lawyers & consultantsstevens & lee lawyers & consultants 17 north second street 16th...

STEVENS & LEE LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS

17 North Second Street 16th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-1090 Fax (717) 34-1099

www.stevenslee.com

March 22, 2007

Direct Dial: (717) 255-7365 Email: [email protected] Direct Fax: (610) 988-0852

DOCUMENT FOLDER

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY

Sue Benedek United Telephone Company of PA 240 N. 3rd. St. Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms, and Conditions Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b) with the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania

DocketNo. A-310922F70002

Dear Ms. Benedek: Enclosed please find Core's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents,

Set I I , directed to Embarq in the above captioned matter. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Best regards,

STEVENS & LEE

Michael A. Gruin

End.

cc: Secretary McNulty (certificate of service only)

Philadelphia • Reading • Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • Harrisburg • Lancaster * Scranton Williamsport • Wilkes-Barre • Princeton • Cherry Hill • New York • Wilmington

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

SLI 710987vl/100826.00003

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of March, 2007 copies of the foregoing Interrogatories

have been served, via hand delivery, upon the persons listed below in accordance with the

requirements of 52 Pa Code Sections 1.54 and 1.55 of the Commission's rules.


Michael A. Gruin, Stevens & Lee Attorney ED. No.: 78625 17 N. 2nd St. 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Tel. (717) 234-1090

0

Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment

m E M B A R Q " Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Harrisburg. PA 17)01

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Michael A. Gruin, Esquire Stevens and Lee 17 North Second Street, 16lh Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

March 27, 2007

DOCUMENT FOLDER

EMBARQ.com

tr» m o

c=»

3 :

- —* >-* Z

— j

IH BU

RE

AU

CO

j r -co

.Ti . J

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Mr. Gruin:

On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania ("Embarq Pennsylvania") enclosed please find an original and two (2) copies of Embarq Pennsylvania's Objections to Set II Interrogatories propounded by Core Communications, Inc.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincere ly j

Sue Benedek Attorney ID No. 60451

ZEB/jh cc: James J. McNulty, Secretary (cover letter only) (via hand delivery)

Zsuzsanna E- Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL Voice: |717) 245-63« Fax: (717) 236-1389

Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment POLDER E M B A R Q

Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Harrisburg. PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

VIA HAND DELIVERY


April 2, 2007

CO m o TO m — i

cr.

I

ro

o

7^ .n o


Dear Mr. Gruin:

On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania ("Embarq Pennsylvania") enclosed please find an original and two (2) copies of Embarq Pennsylvania's Response to Set II Interrogatories propounded by Core Communications, Inc.

The attachments to Core Set II, Question 1, have been marked PROPRIETARY to Embarq Pennsylvania and should be accorded confidential treatment in accordance with the Protective Order.


SinceFely.



Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL Voice: (7171245-6346 Fax: (7171236-1389

Kennard Law Offices L L C Attorneys At Law

116 Pine Street. 5lh Floor. HarrisburePA 17101

Tel: (717) 635-2320 Fax: 238-2390 Email: [email protected]

Norman J. Kennard Direct Dial: (717) 635-7273

April 12. 2007

James J. McNulty, Secretary Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street - Filing Room (2 n d Floor) Harrisburg, PA 17120

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions With The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, Docket No. A-310922F70002; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Dear Secretary McNulty:

Enclosed for filing with the Commission are the original and three (3) copies of a Notice of Withdrawal and Entry of Appearance in the above-captioned proceeding. A copy of this document has been served in accordance with the attached Certificate of Service.

If you have any questions with regard to this filing, please direct them to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours

NJK/ajt Enclosure

cc: Honorable David A. Salapa

Leonard Counsel for The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania

\0

BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

Petition of Core Communications. Inc. For Arbitration of Interconnection Rates. Terms and Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 252(b)

Docket Nos. A-310922F7002

NOTICE OF WITHDRAW AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Please withdraw my appearance in association with Hawke McKeon Sniscak &

Kennard LLP and enter my appearance in association with Kennard Law Offices LLC in

the above-designated matter on behalf of the United Telephone Company of

Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania.

I am authorized to accept service on behalf of said party in this matter

I am already receiving or have access to a copy of each document issued by the

Commission in this matter and do not on the basis of this notice require an additional

copy.

DOOUMB Respectfulh' su

APR 1 6 2007

Dated: April 12,2007

:ennard(I.D. No. 29921) TCennard Law Offices LLC 116 Pine Street, 5^ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 635-2320 (717) 238-2390 [email protected]

Counsel for The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania


I hereby certify that I have this day served a true copy of the foregoing document

upon the participants, listed below, in accordance with the requirements of 52 Pa. Code §

1.54 (relating to service by participant).

Service Via First Class Mail

Michael A. Gruin, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

Zsuzsanna E. Benedek, Esquire Embarq Pennsylvania 240 North Third Street, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17I0I

Office of Small Business Advocate Suite 1102, Commerce Building 300 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Office of Trial Staff 400 North Street, Second Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120

Office of Consumer Advocate 555 Walnut Street, 5 lh Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1923

DATED; April 12,2007




www.stevenslee.com

April 27,2007



Direct Dial: ££(717) 23K7365 Email: mag@s'tevenslggcom _ Direct Fax: £(610)988-0852 r f

^ - -3

. 1 :

m cn ro o

DOCUMENT FOLDER

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms, and Conditions Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b) with the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Ms. Benedek:

Enclosed please find Core Statement 1.0, Direct Testimony of Timothy J. Gates in the above-captioned matter. Please contact me i f you have any questions.

Best regards,

STEVENS & LEE

tlchael A. Gruin

End.

cc: Secretary McNulty (certificate of service only) Norman Kennard, Esq. Administrative Law Judge David Salapa

Philadelphia • Reading • Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • Harrisburg • Lancaster • Scranton Williamsport • Wilkes-Barre • Princeton • Cherry Hill * New York • Wilmington


SLI 719370vl/100826.00003

r


I hereby certify that on this 27th day of April, 2007 copies of the foregoing Testimony of

Timothy Gates have been served, via hand delivery, upon the persons listed below in accordance

with the requirements of 52 Pa Code Sections 1.54 and 1.55 of the Commission's rules.

Sue Benedek United Telephone Company, of PA 240 N. 3rd. St. Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101.

Norman J. Kennard, Esq. Kennard Law Offices 116 Pine St., 5th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

Administrative Law Judge David Salapa Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Commonwealth Keystone Building Harrisburg, PA 17120

Michael A. Grum,\Esq. Stevens & Lee Attorney ID No.: 78625 17N. 2nd St. 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Tel. (717) 234-1090

*

Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment E M B A R Q Embarq Corporation 2W N. 3rd Street, Suite 201 Harrisburg. PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

April 27, 2007

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND D E L I V E R Y

The Honorable David A. Salapa Office of Administrative Law Judge Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 400 North Street, 2 n d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

RE:

Dear Judge Salapa:

EN

APR 3 C 2007

Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(b) - Docket No. A-310922F70002

On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania enclosed please find the following documents:

1. Direct Testimony of Edward B. Fox (St. 1.0), with Exhibits;

2. Direct Testimony of Edward ("Ted") C. Hart (PROPRIETARY and PUBLIC versions) (St. 2.0), with Exhibits;

3. Direct Testimony of James M. (Mike) Maples (St. 3.0);

4. Direct Testimony of Kent W. Dickerson (PROPRIETARY and PUBLIC versions) (St. 4.0), with Exhibits.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.


ZEB/jh enclosures cc: Michael Gruin, Esquire (w/enclosures)(via electronic mail and hand delivery)

5 cr o

- n I f -r--73

FT:

~n — > - m

Zsuzsanna E. Benedek

SENIOR COUNSEL Voice: (717) 2^5-63^ Fax: |717) 236-1389


DOCUMENT FOLDER

E M B A R Q " Embarq Corporation 2'tO N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

May 4, 2007

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Michael A. Gruin, Esquire Stevens and Lee 17 North Second Street, 16,h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

t o

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(b) - Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Mr. Gruin:

33

rn o as*'-as*'-$Z

/>? VP cr

On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania enclosed please find an original and two (2) copies of our Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents directed to Core Communications, Inc.

Please provide responses as soon as they become complete.

SipGerely.

Benedek ZEB/jh cc: James J. McNulty, Secretary (cover letter only) (via hand delivery)

Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSa Voice.- (71712W-6346 Fax: (7171236-1389




www.stevenslee.com

Direct Dial: (717)255-7365 Email: [email protected]) Direct Fax: (610)988-0852

May 15, 2007

VIA HAND DELIVERY

James J. McNulty, Secretary Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 2nd. Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120

Re: Petition of Core Communications. Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates. Terms and Conditions with the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, d/b/a Embarq DocketNo. A-310922F70002


On behalf of Core Communications, Inc., enclosed please find an original and three (3) copies of James D. Webber's executed Appendix A to Proprietary Order in the above referenced matter. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Best regards,

STEVENS & LEE

Michael A. Gruin

Enclosures

rn o

r-o

cc: Honorable David A. Salapa Sue Benedek, Esquire Norman Kennard, Esquire e:

CO

Philadelphia • Reading • Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • Harrisburg • Lancaster • Scranton Williamsport • Wilkes-Barre * Princeton • Cherry Hill • New York • Wilmington


SLI 723132vl/100826.00003

APPENDIX A


Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration ) Of Interconnection Rates, Terms and Condition with ) The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(b)

Docket No. A-310922F7002

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The undersigned, ^ I w i " P . {jJp^kgL , is an employee of. , or has been retained as a consultant or expert witness, executing this Appendix

on behalf of <^h^i COWIUMJC e-j^-C 3?vZL The undersigned has read and understands the Protective Order entered in the above-referenced proceeding, addressing the treatment of Proprietary and Highly Confidential Information. The undersigned agrees to be bound by, and comply with, the terms and conditions of said Protective Order.

SIpNATURE

PRINTNAME

ADDRESS ^

DATED: 5^ f t $'1'

EMPLOYER

Wi m o

00 "

cr/ i f ;

>

f t nn Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment

Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Harrisburg. PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

May 18, 2007

CP

o m

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Michael A. Gruin, Esquire Stevens and Lee 17 North Second Street, 16,h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

DOCUMENT OLDER

CO

cr

CD

- a

A3

o m

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252031 - Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Mr. Gruin:

On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania ("Embarq Pennsylvania") enclosed please find an original and two (2) copies of Embarq Pennsylvania's Objections to Set III Interrogatories propounded by Core Communications, Inc.


Sincerely,

iPL Sue Benedek Attorney ID No. 60451



SENIOR COUNSEL Voice; (7171245-6346 Fax: |717| 236-1389

•


May 22, 2007


Michael A. Gruin, Esquire Stevens and Lee 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

CO m o n

•in"

ro

c —

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(bV- Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Mr. Gruin:

On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania ("Embarq Pennsylvania") enclosed please find Embarq Pennsylvania's Responses to Set III Interrogatories propounded by Core Communications, Inc.

The attachments to Core Set III, Questions 11-17,21, 27, 28, 33, 37, 44, 45 have been marked PROPRIETARY to Embarq Pennsylvania and should be accorded confidential treatment in accordance with the Protective Order.


SueBenedek Attorney ID No. 60451


Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL Voice: (717) 245-63% Fax: (717) 236-1389


May 29, 2007 VIA HAND DELIVERY

James J. McNulty, Secretary Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 2 n d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120

E M B A R Q " Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

-,-

CP

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §25200 - Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Secretary McNulty,

Enclosed please find an original and three (3) copies of executed Appendix A's on behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,


ZEB/jh enclosures cc: The Honorable David A. Salapa (via hand delivery)

Michael A. Gruin, Esquire (via electronic and first-class mail)


SENIOR COUNSEL Voice: [717) 245-6346 Fax: [717) 236-1389

APPENDIX A

B E F O R E T H E PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC U T I L I T Y COMMISSION

) Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration ) Of Interconnection Rates, Terms and Condition with ) The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania ) Docket No. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(b) ) A-310922F7002

) )


The undersigned, Kent W. Dickerson . is an employee of EMBARQ executing this Appendix on behalf of EMBARQ (the retaining party) and is not, or has no knowledge or basis for believing that he/she is: (I) an officer, board member, stockholder, partner or owner other than stock of any competitor of EMBARQ (the "Producing Party") or an employee of any competitor of the Producing Party who is primarily involved in the pricing, development, and/or marketing of products or services that are offered in competition with those of the Producing Party; or (2) an officer, board member, stockholder, partner, or owner other than stock of any affiliate of a Competitor the Producing Party.

The undersigned has read and understands the Protective Order entered in the above-referenced proceeding, which Order deals with the treatment of Proprietary and Highly Confidential Information. The undersigned agrees to be bound by, and comply with, the terms and conditions of said Order, and to the extent not explicitly clear thereunder, the undersigned agrees to respect the confidentiality of any oral communications regarding Proprietary and Highly Confidential Information, including discussions thereof. In the case of an independent expert, the undersigned represents that he/she has complied with the provisions of paragraph 4(aXii) of the Order prior to submitting this Affidavit.

'SIGNATURE

PRINT NAME

5454 WHO"1 Street Overland Park. KS 66211 ADDRESS

DATED: May 24. 2007

APPENDIX A

B E F O R E T H E PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC U T I L I T Y COMMISSION

200T!;;Vr29 PH i :33

Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration Of Interconnection Rates, Terms and Condition with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(b)



The undersigned, LvMrv^ A . f i P v g i ^ M f t executing this Appendix on behalf of EzM&M.Q)

, is an employee of gTVM^fl̂ r^ (the retaining party) and

is not, or has no knowledge or basis for believing that he/she is: (1) an officer, board member, stockholder, partner or owner other than stock of any competitor of

gT/Y) fia fgfTi (the "Producing Party") or an employee of any competitor of the Producing Party who is primarily involved in the pricing, development, and/or marketing of products or services that are offered in competition with those of the Producing Party; or (2) an officer, board member, stockholder, partner, or owner other than stock of any affiliate of a Competitor the Producing Party.

The undersigned has read and understands the Protective Order entered in the above-referenced proceeding, which Order deals with the treatment of Proprietary and Highly Confidential Information. The undersigned agrees to be bound by, and comply with, the terms and conditions of said Order, and to the extent not explicitly clear thereunder, the undersigned agrees to respect the confidentiality of any oral communications regarding Proprietary and Highly Confidential Information, including discussions thereof. In the case of an independent expert, the undersigned represents that he/she has complied with the provisions of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Order prior to submitting this Affidavit.

SIGNATURE

PRINT NAME

ADDRESS

DATED: 51

STEVENS & L E E LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS



www. s tevensl ee.com

May 30, 2007

FOLDER

Direct Dial: (717) 255-7365 Email: [email protected] Direct Fax: c.(610) 98^2852

: 3 m

CO

m o m

a: co rn > • CO


Sue Benedek United Telephone Company of PA 240 N. 3rd, St. Suite 201 ' Harrisburg, PA 17101

Re: Petition of Core Communications. Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms, and Conditions Ptirsuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b) with the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Ms. Benedek:

Enclosed please find Core's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set IV, directed to Embarq in the above captioned matter. Please contact me i f you have any questions.

Best regards,

STEVENS-& LEE

hchael A. Gruin

End.

cc: Secretary McNulty (certificate of service only)

Philadelphia • Reading • Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • Harrisburg • Lancaster • Scranton Williamsport • Wilkes-Barre • Princeton • Cherry Hil l • New York • Wilmington


SLI 726658vl/100826.00003

•


I hereby certify that on this 30th day of May, 2007 copies of the foregoing Interrogatories have

been served, via hand delivery, upon the persons listed below in accordance with the

requirements of 52 Pa Code Sections 1.54 and 1.55 of the Commission's rules.


Michael A. Gruin, Esq. Stevens & Lee Attorney ID No.: 78625 17 N. 2nd St. 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Tel. (717) 255-7365

05/30/07/SU 726657vl/100826.00003

Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment DOCUMENT FOLDER

E M B A R Q " Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

June 4,2007

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELI vffiCEIVED The Honorable David A. Salapa Office of Administrative Law Judge Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 400 North Street, 2 n t i Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

JUN - 5 2007

PA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION SECRETARY'S BUREAU cr

o

RE:

CD

1

o cr

Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S252(b) - Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Judge Salapa:

On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania ("Embarq Pennsylvania") enclosed please find the following pre-filed Rebuttal Testimonies:

1. Rebuttal Testimony of Edward B. Fox (PROPRIETARY and PUBLIC versions) (St. 1.1);

2. Rebuttal Testimony of Edward ("Ted") C. Hart (PROPRIETARY and PUBLIC versions) (St. 2.1);

3. Rebuttal Testimony of James M. (Mike) Maples (PROPRIETARY and PUBLIC versions) (St. 3.1); and,

4. Rebuttal Testimony of Kent W. Dickerson (St. 4.1).

The PROPRIETARY versions of the aforementioned documents are submitted under seal and include data and materials that have been designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PROPRIETARY."

.- - r'

Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL Voice: [71712'i5-63« Fax: (7171 236-1389

0 If you have any questions, please direct them to undersigned. Thank you.

Sincerely,

/


ZEB/jh enclosures cc: Michael Gruin, Esquire (via electronic mail and hand delivery)



Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)234-1090 Fax (717) 234-1099

vvw vv.stevenslee.com

June 4, 2007

VIA HAND DELIVERY


FOLDER

Direct Dial: (717) 255-7365 Email: [email protected] Direct Fax: (610) 988-0S52

RECEIVED JUN ^ §' 20P7

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms, and Conditions Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b) with the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Judge Salapa:

On behalf of Core Communications, Inc., enclosed please find the following documents in the above-captioned matter:

1. Rebuttal Testimony of Timothy J. Gates (Core Statement 1.1)

2. Rebuttal Testimony of James D. Webber (Core Statement 2.0 - Proprietary and Public Versions), with Exhibits.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Best regards,

STEVENS & LEE

-TD - -> i

cz o

(J 1

CO

o

rn

fchael A. Gruin

Philadelphia • Williamsport

Reading • Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • Harrisburg • Lancaster • Scranton Wilkes-Barre • Princeton • Cherry Hill • New York • Wilmington


SLI 727674vl/l 00826.00003


ALJ Salapa June 4, 2007 Page 2

Encl.

cc: Secretary McNulty (certificate of service only) Sue Benedek, Esq. Norman Kennard, Esq.

SLI 727674vl/l 00826.00003


I hereby certify that on this 4th day of June, 2007 copies of the Rebuttal Testimony of Timothy

Gates and James Webber have been served, via hand delivery, upon the persons listed below in

accordance with the requirements of 52 Pa Code Sections 1.54 and 1.55 of the Commission's

rules.

Sue Benedek, Esq. United Telephone Company of PA 240 N. 3rd. St. Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101

Norman J. Kennard, Esq. Kennard Law Offices 116 Pine St., 5th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101


Michael A. Gruin, Esq. Stevens & Lee Attorney ID No.: 78625 17N. 2nd St. 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Tel. (717) 234-1090


Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

June 6,2007


rn o

cr,'

cr I

Michael A. Gruin, Esquire Stevens and Lee 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

DOCUMENT FOLDER

m > cr

co


Dear Mr. Gruin:

On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania ("Embarq Pennsylvania") enclosed please find Embarq Pennsylvania's Responses to Set IV interrogatories propounded by Core Communications, Inc.


Sineerel



Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL

Voice: 1717) 245-6346 Fax: (717] 236-1369

• •

Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment E M B A R Q " Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

CO

June 7, 2007

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Michael A. Gruin, Esquire Stevens and Lee

DOCUMENT 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

rn

r — j

co


Dear Mr. Gruin:



Sincerely,

Sue Benedek ZEB/jh cc: James J. McNulty, Secretary (cover letter only) (via hand delivery)

Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL Voice: (717] 245-6346 Fax: (7171236-1389

rn m Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment

DOCUMENT FOLDER

June 15,2007

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL


E M B A R Q Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

t= i> m t= i> C=S — i

m — i

C— m — i CZ • -1

> ~ — •s J cn

" c CD cz: TO CO rn cn cr. o


Dear Mr. Gruin:



Sincerely

ie Behedek Attorney ID No. 60451



E:MAIL: [email protected] Voice: |717| 245-6346 Fax: (717| 236-1389

Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment E M B A R Q " Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

June 19,20 VIA HAND DELIVERY


MENT

Re:

CO

CO Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration o £ Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(b) - Docket No. A-310922F70002


Enclosed please find an original and three (3) copies of the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Kevin K. Zarling on behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania.


Sincerely,

STO Benedek Attorney ID No. 60451




EiUAIL: [email protected] Voice: (717} 245-6346 Fax; (717) 236-1389

BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIAPUBUC UTILITY COMMISSION

Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b) with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania


MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF KEVIN K. ZARLING

Pursuant to 52 Pa. Code §1.22(b) and PA.B.A.R. 301, Zsuzsanna E. Benedek, a

member of the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, respectfully moves for the

admission of the following individual to appear as an attorney on behalf of The United

Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania ("Embarq Pennsylvania")

in the above-referenced proceeding.

Kevin K. Zarling, Esquire Embarq 400 West 15th Street, Suite 1400 Austin, TX 78701-1600

Phone: (512) 867-1075 Facsimile: (512) 472-8362 E-Mail: [email protected]

DOCUMENT FOLDER

ET JUN 2 0 2007

m

m s> c:

CO

CO

In support of this motion, the movant states:

1. I am an active member of the Pennsylvania Bar (Attorney No. 60451) and an in-

house counsel, representing Embarq Pennsylvania in various Pennsylvania legal and

regulatory matters.

2. Kevin K. Zarling is a member in good standing of the Texas bar and admitted to

practice in 1990.

3. Mr. Zarling will be assisting the undersigned for litigation of the above-

captioned matter before this Commission.

WHEREFORE, I move that Kevin Zarling be admitted to practice pro hac vice

on behalf of Embarq Pennsylvania the above-captioned proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

Zsuzsanna E. Benedek, Esquire Attor/ieylDNo. 60451 Attorney for The United Telephone Company d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania 240 North Third Street, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Direct Phone: 717-245-6346 Fax: 717-236-1389 e-mail: [email protected]

Date: June 19,2007

ORIGINAL

Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment E M B A R Q Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARO.com

June 25, 2007

VIA HAND DELIVERY

James J. McNulty, Secretary Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 400 North Street, 2 n d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

RE: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. $2520)) - Docket No. A-310922F70002


On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania ("Embarq Pennsylvania"), in order to facilitate cross-examination, changes to the sponsorship of certain discovery responses of Embarq Pennsylvania are as follows:

The following discovery responses will be sponsored by Mike Maples:

Core 1-14 though and including 1-23

If you have any questions, please direct them to undersigned.

Sincerely*

cn o

r ;

3>


ZEB/jh enclosures cc: Michael Gruin, Esquire (via electronic mail and hand delivery)

TL C O

rvs C' i

co

OCT i 3 Z007

Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL E:MAIL: [email protected]

Voice: (717| 245-6346 Fax; (7171236-1389


June 25,2007

VIA HAND DELIVERY

The Honorable David A. Salapa Office of Administrative Law Judge Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 400 North Street, 2 n d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

E M B A R Q Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street. Suite 201 Hamsburg. PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

RECEIVED JUN 2 o ^

PA PUBUC UTILITY COMMISSION

DOCUMENT RE: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. $252(b) - Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Judge Salapa:

• On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq

Pennsylvania ("Embarq Pennsylvania") enclosed please find schedules marked KWD-3, KWD-4 and KWD-5 which will be addressed during Embarq Pennsylvania's Witness Kent Dickerson Oral Surrebutal Testimony on June 27, 2007. Please note that the attached schedules are marked PROPRIETARY.

Mr. Dickerson's Oral testimony will address the following subject matters raised in Mr. Webber's Rebuttal Testimony:

Core Witness Webber's cost study adjustments Core Witness Webber's assertions concerning ability to review Embarq Pennsylvania's Entrance Facility Cost Study; and, Core Witness Webber's views on use of Verizon proxy rates.

Sincerely, c : o

o r

ro cn

Sife'Benedek Attorney ID No. 60451

ZEB/jh enclosures

Michael Gruin, Esquire (via electronic mail and hand delivery)

zz . i—*

cc rn CD

Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL E:MfllL; SUE_E. BENEOEKg)EMBARQ.I

Voice; (717) 245-6346 Fax: |717| 236-1389

OALJ Hearing Report

Docket No.: A-310922F7002

P/eas^^c/c Those Blocks Which Apply YES

Prehearing Held:

NO

Case Name: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Hearing Held: Testimony Taken: ^

Transcript Due: ? / , ^ 7 | S Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms and Conditions with

The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, inc. Hearing Concluded:

Location: Harrisburg Further Hearing Needed:

Estimated Add'l Days:

Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007

m RECORD CLOSED:

ALJ: David Salapa DATE:

Briefs to be Filed: Reporting Firm: Commonwealth Reporting DATE:

RECEIVED JUL " 3 2007

PA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION SECRETARY'S BUREAU

Bench Decision:

REMARKS:

A-PLEASE PRINT CL EARLY - Incomplete Information may result in delay of processing.

Name and Telephone Number Address Who are you representing?

i^Mû^f^ Hio/ i^Mû^f^ Hio/ City State Zip

Telephone:^, i ^ ^ i f f . E-mail Address^. p ^ ^ ^ ^ (Fax Number: . 7 / v ? ^ _ ^

DOCUMENT FOLDER City State Zip

DOCUMENT FOLDER

Telephone:f//. $~)C -&fO~)$ E-mail Address:^, 2 ^ / - ^ ^ ^ /^Number: r/u.LfK-

2 ^ [Ate;+ St, * 5 o z Core

2 ^ [Ate;+ St, * 5 o z City State Zip

Core

Tejephone: E-mail Address: cWiS§COf^\ ^ \ Fax Number: 4 (0 2 6 ^ 1 X ' Check this box if additional parties or attendees appear on back of form^

(i^êporter's Signature

Note: Completion of this form does not constitute an entry of appearance, see 52 Pa. Code §§1.24 and 1.25.

#194070 rev 11/05

Name and Telephone Number Address Who are you representing?

Core

City State Zip

Telephone: E-mail Address: v^a^fSi 3\:e\}m^e • Cow-Fax Number:^ ^(Q qfo QBSZ

City State Zip

Telephone: E-mail Address: Fax Number:

City State Zip


City State .Zip


City State Zip


City State Zip


City State Zip

Telephone: E-mail Address: Fax Number-

city State Zip


Note: Completion of this form does not constitute an entry of appearance, see 52 Pa. Code §§1.24 and 1.25.

#194147

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

DATE: July 11,2007

SUBJECT: Petition of Core Communications, Inc.for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates. Terms and Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(b)


TO: Wanda Zeiders, Supervisor of Docket Management Docket Section, Secretary's Bureau

FROM: David A. Salapa Administrative Law Judge

Attached please find two copies of the late-filed exhibits marked as follows:

EQ PA Cross Exhibit #3 Response of Core Communications, Inc. Embarq PA Direct Exhibit #2 FCC Amicus Brief

These exhibits were moved and accepted into evidence in the above-captioned case at pages 95-97 for the Core response and 253-257 for the FCC brief.

Please docket these and place them in the yellow exhibit folder.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Attachments

Cc: Counsel of record

r. j c_ x 3

- o £ 0 0 m

FOLDER

NOV 2 9 2007 CD n J

#529911 09/06

a'11

Voice Data internet Wireless Entertainment

Embarq Corporation 240 N. 3rd Street, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

July 9, 2007

VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

Michael A. Gruin, Esquire Stevens and Lee 17 North Second Street, 16' Harrisburg, PA 17101

Re:

c~> m I

>3 m o

-< .2. ro rn

•J" ' . < i i '_

• J i • i

a ro —"

Floor

Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S252fb) - Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Mr. Gruin,

As referenced at page 254 of the transcript, Core Communications made an On the Record Data request to The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania for the FCC Amicus Brief from The United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit in Global Naps vs. Verizon New England, et al at Docket No. 05-2657. Attached please find the Brief for Amicus Curiae filed by the Federal Communications Commission on March 13, 2006.


DOCUMENT FOLDER

J£ pSue Benedek \tomey ID No. 60451

ZEB/jh NfWSSZCO/

enclosures cc: The Honorable David A. Salapa (via electronic mail and hand delivery)

a?

Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL E'.MAIL: [email protected] Voice: 1717] 245-6346 Fax: [717] 236-1389

* BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

I N THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 05-2657

GLOBAL NAPS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SAMUEL L. FEDER GENERAL COUNSEL

DANIEL M. ARMSTRONG ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL

JOEL MARCUS (BAR NO. 110379) COUNSEL

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C 20554 (202)418-1740

O —• - -; ••

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT OF INTEREST AND QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1

BACKGROUND 2

I. Reciprocal Compensation and Access Charges 2

H. Compensation For ISP Access.... 3

HI. The Present Dispute. 8

DISCUSSION 10

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page Cases

AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366 (1999) 11

Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v. FCC, 206 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 5

Dubois v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 102 F.3d 1273 (1 s t Cir. 1996),

cert, denied, 521 U.S. 1119 (1997) 13

Western Union Corp. v. FCC, 856 F.3d 315 (D.C. Cir. I9SS) 13

WorldCom Inc. v. FCC, 2SS F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2002) S

Adminis^afive Decisions

Access Charge Reform, 12 FCC Red 15982 (1997) 3

Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Red 4685 (2005) 8

Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Red 9610 (2001) 8

ISP Declaratory Ruling, 14 FCC Red 3689 (1999) 4, 5, 6, 7, 11,12

ISP Remand Order, 16 FCC Red 9151 (2001) 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 12,13

Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Red 15499 (1996) 2, 3, 12

Statutes gnd Regulatiops

47 C.F.R. §51.701 : 6

47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(1) (2000) 12

47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(1) (2004) 6

47 C.F.R. § 57.701 (2000) 2

47 U.S.C. §151 1

47 U.S.C. §201 ; 7

47 U.S.C. § 251(6X5) 1,2

47 U.S.C. § 251(g) 6,8

47 U.S.C § 252(b) 9

n

I N THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 05-2657

GLOBAL NAPS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.


Defendants-Appellees.

O N APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF INTEREST AND QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Amicus curiae Federal Communicatioiis Commission (FCC) is the federal

regulatory agency charged by Congress with 'Yegulating interstate and foreign

commerce in communication by wire and radio." 47 U.S.C. § 151. In particular,

the FCC regulates many aspects of the compensation scheme among

telecommunications carriers that collaborate to complete a telephone call. See,

e.g.9 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5). This case involves the Court's interpretation of an

FCC order pertaining to compensation for telephone calls placed to internet service

providers (ISPs). By order entered January 4, 2006, the Court requested that the

FCC file a brief addressing the following questions;

1. Whether, in the ISP Remand Order, 16 FCC Red 9151 (2001), the

Commission intended to preempt states from regulating intercarrier compensation

for all calls placed to internet service providers, or whether it intended to preempt

only with respect to calls bound for internet providers in the same local calling

area?

2. Whether, i f the FCC did not intend to preempt state regulation of all calls,

a state regulator's decision to impose access charges on certain calls violates the

Telecommunications Act of 1996?

3. What is the standard of review for a reviewing court assessing a state

commission's interpretation of an FCC order?

BACKGROUND

I . Reciprocal Compensation and Access Charges.

This case concerns the compensation paid by or to the carriers of telephone

calls when more than one carrier collaborates to complete a call. Congress has

placed on all local exchange carriers "[fjhe duty to establish reciprocal

condensation arrangements for the transport and termination of

telecommunications." 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5). In implementing that provision, the

FCC detennined that the statutory obligation "applpes] only to traffic that

originates and terminates within a local area," as defined by state regulatory

authorities. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Red 15499, 16013 \1034 (1996)

(subsequent history omitted).1 See 41 C.F.R. § 57.701 (2000) (requiring reciprocal

1 Although the Local Competition Order was the subject of various appeals that ultimately resulted in its partial reversal, no party challenged that aspect of the Order.

compensation for "[tjelecommunications traffic ... that originates and terminates

within a local service area established by the state commission"). Thus, when a

customer of one carrier places a local, non-toll call to the customer of a competing

carrier, the originating carrier must compensate the terminating carrier for

completing the call.

In the Local Competition Order, the Commission also decided that "the

reciprocal compensation provisions of section 251(b)(5) do not apply to the

transport or termination of interstate or intrastate interexchange traffic." Local

Competition Order at 16013 If1034. Interexchange traffic is traffic that terminates

beyond a local calling area, and it is governed by a different compensation regime.

When a customer places a toll or long distance call, the long distance carrier,

known as an interexchange carrier or IXC, pays "access charges" to both the

originating and terminating local carriers. See Access Charge Reform, 12 FCC

Red 15982, 15990-15992 (1997); Local Competition Order at 16013 lfl034. The

Commission decided that the states should "determine whether intrastate transport

and termination of traffic between competing LECs, where a portion of their local

services areas are not the same, should be governed by section 251 (b)(5)'s

reciprocal compensation obligations or whether intrastate access charges should

apply to the portions of their local service areas that are different." Local

Competition Order <P035.

n . Compensation For ISP Access.

In several recent orders, the FCC has addressed the intercarrier

compensation regime that applies to calls placed to dial-up internet service

providers (ISPs). Dial-up access involves a customer who seeks to access the

Internet via telephone. To do so, the customer dials a telephone number, usually

but not always a local number, and is connected with the ISP's equipment. From

there, the ISP connects the call to computers throughout the world. See JSP

Declaratory Ruling, 14 FCC Red 3689, 3691 ^4 (1999). In many cases, such as

this one, the ISP is served by one telephone company, typically a competitive local

exchange earner (CLEC), and the dialing-in customer by a different company,

typically the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC).

Disputes arose between ILECs and CLECs about the intercarrier payment

mechanism that governs such calls. The CLECs argued that calls to ISPs are local

calls, subject to reciprocal compensation payments, because the calls terminate at

the ISP's equipment. The ILECs argued that such calls are not subject to the

reciprocal compensation regime because they terminate only at the far-flung

computer servers that constitute the world-wide-web.

The FCC first addressed the matter in the ISP Declaratory Ruling, 14 FCC

Red 3689. The Commission noted that in the "typical arrangement, an ISP

customer dials a seven-digit number to reach the ISP server in the same local

calling area.'* Id. at 3691 %4. Even though the initial part of the call is local,

however, the Commission found that the call, looked at "end-to-end," does not

'terminate at (he ISP's local server... but contmuefs] to the ultimate destination ...

at a[n] Internet website that is often located in another state." Id. at 3697 Tfl2.

ISP-bound calls were not considered local calls subject to reciprocal compensation

under state regulator/ auspices, but.interstate calls subject to the regulatory

authority of the FCC.

The Commission nevertheless acknowledged that at the time it "ha[d] no

rule governing inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic." ISP Declaratory

Ruling at 3703 *p2. In the absence of such a rule, the Commission found "no

reason to interfere with state commission findings as to whether reciprocal

compensation provisions of interconnection agreements apply to ISP-bound

traffic." Id. at 3703 f21. In other words, the FCC left the existing state regulatory

mechanisms in place for the time being. At the same time, the Commission began

a rulemaking proceeding to formulate a federal rule that would govern ISP-bound

calls. Id. at 3707-3710.

The D.C. Circuit vacated the ISP Declaratory Ruling in Bell Atlantic

Telephone Companies v. FCC, 206 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2000). It did not question the

agency's jurisdictional analysis, id. at 7, but found that inquiry not to be

"controlling" on the question of whether a call is within the scope of § 251(b)(5),

id. at 8. The Court also found that the FCC's analysis seemed inconsistent with the

Commission's earlier ruling that ISPs were end users that could subscribe to

telephone service pursuant to rates established for local service. Id. at 7-8. The

Court also held that the Commission had failed to make its rules comport with the

statute's distinction between "telephone exchange service" and "exchange access."

Id. at 8-9.

On remand, the Commission issued the ISP Remand Order, 16 FCC Red

9151 (2001), the interpretation of which is before the Court in this case. The

Commission described the issue it had confronted in the ISP Declaratory Ruling as

"whether reciprocal compensation obligations apply to the delivery of calls from

one LEC's end-user customer to an ISP in the same local calling area that is served

by a competing LEC." ISP Remand Order, 16 FCC Red at 91591fl3. The

Commission determined that ISP-bound calls are not subject to reciprocal

compensation payments pursuant to § 251 (b)(5). Rather, the Commission found

that ISP-bound calls are "information access" calls within the meaning of 47

U.S.C. § 251(g), which states that LECs shall provide information access "with the

same equal access and non-discriminatory interconnection restrictions and

obligations (including receipt of compensation) that apply to such carrier on the

date immediate preceding the date of enactment of the statute. Ibid. The

Commission interpreted § 251 (g) as a "carve-out" of the reciprocal compensation

requirement of §251(b)(5) for calls placed to ISPs. Id. at 9166-9167 f34.2 The

Commission found that § 251(g)'s exception to the reciprocal compensation

requirement was intended to apply to "all access traffic that [is] routed by a LEC"

to an ISP. Id. at 9171 ^44.

The Commission next reiterated its earlier conclusion that calls to ISPs are

interstate calls over which the Commission has regulatory authority. ISP Remand

2 The Commission also changed 47 CJF.R. § 51.701 to reflect the teiminology used in § 251(g) of the statute. Instead of referring to "local" calls, a term not used in the statute, the regulation now exempts from the reciprocal compensation requirement telecommunications traffic that is interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access." 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(1) (2004). The Commission made the change because use of the term "local" "created unnecessary ambiguity ... because the statute does not define the term 'local call,' [which] ... could be interpreted as meaning either traffic subject to local rates or traffic that is jurisdictionally intrastate." ISP Remand Order at 9172 ^45.

Order at 9175 %52. The Commission analyzed the matter once again under an end-

to-end analysis and found that ISP-bound calls are predominantly interstate. Id. at

91781f58. As such, under the authority set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 201, the

Commission set about developing a federal rule for compensation.

In developing a federal compensation rule, the Commission was particularly

concerned about problems that had arisen with reciprocal compensation payments

that had been ordered by State utility commissions under the ISP Declaratory

Ruling. The Commission found that ISP dial-up access had distorted the market

and "created the opportunity to serve customers with large volumes of exclusively

incoming traffic." ISP Remand Order at 9182-9183169 (emphasis in original).

The record showed that CLECs terminated 18 times more calls than they

originated, leading to their receipt of net reciprocal compensation payments

amounting to nearly'$2 billion annually at the time of the Order. Id. at 9183 fZO.

The Commission thus found that, due to this type of regulatory arbitrage,

reciprocal compensation had ''imderminejci] the operation of competitive markets."

/</.at9183T71.

The Commission expressed the view that a e cbill and keep" regime under

which each carrier collected its costs from its customer and not another carrier

would be a viable compensation approach to ISP-bound traffic. ISP Remand

Order ̂ 74. The Commission did not, however, employ a "flash cut" - i.e., an

immediate transition - to such a regime because the absence of a transition period

would "upset the legitimate business expectations of carriers and their customers."

Id. at 9186 fl77. The Commission instead instituted an interim compensation

mechanism that placed a declining cap on the rate paid for termination of ISP-

bound calls and limited the volume of calls eligible for compensation. ISP

Remand Order at 9187 ̂ 78, 9191 186. "This interim regime satisfies the twin

goals of compensating LECs for the costs of delivering ISP-bound traffic while

limiting regulatoiy arbitrage." Id. at 9189183.

On review, the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded, but did not vacate, the

ISP Remand Order. WorldCom Inc. v. FCC, 288 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The

Court held that the Commission's "carve-out" analysis was not consistent with the

language of § 251(g) and would allow the Commission to "override virtually any

provision of the 1996 Act so long as the rule it adopted were in some way ...

linked to LECs' pre-Act obligations." Id. at 433. In the meantime, the

Commission began a rulemaking proceeding (which is still pending) to examine all

aspects of intercarrier compensation, including compensation for ISP-bound calls.

See Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 16 FCC Red 9610 (2001); Developing a Unified Intercarrier

Compensation Regime, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Red

4685 (2005).

m . The Present Dispute.

The dispute before the Court involves a variation on the typical ISP dial-up

access scenario. The calls at issue are not delivered to an ISP that is located in the

caller's local calling area. Instead, the dialing-in customer, served by Verizon, an

ILEC, is located in one exchange and the equipment of the ISP, served by Global

Naps, a CLEC, is located in a different exchange. Ordinarily, such a call would be

subject to a toll paid by the caller to the IXC (in many cases, the originating LEC

acts as the de facto IXC), which would carry the call to the facilities of the

terminating LEC. In that way, the originating LEC, acting in the role of an IXC,

would pay a terminating access charge to the terminating LEC. In order to allow

the customer to reach the ISP without paying a toll, however, Global Naps has

assigned a virtual or "VNXX" number to the ISP. A VNXX number is a telephone

number that appears to be assigned to one exchange but actually is assigned to a

customer in a different exchange. Thus, when the Verizon customer calls the ISP -

a phone call ordinarily subject to toll charges - he does not incur any toll charges,

because the switching equipment treats the call as a local call even though it is not -

That arrangement led to a dispute between Verizon and Global Naps over

the applicable payment regime. Global Naps claimed that ISP-bound VNXX calls

' are entitled to compensation from Verizon under the federal regime established in

the ISP Remand Order. Verizon claimed that the federal compensation plan

applied only to calls delivered to an ISP in the same local calling area and that

Verizon was entitled to state-ordered access charge compensation for VNXX calls

to make up for the lost toll revenue that resulted from Global Naps* use of VNXX

numbers. The parties submitted their dispute to the Massachusetts Department of

Telecommunications and Energy (DTE) for arbitration pursuant to the process set

forth in 47 U.S.C. § 252(b).

DTE ruled that < tVNXX calls will be rated as local or toll based on the

geographic end points of the call." DTE Order at 33 (App. 611). As such, DTE

accepted language proposed by Verizon to govern compensation for VNXX calls.

10

Id. at 37-38 (App. 615-616). That language would require Global Naps to (<pay

Verizon's originating access charges for all |VNXX] traffic originated by a

Verizon Customer..." App. 867. Thus, DTE effectively required Global Naps to

pay access charges for ISP-bound calls made to VNXX numbers.

The district court affirmed the DTE order. The court took note of Global

Naps' argument that the ISP Remand Order preempted state regulation of

compensation for ISP-bound calls, but rejected the claim on the ground that Global

Naps had "impliedly consented to DTE's jurisdiction" over the rates when it

voluntarily sought arbitration." Memorandum of Decision in Civil Action No. 02-

12489 (Sept. 21, 2005) (App. 1164).

DISCUSSION

The Court has asked us to address whether the ISP Remand Order was

intended to preempt states from establishing the compensation regime that governs

a call placed by an ILEC customer in one exchange to a CLEC-served ISP located

in a different exchange using a VNXX number assigned to the ISP by the CLEC.

The ISP Remand Order does not provide a clear answer to this question. As set

forth below, the JSP Remand Order deemed all ISP-bound calls to be interstate

calls subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC, and the language of the JSP Remand

Order is sufficiently broad to encompass all such calls within the payment regime

established by that Order. Nevertheless, the order also indicates that, in

establishing the new compensation scheme for ISP-bound calls, the Commission

was considering only calls placed to ISPs located in the same local calling area as

the caller. The Commission itself has not addressed application of the JSP Remand

11

Order to ISP-bound calls outside a local calling area. Nor has the Commission

decided the implications of using VNXX numbers for intercarrier compensation

more generally. In this situation, the Commission's litigation staff is unable to

advise the Court how the Commission would answer the first question posed by the

Court.

In the ISP Remand Order (as in the ISP Declaratory Ruling), the

Commission found that calls to ISPs are interstate calls subject to federal

regulatory jurisdiction. At the same time, Congress in § 252 gave the States

significant authority over interconnection agreements between carriers. Thus,

while "Congress has broadly extended its law into the field of intrastate

telecommunications/' in a few areas such as interconnection agreements Congress

'lias left the policy implications of that extension to be determined by state

commissions." AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366,385 n.10

(1999).

In some respects, the ISP Remand Order appears to address all calls placed

to ISPs. The Commission's ruling that calls to ISPs are interstate calls because

they may terminate at web sites beyond state boundaries necessarily applies to all

ISP-bound calls. The Commission's theory that ISP-bound calls are "information

access" calls within the meaning of § 251(g) that are thus exempted from the

requirements of § 251(b) likewise applies to all ISP-bound calls. The ISP Remand

Order is also replete with references to "ISP-bound calls" that do not differentiate

between calls placed to ISPs in the same local calling area and those placed to ISPs

in non-local areas.

12

At the same time, however, the administrative history that led up to the ISP

Remand Order indicates that in addressing compensation, the Commission was

focused on calls between dial-up users and ISPs in a single local calling area. The

Local Competition Order and the regulations promulgated pursuant to that order

contemplated that reciprocal compensation would be paid only for calls that

"originatfe] and terminat[e] within a local service area" 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(1)

(2000); see Local Competition Order at 16013 f1034. Thus, when the

Commission undertook in the ISP Declaratory Ruling to address the question

'Vhether a local exchange carrier is entitled to receive reciprocal compensation for

traffic that it delivers to ... an Internet service provider," id. at 3689 f 1, the

proceeding focused on calls that were delivered to ISPs in the same local calling

area. Indeed, the Commission described the "typical arrangement" (although not

the exclusive arrangement) it had in mind as one where "an ISP customer dials a

seven-digit number to reach the ISP service in the same local calling area." Id. at

369114.

The administrative history does not indicate that the Commission's focus

broadened on remand. The ISP Remand Order repeats the Commission's

understanding that "an ISP's end-user customers typically access the Internet

through an ISP service located in the same local calling area." Id. at 9157110.

The Order refers multiple times to the Commission's understanding that it had

earlier addressed - and on remand continued to address - the situation where

''more than one LEC may be involved in the delivery of telecommunications

13

within a local service area." Id. at 9158 HI 2; see also id. at 9159113, 9163 ^24,

9180163.

The VSP Remand Order thus can be read to support the interpretation set

forth by either party in this dispute. The Commission itself, however, has not

expressed a position on the matter. Moreover, the Commission has not addressed

the more general effects on intercarrier compensation of the use of VNXX

numbers. In the circumstances, it would not be possible for the Commission's

litigation staff to provide an official position on a matter that the Commissioners

themselves have not yet directly confronted and addressed in a rulemaking or

adjudicatory proceeding. As this Court has recognized, post hoc rationalizations

offered by agency counsel are not substitutes for an agency order issued in the

appropriate manner. Dubois v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 102 F.3d 1273, 1289 (1 s t

Cir. 1996), cert denied, 521 U.S. 1119 (1997); see also Western Union Corp. v.

FCC, 856 F.3d 315, 318 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (agency rationale ''must appear in the

agency decision and the record; post hoc rationalizations by agency counsel will

not suffice").

The Court also asked the FCC i f any other provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 would prohibit a State from imposing access

charges on ISP-bound VNXX calls. As described above, the Commission did not

directly address VNXX calls in either of its ISP orders and has not addressed

VNXX calls more generally. In the circumstances, we are unable to advise the

Court whether the Commission might in the future interpret any provision of the

Communications Act to prohibit State-imposed access charges. For similar

14

reasons, we are unable to address the Court's third question regarding the standard

of review of a state commission interpretation of FCC orders, another matter on

which the Commission has not spoken.

Respectfully submitted.

SAMUALL. FEDER GENERAL COUNSEL

DANIEL M. ARMSTRONG ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL

MARCUS (BAR No. 110379) SEL

FEDERAL COMMUNICATTONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 (202) 418-1740 (TELEPHONE) (202)418-2819(FAX)

March 13,2006

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

GLOBAL NAPS, Inc.,

V.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,


DEFENDANTS--APPELLEES.

NO. 05-2657

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to the requirements of Fed- R. App. P. 32(a)(7), I hereby certify

that the accompanying "Brief for Amicus Curiae Federal Communications

Commission" in the captioned case contains 3432 words.

JOEJI MARCUS (BAR No. 110379) 5UNSEL

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 (202) 418-1740 (TELEPHONE) (202) 418-2819 (FAX)

March 13,2006


I certify that on March 13,2006,1 directed that copies of the foregoing brief be served by mail on each of the following:

Andrew Good Good & Cormier 83 Atlantic Ave. Boston, MA 02110

Thomas A. Bamico Assistant Attorney General Government Bureau One Ashburton Place, Room 2019 Boston, MA 02108

Scott Angstreich Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans

1615 M Street, N.W. Ste 400 Washington, D.C. 20036

Paul G. Alfonso General Counsel Massachsetts Department of Telecommunications & Energy

One South Station, 2d Floor Boston, MA 02110

J STEVENS & LEE LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS


Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-1090 Fax (717) 234-1099.

www.stevenslee.com

July 3, 2007

Direct Dial: (717) 255-7365 Email: [email protected] Direct Fax: (610) 988-0852

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND US MAIL


<~>

^ —

NOV 2 s imi

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates. Terms, and

cr

Conditions Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 25203") with the United Telephone Company,Qf Pennsylvania... • DocketNo. A-310922F70002

m o r i

Response to On the Record Data Request D O C U M E N T

FOLDER Dear Ms. Benedek:

-

era

no

CD

This letter will serve as the Response of Core Communications, Inc. to the Orjthe Record Data Request made by Embarq at the June 27, 2007 Arbitration Hearing in the above captioned matter.

The On the Record Data Request appears at page 95 of the transcript:

"..Is the agreement, the complete agreement provided in response to Set 1-19, the agreement between Core and Verizon North, in effect today; is it an opt-in arrangement with the appendix that's attached hereto, is it an opt-in arrangement to the Verizon/Sprint agreement that was referenced in Mr. Webber's testimony at page 6, lines 128 to 129?"

Core responds as follows:

The agreement provided in response to Set 1-19 is still in effect today, and it is an ppt-in arrangement to the Verizon/Sprint agreement that was.referenced in Mr. Webber's testimony at page 6, lines 128 to 129.

Philadelphia • Williamsport

Reading * Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • . Hamsburg • Lancaster • Scranton Wilkes-Barre • Princeton • Cherry Hill . . .•„.. New York • Wilmington


07/03/07/SL1 734449v 1/100826.00003

j pi

m o rn <[ •rri a

0 i

A STEVENS & LEE LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS

July 3, 2007 Page 2

Core has no objection to the admission of this response into the record as a late filed Embarq exhibit.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Best regards,

STEVENS & LEE

fichael A. Gruin

Encl.

cc: Administrative Law Judge David Salapa

07/03/07/SLl 734449v 1/100826.00003

Voice Data Internet Wireless Entertainment E M B A R Q Embarq Corporation 2W N. 3rd Street, Suite 201 Harrisburg. PA 17101 EMBARQ.com

July 12, 2007 £ —

VIA HAND DELIVERY


rn

1X2

CO

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection.Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(b) - Docket No. A-310922F70002


On behalf of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pennsylvania ("Embarq PA") enclosed please find an original and three (3) copies of transcript corrections from the June 27, 2007 Hearing.


Sincerely,

SaeTienedek Attorney ID No. 60451



Zsuzsanna E. Benedek SENIOR COUNSEL £:MAtL [email protected]

Voice: |717) 245-6346 Fax: [717) 236-1389

i i BEFORE THE

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

c/) o

i •

I 3

ro

CO

•p~

Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms And Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania oE /̂a Embarq Pennsylvania Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b)


TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS

Pursuant to 52 Pa. Code §5.253, United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq

Pennsylvania ("Embarq PA") submits the following transcript corrections in connection with the

Hearing held on June 27, 2007 in the above-captioned matter.

PAGE/LINE NUMBER READS

p. 106,1.21

p. 107,1. 15

p. 108,1. 14

p. 108,1. 16

p. 108,1. 17

"presents and alternative"

"Never been an indication"

"MUX, VMUXaDS3"

"you said VMUX"

"Yes, V multiply,"

CORRECTION

"presents an alternative"

''Never had there been an indication"

"MUX, De-Mux a DS3"

"you said DMUX"

"Yes, De- multiplex"

iNBwnooo SEP 1 9 2007

•

p. 113,1. 17

p. 116,1.6

p. 130,1.7

p. 131,1. 11

p. 145,1.21

p. 153,1.6

p. 159,1. 22

p. 163,1. 19

p. 181,1. 12-13

p. 190,1. 24

p. 205,1. 12

p. 271,1.24

p. 275,1. 15

"on that end of the cable, at the POP end"

"exchange"

"Kenneth"

"for"

"mathematical"

"less say yes"

"our understanding if cost"

"ifwhatlmeant,"

"United has not terminating"

"directly"

"received"

"just anybody"

"correct"

"on that end of the cable, than at the POP end."

"exchanged"

"Kent"

delete "for"

"mathematics"

"let's say yes"

"our understanding of cost"

"is what I meant,"

"United has not paid

terminating"

"directed"

"perceived"

"just as anybody"

"correctly"

Embarq PA requests that Your Honor direct the above-listed corrections be made to the

transcript of the June 27, 2007 hearing. Thank you.

Resp̂ ctfiilly submitted

Attorney ID No. 60451 240 North Third Street, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 245-6346 Facsimile: (717) 236-1389 e-mail: [email protected]

DATED: July 12, 2007

- 2 -




www.stevenslee.com

Direct Dial: (717) 255-7365 Email: mag@stev"enslee.conv^. Direct Fax: (610) 988-0852 ^

July 27, 2007

HAND DELIVERY

Secretary James McNulty Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Commonwealth Keystone Building Harrisburg, PA 17120

Re: Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms, and Conditions Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b) with the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Docket No. A-310922F70002

Dear Secretary McNulty :

It has come to my attention that the copies of Core Statement 1.0 (Direct Testimony of Timothy Gates) that were submitted at the June 27, 2007 Evidentiary Hearing in this matter were missing several pages due to a clerical error. In order to correct this error, I am enclosing for filing two (2) corrected copies of Core Statement 1.0. These corrected copies are identical in all respects to the copies of Statement 1.0 that were pre-served to opposing counsel and the ALJ on April 27, 2007. Both counsel for Embarq and presiding Administrative Law Judge David Salapa have been informed of this request, and neither has any objection to the filing of corrected copies of Core Statement 1.0.

Please place the corrected copies of Core Statement 1.0 in the yellow exhibit folder for this matter. Thank you, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Best regards,

STEVENS & LEE A

FOLDER Michael A. Gruin

Enclosures

Philadelphia o Williamsport

Reading • Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • Harrisburg • Lancaster • Scranton Wilkes-Barre • Princeton • Cherry Hill • New York • Wilmington


SU 739591 vi/100826.00003


Secretary James McNulty July 27, 2007 Page 2

cc: Administrative Law Judge David A. Salapa Sue Benedek, Esq.

SLI 739591vl/I00826.00003


Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms and Conditions with The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania d/b/a Embarq Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §252(b)

A-310922F7002

ro

CD

5~

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Core Statement 1.0

On Behalf of Core Communications, Inc.

April 27,2007

OCT Ql Z007

I I I I I I I I I I i i i i i i i i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Witness Introduction 1 Purpose of the Testimony 2 Issue 1 - "Local Traffic" versus "Section 251(b)(5) Traffic" 3 Issue 2 - Point of Interconnection ("POI") 7 Issue 3 - Interconnection Methods/Collocation 15 Issue 4 - Loop Interconnection 16 Issue 5 - Tandem v. End Office Rates for Transport and Termination 19 Issue 6 - Reciprocal Compensation for Section 251(b)(5) Traffic 21 Issue 7 - Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-bound Traffic 22 Issue 9 - VNXX Traffic and Other Rating Issues (VoIP) 32 Issue 9 - Indirect Traffic - Volume Limit 45 Issue 10 - Pricing Attachment 52

I I I I I i

' * # ; Q S I »* consult! consulting, inc.

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002

i Witness Introduction 2

3 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

4 A. My name is Timothy J Gates. My business address is QSI Consulting, 819

5 Huntington Drive, Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80126.

6 Q. WHAT IS QSI CONSULTING, INC. AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION

7 WITH THE FIRM?

8 A. QSI Consulting, Inc. ("QSI") is a consulting firm specializing in traditional and

9 non-traditional utility industries, econometric analysis and computer aided

10 modeling. QSI provides consulting services for regulated utilities, competitive

11 providers, government agencies and industry organizations. I currently serve as

12 Senior Vice President.

13 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND

14 WORK EXPERIENCE.

15 A. I received a Bachelor of Science degree from Oregon State University and a

16 Master of Management degree with an emphasis in Finance and Quantitative

17 Methods from Willamette University's Atkinson Graduate School of

18 Management. Since I received my Masters, I have taken additional graduate-level

19 courses in statistics and econometrics. I have also attended numerous courses and

20 seminars specific to the telecommunications industry, including both the NARUC

21 Annual and NARUC Advanced Regulatory Studies Programs.

22 Prior to joining QSI, I was a Senior Executive Staff Member at MCI

23 WorldCom, Inc. ("MWCOM"). I was employed by MCI and/or MWCOM for 15

24 years in various public policy positions. While at MWCOM I managed various

Page 1 of 57

4;QSI Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

consul t ing, inc.

functions, including tariffing, economic and financial analysis, competitive

analysis, witness training and MWCOM's use of external consultants. Prior to

joining MWCOM, 1 was employed as a Telephone Rate Analyst in the

Engineering Division at the Texas Public Utility Commission and earlier as an

Economic Analyst at the Oregon Public Utility Commission. I also worked at the

Bonneville Power Administration (United States Department of Energy) as a

Financial Analyst doing total electric use forecasts while I attended graduate

school. Prior to doing my graduate work, I worked for ten years as a reforestation

forester in the Pacific Northwest for multinational corporate and government

organizations. Exhibit TJG-1, attached hereto to this testimony, is a summary of

my work experience and education.

HAVE YOU EVER TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC

UTILITY COMMISSION ("COMMISSION")?

Yes. I testified in case 1-00940034 and case C-20028114. I have testified more

than 200 times in 44 states and Puerto Rico and filed comments with the FCC on

various public policy issues ranging from costing, pricing, local entry and

universal service to strategic planning, merger and network issues. As noted

above, a list of proceedings in which I have filed testimony or provided comments

is attached hereto as Exhibit TJG-1.

ON WHOSE BEHALF IS THIS TESTIMONY FILED?

This testimony is filed on behalf of Core Communications, Inc. ("Core").

46 47 48

Purpose of the Testimony

Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?

Page 2 of57

•^SQSI r n n c n i t i consult ing, inc.


49 50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71 72

A. The purpose of this testimony is to support the Petition of Core for Arbitration of

Interconnection Rates, Terms and Conditions with United Telephone Company of

Pennsylvania ('"United" or "Embarq"). The Petition was filed on April 21, 2006.

Embarq filed its Response to the Core Petition on May 16, 2006. Despite the

companies' best efforts, negotiations were not successful on all issues. On March

6, 2007, the parties filed a joint issues matrix and a draft interconnection

agreement.

I will address the following disputed issues in this testimony:

Issue 1 - "Local Traffic" versus "Section 251(b)(5) Traffic"

Issue 2 - Point of Interconnection ("POI")

Issue 3 — Interconnection Methods — Collocation

Issue 4 - Loop Interconnection

Issue 5 - Tandem v. End Office Rates for Transport and Termination

Issue 6 - Reciprocal Compensation for "Section 251 (b)(5) Traffic

Issue 7 - Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-bound Traffic

Issue 8 - VNXX Traffic and other Rating Issues (VoIP)

Issue 9 - Indirect Traffic - Volume Limit

Issue 10 - Pricing Attachment

Issue 1 - "Local Traffic" versus "Section 251(b)(5) Traffic"

Q. PLEASE INTRODUCE THE DISPUTE.

Page 3 of 57

» * n n n s n f l i consult ing, inc.

Direct Testimoay of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002

73

74

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

Core proposes a definition of Section 251(b)(5) traffic that is consistent with the

applicable FCC rule. Core's proposed language (Core's § 1.97) is as follows:

Section 251(b)(5) Traffic means (1) telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a telecommunications carrier other than a CMRS provider, except for telecommunications traffic that is interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access or exchange services for such access (see FCC ISP Order on Remand,1 34, 36, 39, 42-43); and/or (2) telecommunications traffic exchanged by a LEC and a CMRS provider that originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area, as defined in 47 CFR § 24.202(a).2

Embarq simply and incorrectly relies solely on its definition of "local traffic"

(Embarq's § 1.97).

WHY IS IT WRONG FOR EMBARQ TO SIMPLY REFER TO ITS

DEFINITION OF LOCAL TRAFFIC?

The distinction between 251(b)(5) traffic and other traffic is important for

reciprocal compensation purposes. Embarq seems to refer to "local" traffic

because it believes that position supports its position on VNXX traffic. Indeed,

Embarq incorrectly argues that VNXX traffic should be treated as intraLATA toll

traffic to which access charges would apply. (Embarq's §§ 55.6 and 55.7). As

noted below, this is completely contrary to Embarq's positions in the

Commission's Generic Investigation Regarding Virtual NXX Codes pocket No.

1-00020093).

HAS THE F C C CLARIFIED ITS RECIPROCAL COMPENSATION

RULES?

1 Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, Order on Remand and Report and Order, 16 FCC Red 9151 (2001) {'ISP Remand Order"). 2 See, 47 C.F.R. §51.701 ̂ ("Telecommunications Traffic").

Page 4 of 57

consult ing, inc.


99

100

101

102

!03 104 105 106 .07 :08 109 10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

[20

121

122

L23

A.

A.

Yes. The FCC admitted its "error" in focusing on the nature of the call. To

correct that error, it specifically eliminated all references to "local" and amended

its rules accordingly pursuant to the ISP Remand Order.3 In doing so it discussed

why the FCC refrains from using the term "local":

This analysis differs from our analysis in the Local Competition Order, in which we attempted to describe the universe of traffic that falls within subsection (b)(5) as all "local" traffic. We also refrain from generically describing traffic as "local" traffic because the term "local," not being a statutorily defined category, is particularly susceptible to varying meanings and, significantly, is not a term used in section 251(b)(5) or section 251(g).4

GIVEN THE FCC'S CLARIFICATIONS IN THE ISP REMAND ORDER,

IS CORE'S POSITION CONSISTENT WITH THAT INTERCARRIER

COMPENSATION SCHEME?

Yes. Core's position on this issue is correct, comprehensive, consistent with the

FCC rules and should be adopted. Embarq's position would not resolve the

different reciprocal compensation issues associated with traditional and ISP-

bound traffic.

Core asks that the Commission resolve this issue by maintaining the status

quo in the industry. Embarq has proposed language to be included in the

interconnection agreement that would allow it to avoid its obligation under law to

provide compensation to Core for terminating local traffic originating with a

Embarq retail customer. Core's position is consistent with the provisions of the

Act, in that section 251 (b)(5) of the Act imposes on each local exchange carrier

1 See page 60 of the ISP Remand Order (Amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations). 4 See ISP Remand Order at ̂ 34.

Page 5 of 57

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7OO2

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

consult ing, inc.

the duty to establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and

termination of telecommunications.

Q. WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS OF EMBARQ'S

PROPOSED LANGUAGE?

A. The adoption of Embarq's proposed language would disadvantage Core and

deprive it of compensation. Core has made significant investment decisions in the

past based on a certain set of expectations. Embarq's determination to change

circumstances once these decisions have been made would jeopardize Core's

ability to continue to operate in Pennsylvania, and would therefore jeopardize

Core's ability to even recover its costs. Intercarrier compensation rules are in

place in order to prevent such occurrences which would harm the competitive

telecommunications market.

Q. HAS EMBARQ AGREED IN THE PAST THAT THE LACK OF VNXX

ARRANGEMENTS WOULD HARM CONSUMERS AND CLECS?

A. Yes. In the Commission's Generic Investigation Regarding Virtual NXX Codes

(Docket No. 1-00020093) Embarq and Sprint filed joint comments indicating that

VNXX services are not detrimental to consumers and that:

Conversely, there is a significant detriment to internet users and CLECs i f virtual NXXs are eliminated. I f virtual NXXs are eliminated, CLECs will either decided to allow these internet calls to become toll calls, or they will be forced to establish a physical presence within the exchange where their virtual NXX was located - driving up the cost of providing ISP services. While CLECs may find costs too prohibitive and may elect to exit the market. Sprint believes that end users will be forced to pay more for dial up ISP service - either through more toll charges or increased monthly ISP rates.5

5 Joint Comments of Sprint Communications Company, L.P. and the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (collectively "Sprint"); Docket No. 1-00020093, dated November 18, 2002, at 6.

Page 6 of57

>4QSI consult ing, inc.


151

152 Embarq's position in this docket is diametrically opposed to its position in the

153 Commission's generic investigation. The Commission should reject Embarq's

154 attempt to now change its position.

155 Issue 2 - Point of Interconnection ("POI") 156

157 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON

158 THIS ISSUE.

159 A. Core recognizes, consistent with the law and sound pro-competitive policies that

160 it has the flexibility to operate with one POI per LATA. Nevertheless, instead of

161 relying on the concept of a single POI, Core proposes dual interconnection points

162 ("IPs"). Under Core's proposal, each party designates an IP on its network at

163 which the other party may deliver its originating traffic. This proposal requires

164 both parties to bear the responsibility - financial and operational - to deliver its

165 originating traffic to the switch location of the other party.

166 Embarq argues that Core should bear all of the costs both (1) to deliver

167 Core's originating traffic to Embarq at a POI at one or more Embarq switches;

168 and (2) to pick up traffic originating on Embarq's network at the same POI(s) and

169 bring that traffic back to Core's own switch. Embarq also argues that it cannot

170 be required to transport its originating traffic outside of its service territory. More

171 specifically, Embarq argues that 'To the extent Sprint's network contains multiple

Page 7 of 57

^ Q S I r n n e n l t i

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002 consult ing, inc.

172 tandems in the LATA, CLEC must interconnect with each tandem where it

173 whishes [sic] to exchanges [sic] (i.e., receive or terminate) traffic with Sprint."6

174 Q. DOES EMBARQ'S PROPOSAL RESULT IN SHIFTING COSTS FROM

175 EMBARQ TO CORE?

176 A. Yes. Embarq has proposed contract language that would inappropriately require

177 Core to pay Embarq's costs. Such authority, i f granted, would enable Embarq to

178 arbitrarily and strategically impose unwarranted additional interconnection costs

179 and network inefficiencies on Core, even when accepted engineering practices

180 and network utilization levels provide no justification for such additional POIs.

181 The discretion that Embarq seeks has no foundation in the language or economic

182 objectives of the Act or the FCC orders implementing the Act.

183 Q. PLEASE DEFINE A POINT OF INTERCONNECTION OR POI.

184 A. In order for Core and Embarq to exchange traffic between their respective

185 customers, they must interconnect their networks as required by Section 251(c)(2)

186 of the Act. Interconnection is the physical linking of local networks for the

187 purpose of exchanging traffic between customers subscribed to the respective

188 networks. The FCC recognized this when it defined the term "interconnection" in

189 the Local Competition Order at paragraph 176 in the following manner:

190 We conclude that the term "interconnection" under section 191 251(c)(2) refers only to the physical linking of two networks for 192 the mutual exchange of traffic.7

6 See Unresolved Issues Matrix Embarq § 54.2.1.1. in The Matter Of Implementation Of The Local Competition Provisions In The Telecommunications Act

Of 1996. Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Red. 15,499, K 176 (rel. Aug 8, 1996). ("Local Competition Order")

PageS of 57

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-31O922F7002 consult ing, inc.

193 A point of interconnection or POI is the physical place where the two networks

194 interconnect. It can also be the financial demarcation point that defines where one

195 party's financial obligations end and the other party's begin.

196 Q. CORE USES THE TERM "INTERCONNECTION POINT" OR "IP", IS

197 THAT THE SAME AS THE POI YOU DEFINE ABOVE?

198 A. Yes. Core's proposal simply clarifies that each party has a financial responsibility

199 to bring its originating traffic to the network of the other party for termination.

200 Having one POI on one party's network only would unduly favor that party, since

201 the designation of POI would imply that such party had no financial duty to

202 deliver its originating traffic to the other party's network.

203

204 Q. WHO SHOULD BEAR THE COSTS OF INTERCONNECTION?

205 A. The FCC recognized, when it codified Rule 703(b), that the financial

206 responsibilities for interconnection for the exchange of traffic should be borne

207 solely by each carrier with respect to its own originating traffic. This rule

208 prohibits carriers from shifting costs of transporting its originated traffic to other

209 carriers. In other words, each carrier is responsible for the costs of delivering its

210 traffic to other carriers for termination. Rule 51.703(b) specifically states that "a

211 LEC may not assess charges on any other telecommunications carrier for local

212 telecommunications traffic that originates on the LEC's network."8

213 Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have specifically upheld this

214 interpretation. For example, as the Fourth Circuit stated in a dispute between

215 SBC and MCI on this very point.

47 C.F.R., §51,703(1)).

Page 9 of 57

» * conaul l i consult ing, inc.


216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

Q.

A.

In sum, we are left with an unambiguous rule, the legality of which is unchallenged, that prohibits the charge that SBC seeks to impose. Rule 703(b) is unequivocal in prohibiting LECs from levying charges for traffic originating on their own networics, and, by its own terms, admits of no exceptions. Although we find some surface appeal in SBC's suggestion that the charge here is not reciprocal compensation, but rather the permissible shifting of costs attending interconnection, the FCC, as noted above, has endorsed cost-shifting related to interconnection only as it relates to the one-time costs of physical linkage, and in doing so, expressly declined the invitation to extend the definition of "interconnection" to include the transport and termination of traffic.9

These decisions flow from the simple technical reality that interconnection simply

means linking up networks. It is also consistent with the accepted economic

principle of cost-causation. Cost shifting is unnecessary, uneconomic and anti

competitive. This point is recognized by the FCC and by the federal circuit courts

of appeal that have addressed the issue in the context of interconnection

agreements results in a confirmation that each carrier pays its own costs of

exchanging traffic.

WHY DOES CORE REQUIRE THE F L E X I B I L I T Y TO DELIVER ITS

ORIGINATING TRAFFIC TO EMBARQ AT A SINGLE POI PER LATA?

A single POI is critical in areas where customers and traffic volumes cannot

justify the costs incurred in creating additional POIs. It is critical to recognize

that the location and number of POIs has dramatic financial and operational

impacts. Each carrier needs to assess the costs of installing transmission facilities

and equipment to deliver its originating traffic to each POI, and to receive

terminating traffic. Of course, Embarq already has a ubiquitous network

9 MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. v. SBC Telecommunications, Inc., No. 03-1238 2003 US App. LEXIS 25782f *24-5 (4lb Cir. Dec 18,2003).

Page 10 of 57

^fQSI Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002 consul t ing, inc.

244 throughout its operating territory by virtue of its monopoly heritage and can use

245 its existing facilities for originating and terminating traffic. Notably, Embarq

246 built out that network to reach virtually all customers within its operating territory

247 over a very long period of time. On the other hand, Core must construct (or lease

248 or acquire) new facilities for access to each POI. Therefore, this issue has

249 significant competitive cost and operational implications.

250 Q. DO I L E C S SUCH AS EMBARQ HAVE THE RIGHT TO S E L E C T POIs?

251 A. No. That right is limited to CLECs and does not extend to ILECs. The FCC

252 explained, in part, why this right is provided to the CLECs and not to the ILECs

253 in the Local Competition Order, wherein it states,

254 Given that the incumbent LEC will be providing interconnection to 255 its competitors pursuant to the purpose of the 1996 Act, the LEC 256 has the incentive to discriminate against its competitors by 257 providing them less favorable terms and conditions of 258 interconnection than it provides itself.10

259 The FCC recognized that one of the goals of the Act and competition in general

260 was to eliminate this ILEC incentive and ability to impose financial and

261 operational burdens on CLECs that multiple POIs could create. At paragraph four

262 of the Local Competition Order the FCC states,

263 Competition in local exchange and exchange access markets is

264 desirable, not only because of the social and economic benefits 265 competition will bring to consumers of local services, but also 266 because competition eventually will eliminate the ability of an 267 incumbent local exchange carrier to use its control of bottleneck 268 local facilities to impede free market competition. Under section 269 251, incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), including the Bell 270 Operating Companies (BOCs), are mandated to take several steps 271 to open their networks to competition, including providing 272 interconnection, offering access to unbundled elements of their

See Local Competition Order at H 218.

Page 11 of 57

» r nnn f iU t l consult ing, inc.


273 274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

networks, and making their retail services available at wholesale rates so that they can be resold.

PLEASE MORE FULLY DESCRIBE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS THAT

REQUIRING MULTIPLE POIs COULD HAVE ON CORE AND THE

DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITION?

If Embarq were allowed to identify multiple POIs for originating traffic it would

be able to force Core to build out a ubiquitous network based on the same

geographic reach as the Embarq network, even before there is a customer base or

traffic volumes sufficient to justify the investment. This also defies logic from

Embarq's perspective.

PLEASE EXPLAIN.

The ILEC tandem network design is intended to minimize the number of

connection points or trunk groups within its network. This is especially true in

the initial deployment of facilities. When a network is built and service is offered,

traffic is typically lower, dictating the efficiencies of a low number (e.g., one) of

connections and trunk groups. Only later, when customer acquisition results in

traffic volumes that have a community of interest that is diverse enough to make

multiple connections efficient from an engineering perspective, would multiple

POIs be economically efficient. Embarq designed its tandem network over time

with this as one of the drivers. By forcing CLECs to use multiple POIs of

Embarq's choice and location (i.e., each of Embarq's tandems), Embarq is

disallowing the CLEC the efficiencies Embarq built into the network for its own

use and shifting improperly the costs of building out the Embarq network to its

competitor. Nothing about this approach represents an appropriate balance of

Page 12 of 57

v^QSI » * conf iL i l l i r

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002 consulting, inc.

297 costs between the ILECs existing network dominance and a CLECs investment

298 to compete in the market. In short, allowing Embarq to determine the number and

299 location of POIs would allow Embarq to have control over Core's investment

300 decisions and could force Core to invest in facilities that are not justified from a

301 market or engineering standpoint. This forced investment would disadvantage

302 CLECs and impose additional and unwarranted costs on them. Specifically,

303 Embarq could force CLECs to build or lease facilities (or even switches) to reach

304 into every local calling area regardless of how many customers a CLEC might

305 actually have in a given local calling area. Such a result would be contrary to this

306 Commission's stated intent to encourage competition.

307 Q. HAS CORE ESTABLISHED MORE THAN ONE POI PER LATA IN

308 CERTAIN AREAS?

309 A. Yes. In the past. Core has negotiated interconnection agreement provisions that

310 provide for additional POIs i f demand or other circumstances merited such an

311 investment. However, establishing additional POIs should be based on the need

312 for such additional POIs, and on traffic patterns, not on Embarq's attempts to

313 force inefficient costs onto Core. Embarq's proposal makes no economic sense, is

314 not in the public interest, and would severely impede the development of

315 competition. Moreover, just because Core may have multiple POIs in certain

3 3 6 LATAs does not mitigate the fact that Core should not be forced to add POIs at

317 Embarq's insistence. The law and competitive economics are clear and Core must

318 be allowed to expand its network coverage in a cost effective and operationally

319 efficient manner. Embarq's proposal would not give Core that needed flexibility.

Page 13 of 57

•4.QSI * ~ i - c i n c i r l t i r


320 Q. DESPITE THE IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY FINDINGS NOTED

321 ABOVE, HAS CORE AGREED TO INTERCONNECT WITH EACH

322 EMBARQ TANDEM WHERE IT WISHES TO EXCHANGE TRAFFIC

323 WITH EMBARQ?

324 A. Yes. Please see Core's § 54.2. I consider this to be a significant concession by

325 Core, and one I would not normally recommend. Nevertheless, this represents

326 Core's willingness to compromise on certain issues in order to effect an

327 agreement. Not surprisingly, however, Core cannot compromise on every issue in

328 dispute in this arbitration.

329 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE DISPUTE OVER CORE'S DUAL

330 INTERCONNECTION POINT ("IP") PROPOSAL.

331 A. As noted above, Core has established multiple POIs in areas where traffic

332 warranted the additional IP. Further, Core proposes an interconnection

333 architecture based on dual IPs. (See Core's § 54.1 and 54.1.1.1) Under Core's

334 proposal, each party designates an IP on its network at which the other party is

335 responsible to deliver its originating traffic. This symmetrical obligation ensures

336 that, pursuant to 47 CFR § 51.703(b) that the originating carrier does not shift the

337 cost of its traffic to the other carrier. The Commission supported this concept in

338 the interconnection arbitration between Alltel and Verizon Wireless. (Docket No.

339 A-310489F7004; Order entered January 18, 2005) Embarq refuses to consider

340 any proposal that would require it to transport traffic to Core.

341 Q. HOW SHOULD THE COMMISSION DECIDE THIS ISSUE?

Page 14 of 57

••4QSI » r ronsu tir

Direct Testiniony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002 consulting, inc.

342 A. The Commission should adopt Core's position which permits the flexibility of a

343 single POI per LATA and the symmetrical use of dual IPs. The Commission

344 should reject Embarq's proposed language.

345

346

347 348 349 350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

Issue 3 - Interconnection Methods/Collocation

Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE DISPUTE ON THIS ISSUE.

A. Under Core's dual IP interconnection architecture, each party bears the burden to

deliver its originated traffic to the other party's designated IP for the termination

of traffic. To facilitate the delivery of traffic, Core proposes that each party be

permitted to choose from three generic types of delivery: establish collocation at

the other party's IP; sublease a third party's preexisting collocation at the other

party's IP; or purchase transport links into the other party's IP from the other

party or from a third party transport provider. (See Core's § 54.4) Embarq

simply dismisses the proposal as it summarily dismisses Core's dual IP

architecture. It also suggests that Core's collocation language is redundant.

When issues are important and naturally occur in multiple sections in an

interconnection agreement, redundancy is not only appropriate, but it is efficient

and necessary.

Q. HOW SHOULD THE COMMISSION DECIDE THIS ISSUE?

A. The Commission should adopt Core's proposal since it is consistent with standard

industry practice. There is nothing unusual or technically infeasible about the

collocation methods identified in Core's § 54.4.

Page 15 of57

consult ing, inc.


367

368 369 370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

A

Q.

A.

Issue 4 - Loop Interconnection

Q. PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ISSUE.

Core seeks language to clarify that it may interconnect with Embarq at a non-

switch location, i.e., at a site where Embarq has substantial "outside plant" or

"loop" facilities in place to serve high capacity end user customers (e.g., a "carrier

hotel"). (Core's § 54.4) Embarq objects to Core's loop interconnection proposal

in its entirety.

IS THE INTERCONNECTION METHOD TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE?

Yes. The 1996 Act gives the CLEC, not the ILEC, the choice of where to

interconnect as long as it is technically feasible. Section 251(c)(2) of the Act says

that the CLEC can choose to exchange traffic at "any technically feasible point"

on the ILECs network. The criterion is technical feasibility, not the economic

impact - albeit minimal - on the ILEC of having to carry its traffic to or from the

technically feasible point selected.

IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT IN THE ACT OR THE FCC'S RULES

THAT REQUIRES INTERCONNECTION TO OCCUR AT A SWITCH OR

A TANDEM?

No. As noted above, interconnection may occur at any technically feasible point

on the ILEC network.

IS CORE USING LOOP INTERCONNECTION TODAY IN

PENNSYLVANIA?

Q-

A

Q-

Page 16 of 57

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates "consulting, inc. Case No. A-3I0922F7OO2

390 A. Yes. Core has amended its interconnection agreement with Verizon to

391 specifically allow for this type of interconnection in the Altoona LATA. That

392 amendment was executed in 2003. This is a simple and common way to

393 interconnect two networks. It normally occurs at a multiplexer where Embarq or

394 the ILEC has facilities for other customers. In an interconnection in a switching

395 facility, the interconnection would also be accomplished with a multiplexer, so

396 this is not a unique or difficult type of interconnection.

397 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN CORE'S PROPOSAL TO INTERCONNECT WHERE

398 EMBARQ HAS SUFFICIENT LOOP OR OUTSIDE PLANT FACILITIES

399 TO SERVE HIGH CAPACITY END USERS.

400 A. Core wants to establish what is generally referred to as entrance facility

401 interconnection with Embarq. Under this type of interconnection method,

402 Embarq establishes an entrance facility and trunking for traffic traveling from the

403 Embarq network to Core's network. Where facilities are available, for traffic

404 running from the CLEC network to the Embarq network. Core wants Embarq to

405 use existing facilities (multiplexers) to establish entrance facilities from

406 Embarq's network to Core's network. This is typically referred to as loop

407 interconnection.

408 Q. DOES CORE USE THIS TYPE OF INTERCONNECTION ELSEWHERE?

409 A. Yes. Let me provide an example of how such an interconnection might occur.

410 Suppose Embarq had an existing OC-12 multiplexer in a building to serve other

411 customers. An OC-12 multiplexer represents a tremendous amount of bandwidth

412 with 622.08 Mbps of throughput and can be represented as the ability to supply 4

Page 17 of57

^ Q S I Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002 consult ing, inc.

413 OC-3S, or 12 DS3s, or 336 DSls or 8,064 individual trunks. Typically, ILECs set

414 aside bandwidth on such facilities in blocks for specific customers, meaning they

415 prefer to keep the trunks for each large customer grouped together and separated

416 from those of other customers. On such a large device as this OC-12, Embarq

417 might assign blocks of capacity to large customers at the OC3 or DS3 level. This

418 means that that amount of bandwidth would be set aside for that customer, even i f

419 they had no current plans to use that amount of bandwidth.

420 Q. IF THE MULTIPLEXER IS ALREADY IN PLACE WOULDN'T A L L THE

421 BANDWIDTH BE USED OR SPOKEN FOR?

422 A. Not necessarily. ILECs frequently install larger multiplexers than they need since

423 the cost of installation is significant and the cost of expanding the use of the panel

424 once installed is relatively low. So it is likely that there will be excess or unused

425 capacity on the multiplexer. If that is the case, Embarq could simply assign say a

426 DS3 or multiple DS3s of capacity to Core for interconnection.

427 Q. WOULD ROUTING TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE MULTIPLEXER AND

428 CORE'S DESIRED TERMINATION POINT BE A PROBLEM FOR

429 EMBARQ?

430 A. No. I f the multiplexer is connected to a SONET fiber ring that connects a number

431 of locations in the Embarq network, then the traffic could be routed to the location

432 of Core's choosing - likely one of Embarq's tandems.

433 Q. DOES EMBARQ UNDERSTAND THIS STRAIGHT FORWARD

434 METHOD OF INTERCONNECTION?

i i

Page 18 of 57

•4Xisi Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates consulting, inc. Case No. A-310922F7002

435 A. Evidently not. At page 10 of the Unresolved Issues Matrix Embarq states

436 "Embarq PA does not fully understand Core's proposal." There has been more

437 than sufficient time for Embarq to investigate through negotiations and discovery

438 the loop interconnection proposal. The proposal is not arcane or unworkable.

439 Q. HOW SHOULD THE COMMISSION RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE?

440 A. The Commission should adopt Core's proposed language. Core remains willing

441 to explain the technical nature of the proposal should Embarq actually not

442 understand this method of interconnection.

443

444 Issue 5 - Tandem v. End Office Rates for Transport and 445 Termination 446

447 Q. PLEASE INTRODUCE THE DISPUTE ON THIS ISSUE.

448 A. The two parties disagree on which rate would apply. For instance. Core proposes

449 that a carrier pay the tandem or end office rate based on the point at which the

450 carrier delivers its originating traffic on the other carrier's network- Core's 451 proposed language is as follows:

452 55.1.1.2 When the Sprint IP is at the Sprint Tandem Switch, 453 CLEC shall pay a charge for Tandem Switching, common 454 transport to the end office and end-office termination. 455 456 ' 55.1.1.3 Charges billed to Sprint by CLEC for the transport and 457 termination of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic will be equal to those that 458 Sprint assesses the CLEC for the same services. Where the CLEC 459 switch serves a geographical area greater than or equal to the area 460 served by the Sprint tandem, Sprint shall pay CLEC for Tandem 461 Switching, common transport, and end-office termination. I f the 462 CLEC switch serves a geographical area less than the area served 463 by the Sprint tandem, Sprint shall pay CLEC end-office 464 termination. 465

466 Embarq proposes the following for those same sections:

Page 19 of 57

^ ; Q S I »* consnlti consult ing, inc.

Direct Testiniony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002

467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

A.

55.1.1.2 When the POI is at the Sprint Tandem Switch, CLEC shall pay a charge for Tandem Switching, common transport to the end office and end-office termination.

55.1.1.3 Charges billed to Sprint by CLEC for the transport and termination of Local Traffic will be equal to those that Sprint assesses the CLEC for the same services. Where CLEC is interconnected at a Sprint tandem and Sprint delivers its traffic to CLEC directly from an end office, Sprint shall pay CLEC end office termination. Where CLEC is interconnected at a Sprint tandem and Sprint delivers its traffic to CLEC from the tandem and the CLEC switch serves a geographical area greater than or equal to the area served by the Sprint tandem. Sprint shall pay CLEC for Tandem Switching, common transport, and end-office termination. I f the CLEC switch serves a geographical area less than the area served by the Sprint tandem. Sprint shall pay CLEC end-office termination.

As one can see the differences in the language hinge on the definition of "local"

and "Section 251(b)(5)" traffic. The differences also relate to the circumstances

under which the tandem rate applies. For instance. Core opposes Embarq's

proposal that Embarq be required to pay the tandem rate for interconnection only

where there is trunking between Embarq's tandem and Core's tandem. That

trunking does not control the pricing. Whether a carrier pays the tandem or the

end office rate is based on the point at which that carrier delivers its originating

traffic on the other carrier's network.

ARE YOU RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION REJECT

EMBARQ'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN SECTION 55.1.1.5?

Yes. That section states that where direct end office trunks are established, for

CLEC-originated calls, CLEC shall pay Embarq end-office termination. As noted

above, the rate paid should have nothing to do with the trunking arrangements.

Embarq's Section 55.1.1.5 should be rejected.

Page 20 of 57

4 Q S I Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates consulting, inc. Case No. A-310922F70O2

500 Q. HOW SHOULD THE COMMISSION RESOLVE THIS ISSUE?

501 A. The Commission should strike Embarq's Section 55.1.1.5 and adopt Core's

502 language for Sections 55.1.1.2 and 55.1.1.3. Core's language is consistent with

503 industry practice and incorporates Embarq's "geographical area" test as

504 established by the FCC. Embarq's other proposed metrics for applying the

505 various rates are not consistent with FCC precedent and should be rejected.

506

507 Issue 6 - Reciprocal Compensation for Section 251(b)(5) 508 Traffic 509

510 Q, PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ISSUE.

511 A. The parties disagree on the definition of section 251(b)(5) traffic and that

512 disagreement flows into many of the issues in this arbitration. Core's proposed

513 Section 55.3 is a straightforward acknowledgement that the parties are bound to

514 pay reciprocal compensation for the termination of their originating Section

515 251(b)(5) traffic. Embarq argues that Core is not entitled to reciprocal

516 compensation because the traffic is VNXX-enabled, ISP-bound traffic. Embarq

517 goes on to argue that VNXX service is by definition an interexchange service to

518 which access charges must apply. As such, the task is to determine what

519 intercarrier compensation scheme applies to Section 251(b)(5) traffic and whether

520 VNXX traffic is treated the same or differently from Section 251(b)(5) traffic.

521 Core clarifies those distinctions in the next section of this testimony.

Page 21 of 57

• 4 Q S I Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates consulting, inc. Case No. A-310922F7002

522 Q. WILL THIS ISSUE - RECIPROCAL COMPENSATION FOR SECTION

523 251(B)(5) TRAFFIC - BE ADDRESSED IN THE FOLLOWING SECTION

524 OF YOUR TESTIMONY?

525 A. Yes, it will.

526

527 Issue 7 - Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-bound 528 Traffic 529 530 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE DISPUTE ON THIS ISSUE.

531" A. Core maintains that the parties are bound by the FCC's ISP Remand Order with

532 respect to compensation for ISP-bound traffic. For some reason, Embarq has not

533 agreed to the inclusion of Core's specific proposed language in the agreement

534 (Core's § 55.3). Embarq has not explained its reluctance to agree to Core's

535 language so it is difficult to respond to its position. One can assume, however,

536 that i f Embarq is not willing to accept Core's language that Embarq does not

537 agree with Core's position that the ISP Remand Order controls compensation for

538 ISP-bound traffic.

539 Embarq also has a misunderstanding of paragraph 89 of the ISP Remand

540 Order. Because this language is key to resolving the dispute, I have reproduced

541 paragraph 89 below:

542 , It would be unwise as a policy matter, and patently unfair, to allow 543 incumbent LECs to benefit from reduced intercarrier compensation 544 rates for ISP-bound traffic, with respect to which they are net 545 payors, while permitting them to exchange traffic at state 546 reciprocal compensation rates, which are much higher than the 547 caps we adopt here, when the traffic imbalance is reversed. 548 Because we are concerned about the superior bargaining power of

Page 22 of 57

«* consulti consult ing, inc.


549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

Q.

A.

incumbent LECs, we will not allow them to "pick and choose* intercarrier compensation regimes, depending on the nature of the traffic exchanged with another carrier.

Q.

Thus, i f the applicable rate cap is $.00l0/mou, the ILEC must offer to exchange section 251(b)(5) traffic at that same rate. Similarly, i f an ILEC wishes to continue to exchange ISP-bound traffic on a bill and keep basis in a state that has ordered bill and keep, it must offer to exchange all section 251(b)(5) traffic on a bill and keep basis. For those incumbent LECs that choose not to offer to exchange section 251(b)(5) traffic subject to the same rate caps we adopt for ISP-bound traffic, we order them to exchange ISP-bound traffic at the state-approved or s t a t e - a i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^n^ra t e s reflected in their

I have emphasized the key portions of this paragraph. While I am not a lawyer, it

seems very clear to me that this "mirroring rule" language applies to ILECs and

ILECs only. Because Embarq has exercised its option to invoke the rate caps for

ISP-bound traffic, it must also cap the rates the it charges for termination of

Section 251(b)(5) traffic.

HOW DOES EMBARQ INTERPRET THIS LANGUAGE?

Embarq incorrectly argues that i f it opts into the rate cap for ISP-bound traffic that

Core must also cap the reciprocal compensation rate that Core charges for

251(b)(5) traffic. At pages 16 and 17 of the Unresolved Issue Matrix Embarq

states, " I f rates are applied, the rates must be applied reciprocally by both

contracting parties." This is wrong. The mirroring rule applies only to the ILEC

- in this case Embarq.

IN YOUR OPINION, HOW DOES THE MIRRORING RULE WORK?

Page 23 of 57

' ^ Q S I » * r n n c i i l t i

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates 'consulting, inc. Case No. A-310922F7002

580 A. When Embarq elects to opt into the ISP Remand Order rates per the mirroring

581 rule , then the rate Core may charge for termination of ISP-bound traffic is capped

582 at the FCC rate (currently $.0007 per minute of use). But by opting into this rate,

583 all traffic, including Section 251 (b)(5) traffic and ISP-bound traffic, is

584 compensated at the same rate.

585 Q. WHAT IF EMBARQ OPTED OUT OF THE ISP REMAND ORDER

586 RATES?

587 A. I f Embarq opted out of the ISP Remand Order rates then the Order provides that

588 ISP-bound traffic shall be treated the same (same pricing) as Section 251(b)(5)

589 traffic.

590 Q. IS T H E R E ANYTHING IN THE ISP REMAND ORDER THAT STATES

591 OR EVEN SUGGESTS THAT THE MIRRORING RULE APPLIES TO

592 C L E C S OR ANY OTHER CARRIER OTHER THAN THE I L E C ?

593 A. No.

594 Q. PLEASE CONTINUE WITH YOUR DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON

595 OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS ON INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION

596 FOR ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC.

597 A. Embarq's positions in this proceeding are not consistent with its statements in

598 other proceedings in Pennsylvania. In the Commission's Generic Investigation

599 Regarding Virtual NXX Codes (Docket No. 1-00020093), United Telephone

600 Company and Sprint Communications filed joint comments that were consistent

601 with the positions taken by Core in this proceeding. Specifically, United stated

602 the following with regard to compensation for ISP bound traffic:

Page 24 of 57

*4;QSI consulting, inc.


603 604 605 606 607 608 609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616 617 618 619 620 621 622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

Q-

A.

A.

Given the federal preemption of rates for ISP-bound traffic and in light of the FCC's pending efforts to review intercarrier compensation requirements, the Commission should not as a result of this investigation disallow or limit local calling for ISP-bound traffic utilizing VNXX arrangements."

Given this statement, it is clear that in the past at least. United has agreed with

Core that the FCC has preempted the states with respect to compensation for ISP-

bound traffic.

HAS UNITED/EMBARQOPPOSED THE IMPOSITION OF ACCESS

CHARGES ON VNXX CALLS AS W E L L ?

Yes. In the same generic investigation proceeding discussed above. United

specifically stated that access charges do not apply to this traffic.

At the very heart of the FCC's ISP Remand Order is the determination that ISP traffic is interstate and, therefore, the determination of ISP rates falls under the FCC's jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is improper for any ISP-bound traffic - provisioned through VNXX arrangements or not - to be access chargeable.12

For some reason United/Embarq has changed its position for this proceeding.

Nevertheless, United's previous position - which was consistent with Core's

position in this proceeding ~ was correct.

IS EMBARQ RECOMMENDING THAT VNXX TRAFFIC BE

CONSIDERED INTRALATA TOLL TRAFFIC BASED ON THE ACTUAL

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OF THE CALLING AND CALLED

PARTIES IN THIS PROCEEDING? (EMBARQ'S §§ 55.6 & 55.7)

Yes. Again, this is completely inconsistent with its prior positions on this topic.

In the Generic Investigation United disagreed with the other ILECs that VNXX

1 1 Joint Supplemental Comments and Reply Comments of Sprint Communications and the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, Docket No. 1-00020093, dated March 13,2003, at 2. 1 2 Id. at 10.

Page 25 of 57

- 4 Q S I consult]

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-3I0922F7002 consult ing, inc.

631 arrangements were a form of interexchange service.13 United also argued then

632 that "The ILECs improperly attempt to classify ISP-bound VNXX traffic as

633 interstate IXC traffic so as to maneuver around the FCC's ISP Remand Order in

634 an effort to recoup alleged "lost revenues" to which they were never entitled."1'1

635 Embarq's position in this proceeding is completely contrary to its previous

636 position on the very same topic and its positions in this proceeding should be

637 rejected.

638 Q. IN THE GENERIC INVESTIGATION DID UNITED ARGUE AGAINST

639 RATING CALLS BASED ON GEOGRAPHIC END POINTS?

640 A. Yes. In its November 18, 2002 comments at page 10 United stated, "Sprint does

641 not support a complete re-engineering of the industry's rating and billing system

642 in order to permit rating calls by their geographical end points." Again, this is

643 completely inconsistent with the position United is taking in this arbitration.

644 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN CORE'S POSITION ON ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC.

645 A. The ISP-bound traffic and virtual NXX ("VNXX") issues are very much

646 intertwined. By way of background, ISPs providing dial-up service receive local

647 calls from their customers in order to allow those customers to access the Internet.

648 ISPs do not market and do not expect to receive long distance calls from

649 customers seeking to connect to the Internet because long distance calls have

650 traditionally had per-minute charges associated with them.15 Thus, making long-

651 distance calls to ISPs is uneconomical for end users. For the ISP, this means that

1 3 Id- ^ 9. '^I^at 10. 1S Of course it is technically possible for a person to use a long-distance call to connect to his or her ISP. The point of this testimony is that experience has shown that consumers are not willing to pay longdistance charges to access the Internet.

Page 26 of 57

# ; Q S I Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

Q.

Q.

A.

consulting, inc.

it is important for end users to be able to reach the ISP by means of a local call.

The ISPs don't provide local service so they purchase those services from ILECs

or CLECs such as Core.

DO ISPS NORMALLY HAVE FACILITIES IN E V E R Y LOCAL

EXCHANGE IN THE COUNTRY?

No. It would be terribly inefficient for an ISP to establish a physical presence in

each and every ILEC-established local calling area where the ISP might have

customers or where it might want to attract customers. Therefore, the standard

operating arrangement in the industry is for ISPs to obtain telephone numbers

from CLECs or ILECs that are "local" to areas where they have customers.

Because the CLECs or ILECs are providing local numbers for the ISPs, where

they have no local presence, the service is frequently referred to as virtual NXX

or VNXX service by the ILEC industry, and is in essence identical to the foreign

exchange ("FX") service offered by Embarq and other ILECs, at least from an end

user customer perspective. 16

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE HISTORY OF COMPENSATION FOR ISP-

BOUND TRAFFIC.

In 1996, the FCC established rules that required ILECs to pay CLECs "reciprocal

compensation" for ILEC-originated traffic that CLECs terminated. The

underlying statute (47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5)) requires such compensation for all

"telecommunications" the ILEC might send to the CLEC (or vice versa). The

1 6 In response to Core Set MO, Embarq indicated that "Virtuai NXX is not a 'service.'"

Page 27 of 57

^ Q S I • * * consult i


673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

consult ing, inc.

FCC, however, initially viewed the statute as applying only to "local" traffic, and

its rules referred to "local" traffic. 1 7

WAS INTERNET TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANT WHEN THE FCC ISSUED

ITS RULES IN 1996?

Yes. At the time, consumer demand for dial-up Internet access was booming, and

for any number of reasons ISPs found CLECs to be superior suppliers of the

PSTN connectivity that the ISPs needed.

DID THE FIRST INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS SPECIFICALLY

IDENTIFY "LOCAL" TRAFFIC AS OPPOSED TO ISP-BOUND

TRAFFIC?

No. But as the ILECs started receiving large bills from CLECs for reciprocal

compensation for calls to ISPs, the ILECs objected and industry parties in mid-

1997 sought an exphcit ruling from the FCC that ISP-bound calls counted as

"local" calls for purposes of the FCC's then-existing reciprocal compensation

rule.18

HOW DID THE F C C RESPOND TO THE INDUSTRY'S CONCERNS?

In February 1999 the FCC issued a convoluted answer to this question.19 The

FCC said that ISP-bound calls were jurisdictionally interstate - which few had

actually contested. It then said that, because the calls were interstate, they could

1 7 See Local Competition Order at Appendix B (1996 version of 47 C.F.R. § 51.701). 1 8 See In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Inter-carrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, Declaratory Ruling in CC Docket No. 96-98 and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-68, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 99-69 (February 26, 1999) {"ISP Declaratory Ruling") at f 1 n. 1.

Page 28 of 57

• ^ Q S I Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002 consult ing, inc.

692 not be "local."20 It then said that it had no rule addressing such traffic,2 1 and it

693 initiated a rulemaking proceeding to set a general rule.

694 Q. WAS THE ISP DECLARATORY RULING REVIEWED BY THE COURTS?

695 A. Yes. I am not a lawyer, but I will provide my understanding of the impact of the

696 court's ruling from a business perspective. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the

697 FCC's order did not make any sense.22 The fact that ISP-bound calls were

698 jurisdictionally interstate, the court found, had no particular bearing on whether

699 the calls were subject to reciprocal compensation or not.23 The question was

700 whether calls to ISPs were more like "normal" LEC-to-LEC local calls, or more

701 like calls where two LECs collaborate to help a toll carrier to which they both

702 connect complete a call. 2 4 The court vacated the ruling "for want of reasoned

703 decision-making"25 and sent it back to the FCC for another try.

704 Q. WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE REMAND TO THE FCC?

705 A. In April 2001 the FCC issued its ISP Remand Order. The FCC noted that Section

706 251 (b)(5)*s reciprocal compensation requirement on its face applied to all

707 telecommunications, which would include all "information access" traffic,

708 including, specifically, calls to ISPs. It further noted that its original decision —

709 the ISP Declaratory Ruling - to limit the reach of Section 251(b)(5) to "local"

710 traffic was a "mistake" that had created "ambiguity," because "local" was not a

2 0 There are plenty of calls that are simultaneously "local" and interstate, most notably landline-wireless calls that cross a state line but remain within a "Major Trading Area." The same FCC ruling that limited reciprocal compensation to "local" calls specifically defined any such intra-MTA traffic to be "local" for these purposes. See Local Competition Orderat^b 1033-35; 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(3). There are also EAS areas and local callings areas that span state and LATA boundaries. 2 1 ISP Declaratory Ruling at 1(26. n Bell Atlantic v. FCC, 206 F.3d I (D.C. Cir. 2000). 2 3 Id. at 3. 2 4 Id. at 5. 2 5 Id. at 3.

Page 29 o f 57

'^QSI consult ing, inc.

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-3I0922F70O2

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

Q.

A.

term that was used or defined in the underlying statute.26 As a result, it amended

its reciprocal compensation rules to remove all references to "local" traffic.

IF THE FCC REMOVED A L L REFERENCES TO "LOCAL" IN ITS

RULES, HOW THEN DID IT DISTINGUISH TRADITIONAL 251(b)(5)

TRAFFIC FROM ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC?

The FCC concluded that two classes of traffic identified in another section of the

law - Section 251(g) - were properly viewed as excluded from 251(b)(5). These

two supposedly excluded categories were "information access" and "exchange

access."

In the ISP Remand Order, the FCC did not set up any special

compensation rule for "exchange access." This is not a surprising result since the

existing access charge regime already ensured that compensation would be

payable in connection with toll calls. The FCC, however, re-affirmed its

interstate jurisdictional authority over ISP-bound traffic as a form of "information

access," and set up a special interim intercarrier compensation regime.27 Under

that regime, ISP-bound traffic and non-toll traffic (that is, traffic that isn't

"exchange access") are to be treated the same, with the specific rate identified by

the FCC but selected by the ILEC. 2 8

2 6 ISP Remand Order at IK 45^6. 2 1 Id. at 1177. 2 8 Under the FCC's rule, the ILEC can choose whether the rate that applies is a state-determined "reciprocal compensation" rate or the FCC's own low rate (now $0.0007 per minute), but the same rate applies to all non-toll traffic To deal with what it saw as an immediate problem of "arbitrage " the FCC initially ruled that the rate of growth in CLEC bills for ISP-bound traffic would be limited to a 10% annual traffic growth cap, and that no compensation for ISP-bound traffic would be due to CLECs who were not serving ISPs in a particular market as of the first quarter of 2001. These restrictions were removed as of October 2004 in the Core ruling. In re Petition of Core Communications, Inc. for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Application of the ISP Remand Order, Order, 19 FCC Red 20179 (FCC rel. Oct. 18, 2004).

Page 30 of 5 7

' 4 Q S I Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates consulting, inc. Case No. A-310922F7002

729 In reaching this conclusion, as noted above, the FCC expressly disclaimed

730 its previous reliance on the idea that intercarrier compensation was limited to

731 "local" traffic and removed that term from its rules. As such, Embarq's

732 adherence to a "local" distinction is also misplaced and must be rejected.

733 Q. ABOVE YOU REFERRED TO THE ILEC SELECTION OF

734 COMPENSATION FOR ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC. HAS EMBARQ

735 DECLARED WHETHER IT HAS SELECTED TO EXCHANGE TRAFFIC

736 AT THE FCC MANDATED RATE OF $.0007?

737 A. Yes, during negotiations Embarq informed Core that it had elected to offer the

738 FCC's ISP Remand Order rate of $0.0007 per terminating minute of use for all

739 Section 251(b)(5) and ISP-bound traffic in Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, as

740 discussed earlier in this section, Embarq misinterprets the ISP Remand Order

741 mirroring rule.

742 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN.

743 A. Embarq suggests that Core must choose to "accept" or "reject" its offer to

744 exchange all section 251(b)(5) and ISP-bound traffic at the FCC's ISP Remand

745 Overrate of $0.0007 per MOU. (Embarq's § 55.2). Under the FCC's mirroring

746 rule, the ILEC can choose whether the rate is a state-determined "reciprocal

747 compensation" rate or the FCC's own low rate (now $0.0007 per minute), but the

748 same rate applies to all non-toll traffic As noted in the FCC's ISP Remand

749 Order at paragraph 89, "This "mirroring" rule ensures that incumbent LECs will

750 pay the same rates for ISP-bound traffic that they receive for section 251(b)(5)

751 traffic." This is the proper result from an economic perspective since the FCC

Page 31 of 57

• * c n n s u l t i


752 found that there were no "inherent differences between the costs on any one

753 network of delivering a voice call to a local end-user and a data call to an ISP."

754 The mirroring rule does not require a CLEC, such as Core, to make any

755 such declaration. The ISP Remand Order provides that, in states where the ILEC

756 elects to offer the FCC's rate, CLECs may only charge the ILEC for ISP-bound

757 traffic at the FCC's rate; but the order does not restrict the CLECs ability to

758 continue to charge the full reciprocal compensation rate (in Embarq territory,

759 approximately $0.01 per MOU) for the termination of section 251(b)(5) traffic.

760 Indeed, the order provides a "3 to 1 ratio" test to distinguish ISP-bound from

761 other traffic. The 3 to 1 ratio test would be unnecessary i f CLECs and ILECs were

762 both required to adopt the FCC's rate for all traffic.

763 Q. HOW SHOULD THE COMMISSION RESOLVE THESE DISPUTES?

764 A. The Commission should reject Embarq's proposals for lack of support. Core's

765 proposal for intercarrier compensation is consistent with the ISP Remand Order

766 and the history of the treatment of ISP-bound traffic.

767

768 Issue 9 - VNXX Traffic and Other Rating Issues (VoIP) 769 770 Q. PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ISSUE.

771 A. The ISP-bound traffic and virtual NXX issues are very much intertwined. Byway

772 of background, ISPs providing dial-up service receive local calls from their

773 customers in order to allow those customers to access the Internet. ISPs do not

774 market and do not expect to receive long distance calls from customers seeking to

2 9 ISP Remand Order at H 90, 93.

Page 32 of 57

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

Q.

A.

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates "consulting, inc. Case No. A-310922F7002

connect to the Internet because long distance calls have traditionally had per-

minute charges associated with them.30 Thus, making long-distance calls to ISPs

is uneconomical for end users. For the ISP, this means that it is important for end

users to be able to reach the ISP by means of a local call.

It is, however, terribly inefficient for an ISP to establish a physical

presence in each and every ILEC-established local calling area where the ISP

might have customers or where it might want to attract customers. Therefore, it is

quite common — I would go so far as to call it the standard operating

arrangement in the industry — for ISPs to obtain telephone numbers from CLECs

or ILECs that are "local" to areas where they have customers. Because the

CLECs or ILECs are providing local numbers for the ISPs, where they have no

local presence, the service is referred to as virtual NXX or VNXX service, and is

in essence identical to the FX service offered by Embarq, at least from an end user

customer perspective.31

DOES CORE PROVIDE SUCH A SERVICE TO ISPS? AND, IF SO,

WHAT IS IT CALLED?

Yes. Core sells its Managed Port service (PA. P.U.C. Tariff No. 1; Section 3.2)

service to ISPs where it is a certificated CLEC. This service is usually provided

in conjunction with referred to as "virtual NXX," or "VNXX" number

assignments. "VNXX" is just another name for the same functionality that has

30 Of course it is technically possible for a person to use a long-distance call to connect to his or her ISP.

The point of this testimony is that experience has shown that consumers are not willing to pay longdistance charges to access the Internet.

In response to Core Set I-14, Embarq provided its FX service tariff for Pennsylvania. That service is an "exchange service." See United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania Tariff- Telephone Pa. P.U.C. No. 26, Section 6.

Page 33 of 57

*fQSI Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002

795

796

797

798

799

800

801

802

803

804

805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817

818

819

820

821

822

823

Q. A.

Q. A.

consult ing, inc.

been provided for decades by ILECs under the name "foreign exchange," or "FX

service.

DOES EMBARQ PROVIDE FX SERVICE IN PENNSYLVANIA?

Yes.

Q. HAS UNITED EXPRESSED AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER VNXX

ARRANGEMENTS BENEFIT CONSUMERS AND THE TELEPHONE

COMPANIES USING THEM?

A. Yes. In the Commission's Generic Investigation Regarding Virtual NXX Codes

(Docket No. 1-00020093), United and Sprint provided the following joint

statement:

The use of virtual NXXs provides benefits to the ILECs end users as well as to the companies that utilize them. Virtual NXXs also benefits CLECs by alleviating the need for a CLEC to establish a physical presence in each exchange. Therefore, virtutal (sic) NXXs allows CLECs the ability to enter the market and provide competitive services without incurring prohibitive collocation costs. Furthermore, collocation leads to space exhaust in ILEC central offices. Given that the telecommunications industry and the technology that drives the industry are continually evolving, carriers should embrace innovative and cost effective ways (such as through the use of virtual NXXs) to provide service to end users. In summary, virtual NXXs maintain internet services at affordable prices, which promotes the public interest.32

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE MARKET FOR VNXX SERVICE.

Where ISPs, such as Earthlink or AOL, want to offer dial-up Internet access, they

contact an ILEC or CLEC to purchase local service. In Core's situation, the ISP

subscribes to Core's Managed Port service and is assigned local numbers from the

Core switch in the exchanges where dial-up service is being offered and where

3 2 See, Joint Comments of Sprint Communications Company, L.P. and the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (collectively "Sprint") in Docket No. 1-00020093, dated November 18, 2002, at 5.

Page 34 of 57

*fQSI m n c i i l t i


824 Core offers service. The ISPs advise their customers of the numbers that the ISPs

825 have been assigned, who then program the numbers into their computers for

826 accessing the Internet. The customers' computers then dial these local numbers;

827 the calls are routed from the ILEC to Core in exactly the same manner as other

828 local calls; and Core delivers the calls to the ISP being called.

829 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE VNXX CALLS ARE ROUTED IN THE

830 NETWORK.

831 A. "VNXX" calls are routed in exactly the same way as non-VNXX local calls.

832 There is nothing special about these calls.

833 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN.

834 A. Assume that Core has a single POI in a LATA located at the Embarq tandem in

835 Carlisle. Assume further that Core serves all of its ISPs who have customers in

836 that LATA from a single switch that Core uses to serve the entire LATA. Now

837 assume that a customer of one of those ISPs, who takes telephone exchange

838 service from Embarq, uses his or her computer's modem to connect to the ISP. In

839 that case, Embarq's switch will receive the number as dialed by its customer,

840 recognize it as a Core number, and direct the call to a trunk group that connects to

841 Core's POI. Core then accepts the traffic and routes it to its switch and then on to

842 its ISP customer. This is the same manner in which all local calls are routed.

843 Q. IF THIS CALL HANDLING IS THE SAME AS ALL LOCAL CALLS

844 THEN WHAT IS THE DISPUTE BETWEEN EMBARQ AND CORE?

845 A. I f the Embarq customer making the call happens to be in the same Embarq retail

846 originating local calling area as the ISP's equipment, then Embarq would say that

Page 35 of 57

*T consult!


847 the call is "local" and there is no dispute. On the other hand, if the ISP's gear is

848 in a different Embarq retail local calling area, Embarq says that the call is a

849 "VNXX" call and is not local.

850 Q. DOES THE LOCATION OF THE ISP EQUIPMENT IMPACT THE

851 JURISDICTION OF THE CALL, THE HANDLING OF THE CALL, OR

852 THE COST OF GETTING THE CALL TO THE POI?

853 A. No. Embarq's responsibilities, and costs, are absolutely identical regardless of the

854 location of the ISP equipment. In each case, a locally dialed call is routed to the

855 POI for termination. All that Embarq does is determine that the dialed telephone

856 number is a Core number and ship the call off to Core on an appropriate trunk

857 group. And, what Core does is the same in both cases: it recognizes the incoming

858 traffic as bound for one of its customers and sends the traffic on to that customer.

859 The only difference is whether the ISP's gear receiving the call is at the end of a

860 short circuit (close to Core's switch, and thus often not in the calling party's retail

861 local calling area) or a long circuit (far away from Core's switch, and thus,

862 possibly, in the calling party's retail local calling area). Regardless of the

863 distance, it is Core's responsibility to complete the call. In other words, it is Core

864 and not Embarq that is providing the Core ISP customer with the FX-like

865 functionality. It makes no economic sense whatsoever to make any distinction in

866 Embarq's financial obligations depending on whether Core uses a long or short

867 circuit to connect its customers to its switch.

Page 36 of 57

nfQSI Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002 consult ing, inc.

868 As the discussion above illustrates, from an economic perspective,

869 Embarq's proposal is completely arbitrary and irrational. There is simply no

870 sound economic basis upon which to distinguish these two situations.

871 Q. IS THE ROUTING OF VNXX CALLS DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY FROM

872 THE ROUTING OF ANY OTHER LOCAL CALL?

873 A. No. As described above it is exactly the same.

874 Q. DO THE PHYSICAL END POINTS OF THE CALLS HAVE ANY

875 IMPACT ON EMBARQ'S RESPONSIBILITIES OR COSTS?

876 A. No.

877 Q. IS EMBARQ'S PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORICAL

878 HANDLING OF LOCALLY-DIALED CALLS?

879 A. No. Embarq is actually bying to invent a new way to classify calls that has no

880 operational or historical basis in the telephone network. Embarq's proposal is to

881 rate and distinguish traffic based on the actual geographic location of customers

882 as opposed to the numbers the customers are assigned. (Embarq's §§ 55.6 &

883 55.7) This flies in the face of the way calls have been rated since the

884 establishment of the PSTN. What's really going on here is that it is more efficient

885 for a new competitor like Core to offer FX-like services to ISPs than it is for

886 Embarq to do so, leading to ISPs "voting with their feet" and moving their

887 business to competitors like Core. Embarq is essentially trying to recoup its

888 losses in the marketplace, and to punish its competitors, for being willing and able

889 to offer a more efficient serving arrangement to the ISPs.

Page 37 of 57

• * finnsulti

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates consulting, inc. Case No. A-310922F7002

890 Q. ARE THERE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH

891 EMBARQ'S PROPOSAL TO TREAT VNXX CALLS AS SOMETHING

892 OTHER THAN L O C A L CALLS?

893 A. Yes. Embarq's proposal would impose substantial additional costs on ISPs. I f

894 Core is required to pay access charges for calls it receives to its ISP customers

895 who use VNXX services (or is denied intercarrier compensation for such calls)f

896 Core's cost of doing business will increase and it may have to raise its rates to its

897 ISP customers. In order to deal with those rate increases, the ISP customers will

898 either have to deploy otherwise unnecessary and inefficient facilities so that their

899 equipment actually is in the calling parties' local calling areas (thereby relieving.

900 Core of some of the economic burdens caused by Embarq's proposal), or keep the

901 efficient equipment arrangement but be subject to the higher costs. Either way,.

902 the ISPs will have to raise rates to their customers, and, particularly for some

903 areas, simply decline to provide dial-up access, in order to minimize costs. This-

904 is plainly contrary to the public interest. As United noted in the Commission's

905 Generic Investigation into these issues, 'These arguments merely seek to mangle

906 the FCC's ISP Remand Order and ignore the value that VNXX arrangements

907 bring to end users throughout the Commonwealth."33

908 Moreover, Embarq's proposal to not pay reciprocal compensation on calls

909 to customers who are not "geographically located" in the same local exchange, or

910 require toll treatment for such calls, would give Embarq yet another competitive

3 1 See Joint Supplemental Comments and Reply Comments on behalf of Sprint Communications Company, L.P., and the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (collectively "Sprint"); Docket No. 1-00020093, dated March 13, 2003, at 6.

Page 38 of 57

' ' ^ 5 8 5 y j ^ I Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates ^^consuiting, inc. Case No. A-310922F7002

911 advantage over CLECs. Embarq's proposal would improperly increase the cost of

912 Internet access and reduce competition to the detriment of consumers and the

913 economy. Embarq's proposal would put in jeopardy any competition for ISP dial-

914 up services, thereby depriving consumers of choice in what has become an

915 indispensable information, education and economic tool, especially for those still

916 significant portions of customers who cannot yet afford the costs of dedicated

917 broadband connections to the Internet.

918 Q. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

919 ASSOCIATED WITH EMBARQ'S PROPOSAL?

920 A. Yes. In developing its network. Core did not simply duplicate the network of

921 Embarq and other ILECs. Instead, Core has deployed a Softswitch technology-

922 based network which is much less capital intensive, and less location sensitive

923 than traditional ILEC networks. Using this advanced technology. Core's network

924 is designed to operate most efficiently by serving large regions of the state on an

925 integrated basis. It is indifferent to ILEC legacy central office boundaries. By

926 taking advantage of such technology shifts, competitors such as Core can

927 participate in the natural progression of market development, perhaps even

928 "pulling even" with ILECs who, by virtue of the presence of their existing

929 networks have incredible inherent market advantages. Embdrq's proposal would

930 therefore at least partially negate efficiencies Core designed into its network —

931 which efficiencies Core continues to invest in. These efficiencies are of no use to

932 anyone, however, i f Embarq is permitted to burden Core with such arbitrary and

933 unwarranted interconnection and compensation provisions.

Page 39 of 57

•'4QSI • * r n n f i l l l t i

corisult ing, inc.


934

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

951

952

953

954

955

Q.

A.

Q.

Q.

A.

DOES CORE'S SERVICE PROVIDE THE SAME FUNCTIONALITY FOR

CONSUMERS AS THE FX AND FX-TYPE SERVICES PROVIDED BY

EMBARQ AND OTHER ILECS?

Yes. Functionally Core's Managed Port service is similar to, and competes with,

traditional ILEC FX services. In trying to obtain a regulatory ruling that would

make VNXX service uneconomic for the major class of consumers who use that

service (ISPs), Embarq is trying to enlist the regulators in an effort to stamp out

this type of competition. This Commission should reject that invitation.

YOU NOTED E A R L I E R THAT EMBARQ WANTS TO IMPOSE ACCESS

CHARGES ON CORE IN CONNECTION WITH CALLS THAT EMBARQ

CUSTOMERS MAKE TO ISPS SERVED VIA VNXX NUMBERS. IS

THERE ANY ECONOMIC RATIONALE FOR DOING SO?

No. FX/VNXX service is a "local" service to which access charges do not apply.

Instead, the VNXX calls are ISP-bound calls that terminate (from Embarq's

perspective) at the POI. Neither Embarq nor Core imposes any sort of toll charge

in connection with calls to VNXX numbers. As a result, there is no economic

basis on which any sort of "access charge" could be imposed.

DOES EMBARQ APPLY ACCESS CHARGES TO ITS FX OR FX-TYPE

SERVICES?

No. A quick review of the relevant tariffs shows that access charges are not

applied to any portion of the ILEC FX service. As such, Embarq does not apply

access charges to its FX service. Further, in response to Core Set 1-21, Embarq

Page 40 of 57

4:QSI Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002 consult ing, inc.

956 stated that it "has not paid terminating access charges for calls terminated to end

957 users subscribing to Embarq PA's retail FX service..

958 Q. WHAT WOULD BE T H E ECONOMIC E F F E C T OF ADOPTING

959 EMBARQ'S PROPOSAL?

960 A. It would simply eliminate an efficient and technologically advanced means of

961 providing dial-up Internet access to customers throughout the State of

962 Pennsylvania. This would obviously be counter to the public interest.

963 Q. IS DIAL-UP ACCESS TO THE INTERNET IMPORTANT TO THE

964 STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA?

965 A. Yes. Dial-up for Internet access is the universal service equivalent of a primary

966 line for voice service. In other words, not all people can afford broadband access

967 to the Internet, but most people have a single line with which they can access the

968 Internet over a dial-up connection. Dial-up access is especially important where

969 broadband connections are not yet available.

970 Rural residents report less broadband availability than their counterparts in

971 suburban or urban areas of the United States. In fact, a Pew Internet & American

972 Life Project study found that rural residents were two to five times more likely to

973 not have broadband availability than urban and suburban residents.34 Pew

974 research associate Peter Bell also noted:

975 While gaps in income and age appear to be partly responsible, the

976 difficulty of getting Internet access remains a big barrier for many 977 rural users. Major Internet service providers accounted for about 978 40 percent of use among rural residents, whose most frequent 979 reason for choosing an ISP was that it was the only one available

3 4 See, Pew Internet & American Life Project; Rural Areas and the Internet; "Rural American's Internet Use Has Grown, But They Continue to Lag Behind Others"; Febmary 17, 2004.

Page 41 of 57

• F n o n s u t l consult ing, inc.


980 981 982 983

984

985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992

993

994

995

996

997

998

999 1000

Q.

A,

Q.

A.

to them. In contrast, online users in metropolitan areas usually chose from a range of providers by seeking the best deal.35

Although dial-up Internet access is critical in rural areas, as a percentage of the

total, it is decreasing. While DSL and cable broadband connections showed large

increases, from 2001 to 2003 dial-up Internet access actually decreased by 12.7

percent. The same study showed that in rural areas 74.7 percent of the Internet

connections were dial-up connections.36

IS DIAL-UP STILL AN IMPORTANT SOURCE OF INTERNET ACCESS

IN PENNSYLVANIA?

Yes. Although broadband is growing dramatically and dial-up is becoming a

smaller proportion of the total, in Pittsburgh as of September of 2004, 66.7

percent of Internet access was by dial-up and 33.3 percent was by broadband.37

DESPITE THE DOWNWARD TREND IN DIAL-UP ACCESS, DO YOU

THINK IT WILL REMAIN AN IMPORTANT TYPE OF INTERNET

ACCESS?

Yes. As I mentioned above, dial-up is critical to rural consumers where

broadband is not always available and competitive alternatives are limited. Garry

Betty, Earthlink's chief executive stated,

Despite compelling reasons to switch to broadband, dial-up lines will always have a place in American homes. Customers in rural

3 5 See, TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com; "Rural use of Internet continue to lag, Costs, access remain barriers, new data shows."; June 7, 2005. 3 6 See, "A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age"; U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, National Telecommunications and Information Administration; September, 2004, at 5, 13. 3 7 See, ClickZ Stats; Global Broadband Tops 123M, September 17, 2004. (http://www.clickz.conVstats/sectors/broadband/article.php/340967n While this data is somewhat dated the trend towards broadband is continuing. That trend, however, does not change the fact that dial-up is still important, especially in rural areas where broadband might not be available and for people who cannot afford a broadband connection even if it is available.

Page 42 of 57

^ Q S I • * nonsulti consulting, inc.

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-3\0922F7002

1001 1002 1003 1004 1005

1006

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

1017 1018

1019

1020

1021

1022

1023 1024 1025 1026 1027

Q.

A.

areas where broadband is not available will continue to log on via a dial-up connection; other people may prefer the simplicity of dial-up.3 8

For those citizens of Pennsylvania that can't either afford or don't have available

to them broadband connectivity, dial-up internet provides access to one of - i f not

the - cornerstone of economic and community vitality. The ability to apply for

jobs, get weather reports, crop price forecasts on a real time basis, participate in

educational endeavors, gain community information on safety and health, and

communicate via e-mail to friends and businesses, form the very fabric of

commerce in the world we live in. Non-participation or lack of access, simply

stated, sentences portions of our society to second class status. Without vigorous

competition to ensure low cost dial-up Internet access, both the citizens of

Pennsylvania and the State itself will suffer irreparable harm as a significant

segment of the population is unable to compete economically, advance

educationally and establish community ties.

IT IS SOMETIMES SUGGESTED BY I L E C S THAT INDUSTRY

NUMBERING GUIDELINES PROHIBIT THE ASSIGNMENT OF

NUMBERS FOR FX OR SIMILAR SERVICES. IS THAT TRUE?

No. In fact Section 2.14 of the Numbering Guidelines specifically identifies FX

services as being eligible for number assignment:

2.14 It is assumed from a wireline perspective that CO Codes/blocks allocated to a wireline service provider are to be utilized to provide service to a customer's premise physically located in the same rate center that the CO codes/blocks are assigned. Exceptions exist, for example tariffed services such

33 See, The New York Times, "Dial-up Internet Going the Way of Rotary Phones"; June 21, 2005.

Page 43 of 57

I I

consult ing, inc.


1028 1029 1030 1031

1032

1033

1034

1035

1036

1037

1038

1039

1040

1041

1042

1043

1044

1045

1046

1047

1048

1049

1050

Q.

A.

as with the exception of foreign exchange service. 3 9 (emphasis added)

If it were improper or a violation of the guidelines to use virtual NXX codes then

all CLECs currently providing FX and FX-type services would be in violation

today.

IS IT UNCOMMON FOR NXX CODES TO BE ASSIGNED TO

CUSTOMERS WHO ARE NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED IN THE

LOCAL CALLING AREA WHERE THE NXX IS "HOMED" OR

ASSIGNED?

No. It is also not uncommon for the "routing" point for an NXX code to differ

from the "rating" point for the same code. In other words, although an NXX may

be rated or homed to a specific end office switch, the routing information in the

LERG may specify that calls to that NXX code be routed to a different wire

center, for instance, a tandem.

IS IT IMPROPER OR AGAINST ANY RULES FOR CLECS TO

PROVIDE NUMBERS TO THEIR CUSTOMERS?

No, not at all. In fact, carriers must request numbers in order to provide service in

a particular exchange. Based on my review of Core's practices. Core utilizes and

abides by the Numbering Guidelines.40

PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY ON VNXX TRAFFIC.

VNXX traffic is a competitive response to ILEC FX service and is the primary

service used by ISPs to provide local dialing for their customers. Calls to VNXX

3 9 Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions; Sponsor of Industry Numbering Committee; Central Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines; Released May 28, 2004.; hereinafter refened to as "Numbering Guidelines". 4 0 The Numbering Guidelines require compliance as a condition of receiving numbers.

Page 44 of 57

I 1 ^fQSI Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates

Case No. A-310922F7002

1051

1052

1053

1054

1055

consulting, inc.

numbers are local calls in every sense of the phrase and do not impose any

additional costs or responsibilities on Embarq. The CLEC assignment of numbers

in exchanges where they serve is completely consistent with the industry

numbering guidelines. Embarq's proposal to impose access charges on these calls

should be rejected.

1056

1057 Issue 9 - Indirect Traffic - Volume Limit 1058

1059 Q. PLEASE INTRODUCE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON

1060 THIS ISSUE?

1061 A. Core objects to Embarq's arbitrary limit of "a DS1 equivalent of traffic" after

1062 which the parties must establish direct interconnection. (Embarq's § 61.1) There

1063 is no reason for the parties to impose restrictions on their own use of a third party

1064 tandem provider (Verizon in this case) for delivery of transit interconnection

1065 traffic. Using a third party tandem can be just as efficient—if not more so—than

1066 establishing new, direct interconnection facilities.

1067 Q. WHAT IS TRANSIT TRAFFIC?

1068 A. According to the FCC, "transiting occurs when two carriers that are not directly

1069 interconnected exchange non-access traffic by routing the traffic through an

1070 intermediary carrier's network. Typically, the intermediary carrier is an

1071 incumbent LEC (in this case, Verizon) and the transited traffic is routed from the

1072 originating carrier through the incumbent LEC's tandem switch to the terminating

1073 carrier. The intermediary (transiting) carrier then charges a fee for use of its

Page 45 of 57

I » * n n n t u i l t i

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-31O922F70O2 consult ing, inc.

1074 facilities."41 By way of example, transiting works as follows: a customer of

1075 Carrier A (originating carrier) calls a customer of Carrier B (terminating carrier),

1076 and since Carriers A and B are not directly interconnected, they utilize Verizon's

1077 transiting service as an indirect interconnection so that the call can terminate to

1078 Carrier B's customer. Verizon, as the incumbent LEC, is the only carrier capable

1079 of providing transit service connecting all carriers, primarily because of the

1080 ubiquitous local network Verizon has been able to construct over many years of

1081 monopoly-provided services.

1082 Q. WHY IS TRANSITING IMPORTANT TO CLECs AND LOCAL

1083 COMPETITION AS A WHOLE?

1084 A. In the absence of transiting, each carrier (CLEC CMRS42/small LECs) would be

1085 forced to establish direct interconnection trunks with every other

1086 CLEC/CMRS/small LEC carrier with which it exchanges local traffic in order for

1087 all of its customers' calls to be completed. Duplicating the incumbent's network

1088 has never been viewed as an economic way to enter the market, as it is simply not

1089 cost effective or efficient to establish these multiple, duplicative direct trunks

1090 between each of these carriers (especially for carriers who exchange small

1091 amounts of traffic). As a result, it is likely that, in the absence of transiting, not

1092 all carriers would be interconnected and calls between customers of these carriers

4 1 lit the Matter o f Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, CC Docket No. Ot-92, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Communications Commission, 20 FCC Red 4685; 2005 FCC LEXIS 1390, FCC 05-33, rel. March 3, 2005 ("ICF FNPRM"), K 120.

4 2 CMRS stands for Commercial Mobile Radio Service and is an FCC designation for any carrier or licensee whose wireless network is connected to the public switched telephone network and/or is operated for profit. Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 20 . Ed. The FCC defines CMRS as: A mobile service that is: (a)(1) provided for profit, i.e., with the intent of receiving condensation or monetary gain; (2) An interconnected service; and (3) Available to the public, or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public; or (b) The functional equivalent of such a mobile service described in paragraph (a) of this section. 47 CFR § 20.3.

Page 46 of 57

••4QSI • * consult i :

Direct Testimony of Timothy J Gates Case No. A-33 0922F7O02

1093

1094

1095

1096

1097

1098

1099

1100

1101

1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124

consult ing. Inc.

would therefore not be completed (e.g., in the above example, the call between

Carrier A and Carrier B would be dropped as there would be no physical linkage

between Carrier A and Carrier B). Further, since Verizon would be the only

provider able to efficiently interconnect with all carriers, and therefore the only

carrier that could complete calls to customers of all carriers, Verizon would have

an insurmountable competitive advantage. Simply put, transiting is the one of the

most efficient means of interconnection between carriers and is critical to the

development of local competition. The FCC summarized the importance of

transiting as follows:

125. The record suggests that the availability of transit service is increasingly critical to establishing indirect interconnection — a form of interconnection explicitly recognized and supported by the Act. It is evident that competitive LECs, CMRS carriers, and rural LECs often rely upon transit service from the incumbent LECs to facilitate indirect interconnection with each other. Without the continued availability of transit service, carriers that are indirectly interconnected may have no efficient means by which to route traffic between their respective networks, (emphasis added)

126. Moreover, it appears that indirect interconnection via a transit service provider is an efficient way to interconnect when carriers do not exchange significant amounts of traffic. Competitive LECs and CMRS carriers claim that indirect interconnection via the incumbent LEC is an efficient form of interconnection where traffic levels do not justify establishing costly direct connections. As AT&T explains, "transiting lowers barriers to entry because two carriers avoid having to incur the costs of constructing the dedicated facilities necessary to link their networks directly." This conclusion appears to be supported by the widespread use of

transiting arrangements. 43

4 3 ICFFNPRM,ffll25- 126.

Page 47 of 57

*4QSI r n n s i i l t i consult ing, inc.


1125

1126

1127

1128

1129

1130

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

1141

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

WHAT IS OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT EMBARQ'S PROPOSAL FOR

DIRECT CONNECTION ONCE TRAFFIC TO ANY ONE EMBARQ END

OFFICE EXCEEDS "A DS1 EQUIVALENT OF TRAFFIC?"

No threshold is necessary and Embarq's proposed threshold - even if a threshold

were appropriate ~ is simply too low. A DSls worth of traffic is only 24 calls.

Embarq would have Core enter into direct interconnection if the traffic between

Core and any one Embarq end office exceeds the 24 call limit.

SHOULD THE COMMISSION ESTABLISH A TRAFFIC THRESHOLD

L E V E L OVER WHICH CORE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO FOREGO

VERIZON'S TRANSIT SERVICE AND ESTABLISH DIRECT

INTERCONNECTION WITH EMBARQ?

No, it should not. The market can, and should, determine when it is appropriate

to establish direct interconnection between two carriers for exchanging traffic that

has been exchanged heretofore as transit traffic. This is especially true since

Verizon is being compensated for its role in transiting the traffic.

PLEASE ELABORATE ON YOUR STATEMENT THAT "THE MARKET

CAN AND SHOULD DETERMINE WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE TO

ESTABLISH DIRECT INTERCONNECTION..."

Recall my example above wherein Carrier A (originating carrier) was using

Verizon's transiting service as an indirect interconnection to terminate traffic to

Carrier B (terminating carrier), and Carrier A was compensating Verizon for

transiting charges and compensating Carrier B for termination charges. Given

Page 48 of 57

4'QSi consulting, inc.


1147

1148

1149

1150

1151

1152

1153

1154

1155

1156

1157

1158

1159

1160

1161

1162

1163

1164

1165

1166

1167

1168

Q.

A.

that Carrier A is a profit maximizing firm, 4 4 Carrier A will establish direct trunks

to Carrier B and bypass Verizon's transiting service altogether when and i f the

level of traffic originated by Carrier A (or more specifically, Carrier A's

customers) rises to the level that it would be more cost effective (i.e., lower cost)

to establish direct trunks than to continue to use Verizon's transiting.

Accordingly, the market already provides the appropriate incentives for

originating and terminating carriers to determine when and/or i f it is appropriate

to establish direct interconnection, and imposing arbitrary regulatory thresholds is

unwarranted.

ARE THERE OTHER REASONS SUPPORTING YOUR

RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMISSION REFRAIN FROM

ESTABLISHING DIRECT INTERCONNECTION THRESHOLDS?

Yes. First, since the market already provides the proper signals for originating

and terminating carriers for determining i f and when direct interconnections are

warranted instead of indirect interconnections, imposing arbitrary thresholds will

subvert these signals and introduce inefficiencies into the market. For instance,

assume for illustration purposes that a threshold of DS3 is established (meaning

that when traffic originated by Carrier A and "transited" by Verizon to Carrier B

reaches a DS3 capacity level, a direct interconnection between Carrier A and B

must be established). I f that threshold is too low (meaning that Carrier A would

be forced to establish direct interconnection with Carrier B before it is economical

to do so). Carrier A would be put in a position wherein it cannot economically

In economics, profit maximization is the process by which a firm determines the price and output level that returns the greatest profit.

Page 49 of 57

'4QSI • * f^nnsnltir


1169 establish direct trunks but it cannot originate any additional traffic in order not to

1170 exceed the arbitrary cap. In this scenario, calls between Carrier A and Carrier B

1171 could potentially be droppet^locked and competition would be undermined. In

1172 contrast, i f the threshold is too high, Carrier A is likely to establish direct

1173 interconnection prior to reaching the threshold, and at worst, Verizon is at the risk

1174 of handling a higher level of transiting traffic (for which it is compensated).

1175 Second, forcing originating carriers to establish direct interconnections

1176 with terminating carriers at arbitrary thresholds will require duplicative,

1177 unnecessary, and inefficient facilities and will ultimately force the CLECs*

1178 networks to duplicate the antiquated "hub and spoke" network of the Bell

1179 Operating Companies ("BOCs").

1180 Only Verizon is in the position of providing transit service capable of

1181 connecting all carriers. The reason Verizon is in this position is that it was able to

1182 build a ubiquitous network over many years with revenues derived from

1183 monopoly provided services. It would be absurd to ignore the ubiquity of

1184 Verizon's network and its ability to efficiently interconnect all carriers by

1185 requiring these facilities to be duphcated not due to engineering practices or

1186 business needs but because of regulatory intervention. Since Verizon is already

1187 interconnected with all carriers sending traffic to its network (Carriers A and B in

1188 my example), the facilities over which parties exchange transit traffic have

1189 already been constructed and are in place and are, therefore, the most efficient

1190 way to exchange traffic. I f a direct interconnection is required, Carrier A would

1191 be forced to establish a new facility that duplicates the same path and function as

Page 50 of 57

••4;QSI » * r.onsnlti

Direct Testimony ofTimothy J Gates Case No. A-310922F7002

1192

1193

1194

1195

1196

1197

1198

1199

1200

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1214

consult ing, inc.

the facilities used by Carriers A and B and Verizon in the transiting scenario.

This unnecessarily increases Carrier A's costs (and likely Carrier B's costs) and

squanders the efficiency brought about by Verizon's ubiquitous, interconnected

network.

Furthermore, Carrier A would be forced to establish direct

interconnections with each and every carrier for which the traffic exceeds the

threshold, thereby exponentially increasing these duplicative costs and

inefficiencies. For instance, my example thus far has included one originating

carrier (Carrier A) and only one terminating carrier (Carrier B). In reality,

however. Carrier A may be terminating transit traffic to any given number of

carriers. Hence, i f we assume that Carrier A uses Verizon's transit service to

terminate traffic to five different carriers (Carriers B, C, D, E and F), the costs and

inefficiencies of direct interconnection thresholds would increase 5-fold. Given

that Carriers B, C, D, E, and F could each be originating transit traffic (in addition

to terminating this traffic) to five or ten terminating carriers, the magnitude of the

costs and inefficiencies of a traffic threshold becomes readily evident. In essence,

this direct interconnection threshold would transform the CLECs' networks into a

variant of the BOCs' "hub and spoke" design which will hamper the use of next-

generation technologies and network topologies.

Third, as explained above, Verizon's transit obligation is grounded in §

251. This obligation is not conditional upon a certain level of traffic, and

establishing a traffic threshold would read an inappropriate limitation into the Act.

Since there is nothing in the Act or FCC rules discussing such a threshold, it

Page 51 of 57

' ^QSI i - n n c n t t i

Direct Testimony ofTimothy J Gates Case No. A-31O922F7O02 consult ing, inc.

[215 would be inappropriate and inconsistent with §251 for the Commission to

[216 establi sh one here.

1217 Q. EMBARQ IS RECOMMENDING SEPARATE TRUNKING FOR THE

1218 DELIVERY OF THIS TRANSIT TRAFFIC. (EMBARQ § 60.3) IS THAT

1219 APPROPRIATE OR NECESSARY?

1220 A. No. There is no reason to establish separate trunking for this traffic. Such a

[221 requirement only artificially increases the cost of interconnection with Embarq

[222 and should be rejected.

1223 Q. WHAT LANGUAGE IS CORE PROPOSING FOR THIS ISSUE?

[224 A. Core proposes the following modification to Section 61.1.5:

[225 61.1.5. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, once

1226 the Indirect Traffic volume between CLEC and a Sprint end office 1227 exceeds a DS1 equivalent of traffic. Spring and CLEC shall 1228 cooperate to establish a direct interconnection between CLEC and 1229 Sprint's end office for the mutual exchange of traffic pursuant to t230 Section 54 of this agreement. [231

.232 This language forces the parties to discuss direct interconnection once the traffic

i233 reaches the DS1 level but eliminates mandatory direct interconnection and

[234 timeframes to allow the negotiation process to proceed. The Commission should

L235 reject Embarq's arbitrary traffic triggers and instead adopt the compromise

L236 language proposed by Core.

1237

1238

[239 1240

Issue 10 - Pricing Attachment

Q. PLEASE INTRODUCE THE DISPUTE OVER THIS ISSUE.

Page 52 of 57

<4;QSI consu t i consult ing, inc.


1241

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

1248

1249

1250

1251

1252

1253

1254

1255

1256

1257

1258

1259

1260

1261

1262

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Core requires the use of Embarq entrance facilities and dedicated transport for

interconnection in certain circumstances. Embarq is willing to provide the

services, but have proposed intrastate access rates, which are usage sensitive and

include implicit subsidies. During negotiations, the parties were able to agree on

dedicated transport rates, but could not agree on the entrance facility rates.

Core maintains that it should pay TELRIC (Total Element Long Run

Incremental Costs) rates for the entrance facilities. To the extent Embarq does not

have TELRIC entrance facility rates, Core recommends the use of Verizon's

entrance facility rates.

PLEASE DEFINE AN ENTRANCE FACILITY.

An entrance facility, as defined by the FCC is "transmission facilities that are

dedicated to the transmission of traffic between two networks."45

WHAT IS THE PRICING STANDARD FOR INTERCONNECTION

FACILITIES?

The FCC's Local Competition Order promulgated rules that, among other

requirements, estabhshed the TELRIC pricing methodology for state commissions

to follow when setting rates under circumstances set forth in the Telecom Act.

The pricing rules are designed to "produce rates for monopoly elements and

services that approximate what the incumbent LEC would be able to charge i f

there were a competitive market for such services."46

The FCC's pricing rules are set forth at 47 C.F.R. 51.501 through 51.515.

Section 51.503(a) reiterates the ILECs' obligation to "offer elements to requesting

4 5 Local Competition Order at̂ 1062. 4 6 Local Competition Order at \ 738.

Page 53 of 57

I B I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 ff 1 i i i i


1263

1264

1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274

1275

1276

1277

1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284

1285 1286 1287 1288 1289

consult ing, inc.

carriers at rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and

nondiscriminatory." Section 51.505(b) provides that:

the [ILECs'] rates for each element it offers shall comply with the rate structure rules set forth in §§ 51.507 and 51.509, and shall be established, at the election of the state commission-

(1) Pursuant to the forward-looking economic cost-based pricing methodology [TELRIC] set forth in §§ 51.505 and 51.111; or

(2) Consistent with the proxy ceilings and ranges set forth in § 51.503.

In general, prices for elements must be set at their forward-looking

economic cost which equals the sum of the total element long-run47 incremental48

cost49 of the element plus a reasonable allocation of forward-looking common

costs.50 Specifically, the TELRIC of an element is:

the forward-looking cost over the long run of the total quantity of the facilities and functions that are directly attributable to, or reasonably identifiable as incremental to, such element, calculated taking as a given the incumbent LEC's provision of other elements.51

Additionally, the TELRIC of an element:

should be measured based on the use of the most efficient telecommunications technology currently available and the lowest cost network configuration, given the existing location of the incumbent LEC's wire centers. 52

47> [L]ong run,' in the context of 'long run incremental cost,' refers to a period long enough so that all of a

firm's costs become variable or avoided." Local Competition Order, % 677 (&. 1682). '"Incremental costs are the additional costs (usually expressed as a cost per unit) that a firm will incur as a

result of expanding the output of a good or service by producing an additional quantity of the good or service. Incremental costs are forward-looking in the seme that these costs are incurred as the output level changes by a given increment." Local Competition Order, *\ 675 (footnotes omitted). 49The FCC noted "economists generally agree that prices based on forward-looking long-run incremental costs (LRIC) give appropriate signals to producers and consumers and ensure efficient entry and utilization of the telecommunications infrastructure." Id. at ^ 630 (footnote omitted). 5 0 47 C.F.R. Section 51.505(a)(1) and (2) s ' 47 C.F.R. Section 51.505(b). 5 2 47 C.F.R. Section 51.505(b)(1).

Page 54 o f 57

1 II I I I

•«fQSI r r i n c i i l t i


II

I!

1 D

1290

1291

1292

1293

1294

1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301

1302

1303 1304

1305 1306

1307 1308

1309

1310

1311

1312

1313

1314

1315

Q.

consulting, inc.

In calculating the TELRIC of an element, the forward-looking cost of

capital and economic depreciation rates shall be employed.53 The following

factors, however, may not be considered in calculating the TELRIC of an

element: embedded costs, retail costs, opportunity costs and revenues to subsidize

other services.54 Finally, it is the ILECs burden:

to prove to the state commission that the rates for each element it offers do not exceed the forward-looking cost per unit of providing the element, using a cost study that comphes with the methodology set forth in this section and § 51.511 [entitled Forward-looking cost per unit]. 5 5

The economic principles identified and embodied within the TELRIC

standard can be summarized as follows:

Principle # 1: The firm should be assumed to operate in the long run. 677 and 692)

Principle #2: The relevant increment of output should be total company demand for the unbundled network element in question, fll 690)

Principle # 3: Technology choices should reflect least-cost, most efficient technologies, fl] 685 and 690)

Principle # 4: Costs should be forward-looking. (\ 679, 682 and 692)

Principle # 5: Cost identification should follow cost causation, (t 622 and 691)

In summary, the use of TELRIC costing principles ensures that rates reflect a

measure of the costs that would be incurred by an efficient supplier of a particular

network element.

BUT HASN'T THE FCC ELIMINATED ENTRANCE FACILITIES AS AN

UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENT ("UNE")?

47 C.F.R. Section 51.505(b)(2) and (3).

55 47 C.F.R. Section 51.505(d)(1) through (4). 47 C.F.R. Section 51.505(e).

I Page 55 of 57

•*fQSi » T r n n R i i I t i

consulting, inc.


1316

1317

1318

1319

1320

1321

1322

1323

1324

1325

1326

1327

1328

1329

1330

1331

1332

1333

1334

1335

1336

1337

A.

Q.

A.

Q-

A.

Yes. At paragraphs 136 and 137 of the FCC's Triennial Review Remand Order it

explains the FCC's rationale for finding that requesting carriers are not impaired

without unbundled access to entrance facilities. The FCC found that such

facilities outside of the ILECs local network are part of the dedicated transport

network element that is not subject to unbundling."56 The elimination of

"entrance facihties" as a UNE, however, does not prevent Core from seeking cost-

based rates for interconnection. Core seeks TELRIC interconnection pursuant to

section 251(c)(2) of the Act, and not UNEs which are subject to section 251(c)(3)

and the TRRO. Confusingly, the term "entrance facility" can refer both to an

interconnection product and a UNE product; but they are ultimately different

products and the TRRO does not apply to interconnection whatsoever.

PLEASE EXPLAIN.

To the best of our knowledge, Embarq does not have any cost support for its

entrance facility rates. Core has the right to pay forward-looking cost-based rates

for interconnection facilities.

HAS THIS COMMISSION EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON ENTRANCE

FACILITIES AND TRANSPORT USED FOR ENTRANCE FACILITIES?

Yes. Just last year the Commission entered an order in the Verizon proceeding

(P-00042092; Issued July 21, 2006) regarding such pricing. The Commission

stated that "...we find that all transport previous provided under the rubric of

entrance facilities should not be presumed to be priced as special access." As

such, access prices are inappropriate for this service.

5 6 See FCC Order OD Remand in WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No. 01-338, Released Febmary 4, 2004 at H 136, 137.

Page 56 of 57

1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I i 1 I I 1 1 1 1

4QSI *T consult i

consult ing, inc.


1338

1339

1340

1341

1342

1343

1344

1345

Q.

A.

WHAT RATES DO YOU PROPOSE FOR ENTRANCE FACILITIES FOR

THE EMBARQ INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT?

In the absence of Embarq cost support, Core recommends that the Commission

order Embarq to charge the Verizon rates for entrance facilities. This is not a

suggestion that the Verizon rates are appropriate, only that they have at least been

reviewed and approved by this Commission.

Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?

A. Yes, it does.

Page 57 of 57

1 I

EXHIBIT TJG-1

1 1 1 1 I 1

I I I 1

I 1 1 1 I

I 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 I 1 8 1 1 1 I I

^'QSI

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates Exhibit TJG-1

Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.

A. Prior to my current position with QSI Consulting, I was a Senior Executive Staff Member in MCI WorldCom's ("MCIW") National Public Policy Group. In this position, I was responsible for providing public policy expertise in key cases across the country and for managing external consultants for MClW's state public policy organization. In certain situations, I also provided testimony in regulatory and legislative proceedings.

Prior to my position with MCIW in Denver, I was an Executive Staff Member II at MCI Telecommunications ("MCI") World Headquarters in Washington D.C. In that position I managed economists, external consultants, and provided training and policy support for regional regulatory staffs. Prior to that position I was a Senior Manager in MCl's Regulatory Analysis Department, which provided support in state regulatory and legislative matters to the various operating regions of MCI. In that position I was given responsibility for assigning resources from our group for state regulatory proceedings throughout the United States. At the same time, I prepared and presented testimony on various telecommunications issues before state regulatory and legislative bodies. I was also responsible for managing federal tariff reviews and presenting MCl's position on regulatory matters to the Federal Communications Commission. Prior to my assignment in the Regulatory Analysis Department, I was the Senior Manager of Economic Analysis and Regulatory Policy in the Legal, Regulatory and Legislative Affairs Department for the Midwest Division of MCI. In that position I developed and promoted regulatory policy within what was then a five-state operating division of MCI. I promoted MCI policy positions through negotiations, testimony and participation in industry forums.

Prior to my positions in the Midwest, I was employed as Manager of Tariffs and Economic Analysis with MCl's West Division in Denver, Colorado. In that position I was responsible for managing the development and application of MCl's tariffs in the fifteen MCI West states. I was also responsible for managing regulatory dockets and for providing economic and financial expertise in the areas of discovery and issue analysis. Prior to joining the West Division, I was a Financial Analyst III and then a Senior Staff Specialist with MCl's Southwest Division in Austin, Texas. In those positions, I was responsible for the management of regulatory dockets and liaison with outside counsel. I was also

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates 1 Exhibit TJG-1

I 1 1 I I 1 1 I i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I

•'4;QSI consulrinQ. inc.

responsible for discovery, issue analysis, and for the development of working relationships with consumer and business groups. Just prior to joining MCI, I was employed by the Texas Public Utility Commission as a Telephone Rate Analyst in the Engineering Division responsible for examining telecommunications cost studies and rate structures.

I was employed as an Economic Analyst with the Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon from July, 1983 to December, 1984. In that position, I examined and analyzed cost studies and rate structures in telecommunications rate cases and investigations. I also testified in rate cases and in private and public hearings regarding telecommunications services. Before joining the Oregon Commissioner's Staff, I was employed by the Bonneville Power Administration (United States Department of Energy) as a Financial Analyst, where I made total regional electric use forecasts and automated the Average System Cost Review Methodology. Prior to joining the Bonneville Power Administration, I held numerous positions of increasing responsibility in areas of forest management for both public and private forestry concerns.

Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS.

A. I received a Bachelor of Science degree from Oregon State University and a Master of Management degree in Finance and Quantitative Methods from Willamette University's Atkinson Graduate School of Management. I have also attended numerous courses and seminars specific to the telecommunications industry, including the NARUC Annual and Advanced Regulatory Studies Program.

Q. WHAT ARE YOUR CURRENT RESPONSIBILITIES?

A. Effective April 1, 2000, I joined QSI Consulting as Senior Vice President and Partner. In this position I provide analysis and testimony for QSI's many clients. The deliverables include written and oral testimony, analysis of rates, cost studies and policy positions, position papers, presentations on industry issues and training.

Q. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE JURISDICTIONS IN WHICH YOU HAVE TESTIFIED.

A. I have filed testimony or comments on telecommunications issues in the following 44 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,


•'4;QSI «? consulllng.

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Puerto Rico. I have also filed comments with the FCC and made presentations to the Department of Justice.


•••al! QSI - * consulliiiQ inc.

I have testified or presented formal comments in the following proceedings and forums:

Alabama:

October 18, 2000; Docket No. 27867; Adelphia Business Solutions Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

January 31, 2001; Docket No. 27867; Adelphia Business Solutions Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

Arkansas:

September 7, 2004; Docket No. 04-0999-U; In the Matter of Level 3 Petition for Arbitration with Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. D/B/A SBC Arkansas; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

Arizona:

September 23, 1987; Arizona Corporation Commission Workshop on Special Access Services; Comments on Behalf of MCI.

August 21 , 1996; Affidavit in Opposition to USWC Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; No. CV 95-14284, No. CV-96-03355, No. CV-96-03356, (consolidated); On Behalf of MCI.

October 24, 1997; Comments to the Universal Service Fund Working Group; DocketNo. R-0000-97-137; On Behalf of MCI.

May 8, 1998; Comments to the Universal Service Fund Working Group; Docket No.R-0000-97-137; On Behalf of MCI.

November 9, 1998; Docket No. T-03175A-97-0251; Application of MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. to Expand It's CCN to Provide IntraLATA Services and to Determine that Its IntraLATA Services are Competitive; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI WorldCom, Inc.

September 20, 1999; Docket No. T-00000B-97-238; USWC OSS Workshop; Comments on Behalf of MCI WorldCom, Inc.

January 8, 2001; Docket Nos. T-03654A-00-0882, T-01051B-00-0882; Petition of

Qualifications ofTimothy J Gates 4 Exhibit TJG-1

•affQSI ccmsuiUng, inc.

Level 3 Communications, LLC, for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

February 20, 2001; Superior Court of Arizona; Count of Maricopa; ESI Ergonomic Solutions, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. United Artists Theatre Circuit; No. CV 99-20649; Affidavit on Behalf of United Artists Theatre Circuit.

September 2, 2001; Docket No. T-00000A-00-0194 Phase II - A; Investigation into Qwest's Compliance with Wholesale Pricing Requirements for Unbundled Network Elements and Resale Discounts; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of WorldCom, Inc.

January 9, 2004; Docket No. T-OOOOOA-03-0369; In the Matter of ILEC Unbundling Obligations as a Result of the Federal Triennial Review Order; Direct Testimony on Behalf of WorldCom, Inc. (MCI).

November 18, 2004; Docket No. T-01051B-0454; In the Matter of Qwest Corporation's Amended Renewed Price Regulation Plan; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Time Warner Telecom, Inc.

July 15, 2005; Docket No. T-03654-05-0350, T-01051B-05-0350; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation, Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

August 15, 2005; Docket No. T-03654-05-0350, T-01051B-05-0350; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation, Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

Arkansas:

September 7, 2004; Docket No. 04-099-U; In the Matter of Level 3 Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) with Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. D/B/A SBC Arkansas; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLC.

California:

August 30, 1996; Application No. 96-08-068; MCI Petition for Arbitration with Pacific Bell; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.


•4QSI •? ctmsuliu

consulling - ic .

September 10, 1996; Application No. 96-09-012; MCI Petition for Arbitration with GTE California, Inc.; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.


^ Q S I consuHing. inc

June 5, 2000; Docket No. A0004037; Petition of Level 3 Communications for Arbitration of an Interconnection Agreement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLC.

June 1, 2004; Docket No. A.04-06-004; Petition of Level 3 Communications for Arbitration with SBC; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3 Communications LLC.

Colorado:

December 1, 1986; Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 1720; Rate Case of Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

October 26, 1988; Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 1766; Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company's Local Calling Access Plan; Direct Testimony of Behalf of MCI.

September 6, 1996; MCImetro Petition for Arbitration with U S WEST Communications, Inc.; Docket No. 96A-366T (consolidated); Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 17, 1996; MCImetro Petition for Arbitration with U S WEST Communications, Inc.; Docket No. 96A-366T (consolidated); Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 26, 1996; Application of U S WEST Communications, Inc. To Modify Its Rate and Service Regulation Plan; Docket No. Docket No. 90A-665T (consolidated); Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

October 7, 1996; Application of U S WEST Communications, Inc. To Modify Its Rate and Service Regulation Plan; Docket No. Docket No. 90A-665T (consolidated); Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

July 18, 1997; Complaint of MCI to Reduce USWC Access Charges to Economic Cost; Docket Nos. 97K-237T, 97F-175T (consolidated) and 97F-212T (consolidated); Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

August 15, 1997; Complaint of MCI to Reduce USWC Access Charges to Economic Cost; Docket Nos. 97K-237T, 97F-175T (consolidated) and 97F-212T (consolidated); Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates 7

Exhibit TJG-1

I I I

I I

•*€QSI COfiSuMlne. iii


•'4X}Si • J consulIinQ. inc.

March 10, 1998; Application of WorldCom, Inc. for Approval to Transfer Control of MCI to WorldCom, Inc.; Docket No. 97A-494T; Supplemental Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

March 26, 1998; Application of WorldCom, Inc. for Approval to Transfer Control of MCI to WorldCom, Inc.; Docket No. 97A-494T; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

May 8, 1998; Application of WorldCom, Inc. for Approval to Transfer Control of MCI to WorldCom, Inc.; Docket No. 97A-494T; Affidavit in Response to GTE.

November 4, 1998; Proposed Amendments to the Rules Prescribing IntraLATA Equal Access; Docket No. 98R-426T; Comments to the Commission on Behalf of MCI WorldCom and AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc.

May 13, 1999; Proposed Amendments to the Rules on Local Calling Area Standards; Docket No. 99R-128T; Oral Comments before the Commissioners on Behalf of MCIW.

January 4, 2001; Petition of Level 3 Communications, LLC for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Docket No. 00B-601T; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

January 16, 2001; Petition of Level 3 Communications, LLC for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Docket No. 00B-601T; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

January 29, 2001; Qwest Corporation, Inc., Plaintiff, v. IP Telephony, Inc., Defendant. District Court, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado; Case No. 99CV8252; Direct Testimony on Behalf of IP Telephony.

June 27, 2001; US WEST Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions; Docket No. 991-577T; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Covad Communications Company, Rhythms Links, Inc., and New Edge Networks, Inc.

January 26, 2004; Regarding the Unbundling Obligations of ILECs Pursuant to the Triennial Review Order; Docket No. 03I-478T; Direct Testimony on Behalf of WorldCom, Inc. (MCI).

February 18, 2005; Regarding Application of Qwest for Reclassification and Deregulation of Certain Products and Sen/ices; Docket No. 04A-411T; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Time Warner Telecom.


'4'QSI «* eonsuil'ttg. inc

July 11, 2005; Petition of Level 3 Communications, LLC for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Docket No. 058-210T; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

December 19, 2005; Petition of Level 3 Communications, LLC for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Docket No. 05B-210T; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

Connecticut:

November 2, 2004; Petition of Level 3 Communications, LLC for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) with Southern New England Telephone Company d/b/a/ SBC Connecticut; Level 3/SNET Arbitration; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLC.

Delaware:

February 12, 1993; Diamond State Telephone Company's Application for a Rate Increase; Docket No. 92-47; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

Florida:

July 1, 1994; Investigation into IntraLATA Presubscription; Docket No. 930330-TP; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

October 5, 2000; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with BellSouth; Docket No. 000907-TP; Direct Testimony On Behalf of Level 3.

October 13, 2000; Petition of BellSouth for Arbitration with US LEC of Florida Inc.; Docket No. 000084-TP; Direct Testimony On Behalf of US LEC.

October 27, 2000; Petition of BellSouth for Arbitration with US LEC of Florida Inc.; Docket No. 000084-TP; Rebuttal Testimony On Behalf of US LEC.

November 1, 2000; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with BellSouth; Docket No. 000907-TP; Rebuttal Testimony On Behalf of Level 3.

June 11, 2004; Petition of KMC Telecom for Arbitration with Sprint Communications; Docket No. 031047-TP; Direct Testimony on Behalf of KMC Telecom III, L L C , KMC Telecom V, Inc., and KMC Data, L.L.C.

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates 'o Exhibit TJG-1

1 i I I

•4'QSl • * consullii

consul ling, Inc.

July 9, 2004; Petition of KMC Telecom for Arbitration with Sprint Communications; Docket No. 031047-TP; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of KMC Telecom III, LLC, KMC Telecom V, Inc., and KMC Data, LLC .

i i

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates 1 1

Exhibit TJG-1

'4'QSI consul I inp inc.

December 19, 2005; Petition and complaint for suspension and cancellation of Transit Traffic Service Tariff No. FL2004-284 filed by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., by AT&T Communications of the Southern States, LLC; Docket Nos. 050119-TP/050125-TP; Direct Testimony on Behalf of CompSouth.

January 30, 2005; Petition and complaint for suspension and cancellation of Transit Traffic Service Tariff No. FL2004-284 filed by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., by AT&T Communications of the Southern States, LLC; Docket Nos. 050119-TP/050125-TP; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of CompSouth.

Georgia:

December 6, 2000; Docket No. 12645-U; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with BellSouth; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

December 20, 2000; Docket No. 12645-U; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with BellSouth; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

April 13, 2007; Docket No. 24844; Petition of Neutral Tandem for the Establishment of Interconnection with Level 3; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

April 24, 2007; Docket No. 24844; Petition of Neutral Tandem for the Establishment of Interconnection with Level 3; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

Idaho:

November 20, 1987; Case No. U-1150-1; Petition of MCI for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

March 17, 1988; Case No. U-1500-177; Investigation of the Universal Local Access Service Tariff; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

April 26, 1988; Case No. U-1500-177; Investigation of the Universal Local Access Service Tariff; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.


Exhibit TJG-1

••4'QSI consulting. '"C-

November 25, 2002; Case No. GNR-T-02-16; Petition of Potlatch, CenturyTel, the Idaho Telephone Association for Declaratory Order Prohibiting the Use of "Virtual" NXX Calling; Comments/Presentation on Behalf of Level 3, AT&T, WorldCom, and Time Warner Telecom.

August 12, 2005; Case No. QWE-T-05-11; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

September 16, 2005; Case No. QWE-T-05-11; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

Illinois:

January 16, 1989; Docket No. 83-0142; Appropriate Methodology for Intrastate Access Charges; Rebuttal Testimony Regarding Toll Access Denial on Behalf of MCI.

February 16, 1989; Docket No. 83-0142; Appropriate Methodology for Intrastate Access Charges; Testimony Regarding ICTC's Access Charge Proposal on Behalf of MCI.

May 3, 1989; Docket No. 89-0033; Illinois Bell Telephone Company's Rate Restructuring; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

July 14, 1989; Docket No. 89-0033; Illinois Bell Telephone Company's Rate Restructuring; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 22, 1989; Docket No. 88-0091; IntraMSA Dialing Arrangements; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

February 9, 1990; Docket No. 88-0091; IntraMSA Dialing Arrangements; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 19, 1990; Docket No. 83-0142; Industry presentation to the Commission re Docket No. 83-0142 and issues for next generic access docket; Comments re the Imputation Trial and Unitary Pricing/Building Blocks on Behalf of MCI.

July 29, 1991; Case No. 90-0425; Presentation to the Industry Regarding MCl's

Qualifications ofTimothy J Gates '3 Exhibit TJG-1

•'>4QSI ' ? conaulling. inc

Position on Imputation.

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates 14

Exhibit TJG-1

'4;QSI consulllng. Inc.

November 18, 1993; Docket No. 93-0044; Complaint of MCI and LDDS re Illinois Bell Additional Aggregated Discount and Growth Incentive Discount Services; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI and LDDS.

January 10, 1994; Docket No. 93-0044; Complaint of MCI and LDDS re Illinois Bell Additional Aggregated Discount and Growth Incentive Discount Services; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI and LDDS.

May 30, 2000; Docket No. 00-0332; Level 3 Petition for Arbitration to Establish and Interconnection Agreement with Illinois Bell Telephone Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

July 11, 2000: Docket No. 00-0332; Level 3 Petition for Arbitration to Establish and Interconnection Agreement with Illinois Bell Telephone Company; Supplemental Verified Statement on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

June 22, 2004; Docket No. 04-0428; Level 3 Petition for Arbitration to Establish an Interconnection Agreement with Illinois Bell Telephone Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

September 3, 2004; Docket No. 04-0428; Level 3 Petition for Arbitration to Establish an Interconnection Agreement with Illinois Bell Telephone Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

Indiana:

October 28, 1988; Cause No. 38561; Deregulation of Customer Specific Offerings of Indiana Telephone Companies; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

December 16, 1988; Cause No. 38561; Deregulation of Customer Specific Offerings of Indiana Telephone Companies; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI Regarding GTE.

April 14, 1989; Cause No. 38561; Deregulation of Customer Specific Offerings of Indiana Telephone Companies; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI Regarding Staff Reports.

June 21, 1989; Cause No. 37905; Intrastate Access Tariffs -- Parity with Federal Rates; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

June 29, 1989; Cause No. 38560; Reseller Complaint Regarding 1+ IntraLATA

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates ^ Exhibit TJG-1

I 1 1 1 I

••4'QSI ' * consulting, inc.

Calling; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.


Exhibit TJG-1

-4!QSI *? eomullinB. inc.

October 25, 1990; Cause No. 39032; MCI Request for IntraLATA Authority; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

April 4, 1991; Rebuttal Testimony in Cause No. 39032 re MCl's Request for IntraLATA Authority on Behalf of MCI.

September 2, 2004; Cause No. 42663-INT-01; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with SBC Indiana; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLC.

October 5, 2004; Cause No. 42663-INT-01; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with SBC Indiana; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLC.

Iowa:

September 1, 1988; Docket No. RPU 88_6; IntraLATA Competition in Iowa; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 20, 1988; Docket No. RPU_88_1; Regarding the Access Charges of Northwestern Bell Telephone Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 25, 1991; Docket No. RPU-91-4; Investigation of the Earnings of U S WEST Communications, Inc.; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

October 3, 1991; Docket No. NOI-90-1; Presentation on Imputation of Access Charges and the Other Costs of Providing Toll Services; On Behalf of MCI.

November 5, 1991; Docket No. RPU-91-4; Investigation of the Earnings of U S WEST Communications; Inc.; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

December 23, 1991; Docket No. RPU-91-4; Investigation of the Earnings of US WEST Communications; Inc.; Supplemental Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

January 10, 1992; Docket No. RPU-91-4; Investigation of the Earnings of U S WEST Communications, Inc.; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

January 20, 1992; Docket No. RPU-91-4; Investigation of the Earnings of U S WEST Communications, Inc.; Surrebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

June 8, 1999; Docket NOI-99-1; Universal Service Workshop; Participated on

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates i? Exhibit TJG-1

•'4'QSI Consulting, inc.

numerous panels during two day workshop; Comments on Behalf of MCIW.

Qualifications ofTimothy J Gates Exhibit TJG-1

•'4lQSI "consutiing, inc.

October 27, 1999: Docket NOI-99-1; Universal Service Workshop; Responded to questions posed by the Staff of the Board during one day workshop; Comments on Behalf of MCIW and AT&T.

November 14, 2003; Docket Nos. INU-03-4, WRU-03-61; In Re: Qwest Corporation; Sworn Statement of Position on Behalf of MCI.

December 15, 2003; Docket Nos. INU-03-4, WRU-03-61; In Re: Qwest Corporation; Sworn Counter Statement of Position on Behalf of MCI.

July 20, 2005; Docket No. ARB-05-4; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

August 12, 2005; Docket No. ARB-05-4; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

August 24, 2005; Docket No. ARB-05-4; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest; Surrebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

July 14, 2006; Docket No. FCU-06-42; In the Matter of Coon Creek Telecommunications Corp. Complaint Against Iowa Telecommunications Services; Direct Testimony on Behalf of CCTC.

August 21 , 2006; Docket No. FCU-06-42; In the Matter of Coon Creek Telecommunications Corp. Complaint Against Iowa Telecommunications Services; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of CCTC.

Kansas:

June 10, 1992; Docket No. 181,097-U; General Investigation into IntraLATA Competition within the State of Kansas; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 16, 1992; Docket No. 181,097-U; General Investigation into IntraLATA Competition within the State of Kansas; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

August 31, 2004; Docket No. 04-L3CT-1046-ARB; In the Matter of Arbitration Between Level 3 Communications LLC and SBC Communications; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLC.

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates '9 Exhibit TJG-1

'4'QSI consulting, inc.


'4'QSI ' * COmulling. inc.

Kentucky:

May 20, 1993; Administrative Case No. 323, Phase I; An Inquiry into IntraLATA Toll Competition, an Appropriate Compensation Scheme for Completion of IntraLATA Calls by Interexchange Carriers, and WATS Jurisdictionality; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

December 21, 2000; Case No. 2000-404; Petition of Level 3 Communications, LLC for Arbitration with BellSouth; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

January 12, 2001; Case No. 2000-477; Petition of Adelphia Business Solutions for Arbitration with BellSouth; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

Louisiana:

December 28, 2000; Docket No. U-25301; Petition of Adelphia Business Solutions for Arbitration with BellSouth; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

January 5, 2001; Docket No. U-25301; Petition of Adelphia Business Solutions for Arbitration with BellSouth; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

Maryland:

November 12, 1993; Case No. 8585; Competitive Safeguards Required re C&P's Centrex Extend Service; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

January 14, 1994; Case No. 8585; Competitive Safeguards Required re C&P's Centrex Extend Service; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

May 19, 1994; Case No. 8585; Re Bell Atlantic Maryland, Inc.'s Transmittal No. 878; Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

June 2, 1994; Case No. 8585; Competitive Safeguards Required re C&P's Centrex Extend Service; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 5, 2001; Case No. 8879; Rates for Unbundled Network Elements Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Rebuttal Testimony on behalf of the Staff of the Public Service Commission of Maryland.

October 15, 2001; Case No. 8879; Rates for Unbundled Network Elements Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Surrebuttal Testimony on


I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I

-4QSI • * consullina. inc.

behalf of the Staff of the Public Service Commission of Maryland.


'4'QSI • * consulling. Inc.

Massachusetts:

April 22, 1993; D.P.U. 93-45; New England Telephone Implementation of Interchangeable NPAs; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

May 10, 1993; D.P.U. 93-45; New England Telephone Implementation of Interchangeable NPAs; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

Michigan:

September 29, 1988; Case Nos. U-9004, U-9006, U-9007 (Consolidated); Industry Framework for IntraLATA Toll Competition; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 30, 1988; Case Nos. U-9004, U-9006, U-9007 (Consolidated); Industry Framework for IntraLATA Toll Competition; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

June 30, 1989; Case No. U-8987; Michigan Bell Telephone Company Incentive Regulation Plan; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

July 31, 1992; Case No. U-10138; MCI v Michigan Bell and GTE re IntraLATA Equal Access; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 17, 1992; Case No. U-10138; MCI v Michigan Bell and GTE re IntraLATA Equal Access; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

July 22, 1993; Case No. U-10138 (Reopener); MCI v Michigan Bell and GTE re IntraLATA Equal Access; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

February 16, 2000; Case No. U-12321; AT&T Communications of Michigan, Inc. Complainant v. GTE North Inc. and Contel of the South, Inc., d/b/a GTE Systems of Michigan; Direct Testimony on Behalf of AT&T. (Adopted Testimony of Michael Starkey)

May 11, 2000; Case No. U-12321; AT&T Communications of Michigan, Inc. Complainant v. GTE North Inc. and Contel of the South, Inc., d/b/a GTE Systems of Michigan; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of AT&T.

June 8, 2000; Case No. U-12460; Petition of Level 3 Communications for Arbitration to Establish an Interconnection Agreement with Ameritech Michigan;


' 4 Q S I • * coosulllng. inc.

Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.


'4'QSI consulllng. Inc.

September 27, 2000; Case No. U-12528; In the Matter of the Implementation of the Local Calling Area Provisions of the MTA; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Focal Communications, Inc.

June 1, 2004; Case No. U-14152; Petition of Level 3 Communications LLC for Arbitration with SBC Michigan; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLC.

Minnesota:

January 30, 1987; Docket No. P_421/CL86_88; Summary Investigation into Alternative Methods for Recovery of Non-traffic Sensitive Costs; Comments to the Commission on Behalf of MCI.

September 7, 1993; Docket No. P-999/CI-85-582, P-999/CI-87-697 and P-999/CI-87-695, In the Matter of an Investigation into IntraLATA Equal Access and Presubscription; Comments of MCI on the Report of the Equal Access and Presubscription Study Committee on Behalf of MCI.

September 20, 1996; Petition for Arbitration with U S WEST Communications, Inc.; Docket No. P-442, 421/M-96-855; P-5321, 421/M-96-909; and P-3167, 421/M-96-729 (consolidated); Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 30, 1996; Petition for Arbitration with U S WEST Communications, Inc.; Docket No. P-442, 421/M-96-855; P-5321, 421/M-96-909; and P-3167, 421/M-96-729 (consolidated); Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 14-16, 1999; USWC OSS Workshop; Comments on Behalf of MCI WorldCom, Inc. re OSS Issues.

September 28, 1999; Docket No. P-999/R-97-609; Universal Service Group; Comments on Behalf of MCI WorldCom, Inc. and AT&T Communications.

April 18, 2002; Commission Investigation of Qwest's Pricing of Certain Unbundled Network Elements; Docket Nos. P-442, 421, 3012/M-01-1916; P-421/C1-01-1375; OAH Docket No. 12-2500-14490; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of McLeod USA Telecommunications Services, Inc., Eschelon Telecom of Minnesota, Inc., US Link, Inc., Northstar Access, LLC, Otter Tail Telecomm LLC, VAL-Ed Joint Venture, LLP, dba 702 Communications.

January 23, 2004; In the Matter of the Commission Investigation into ILEC


•4QSI consul!ing. inc.

Unbundling Obligations as a Result of the Federal Triennial Review Order; Docket No.: P-999/CI-03-961; Direct Testimony on Behalf of WorldCom, Inc. (MCI).

Mississippi:

February 2, 2001; Docket No. 2000-AD-846; Petition of Adelphia Business Solutions for Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

February 16, 2001; Docket No. 2000-AD-846; Petition of Adelphia Business Solutions for Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

Montana:

May 1, 1987; Docket No. 86.12.67; Rate Case of AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc.; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 12, 1988; Docket No. 88.1.2; Rate Case of Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

May 12, 1998; Docket No. D97.10.191; Application of WorldCom, Inc. for Approval to Transfer Control of MCI Communications Corporation to WorldCom, Inc.; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

June 1, 1998; Docket No. D97.10.191; Application of WorldCom, Inc. for Approval to Transfer Control of MCI Communications Corporation to WorldCom, Inc.; Amended Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

Nebraska:

November 6, 1986; Application No. C-627; Nebraska Telephone Association Access Charge Proceeding; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

March 31, 1988; Application No. C-749; Application of United Telephone Long Distance Company of the Midwest for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

New Hampshire:


•'4QSI consult'fig. inc.

April 30, 1993; Docket DE 93-003; Investigation into New England Telephone's Proposal to Implement Seven Digit Dialing for Intrastate Toll Calls; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

January 12, 2001; Docket No. DT 00-223; Investigation Into Whether Certain Calls are Local; Direct Testimony on Behalf of BayRing Communications.

April 5, 2002; Docket No. DT 00-223; Investigation Into Whether Certain Calls are Local; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of BayRing Communications.

New Jersey:

September 15, 1993; Docket No. TX93060259; Notice of Pre-Proposal re IntraLATA Competition; Comments in Response to the Board of Regulatory Commissioners on Behalf of MCI.

October 1, 1993; Docket No. TX93060259; Notice of Pre-Proposal re IntraLATA Competition; Reply Comments in Response to the Board of Regulatory Commissioners on Behalf of MCI.

April 7, 1994; Docket Nos. TX90050349, TE92111047, and TE93060211; Petitions of MCI, Sprint and AT&T for Authorization of IntraLATA Competition and Elimination of Compensation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

April 25, 1994; Docket Nos. TX90050349, TE92111047, and TE93060211; Petitions of MCI, Sprint and AT&T for Authorization of IntraLATA Competition and Elimination of Compensation; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

New Mexico:

September 28, 1987; Docket No. 87-61-TC; Application of MCI for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

August 30, 1996: Docket No. 95-572-TC; Petition of AT&T for IntraLATA Equal Access; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 16, 2002; Utility Case No. 3495, Phase B; Consideration of Costing and Pricing Rules for OSS, Collocation, Shared Transport, Nonrecurring Charges, Spot Frames, Combination of Network Elements and Switching; Direct Testimony on Behalf of the Staff of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission.

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates 2? Exhibit TJG-1

H I I 0 g i R

<*QSI consul ling. inc.

February 9, 2004; Case Nos. 03-00403-UT and 03-00404-UT; Triennial Review Proceedings (Batch Hot Cut and Local Circuit Switching); Testimony on Behalf of WorldCom, Inc. (MCI).

May 11, 2004; Case No. 00108-UT; Regarding Unfiled Agreements between Qwest Corporation and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers; Testimony on Behalf of Time Warner Telecom

September 14, 2005; Case No. 05-00211-UT; In the Matter of a Notice of Inquiry to Develop a Rule to Implement House Bill 776, Relating to Access Charge Reform, Oral Comments on Behalf of MCI.

December 5, 2005; Case No. 05-00094-UT; In the Matter of the Implementation and Enforcement of Qwest Corporations' Amended Alternative Form of Regulation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of the New Mexico Attorney General.

December 15, 2005; Case No. 05-00484-UT; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC's Petition for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

February 24, 2006; Case No. 05-00466-UT; In the Matter of the Development of an Alternative Form of Regulation for Qwest Corporation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of the New Mexico Attorney General.

March 31, 2006; Case No. 05-00466-UT; In the Matter of the Development of an Alternative Form of Regulation for Qwest Corporation; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of the New Mexico Attorney General.

July 24, 2006; Case No. 05-00094-UT Phase II; In the Matter of the Implementation and Enforcement of Qwest Corporation's Amended Alternative Form of Regulation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of the New Mexico Attorney General.

September 25, 2006; Case No. 05-00094-UT; Phase II - Proposed Settlement Agreement; Direct Testimony on Behalf of the New Mexico Attorney General.

December 15, 2006; Case No. 06-00325-UT (Settlement Agreement); Direct Testimony on Behalf of the New Mexico Attorney General.

New York:


Exhibit TJG-1

•4QSI *? COnsuliing. inc.

April 30, 1992; Case 28425; Comments of MCI Telecommunications Corporation on IntraLATA Presubscription.

June 8, 1992; Case 28425; Reply Comments of MCI Telecommunications Corporation on IntraLATA Presubscription.

March 23, 2007; Case No. 07-C-0233; Petition of Neutral Tandem for Interconnection with Level 3 Communications, LLC and Request for Interim Order; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.


I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 R I

4'QSI * * conaulling. inc.

North Carolina:

August 4, 2000; Docket No. P779 SUB4; Petition of Level (3) Communications, LLC for Arbitration with Bell South; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

September 18, 2000; Docket No. P779 SUB4; Petition of Level (3) Communications, LLC for Arbitration with Bell South; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

October 18, 2000; Docket No. P-886, SUB 1; Petition of Adelphia Business Solutions of North Carolina, LP for Arbitration with BellSouth; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

December 8, 2000; Docket No. P-886, SUB 1; Petition of Adelphia Business Solutions of North Carolina, LP for Arbitration with BellSouth; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

North Dakota:

June 24, 1991; Case No. PU-2320-90-183 (Implementation of SB 2320 -Subsidy Investigation); Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

October 24, 1991; Case No. PU-2320-90-183 (Implementation of SB 2320 -Subsidy Investigation); Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

December 4, 2002; Case No. PU-2065-02-465; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with SRT Communications Cooperative; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

May 2, 2003; Case No. PU-2342-01-296; Qwest Corporation Price Investigation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of the CLEC Coalition (US Link, Inc., VAL-ED Joint Venture LLP d/b/a 702 Communications, McLeodUSA Telecommunications, Inc. and IdeaOne Telecom Group, LLC).

December 2 1 , 2005; Case No. PU-05-451; Midcontinent Communications v. North Dakota Telephone Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Midcontinent.

January 16, 2006; Case No. PU-05-451; Midcontinent Communications v. North Dakota Telephone Company; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Midcontinent.


I I I I

•'4'QSI - J consulllng. Inc.

Ohio:

February 26, 2004; Case No. 04-35-TP-COI; In the Matter of the Implementation of the FCC's Triennial Review Regarding Local Circuit Switching in the Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company's Mass Market; Direct Testimony on Behalf of AT&T.

Oklahoma:

April 2, 1992; Cause No. 28713; Application of MCI for Additional CCN Authority to Provide IntraLATA Services; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

June 22, 1992; Cause No. 28713; Application of MCI for Additional CCN Authority to Provide IntraLATA Services; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

Oregon:

October 27, 1983; Docket No. UT 9; Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company Business Measured Service; Direct Testimony on Behalf of the Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon.

April 23, 1984; Docket No. UT 17; Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company Business Measured Service; Direct Testimony on Behalf of the Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon.

May 7, 1984; Docket No. UT 17; Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company Business Measured Service; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of the Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon.

October 31 , 1986; Docket No. AR 154; Administrative Rules Relating to the Universal Service Protection Plan; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 6, 1996; Docket ARB3/ARB6; Petition of MCI for Arbitration with U S WEST Communications, Inc.; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

October 11, 1996; Docket No. ARB 9; Interconnection Contract Negotiations Between MCImetro and GTE; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 5, 1996; Docket No. ARB 9; Interconnection Contract Negotiations Between MCImetro and GTE; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 6, 2002; Docket No. UM 1058; Investigation into the Use of Virtual


Exhibit TJG-1

'4'QSI coiwulsiog. ine

NPA/NXX Calling Patterns; Comments/Presentation on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

August 12, 2005; Docket No. ARB 665; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

September 6, 2005; Docket No. ARB 665; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

Pennsylvania:

December 9, 1994; Docket No. I-00940034; Investigation Into IntraLATA Interconnection Arrangements (Presubscription); Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 5, 2002; Docket No. C-20028114; Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Marianna & Scenery Hill Telephone Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

Puerto Rico:

January 19, 2006; Case Nos. JRT-2005-Q-0121, JRT-2005-Q-0128, JRT-2003-Q-0297, JRT-2004-Q-0068; TELEF6NICA LARGA DISTANCIA DE PUERTO RICO, INC., WORLDNET TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP, and AT&T OF PUERTO RICO, INC., v. PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., Direct Testimony on Behalf of Centennial Puerto Rico License Corporation.

Rhode Island:

April 30, 1993; Docket No. 2089; Dialing Pattern Proposal Made by the New England Telephone Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

South Carolina:

October 2000; Docket No. 2000-0446-C; US LEC of South Carolina Inc. Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications; Direct Testimony on Behalf of US LEC.


-•41QSI * f COASultH ifig. inc.

November 22, 2000; Docket No. 2000-516-C; Adelphia Business Solutions of South Carolina, Inc. Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.


•'4QSI * • * c o n s u l I rn

c o n s u l I fng , mt f

December 14, 2000; Docket No. 2000-516-C; Adelphia Business Solutions of South Carolina, Inc. Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

South Dakota:

November 11, 1987; Docket No. F_3652_12; Application of Northwestern Bell Telephone Company to Introduce Its Contract Toll Plan; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

May 27, 2003; Docket No. TC03-057; Application of Qwest to Reclassify Local Exchange Services as Fully Competitive; Direct Testimony on Behalf of WorldCom, Inc., Black Hills FiberCom and Midcontinent Communications.

Tennessee:

January 31, 2001; Petition of Adelphia Business Solutions for Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

February 7, 2001; Petition of Adelphia Business Solutions for Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Adelphia.

Texas:

June 5, 2000; PUC Docket No. 22441; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

June 12, 2000; PUC Docket No. 22441; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

October 10, 2002; PUC Docket No. 26431; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with CenturyTel of Lake Dallas, Inc. and CenturyTel of San Marcos, Inc.; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

October 16, 2002; PUC Docket No. 26431; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with CenturyTel of Lake Dallas, Inc. and CenturyTel of San Marcos, Inc.; Reply Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

July 19, 2004; PUC Docket No. 28821; Arbitration of Non-costing Issues for


I

'4QSI *? consul 11 consul ling. inc.

I I I • Successor Interconnection Agreement to the Texas 271 Agreement; Direct

Testimony on Behalf of KMC Telecom III, L.L.C, KMC Telecom V, Inc. (d/b/a | KMC Network Services, Inc.), and KMC Data, L.L.C.

August 23, 2004; PUC Docket No. 28821; Arbitration of Non-costing Issues for I Successor Interconnection Agreement to the Texas 271 Agreement; Rebuttal " Testimony on Behalf of KMC Telecom III, L.L.C, KMC Telecom V, Inc. (d/b/a

KMC Network Services, Inc.), and KMC Data, L.L.C.

Utah:

November 16, 1987; Case No. 87_049_05; Petition of the Mountain State Telephone and Telegraph Company for Exemption from Regulation of Various Transport Services; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

July 7, 1988; Case No. 83_999_11; Investigation of Access Charges for Intrastate InterLATA and IntraLATA Telephone Services; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 8, 1996; Docket No. 96-095-01; MCImetro Petition for Arbitration with USWC Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 22, 1996; Docket No. 96-095-01; MCImetro Petition for Arbitration with USWC Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 3, 1997; Docket No. 97-049-08; USWC Rate Case; Surrebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 29, 1997; Docket No. 97-049-08; USWC Rate Case; Revised Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

February 2, 2001; Docket No. 00-999-05; In the Matter of the Investigation of Inter-Carrier Compensation for Exchanged ESP Traffic; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLP.

January 13, 2004; Docket No. 03-999-04; In the Matter of a Proceeding to Address Actions Necessary to Respond to the FCC's Triennial Review Order; Direct Testimony on Behalf of WorldCom, Inc.

Washington:


-"4'QSI Consul line, inc

September 27, 1988; Docket No. U-88-2052-P; Petition of Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company for Classification of Services as Competitive; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.


•'4"QSI October 11, 1996; Docket No. UT-96-0338; Petition of MCImetro for Arbitration with GTE Northwest, Inc., Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.252; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 20, 1996; Docket No. UT-96-0338; Petition of MCImetro for Arbitration with GTE Northwest, Inc., Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.252; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

January 13, 1998; Docket No. UT-97-0325; Rulemaking Workshop re Access Charge Reform and the Cost of Universal Service; Comments and Presentation on Behalf of MCI.

December 21 , 2001; Docket No. UT-003013, Part D; Continued Costing and Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements, Transport, and Termination; Direct Testimony on Behalf of WorldCom, Inc.

October 18, 2002; Docket No. UT-023043; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with CenturyTel of Washington, Inc.; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

November 1, 2002; Docket No. UT-023043; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with CenturyTel of Washington, Inc.; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

January 31, 2003; Docket No. UT-021569; Developing an Interpretive or Policy Statement relating to the Use of Virtual NPA/NXX Calling Patterns; Comments on Behalf of WorldCom, Inc. and KMC Telecom.

May 1, 2003; Docket No. UT-021569; Developing an Interpretive or Policy Statement relating to the Use of Virtual NPA/NXX Calling Patterns; Workshop Participation on Behalf of MCI, KMC Telecom, and Level (3) Communications, LLC.

August 13, 2003; Docket No. UT-030614; In the Matter of the Petition of Qwest Corporation for Competitive Classification of Basic Exchange Telecommunications Services; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI, Inc.

August 29, 2003; UT-030614; In the Matter of the Petition of Qwest Corporation for Competitive Classification of Basic Exchange Telecommunications Services; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI, Inc.


•'4'QSI consulling. inc.

September 13, 2004; Docket No. UT-033011; In the Matter of Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Petitioners, v. Advanced Telecom Group, Inc., et al, Respondents; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Time Warner Telecom of Washington, LLC.

West Virginia:

October 11, 1994; Case No. 94-0725-T-PC; Bell Atlantic - West Virginia Incentive Regulation Plan; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

June 18, 1998; Case No. 97-1338-T-PC; Petition of WorldCom, Inc. for Approval to Transfer Control of MCI Communications Corporation to WorldCom, Inc.; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

Wisconsin:

October 31, 1988; Docket No. 05_TR_102; Investigation of Intrastate Access Costs, Settlements, and IntraLATA Access Charges; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 14, 1988; Docket No. 05_TR_102; Investigation of Intrastate Access Costs, Settlements, and IntraLATA Access Charges; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

December 12, 1988; Docket No. 05_TI_116; In the Matter of Provision of Operator Services; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

March 6, 1989; Docket No. 6720_TI_102; Review of Financial Data Filed by Wisconsin Bell, Inc.; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

May 1, 1989; Docket No. 05_NC_100; Amendment of MCl's CCN for Authority to Provide IntraLATA Dedicated Access Services; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

May 11, 1989; Docket No. 6720_TR_103; Investigation Into the Financial Data and Regulation of Wisconsin Bell, Inc.; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

July 5, 1989; Docket No. 05-TI-112; Disconnection of Local and Toll Services for Nonpayment - Part A; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

July 5, 1989; Docket No. 05-TI-112; Examination of Industry Wide Billing and


-4QSI *? consul ling. rne.

Collection Practices - Part B; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.


•'4.QSI CCnaUlina, inc.

July 12, 1989; Docket No. 05-TI-112; Rebuttal Testiniony in Parts A and B on Behalf of MCI.

October 9, 1989; Docket No. 6720-TI-102; Review of the WBI Rate Moratorium; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 17, 1989; Docket No. 6720-TI-102; Review of the WBI Rate Moratorium; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

December 1, 1989; Docket No. 05-TR-102; Investigation of Intrastate Access Costs, Settlements, and IntraLATA Access Charges; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

April 16, 1990; Docket No. 6720-TR-104; Wisconsin Bell Rate Case; Direct Testimony of Behalf of MCI.

October 1, 1990; Docket No. 2180-TR-102; GTE Rate Case and Request for Alternative Regulatory Plan; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

October 15, 1990; Docket No. 2180-TR-102; GTE Rate Case and Request for Alternative Regulatory Plan; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

November 15, 1990; Docket No. 05-TR-103; Investigation of Intrastate Access Costs and Intrastate Access Charges; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

April 3, 1992; Docket No. 05-NC-102; Petition of MCI for IntraLATA 10XXX 1 + Authority; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 30, 2002; Docket No. 05-MA-130; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with CenturyTel; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

October 9, 2002; Docket No. 05-MA-130; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with CenturyTel; Reply Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

September 1, 2004; Docket No. 05-MA-135; Petition of Level 3 for Arbitration with Wisconsin Bell, Inc. d/b/a/ SBC Wisconsin; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level (3) Communications, LLC.

Wyoming:


Exhibit TJG-1

• 4 Q S I * ? c o n s u l i LI consul I tngr inc

June 17, 1987; Docket No. 9746 Sub 1; Application of MCI for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity; Direct Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

May 19, 1997; Docket No. 72000-TC-97-99; In the Matter of Compliance with Federal Regulations of Payphones; Oral Testimony on Behalf of MCI.

September 8, 2005; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Direct Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

November 18, 2005; In the Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition for Arbitration with Qwest Corporation; Rebuttal Testimony on Behalf of Level 3.

Comments Submitted to the Federal Communications Commission and/or the Department of Justice

March 6, 1991; Ameritech Transmittal No. 518; Petition to Suspend and Investigate on Behalf of MCI re Proposed Rates for OPTINET 64 Kbps Service.

April 17, 1991; Ameritech Transmittal No. 526; Petition to Suspend and Investigate on Behalf of MCI re Proposed Flexible ANI Service.

August 30, 1991; Ameritech Transmittal No. 555; Petition to Suspend and Investigate on Behalf of MCI re Ameritech Directory Search Service.

September 30, 1991; Ameritech Transmittal No. 562; Petition to Suspend and Investigate on Behalf of MCI re Proposed Rates and Possible MFJ Violations Associated with Ameritech's OPTINET Reconfiguration Service (AORS).

October 15, 1991; CC Docket No. 91-215; Opposition to Direct Cases of Ameritech and United (Ameritech Transmittal No. 518; United Transmittal No. 273) on Behalf of MCI re the introduction of 64 Kbps Special Access Service.

November 27, 1991; Ameritech Transmittal No. 578; Petition to Suspend and Investigate on Behalf of MCI re Ameritech Directory Search Service.

September 4, 1992; Ameritech Transmittal No. 650; Petition to Suspend and Investigate on Behalf of MCI re Ameritech 64 Clear Channel Capability Service.

February 16, 1995; Presentation to FCC Staff on the Status of Intrastate Competition on Behalf of MCI.

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates 4i Exhibit TJG-1

•'4'QSI consulting, inc

November 9, 1999; Comments to FCC Staff of Common Carrier Bureau on the Status of OSS Testing in Arizona on Behalf of MCI WorldCom, Inc.


Exhibit TJG-1

••4QSI eonsulimg. inc.

November 9, 1999; Comments to the Department of Justice (Task Force on Telecommunications) on the Status of OSS Testing in Arizona and the USWC Collaborative on Behalf of MCI WorldCom, Inc.

Presentations Before Legislative Bodies:

April 8, 1987; Minnesota; Senate File 677; Proposed Deregulation Legislation; Comments before the House Committee on Telecommunications.

October 30, 1989; Michigan; Presentation Before the Michigan House and Senate Staff Working Group on Telecommunications; "A First Look at Nebraska, Incentive Rates and Price Caps," Comments on Behalf of MCI.

May 16, 1990; Wisconsin; Comments Before the Wisconsin Assembly Utilities Committee Regarding the Wisconsin Bell Plan for Flexible Regulation, on Behalf of MCI.

March 20, 1991; Michigan; Presentation to the Michigan Senate Technology and Energy Committee re SB 124 on behalf of MCI.

May 15, 1991; Michigan; Presentation to the Michigan Senate Technology and Energy Commission and the House Public Utilities Committee re MCl's Building Blocks Proposal and SB 124/HB 4343.

March 8, 2000; Illinois; Presentation to the Environment & Energy Senate Committee re Emerging Technologies and Their Impact on Public Policy, on Behalf of MCI WorldCom, Inc.

February 19, 2004; Presentation to the Iowa Senate Committee Regarding House Study Bill 622/Senate Study Bill 3035; Comments on Behalf of MCI.

November 30, 2004; A Report to the Wyoming Legislature: The Wyoming Universal Service Fund - Basis and Qualification for Funding.

Presentations Before Industry Groups - Seminars:

May 17, 1989; Wisconsin Public Utility Institute - Telecommunications Utilities and Regulation; May 15-18, 1989; Panel Presentation - Interexchange Service Pricing Practices Under Price Cap Regulation; Comments on Behalf of MCI.

July 24, 1989; National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners -


' 4 Q S I consiillrng. inc.

I I

Summer Committee Meeting, San Francisco, California. Panel Presentation -Specific IntraLATA Market Concerns of Interexchange Carriers; Comments on Behalf of MCI.

May 16, 1990; Wisconsin Public Utility Institute - Telecommunications Utilities and Regulation; May 14-18, 1990; Presentation on Alternative Forms of Regulation.

October 29, 1990; Illinois Telecommunications Sunset Review Forum; Two Panel Presentations: Discussion of the Illinois Commerce Commission's Decision in Docket No. 88-0091 for the Technology Working Group; and, Discussion of the Treatment of Competitive Services for the Rate of Return Regulation Working Group; Comments on Behalf of MCI.

May 16, 1991; Wisconsin Public Utility Institute — Telecommunications Utilities and Regulation Course; May 13-16, 1991; Participated in IntraLATA Toll Competition Debate on Behalf of MCI.

November 19, 1991; TeleStrategies Conference - "Local Exchange Competition: The $70 Billion Opportunity." Presentation as part of a panel on "IntraLATA 1 + Presubscription" on Behalf of MCI.

July 9, 1992; North Dakota Association of Telephone Cooperatives Summer Conference, July 8-10, 1992. Panel presentations on "Equal Access in North Dakota: Implementation of PSC Mandate" and "Open Network Access in North Dakota" on Behalf of MCI.

December 2-3, 1992; TeleStrategies Conference -- "IntraLATA Toll Competition -- A Multi-Billion Dollar Market Opportunity." Presentations on the interexchange carriers' position on intraLATA dialing parity and presubscription and on technical considerations on behalf of MCI.

March 14-17, 1993; NARUC Introductory Regulatory Training Program; Panel Presentation on Competition in Telecommunications on Behalf of MCI.

May 13-14, 1993; TeleStrategies Conference -- "IntraLATA Toll Competition --Gaining the Competitive Edge"; Presentation on Carriers and IntraLATA Toll Competition on Behalf of MCI.

May 23-26, 1994; The 12th Annual National Telecommunications Forecasting Conference; Represented IXCs in Special Town Meeting Segment Regarding the


I

-4;QSI consulting, tnc

Convergence of CATV and Telecommunications and other Local Competition Issues.

Qualifications of Timothy J Gates ^ Exhibit TJG-1

•'4QSI consuHing, mc.

March 14-15, 1995; "The LEC-IXC Conference"; Sponsored by Telecommunications Reports and Telco Competition Report; Panel on Redefining the IntraLATA Service Market -- Toll Competition, Extended Area Calling and Local Resale.

August 28-30, 1995; "Phone+ Supershow *95"; Playing Fair: An Update on IntraLATA Equal Access; Panel Presentation.

August 29, 1995; "TDS Annual Regulatory Meeting"; Panel Presentation on Local Competition Issues.

December 13-14, 1995; "NECA/Century Access Conference"; Panel Presentation on Local Exchange Competition.

October 23, 1997; "Interpreting the FCC Rules of 1997"; The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California; Panel Presentation on Universal Service and Access Reform.

February 5-6, 2002; "Litigating Telecommunications Cost Cases and Other Sources of Enlightenment"; Educational Seminar for State Commission and Attorney General Employees on Litigating TELRIC Cases; Denver, Colorado.

February 19-20, 2003; Seminar for the New York State Department of Public Service entitled "Emerging Technologies and Convergence in the Telecommunications Network". Presented with Ken Wilson of Boulder Telecommunications Consultants, LLC.

July 25, 2003; National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Summer Committee Meetings; Participated in Panel regarding "Wireless Substitution of Wireline - Policy Implications."

December 8-9, 2005, CLE International 8 t h Annual Conference, "Telecommunications Law", "VoIP and Brand X - Legal and Regulatory Developments."

Qualifications ofTimothy J Gates 4 6

Exhibit TJG-1