDRESS COST RELATED ISSUES PERTINENT TO THE ILEC'S
A.
Not in this testimony. I intend to address cost-related issues after having seen tlie ILEC's
721
final proposals and the cost studies they provide in support of their proposed rates (SBC
722
has suggested that it will not have cost studies or proposed rates available until early
723
January). Nonetheless, on that point, it is important to remeinber that the FCC
724
specifically cited economic impairment resulting from hot cut costs as a concern, and
725
requires that future hot cut processes ordered to be implemented by the state public utility
726
comnissions be more efficient and have lower costs than the processes currently in place.
727
(See, for example, TRO at paragraph 473). Further, the FCC requires that the rates for
728
any hot cut process be established based upon its existing TELRTC rules which require a
729
strict adherence to a fonvard looking network assumption. Moreover, I recommend the
730
Commission contemplate whether the expenses incurred by CLECs, if required to pay for
731
hot cuts through NRCs or MRCs, give rise to economic impainnent wliere it would not
732
otlierwise exist. (Ms. Murray discusses this issue more directly in her testimony).
733
734
Q.
IS MCI DEVELOPING A COST RECOVF. RY METHODOLOGY MEANT TO
735
FUND DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIESAND PROCESSES AIMED
736
AT TRULY MAKING THE LOOP A PORTABLE ASSET?
737
738
A.
Yes, it is. Because MCI, based upon substantial past experience, believes that the ILECs
will undoubtedly attempt to recover hot cut costs via large, non-recurring charges, based
31 of68
-
1678
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
739
solely upon tlieir existing manual processes without consideration of a fonvard looking
740
network stmcture, MCI is currently developing an alternative proposal. It is MCI's
74 1
position that the FCC's TRO, and its obvious inclination away from a UNE-P structure
742
toward a LJNE-L structure, represents a major policy shift that has the potential to
743
dramatically alter the competitive landscape. Notably, the FCC's almost blind reliance
744
on UNE-L and its ability to replace UN3-P as a mass market, service delivery tool,
745
requires a true change in the underlying network paradigm. Simply put, if W E - L is ever
746
to work effectively as a replacement for UNE-P, the loop serving an end user customer
747
must be truly portable, capable of being provisioned to any carrier with equal ease,
748
reliability and efficiency (whether that carrier be ILEC or CLEC) on an automated basis.
749
New technology will be required to accomplish this goal. MCI believes this type of loop
750
portability, and the substantial revisions to the network required to accomplish it, are
751
almost identical to the number portability and equal access initiatives undeflaken by
152
policy makers in the past to strengthen the competitive marketplace. As such, the costs
153
associated with such an initiative should be recovered in the competitively neutral fashion
754
that worked so well for both of those earlier undertakings. While MCI continues to
755
develop this proposal and will provide it for the Commission's review as soon as
156
possible, MCI intends to provide the ILECs with the benefit of the doubt in the
757
meantime. Because, if ILECs are true to the FCC's TELRIC requirements and develop
758
costs based upon a truly forward looking network structure, whether that structure is
759
currently in place or not, then the need for a proposal such as that described above will be
760
largely mitigated.
761
32 of 68
1679
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
111.
762
763
164
765
OPERATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES RELATED TO
THE LOOP GIVE RISE TO IMPAIRMENT
Q.
IN THE SECTION ABOVE, YOU DISCUSSED DIFFICUL TIES ASSOCIATED
766
WITH OBTAIMNG ACCESS TO LOOPS VIA THE HOT CUT PROCESS. ARE
161
THERE OTHER LOOP-RELATED ISSUES THAT ALSO GIVE RISE TO
768
IMPAIRMENT?
769
A.
Yes. hi an environnient wherein CLECs must rely upon a UNE-L delivery strategy to
770
serve the mass market, the physical process of accessing the unbundled loop, and
771
thereafier using that loop to provide a comparable service to its customer, is likely to be
712
the most important and difficult obstacle to overcome. In the following section, I identify
773
a number of operational obstacles that plague the existing UNE-L delivery strategy, and
774
lead to increased operational complexities, dmiinished quality, and increased costs when
775
compared to the existing retail and/or UNE-P arrangements. Clearly, these issues give
176
rise to impairment.
777
778
Q.
CAN YOU BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THESE OPERATIONAL CONCERNS?
779
A.
The majority of the operational issues I describe below result directly from the fact that in
780
a UNE-L environment, SBC will be separating network elements that it had specifically
781
combined in order to provide its own retail service in as efficient a manner as possible
782
(and currently maintains in a combined fashion to provide UNE-P). The intentional
783
separation of a combined loop and pod combination required by any UNE delivery
784
strategy other than UNE-P generates at least the following two lypes of problems:
785
786
187
788
(1) Because SBC insists that its integrated DLC facilities (IDLC) cannot be
unbundled at the DS-0 (individual line) level, a UNE loop request for a loop
currently served via IDLC is most often re-assigned to an alternate facility. This
is true even though that same customer as an SBC retail end user, or even as an
33 of 68
1680
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
hlPSC Case No. U-13796
MCI customer served via W - P , may have been using the facility currently
supporting hisher service for years. Worse yet, in many circumstances the
facility to which the customer is re-assigned is technologically inferior to the
existing facility, or may simply be a facility that has been poorly maintained.
Further, even the presumably simple process of reassigning a new facility is
anything but simple, and can cause numerous service-impacting problems for tlie
customer (problems Ihe customer will undoubtedly identify with switching
service providers) that would be avoided absent the need to “un-combine” the
existing facilities used for retail/UNE-P.
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
(2) As greater and greater numbers of competitors are moved from more efficient
fiber-based services to copper-based services via the reassignment process
described above, and SBC takes advantage of the FCC’s relaxation of retirement
and maintenance requirements, this Commission will undoubtedly begin to see
two networks develop, each exhibiting dramatically different levels of quality:
i.e., the network used by the ILEC to serve its retail customers, and the network
leased to CLECs by the ILEC for purposes of competing against it. As CLECs in
this environment compete for limited numbers of inferior quality facilities (as the
ILEC begins to retire its copper plant), situations of “no facilities” or facilities
that will require costly repair before they can be used will undoubtedly become
more prominent [or the CLEC, thereby increasing the amount of time required to
service any single customer, and dramatically increasing the CLEC’s customer
acquisition costs.
Q.
SUMMARIZE ABOVE.
814
815
PLEASE DESCRIBE IN MORE DETAIL THE TWO PRIMARY ISSUES YOU
A.
Before the Commission can fully appreciate tlie operational barriers I’ve summarized
816
above, a brief overview of the existing outside plant network, focusing on different types
817
of loop architectures is in order. The diagrams below depict the three most common
818
outside local loop serving arrangements.
819
820
821
822
823
824
(2) Copper l o w plant wifh U D U
(3)Copper &fiber 1-p
plant with
IDLC
1681
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
825
826
827
828
829
I11 tlie case
depicted at the top portion of tlie diagram, the copper loop enters the central
830
office where it is manually cross connected from the veltical side of the main distributing
831
frame (generally considered the “outside plant” or OSP appearance) to the horizontal side
832
of the frame (generally considered the “central office” or CO appearance).
833
834
The lower portion of the diagram shows two alternate serving arrangements that utilize
83.5
more advanced ”pair gain” platforms known as universal digital loop carrier W L C ) on
836
the left, and integrated digital loop carrier (IDLC) on the right. In a general sense, the
837
purpose of both DLC applications is to aggregate the ~T&C of Iiterally hundreds of
838
individual customers and tben multiplex those individual signals into a single, higher
839
bandwidth signal that can be transported more efficiently between the remote terminal
840
(“RT”)and the CO .
841
842
In the UDLC scenario, the copper loop that leaves the customer connects to a DLC RT
843
which is likely located in the customers own neighborhood. The electronics in the DLC
844
convert the analog signals to a digital multiplexed format, and then send the digital signal
845
over a feeder cable (copper in this case) to the cenlral office (CO).I3 The cable terminates
846
in the CO on a Central Office Terminal (COT), which converts the signal back to an
847
analog format, at a voice grade (individual line) level, ultimately terminating at the MDF
I’
Note that UDLC inay utilize either fiber or copper feeder facilities.
35 of 68
1682
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
848
for manual wiring purposes. The MDF wiring appearances serve as a point of interface
849.
for the carriers’ switching equipment (and as a point of interconnection for a CLEC).
850
851
In the second example, tlie loop from the customer connects to a remote tenninal
852
equipped with IDLC technology. With this application, the electronics in the RT convert
853
the analog signals to a digital multiplexed format, and then send the digital signal over
854
fiber feeder cable to tlie CO, terminating directly in tlie ILECs’ digital switch without
855
converting the signal back to analog.I4
856
857
Q.
MORE DETAIL?
858
859
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UDLC AND IDLC I N
A.
Older KJDLC technology consists of an RT, a transinission (transport) facility to link the
860
RT to the CO, and a COT. The RT aggregates the copper distribution pairs and perfoims
861
conversions -- converting the customer’s analog signal to a digital multiplexed format
862
going to the central office, and (in the opposite direction) converting the digital signal
863
from the central office to the customer to an analog signal. The transport canies the
864
digital signal from the RT to the COT, and vice versa. The COT equipment converts the
865
digital signal froiii the RT to an analog signal before the signal is terminated on the Main
866
Distributing Frame (MDF) and cross-connected to the switch port.
867
868
With the introduction of digital switches, an additional coiiversion was needed at the
869
MDF. The signal that was converted from digital to analog at the COT had to be
870
converted hack to a digital signal by an Analog Interface Unit (“AIU”) resident in the
36 of 68
1683
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-I3796
871
switch. The required digital-to-analog conversion at the CO was unnecessary, inefficient,
872
and expensive, as more and more digital switches were deployed. IDLC addressed these
873
inefficiencies by eliminating the need for the additional analog-to digital conversions at
874
the CO. The analog signal originating at the customer's premises still is converted to
875
digital at the RT, but no other analogldigital conversions are necessary as digital switches
876
can accept the digitally formatted signal without conversion (something older analog
877
switches could not do). Unlike traditional copper loops or UDLC lines, IDLC lines do not
878
typically have termination appearances on the MDF.
879
880
Q.
THERE OTHER ADVANTAGES SPECIFIC TO IDLC OVER UDLC?
881
882
OTHER THAN THE LACK OF DIGITAL/ANALOG CONVERSION, ARE
A.
The answer to that question is strongly influenced by whether you ask it relative to
883
retailhuidled services, or if the question is specific to uubundled services, and therein
884
lies the problem. With respect to bundled services (retail and/or UNE-P), there are
885
undisputable advantages to DLC. For bundled services, IDLC allows local loops to be
886
connected to a digital circuit switch more efficiently and cost effectively when compared
887
to UDLC, because IDLC requires neither an analog conversion at the CO, nor the AIU
888
line card at the switch, nor manual MDF wiring. As aresult, compared to today's IDLC
889
teclmology, older UDLC systems require unnecessary investment for digital-to-analog
890
and analog-to-digital conversion equipment and MDF wiring in the central office.
891
892
Q.
DO THESE ADVANTAGES ACCRUE TO CLECS UTILIZING W E - L ?
~~~~~
l4 While certain fiber termination equipnient actually exists between the RT and the switch, the point ofthe
diagram is thal equipment required to convert the signal from digital to analog (or any other format) is not
required.
37of68
1684
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
893
A.
Typically not. To the extent that IDLC has advantages over UDLC and ILECs continue
894
to insist that Uiey will not unbundle IDLC systems for use by their CLEC competitors,
895
these advantages accme only to retail and UNE-P services that rely upon the combined
896
nature ofthe IDLC system. By effectively eliminating W - P with a finding of no
897
impairment (absent a finding that SBC must unbundle its IDLC systems in digital
898
format), this Commission further ensures that only SBC and its retail customers will
899
enjoy the benefits of IDLC.
900
901
Q.
EARLIERYOU MENTIONED THAT SBC GENERALLY REPLACES AN IDLC
902
LINE WITH EITHER A COPPER LOOP OR A UDLC LINE WHEN ASKED TO
903
PROVIDE A U N E LOOP TO A CUSTOMER SERVED VIA IDLC. ARE THERE
904
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS APPROACH?
905
A.
Yes, there are several. First, converting the line from IDLC to UDLC takes time, requires
906
the order generally to fall out of any flow-through process, requires a technician dispatch
907
and is often expensive. In the past, SBC for example, has indicated that non-recurring
908
charges associated with this activity (generally referred to as a Lidslation Transfer -
909
"LST") could generate literally hundreds of dollars for a single loop. Likewise, in its
910
recent New York testimony, Verizon proposed a rate of $131.I8 per IDLC loop, Q&
911
time and material charges associated with the actual dispatch required for the LST (likely
912
to be hundreds of dollars more)."
913
914
Fuurther, Section 12.13.3 of Telcordia Notes on the Networks (SR-2275, Issue 4, October
915
2000) which is entitled "Unbundling Issues Associated with UDLC and IDLC Systems"
916
indicates that UDLC contributes to multiple problems including (a) increased dial tone
38 of 68
1685
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
917
delay, (b) degradation of on-hook transmission services, such as caller ID, (c)
918
degradation of signal quality as a result of multiple AID and DIA conversions and (d)
919
reduction in analog modem operation speeds due to the number of AID conversions.
920
921
Q.
CARRIERS WERE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO UNE-P?
922
923
WOULD THE COSTS YOU'VE DESCRIBED ABOVE BE INCURRED IF
A.
No, they wouldn't. Because UNE-P allows CLECs to use the actual IDLC facility in its
924
integrated form, neither the ILEC, nor the CLEC, would incur the hundreds of dollars in
925
increased labor time required to acconiplish one of the workarounds required to provide
926
an alternate facility (like the LST). Indeed, tlie costs associated with an LST represent
921
costs specific to UNE-L that neither carriers nor customers would have to incur where
928
UNE-P remains available.
929
930
Q.
IN GREATER DETAIL?
93 1
932
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE LAST ISSUE ABOVE- REDUCED MODEM SPEED -
A.
As described above, IDLC avoids additional analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog
933
conversions inherent in the UDLC system. In doing so, tlie IDLC system avoids
934
problems associated with dramatically reduced bit rate speeds for voice band data
935
connections (e.g. dial-up Internet access and fax machines) that plague UDLC systems.
936
This issue is described more fully at Microsoft's Windows 2000 support wehsite, where
937
Microsoft explains that: "there can be only one analog connection between your modem
93 8
and the host computer" if a PC modem is to support a V.90 dial-up connection capable of
Is
Verizon Panel Testimony, filed October 24,2003, New York Case No. 02-C-1425, Exhibit 111-F.
39 of 68
1686
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
939
operating at speeds of56 lcilobits pel second.16 Moreover, customers served by UDLC
940
cannot receive ISDN and ADSL services without the installation of additional external
941
loop electronics to increase digital transmission bandwidlh at the UDLC. These
942
limitations do not exist with most IDLC configurations. In short, UDLC systems can
943
dramatically reduce Uie access speed enjoyed by dial-up Internet customers, while IDLC
944
systems avoid these problems entirely.
945
946
Q.
HOW IT IS ACCOMPLISHED?
947
948
949
CAN YOU PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON ALINEISTATION TRANSFER AND
A.
The diagram taken from Telcordia Notes on the Network Issue 4 section 12.13.2.1
provides an illustrative example of the two "work arounds" described above.
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
Figure 12-33.IDLC Wnlrundlrrrg - Blipass the IDLC System
965
966
As you c m see, the technician dispatch in an LST scenario (contrasted with the dispatch
961
required for a normal hot cut) is required at the RT, in the outside plant (not in the CO).
968
As such, the time and resultant costs required to accomplish the LST are notably
l6 Microsoft Windows 2000 Server documentation. Available at httn://www.microsoft.condwindowsZOOO/
(included with this testiinony as Exhibit -(MS-Z))
40 of 68
1687
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
969
increased, as is the chance for error (in many cases assignment records for facilities at an
970
RT or at an accompanying serving area interface - "SAI" - are less accurate than tliose
971
for central office facilities).
912
913
Q.
CLECS NEED TO DISPATCH TECHNICIANS POR LOOP INSTALLATIONS?
974
915
UNDER THE COPPER SCENARIO DESCRIBED ABOVE, DO ILECS AND/OR
A.
The technician dispatch is required in either a copper or LJDLC LST situation. ILEC
976
technicians are involved with CO work in this scenario but in most cases technicians are
977
also dispatched to the RT and even to tlie end-user premise in some instances in order to
978
change facilities. In addition, in some situations CLECs must also visit the customer's
979
premises to change/validate wiring and test customer equipment. In comparison, a UNE-
980
P environment involving an "as is" or "as ordered" migration does not typically require
981
the ILEC or CLEC to dispatch technicians to the CO or field.
982
983
Q.
DO THESE WORK AROUND S GIVE RISE TO IMPAIRMENT?
984
A.
Absolutely. Clearly the CLEC faces both teclniical and provisioning disadvantages
985
relative to either work around identified above. The process almost invariably entails
986
additional provisioning time, additional costs and the result is often an inferior facility.
987
Likewise, all of these difficulties and increased costs appear to the customer to be a direct
988
result of choosing a competitor's service. It goes without saying that an ILEC customer
989
who is currently being served by IDLC (a growing probability) is more likely to convert
990
to a CLEC if the transition is quick and seainless, but not if the new service is
991
technologically inferior and takes an extended period of time to provision.
992
41 of 68
1688
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
993
Q.
IF HOT CUTS COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A RELATIVELY TIMELY
994
AND LOW COST FASHION, WOULD THE ISSUES YOU'VE DESCRIBED
99s
ABOVE, AND POTENTIALLY OTHERS, IWMAIN?
996
A.
Yes. The operational obstacles I've described above will exist regardless of how
991
effective any hot cut process is today or eveiitually becomes. These operational
998
difficulties that were largely mitigated by a UNE-P framework, can only be overcome in
999
a W E - L framework by requiring the ILECs to unbundle their IDLC facilities on a digital
basis.
1000
1001
1002
Q.
IMPAIRMENT ISSUES YOU'VE DESCRIBED ABOVE?
1003
1004
CAN THE COMMISSION HELP TO ADDRESS THE OPERATIONAL
A.
Yes. However, addressing these issues relative to IDLC technology will require diligent
1005
efforts on the part of the Commission as well as SBC. This results from the fact that the
1006
only way to ensure CLECs are not impaired is to ensure that they have access to the same
1007
facilities the ILECs use to serve their own end-user customers. In the case of IDLC, that
1008
can only be accomplished by unbundling the IDLC technology in an electronic (seamless,
1009
no dispatch) manner that provides the CLEC with access to individual customer circuits
1010
at a digital level. Short of achieving this solution, its seems clear that CLECs will
1011
continue to be impaired in the marketplace (absent UNE-P) as they'll be saddled with less
1012
effective facilities lo be used in competing for the veIy saine end user customers.
1013
1014
Q.
CAN IDLC BE UNBUNDLED DIGITALLY AS YOU DISCUSS ABOVE?
42 of 68
1689
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1015
A.
Yes, despite arguments to the contmy from SBC and the other ILECs, it is technically
1016
feasible to unbundle IDLC in a digital format without losing the inherent “integrated”
1017
advantages enjoyed by the ILEC‘s bundled products. Indeed, the FCC in its TXO noted
I018
1019
1020
1021
“We recognize that it is technically feasible (thougli not always desirable €or
either carrier) to provide unbundled access to hybrid loops served by Integrated
DLC systems.”” [emphasis added]
1022
The most advanced IDLC systems engheered and deployed today (GR-303 compliant)
1023
have that capability. Bellcore (now Telcordia) who developed the GR-303 interface,
1024
describes at least two methods by which GR-303 compliant IDLC can be unbundled
1025
electronically without requiring a dispatch.
1026
1027
Q.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THOSE METHODS.
1028
A.
The fust method entails the establishment of separate interface groups (IGs) at the IDLC
1029
reinote terminal so that a distinct IG is assigned to a CLEC and passed through a
1030
multiplexing device in the central office for purposes of accessing individual lines at the
1031
DSO or DS1 level. This particular unbundling strategy has been discussed for years by
1032
industry bodies, and has in the past been supported by Telcordia in numerous
1033
symposiums. Indeed the following diagram depicting the manner by which this process
1034
would work was constructed by Telcordia and provided to the indusby in one of its GR-
1035
303 symposiums.
1036
” TRO,T291,
foolnote 855.
43 of 68
1690
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1037
1038
Source: Telcordia's GR-303 Access Syiuposiuin biiider, Tnb 4. Augusl 11. 1999
1039
1040
1041
Q.
DO OTHER METHODS OF UNBUNDLING IDLC EXIST?
1042
A.
Yes, Telcordia also describes another method relative to sharing GR-303 Interface
1043
Groups between the ILEC and the CLEC, using a sidedoor port on the ILEC's digital
1044
switch for purposes of accessing individual DSOs for transfer to the CLEC's switch. The
1045
diagram below shows the use of a GR-303 Interface Group sharing ILEC and CLEC
1046
traffic wherein all CLEC traffic is routed through a sidedoor port, supporting a DS1 or
1047
DSO unbundling scenario. This drawing is also taken from Telcordia documentation, this
1048
time fiom Telcordia's most recent issue of Notes on the Network, a leading source of
1049
engineering documentation relevant to today's telecommunication network.
18
1050
'*Examples laken from: TelcordiaNofes
011
the Networks, Issue 4, October 2000.
44 of 68
1691
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
nlPSC Case No. U-13796
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
Figure 12-36.ILILC Unbundling Using Sidedaor Poil
1058
1059
1060
In the scenario above, unbundled CLEC loops are provisioned as non-locally switched
1061
circuits within the IDLC system. Telcordia describes this application as follows:
1062
1063
1064
I065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
“While the digital system cross-connect (“DCS”), DCS-l/O, is shown in the
figure, it is not a requirement of this architecture. The advantage of using a DCS110 is realized if the CLEC is not fully utilizing a DS1 from the ILEC local
digital switch (LDS) to the CLEC, and multiple switch modules with individual
digital control units (IDCU) are used by the ILEC. If a DCS-I/O is placed
between the LDS DSl sidedoor pod and the CLEC DSls, it would pennit full
utilization of the sidedoor LDS/IDCU hardware by enabling CLEC DSOs to be
rearranged in the DCS-1/0 and placed on the individual CLEC DSls.”
(See Notes 017 the Nefivorkr at Section 12-56).
Q-
IN ADDITION T O THE SIMPLE FACT THAT CLECS CAN GAIN ACCE SS TO
1074
UNBUNDLED CIRCUITS VIA THIS UNBUNDLING METHOD, ARE THERE
1075
OTHER ADVANTAGES TO THIS TYPE OF DIGITAL UNBUNDLING?
1076
A.
Yes, there are. Not only would either of these methods provide a CLEC unbundled
1077
access to the same customer loops the customer enjoys today, without a technician
1078
dispatch, it would also mitigate (if not remove entirely) the need for manual intervention
1079
in the loop provisioning process (i.e., the “hot cut”). Because GR-303IDLC systems are
1080
largely software driven, and do not rely upon manual copper wire manipulation for
45 of 68
1692
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1081
puiposes of cross-connecting the derived circuits they support, unbundled loops could be
1082
provisioned to a CLEC on an eleclrouic basis, fiee of any costly or time consuming
1083
technician dispatch. As such, this type of IDLC unbundling would go a long way toward
1084
providing non-discriminatory access to unbundled loops, but also toward removing
1085
iinpairment caused by the manually intensive and cumbersome hot cut processes
1086
supported by the ILECs. In short, this type of unbundling once implemented, tested and
1087
proven in a commercial setting, would go a long way toward removing the impairment
1088
currently faced by inass-market CLECs without access to unbundled local switching.
1089
1090
Q.
THE FASHION YOU'VE DESCRIBED ABOVE?
1091
1092
ARE THERE COMPLEXITIES ASSOCIATED WITH UNBUNDLING IDLC IN
A.
Yes, there are. Though unbundling IDLC is unarguably feasible, the work required to
1093
establish necessary processes and techniques to unbundled IDLC in this fashion in a
1094
commercial setting bas never been undertaken in earnest by the ILECs. They have
1095
simply been provided no incentive to support this type of process that will only serve to
1096
enhance competition in the local market they currently dominate. As such, time and
1097
effofoa must be put toward making this technology a reality. Below I list a number of the
1098
obstacles that must be overcome on the road to efficiently unbundle IDLC for purposes of
1099
removing impairment:
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
A. Since each CLEC circuit requires a nailed up DSO, absent additional software
functionality or other processes, the ILEC may encounter blocking over the
IDLC system as other circuits compete for DSO channels.
B. The number of sidedoor pods that can be engineered varies depending on the
LDS supplier and no standard appears to have emerged, hence, a concerted effort
on the part of the ILEC may be required to standardize this technology for this
purpose.
46 of 68
1693
PUBLlC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
C. There is limited supporl in existing special services design systems and
databases to support sidedoor port circuits. Again, this results primarily from the
fact that the vendors design systems based upon the needs oftheir primary
customers and the ILECs have had little incentive in the past to pursue this type
of unbundling technology, hence, this issue could undoubtedly be overcome by
the vendors, if provided the proper incentive.
D. Other issues regarding security for an IDLC system providing multiple IGs to
multiple CLECs need to be addressed. Likewise, numerous other details
associated with sharing test resources, alarms, etc. would require additional
development.
Q.
INDUSTRY WORK TOWARD OVERCOMING THEM?
1124
1125
THESE OBSTACLES ARE SOMEWHAT DAUNTING. WHY SHOULD THE
A.
UNE-P allowed CLECs to overcome the many issues I've described above relative to hot
1126
cuts and loop provisioning, issues that had heretofore largely stymied local competition
1127
via UNE-L. If the FCC and/or this Commission realistically intend for UNE-L to take
1128
the place of UNE-P as a competitive service delivery vehicle, these same problems must
1129
be overcome in a different way. I've identified the manner by which that can be
1130
accomplished above. Perfecting the UNE-P process was not easy and it took several
1131
years and the incentive of $271 relief. Likewise, unbundling IDLC will not be easy
1132
either. It will require the hard work of the ILECs, the CLECs and, most Importantly,
1133
state public utility coinmissions. However, until it is accomplished, CLECs will be
1134
impaired without access to UNE switching andUNE-P. It is MCI's hope that addressing
1135
the problems in that order (if.., first fix the IDLC unbundling issue as well as the manual
1136
hot cut issue, then decide whether impairment remains) will provide the type of incentive
1137
necessary for proper ILEC involvement (contrasted with their general nay saying relative
1138
to these options in the past).
1139
47 of 68
1694
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC CaseNo. U-13796
1140
Q.
WHAT CONFIDENCE CAN THE COMMISSION HAVE THAT IDLC CAN BE
1141
UNBUNDLED AND THAT THESE ISSUES YOU'VE IDENTIFIED ABOVE CAN
1142
BE OVERCOME?
1143
A.
Though these issues are real, and real effort will be required to address tliem, it is
1144
important to remind the Commission that Telcordia developed the specifications for the
1145
GR-303 platfonn for unbundling, and has demonstrated their commitment to resolving
1146
tile issues associated with unbundling by providing the methods described above.
1147
Telcordia has even organized and spearheaded symposia related to unbundling GR-303
1148
equipment. In the final analysis, these types of issues are really no different than the
1149
myriad of issues tlie industry has been addressing for several years relative to the
1150
evolution of the network and unbundling in general. The arguments the ILECs make in
1151
opposition to IDLC unbundling should remind the Commission of similar arguments the
1152
same ILECs made almost 10 years ago when they argued that loops in general could not
I153
be unbundled save catastrophic repercussions to the entire nelwork. Those catastrophic
1154
events failed to materialize and the same will undoubtedly hold true relative to IDLC
1155
unbundling.
1156
1157
Q.
WHY IS THIS SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE?
1158
A.
It has been our experience that IDLC technology is used to provide services to upwards
1159
of 40%-60% of residential and small business customers in some exclianges.lg As a
1160
result, absent some resolution of the problems we've identified above, a significant
1161
percentage of tlie end users in some exchanges would likely experience either decreased
MCI has inquired,via the discovery process, as to the exact percentages of IDLC deployed in each of the
ILEC's central offices in Michigan. When that information becomes available, MCI will inform the
Coiiunission how those Michigan-specificnumbers coinpare to our more aggregated averages from across
the country as displayed in the text of this Direct Tesliniony.
48 of 68
1695
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Micliael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1162
service quality if they switch to a CLEC’s service accommodated by UNE-L (because
1163
their loop will be changed to a less efficient technology), or they could experience
1164
significant delays in service availability from the CLEC as the ILEC “works arouns’ the
1165
IDLC technology for purposes ofproviding an alternative facility. In many cases
1166
customers will experience both problems when purchasing service €Tom a CLEC in this
1167
manner, but, would experience none of those same problems if tliey stayed with the
1168
ILEC, or retunied to the ILEC’s service. In either circumstance, the CLEC will be
1169
required to wait longer, and pay more to serve its customer when IDLC is present, absent
1170
the unbundling oplions I’ve described above.
1171
1172
Q.
ARE IDLC DEPLOYMENTS INCREASING?
1173
A.
Yes. All indications are that the number of ILEC customers served via IDLC is
I174
increasing, in some circumstances dramatically. This results primarily from the fact that
1175
most packet-capable DLC platforms (platforms that support both voice and DSL
1176
functionality) are integrated DLC platforms. Hence, as caniers like SBC and Verizon
1177
institute DSL-based network upgrade initiatives like Project Pronto and PARTS (meant
1178
to increase tlieir geographic market capabilities for DSL), respectively, the number of
1179
IDLC terminals in their networks increase substantially, and more and more customers
1180
are moved to IDLC facilities. As such, tbe IDLC-related issues identified above are
1181
becoming more and more important on a daily basis.
1182
1183
Q.
HOW CAN THE COMMISSION ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?
1184
A.
As a general matter, tbe Commission should find that CLECs are impaired without access
1185
to UNE switching until significant progress is made toward unbundling IDLC. Second,
1186
MCI believes this Commission has a unique opportunity to take a leadership role on this
49 o f 6 8
1696
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starlcey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1187
very important issue and require SBC to provide a digifulbandoffto CLECs when their
1188
customers are served by JDLC. While the actual implementation of such a ruling will
1189
take time and collaborative effort, the rewards to customers are plentiful. A marketplace
1190
wherein each customer’s loop is truly portable between carriers will provide the real
1191
world benefits of competition.
1192
1193
Q.
ARE THERE OTHER AREAS THE COMMISSION SHOULD ALSO BE
1194
FOCUSED ON SPECIFIC TO UNBUNDLED LOOPS THAT WILL HELP TO
1195
EASE IMPAIRMENT?
1196
A.
Yes, there are. Until IDLC can be digitally unbundled, and even thereafter for those
1197
facilities not served by IDLC, issues relative to accessing high quality, copper facilities
1198
will continue to exist. As fiber-based facilities continue to expand in use in the network,
1199
and as the ILEC’s continue to retire copper facilities that have been replaced by those
1200
newer technologies, available, high quality copper loops will become less prevalent and
1201
“no facilities available” notices for UNE loop orders will become more common.
I202
1203
Q.
IS THE AVAILABILITY OF COPPER FACILITIES THE ONLY ISSUE?
1204
A.
No. One of the most disturbing consequences of the FCC’s TRO is that it realistically
1205
establishes two separate networks: (1) an ILEC network (packet-based, fiber facilities),
1206
and (2) a largely copper and Time Division Multiplexed - “TDM -network available to
1207
competitors. The FCC’s decision in this regard has numerous negative consequences for
1208
the continued development of competition, not the least of which is its impact on an
1209
ILEC’s incentive to maintain its copper/TDM network at a level equal to that reserved for
1210
its fibedpacket network. The potential exists for situations wherein even if spare copper
1211
loops are available, they will not have been maintained at a level that makes them
50 of 68
1697
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1212
immediately usable for service (is., the facilities are effectively “retired in place” and
1213
useable only wit11 significant inaintenance or restore activities and resultant expenses).
1214
These activities -which must be undertaken on behalf of the CLECs, but not the ILECs -
1215
delay CLEC access to not only the loops, hut the entire market served by those loops.
1216
1217
Q.
GIVEN THE PCC’S TRIENNIAL REVIEW ORDEK ARE THERE STEPS THIS
1218
COMMISSION CAN TAKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF AVAILABLE
1219
COPPER FACILITIES?
1220
A.
Yes, there are. W i l e the underlying incentive described above is difficult to properly
1221
address within the context of the FCC’s TRO, this Commission can actively ensure that
1222
ILECs maintain and retire their facilities in a non-discriminatory manner, thereby
1223
ensuring that maintenance and facility retirements are undertaken pursuant to proper
1224
engineering management, not at the conk01 of competitive strategy. Indeed, the FCC’s
1225
TRO also encourages this type of non-discriminatory treatment:
“We require incumbent LECs to make routine network modifications to
unbundled transmission facilities used by requesting carriers where the requested
transmission facility bas already been constructed. By ‘routine network
modifications’ we inean that incumbent LECs must perform those activities that
incumbent LECs regularly undertake for their own customers.”2o
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
COLLOCATIONRELATEDM P A I R M E ”
1232
1233
1234
Q.
COLLOCATION?
1235
1236
1237
IS MCI IMPAIRED AS A RESULT OF ISSUES PERTAINING TO
A.
As a practical matter, the answer to that question is “yes.” As it stands today, MCI, and
many other CLECs do not currently have collocation arrangements (whether they be
FCC TRO, 7632.
51 of68
1698
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
..
1238
physical, viitual, etc.) in as ubiquitous a €ashion as would be necessary lo serve their
1239
UNE-P based mass market customers throughout the state. Indeed, MCI serves more
1240
approximately ***BEGIN PROPRIETARY
1241
customers via UNE-P in approximately ***BEGIN PROPRIETARY
1242
PROPRIETARY*** different central offices throughout Michigan. By way of
1243
comparison, MCI is collocated in only ***BEGIN PROPRIETARY
1244
PROPRIETARY*** Michigan central offices, leaving approximately ***BEGIN
1245
PROPRIETARY
1246
no way to reach its customers were the Commission to reach a conclusion that MCI was
1241
not impaired without UNE-P.
END PROPRIETARY***
END
END
END PROPRIETARY*”* central offices wherein MCI has today
1248
1249
Q.
CAN’T MCI UTILIZE EELS IN THE NEAR TERM TO SERVE THESE
1250
CUSTOMERS AND THEN BUILD OUT ITS FACILITIES TO THOSE OFFICES
1251
OVER TIME IF REQUIRED?
1252
A.
It is best to take those two issues one at a time. First, I discuss the enhanced extended
1253
link (“EEV’) and its potential for assisting WE-L carriers later in this testimony.
1254
Suffice it to say for now that much development work remains before EELS can
1255
realistically be relied upon to service mass market customers. Second, it is likely that
1256
given proper time, fmancial wherewithal and potential profitability, MCI could build out
1257
its network and collocate in additional central offices. However, if the Commission is not
1258
able to assist the industry in overcoming the operational issues I’ve identified above
1259
relative to a UNE-L delivery platform (i.e,, hot cuts, IDLC, etc.), lhere is little incentive
1260
for MCI to expend resources for collocalion space that cannot be used to its fullest
1261
potential. Moreover, setting aside questions regarding the extent to which mass market
52 o f 68
1699
..
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkev
MPSC Case No. U-1379;
1262
customers can be economically served based upon a network which includes collocation,
1263
it’s currently unclear whether tlie CLECs as a whole will be able to obtain collocation
1264
arrangements in conjunction with Uie necessary transport facilities on a timely basis such
1265
that a migration can be supported (keep in mind that in some Michigan wire centers, as
1266
many existing providers may need to procure incremental collocation space to serve their
1267
UNE-P customers). Further, collocation is a time consuming process that requires
1268
CLECs to perform numerous complex functions and activities that are not required where
1269
ULS is available. Each step taken by the CLEC in order to reach the end user customer
1270
through collocation adds time and cost to the process and introduces a probability of error
1271
and customer dissatisfaction that is not associated with the ILEC’s provision of service to
1272
the same customer on a retail basis or UNE-P. Finally, questions remain as to whether
1273
SBC will develop hot cut processes wbereby it will cut a UNE loop to an EEL
1274
arrangement via the batch hot cut process, thereby, further limiting the applicability of
1275
EELS hi situations wherein collocation is not available.
1276
1277
Q.
ASSUMING THAT MCI IS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE COLLOCATION
1278
ARRANGEMENTSNECESSARY TO SERVE EXISTING AND FUTURE END
1279
USER CUSTOMERS, WHAT OTHER ISSUES MAY CAUSE IMPAIRMENT?
1280
A.
It has been MCI’s experience during the early stages of collocation that, even when space
1281
is ultimately made available by the ILECs, it was not uncommon to experience
1282
significant delays before gaining access to the requested arrangements. To the extent that
1283
history repeats itself in an era where requests for collocation would obviously increase
1284
dramatically, CLECs could have difficulties reaching their customers without continued
1285
availability of UNE-P.
1286
53 of68
.
1700
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1287
Q.
PROBLEMS?
1288
1289
HOW COULD THE COMMISSION REMEDY THESE POTENTIAL
A.
To the extent die Commission enters at some future date a fmding ofnon impairment
1290
relative to ULS, it is my recommendation that the Commission implement backstop
1291
measures related to collocation. Specifically, to the extent that a CLEC’s ability to access
1292
its end-users is effectively delayed or otherwise impeded as a result of the ILEC’s
1293
collocation performance, the Conunission should mandate that ULS remain available to
1294
such carriers and in such locations where mass market customers are concerned.
1295
Moreover, to the extent that collocation is ultimately implemented in such a location, the
1296
CLEC should have the choice to leave any remaining customers on UNE-P until such
1297
time as a migration to UNE-L is operationally feasible.
1298
1299
1300
1301
TRANSPORT RELATED IMPAIRMENT
Q.
YOUR TESTIMONY AS COLLOCATION?
1302
1303
WHY HAVE YOU INCLUDED TRANSPORT IN THE SAME SECTION OF
A.
Transport and collocation are intrinsically related in terms of I h e functions they perform
1304
in a typical CLEC network, Availability of and access to collocation space is
1305
meaningless in a CLEC network unless the CLEC is able to reach the end user customer’s
1306
loop and extend it to its own switch via available transport capacity. Therefore,
1307
collocation without available transport, and vice versa, renders a UNE-L framework
1308
unusable. Indeed, this Commission can consider the UNE-L framework to be a very
1309
complex chain, each link of which must be procured, assigned, provisioned and
1310
maintained in order for customers to receive telephone sewices without dismption. Each
131i
link is subject to its own issues and complications, but each link is equally important in
54 of68
1701
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1312
tenns of providing the ultimate service (a break in any single link is a break in the chain).
1313
Any single component of the service, including transport, has the potential to take the
1314
customer out of service if something goes wrong.
1315
1316
Q.
DOES TRANSPORT POSE CHALLENGES IN AND OF ITSELF?
1317
It certainly can. In a situation where CLECs are replacing W E - P with UNE-L, they'll
1318
rely heavily on tlieir ability to utilize ILEC provided transport in order to extend
1319
individual customer loops to Hieir own local switching facilities. Additionally, CLECs
1320
will be largely dependent upon ILEC provided traiisport in order to originate and
1321
terminate local, intraLATA and interLATA traffic on behalf of tlieir end users that,
1322
heretofore, had been carried within the ILEC network via shared transport. Moreover,
1323
CLECs will likely utilize ILEC provided transport in order to establish 91 1 frunk groups
1324
and, albeit to a lesser extent, 0 s and DA trunk groups. The sheer magnitude of
1325
blanketing a state or even a LATA with collocation arrangements and the transport
1326
facilities described herein can become daunting from a logistic and economic perspective.
1327
Given that tbese transport requirements are, for the most part, over and above those
1328
already required by a UNE-P based CLEC, the logistical and financial ramifications
1329
flowing from these requirements may lead to real operational and/or economic
1330
impairment.
1331
1332
Q.
RISE TO IMPAIRMENT.
1333
1334
PLEASE DISCUSS SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL ISSUES WHICH MAY GIVE
A.
It is unclear whether the ILECs' networks are currently set up to accommodate the
1335
CLECs need for transpoit both in terms of their need to extend loops (whether via
1336
collocation and interoffice transport arrangements or via Enhanced Extended Links, or
55 o f 6 8
1702
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starliey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1337
EELS) to their own switches or in tenns ofmeeting demand for the transport necessary to
1338
originate and tenninate traffic. As such, it's unclear whether the ILECs will claim that
1339
"facilities are not available," rendering a migration from W E - P to W E - L doubtful at
1340
best. Moreover, it's unclear whether the ILECs will claim that as a result of the TRO,
1341
they're not required to provide transport to requesting carriers in any or all ofthe
1342
circumstances identified above. Indeed, if the necessary physical connections cannot be
1343
obtained, or are substantially delayed, CLECs will he operationally impaired, if not
1344
physically precluded from accessing customers.
1345
1346
Q.
PLEASE EXPLAIN IN MORE DETAIL YOUR CONCERNS RELATED TO
1347
TRANSPORT CAPACITY REQUIRED TO ORIGINATE AND/OR TERMINATE
1348
TRARFIC.
1349
A.
The latest statistics indicate CLECs control approximately 26% of the local customer
1350
base in SBC Michigan's territory (more than 1.4million lines in total). Those same
1351
statistics indicate that the 64%of those competitively provided lines rely upon UNE-P."
1352
When a customer is served via UNE-P, I d h e r local calls are routed just as any other
1353
ILEC retail customer's calls would be routed. As such, the majority ofthat traffic is
1354
routed either within the same ILEC switch (i,e., an inter-switch call) or to another switch
1355
withiii the same local calling area, which is connected to the caller's originating switch
1356
via a direct-truilked connection. As local networks have evolved, trunk groups directly
1357
connecting end office switches within a local area have become inore common and most
1358
ILEC networks today rely heavily on substantial levels of inter-office direct tlunking.
*' All information taken from the MPSC's Staff Report, Results of 4" Competitive Market Conditiolzs
SUIWJ~,
May 2003, pages 4 and 7 (26% equals 1,447,176 CLEC lines divided by 5,638,947 total lines 64% equals 932,667 UNE-P lines divided by 1,447,176 total CLEC lines)
56 of 68
1703
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starlcey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1359
Absent these direct trunks, tandem switches would be required to route all inter-switch
1360
calls.
I361
1362
Q.
UTILIZE A UNE-L DELIVERY STRATEGY?
1363
1364
WILL THESE TRAPPIC PATTERNS CHANGE IF CLECS ARE REQUIRED TO
A.
Yes, they will change. As described above, in a W - L strategy, the CLEC collocates
1365
equipment in the ILEC’s central office and routes tlie customer’s traffic back to its own
1366
switching facility. Hence, every call made by the customer (local, long distance, etc.)
1367
will be routed tllrougli the CLEC’s switch instead ofthe ILEC’s switch. Likewise, the
1368
CLEC’s switch is then interconnected with the ILEC’s network either at the tandem (the
1369
vast majority of connections occu at the tandem), or via direct connections to high
1370
volume end offices. The entirety of the customer’s local traffic that is intended for ILEC
1371
customers (presumably the majority of the customers calls given that tlie ILEC will still
1372
serve the majority of local customers) must now pass through the interconnectioii trunks
1373
established by the CLEC and the ILEC, instead of through the ILEC’s direct end office
1374
tmks as has historically been the case. In short, moving as much as 25% of tlie local
1375
customer base from UNE-P to UNE-L will immediately and dramatically change the
1376
traffic patterns for millions of customers. I simply don’t believe the implications relative
1377
to this tjpe of fundamental shift in traffic patterns, and the additional trunkiig resources
1378
required to accommodate it, have been thoroughly examined?2
1379
1380
Q.
DO THESE TRAFFIC PATTERN CHANGES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO
IMPAIR CLECS?
1381
Not to inention Uie polenlial for stranded transport capacity h a t will be evident on the ILEC interoffice
network,
22
57 of 68
1704
PUBLIC VERSlON - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starlcey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1382
A.
Absolutely. Even if (1) the hot cut process worked smoothly, (2) the CLEC could
1383
somehow gain unfeltered access to the customer's loop, (3) collocation could he arranged
1384
and (4) the CLEC could transport the customer's traffic back to its own swilch, the CLEC
1385
could still face severe, customer impacting problems if the ILEC failed to provide
1386
adequate trunking for purposes of terminating traffic originated on the CLEC network.
1387
Keep in mind thal if all CLEO were required to transition from UNE-P to UNE-L, the
1388
ILEC would, in theory, be required, at its own cost, to supplement its trunk groups used
1389
for interconnection (including where necessary tandem tmnk ports and switching
1390
Unfortunately, where the ILEC fails to
capacily) by as much as 16% within 27 mo~iths?~
1391
meet this benchmark, it is the CLEC who bears the brunt of the failure because it is the
1392
CLEC's customers who will experience network busy signals when they attempt to place
1393
local calls to an ILEC customer.
1394
1395
Q.
TERMS OF QUALITY DEGREDATION?
1396
1397
CAN YOU QUANTIFY THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS PROBLEM IN
A.
No. We are continuing to assess this issue and its potential impact on service quality
standards.
1398
1399
1400
Q-
CAN THE ISSUES LEADING TO IMPAIRMENT RELATIVE TO TRANSPORT
1401
BE ADDRESSED IN SUCH A WAY THAT MCI COULD PURSUE ITS PLAN TO
1402
MOVE TO A UNE-L STRATEGY?
1403
1404
A.
To the extent the Commission intends to foster the expansion of a UNE-L strategy and,
therefore, intends to minimize transport d a t e d issues which may give rise to impairment,
23 16% equals a 25% CLEC market share, with 64% of those CLEC lines provided by UNE-P (see
discussion above for infonnation relative to the 25% and 64% values).
58 of 68
1705
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1405
it should consider, at a minimum, initiating proceedings which examine and ultimately
1406
provide for EELS as discussed more fully later in this testimony, continued availability of
1407
transport and backstop measures which provide for use of ULS for mass market
1408
customers where transport is not reasonably available.
1. MCI requires access to enhanced l i i s (EELS). I will discuss this in the next
section of my testimony in detail, but a great deal ofthe impairment issues
suounding l~ansportmay be alleviated if EELS allowing access to ILEC
transport, concentrated ILEC transport, CLEC transport and third pa@ transport
were made available to MCI under the UNE-P benchmark conditions discussed
above.
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
2. MCI inust rely on ILECs to provide UNE transport where requested for local
pulposes, particularly to and fiom COs where ULS is unavailable and for
purposes or canying end-user traffic necessary to support a UNE-L entry
strategy.
3. If the ILEC is unable or unwilling to meet the aansport needs of MCI and
other CLECs, unbundled local switching must remain available in order to serve
mass market customers in Michigan.
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
V.
THE ENHANCED LINK (“EEL”) AS A DSO LOOP TRANSPORT TOOL
Q.
IF A STATE COMMISSION FINDS THAT MCI AND OTHER CLECS ARE
1426
1427
1428
IMPAIRED, IN PART BECAUSE OF TRANSPORT RELATED PROBLEMS,
1429
CAN STATE COMMISSIONSWORK TOWARD REDUCING THAT
1430
IMPAIRMENT?
1431
A.
Yes, they can and MCI would encourage them to do so. Toward that end, MCI has
1432
identified a number of transport-related issues that should be addressed. For example,
1433
MCI believes that EELS could play a large role in overcoming issues contributing to
1434
impairment relative to transport facilities; however, MCI also believes that EELS have a
1435
long way to go in terms of continued development before they can be realistically used to
59 of 68
1706
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Micliael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1436
serve mass inarlcet customers. In short, while tliere are areas wherein continued
1437
development on the part of the industry could mitigate the issues that lead to today’s
1438
impairment, direct and continuous Commission involvement will be required to make any
1439
realistic progress in these areas. MCI has identified the following actions that state
1440
commissions should undertake relative to transport and its potential impact on
1441
impairment for mass market switching:
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
(1) Monitor concurrent proceedings relative to loop and transport impairment in
an attempt to spot areas wherein the ILEC insists triggers have been met for mass
market switching, yet the ILEC may be attempting to reinove the very UNE
transport tliose triggering carriers use to provide the local services constituting
tlie mass market switching trigger. In other words, if the ILEC insists a carrier
providing UNE-L service in a given area should constitute a mass market
switchiig trigger, the Commission should take a close look at whether the ILEC
is likewise attemptkg to remove its obligation to provide UNE transport to that
very same carrier in the LoopiTransport proceeding. It is likely that the fmancial
and operational issues associated with that “triggering” CLEC will change
dramatically (perhaps even fundamentally altering its ability to continue to
provide service), ifthat cmier can no longer purchase transport fiom the ILEC
on a UNE basis.
(2) State commissions should work with ILECs and CLECs alike to provide
UNE transport arrangements aimed more directly at serving the mass market.
EELs are a primary example. To this point EELs have been used, to the extent
ILECs have provided them at all, primarily for high volume customers with
substantial amounts of access traffic. Their use in supporting local services to
multiple, individual customers requiring only a few DSO circuits is largely
untested. Nonetheless, EELs have the potential to substantially reduce the
additional transport costs inherent within a UNE-L sbategy, including notable
sunk costs that could be avoided relative to coIlocation.
Q.
PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR POINT REGARDING THE POTENTIAL
1469
CONNECTION BETWEEN MASS MARKET SWITCHING IMPAIRMENT AND
1470
UNF. TRANSPORT IMPAIRMENT.
1471
1472
A.
Because UNE transport is governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and it is
provided via interconnection agreements that are mediated and/or arbitrated by state
60 of68
1707
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1473
coinmissions (with prices set consistent with TELRIC), changes in the availability of
1474
UNE transport for existing CLECs providing facilities based services could dramalically
1475
alter those CLECs’ capabilities to continue providing services. Removing the ILEC’s
1476
obligation to provide UNE transport within a given markel has the potential to
1477
dramatically affect the process by whicli those “triggering” carriers access transport
1478
capacity (they would largely be left to fend for transport in a nascent wholesale transport
1479
environment or pay substantially higher ILEC special access rates) and the prices they
1480
pay for such transport. As such, a decision to remove UNE transport from the UNE list
1481
in a given market has the potential to dramatically impact whether a carrier could be
1482
considered a “trigger” with respect to the FCC’s analysis specific to mass market
1483
switching impairment. State commissions should be cognizant of this relationship as
1484
they evaluate the evidence provided by ILECs specific to impairment in both regards.
1485
1486
Q.
PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR SECOND CONS1 DERATION ABOVE RELATIVE TO
1487
DSO-RELATED TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS BY DESCRIBING AND
1488
DEFININGAN EEL.
1489
A.
EELS are nothing more than a combination of unbundled loops, the potential for
1490
multiplexing, and unbundled interoffice transport. The diagram below provides a
1491
simplistic example:
1492
61 of68
1708
1709
PUBLIC VERSION direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1492
1493
Simple EEL”
1495
1497
1499
1501
1503
C
1505
1507
-
Simplistic EEL
UNETransport
Multiplexing
UNE Loop
1508
1509
1510
As noted above, the primary advantage of an EEL is that a competitive carrier using an
1511
EEL need not collocate in every ILEC central office within which it chooses to senre a
1512
customer (consistent with the TRO, EELs generally would require only one collocation
1513
per LATA). By combining the unbundled loop with interoffice transport (and the ability
1514
to multiplex smaller capacity, customer-specific circuits onto larger, more efficient
1515
interoffice circuits), the CLEC is able to “extend” the loop directly to its own central
1516
office (please note that in most cases multiple transport facilities fiom multiple ILEC end
1517
offices - each carrying multiple loops - would terminate in one ILEC central office before
1518
being transported to the CLECs Central Office). This advantage is important for several
1519
reasons. First, EELs allow a carrier to build a customer concentration in an ILEC central
1520
office before expending considerable resources to build a collocation cage. This not only
The diagram above depicts the transport facilily fronl Central Office A ultiinalely reaching the CLEC‘s
Central Oftice via routing through the CLEC’s collocation space in Central Office B. While no operalional
benefit is achieved through chis architecture (i.e., the need for a collocation somewhere in lhe LATA), the
24
62 of 68
1710
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1521
speeds the competitive carrier's products to market (without the need for an expensive
1522
and sometimes time-consuming collocation process), but also allows the carrier to make
1523
an economically rational decision (based primarily upon customer take rates) relative to
1524
allocating finite collocation resources. Second, without the need for a costly collocation
I525
in each central office, the economics of a UNE-L strategy can be improved. Finally, and
1526
most importantly, EELSare but another method by which competing carriers can attempt
1527
to gain economies of scale and scope siinilar to that of their primary competitors, the
1528
ILECs. By spreading the costs of switching equipment over a greater number of
1529
customers (by gaining access to numerous central offlces without incurring
1530
corresponding collocation costs) competitors can substantially reduce their average costs
1531
per-customer, hopefully approaching average cost levels enjoyed by the incumbent (who
1532
enjoys a network built and engineered to accon~modate100% of the market).
1533
1534
Q.
DOES THE INDUSTRY HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE WITH EELS USED TO
1535
SUPPORT DSO-BASED SERVICES LIKE THOSE THAT WOULD BE
1536
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MASS MARKET OPFERMGS?
1537
A.
No. This is highly troubling given the FCC's implicit (ifnot explicit) reliance upon the
1538
EEL for purposes of making UNE-L a more attractive delivery mechanism in lieu of
1539
continued availability of UNE-P. While UNE-P is a proven mechanism by which to
1540
provide competitive services to mass market customers in an efficient and economical
1541
manner, UNE-L fueled by increased reliance on DSO-based EELS is almost completely
1542
untried and cedainly unproven. Very little if auy real world experience exists in support
FCC's TRO appears to require at least one collocation arrangenienl in !he LATA for purposes of
terminating an EEL.
63 of 68
1711
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starlcey
MPSC Case No. U-I3796
1543
ofthe notion that EELs can actually be used effectively as a DSO transporl option on any
1544
scalable, commercially viable basis.
1545
1546
Q.
TO USE EELS EFFECTIVELY IN A UNE-L ENVIRONMENT?
1547
1548
WHAT CAN THE COMMISSION DO TO ENHANCE THE ABILITY OF CLECS
A.
Commissions can focus their attention on two primary EEL related objectives that will
1549
dramatically increase the likelihood that EELs can ,in the future, be used effectively in a
1550
mass market scenario: (1) Commissions can ensure that any approved ILEC Tm?sifior?al
1551
Batch Hot Cut and Mass Market Migration Hat Cut processes include detailed
1552
information and processes related to “cutting” a UNE loop to an EEL arrangement (as
1553
opposed to a the more restrictive proposal that collocation cages be the only location to
1554
which loops can be “hot cut”), and (2) the Commission can (and should) explore
1555
arrangements related to “concentrated” EELs. Despite the FCC’s failure to properly
1556
evaluate real-world experience with DSO-based EELs in a UNE-L environment, there is
1557
an opportunity for this commission to elevate EELs to a more effective platform capable
1558
of enhancing the likelihood of UNE-L success (and as such, the likelihood mass market
1559
customers will enjoy competitive alternatives from carriers other than those relying solely
1560
on UNE-P). After having affirmed, in this proceeding, the FCC‘s finding that CLECs
1561
l i e MCI are impaired without access to UNE switching functionality, the Commission
1562
should begin the process, via follow-up proceedings, of addressing those issues
1563
generating impairment. When evaluating ways to overcome the economic and
1564
operational issues related to transport, MCI believes that the Commission’s time would
1565
be well spent exploring with the industry how EELs could work more effectively in a
1566
concentrated format, and the extent to which ordering and provisioning processes specific
64 of 68
1712
-
PUBLIC VERSION Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1567
to concentrated EELS could be used to lunit some of the economic and operational
1868
challeiiges that exist with providing transport via a W E - L platform today.
1569
(i) The Advantages of Concentrated EELS
1570
1571
1572
Q.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “CONCENTRATED” EELS?
1873
A.
A concentrated EEL is nothing more than the same unbundled loop and interoffice
1574
t~msportcombination, with the added capability to “oversubscribe” the interoffice
1575
transport element with unbundled loops in a greater than 1:l ratio. Said another way,
1576
“concentrating” an EEL allows a CLEC to purchase far fewer interoffice transport
1577
circuits to serve the same number of customers, with little or no impact on its resulting
1578
quality of service.
1579
1580
Q.
THAN 1:1?
1581
1582
HOW WOULD T H E CLEC ACHIEVE A CONCENTRATION RATIO GREATER
A.
Earlier in this testimony I described next generation DLC equipment (primarily GR-303
1583
compatible equipment) that allows a carrier to concentrate traffic traveling between an
1584
RT and tlie integrated terminal on the central office switch. GR-303 compatible DLC
1585
allows a carrier to engineer its outside plant facilities with 41, 6:l or even greater levels
1586
of concentration, thereby substantially reducing the feeder capacity required to serve the
1587
same number of distribution pairs?’ A concentrated EEL relies on this very same
1588
technology in extending the loop between central offices.
1589
See Newton’s Telecoin Dictionary, 16’hEdition; Copyright 2000 Hany Newlon, Published by Telecoin
Books, An imprint of CMP Media Inc., New York, NY 10010, page 382. IDLC systems can achieve
”
65 of 68
1713
PUBLIC VERSION - Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1590
Q.
EELS TODAY?
1591
1592
HOW WOULD A CONCENTRATED EEL BE DIFFERENT FROM TIXE USE OF
A.
One of the primary disadvantages of a traditional EEL delivery platform is that a
1593
competitive carrier must purchase one interofice transporl circuit for every unbundled
1594
loop it purchases in a central office. Effectively, competing carriers are limited to a 1:l
1595
concentration ratio between loop and interoffice transport. This substantially, and
1596
unnecessarily, increases the costs relative to EELs and contributes to an enormous waste
1597
of the ILEC’s interoffice transport resources. A requirement that ILECs provide EELs in
1598
a more efficient, concentrated manner can reduce transport costs (and CLEC switch
1599
interface costs) by as much as 75% to 90% (and reduce wasted capacity by the same
1600
aniount).
1601
1602
Q.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TIIIS POINT IN GREATER DETAIL.
1603
A.
A concentrated EEL arrangement could rely upon the same GR-303 equipment discussed
1604
earlier. In simplest terms, to support a conceiitrated EEL arrangement, an ILEC could be
1605
required to place a GR-303 compatible RT in its central office, and lease access to that
1606
GR-303 RT on a “per port basis” to individual CLECs. Using the GR-303 RT, individual
1607
CLECs could purchase individual DSO UNE loops from the ILEC, cross-connect those
1608
loops to the RT, and purchase transport from the RT to their own central office switches
1609
(using GR-303 signaling). Assuming a CLEC chose to use 4:1 concentration in such an
1610
arrangement, Uie CLEC would, using the concentrated EEL in tbis fashion, be required to
1611
purchase 1/4 the interoffice transport capacity originally required (likewise using 6: 1
1612
concentration would allow the CLEC to purchase only 1/6 the amount previously
1613
required). Using a recent example from an I l h o i s proceeding wherein SBC Illinois’
concentration ratios of up to 4 4 1 depending upon traffic characteristics.
66 of 68
1714
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1614
existing UNE. rates were used,’6 the savings associated will] the concentrated EEL
1615
arrangement are obvious:
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
Consider the following hypothetical. Assume that a carrier currently serves a
total of 2,688 UNE-P customers in a given SBC Illinois central office.
Assume furtlier that the camer decides to migrate those customers from a
UNE-P delivery strategy, to its own switching facilities. However, the carrier
cannot justify constructing a collocation cage in the central office in question.
Instead, the carrier deiennines tbat an EEL arrangement, used to extend the
loops of those 2,688 customers to its switching location is the most feasible
delivery strategy. Using a traditional EEL, the carrier would likely be
required to purchase the following EEL combinations:’
1625
1626
rUNE
DSO Loops
DSO Cross Connects
Circuits
Entrance Facility
I
Quantity
Traditional EEL
2,688
1
2
,
6
8
8
Quantity
Concentrated EEL
2,688
2,688
112DSls
112DSls
19 DSls’
19DSls
I
Difference
0
0
(93)
(93)
1627
Assuming that a carrier utilizes the 6:I concentration capability inherent in the
GR-303 equipment currently deployed by SBC Illinois today: the carrier in
our hypothetical above could reduce its interoffice capacity needs by a total of
93 DSls, an enormous capacity reduction. Given that SBC Illinois’ cument
dedicated interoffice transport rates for DS 1 circuits average approximately
$126.96 per month,” reducing its interoffice transport needs by 93 DS1
circuits, saves the carrier approximately $11,807.28 per month, just for the
2,688 customers in that particular central office (a total of $4.39 per month,
per customer). With savings of this magnitude, the importance of a
concentrated EEL arrangement becomes clear.
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
(1) Assuming the use of 61 concentration.
(2) Part and parcel of SBC Illinois’ Project Pronto network upgrade, and its general network evolution, is
Alcatel’s Litespan 2000, GR-303 capable IDLC. Litespan 2000 accommodates concentration ratios of 6 1
and higher.
(3) Assumes the following DSI components and quantities (per DSI): (1) DSl enlrance facility @ $73.46,
(2)mileage termination charges @ $17.35 apiece and (10) interoffice mileage charges @ $1.88 apiece. See
ILL. C.C. No, 20, Part 19, Section 12, Original Sheet No. 30 for rates.
1648
1649
Q.
PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR POSITION ON CONCENTRATED EELS.
’‘Illinois Conuiierce Conmission Docket No. 02-0864 (abated). Direci Tesrilliorly of McliaelSlarkey and
61 of68
I
1715
PUBLIC VERSION -Direct Testimony of
Michael Starkey
MPSC Case No. U-13796
1650
A.
As tlie FCC and state commissions ponder the development of facilities based local
1651
exchange competition, opportunities like those exhibited by the concentrated EEL must
1652
be a realistic component of those considerations if UNE-L is to ever fulfill the role of a
1653
primary market service platform. The concentrated EEL typifies the manner by which
1654
newer teclmologies can be, and should be, used to reduce costs for all involved, in
1655
addition to providing a more efficient and scalable competitive opportunity. There are
1656
few, if any technical barriers to a concentrated EEL arrangement, and while operational
1657
issues will no doubt require some amount of development, the competitive advantages
1658
undoubtedly require the effort. Nonetheless, ILECs will not offer concentrated EELS of
1659
their own voIition (indeed, many have already refused to provide these arrangements in
1660
the fashion described above). As such, state commissions will need to provide the proper
1661
incentive for ILEC cooperation in the fonn o f a docketed proceeding aimed at developing
1662
a workable concentrated EEL platform. It is MCI’s opinion that proceedings of t h i s type
1663
should immediately follow the Commission’s decision in this proceeding in an effort to
1664
mitigate those transpod-related issues giving rise to the impairment that exists today
1665
relative to unbundled mass market switching.
1666
1667
Q.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOURTESTIMONY?
1668
A.
Yes, it does.
John Bake, pgs. 80-81, filed May 6,2003.
68 of 68
1716
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
(The transcript continues on page 1717 of
the confidential record.)
- - -
1790
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
(The transcript continues following page
1789 of the confidential record.)
- - -
1791
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In the Matter, on the Commission’s Own
Motion, to facilitate the implementation of the
Federal Communications Commission’s
Triennial Review determination in Michigan.
)
)
)
)
Case No. U-13796
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF
Michael Starkey
On behalf of
MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC
And MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.
March 5, 2004
[PUBLIC VERSION –
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REDACTED]
1792
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
I.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
3
Q.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
4
A.
My name is Michael Starkey. My business address is QSI Consulting, Inc., 243
1
2
Dardenne Farms Drive, St. Charles, Missouri 63304-1002.
5
6
7
Q.
TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING?
8
9
ARE YOU THE SAME MICHAEL STARKEY THAT PROVIDED DIRECT
A.
Yes, I am. I provided direct testimony in this proceeding and have also sponsored
testimony on behalf of MCI in companion Case No. U-13891 (batch hot cut proceeding).
10
11
12
Q.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
13
A.
I respond to the rebuttal testimony of a number of SBC witnesses as their testimony
14
relates to (1) Integrated Digital Loop Carrier (“IDLC”), (2) the relevance of operational
15
issues within the context of the FCC’s “trigger test” analysis and (3) the relationship
16
between the hot cut processes discussed in Case No. U-13891 and this docket, and the
17
impact of the batch hot cut process on impairment.
18
19
Q.
AT PAGE 15 OF HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY, MR. BELL DISCUSSES YOUR
20
TESTIMONY RELATIVE TO IDLC. HE SAYS THE FCC ALREADY
21
ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF IDLC IN APPROVING SBC MICHIGAN’S 271
22
APPLICATION. DO YOU AGREE?
23
24
A.
No, I do not. First, Mr. Bell confuses two very different issues: (1) whether CLECs are
impaired without access to mass market switching in situations wherein IDLC is present
2 of 16
1793
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
25
and (2) SBC’c compliance with the Section 271 checklist (which requires SBC to provide
26
the very same ULS element that it wishes to remove from its Section 251 obligations).
27
Nowhere within its 271 decisions that I am aware of (including its SBC decision)1 did the
28
FCC make findings relative to impairment. Indeed, it is my understanding that the
29
primary foundation relied upon by the FCC in granting Section 271 approval for SBC
30
was the success of competitors who relied upon SBC’s UNE-P framework, the very
31
framework SBC now is attempting to withdraw via this proceeding (almost immediately
32
follows its approval for 271 relief). Hence, to the extent Mr. Bell is suggesting that the
33
FCC found no impairment relative to mass-market switching in IDLC situations, because
34
it approved SBC’s Section 271 application, I believe he is misinformed. Indeed, in a
35
similar context concerning hot cuts, the FCC observed that “… the Commission’s section
36
271 holdings by no means find that incumbent LEC performance is now adequate to meet
37
the demands of UNE-L competition.”2
38
39
Q.
MR. BELL POINTS TO PARAGRAPH 150 OF THE FCC’S ORDER
40
APPROVING SBC’S 271 APPLICATION AS SUPPORTING HIS ARGUMENT
41
THAT IDLC-RELATED IMPAIRMENT IS A NON-ISSUE ABSENT UNE-P.3 IS
42
THIS REFERENCE USEFUL?
43
A.
Yes, it is. Despite the fact that the reference provided by Mr. Bell does little to support
his notion (i.e., that impairment related to IDLC loops has somehow been overcome
44
1
Memorandum Opinion and Order in WC Docket No. 03-067, Adopted October 14, 2003.
Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of
Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (CC Docket
No. 01-338); Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(CC Docket No. 96-989); Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications
Capability (CC Docket No. 98-147), FCC No. 03-36, (rel. Aug. 21, 2003) (hereinafter, “Triennial Review
Order”), ¶ 469, n. 1435.
2
3 of 16
1794
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
45
absent UNE-P), it is, nonetheless, useful in highlighting an important point we’ve made
46
in our testimony in the batch hot cut proceeding. The FCC language to which Mr. Bell
47
refers reads as follows:
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
In order to better its chances for Section 271 approval, SBC agreed to migrate loops from
59
IDLC to non-IDLC facilities for purposes of offering UNE loops, in all situations
60
wherein either spare copper or non-integrated DLC existed, at no additional charge.
61
Hence, consistent with SBC’s agreement, when CLECs order an unbundled loop from
62
SBC in Michigan today, and that loop happens to be an SBC retail loop served via IDLC,
63
SBC sends a technician to the remote terminal or SAI (“serving area interface”) and
64
moves that loop from IDLC to copper or UDLC so as to provision the UNE loop. SBC
65
charges the CLEC only the existing Service Order Charge ($3.16 for installation and
66
$1.54 for disconnect) and the Loop Connection Charge ($17.82 for connection and $5.85
67
for disconnection), i.e., it assesses no “additional” charge for converting that loop to
68
UNE-L because it is served via IDLC (note that SBC has acknowledged that the Line
69
Connection charge covers activity including a hot cut).5 Based upon this agreement, the
70
FCC found that SBC’s policies were sufficient to warrant Section 271 approval.
71
However, with the advent of its new batch hot cut prices advocated as a result of the TRO
…the rules under which we evaluate this application do not require SBC to unbundle its
digital loop carrier (DLC) facilities under all circumstances. When a competitive LEC
orders a loop that is being served using IDLC, SBC will migrate the loop to spare copper
facilities at no additional charge to the competitor so long as such facilities exist. If no
spare facilities exist, SBC will perform the construction necessary to install a copper loop
in accordance with its “facilities modification” policy. Thus, SBC’s policies do not
deprive competitors of access to transmission facilities, even where its loops are fed by
DLC that SBC will not or cannot unbundle.4
3
Errata Reply Testimony of Raymont Bell, Case No. U-13796, page 15.
Memorandum Opinion and Order in WC Docket No. 03-067, October 14, 2003, paragraph 150, footnotes
omitted, emphasis added.
4
4 of 16
1795
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
72
(in Case No. U-13891), SBC is attempting to unilaterally rescind this agreement. Now,
73
under SBC’s new proposal, were MCI to request a hot cut for one of its UNE-P
74
customers and that UNE-P customer happened to be served by IDLC, MCI would be
75
required to pay additional charges totaling at least $73.89 for purposes of moving that
76
customer to either a copper or non-integrated facility.6 As such, SBC’s proposal in these
77
proceedings, modifying its previous agreement, unfortunately increases the likelihood of
78
impairment relative to IDLC facilities rather than decreasing that likelihood. And, while
79
we’ve recommended in Case No. U-13891 that SBC’s additional IDLC unbundling rate
80
is inconsistent with its past agreements and the orders of this Commission (and should be
81
rejected),7 I believe it is important that the Commission understand the change in SBC’s
82
position as it relates to Mr. Bell’s assertions (i.e., that IDLC facilities and costs do not
83
lead to impairment).
84
85
Q.
SBC WITNESS HARRY M. SHOOSHAN III (AT PAGE 20 OF HIS REPLY
86
TESTIMONY) STATES THAT ISSUES RELATED TO HOT CUTS SHOULD BE
87
LIMITED TO CASE U-13891 AND THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN THE TRIGGER
88
ANALYSIS. DO YOU AGREE?
89
A.
No, I do not, and my response to Mr. Bell above is an important case in point. To the
90
extent SBC’s proposals in the hot cut docket increase the likelihood of impairment above
91
and beyond what CLECs have experienced in the past, data related to past deployment
92
(as identified by the triggers) must be evaluated with the new polices in mind (i.e., would
93
those carriers have entered as successfully if they had to face the new obstacles that will
5
Michigan Bell Telephone Company, M.P.S.C No. 20R, Part 19, Section2, 4th Revised Sheet No. 8. SBC,
in response to Joint CLEC request 2.23, confirmed the fact that the existing line connection charge covers
activities constituting a hot cut.
6
See Errata Direct Testimony of Ms. Carol A. Chapman, Case No. U-13891, page 44.
5 of 16
1796
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
94
exist tomorrow?). Likewise, as Ms. Murray points out in her response testimony, even in
95
situations wherein SBC has stated the “triggers” are met (i.e., SBC has identified three
96
carriers serving mass market customers without ULS), there is not a single wire center
97
that contains 3 self-provisioning switch providers, each of which serve a de minimis 1%
98
of the market share.8 Given that the available data proves that very few mass market
99
customers have been acquired without ULS, the scalability and workability (and
100
economics) of the hot cut process must be a critical portion of the impairment finding. If
101
MCI is to serve hundreds of thousands of mass market customers using UNE-L in the
102
near future (were ULS to be removed), the ability of the hot cut process to handle those
103
volumes seamlessly and economically is of utmost importance. Simply put, the
104
scalability of the hot cut process can lead directly to impairment for carriers attempting to
105
serve large numbers of customers, impairment that may not have been as evident for
106
carriers serving relatively low numbers of customers with low volumes of UNE loops.
107
108
Q.
DOES FCC RULE §51.319(d)(2)(ii) REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO
109
IMPLEMENT A HOT CUT PROCESS THAT OVERCOMES ANY OF THE
110
DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH VOLUMES?
111
A.
Rule §51.319(d)(2)(ii) requires the Commission to adopt an improved process that
112
“alleviates” the problems of the existing hot cut processes (i.e., reduces, but does not
113
overcome, many of the problems that exist via today’s processes). Hence, the
114
Commission cannot, and should not, assume that simply because it has adopted an
115
improved hot cut process in Case No. U-13891, any impairment related to hot cuts has
116
been overcome (especially if the process it adopts in Case No. U-13891 does not
7
8
See the Commission’s Order in Case No. U-11735.
Response Testimony of Terry Murray in Case No. U-13796, page. 86.
6 of 16
1797
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
117
substantially automate/mechanize the hot cut process). Indeed, Rule §51.319(d)(2)(ii)
118
establishes a process aimed largely at migrating the existing UNE-P base to UNE-L. If
119
interpreted literally (as SBC appears to interpret it) it says little about improving the hot
120
cut process for the individual lines required to manage a UNE-L platform on a day-to-day
121
basis (i.e., to acquire new customers or deal with the enormous churn that plagues a mass
122
market customer base). Hence, contrary to Mr. Shooshan’s recommendation, the
123
Commission cannot, in this docket, simply ignore hot cut issues and feel comfortable that
124
all such issues will be solved by its decision in Case No. U-13891. That simply isn’t the
125
case. While its decision in Case No. U-13891 will hopefully establish guidelines meant
126
to improve the hot cut process (and MCI has advocated several such improvements), the
127
Commission must recognize that its ability to substantially improve the existing hot cut
128
process to a point where it mimics either the existing UNE-P provisioning process or
129
SBC’s own retail process, in the 9 months allowed by the FCC’s rule, is limited. As
130
such, it must, in this docket, determine whether the improvements made in 9 months are
131
sufficient to overcome the impairment faced by CLECs as they result directly from the
132
inadequate hot cut processes of the past, or, whether additional improvements will be
133
required over time before impairment is overcome (as evidenced by a more robust trigger
134
showing).
135
136
Q.
BACK TO THE ISSUE OF IDLC FOR A MOMENT. DOES THE FACT THAT
137
SBC WILL MOVE FACILITIES FROM IDLC TO COPPER OR UDLC SOLVE
138
THE ISSUE OF IMPAIRMENT AS IT RELATES TO IDLC FACILITIES (EVEN
139
IF IT AGRESS TO DO SO AT NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE)?
140
141
A.
No, it does not. As I explained in detail in my direct testimony, the very process of
moving the loop from an IDLC facility to another technology can have a substantial
7 of 16
1798
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
142
impact on the ability of the CLEC to offer services of comparable quality to those offered
143
using UNE-P (and that SBC enjoys in providing integrated, retail services). In my direct
144
testimony I explained that a customer currently served by MCI using UNE-P could
145
experience substantial quality degradation in its ability to use analog modem or fax
146
services were his/her service to be moved from UNE-P to UNE-L (and an IDLC swap –
147
to either copper or UDLC – was required).9 Likewise, the process of moving the loop
148
from IDLC to another technology substantially increases the likelihood of lost dialtone,
149
poor transmission quality and other factors generally related to poor service.10 In this
150
way, IDLC facilities offer unique challenges in the construct of unbundling, and
151
represent issues that CLECs must consider when evaluating whether to provide services
152
via UNE-L or not (a consideration they were not required to make when providing
153
services via UNE-P because, in that circumstance, they can rely upon the same integrated
154
facilities that SBC uses to provide its own retail services).
155
156
Q.
IN YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY AND HERE, YOU DISCUSS AT LENGTH THE
157
DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH IDLC. DO OTHER TECHNOLOGIES
158
OFFER SIMILAR CHALLENGES?
159
A.
Yes, they do. CLECs experience problems not only with IDLC facilities, but also with
160
Remote Switching Units (“RSUs”) when those RSUs are used for purposes of loop
161
concentration. In those situations, much like IDLC, SBC must provide work-arounds
162
(i.e., moving the loop to either UDLC or copper facilities) as well when a CLEC requests
163
an unbundled loop.
164
9
Direct Testimony of Michael Starkey, Case No. U-13796, pp. 38-40.
Id.
10
8 of 16
1799
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
165
Q.
A LOOP CONCENTRATION DEVICE?
166
167
WHAT IS AN RSU AND WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF USING AN RSU AS
A.
As electronic equipment used to provision outside plant facilities advances, the
168
differences between an advanced digital loop carrier terminal and a remote switching unit
169
narrows. Hence, in some circumstances (particularly with equipment from specific
170
vendors like Lucent and Nortel), carriers can largely configure a remote switching unit to
171
perform like an IDLC unit, with the primary function of the RSU being to aggregate
172
loops in an intermediate wire center (perhaps a very small wire center), and transport
173
those loops back to a host central office for purposes of more complex switching
174
functions. The primary difference between an IDLC and an RSU in this circumstance is
175
that the RSU most likely communicates with the host switch using a different
176
(proprietary) protocol than does an IDLC unit that is likely to communicate using either a
177
TR-008 or GR-303 standard protocol.
178
179
Q.
WHY ARE RSUS IMPORTANT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS TESTIMONY?
180
A.
CLECs also have difficulty receiving unbundled loops in an RSU-concentration situation,
181
similar to the problems experienced with respect to IDLC (because they are almost
182
exactly the same architecture from an unbundling perspective – perhaps even greater
183
difficulty because of the proprietary – non-GR303 - protocol used by most RSUs).
184
Hence, when SBC discusses the limited amount of IDLC it has in its network in an
185
attempt to mitigate the difficulties I’ve discussed, it tells only part of the story. Because
186
the same problems exist with respect to an RSU, the full story would consider the number
187
of loops served via that technology as well.
188
9 of 16
1800
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
189
Q.
AT PAGE 3 OF HIS REPLY TESTIMONY MR. BELL SAYS YOU
190
EXAGGERATE THE IMPACT IDLC HAS ON CLECS IN MICHIGAN. IS HE
191
RIGHT?
192
A.
No. Using information from SBC data request responses (STI-SBC1, STI-SBC25 and
193
MCI 3), we were able to construct a wire center by wire center analysis detailing the
194
percentage of all SBC Michigan working loops currently served by IDLC (I’ve included
195
the analysis as Exhibit __ (MS-3) to this testimony). It appears that of SBC Michigan’s
196
**5,086,038** working loops, **319,325** are currently served via IDLC, a total of
197
**6.3%.** Further, it is important to note that the **5,086,038** active loops identified
198
above includes DS0-equivalents served by higher capacity digital facilities (i.e., DS1s
199
and DS3s), the types of loops the FCC found to be specifically enterprise in nature. If we
200
remove these loops from the analysis, SBC Michigan provides a total of **4,462,560**
201
analog lines (the type used by mass market customers). Hence, when compared to this
202
base, SBC Michigan’s **319,325** IDLC lines represent a total of **7.2%** of mass
203
market customer DS0 loops. It is also clear from the information included in Exhibit __
204
(MS-3) that concerns identified in my direct testimony regarding very high IDLC
205
percentages in certain wire centers were also valid. While SBC Michigan may serve only
206
**6.3%** of its entire loop population with IDLC, in individual wire centers that
207
percentage is as high as **52.91%**, and, it is not rare to find numerous wire centers
208
with percentages in the **30% to 40%** IDLC range (there are**15** wire centers with
209
IDLC percentages greater than 30%).11
210
211
212
Q.
MR. BELL AT PAGE 2 OF HIS TESTIMONY SUGGESTS IDLC MUST NOT BE
AS BIG OF A PROBLEM AS YOU SUGGEST, OR, IN HIS OPINION,
10 of 16
1801
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
213
CARRIERS WOULD HAVE MADE UNBUNDLING PROPOSALS IN THE
214
CHANGE MANAGEMENT FORUM OR THE CLEC USER FORUM. DO YOU
215
AGREE?
216
A.
Again, I’m disappointed with the manner by which Mr. Bell attempts to cloud the issues.
217
Of course carriers haven’t used the CLEC User or Change Management forums to discuss
218
unbundling IDLC or other problems associated with IDLC, because, as I’ve stated
219
numerous times, those problems are overcome with the availability of UNE-P. Hence,
220
because UNE-P has been available in the past (and remains so today), CLECs have an
221
alternative by which to overcome these problems without unbundling the IDLC system.
222
It is only with the advent of the FCC’s TRO and the possibility that UNE-P may no
223
longer be available that these issues are once again taking center stage. Hence, Mr. Bell’s
224
insinuation that these issues must not really be important because we haven’t raised them
225
in the SBC forums, but are instead “red herrings,” is itself the very definition of a red
226
herring.
227
228
Q.
SPEAKING OF RED HERRINGS, HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
229
READ MR. BELL’S DISCUSSION AT PAGE 3 OF HIS TESTIMONY
230
REGARDING IDLC UNBUNDLING, AND HIS NOTION THAT SUCH
231
UNBUNDLING WOULD REQUIRE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW
232
SUBLOOP UNE (AN EFFORT MR. BELL, IN HIS NON-LEGAL OPINION,
233
FINDS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS VENUE).
234
A.
Yes, I’ve read Mr. Bell’s testimony in that regard and I do not agree that unbundling
IDLC in the manner I’ve described would in any way require the development of a new
235
11
See Exhibit __ (MS-3) details for exchange CSVIMIMN.
11 of 16
1802
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
236
subloop UNE. Since Mr. Bell doesn’t give any details as to why he believes such a new
237
UNE would be required, or how it would be constructed, I’m somewhat at a loss as to
238
how to rebut his unsupported notion. Nonetheless, I would simply inform the
239
Commission that it could unbundle SBC’s IDLC facilities using nothing more than the
240
UNEs available upon the FCC’s national list and I’ve provided documentation in my
241
direct testimony as to how that could be accomplished. It is telling that Mr. Bell doesn’t
242
even discuss the individual technical options I present in claiming, without support, that
243
new UNEs would be required.
244
245
Q.
AT PAGE 15 OF HIS TESTIMONY MR. BELL TAKES ISSUE WITH YOUR
246
CONTENTION THAT THE FCC HAS REQUIRED SBC, IN SOME
247
CIRCUMSTANCES, TO UNBUDNLE ITS IDLC SYSTEMS BEYOND SIMPLY
248
MOVING LOOPS TO COPPER OR UDLC. HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
249
A.
Frankly, I’m very surprised at Mr. Bell’s approach to answering this question at page 15
250
and 16 of his testimony. His entire response is a mismatch of excerpts from the
251
paragraph of the TRO he cites (paragraph 297), quoted out of order, out of context and in
252
such a way so as to leave an impression very different from what the paragraph actually
253
states. I’m afraid the convoluted nature of his explanation can only be interpreted as an
254
attempt to muddy the water on the issue, or even worse, an attempt on his part to change
255
the meaning of the paragraph using little more than editing hocus-pocus. To dispel his
256
convoluted attempt, I’ve provided the paragraph below in its entirety, and I’ve simply
257
highlighted those portions that I believe support my previous point – i.e., that the FCC
258
has required SBC to unbundle its IDLC facilities in some circumstances:
259
260
261
297. We recognize that providing unbundled access to hybrid loops served by a
particular type of DLC system, e.g., Integrated DLC systems, may require
incumbent LECs to implement policies, practices, and procedures different from
12 of 16
1803
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
those used to provide access to loops served by Universal DLC systems. These
differences stem from the nature and design of Integrated DLC architecture.
Specifically, because the Integrated DLC system is integrated directly into the
switches of incumbent LECs (either directly or through another type of network
equipment known as a “cross-connect”) and because incumbent LEC’s typically
use concentration as a practice for engineering traffic on their networks, a onefor-one transmission path between an incumbent’s central office and the
customer premises may not exist at all times. Even still, we require incumbent
LECs to provide requesting carriers access to a transmission path over hybrid
loops served by Integrated DLC systems. We recognize that in most cases this
will be either through a spare copper facility or through the availability of
Universal DLC systems. Nonetheless even if neither of these options is
available, incumbent LECs must present requesting carriers a technically
feasible method of unbundled access.
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
Relying upon the last portion of the paragraph above (highlighted), in my direct
278
testimony I informed the Commission that the FCC had required SBC Michigan, in some
279
circumstances (i.e., when no spare copper or UDLC is available), to provide a technically
280
feasible manner by which carriers can access those IDLC facilities. In response to that
281
obligation, I provided the Commission with Telcordia documentation which provides a
282
number of such technically feasible alternatives (I would add that these are the same
283
alternatives referenced by the FCC in footnote 852 from paragraph 297 above). From
284
Mr. Bell’s testimony we now know that at least 185,000 SBC Michigan loops fall into
285
this category wherein no spare copper or UDLC facilities exist. And, while SBC
286
Michigan has said it will continue to provide UNE-P for those loops, I would ponder
287
whether such an offer is consistent with the language above which requires that SBC
288
Michigan instead, offer a technically feasible manner by which those facilities can be
289
unbundled, which would, in my understanding, mean that those facilities would need to
290
be available as individual UNEs (i.e., loops) as well as in any combination (i.e., UNE-P).
291
292
293
Q.
AT PAGE 7 OF HIS TESTIMONY MR. BELL SAYS YOU ARE SIMPLY
“WRONG” BY SUGGESTING THAT CLECS MAY NEED TO DISPATCH A
13 of 16
1804
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
294
TECHNICIAN TO THE CUSTOMER’S PREMISES AFTER A LINE AND
295
STATION TRANSFER. PLEASE RESPOND.
296
A.
Again, Mr. Bell simply provides his opinion that I’m wrong, he provides no basis for
297
saying I’m wrong and that makes it very difficult for me to respond. I could take Mr.
298
Bell’s tack and simply say, “no, Mr. Bell is wrong” but that would provide the
299
Commission with little additional evidence (as does Mr. Bell’s testimony). Hence, I will
300
try to provide a little more explanation than does Mr. Bell. The fact of the matter is,
301
anytime SBC changes the facility serving a customer’s premises, the likelihood that a
302
technician will need to be dispatched to the customer’s premise to ensure the new facility
303
is properly connected at the NID or to inside wire and/or other customer premises
304
equipment is dramatically increased. I have been directly involved with clients who
305
spend millions of dollars dispatching their technicians to their customers’ premises when
306
SBC provisions a new unbundled loop (as opposed to simply re-using the loop serving
307
the customers SBC-retail service). This is the scenario that will occur when SBC moves
308
a customer from an IDLC loop to a different loop (i.e., the customer will be served using
309
a new loop). These dispatches are not at all rare, and are extremely expensive and
310
customer impacting.
311
312
Q.
AT PAGE 11 OF HIS TESTIMONY MR. BELL SAYS THAT SBC DOES NOT
313
INTENTIONALLY MOVE CLECS FROM FIBER TO COPPER FACILITIES,
314
AND HENCE, YOUR REASONING REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
315
TWO NETWORKS (COPPER/WHOLESALE AND FIBER/RETAIL) IS
316
FLAWED. PLEASE RESPOND.
14 of 16
1805
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
317
A.
To this point in his testimony Mr. Bell has time and again pointed to SBC’s intention to
318
move loops from fiber-fed IDLC facilities to either UDLC or 100% copper facilities
319
when a CLEC requests unbundled access to an IDLC loop. It therefore amazes me when
320
he suggests that SBC does not intend to intentionally move competitors from fiber to
321
copper loops. SBC clearly does intend to do just that.
322
323
Q.
MR. BELL SAYS THAT LFACS APPLIES SOPHISTICATED ALGORITHMS IN
324
ASSIGNING LOOP PLANT AND CLECS AND SBC’S RETAIL SERVICES ARE
325
ASSIGNED LOOPS THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS. IS THAT TRUE?
326
A.
It might be true, however, it isn’t relevant to this issue because it is only relevant when a
327
new loop is ordered, not when a customer with an existing loop is won by a CLEC who
328
now wishes to purchase the loop as an unbundled loop (the vast, vast majority of
329
circumstances). In this most prevalent of circumstances, if the customer’s existing retail
330
loop is served by fiber-fed IDLC, SBC will provide the CLEC access to that customer by
331
intentionally moving the customer’s loop from the fiber facility to an all copper facility if
332
one exists (or potentially a UDLC facility). Hence, how Mr. Bell can say under oath that
333
SBC does not intentionally move CLEC loops from fiber to copper is beyond me.
334
335
Q.
AT PAGE 18 OF HIS REPLY TESTIMONY MR. LUBE IS CRITICAL OF MS.
336
MURRAY’S ANALYSIS. HE SUGGESTS THAT SHE FAILS TO CONSIDER
337
THE LIKELIHOOD THAT EELS COULD BE USED TO SUBSTANTIALLY
338
REDUCE CLEC COLLOCATION COSTS. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT?
339
340
A.
This is another area wherein SBC’s position taken in the hot cut docket (U-13891) must
be considered in this docket as well. SBC in the hot cut docket has stated that revising its
15 of 16
1806
PUBLIC VERSION - Rebuttal Testimony of
Michael Starkey
Case No. U-13796
341
hot cut processes to accommodate EEL requests would be too complex and would require
342
too much time to implement, and hence, SBC has stated that it does not intend to revise
343
its processes so as to accommodate a request for a hot cut to an EEL. Without the ability
344
to use a hot cut to transition a customer onto an EEL, EELs provide little value in serving
345
the mass market. Indeed, the operational impairment identified by the FCC relative to
346
hot cuts is exacerbated with respect to EELs because a CLEC simply has no hot cut
347
process at all to use (neither the less effective existing process nor the improved process).
348
For this reason, Mr. Lube’s hypothetical musings about EELs and their ability to reduce
349
CLEC collocation costs is little more than rhetoric unsupported by SBC’s own positions.
350
It seems obvious that SBC has no intention of providing an EEL arrangement that can be
351
used effectively to serve mass market customers.
352
353
Q.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
354
A.
Yes, it does.
16 of 16
1807
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
(The transcript continues on page 1808 of
the confidential record.)
- - -
1826
1
(The transcript continues following page
2
1825 of the confidential record.)
3
- - -
4
JUDGE RIGAS:
5
MR. REIDY:
6
JUDGE RIGAS:
7
MR. FIELD:
8
JUDGE RIGAS:
9
MR. LOWE:
Mr. Reidy, any questions?
No, your Honor.
Mr. Field?
No, your Honor.
Mr. Lowe?
No, your Honor.
10
JUDGE RIGAS:
Mr. Kelly?
11
MR. KELLY:
12
JUDGE RIGAS:
13
MR. HUGHEY:
14
JUDGE RIGAS:
15
MR. MOODY:
16
JUDGE RIGAS:
17
MR. LIVINGSTON:
No, your Honor.
Mr. Hughey?
No, your Honor.
Mr. Moody?
No, your Honor.
Mr. Livingston?
Yes, your Honor.
18
- - -
19
CROSS-EXAMINATION
20
BY MR. LIVINGSTON:
21
Q
Good afternoon, Mr. Starkey.
22
A
Good afternoon, Mr. Livingston.
23
Q
I'd like to take each piece of testimony in turn, so we're
24
just going to finish up with the direct and then we'll go
25
into the rebuttal.
1827
1
A
O.K.
2
Q
I notice that your direct is entitled "Operational
3
Impairment" on the first page.
4
December 19, 2003 testimony.
I'm referring to your
5
A
That's correct.
6
Q
And that's what you address in this testimony, operational
7
8
impairment?
A
9
I think generally that's a fair characterization.
I tried
to address a number of issues, many of them relating to
10
operational impairment and many of them touching on other
11
things as well.
12
Q
13
I'd like to direct your attention to page 4 of your direct
testimony.
14
Before I ask you anything about that, you
15
understand that SBC Michigan is relying solely on the
16
self-provisioning trigger test in the mass market
17
switching phase of this case?
18
A
That's my understanding.
19
Q
And there's a question that begins at line 75 and an
20
answer to that question that runs over to the top of page
21
5.
Do you have that?
22
A
Yes.
23
Q
And in broad strokes, is this Q and A attempting to show
24
why your operational impairment testimony is pertinent to
25
a triggers case?
1828
1
A
That is one of the things it discusses, yes.
2
Q
And there's a sentence down at the bottom of page 4 that
3
begins there and runs over to the top of page 5 that
4
begins, "Nonetheless, to qualify as a legitimate trigger,"
5
do you see that?
6
begins on page 4.
Looking at line 88 I believe is where it
7
A
Yes, I see that sentence.
8
Q
To qualify as a legitimate trigger, and then you go on to
9
state several things.
And for what you say in that
10
sentence, you rely on two TRO paragraphs, Triennial Review
11
order paragraphs, paragraph 500 and paragraph 499; is that
12
right?
13
A
The sentence you have just read to me has two footnotes,
14
both of which reference paragraph 500 and paragraph 499,
15
that's correct.
16
Q
Specifically the first thing you say is that the carrier
17
would be required to overcome these obstacles on a going-
18
forward basis, and then you have Footnote 4?
19
A
Yes.
20
Q
And by obstacles you're talking about operational
21
obstacles or barriers; is that fair?
22
A
Yes.
23
Q
And you cite there to paragraph 500; is that right?
24
A
That's correct.
25
Q
Do you have a copy of the TRO handy?
1829
1
A
I do.
2
Q
Could we refer, please, to paragraph 500?
3
A
Sure.
4
Q
O.K.
5
A
Yes, I do.
6
Q
That's the last sentence in paragraph 500?
7
A
That's correct.
8
Q
And the opening sentence in that paragraph reads, "For
9
I'm there.
You quote a sentence in Footnote 4, correct?
purpose of these triggers we find that states shall not
10
evaluate any other factors, such as the financial
11
stability or well-being of the competitive switching
12
providers," correct?
13
A
You read that correctly.
14
Q
O.K.
15
16
And the FCC really doesn't discuss operational
impairment in that paragraph 500, does it?
A
Actually, I think it does.
I think it does to the extent
17
to which I have quoted it in Footnote 4 on page 5 of my
18
testimony, that it places an obligation -- in fact it
19
calls it a key consideration -- that not only must they be
20
providing service there today, but they be able to
21
continue to do so.
22
Q
23
And after "are likely to continue to do so" there is
another footnote sign, 1556?
24
A
Yes.
25
Q
Could you read into the record what 1556 says?
1830
1
A
"For instance, states should review whether the
2
competitive switching provider has filed a notice to
3
terminate service in that market."
4
Q
And then in your sentence back in the text of your
5
testimony, the next thing you say is "perhaps to overcome
6
them."
7
impairments or operational obstacles or barriers?
And by "them" are we talking about operational
8
A
The term I use is obstacles, yes.
9
Q
To overcome them in areas of the market wherein it does
10
not currently offer services, and then you have a Footnote
11
5.
12
499, correct?
Then Footnote 5 is a reference to the TRO paragraph
13
A
That's correct.
14
Q
And then you quote two sentences from 499?
15
A
That's correct.
16
Q
Are you aware that in September, the middle of September
17
of 2003, the FCC issued an errata?
18
A
Yes.
19
Q
Are you aware that in that errata paragraph 499 was
20
altered?
21
A
Yes.
22
Q
And are you aware that these sentences were removed?
23
A
I am.
24
Q
And by virtue of being removed, they're no longer part of
25
the TRO?
1831
1
A
Those two sentences are not.
I don't believe that the
2
concept that I ascribe there was removed from the meaning
3
of the language.
4
Q
I'd like to direct your attention to page 32.
I'd like to
5
direct your attention to the sentence that begins at line
6
740.
Have you found that?
7
A
Yes.
8
Q
"It is MCI's position that the FCC's TRO, and its obvious
9
inclination away from a UNE-P structure toward a UNE-L
10
structure, represents a major policy shift that has the
11
potential to dramatically alter the competitive
12
landscape."
Have I read that correctly?
13
A
Yes.
14
Q
And that's your view?
15
A
Are you asking me if I agree with what I've stated there
16
Is that your belief?
is MCI's position?
17
Q
Well, it's MCI's position, correct?
18
A
That's what it says there, yes.
19
Q
That's an accurate statement of MCI's position?
20
A
I believe it is, yes.
21
Q
Do you share that belief?
22
A
I share the belief that changing from UNE-P to UNE-L would
23
24
25
represent a major policy shift, yes.
Q
Do you also believe that the TRO evinces an obvious
inclination away from a UNE-P structure to a UNE-L
1832
1
2
structure?
A
I think, taken in context, the full sentence I agree with,
3
where basically it says that it would be a large policy
4
shift to move UNE-P to UNE-L, and that shift would have a
5
dramatic -- potential to dramatically alter the
6
competitive landscape, yes, I agree with that.
7
Q
The next sentence reads, "Notably, the FCC's almost blind
8
reliance on UNE-L and its ability to replace UNE-P as a
9
mass market service delivery tool requires a true change
10
in the underlying network paradigm."
11
correctly?
Did I read that
12
A
You did.
13
Q
So it's MCI's position that the FCC has evinced almost
14
15
blind reliance on UNE-L?
A
Well, you'll note I didn't put it is MCI's position at the
16
beginning of that sentence.
17
sentences.
18
I wrote both of these
I don't know the extent to which MCI would
19
necessarily agree with my exact wording there.
But
20
certainly I believe that in reading the TRO the FCC puts
21
an enormous amount of faith in the UNE-L structure that
22
is, to some extent in my mind, unwarranted, given the very
23
low volumes that's supported today and the very high
24
volumes it would have to support were UNE-P to go away and
25
we were all to migrate.
1833
1
Q
I'd like to direct your attention to page 37, and
2
specifically to the sentence that appears at lines 885
3
through 888.
4
A
For some reason I'm not sure, your line numbers are not
5
right.
6
just let me know so we can have a start of a sentence or
7
something.
8
Q
9
I think they're pretty close.
But if you could
I'm looking at a sentence that says, "For bundled
services, IDLC allows local loops to be connected ..."
10
A
O.K.
11
Q
"... to a digital circuit switch more efficiently and
12
I'm with you.
cost-effectively."
13
A
Yes.
14
Q
And you go on to say you're comparing it to UDLC; is that
15
16
right?
A
17
18
Yes.
I'm drawing a comparison there between IDLC and
UDLC.
Q
You're intending to convey what you see as the benefits of
19
IDLC, or at least some of the benefits of IDLC vis-a-vis
20
UDLC and copper loops; is that a fair statement?
21
A
That's part of what I'm trying to convey.
The other thing
22
I'm trying to convey is that the benefits of IDLC, under
23
the way SBC currently manages it and allows access to it
24
by CLECs, benefits only SBC or CLECs using UNE-P.
25
same benefits do not accrue to UNE-L providers.
Those
1834
1
Q
And you say it's more efficient and more cost-effective
2
because it requires neither an analog conversion in the
3
central office nor the AIU line card at the switch, nor
4
manual MDF wiring, correct?
5
A
That's correct.
6
Q
Is manual MDF wiring required for home run copper?
7
A
Yes.
8
Q
Is manual MDF wiring required for UDLC?
9
A
I think the way I would have to answer that, to be
10
absolutely correct -- it's certainly the way SBC employs
11
it -- it is.
12
Q
O.K.
I'd like to direct your attention up to page 42.
At
13
the top of the page you talk about operational
14
difficulties, and I think these are operational
15
difficulties associated with the hot cut process; is that
16
right?
17
A
18
19
paragraph.
Q
20
21
Do me a favor and give me the question that begins that
"If hot cuts could be accomplished in a relatively timely
and low-cost fashion."
A
22
I'm sorry, I'm with you now.
Can you restate the
question?
23
Q
O.K.
24
A
It is, but it's at the very bottom of the page, 996 for
25
me.
What line is that on?
Is that on page 42?
1835
1
Q
Your answer starts on 996 in my version.
2
A
I apologize.
3
4
I think I printed the Word version as
opposed to the PDF.
Q
O.K.
I apologize.
I'm looking at the answer.
You're talking about
5
operational difficulties associated with the hot cut
6
process being overcome by requiring ILECs to unbundle IDLC
7
on a digital basis?
8
A
Yes.
9
Q
Are you recommending that the Commission require SBC to
10
11
unbundle IDLC on a digital basis in this proceeding?
A
Not specifically.
I think the way I would describe this
12
portion of my testimony and what I hopefully say there,
13
it's my understanding that Ms. Murray on MCI's behalf, and
14
others on behalf of other CLECs, have found that
15
impairment still exists given the trigger analysis in
16
Michigan.
17
A portion of this testimony is in part
18
meant to describe for the Commission why that is likely to
19
be the case, why the data in the marketplace shows that
20
we're impaired.
21
overcome that impairment if we were to decide that those
22
obstacles should be removed.
23
And it provides ways in which we could
One of those ways is to unbundle IDLC.
24
The other way is to maintain UNE-P, because you get to the
25
same point, in large extent, which is you overcome these
1836
1
2
operational barriers.
Q
3
If I understand it, to cut to the chase, as we kind of put
it between ourselves in the past --
4
A
A worthwhile objective.
5
Q
-- if IDLC facilities are unbundled on a digital basis,
6
then a manual cut process is not required; is that right?
7
A
That's fair, yes.
8
Q
But if you did that, you'd still need a manual cut process
9
10
for home run copper and UDLC.
A
Do you agree?
If that were the only thing you did.
Our testimony also
11
talks about other types of technology that can automate
12
the pure copper environment as well.
13
Q
14
15
Well, what you talk about here at page 42, 43, 44, and 45
is focused solely on IDLC; is that right?
A
That's right, because IDLC generates not only the manual
16
hot cut problem, it generates other problems as well.
17
by overcoming that you not only overcome the manual hot
18
cut process and the problems involved, you also overcome
19
those other obstacles which in part are the need to do the
20
hot cut at the remote terminal, which is more expensive
21
and more time-consuming and more prone to error.
22
Q
So
Now am I right, though, that here at pages 42, 43, 44, and
23
45 you are describing at least two methods by which IDLC
24
could be, in your view, unbundled on a digital basis?
25
A
That's fair.
1837
1
Q
And you describe two methods there; is that right?
2
A
That's what I was looking at.
3
Q
Why don't we take a look at page 43.
4
A
O.K.
5
Q
There's a question that says, "Please describe those
6
I think I described --
methods."
7
A
O.K.
8
Q
And then there's a paragraph that contains a description.
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
And a diagram or a picture.
11
A
Yes.
12
Q
And the source is indicated as an August 11, 1999
13
Telcordia Symposium?
14
A
Yes.
15
Q
So that's one method, right?
16
A
Yes.
17
That's what I would describe as the virtual
interface group method.
18
Q
That's how you describe that?
19
A
Virtual interface group method, VIG.
20
Q
That's something that Telcordia was talking about in
21
22
August of 1999?
A
They also describe it in more recent web documents.
23
just happened to have a nice picture of it in the
24
Symposium binder, so that's why I put that in there.
25
Q
They
Now, then you go on on the next page to answer your own
1838
1
question:
2
right?
"Do other methods of unbundling IDLC exist,"
3
A
That's yes.
4
Q
Then you set out another method?
5
A
Yes.
6
Q
Is there a label that you put on that other method?
7
A
I'd call this side door porting or side door grooming.
8
They're really two flavors here that are sort of described
9
in the tabbed paragraph that follows the picture, Figure
10
1236.
11
connect system -- and then also without.
12
consider that two different methods, I'm not sure.
13
Q
They describe with a DCS -- digital system crossYou might
So what you describe here on 44, the first paragraph, the
14
first paragraph of your answer to other methods of
15
unbundling IDLC exist, is that side door grooming?
16
A
Yes.
I think that's fair.
17
Q
And the second one or the second part of that same answer
18
that has the single-space quotations, that's describing
19
digital cross-connect system?
20
A
It describes how you could use a digital cross-connect
21
system with a side door grooming to increase the
22
functionality.
23
Q
That's really two methods?
24
A
I think that's probably fair because it increases the
25
functionality to such an extent that it probably is fair
1839
1
to call it a different method.
2
Q
Have you heard of a method called multiple switch hosting?
3
A
Yes, I have.
4
Q
Does that have any relationship to what you're talking
5
6
about in these pages?
A
7
8
Q
Have you heard the term "integrated network architecture"
as relating to a method of unbundling IDLC?
A
11
12
It is comparable to the virtual interface group
method.
9
10
Yes.
Perhaps, but that one doesn't -- I don't know how I'd fit
that one in the description we just talked about.
Q
13
Now with respect to multiple switch hosting or VIG, is it
true that that requires GR303?
14
A
It does in large part, I think, yes.
15
Q
And is it true that it only accommodates a few
16
17
competitors?
A
Not necessarily.
The discussion -- and it was largely
18
raised by Telcordia early on -- was that certain of the
19
software and certain vendors, their equipment could only
20
accommodate so many virtual interface groups from the
21
remote terminal back to the central office.
22
Each virtual interface group is
23
identifiable.
You can identify individual loops within
24
the interface group such that if an interface group is
25
assigned a certain CLEC there would be a finite number of
1840
1
CLECs that could access that remote terminal on an
2
unbundled basis.
3
largely a software constraint issue that I think in our
4
opinion could be overcome, given the proper incentive.
5
Q
6
7
So while those are finite, that's
Now with respect to side door grooming, is it true that
that can be done for only a few lines per remote terminal?
A
No, I don't believe so.
The side door grooming should not
8
be constrained at the remote terminal level.
9
be able to accommodate any number of loops identified
10
originally at the remote terminal through a side door
11
grooming.
12
Q
13
14
You should
With respect to digital cross-connect system, is it true
that those are very expensive?
A
Well, expensive is a relative term.
SBC employs digital
15
cross-connect systems today in its network.
16
normally large pieces of equipment that you pay a lot of
17
money for, but they accommodate a lot of circuits.
18
a per-unit basis, they're not that awfully expensive.
19
They're
So on
In fact, in some cases you can get DCS
20
functionality at a lesser per-unit cost than you can wire
21
a copper main distribution frame connection.
22
MR. LIVINGSTON:
Your Honor, I'd like to
23
mark as an exhibit an excerpt from the UNE remand order,
24
the Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of
25
Proposed Rulemaking in FCC Docket 96-98.
That was adopted
1841
1
September 15 of '99 and released November 5 of '99.
2
JUDGE RIGAS:
3
A-145.
This will be
Off the record.
4
(The document was marked Exhibit A-145 by
5
the reporter.)
6
7
All right.
JUDGE RIGAS:
Q
(By Mr. Livingston)
Back on the record.
Do you have what I've marked or what
8
the court reporter has marked as Exhibit A-145 for
9
identification?
10
A
Yes, I do.
11
Q
Do you recognize this as an excerpt from the UNE remand
12
order, all caps U-N-E?
13
A
I'll take your word for that.
14
Q
And I'd like to direct your attention to the pages with 99
15
and 100 at the bottom.
16
A
O.K.
17
Q
And specifically paragraph 217, and in paragraph 217,
18
Footnote 417.
19
A
O.K.
20
Q
And in broad strokes, the FCC here is discussing the need
21
for unbundled sub loops to serve subscribers currently
22
served by IDLC loops?
23
A
Yes.
24
Q
And the FCC is talking about difficulties associated with
25
unbundling IDLC facilities; is that right?
1842
1
A
Yes.
2
Q
And in Footnote 417 the FCC addresses some of the methods
3
that have been put forward as to how IDLC might be
4
unbundled?
5
A
That's fair.
6
Q
And they talk about multiple switch hosting; is that
7
8
right?
A
9
10
Yes, they mention four specific options, the first of
which is multiple switch hosting.
Q
11
And you told me that that's the same thing as your first
method here, VIG?
12
A
Yes.
13
Q
And it also talks about digital cross-connect grooming and
14
You could use those two and interchange them.
side door grooming.
15
A
It does.
16
Q
And those are the two methods that are subsumed in the
17
second answer in your testimony?
18
A
Yes.
19
Q
I'd like to direct your attention now to page 46 of your
20
testimony, and you'll have to bear with me.
21
at a question that says "Are there complexities associated
22
with unbundling IDLC in the fashion you've described
23
above?"
24
A
I see that.
25
Q
That's at line 1090 in my version.
I'm looking
1843
1
A
O.K.
2
Q
And then you answer that "Yes, there are."
3
A
Yes.
4
Q
And then skipping down a few lines, there's a sentence
Is that right?
5
that reads:
"Below I list a number of the obstacles that
6
must be overcome on the road to efficiently unbundle IDLC
7
for purposes of removing impairment," and then you list in
8
single-spaced fashion, what, four obstacles; is that
9
right?
10
A
That's correct.
11
Q
And then continuing on to the next question, you
12
preference the question with a sentence that reads:
13
"These obstacles are somewhat daunting," is that right?
14
A
Yes, I do.
15
Q
And I'd like to direct your attention to page 50, and if
16
you look -- oh, I don't know, this may be on page 51 of
17
yours.
18
availability of copper facilities the only issue?"
I'm looking at a question that says "Is the
19
A
I'm with you.
20
Q
You got it?
21
A
Yes.
22
Q
And then you say, "No."
And then you say, "One of the
23
most disturbing consequences of the FCC's TRO is that it
24
realistically establishes two separate networks."
25
read that correctly?
Did I
1844
1
A
Yes.
2
Q
Are there other disturbing consequences of the FCC's TRO?
3
A
Yes.
4
Q
What are those?
5
A
I'll try to be concise.
6
In my mind the disturbing consequences of
7
the TRO -- potential -- well, let me say it this way:
8
There are potential disturbing consequences of the TRO if
9
implemented incorrectly by state commissions.
One of
10
those would be the extent to which state commissions
11
define the markets too broadly such that areas wherein
12
actual deployment was not being undertaken, a finding of
13
no impairment was reached such that UNE-P would go away in
14
those central offices.
15
In that circumstance, as I think I've
16
described in my testimony, MCI and other CLECs may have
17
tens of thousand of UNE-P customers to which there's no
18
group whatsoever that UNE-L is a workable alternative in
19
those areas.
20
alternatives are certainly in danger in those areas.
21
So those customers and their competitive
Any time you talk about taking a
22
competitive alternative away from a customer, I think
23
that's a move in the wrong direction, and I think if state
24
commissions don't apply the TRO correctly, that certainly
25
is the potential.
1845
1
I think there are a number of others,
2
which would include a lack on the FCC's part in my mind,
3
and again unless the commissions apply it correctly, of
4
understanding the obstacles of providing a UNE-L network,
5
especially at the volume and scale to which UNE-P
6
currently exists today.
7
To the extent, I think, as Ms. Murray has
8
described, in some of these central offices where SBC says
9
the trigger is met, there are less than 1 percent of the
10
customers served by competitors there.
11
take all of the UNE-P lines in that central office and
12
turn them over to UNE-L, even in the 27-month transitional
13
time frame that's been provided by the FCC, I don't have
14
any confidence whatsoever that the logistics of
15
provisioning those loops, the logistics of the traffic
16
pattern movement from the shared transport network all
17
through the tandem, that any of that has been looked at in
18
detail enough to support that kind of mass migration.
19
That's just a couple.
20
Q
If you were to
There are others.
Now, when you say one of the most disturbing consequences,
21
you don't say if states don't apply the TRO correctly.
22
Those words don't appear, "if the states don't apply it
23
correctly."
24
25
A
They don't appear in the sentence, correct?
As I understand the TRO, it is only a mechanism by which
states apply certain rules.
So I assumed it was implicit.
1846
1
Q
Now, your first disturbing consequence that you talked
2
about was defining markets too broadly.
3
about the geographical market in the mass market switching
4
case?
5
A
6
7
Are you talking
Both the geographic market and also what you might call
the customer or product market.
Q
So if we're just talking about the geographic market, too
8
broadly means too big an area, is that what you were
9
referring to?
10
A
Generally, yes.
11
Q
I'd like to direct your attention up to page 60, and I
12
think what you talk about here in part is, I believe, the
13
interplay as you view it between unbundling decisions with
14
respect to transport and the impairment analysis in the
15
mass market switching case?
16
A
Yes, generally that's true.
17
Q
And if you look over on page 60, and in my copy it starts
18
at line 1439, you're talking about MCI identifying some
19
actions that state commissions should undertake with
20
respect to transport?
21
A
Yes.
22
Q
And then you list two things in indented single-spaced
23
paragraphs?
24
A
Yes.
25
Q
No. 1 and No. 2.
And about midway through No. 1 you say:
1847
1
"In other words, if the ILEC insists a carrier providing
2
UNE-L service in a given area should constitute a mass
3
market switching trigger," then the commission should go
4
ahead and take a close look at whether the ILEC is
5
attempting at the same time to get transport that's used
6
by that trigger delisted.
7
pretty accurate?
8
A
That's a fair reading.
9
Q
O.K.
10
I paraphrased, but is that
Now, assume with me that we have a CLEC who serves
mass market customers using its own switch.
11
A
O.K.
12
Q
And assume that that CLEC satisfies the self-provision
13
trigger.
But assume also that SBC is trying to have the
14
DS1 and DS3 transport that that CLEC uses delisted.
15
you have those assumptions in mind?
Do
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
What do you propose that the Commission do?
18
A
I think it has to consider a problem, and that problem is
19
this:
The triggers analysis, at least in my mind, and
20
certainly Ms. Murray is more apt at applying those in this
21
case than I am, but my understanding of the trigger
22
analysis is that it's meant to measure actual deployment:
23
what characteristics, if you will, in the marketplace, and
24
where if those characteristics allowed UNE-L competition
25
to exist, O.K., and that encompasses and because it's
1848
1
actual deployment and the reason in my mind the FCC used
2
an actual deployment measure was because it thought that
3
would show it where these obstacles had been overcome.
4
If you identify a trigger and then you
5
change the characteristics by which that trigger must
6
participate in the market -- for example, this CLEC who
7
has purchased unbundled transport from SBC at TELRIC-based
8
rates -- if under those circumstances it was able to enter
9
in that market, you count them as a trigger and then you
10
remove those characteristics, I would suggest that your
11
actual deployment analysis tells you nothing because you
12
must redo it to determine whether it could enter under
13
those new characteristics, i.e., if it had to buy
14
transport at some market-based rate substantially above
15
TELRIC, would it still enter.
16
answer to that at that point in time and I think it's an
17
important question to be answered.
I don't think you know the
18
So in my mind if the Commission were to
19
identify a situation where SBC has identified a trigger
20
and SBC is also suggesting that transport should be
21
removed from the route, if you will, where that trigger
22
uses its transport, that it has to put a closer eye to
23
that particular trigger and it has to ask itself the
24
question to which I don't know it could find an answer,
25
which is would that carrier have still entered and would
1849
1
it be able to sustain entry at these different set of
2
circumstances.
3
Q
4
5
So whether the CLEC qualifies as a trigger or not might
depend on whether UNE transport remains available or not?
A
There is interplay, absolutely.
As I think I have
6
mentioned earlier, one of the key considerations is
7
whether the carrier will be able to continue to provide
8
the service that's been classified as its trigger.
9
extent the circumstances change, i.e., a situation where
To the
10
it can no longer get transport at TELRIC rates but it must
11
pay a higher rate or a market-based rate, or it may not
12
even have access to sufficient transport, then absolutely,
13
the Commission must consider whether it can continue to
14
provide that service and whether it should qualify as a
15
legitimate trigger.
16
Q
So you're suggesting the Commission do something like
17
this:
18
wait and see what we do in the transport case, and if we
19
decide the transport case, there's no impairment on the
20
transport route, we might change our mind?
21
A
O.K., this is a trigger, it qualifies, but let's
My understanding is all those issues are being decided at
22
the same time; that this Commission will render a decision
23
about whether somebody is an appropriate trigger and/or
24
the extent to which a certain route will maintain the
25
ability to get transport at TELRIC rates.
1850
1
So I don't think it's that two-step
2
process, I think it's a one-step process.
3
trigger, do we have faith that when we apply the FCC's key
4
consideration as to whether they'll be able to continue to
5
provide the service, do we think they will or not.
6
Q
7
Here's a
I'd like to direct your attention to your rebuttal
testimony.
8
MR. ANDERSON:
9
Mr. Starkey, can I give you
a copy of the printed-out one?
10
THE WITNESS:
11
MR. ANDERSON:
12
Thank you very much.
It might be easier to
follow.
13
THE WITNESS:
I appreciate that.
14
Q
(By Mr. Livingston)
15
A
Thank you.
16
Q
Page 5, there's a question that starts at line 85.
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
We're referring to your March 5 testimony, correct?
19
A
Yes.
20
Q
O.K.
21
This will be very quick.
And you refer there to something that Mr. Shooshan
said in his testimony?
22
A
Yes.
23
Q
And basically he said that issues related to hot cuts
24
should be limited to Case U-1381 and they have no place
25
here, right?
1851
1
MR. DENNISTON:
2
misquoted the case number.
3
He
It's 13891.
MR. LIVINGSTON:
4
Objection, your Honor.
O.K.
You could correct
me without objecting.
5
(Laughter)
6
MR. DENNISTON:
7
I have to get one
objection.
8
Q
(By Mr. Livingston)
9
A
With that correction, yes, I agree.
10
Q
And you asked yourself do you agree, and you say, "No, I
11
I meant Case 13891.
do not."
12
A
Yes, I say that, and then I go on.
13
Q
And then you go on.
And you go on to the next page, page
14
6.
At line 100 through 103 you say:
"If MCI is to serve
15
hundreds of thousands of mass market customers using UNE-L
16
in the near future (were ULS to be removed), the ability
17
of the hot cut process to handle those volumes seamlessly
18
and economically is of utmost importance."
19
that correctly?
Did I read
20
A
Yes, you did.
21
Q
Have you determined what volumes the process will need to
22
handle if your ULS is no longer available?
23
A
Yes.
24
Q
How did you do that?
25
A
I did it in U-13891, and I used a model that you and I
1852
1
discussed in California.
2
Q
This is a model developed by QSI?
3
A
That's correct.
4
Q
And that model is intended to show what kind of hot cut
5
volumes we can anticipate if mass market switching is no
6
longer available as a UNE?
7
A
Yes.
8
Q
Could we take a quick look at that?
9
exhibit as an exhibit, what I think are some summary pages
10
11
from that model.
A
I don't have it with me.
12
MR. LIVINGSTON:
13
JUDGE RIGAS:
14
A-146.
I do.
All right.
This will be
We'll go off the record.
15
(The document was marked Exhibit A-146 by
16
the reporter.)
17
18
I'd like to mark this
JUDGE RIGAS:
Q
19
(By Mr. Livingston)
We'll go back on the record.
Do you have what I have marked as
A-146 for identification?
20
A
Yes.
21
Q
And is this summary sheets depicting the calculation that
22
you just referred to and the results of the model that you
23
just referred to?
24
25
A
Yes.
These appear to be excerpts from the model which I
included as an attachment to my testimony in that docket.
1853
1
Q
2
And the one we talked about earlier was for California and
this is Michigan-specific, correct?
3
A
That's correct.
4
Q
And is it SBC Michigan-specific?
5
A
I'd have to go back and look.
I don't know for sure.
6
Because if you go to page 2, the model generally runs off
7
a total.
8
based lines.
9
me there is a total of 1.2 million UNE-P-based lines.
One of the inputs is the total number of UNE-PAnd on page 2 of the exhibit you just handed
10
don't know the extent to which that's SBC-specific.
11
assuming it is but I just don't know off the top of my
12
head.
13
Q
O.K.
I'm
I mean if you look at the second page, you're
14
talking about total incremental hot cut demand for SBC
15
Michigan, right?
16
A
Yes.
I
I'm just trying to remember whether that 1.2 --
17
generally 1.2 million, it says it came from SBC Michigan,
18
so I'm assuming that's SBC Michigan.
19
Q
O.K.
Just in broad strokes so that we can understand the
20
exhibit, if you look at the first column, you have numbers
21
running from 1 to 33?
22
A
Are we on page 3 now?
23
Q
We're on the very last page.
24
A
O.K.
25
Q
And this is the only page we're going to concern ourselves
1854
1
with.
2
A
O.K.
3
Q
Am I right?
4
A
There are numbers ranging from 1 to 33, yes.
5
Q
And those are intended to be the months following the
6
hypothetical non-impairment decision in July of 2004,
7
correct?
8
A
9
Those 33 months generally take you
through the transition period envisioned by the FCC's
10
11
That's correct.
order.
Q
That being that for five months new UNE-P customers could
12
be added, and then over the next so many months the UNE-P
13
had to be phased out and the embedded base had to be
14
migrated to UNE-L?
15
A
16
17
That's right.
In 27 months that process had to be
completed.
Q
And what you basically assumed here is that on a net
18
basis, whether it's UNE-P or UNE-L, on a monthly basis the
19
CLECs as a whole were going to garner between 30 and
20
31,000 customers a month.
21
A
22
23
Yes, that's fair enough.
I'm looking at column F.
We assumed a constant-state
growth as opposed to a percentage growth.
Q
And if you go to month 6 and you can't add any more UNE-P,
24
then that entire 30,780 net growth is coming from UNE-L,
25
correct?
1855
1
A
Yes.
Basically what we did was we took a trend of the
2
last nine months of data available to see the penetration,
3
the growth in penetration the CLECs were making in the
4
marketplace with respect to new customers.
5
that after month 5, when we could no longer accommodate
6
those customers on UNE-P, that we would be accommodating
7
them on UNE-L.
8
Q
9
We assumed
Now, if I wanted to determine on a gross basis the total
number of wins from SBC necessary to yield this net number
10
of 30,780, am I correct that I would add column F, column
11
J and column K?
12
A
Tell me one more time what you're trying to determine?
13
Q
I'm trying to determine the gross or total number of wins
14
from SBC by the CLEC community necessary to achieve the
15
net gain of 30,780.
16
A
17
O.K.
Now that I understand your objective, you would do
what again?
18
Q
I would add column F, column J and column K.
19
A
That is largely true, yes.
Because what we did when we
20
took the last nine months of data to determine the static-
21
state growth per month, that was on a net of what we would
22
call ins and outs.
23
30,000.
24
in total they were netting 30,000.
25
That was CLECs were gaining in net
They may have gained 70,000 and lost 40,000, but
So if you take column F, which is the net,
1856
1
and you add in the amount that they have lost to win-
2
backs, and you take in the amount that they have -- I'm
3
sorry.
4
UNE-P and UNE-L.
5
give you the ins, if you will, for the CLEC community.
J and K are really the loss to win-backs both for
You add those two together, that should
6
Q
So I'm not just largely right, I'm totally right, right?
7
A
You know I struggle to say that, Ted.
8
(Laughter)
9
Q
(By Mr. Livingston)
I know it's painful.
10
A
You are largely right.
I think the additional detail, I
11
hope, gives additional context around what those numbers
12
mean.
13
14
MR. LIVINGSTON:
I have no further
questions.
15
JUDGE RIGAS:
16
Redirect?
17
MR. DENNISTON:
18
O.K.
Thank you.
No, no redirect, your
Honor.
19
JUDGE RIGAS:
Very good.
Thank you.
20
THE WITNESS:
Thank you, sir.
21
JUDGE RIGAS:
Mr. Starkey, you're excused.
22
(The witness was excused.)
23
JUDGE RIGAS:
Under consideration at this
24
time are proposed exhibits I-142 through I-144, A-145 and
25
A-146.
Any objections?
1857
1
I hear none.
2
Exhibits I-142 through
I-144, A-145 and A-146 will be received at this time.
3
All right, let's take a 10-minute break
4
and then we'll have the next witness, O.K.?
5
(A recess was taken.)
6
- - -
7
JUDGE RIGAS:
8
We'll go back on the record.
Mr. Binnig.
9
MR. BINNIG:
10
Thank you, your Honor.
Our
next witness is Mr. Ramont Bell.
11
- - -
12
R A M O N T
B E L L
13
was called as a witness on behalf of SBC Michigan and,
14
being first duly sworn by the Reporter/Notary Public,
15
testified as follows:
16
DIRECT EXAMINATION
17
BY MR. BINNIG:
18
Q
19
20
Mr. Bell, could you state your full name and business
address for the record, please.
A
21
My full name is Ramont Bell.
My business address is 255
West Randolph in Illinois, Chicago 60606.
Yes, 60606.
22
Q
And by whom are you employed, Mr. Bell?
23
A
SBC.
24
Q
And do you have with you today two pieces of prepared
25
testimony?
1858
1
A
Yes, I do.
2
Q
The first is your reply testimony that was originally
3
filed on February 10, then an errata version that was
4
filed on February 27, 2004, that consists of 24 pages of
5
questions and answers?
6
A
Yes, I do.
7
Q
And the second piece of prepared testimony being response
8
testimony filed on March 5th, consisting of three pages of
9
prepared questions and answers?
10
A
Yes, I do.
11
Q
Were these two pieces of testimony prepared by you or
12
under your supervision and direction?
13
A
Yes, they were.
14
Q
Do you have any additions or corrections to these two
15
16
pieces of testimony?
A
No, I do not.
17
MR. BINNIG:
Your Honor, I would ask that
18
these two pieces of testimony be bound into the record.
19
Mr. Bell has no additional exhibits.
20
witness for cross-examination.
21
JUDGE RIGAS:
I would tender the
Thank you.
Are there any
22
objections to binding in this gentleman's testimony?
23
hear none.
24
25
I
The prepared reply and response testimony,
then, of Mr. Ramont Bell in Case No. U-13796, consisting
1859
1
of some 27 pages of questions and answers, will be bound
2
into the record.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- - -
1860
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In the matter, on the Commission’s own
motion, to facilitate the implementation of the
Federal Communications Commission’s
Triennial Review determinations in Michigan
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. U-13796
ERRATA
REPLY TESTIMONY OF RAMONT BELL
ON BEHALF OF SBC MICHIGAN
February 10, 2004
Bell - Reply
1861
1
Q1.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A1.
My name is Ramont Bell. My business address is 255 W. Randolph, Illinois, 60606.
3
Q2.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
4
A2.
SBC Network services employs me as an Area Manager Integrated Implementation
5
Planning.
6
Q3.
WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THAT CAPACITY?
7
A3.
I am responsible for leading and managing the planning and engineering functions
8
associated with the construction of aerial, underground, and buried fiber and copper
9
based facilities in accordance with SBC Illinois’ long range outside plant plans. I am
10
accountable for supervising 13 planning engineering personnel by providing technical
11
and supervisory support associated with the planning and design and administration of
12
copper and fiber based facilities required to meet the daily and long term customer
13
demands within my area of responsibility.
14
Q4.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU SERVED IN THAT CAPACITY?
15
A4.
Five (5) years.
16
Q5.
WHAT IS YOUR TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPERIENCE?
17
A5.
I began my career with Illinois Bell Telephone Company in 1980 and my entire 24 year
18
career has been served in SBC’s network engineering departments. During this time I
19
have held the title of Outside Plant Design Engineer, Outside Plant Engineering Staff
20
Support Manager, Telecommunications Implementation Manager, Project Manager
21
LiteSpan Deployment, Customer Applications Manager and Area Manager of Integrated
22
Implementation Planning.
U-13796
1
Bell - Reply
1862
1
Q6.
WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND?
2
A6.
I have a Bachelors Degree in Industrial Technology and Education from Chicago State
3
University and a Masters Degree in Telecommunications from DePaul University.
4
Q7.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
5
A7.
The purpose of my testimony is to respond to and refute mischaracterizations and
6
misrepresentations related to IDLC technology as set forth in the direct testimonies of
7
MCI witness Michael Starkey, Talk America Witness Charles Wehnes, and Sage
8
Telecom witness James Sturges.
9
10
Q8.
WHAT ARGUMENTS DO MR. STARKEY, MR. WEHNES, AND MR. STURGES
MAKE CONCERNING IDLC-SERVED LOOPS?
11
A8.
They claim that the process for unbundling loops provisioned with IDLC equipment, and
12
SBC Michigan’s provision of alternate facilities in lieu of unbundling IDLC, is complex
13
and costly and can negatively affect service. (Starkey Direct at 33-34; Wehnes Direct at
14
13; Sturges Direct at 9-10). Mr. Starkey also claims that, over time, these alleged
15
problems will become worse as ILECs retire their copper plant. (Starkey Direct at 33-
16
34).
17
Q9.
WHAT IS MR. STARKEY’S ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION?
18
A9.
He contends that “[t]hese issues must be addressed and resolved before a finding of non
19
impairment [sic] can be entered.” (Starkey Direct at 13). He also seems to recommend
20
that the Commission require “digital unbundling” of IDLC systems. (Starkey Direct at
21
42 - 45, 49-50).1
1
Mr. Wehnes and Mr. Sturges do not appear to make any recommendations, but simply address ILDC as an
operational “impairment” issue. Like Mr. Starkey, Mr. Wehnes and Mr. Sturges do not explain how their
allegations relate to the FCC’s trigger tests.
U-13796
2
Bell - Reply
1
Q10. DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. STARKEY’S RECOMMENDATIONS?
2
A10.
1863
No, because the “issues” that Mr. Starkey refers to do not exist. In addition, although I
3
am not a lawyer, I find it difficult to see how these alleged operational issues relate to
4
application of the FCC’s triggers for this proceeding or why this would be the proper
5
forum to propose new types of unbundling requirements, which is precisely what Mr.
6
Starkey does. However, I leave that discussion to others.
7
8
9
10
Q11. IS THE UNBUNDLING OF LOOPS PROVISIONED VIA IDLC A SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE FOR CLECS IN MICHIGAN, AS MR. STARKEY INSINUATES (LINES
1158-1170)?
A11.
No, it does not appear to be. I understand that CLECs have not made any request in
11
either the Change Management Forum2 or the CLEC User Forum to address issues
12
involving the unbundling of IDLC-served loops (i.e., where there are no UDLC or all-
13
copper pairs available and additional facilities will have to be placed). Perhaps this is
14
because SBC Michigan has in the past, where available upon CLEC request (and
15
comporting with federal law) moved loops provisioned via IDLC to UDLC or all-copper
16
pairs. Additionally, a little over 6% of SBC Michigan’s loops are served by IDLC,
17
making the need to unbundle an IDLC-served loop fairly uncommon. Thus, Mr.
18
Starkey’s insinuations that some large number of SBC Michigan’s residential and small
19
business loops are served by IDLC is flawed. In any event, SBC Michigan is willing to
20
continue providing the UNE-P in any instance where an unbundled loop cannot be
21
provided in an IDLC situation until an alternative loop can be provided.
2
The FCC ordered Change Management in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, ¶ 382, as the appropriate venue to
analyze and discuss such issues as CLEC requests that would necessitate changing one or more of SBC’s OSS.
U-13796
3
Bell - Reply
1864
1
2
3
Q12. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR OVERALL RESPONSE TO MR. STARKEY’S,
MR. WEHNES’S, AND MR. STURGES’S TESTIMONIES ON IDLC-SERVED
LOOPS.
4
A12.
These witnesses are raising a red herring. The alleged operational difficulties in
5
providing an unbundled loop where the requested loop is served by IDLC are either non-
6
existent or greatly overstated, because normally there are alternative copper or UDLC
7
loops available, and SBC Michigan’s provision of unbundled loops in such circumstances
8
fully comports with federal law. Nor do those alleged problems result in CLECs being
9
provided access to an “inferior” loop, either now or in the future. Rather, the CLECs
10
receive the access that the FCC has required and intended.
11
Contrary to Mr. Starkey’s claims and his references to Telcordia documents from
12
four years ago, the FCC has explained that “notwithstanding earlier hopes that IDLC-fed
13
loops could be feasibly unbundled, such unbundling ‘has not proven practicable.’”
14
Michigan 271 Order, FCC 03-243, ¶ 150 (quoting UNE Remand Order, n.418). Further,
15
to the extent that what MCI is really seeking is a requirement that SBC Michigan
16
unbundle its IDLC equipment (i.e., “multiplexers”) and a “subloop” between a remote
17
terminal and central office. Neither of those are UNEs, and the purpose of this case, as I
18
understand it, is not to define new UNEs.
19
Q13. WHAT IS IDLC?
20
A13.
IDLC, integrated digital loop carrier, is a technology that integrates the DLC (digital loop
21
carrier) system directly into a switch on a digital basis, typically at a DS1 level. That is,
22
the remote terminal (“RT”) communicates directly with the switch on a high-capacity
23
basis. SBC’s fiber-based IDLC systems have a central office terminal (“COT”) that
24
converts optical signals to high-capacity electrical signals that interface directly with the
U-13796
4
Bell - Reply
1865
1
switch. Universal digital loop carrier (“UDLC”), by contrast, uses a COT to de-multiplex
2
the high-capacity signals to a voice-grade signal, and the loops are terminated on the
3
main distribution frame (“MDF”).
4
Q14. PLEASE DESCRIBE IDLC TECHNOLOGY IN MORE DETAIL.
5
A14.
Loops provisioned by digital loop carrier convert the analog electrical signal generated by
6
the end user’s telephone to a digital signal, at the Remote Terminal. The digital signals
7
are then multiplexed into a DS1 signal, and transported to the central office over a fiber
8
feeder or other high-speed digital feeder facility. At the central office, the feeder facility
9
is terminated, and converted to electrical signals, if necessary. For IDLC systems, the
10
high-speed electrical signal is routed as DS1-level signals directly to the digital line ports
11
on the switch. Since voice traffic over IDLC technology is delivered into the switch as a
12
multiplexed DS1-level signal, there is no direct distribution frame appearance of an
13
individual analog voice-grade loop in the central office.
14
SBC Michigan must design its network for all types of services, both for switched
15
and non-switched services. When deploying DLC, SBC Michigan designates some
16
channel banks as Integrated and some channel banks Universal. This deployment could
17
be a mixture of TR008 and TR057, GR303 and TR057 or various other combinations.
18
The channel banks are housed in the same remote and central office terminals and
19
therefore, have the same transmission characteristics. The derived pairs within the
20
integrated channel banks go directly into the switch and the derived pairs in the universal
21
channel banks are de-multiplexed, and converted to analog signals that are terminated on
22
the MDF.
U-13796
5
Bell - Reply
1
Q15. IS IDLC AN ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF PROVISIONING LOOPS?
2
A15.
1866
Yes. IDLC is a well-accepted and efficient means to deliver voice traffic over a DLC
3
system to a digital switch. However, IDLC offers no technically feasible means of
4
obtaining access to individual voice-grade loops at the central office. Accordingly,
5
before a customer served by an IDLC-provisioned loop can be cut over to a switch-based
6
CLEC, the customer must be moved from an IDLC-provisioned loop to a loop
7
provisioned via copper cable or UDLC technology (which, unlike IDLC, permits access
8
to individual loops at the MDF in the central office). I should mention, however, that
9
when SBC Michigan provisions an area with IDLC facilities, it typically provisions the
10
area with non-IDLC facilitates as well, because some services that it needs to provide,
11
such as non-switched services, cannot be provided over IDLC. As a result, while there
12
may be locations where alternate facilities are not currently available, there should be
13
very few. I will discuss this in more detail later.
14
15
16
Q16. DOES THE FACT THAT AN IDLC LOOP CANNOT BE ACCESSED AT THE
MAIN DISTRIBUTION FRAME MEAN THAT LOOPS SHOULD NOT BE
PROVISIONED OVER IDLC SYSTEMS?
17
A16.
18
Absolutely not. IDLC is a well-accepted and efficient means to deliver voice traffic over
a digital loop carrier system to a digital switch.
19
20
Q17. THEN WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FACT THAT AN IDLCPROVISIONED LOOP CANNOT BE ACCESSED AT THE MDF?
21
A17.
The significance of that fact in the context of batch cuts is that before a customer served
22
by a loop provisioned via IDLC can be cut over to a switch-based CLEC, the customer
23
must be moved from the loop provisioned via IDLC to a loop provisioned via copper
24
cable or UDLC technology.
U-13796
6
Bell - Reply
1867
1
2
3
4
Q18. MR. STARKEY IMPLIES THAT SBC MICHIGAN WILL NOT UNBUNDLE ITS
IDLC-SERVED LOOPS (LINE 785). MR. WEHNES SIMILARLY ALLEGES
THAT “SBC HAS REFUSED TO UNBUNDLE IDLC LOOPS” (P.12 LINE 9). IS
THEY CORRECT?
5
A18.
No, they are incorrect. Contrary to their allegations, SBC Michigan does and will
6
continue to provide unbundled loops where the requested loop is provisioned with IDLC
7
technology, in accordance with applicable law. This would most commonly be done by
8
providing a copper or UDLC-served loop through a Line and Station Transfer. Further,
9
Mr. Starkey’s testimony briefly talks about unbundling loops provisioned with IDLC
10
equipment, but what MCI ultimately wants, which is not an issue in this proceeding (nor
11
should it be), is for this Commission to force ILECs to unbundle its multiplexers used for
12
IDLC.
13
Q19. WHAT IS A LINE AND STATION TRANSFER (“LST”)?
14
A19.
An LST involves moving a customer’s service from one cable pair to another. An LST is
15
typically performed at a serving terminal, such as an FDI (Feeder Distribution Interface)
16
or SAI (Serving Area Interface).
17
18
19
20
Q20. MR. STARKEY CLAIMS THAT UDLC-SERVED LOOPS ARE INFERIOR TO
IDLC-SERVED LOOPS AS A RESULT OF THE TIME AND COST INVOLVED
WITH AN LST AND THE TYPES OF SERVICES THAT CAN BE PROVIDED
OVER EACH TYPE OF LOOP. IS HE CORRECT?
21
A20.
22
23
24
25
26
Q21. MR. STARKEY CLAIMS THAT COSTS FOR LSTS ARE HIGH BECAUSE “IN
MANY CASES ASSIGNMENT RECORDS FOR FACILITIES AT AN RT OR AT
AN ACCOMPANYING SERVING AREA INTERFACE – SAI – ARE LESS THAN
ACCURATE THAN THOSE FOR CENTRAL OFFICE FACILITIES” (LINES 969
- 971). HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
27
A21.
28
No, Mr. Starkey is not correct, as I explain below.
Mr. Starkey is incorrect. SBC Michigan’s records are sound. SBC Michigan has every
incentive to keep its records accurate, because the same assignment records are used by
U-13796
7
Bell - Reply
1868
1
SBC for its retail service orders, as well as wholesale orders. If the records were
2
inadequate, due dates would be missed. Our records indicate that, through November
3
2003, SBC Michigan provisioned all CLEC orders for basic loops (such as those used to
4
provision CLEC UNE-L orders) by the requested due date 99% of the time.
5
6
7
8
Q22. ARE CLECS, AS MR. STARKEY CLAIMS, REQUIRED TO DISPATCH A
TECHNICIAN TO THE END-USER PREMISES “TO CHANGE/VALIDATE
WIRING AND TEST CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT” UPON COMPLETION OF AN
ILEC LST (LINES 978 - 979)?
9
A22.
No, Mr. Starkey’s claim is wrong. CLECs do not need to dispatch their own technician
10
after an LST is completed by an SBC Michigan technician. The SBC Michigan
11
technician who performs the LST verifies loop integrity. There is no need for a CLEC to
12
dispatch its own technician to perform any verification on the heels of any SBC Michigan
13
LST.
14
15
16
17
Q23. MR. STARKEY IMPLIES THAT AN LST FROM A LOOP PROVISIONED
OVER IDLC TO A LOOP PROVISIONED OVER UDLC OR ALL-COPPER
WILL RESULT IN THE CLEC OBTAINING A FACILITY THAT IS
TECHNOLOGICALLY INFERIOR (LINES 986 - 991). IS THAT TRUE?
18
A23.
No, Mr. Starkey’s implication is not true for the reasons I have provided here in my
19
testimony and in the testimony provided in the batch cut proceeding. Additionally, Mr.
20
Starkey contradicts himself when discussing these same loop types that are used for
21
LSTs. For example, on line 1200 he affirms that SBC Michigan’s copper loops are “high
22
quality” and says he fears that SBC Michigan will retire all its copper cable and replace it
23
with fiber. Yet on the same page (10 lines later in his testimony), Mr. Starkey claims that
24
“the potential exists for situations wherein even if spare copper loops are available, they
25
will not have been maintained at a level that makes them immediately usable for
26
service….” (lines 1210 - 1214). On the one hand, Mr. Starkey affirms that SBC
U-13796
8
Bell - Reply
1869
1
Michigan’s copper loops are “high quality” then, on the same page, claims those same
2
loops may be “[un]usable.”
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q24. ON LINES 790 THROUGH 793, MR. STARKEY STATES THAT WHEN
CUSTOMERS ON LOOPS PROVISIONED WITH IDLC ARE MOVED TO AN
ALTERNATE FACILITY, “IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES THE FACILITY TO
WHICH THE CUSTOMER IS RE-ASSIGNED IS TECHNOLOGICALLY
INFERIOR TO THE EXISTING FACILITY, OR MAY SIMPLY BE A FACILITY
THAT HAS BEEN POORLY MAINTAINED.” IS MR. STARKEY’S
ALLEGATION ACCURATE?
A24.
No. There are technical standards for the UNE loop offerings that SBC Michigan
11
provides to CLECs. These are agreed upon or arbitrated with the CLEC. The facilities
12
used to provision the loop may vary in type and quality, but all UNE loops will meet the
13
technical specifications for the loop ordered, or SBC Michigan will repair or replace the
14
facility. Further, SBC uses the alternative facilities that Mr. Starkey is addressing for its
15
own customers.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q25. MR. STARKEY CITES TO A TELCORDIA DOCUMENT WHICH ALLEGEDLY
STATES THAT “UDLC CONTRIBUTES TO MULTIPLE PROBLEMS …
INCREASED DIAL TONE DELAY, DEGRADATION OF ON-HOOK
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES, SUCH AS CALLER ID, DEGRADATION OF
SIGNAL QUALITY…REDUCTION IN ANALOG MODEM SPEEDS DUE TO
THE NUMBER OF A/D CONVERSIONS.” (LINES 914 - 919). HOW DO YOU
RESPOND?
23
A25.
Mr. Starkey’s use of this Telcordia document is misleading, and his context is flawed.3
24
Mr. Starkey did not use the document language in its proper context. In reality, the issues
25
associated with UDLC that he refers to are attributable to copper loop lengths exceeding
3
While Mr. Starkey points to a 2002 release of SR-2275, in fact the latest release of this document by Telcordia is
2000. See http://telecom-info.telcordia.com/site-cgi/ido/index.html. Strangely, Mr. Sturges, who uses the same
document, makes the same mistake, even though the document attached to his testimony clearly says “October
2000.” See Sturges Direct at 11 and Att. JHS-2. Mr. Wehnes relies on this same document. See Wehnes Direct at
14 and Att. A.
U-13796
9
Bell - Reply
1870
1
the designed limits once a CLEC orders the UDLC-provisioned loop as UNE-L.4 Once
2
the UDLC-provisioned copper loop is cross-connected to the CLEC’s collocation, the
3
CLEC then cross-connects this loop to its own equipment, which ultimately adds length
4
to the loop. If this additional CLEC-cable loop length causes the loop to exceed the
5
design limits for UDLC, the end-user may experience the “impacts” (as Telcordia notes)
6
as Mr. Starkey describes. However, Telcordia also noted, in this same section that Mr.
7
Starkey cites, that these “impacts” can be overcome. To do so, Telcordia states that the
8
CLEC should “install an RDT [Remote Digital Terminal] line unit with a higher DC
9
supervisory range to accommodate the long loop.”
10
Additionally, even MCI agrees that including UDLC technology in a
11
telecommunications network represents a forward-looking approach. Consider the
12
following statements:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The lowest cost network configuration for serving demand that includes standalone loops, loop/port combinations, and xDSL loops would be a single network
that includes the appropriate mix of IDLC, UDLC, and all copper loops…The mix
of IDLC, UDLC and copper loops in the resulting single network thus would be
optimized to meet the demand for the various types of facilities, and that network
would include the efficiencies resulting from economies of scale and
scope…Some percentage of customer locations will require IDLC, some
percentage will require UDLC, and some percentage will require copper.5
4
The design limits being the Carrier Serving Area design which calls for, among other things, loops less than 12,000
feet in length.
5
Before the Florida Public Service Commission, rebuttal testimony of Greg Darnell on behalf of WorldCom, docket
960786-TL, July 20, 2001. Emphasis added.
U-13796
10
Bell - Reply
1871
1
2
3
4
Q26. MR. STARKEY, MR. WEHNES, AND MR. STURGES ALL CLAIM THAT UDLC
DEGRADES DIAL-UP INTERNET CONNECTION SPEEDS (STARKEY
DIRECT LINES 933 – 944; WEHNES DIRECT AT 13-14; STURGES DIRECT AT
9, 11). HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
5
A26.
As I discuss in my testimony, the transmission characteristics do vary based on the
6
facilities used, but all loop facilities will meet the specified technical standards, or the
7
facility will be repaired or replaced. If higher-quality transmission rates are needed, the
8
CLEC should order a loop facility that is designed for the need. Additionally, the speed
9
that an end-user will experience using a dial-up internet connection is dependent on many
10
factors, many of which are outside of the ILEC’s network. MCI appears to acknowledge
11
this fact when it notes that dial-up connection speeds are affected by the distance between
12
the central office and the end-user and the number of switches between the end-user and
13
the ISP. Even MCI admits that its own POP has capacitance that affects dial-up internet
14
connection speeds.6 Moreover, as stated the direct testimony in the batch cut proceeding,
15
other CLECs, such as Talk America and Z-Tel, advise their customers that connection
16
problems could be with their own telephone set or inside wiring.7 Sage Telecom advises
17
its customers that “trouble results from the use of terminal equipment, communications
18
systems or premises cable and wire on the customer’s side of the demarcation point,”8
19
and at least one other CLEC operating in SBC Midwest’s territory agrees that dial-up
20
connection speed to the internet is contingent on a variety of factors beyond the control of
21
any ILEC loop, such as the quality of the wiring in the end-user’s house, the quality of
6
See https://customercenter.mci.com/cgibin/WCC/wccMain.jsp?pagename=/public/internetFAQ/wccFAQ_dialMain.jsp&rollmenu=undefined.
7
See https://secure.talk.com/; see also http://www.z-tel.com/portal/ztel/troubleshoot/i/line_problems.jsp.
8
See http://www.sagetelecom.net/tariffs/Michigan_Local_Exchange_Tariff.pdf, section 3.1.11
U-13796
11
Bell - Reply
1872
1
the CLEC/ILEC switch, traffic on the lines, and modem initialization strings that can
2
streamline a signal and possibly increase connection rates.9
3
Mr. Starkey tells this Commission only a portion of the story when he states that
4
to maximize the dial-up connection speed there can only be one analog connection
5
between an end-user’s modem and the host computer. If higher speeds are desired, SBC
6
Michigan offers higher-speed facilities that may be used.
7
Finally, Mr. Starkey points to a Microsoft Windows 2000 document for support
8
(Attachment 2 to his testimony), but what he fails to mention is that this same document
9
mandates that the host ISP server must also use a digital connection to the network and
10
that both end-user and server must support the V.90 standard. When taken together, all
11
these facts paint a fuller and more accurate picture showing that UDLC is not the
12
nefarious cause of these network problems, as Mr. Starkey would have this Commission
13
believe.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q27. MR. STARKEY IMPLIES THAT SBC MICHIGAN INTENTIONALLY MOVES
CLECS FROM FIBER-BASED FACILITIES TO COPPER, AND BECAUSE OF
THAT, AS WELL AS THE FCC’S “RELAXATION OF RETIREMENT AND
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS,” TWO NETWORKS WILL DEVELOP
EACH WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF QUALITY (THE ILEC HAVING THE
BETTER). ADDITIONALLY, MR. STARKEY ALLEGES THAT THE RESULT
WILL BE A SHORTAGE OF FACILITIES FOR THE CLEC BECAUSE OF THIS
ALLEGED DUPLICATE NETWORK (LINES 799 - 811). HOW DO YOU
RESPOND?
23
A27.
Mr. Starkey’s testimony and his reasoning are flawed. It is SBC Michigan’s policy and
24
practice to assign the most qualified loop to an order, regardless of whether that order is
25
for a CLEC or SBC Michigan retail. For example, one such OSS, the Loop Facility
9
See
http://www.mcleodusa.com/Support/DisplayFAQs.do;jsessionid=0000XE4lKYDMUtX8Ey6wEGwc0j9:uquv7396?
faqTypeId=29.
U-13796
12
Bell - Reply
1873
1
Assignment and Control System (“LFACS”), uses sophisticated algorithms to evaluate
2
the type of service requested and the pool of qualified loops available, and LFACS makes
3
its assignment based on the most qualified available loop at the time of assignment.
4
Evaluating whether or not the loop order is for a CLEC so that the loop assigned is
5
limited to one particular technology is not part of the algorithm, nor is it part of the
6
assignment process on qualified loop orders.
7
Additionally, there are just not that many IDLC-provisioned loops in SBC
8
Michigan’s network. As provided in the direct testimony of the batch cut proceeding,
9
there are about 5 million working loops in SBC Michigan, and of that number 2,300
10
loops are provisioned with IDLC technology with no alternate facilities available. That’s
11
a mere 0.05%. I am unsure what Mr. Starkey means when he charges the FCC with
12
relaxed copper retirement rules to the detriment of CLECs (I will make the assumption
13
that Mr. Starkey is referring to the retirement of copper loop and copper subloop rules as
14
set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a)(3)(iii)). These rules deal with fiber to the home, not
15
hybrid loops. SBC Michigan will continue to provide copper loops and subloops as set
16
forth in applicable interconnection agreement based on federal and/or state law.
17
As for Mr. Starkey’s claim of any FCC relaxation of maintenance requirements, I
18
have no idea what Mr. Starkey means nor do I find any such language in the Triennial
19
Review Order (assuming that Mr. Starkey is using the Triennial Review Order to
20
substantiate his allegation).
21
22
Finally, Mr. Starkey’s claim of a future shortage of facilities because of the FCC’s
rules for copper retirement, or so-called “two networks,” is unsupported and mere
U-13796
13
Bell - Reply
1874
1
speculation on his part. Such testimony offered by Mr. Starkey should be rejected by this
2
Commission as conjecture.
3
4
5
6
Q28. MR. STARKEY ALSO CONTENDS THAT IDLC-SERVED LOOPS CAN BE
“DIGITALLY” OR “ELECTRONICALLY” UNBUNDLED (LINES 1040-1115).
MR. WEHNES ALSO ARGUES THAT “A TECHNICAL UNBUNDLING
STANDARD FOR ‘GR303’ EXISTS” (P.12 LINE 10). DO YOU AGREE?
7
A28.
No. Mr. Starkey and Mr. Wehnes rely on Telcordia presentation documents from 1999
8
and 2000 to claim that IDLC-served loops can be “digitally” unbundled. In doing so,
9
however, they are merely rehashing arguments rejected by the FCC in the UNE Remand
10
Order (n.417). As the FCC explained, the proposed methods for unbundling IDLC-
11
served loops “have not proven practicable.” UNE Remand Order, n.418. Indeed, even
12
Mr. Starkey admits that his proposals face “daunting” “obstacles” and “complexities”
13
before they could ever become practicable (lines 1090, 1123) and that those obstacles
14
would require substantial time and investment (that the CLECs have not offered to pay
15
for) before any workable solution could hope to be achieved.
16
17
Q29. HAS THE FCC INVESTIGATED IDLC UNBUNDLING, AND IF SO WHAT
WERE THE FCC’S CONCLUSIONS?
18
A29.
Yes, the FCC has on numerous occasions investigated the type of IDLC unbundling that
19
Mr. Starkey proposes (multiple switch hosting, GR-303, and side-door grooming) and has
20
declined to require ILECs to implement such unbundling methods. For example, in the
21
UNE Remand Order the FCC examined MCI’s proposed methods of IDLC unbundling
22
and concluded that MCI’s proposed methods would “. . . accommodate only a few
23
competitors . . . [be] cost-effective only for competitive LECs with substantial market
24
penetration . . . [are] very expensive…can only be done for a few lines per remote
25
terminal . . . [and that] these methods do not now substantially reduce the competitive
U-13796
14
Bell - Reply
1875
1
LECs’ need to pick up IDLC customers’ traffic before it is multiplexed” (i.e. the copper
2
subloop beyond the RT toward the end-user customer).10
3
Then, in BellSouth’s application for Section 271 long distance authority in
4
Georgia and Louisiana, the FCC examined these same IDLC unbundling propositions
5
again the FCC found that these propositions “are very expensive. The [FCC] also
6
concluded that each option has limitations and that such methods have not proven
7
practicable.”11
8
The FCC again examined IDLC unbundling proposals in considering SBC’s
9
Section 271 petition for long distance authority in SBC Midwest states. And again, the
10
FCC upheld its prior determinations from the UNE Remand Order that
11
12
13
14
15
notwithstanding earlier hopes that IDLC-fed loops could be feasibly
unbundled, such unbundling” ‘ha[d] not proven practicable,’ “and”
[c]ompetitors [were] not yet able economically to separate and access
IDLC customers’ traffic on the wire-center side of the IDLC multiplexing
devices.12
16
Furthermore, the FCC stated that its rules did not require SBC to unbundle DLC facilities
17
(both IDLC and UDLC) under all circumstances. The FCC determined that when a
18
CLEC orders a loop that is being served using IDLC, SBC can migrate the loop to spare
19
copper facilities so long as such facilities exist, and that if no spare facilities existed, then
20
SBC can perform the construction necessary to install a copper loop in accordance with
21
any applicable federal or state law.13
22
More recently, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau considered GR-303
23
unbundling proposals during its arbitration between Cavalier Telephone and Verizon.
10
See UNE Remand Order, n.417.
FCC 02-147, ¶ 50.
12
FCC 03-243, ¶ 150. See, UNE Remand Order, ¶ 217 n.418.
13
FCC 03-2403, ¶ 150.
11
U-13796
15
Bell - Reply
1876
1
The FCC Bureau rejected Cavalier’s unbundling requests because they were “at odds
2
with the Triennial Review Order.”14 The FCC Bureau also stated:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Because incumbent LECs only are required to provide ‘a technically feasible
method of unbundled access’ to a transmission path over the Integrated DLC
loop, we reject Cavalier’s language that would require Verizon to conduct trials of
the specific hairpin/nail-up and multiple switch hosting unbundling processes.
We also reject Cavalier’s claim that Verizon should be required to unbundle
Integrated DLC loops whenever desired by Cavalier. The Triennial Review Order
gives incumbent LECs the choice whether to unbundle Integrated DLC loops
when spare facilities are available, and the choice of technically feasible methods
of Integrated DLC loop unbundling.
12
In short, the FCC has found on numerous occasions that SBC Michigan should not be
13
required to provide the kind of GR-303 unbundling that Mr. Starkey proposes, including
14
such things as hairpin/nail-up and multiple switch hosting unbundling processes.
15
16
17
Q30. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO MR. STARKEY’S SUGGESTION THAT
LANGUAGE IN THE TRIENNIAL REVIEW ORDER REQUIRES THAT IDLC
BE UNBUNDLED (LINES 1018 - 1021)?
18
A30.
19
Mr. Starkey ignores the context of the discussion in the Triennial Review Order. The
Triennial Review Order (¶ 297) states in part:
20
21
22
23
24
We recognize that it is technically feasible (though not always desirable
for either carrier) to provide unbundled access to hybrid loops served by
Integrated DLC systems. Incumbent LECs can provide unbundled access
to hybrid loops served by integrated DLC systems by configuring existing
equipment, adding new equipment, or both.
25
This does not support Mr. Starkey’s assertions; rather it validates the concerns I raised
26
earlier in my testimony about the limitations of unbundling IDLC. It also validates how
27
SBC provides access to the loop via alternate facilities. The FCC ruled that when a
14
In the Matter of Petition of Cavalier Telephone LLC Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for
Preemption of the Jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission Regarding Interconnection Disputes
with Verizon Virginia, Inc. and for Arbitration; WC Docket No. 02-359, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 033947, Released December 12, 2003, at ¶ 133.
U-13796
16
Bell - Reply
1877
1
CLEC seeks access to a hybrid loop (a loop comprised of both copper and fiber) for the
2
provision of narrowband (i.e., voice) service, the ILEC may either:
3
4
5
6
7
(A) Provide nondiscriminatory access, on an unbundled basis, to an entire
hybrid loop capable of voice-grade service (i.e., equivalent to DS0
capacity), using time division multiplexing technology; or (B) Provide
nondiscriminatory access to a spare home-run copper loop serving that
customer on an unbundled basis.15
8
SBC Michigan complies with these requirements by providing CLECs with unbundled
9
access to SBC Michigan loops provisioned with UDLC or all-copper.
10
Paragraph 297 of the Triennial Review Order also states that unbundling IDLC
11
“may require an ILEC to implement policies, practices, and procedures different from
12
those used to provide access to loops served by Universal DLC systems.” Such
13
alterations may require changes to SBC Michigan’s OSS (some of which are licensed by
14
Telcordia). I have been told that when discussing changes to Telcordia-licensed OSS,
15
this typically equates to a cost in the neighborhood of millions of dollars. As of this
16
writing, no CLEC has petitioned SBC for such changes. Additionally, Mr. Starkey also
17
left out the fact that in that same paragraph the FCC recognized that when a loop is
18
served by IDLC, “in most cases,” an unbundled loop will be provided “either through a
19
spare copper facility or through the availability of [UDLC] systems.” As I have stated in
20
my testimony, SBC Michigan provides this type of unbundling through spare copper
21
facilities or through UDLC-provisioned facilities. If neither of these options is available,
22
SBC Michigan would be willing to engage in negotiations with a requesting CLEC to
23
discuss rates, terms, conditions, and cost recovery for other alternatives.
15
47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a)(2)(iii).
U-13796
17
Bell - Reply
1878
1
2
Q31. WHAT DOES MR. STARKEY MEAN BY UNBUNDLING IDLC FACILITIES ON
A DIGITAL BASIS (LINES 999 - 1025)?
3
A31.
At bottom, Mr. Starkey is demanding that SBC Michigan break apart its GR-303-
4
compliant DLC systems, such as those used for IDLC, into various piece-parts for
5
CLECs to pick-and-choose which components they want to use.
6
Q32. IS A DLC SYSTEM, SUCH AS IDLC, A UNE?
7
A32.
No. SBC Michigan is obligated to provide CLECs with unbundled loops, which includes
8
the electronics, but not to separately unbundle all electronics that may be used to provide
9
loops. DLC equipment, including IDLC, comprise electronics that are used to provision
10
the loop. Specifically, the FCC ruled that the loop is a network element, and that this
11
element
12
13
14
15
16
17
includes all features, functions, and capabilities of such transmission
facility, including the network interface device. It also includes all
electronics, optronics, and intermediate devices (including repeaters and
load coils) used to establish the transmission path to the end-user customer
premises as well as any inside wire owned or controlled by the incumbent
LEC that is part of that transmission path.16 (Emphasis added.)
18
In addition to demanding that ILECs break apart their DLC systems into piece parts, Mr.
19
Starkey’s demand would also have this Commission redefine the FCC’s rules for
20
subloops by creating a brand new subloop – the central office to RT subloop (CO to RT).
21
My understanding of subloops, as noted in the Triennial Review Order, is that they are
22
that portion of a copper loop that extends between the RT and the customer premises, and
23
does not include that portion of the loop from the CO to the RT.17
16
See 47 C.F.R. §51.319(a)
17
See Triennial Review Order, ¶ 253. “Unbundled Access to Copper Subloops. We require incumbent LECs to
provide unbundled access to their copper subloops, i.e., the distribution plant consisting of the copper
transmission facility between a remote terminal and the customer’s premises.” (Emphasis added).
U-13796
18
Bell - Reply
1879
1
2
Q33. CAN SBC MICHIGAN UNBUNDLE ITS DLC IN THE MANNER THAT MR.
STARKEY DEMANDS?
3
A33.
No. First, I should explain GR-303. It is a set of technical specifications that permit a
4
DLC system and a digital switch to communicate. GR-303 is a dynamic way of utilizing
5
Time Slot Interchange (“TSI”) capabilities in the DLC equipment and digital switch to
6
connect DS1s directly into the switch from certain of SBC Michigan’s DLC equipment
7
(Litespan 2000, 2012, or other similar equipment). GR-303 is also an effective way to
8
reduce the costs of provisioning voice and switched specials in that it allows the
9
reduction of the number of DS1s required to provision services over IDLC compared to
other switch interfaces like TR008.18
10
11
The reason why this cannot be unbundled in a practicable manner is because the
12
DS1s for this architecture are connected directly to the digital voice switch in the central
13
office, and individual customer lines served by IDLC systems are not physically
14
accessible at the MDF in the central office. Instead, these individual customer lines exist
15
only as digital pulses interspersed in the DS1 bit streams. Therefore, by its very design,
16
IDLC technology does not provide a practicable way to separate the loop from the switch
17
on a customer-by-customer or loop-by-loop basis. By contrast, when copper or UDLC is
18
deployed, each individual customer’s line terminates on the MDF, thus giving access to
19
the unbundled loop.
18
TR008 is a static (non TSI) switch interface between the COT and the switch.
U-13796
19
Bell - Reply
1880
1
2
3
Q34. WOULD PROVIDING CLECS, SUCH AS MCI, WITH ACCESS TO GR-303
BASED IDLC EQUIPMENT SOLVE THE ISSUE, AS MR. STARKEY
SUGGESTS?
4
A34.
No, because Mr. Starkey ignores a large number of technical limitations. One of the
5
major limitations that makes unbundled access to loops provisioned with IDLC
6
equipment impracticable is the Virtual Interface Group (“VIG”). A VIG is a grouping of
7
DS1 facilities that carry traffic between a local digital switch and a GR-303 remote
8
terminal (TSI-capable RT). Each customer is dynamically assigned a time slot in the
9
VIG for each call rather than being assigned a permanent path from the RT to the switch.
10
The service order assigns each customer to a VIG where that customer remains until his
11
service is disconnected, or is moved as a result of load balancing19 on the switch. Other
12
limitations include, but are not limited to, the following:
13
14
•
Number of VIGs: at present, SBC’s primary GR-303-based RT equipment
is the Alcatel Litespan, which can only have four 4 VIGs.
15
16
•
Number of DS-1s per VIG: each VIG is limited to a minimum of two
DS1s and a maximum of 28 DS1s.
17
18
19
•
Number of DS-1s per digital switch module: the switch module that
interfaces with IDLC is referred to as an Integrated Digital Carrier Unit
(“IDCU”). The maximum number of DS1s per IDCU is typically 20.
20
•
A VIG can only be connected to one IDCU.
21
22
23
•
VIG Growth: while an IDCU may have multiple VIGs from multiple RTs,
VIGs are established for the initial growth period, and multiple RTs fill up
the IDCU before the RT VIG capacity is reached.
24
25
•
Premature exhaust of IDCU: adding extra DS1s on a VIG before they are
required can pre-maturely use switching capacity in the IDCU.
19
Load balancing is creating an even distribution of customer traffic across multiple VIGs. This process would
typically occur when a specific grouping of customers has a higher level of demand for service than the average
demand. This higher demand could lead to blocked calls. Customers may be moved from one VIG to another in
order to alleviate this problem.
U-13796
20
Bell - Reply
1881
1
2
3
4
•
Minimum number of VIGs required per RT: due to the limitation of only 4
VIGs per RT, a minimum of two are needed for load balancing on the
switch and POTS growth. Additionally, the other two VIGs are needed
for economically provisioning future growth.
5
6
7
•
Economic use of VIGs and IDCU: VIG and IDCU utilization require a
fine balance between the two, which is very difficult if less than four VIGs
are available.
8
9
10
11
12
•
Network Back Office System limitations: existing network back office
systems do not have the safeguards in place to firewall multiple VIG
users. Access to the overhead capabilities of a VIG can provide access to
switching options and capabilities on any switch to which the RT is
connected.
13
Due to these technical limitations, a CLEC that wants GR-303 access from a
14
remote terminal to the digital switch would require, at a minimum, its own VIG and two
15
DS1s. What typically makes a GR-303 interface between the remote terminal and a
16
CLEC switch uneconomical are these minimum requirements. A minimum of two DS-1s
17
(48 voice-grade equivalent paths) would be required, even if the CLEC were only
18
providing service to one customer.
19
What makes GR-303 technically infeasible is the limited number of VIGs
20
available from the remote terminal to the switch, as well as the back office system issues
21
discussed. Even setting all the above limitations aside, parity would also be an issue with
22
the VIG limitation, because even if it were possible to give a CLEC its own VIG, then at
23
most only two CLECs could have a VIG.20
20
SBC Michigan would need to keep any VIGs that are currently in operation, and 1 future VIG for growth. The
requesting CLECs would need to pay for any idle capacity that may be required to oversize the growth VIG’s DS-1
quantity to ensure no RT capacity is stranded. Setting all of the engineering, technical, and software issues aside,
depending on the current number of spare VIGs and IDCU ports, the number of locations where a VIG might be
available between a switch IDCU and an RT could be small. There may be a considerable number of locations
where no spare VIGs exist.
U-13796
21
Bell - Reply
1882
1
2
Q35. HAVE CLECS MADE UNBUNDLING OF LOOPS PROVISIONED WITH IDLC
A PRIORITY OUTSIDE THE REGULATORY ARENA?
3
A35.
No. First, such unbundling, as Mr. Starkey proposes, would necessitate OSS changes.
4
As noted previously in my testimony, SBC Michigan is obligated to work through
5
Change Management for solutions. Any costs related to these changes would more than
6
likely be shared among all CLECs, not just MCI alone, and all CLECs may not want to
7
give this issue the same weight or priority as MCI – nor would all CLECs want to share
8
in the cost. Second, I understand that no CLEC has approached SBC Michigan in the
9
CLEC User Forum to initiate such a process. Given that no CLEC has used either forum
10
(Change Management or CLEC User), obviously this does not have the priority that Mr.
11
Starkey would have this Commission believe. Third, and as noted in the batch cut direct
12
testimony, the take-rate (the number of eligible loops provisioned with IDLC equipment
13
relative to potential conversion to UNE-L) in SBC Michigan is very small. This
14
Commission should weigh the merits of Mr. Starkey’s argument against the low number
15
of loops involved and the resources and costs necessary to accomplish what Mr. Starkey
16
demands. As noted in my testimony, regardless of the method of unbundling a loop
17
provisioned with IDLC equipment, the cost-causer, in this case the requesting CLEC, is
18
responsible for the charges associated with doing so – a fact recognized and required by
19
the FCC in its prior orders.
U-13796
22
Bell - Reply
1883
1
2
3
4
5
Q36. MR. STARKEY STATES THAT “TIME AND EFFORT MUST BE PUT
TOWARD MAKING [UNBUNDLING DLC] A REALITY” (LINES 1096 - 1097)
AND THAT “IT WILL REQUIRE THE HARD WORK OF THE ILECS, THE
CLECS, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, STATE PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSIONS” (LINES 1132-1133). IS HIS STATEMENT COMPLETE?
6
A36.
No, Mr. Starkey’s statement is not complete because he left out a very important and key
7
component – money. To do what Mr. Starkey suggests would take a considerable
8
amount of money.
9
10
11
12
13
Q37. MR. STARKEY CLAIMS THAT IF THIS COMMISSION FINDS NO
IMPAIRMENT FOR UNE-P ARRANGEMENTS IN THE GEOGRAPHIC
MARKETS WHERE SBC MICHIGAN SEEKS RELIEF, THEN ONLY SBC
MICHIGAN WILL BENEFIT FROM IDLC (LINES 892 - 899). IS MR.
STARKEY’S CLAIM ACCURATE?
14
A37.
No, Mr. Starkey’s claim is not accurate. As noted in the direct testimony for the batch
15
cut proceeding, once SBC Michigan obtains relief (in certain MSAs), SBC Michigan
16
would offer the CLEC the option to leave its existing UNE-P arrangement in place at the
17
Commission-approved UNE-P rate for those circumstances where there are no UDLC or
18
copper loops available to cut to UNE-L, unless or until SBC Michigan changes or
19
augments its IDLC RT to UDLC, or SBC Michigan deploys copper cabling to the
20
applicable FDI. At such future time, the UNE-P would be converted to UNE-L.
21
22
Q38. ARE MR. STARKEY’S ALLEGED FEARS ABOUT SBC MICHIGAN RETIRING
COPPER LOOP FACILITIES WELL-FOUNDED (LINES 1203 -1230)?
23
A38.
No. Mr. Starkey apparently believes that SBC Michigan will immediately begin mass-
24
retirement of its copper loops, replacing those copper loops with fiber facilities. His
25
concerns are unfounded. Although this is not the proper proceeding to explore issues
26
surrounding retirement of copper loops, SBC Michigan will adhere to all rules for copper
27
retirement as set forth in applicable law, whether set at the federal level or by Michigan
28
state law. Mr. Starkey’s discussion of copper loop retirements points to a paragraph in
U-13796
23
Bell - Reply
1884
1
the Triennial Review Order (¶ 632) that actually is a discussion on routine network
2
modifications and not copper loop retirement. Mr. Starkey is mixing apples and oranges.
3
These are two separate issues, neither of which is applicable to this proceeding.
4
5
Q39. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR REPLY TESTIMONY?
6
A39.
Yes.
U-13796
24
1885
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In the matter, on the Commission’s own
motion, to facilitate the implementation of the
Federal Communications Commission’s
Triennial Review determinations in Michigan
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. U-13796
RESPONSE TESTIMONY OF RAMONT BELL
ON BEHALF OF SBC MICHIGAN
MARCH 5, 2004
Response - Bell
1886
1
Q1.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A1.
My name is Ramont Bell. My business address is 225 W. Randolph, Illinois,
3
60606.
4
5
Q2.
ARE YOU THE SAME RAMONT BELL WHO FILED REPLY
TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING?
6
A2.
Yes.
7
Q3.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?1
8
A3.
The purpose of my testimony is to respond to and refute mischaracterizations and
9
misrepresentations related to IDLC technology as set forth in the reply testimony
10
of Sage Telecom Inc. witness Dana Crowne.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q4.
MR. CROWNE STATES ON P. 17 LINES 1-5 OF HIS TESTIMONY THAT
WHEN A CUSTOMER IS MIGRATED FROM IDLC TO UDLC OR, IN
HIS WORDS, “LONG COPPER LOOPS,” THE CUSTOMER WILL FACE
A DEGRADATION IN SERVICE QUALITY. MR. CROWNE STATES
THAT “ONE EXAMPLE IS THAT CUSTOMERS WILL GENERALLY
EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANTLY SLOWER DIAL-UP INTERNET
SPEEDS.” HOW DO RESPOND?
18
A4.
First, Mr. Crowne has not raised any new issues that I have not addressed and
19
refuted on pages 8-12 of my reply testimony. Second, I find it suspect, as should
20
this Commission, that Mr. Crowne asserts that customers allegedly face
21
degradation in service quality on these voice-grade loops during moves from
22
IDLC to UDLC or copper, but he can only provide one example – and the
1
I note that the FCC's rules and Triennial Review Order (“TRO”) on unbundled local switching for
the mass market, as well as its delegation of authority to state commissions to conduct these mass market
switching cases, have very recently been held unlawful by the D.C. Circuit. USTA v. FCC, Nos. 00-1015,
et. al. (D.C. Cir. slip op. Mar. 2, 2004). Because of the schedule in this case and the fact that the case
originally arose under the TRO, however, my discussions of the TRO and former FCC rules in this
testimony necessarily relate to the TRO and FCC rules as they stood before the D.C. Circuit's decision. By
submitting this testimony SBC Michigan is abiding by the previously established schedule in this case, and
is not in any way waiving its rights under the D.C. Circuit's decision or in any way conceding the
lawfulness of the portions of the TRO and rules that have been held unlawful by the Court.
U-13796
1
Response - Bell
1887
1
example he provides has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of voice
2
service for the voice-grade loop. Essentially Mr. Crowne is trying to mix apples
3
and oranges. Just because a loop is designed for voice-grade service does not
4
mean that same loop is concurrently designed to handle high-speed internet
5
connections. As I stated in my reply testimony, if higher internet connection
6
speeds are desired, SBC Michigan offers higher-speed facilities that may be used.
7
Also, I acknowledge that CLECs have voiced concerns about the dial-up speed
8
that an end-user may experience. However, Mr. Robert W. McCausland of Sage
9
Telecom states on p. 18, lines 20-21 in his rebuttal Testimony, “all of Sage’s
10
customers are served through the use of DS0/voice grade level facilities.” SBC
11
Michigan’s technical standards provide a data transmission speed of a minimum
12
14,400 Kilo-bits per second (14.4 Kbps) over the voice grade service loop Also,
13
let us not forget, as I pointed out on page 11 of my reply testimony, that even
14
Sage admits that the level of service its customers experience is affected by a
15
myriad of forces beyond the control of the ILEC. Regardless of the technology
16
protocol (TR057, TR008 or GR303) or the transmission media (cooper, fiber or
17
hybrid), SBC Michigan adheres to the technical standards for its loop offerings.
18
19
20
Q5.
MR. CROWNE STATES ON P. 18 LINE ON 1-9 OF HIS TESTIMONY
THAT CLEC’S SHOULD BE PROVIDE UNBUNDLED ACCESS TO GR303. HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
21
A5.
Mr. Crowne has not raised any new issues that I have not already addressed and
22
refuted at pages 17-22 of my reply testimony.
U-13796
2
Response - Bell
1888
1
2
3
4
Q6.
MR. CROWNE STATES ON P. 18 LINE ON 19 OF HIS TESTIMONY
THAT THE ILEC DISRIMINATES BETWEEN THOSE INTERFACES
AVAILABLE TO THE CLECS AND THOSE IT USES TO ATTACH ITS
OWN SWITCHES TO THE LOOP. HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
5
A6.
As explained throughout my reply testimony, particularly at pages 4-7, 12-13, and
6
17-22, SBC Michigan does not provide unbundled loops to CLECs in a
7
discriminatory manner.
8
Q7.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR RESPONSE TESTIMONY?
9
A7.
Yes.
U-13796
3
1889
1
JUDGE RIGAS:
2
Mr. Reidy, do you have any
questions?
3
MR. REIDY:
Thank you, no.
4
JUDGE RIGAS:
5
MR. FIELD:
6
JUDGE RIGAS:
7
MR. LOWE:
8
JUDGE RIGAS:
9
MR. KELLY:
Mr. Field?
No questions.
Mr. Lowe?
No, your Honor.
Mr. Kelly?
No, your Honor.
10
JUDGE RIGAS:
Mr. Hughey?
11
MR. HUGHEY:
No, your Honor.
12
JUDGE RIGAS:
Mr. Denniston?
13
MR. DENNISTON:
14
JUDGE RIGAS:
15
MR. RASHES:
No, your Honor.
Mr. Rashes?
Yes, your Honor.
16
- - -
17
CROSS-EXAMINATION
18
BY MR. RASHES:
19
Q
20
Good afternoon, Mr. Bell.
Thank you.
My name is Haran Rashes and I
represent Sage Telecom.
21
A
How are you.
22
Q
As a preliminary matter, something that counsel didn't
23
mention but I just wanted to clarify for purposes of
24
asking and pointing out page numbers in your testimony.
25
In your February 10 testimony -- I'm
1890
1
hoping the copy before you is the same as what's up on the
2
web in this file -- is the numbered page 1 actually the
3
second page of questions; is that correct?
4
A
5
6
one where I state my name on the top?
Q
7
8
Page 1 is the second -- the page 1 -- actually, that's the
Does your page numbering start with Question 6 on the top
of page 1?
A
No, it does not.
9
10
MR. BINNIG:
It was fixed in the errata
MR. RASHES:
O.K.
version.
11
12
pointing out the wrong page number.
13
it as I go along.
14
Q
15
(By Mr. Rashes)
Then I'm probably
I'll try to correct
Is it correct your entire career has been
spent with SBC?
16
A
That is correct.
17
Q
Do you have any direct experience working for a
18
competitive local exchange carrier?
19
A
No, I do not.
20
Q
Are you an attorney?
21
A
No, I'm not.
22
Q
Are you a licensed engineer?
23
A
No, I am not.
24
Q
Have you ever been employed by Michigan Bell Telephone
25
Company?
1891
1
A
No, I have not.
2
Q
Your job duties include leading and managing the planning
3
and engineering functions associated with the construction
4
of aerial, underground, and buried fiber and copper-based
5
facilities, correct?
6
A
That is true.
7
Q
Are those job duties for the state of Michigan?
8
A
No, they're not.
9
Q
What factors are considered when SBC decides to install an
10
11
IDLC system?
A
Facts would be the area that needs, whether there's a
12
growth trigger, what is the reason that we need to
13
actually put the equipment there, the size of the area
14
that we are going to cover, let you know how large the
15
piece of equipment needs to be.
16
cost-effective to serve that area from copper or some
17
other, how can I say, technology versus that particular
18
piece of light span equipment, and we look for our right-
19
of-way.
20
place that particular piece of equipment in the proper
21
area?
22
The cost -- is it more
I mean can we get the right-of-way to actually
You also look at the ability to disburse
23
from that equipment once you have put it there.
I mean
24
can we provide distribution from that location out?
25
look at where you put it, the esthetics, how is it going
You
1892
1
to affect the community, you know, because sometimes this
2
is a large piece of equipment.
3
esthetics.
4
So we look at the
You look at the safety of the people that
5
will be working on the equipment.
6
place that provides safety for those people.
7
some of the situations that we look at.
8
Q
9
10
We need to put it in a
So those are
When you decide to install an IDLC system, is it more or
less expensive to deploy than a copper alternative?
A
In most cases the economic factors we look at have to be
11
with -- we do the thing that is most economical in the
12
particular area.
13
costing less money to deploy than copper.
14
some situations where a customer will request us to place
15
that particular unit, and they will pay the difference.
16
17
Q
But there are
Could you -- the IDLC is more or less expensive than the
copper?
18
19
So usually we're seeing that the RT is
MR. BINNIG:
I think that was just asked
and answered, your Honor.
20
MR. RASHES:
But at the end he then said,
21
your Honor -- we can read it back -- he said something
22
along the lines that they ask the customer to pay the
23
difference when they install the IDLC system.
24
confused.
25
JUDGE RIGAS:
So I'm
I think the witness was
1893
1
indicating that the customer expressed a preference, and
2
it was a less economic preference, that they pay the
3
difference.
Is that correct?
4
5
THE WITNESS:
Q
6
(By Mr. Rashes)
That would be correct, sir.
Do you consider the long-term operational
costs?
7
A
Can you explain what you mean?
8
Q
The long-term operational costs of the IDLC versus the
9
copper system.
10
A
Yes, we do.
11
Q
Are they lower or higher for the IDLC system versus the
12
13
copper?
A
Give me a minute.
14
It's kind of -- it varies.
The engineers
15
actually do the studies of long-range plans.
16
actually develop those scenarios on whether copper is to
17
be placed or IDLC is to be placed.
18
make the assessments of the maintenance on the two going
19
forward.
20
They
And during that, they
I mean I actually don't know the exact
21
parameters that is used in that particular decision by the
22
long-range planner, so I would be guessing if I came up to
23
tell you the maintenance factor, what the maintenance
24
factors really are.
25
Q
I don't know, no.
How about quality of service?
Would you expect it to be
1894
1
better for the four-wire digital system than it was on a
2
two-wire analog facility?
3
A
Four-wire digital?
4
Q
Would you expect -- let me rephrase it.
5
Would you expect quality of service to be
6
7
better with a digital system or with an analog system?
A
Actually, I would say that we have technical standards.
8
Our technical standards that we are deploying for these
9
services, for voice-grade systems and both systems would
10
provide us -- we would be able to provide the technical
11
standards to our customers, so they'd be the same.
12
Q
13
14
How about provisioning intervals, are they better or worse
when you use IDLC versus copper?
A
We actually do both.
We actually place copper into sacks
15
as we also place the IDLC into sacks.
16
pretty much -- I mean provisioning, as far as providing
17
service to customers, they would be probably the same.
18
Q
19
So they would be
Can you please tell us what is meant by the term "echo
return loss?"
20
A
Actually, I could not.
21
Q
Do you know if people perceive a degradation in quality of
22
telephone calls as the voice level gets quieter?
23
A
Could you restate that?
24
Q
Do people perceive a degradation?
25
Do they perceive the
calls are better or worse as voice levels get quieter?
1895
1
A
2
Just before I answer, give that question one more time,
make sure.
I'm sorry, sir.
3
Q
If I talk quieter on a telephone line --
4
A
Yes?
5
Q
-- do people know -- or the volume on the line is not as
6
high -- would the average customer notice a degradation in
7
the quality of the conversation, quality of hearing?
8
can't vouch for what the people are actually saying.
9
A
I
I guess I'm asking are you saying if the person that is
10
speaking, if his voice is reduced -- is that what you're
11
saying?
12
Q
Yes.
13
A
-- would they notice that the voice has been reduced?
14
Q
Would they have more difficulty picking up the call,
15
16
hearing what's being said on the other end?
A
If the volume on the call was lower, then the person on
17
the other end would probably, could probably have a
18
difficulty actually hearing the other person.
19
possibly be true.
20
Q
That could
In our March 5 response testimony on page 2 you point out
21
that SBC Michigan's technical standards provide a data
22
transmission speed of a minimum 14.4 kbts over the voice-
23
grade service loop.
24
25
That doesn't sound like much.
Would it
surprise you to learn that most dial-up users have come to
1896
1
expect better than 14.4?
2
A
I don't know what most dial-up users expect.
3
Q
If SBC standards provide transmission speed of 14.4, when
4
a user connects over a voice-grade system, let's say the
5
Internet, and gets, let's say, a 50K connection, are they
6
getting away with something?
7
MR. BINNIG:
Your Honor, I'm going to
8
object to the vagueness of the question.
9
with something"?
10
JUDGE RIGAS:
11
12
"Getting away
I don't understand the
question, Mr. Rashes.
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
Does SBC approve of customers that patch
13
in over their system the Internet at higher speeds than
14
SBC standards?
15
A
Actually the standards are based on -- we want to tell
16
them that's a minimum that we say our lines are.
If the
17
customers are not getting that minimum, then actually --
18
we actually tell the customer that we will repair that
19
line or actually give them a new line.
20
The fact that customers have the ability
21
to go higher, I mean, you know, that would be fantastic.
22
There is ability for a number of modems that will actually
23
allow you to go higher.
24
25
But our technical standards, as we say, we
make sure that -- remember these are voice-grade
1897
1
facilities, and in voice-grade facilities we make sure
2
that the customer actually is getting what they're
3
actually requesting in voice-grade facilities.
4
they decide to put data over that facility, those are the
5
minimum requirements that we will actually go out and make
6
a rearrangement on the system for.
7
Q
And if
So in other words, if I have a 56K modem at home and I'm
8
getting speeds significantly less than 56K but higher than
9
14.4, SBC does not have to do anything on my lines?
10
A
That is true.
11
Q
On page 2 of your March 5 testimony at lines 5 and 6, you
12
state that "If higher Internet connection speeds are
13
desired" --
14
A
Excuse me.
15
Q
Page 2 of your March 5 testimony.
16
A
O.K.
17
Q
Lines 5 and 6.
18
Where were you again?
You state that "If higher Internet
19
connection speeds are desired, SBC Michigan offers higher-
20
speed facilities that may be used."
21
I assume you're referring to an enhanced
22
23
loop service; would that be correct?
A
There are a number of things that can be used.
24
kilobits, 64 kilobits, that's one.
25
There are a number of them.
I mean 56
DSL, that's one.
1898
1
Q
2
Those are not over the analog line, correct, the voicegrade line?
3
A
They are over -- they're over copper loops.
4
Q
Do they come with an associated higher price?
5
A
I don't know the pricing of those.
6
Q
They're not included, though, with the basic local
7
exchange service?
8
A
I don't think so, no.
9
Q
Are those same higher-speed services offered to CLECs at
10
UNE rates?
11
A
I'm not sure.
12
Q
On the last page of your March 5 testimony you state that
13
SBC Michigan does not provide unbundled loops to CLECs in
14
a discriminatory manner.
15
"discriminatory"?
16
A
Can you please define the word
In this case we provide the CLECs the same loops that we
17
use ourselves.
18
that we use for ourselves, for our own customers, and the
19
loops that we supply to the CLEC.
20
Q
21
There's no difference between the loops
Does SBC Michigan use the GR-303 protocol to interconnect
their own switches with the outside plant equipment?
22
A
Yes, we do.
23
Q
Does SBC Michigan allow CLEC switches to interconnect with
24
25
the outside plant equipment using GR-303?
A
To the SBC switch?
Is that what you're saying?
Could you
1899
1
rephrase your question.
2
Q
I believe to the SBC switch, yes.
3
A
I have to say no, we do not.
4
Q
Do you consider that discriminatory?
5
A
No, I do not.
6
Q
Why?
7
A
Because what the customer is asking for is actually a
8
loop, a UNE loop.
And as I showed you what the technical
9
requirements for a UNE-P loop are, those are the same
10
requirements that we have for ourselves.
11
voice-grade service is still at -- the customer gets
12
voice-grade service that is no more than an 8 db loss.
13
they are using a V.34 modem, we guarantee that customer
14
gets a minimum of 14.4K.
15
thins we provide to our customers, they're the same things
16
we provide to the CLECs.
17
Q
18
19
If
And so I mean those are the same
They're no different.
In terms of connecting to the switch, it's different for
the CLEC versus SBC?
A
20
I don't -- you're asking when we're providing a UNE loop?
I didn't think the UNE loop had much to do with
21
22
I mean the
connecting to the switch.
Q
If you could please turn back to your February testimony
23
at what I believe is page 5 of what you have in front of
24
you, lines 20 to 22.
25
within the integrated channel banks go directly into the
You state that the derived pairs
1900
1
switch and the derived pairs in the universal channel
2
banks are de-multiplexed and converted to analog signals
3
that are terminated on the MDF.
4
A
That is true.
5
Q
And you say the switch.
6
Whose switch are you referring
to?
7
A
SBC's switch.
8
Q
Not the competitive carrier switch?
9
A
That is true.
10
Q
Do competitive carriers get connected directly to your
11
switch?
12
A
Not to my understanding.
13
Q
You then go on to describe the de-multiplexing and analog
14
conversion that CLECs are forced to experience.
15
de-multiplexing and D-to-A conversion add any delay to the
16
CLECs' ordering and processing of an order?
17
A
Does that
I would have no knowledge of what their process is and
18
what the delay would be; I would have no knowledge of
19
that.
20
Q
Does it add any trans-hybrid loss to the connection?
21
A
If you are using a V.34 modem, there's a possibility that
22
whatever traffic would be going would be the same.
23
Q
Does it offer a lower signal level?
24
A
Voice-gradewise?
25
Q
Yes.
1901
1
A
My understanding is that for -- it would still meet our
2
technical standards.
3
lower the voice grade, but it would still meet.
4
way it would still meet our technical standards.
5
Q
6
7
I don't know if it would actually
Either
Does SBC generally strive to meet the technical standards
or to exceed it?
A
I'll say in all cases we try to make sure that our
8
customers are actually -- that we meet our technical
9
standards.
10
11
And of course most times we strive to exceed
the technical standards.
Q
If a customer did perceive a degradation in service the
12
day he was cutover to CLEC equipment that we just
13
described, if he did a switch back to SBC, either that day
14
or at some point in the future, would you have to rewire
15
him at the MDF?
16
A
I'm not sure.
Actually, there is a time algorithm that
17
would make the -- that would give the customer the pair
18
that was available to him.
19
available, the existing pair that he had, I mean then he
20
would get the existing pair.
21
if he wanted to go back the next day, that would mean that
22
that particular CLEC would have to release that loop
23
within less than a 24-hour period, and I doubt if that
24
loop would be released within that 24-hour period, so he
25
would still belong to the CLEC.
I mean if that pair was
But if he wanted to go back,
1902
1
Q
2
3
loop for that customer.
Q
4
5
A
That particular loop would belong to the CLEC, so that
loop wouldn't be available.
Q
8
9
So you can't just tell the UDLC to reestablish a direct
connection into the SBC switch, can you?
6
7
So the system would probably have to request a separate
If the CLEC were to release the loop, would you have to
rewire him?
A
As I said, we'd still go through the algorithm of the
10
assignment records, and the assignment record would
11
actually assign the most available loop at that particular
12
time.
13
Q
14
So the chances are you wouldn't have to rewire him,
though, if the algorithm sets up?
15
A
Like I said, I don't know.
16
Q
If you could turn to page -- this would be 23 of your
17
February testimony.
On lines 7 and 8 you say to do what
18
Mr. Starkey suggests would take a considerable amount of
19
money.
20
A
Excuse me.
21
Q
Page 23 of the February testimony.
22
Could you direct me again, please.
through 8, your answer 36.
23
A
36?
24
Q
A-36.
25
A
O.K.
Page 23, yes, lines 6
1903
1
Q
When you say that Mr. Starkey's suggestion would take a
2
considerable amount of money, you're referring to
3
unbundling of IDLC, correct?
4
A
5
One minute, please.
testimony.
6
MR. RASHES:
7
(Document handed to the witness by Mr.
9
Anderson.)
A
11
12
Do you have a copy to provide
him?
8
10
Actually, I need Mr. Starkey's
(After reviewing document)
Excuse me.
The question
again, please?
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
When you say it would take a considerable
13
amount of money, are you referring to the unbundling of
14
IDLC?
15
A
16
17
I'm referring to Mr. Starkey's statement, yes, about the
unbundling of IDLC.
Q
So you're saying it would take a lot of money to make it
18
so competitive carriers could use the same digital
19
interfaces as SBC and not have to go through the de-
20
multiplexing and D and A conversion; is that correct?
21
A
No.
What I'm stating is that there's a number of ways
22
that Mr. Starkey had stated that the GR-303 could be
23
unbundled at that particular time.
24
not been used, we said, at the time.
25
technically not feasible, and in order to even look
Those techniques have
Right now they are
1904
1
through those processes, I'm saying those processes would
2
take a considerable amount of money and testing and time,
3
and at this particular time I think you just stated that
4
that would allow CLECs to use -- excuse me.
5
was that would allow the CLECs to provide IDLC?
6
what you said?
7
Q
Unbundled.
8
A
All right.
9
Is that
Now, we give them unbundled IDLC through
actually providing a UDLC loop and also a copper loop at
10
11
Your question
the time, so you actually have that today.
Q
When a CLEC has to go through the de-multiplexing and
12
analog conversion that you talk about on page 5 of your
13
February testimony at the bottom of the page and at the
14
top of page 6, is it possible to design a system where the
15
CLEC's customer would not have to be de-multiplexed and
16
switched from digital to analog conversion?
17
A
18
19
all, is that what you're saying?
Q
20
21
It would be possible that there would be no conversions at
Right.
You wouldn't have to de-multiplex and do the
digital to analog conversion.
A
For the systems we use today, we don't have it right now
22
and there is no analog conversion or a conversion to
23
digital right now.
24
25
Q
Is it a technical limitation or a money limitation?
In
other words, if money were no object, could they design a
1905
1
2
system that would allow that?
A
3
4
I guess I can't guess into the future, but right now I
haven't seen one.
Q
In response to Question 15 on page 5 of your February
5
testimony you state that "IDLC offers no technically
6
feasible means" -- that's on page 6 -- "IDLC offers no
7
technically feasible means of obtaining" --
8
A
Could you -- what line are you on?
9
Q
Line 3, starting with "However."
10
A
Of page 6?
11
Q
Yes.
12
A
O.K.
13
Q
You state that "However, IDLC offers no technically
14
feasible means of obtaining access to individual voice-
15
grade loops at the central office."
16
"technically feasible."
17
were used in the Telecommunications Act to describe when
18
you can make a bona fide request for a UNE?
You use the word
Isn't that the same words that
19
A
I'm not sure.
You'd have to show me where that is.
20
Q
You also state in response to Question 12 on page 4 of
21
your February testimony at lines basically 4 through 8,
22
you state that "SBC Michigan's" -- actually it's 7 through
23
8 -- "SBC Michigan's provision of unbundled loops in such
24
circumstances fully comports with federal law."
25
You're not a lawyer, correct?
1906
1
A
That is true.
2
Q
How can you be sure it comports with federal law?
3
A
Well, I'd say with my limited understandings of what is
4
required from SBC, from the federal government, or in
5
providing unbundled loops.
6
Q
7
Are lawyers involved in the design process when you select
equipment requirements?
8
A
Not to my knowledge, no.
9
Q
On page 13, line 16 of your February testimony you state
10
that "SBC Michigan will continue to provide copper loops
11
and sub loops as set forth in applicable interconnection
12
agreement based on federal and/or state law."
13
Michigan decides which laws are applicable to something
14
like that?
15
A
16
O.K.
Who at SBC
That's from line 15 and 16, you say, on 13?
Is that
where you are?
17
Q
Yes.
18
A
O.K., one minute.
19
Q
No.
Lines 16 to 17.
20
MR. BINNIG:
No, it's 15 to 16.
21
A
Could you repeat your question again now.
22
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
I'm sorry.
Who at SBC Michigan decides which laws
23
are applicable to what loops and sub loops will be allowed
24
to be offered?
25
A
I'm actually unsure.
That information comes to us from
1907
1
2
our regulatory body.
Q
I'm not sure who actually does it.
If the law were to -- a hypothetical here -- if the law
3
were to require your operation or all of the outside plant
4
to be in a separate company from the service providing
5
portion of SBC, would you design your DLC system any
6
different?
7
MR. BINNIG:
8
I'm going to object to the
relevance, your Honor.
9
JUDGE RIGAS:
10
It's not relevant.
Next
question.
11
How much more do you have there, Mr.
12
Rashes?
13
MR. RASHES:
14
JUDGE RIGAS:
We'll take a 15-minute
16
MR. RASHES:
I'll be done within 10.
17
JUDGE RIGAS:
18
MR. RASHES:
19
(A recess was taken.)
15
recess.
20
JUDGE RIGAS:
22
Mr. Rashes.
23
MR. RASHES:
25
We're taking 15.
O.K.
- - -
21
24
Four more questions.
Q
(By Mr. Rashes)
We'll go back on the record.
Thank you, your Honor.
Mr. Bell, if you could please turn to
page 3 of your February testimony, lines 19 through 21.
1908
1
You state that "In any event, SBC Michigan is willing to
2
continue providing the UNE-P in any instance where an
3
unbundled loop cannot be provided in an IDLC situation
4
until an alternative loop can be provided."
5
position or SBC's position?
6
MR. BINNIG:
Is that your
Your Honor, I'm going to
7
object.
I mean that answer that he just read reads for
8
itself.
It says SBC Michigan is willing.
9
a waste of time.
10
JUDGE RIGAS:
11
I mean this is
What's the point, Mr.
Rashes?
12
MR. RASHES:
13
question which I think will make the point.
14
Q
15
16
Do CLECs have any assurance that SBC will
be willing to continue to provide this?
A
17
18
(By Mr. Rashes)
I'll go on to my next
SBC will continue to provide facilities per the tariffs
and per the orders of the Commission that they're under.
Q
Will they be continuing to provide UNE-P in any instance
19
on the loop if they're not required to do so by the
20
Commission?
21
A
As I stated, they will continue to honor the tariffs and
22
orders of those commissions that they are under authority
23
of.
24
MR. RASHES:
25
JUDGE RIGAS:
Nothing further, your Honor.
Redirect?
1909
1
MR. BINNIG:
2
Just very briefly, your
Honor.
3
- - -
4
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
5
BY MR. BINNIG:
6
Q
7
Mr. Bell, you were asked some questions about switches
with the GR-303 interface.
Do you recall those questions?
8
A
Yes, I do.
9
Q
Those aren't the only switch interface types that SBC
10
11
Michigan uses; is that correct?
A
12
13
No.
No, we also use GR-303, we also use TR-08, and also
TR-057.
Q
O.K.
In terms of percentage of working loops, what
14
percentage of SBC Michigan working loops are served by a
15
GR-303 switch interface?
16
A
Less than 1 percent, or 1 percent.
17
18
MR. BINNIG:
Honor.
19
20
That's all I have, your
JUDGE RIGAS:
witness?
Anything further for this
I hear no one.
21
Thank you, Mr. Bell.
22
THE WITNESS:
23
(The witness was excused.)
24
JUDGE RIGAS:
25
afternoon.
You're excused.
Thank you.
That's enough for this
Anything before I close the record?
Nothing.
1910
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
Very well.
This matter is adjourned, then, to 9:00
A.M., March 19, 2004.
Thank you very much.
(At 5:35 P.M., the hearing was recessed to
the following day, Friday, March 19, 2004, at 9:00 A.M.)
- - -
1911
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify
that we reported stenographically the foregoing
proceedings had in the within-entitled matter, being Case
No. U-13796 before James N. Rigas, J.D., at the
Mercantile Building, Lansing, Michigan, on March 18,
2004, and that the foregoing transcript, exclusive of the
prepared direct testimony, constitutes a full, true and
correct transcript of our said stenographic notes.
Digitally signed by EVELYN R. MERRILL
DN: CN = EVELYN R. MERRILL, C =
EVELYN R.
US, OU = MERRILL
Reason: TRANSCRIPT
______________________________________
MERRILL
Date: 2004.04.01 10:39:38 -05'00'
Digitally signed by MARIE SCHROEDER
DN: CN = MARIE SCHROEDER, C = US,
MARIE
OU = MERRILL
______________________________________
Reason: TRANSCRIPT
SCHROEDER
Date: 2004.04.01 10:40:06 -05'00'
Dated:
March 18, 2004