Third Supplemental Reply Affidavit of Curtis L. Hopfinger ... · Third Supplemental Reply Affidavit...
Transcript of Third Supplemental Reply Affidavit of Curtis L. Hopfinger ... · Third Supplemental Reply Affidavit...
Third Supplemental
Reply Affidavit of Curtis L. Hopfinger
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
December 8, 2000
i
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL
REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER
ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT PARAGRAPH
Introduction and Purpose of Affidavit 1-2
Compliance with the Supplemental Order
Clarification
3-8
Collocation Reconsideration Order 9-31
Conclusion 32
ii
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL
REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER
ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS
SUBJECT ATTACHMENT(S)
Certification Form for Reconfiguration Attachment 1
1
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT
1. My name is Curtis L. Hopfinger. I am Vice President –
Regulatory for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. My
business address is One Bell Plaza, Room 3043, Dallas,
Texas 75202. I filed affidavits in this proceeding on
March 31, 1998, May 20, 1998, July 15, 1999, September 7,
1999, March 6, 2000, April 25, 2000, August 23, 2000, and
September 29, 2000.
2. On September 15, 2000, Assigned Commissioner Josiah L.
Neeper issued an Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling (“ACR”)
ordering Pacific Bell Telephone Company (“Pacific”) to
update on September 29, 2000 the record with respect to
its compliance with several of the Federal Communications
Commission's (“FCC’s”) orders, including the Collocation
Reconsideration Order1 and the Supplemental Order
Clarification.2 On October 13, 2000, several competitive
local exchange carriers (“CLECs”)3 and the Office of
Ratepayer Advocates (“ORA”) responded to Pacific’s
1 In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering AdvancedTelecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local CompetitionProvisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Dkt. Nos. 98-147 & 96-98,Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking inCC Dkt. No. 98-147 [and] Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CCDkt. No. 96-98, FCC No. 00-297 (rel. Aug. 10, 2000)(“CollocationReconsideration Order”).2 In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of theTelecommunications Act of 1996, CC Dkt. No. 96-98, Supplemental OrderClarification, 15 FCC Rcd 9587 (rel. June 2, 2000) (“Supplemental OrderClarification”), paras. 1, 22.3 Reply comments were filed by IP Communications (“IP”) and by a group ofCLECs including Rhythms Links, Inc.; WorldCom, Inc.; AT&T Communications ofCalifornia, Inc., PacWest Telecomm, Inc., ICG Telecom Group, Inc., and SprintCommunications Company L.P. (“CLEC Coalition”).
2
September 29 filing. The purpose of this affidavit is to
respond to the allegations and claims made by the CLECs
and ORA, as requested by the California Public Utilities
Commission (“CPUC”) Staff. On December 1, 2000, the
Assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling
directing Pacific to file these comments on December 8,
2000.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER CLARIFICATION
3. The CLEC Coalition contends that “Pacific has not shown
that it allows CLCs to convert existing circuits to EELs
[enhanced extended links] as required by the FCC.” CLEC
Coalition Reply Comments, p. 36. That statement is
incorrect. As set forth in my September 29 affidavit,
after the FCC adopted and released the Supplemental
Order, Pacific designed and adopted policies and methods
and procedures to implement the order and to enable
requesting carriers to order combinations of network
elements to replace existing special access services,
provided that the carrier is providing a significant
amount of local exchange service to the customer.
Pacific posted information on its CLEC website
(https://clec.sbc.com), explaining the conversion process
and offering a form for a CLEC to use to certify that it
carries a significant amount of local exchange traffic
for a particular end user-customer.
3
4. The CLEC Coalition expresses concern regarding so-called
“additional procedures” for converting special access
circuits to combinations of network elements that
allegedly contravene the Supplemental Order
Clarification. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 37.
The CLEC Coalition references Pacific’s process that
requires a requesting carrier to (1) provide
certification in some format that the subject special
access circuits fall within the parameters established by
the FCC in the Supplemental Order Clarification and (2)
provide a spreadsheet that contains basic, limited
information about the circuits to be converted. Id. The
Coalition protests as “burdensome” Pacific’s requirement
that a requesting carrier submit both a spreadsheet and
an Access Service Request (“ASR”) to order a conversion
to UNEs. Id. at 38.4 Providing a spreadsheet, ASR, and
Local Service Request (“LSR”) to implement a special
access-to-UNEs conversion is not only consistent under
the FCC’s rules, but also a reasonable, justified
business practice.5 The certification spreadsheet and
ASR serve entirely different functions and are processed
by different organizations. The certification
spreadsheet should be sent to a requesting carrier’s
4 Contrary to the suggestion in the CLEC Coalition's Reply Comments (at page39), billing for conversions from special access should be treated like thebilling for all other UNEs, with billing switching to UNE prices on the dateof conversion, not the date of the conversion request.5 See Affidavit of Curtis L. Hopfinger (Sep. 29, 2000), Attachment 1, p. 2(complete ordering description including submission of the spreadsheet, inaddition to, and not in lieu of, the issuance of ASR/LSR/EDI).
4
account manager prior to the CLEC placing the order to
convert its access circuits to UNEs. The account manager
will use the spreadsheet to verify that the requesting
carrier has provided an option for eligibility for
conversion, to confirm that the CLEC has correctly
identified its circuits, and to verify that these
circuits are in existence. After this step has been
completed, the CLEC should submit an order, the ASR, to
the Access Service Center (formerly known as the
Interexchange Customer Service Center) to discontinue
billing of the access circuit and to remove the special
access circuit from the access inventory database.6
Furthermore, the certification spreadsheet and the ASR
are different. The ASR contains detailed access ordering
information adhering to the Ordering and Billing Forum
(“OBF”) national standards. The ASR contains four
sections: the administrative section, the bill section,
contact section and the circuit section. The
certification spreadsheet requests the circuit ID, option
(eligibility under the Supplemental Order Clarification),
ASR/LSR (local service request) issue date, desired due
date, and “A” and “Z” locations of the circuit.
5. The CLEC Coalition contends that Pacific unnecessarily
requests that CLECs provide the end user’s name and
address when seeking special access conversions. CLEC
6 Id. at Attachment 1, p. 3.
5
Coalition Reply Comments, p. 37. In my September 29
affidavit, I stated that, following the release of the
Supplemental Order Clarification, “Pacific revised its
certification form to ensure its consistency with the
order. Pacific revised the form to request only that the
CLEC provide the circuit ID number and A and Z location
[sic] for the circuits to be converted to loop-transport
combinations.”7 Although revisions to the certification
form were made, Pacific inadvertently left a field on the
form for the end user’s name and address. This was an
unintentional oversight.8 Pacific has since revised the
form and deleted the request for the end user’s name and
address. The revised certification form was posted to
Pacific’s CLEC website on November 27, 2000. See
Attachment 1.
6. Additionally, the CLEC Coalition claims that Pacific does
not comply with the FCC’s requirement that special access
conversions be implemented in a timely manner and instead
treats conversion requests as negotiated, coordinated
projects. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 38. Pacific
will handle special access conversion requests as
projects to ensure that there is no disruption in an end
user’s service. Project status ensures the relevant
organizations coordinate order status and processing and
7 Id. at para. 7.8 Pacific notes that, to date, it has received no requests for special accessto loop-transport combinations.
6
a smooth transition to a loop-transport combination. For
illustration, Pacific uses separate repair organizations
for special access circuits and UNEs. When special
access circuits are converted to UNEs, it is necessary to
ensure that all affected organizations have updated
circuit identification records and that the circuits have
been physically tagged with the new identification.
Furthermore, it is reasonable and appropriate to handle
conversion requests as projects because requests/orders
could greatly vary in the number of circuits to be
converted. Despite repeated requests, Pacific has not
received any forecasts of potential or anticipated
conversion activity. Provided that it receives complete
and accurate information from the requesting carrier,
Pacific will be able to process and implement a special
access conversion request in a timely manner, consistent
with the Supplemental Order Clarification. Finally,
other than stating the conversion process should be
simple and completed without delay, the FCC did not
establish any firm provisioning requirements. Pacific’s
methods and procedures will ensure that conversions are
done in a timely manner and without any interruption in
an end user’s service.
7. The CLEC Coalition also asserts that Pacific’s request
that CLECs notify it within 10 days if an EEL or loop-
transport combination no longer meets the certification
criteria is prohibited by the Supplemental Order
7
Clarification. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 37.
As stated in the procedures for converting access to UNEs
(Hopfinger Affidavit (September 29, 2000), Attachment 1),
Pacific requests that “[i]f a requesting
telecommunications carrier becomes aware that the circuit
does not meet the certification criteria . . . it shall,
within 10 days, notify [Pacific] . . . .”9
This is a reasonable request. The FCC has repeatedly
acknowledged that permitting the use of UNE combinations
in lieu of special access services could cause
“substantial market dislocations and would threaten an
important source of funding for universal service.”10 The
FCC also stated that “[w]e expect that requesting
carriers will maintain appropriate records that they can
rely upon to support their local usage certifications.”11
Pacific is making a reasonable request of carriers to
notify the company if they become aware that the circuit
does not consistently meet the certification process. If
a circuit should fail to qualify under the definition of
“significant amount of local service” that the FCC
promulgated in the Supplemental Order Clarification, the
circuit should be converted back to a special access
service arrangement. There is nothing in the
Supplemental Order or Supplemental Order Clarification
9 Hopfinger Affidavit (Sept. 29, 2000), Attachment 1, p. 2 (emphasis added).10 Supplemental Order Clarification, para. 7.11 Id. at para. 32.
8
that restricts Pacific from making such a reasonable
request.12
8. Pacific has fully complied with the FCC’s Supplemental
Order Clarification and any CLEC operating in California
that meets the criteria outlined thereunder has the
ability to request that special access services be
converted to combinations of unbundled network elements.
COLLOCATION RECONSIDERATION ORDER
9. The CLEC Coalition contends that "Pacific is not in
compliance with the FCC's Collocation Reconsider Order,"
ignoring Pacific's existing collocation tariff which
addresses both application and provisioning intervals.
CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 24.
10. Pacific is in full compliance with the Collocation
Reconsideration Order, FCC 00-297. As I stated in my
September 29, 2000 affidavit, revised section 51.323(l)
establishes a 10-day application interval and a 90-day
physical collocation provisioning interval “except to the
extent a state set its own deadlines or the incumbent LEC
has demonstrated to the state commission that physical
collocation is not practical for technical reasons or
because of space limitations.”13 Because this Commission
12 In the AT&T Arbitration, the Commission acknowledged that it is appropriateto have use restrictions on UNEs, and that the AT&T agreement should reflectthe dictates of the FCC’s Supplemental Order Clarification. Application ofAT&T Communications of California for Arbitration of an InterconnectionAgreement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company, A.00-01-022, Final Arbitrator’sReport, p. 100.13 Revised 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(l) (emphasis added).
9
has already established its own application and
provisioning intervals, Pacific is in compliance with
revised section 51.323(l).
11. In fact, the Commission has considered and approved
collocation provisioning intervals for Pacific on
numerous occasions:
• Pacific’s state collocation tariff contains Commission-
approved provisioning and application intervals.14
• In D.98-12-069, the Commission evaluated and rejected
CLEC requests that the provisioning timeframe “be
shortened to 90 days.”15 The Commission stated that
“Pacific should demonstrate that it completes physical
collocation installations within the 120-day
provisioning time frame established in its 175-T tariff
. . ..”16
• In D.99-08-020, the Commission again considered and
approved provisioning and application intervals for
Pacific.17 The Commission opted for Pacific’s standard
physical collocation provisioning interval of 120 days,
along with a space availability interval of 15 days and
a price quote interval of 30 days.18 The Commission
rejected a CLEC-proposed provisioning interval of 90
14 See SCHEDULE CAL. P.U.C. NO. 175-T, § 16.2.22 (application interval of 30days) and § 16.8 (provisioning intervals of primarily 120 days).15 D.98-12-069, mimeo, pp. 129-130.16 Id.17 Re Monitoring Performance of Operations Support Systems, D.99-08-020 (Aug.5, 1999).18 D.99-08-020, mimeo, pp. 52-54.
10
days and a CLEC-proposed space availability interval of
10 days.19
• In the MFS/Worldcom arbitration, the Commission adopted
Accessible Letter CLEC 99-200 as a basis for providing
terms on “space review and delivery intervals for
cageless collocation.”20 That accessible letter
contains Pacific’s standard 110-day cageless
collocation provisioning interval and a 10-day
application interval.21
• Likewise, in the AT&T arbitration, the Commission
adopted Pacific’s existing physical collocation
intervals.22
12. Each of these situations was clearly contemplated by the
FCC in its Collocation Reconsideration Order, which did
not mandate or preempt state commissions from setting
intervals different from those contained in revised
section 51.323(l). As the FCC states, “[a] state could
set its own standards by statute, through an existing or
future rulemaking order, by enforcing a state tariff, or
19 Id. at 51-54.20 In the Matter of the Petition of Pacific Bell for Arbitration ofInterconnection Agreement with MFS/Worldcom, A.99-03-047, Final Arbitrator’sReport, p. 37.21 Accessible Letter CLECC 99-200 (May 28, 1999).22 Application of AT&T Communications of California for Arbitration of anInterconnection Agreement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company, A.00-01-022,Final Arbitrator’s Report, p. 301. The Commission’s decision adoptedintervals for all forms of physical collocation by way of its inclusion of theterms and conditions contained in Pacific’s Advice Letter No. 20412.Application of AT&T Communications of California for Arbitration of anInterconnection Agreement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company, D.00-08-011,mimeo, pp. 22-23 (Aug. 3, 2000).
11
by applying the precedent of a state arbitration
decision.”23 Accordingly, the Collocation Reconsideration
Order does not necessitate any modification to Pacific’s
current physical collocation intervals.
13. Furthermore, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and
Order on November 7, 2000 in which it clarified its
position:
To eliminate any potential for confusion in this area,we clarify that an incumbent LEC need not file SGAT ortariff amendments pursuant to the CollocationReconsideration Order in states that have affirmativelyestablished such standards on either an interim orpermanent basis.24
In other words, even if the intervals established by this
Commission are “interim,” they satisfy the FCC’s
requirements and Pacific need not amend its tariff to
reflect the 90-day interval.
14. Pacific acknowledges that its existing intervals are
under review in the Collocation Phase of the OANAD
proceeding. In that proceeding, parties submitted
proposed tariff language addressing application and
provisioning intervals. Pacific submitted evidence on
the record supporting the reasonableness of its current
intervals. 25 Pacific is awaiting the outcome of that
proceeding, but that does not change the fact Pacific
23 Collocation Reconsideration Order, para. 22.24 In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering AdvancedTelecommunications Capability, CC Dkt. No. 98-147, Memorandum Opinion andOrder, FCC No. DA00-2528 (rel. Nov. 7, 2000), para. 5.25 See e.g., OANAD (R.93-04-003/I.93-04-002) Exh. 5002, Testimony of Adams(for Pacific), pp. 13-14.
12
already has Commission-approved intervals that except it
from any requirement to modify its intervals to comport
with the national standards contained in section
51.323(l).26
15. Finally, it should be noted that the issue of national
provisioning intervals is still undecided. The FCC
recently granted a waiver from compliance with the
provisioning intervals set forth in the Collocation
Reconsideration Order to Pacific’s parent company, SBC
Communications (“SBC”).
16. This waiver was granted based on detailed comments
submitted by SBC, Verizon and Qwest explaining how the
FCC’s proposed intervals were unreasonable and
impractical. The FCC stated that these comments “greatly
expand the record on reasonable physical collocation
intervals beyond what was available to the Commission
when it adopted the Collocation Reconsideration Order.”
See Collocation Reconsideration Order, para. 10.
17. With this expanded record, it is simply unclear what type
of intervals the FCC will adopt, if any. What is clear
now is that the 90-day standard does not apply.
18. The Coalition states that Pacific's collocation tariff is
not valid because it is incorporated in its exchange
26 Even if one were to argue that Pacific does not have Commission-approvedintervals, which it does, Pacific’s affirmative showing in OANAD satisfies therequirements of the Collocation Reconsideration Order. As the FCC notes,“[a]n incumbent LEC, of course, may petition a state to extend the applicationprocessing and provisioning interval deadlines . . ..” CollocationReconsideration Order, para. 22.
13
access tariff, thus there is "no tariff approved by the
Commission, or even filed by Pacific, that establishes a
120-day interval for caged collocation utilized for local
interconnection or access to UNEs.” CLEC Coalition Reply
Comments, p. 28. This statement is incorrect.
19. Pacific’s Commission-approved 175-T tariff addresses
local interconnection and access under the Act.27 The
tariff even states that it can be used for
interconnection at sections 16.1 and 16.4. Moreover,
CLECs have been using Pacific’s 175-T tariff to collocate
for purposes of local interconnection and accessing UNEs
for some time. If these CLECs are using the 175-T tariff
to interconnect for local exchange or access to Pacific’s
UNEs, they cannot now say that 175-T does not provide
terms and conditions to do just that.
20. The CLEC Coalition contends that Pacific's proposed
collocation tariff fails to comply with the FCC's
directives in the Advanced Services Order and the
Collocation Reconsideration Order regarding the provision
of a space availability report within 10 calendar days,
because Pacific's tariff provides for an extension of
time to twenty-five days if the collocator submits more
than 5 requests for a report. CLEC Coalition Reply
Comments, pp. 32-33.
27 Pacific has a separate federal collocation tariff, FCC No. 128, section 16.
14
21. Section 16.10.2(C) in Pacific's proposed collocation
tariff does provide for a metering of space availability
requests. The report delivery interval of the first five
space available requests is 10 calendar days. The
delivery interval for six to twenty requests is 25
calendar days. In the year 2000, no CLEC has requested
even one space availability report from Pacific.
22. Pacific's metering of space availability reports is
consistent with Pacific's practice to meter collocation
provisioning intervals, which was agreed to by the CLECs
and incorporated in Pacific's Performance Measures 40 and
41.28
23. The CLEC Coalition alleges that, "Pacific's proposed
adjacent collocation tariff requires collocators to
abandon their adjacent collocation arrangement if space
becomes available within the central office." CLEC
Coalition Reply Comments, p. 34.
24. I addressed the changes that Pacific was making to its
tariff to comply with the FCC Collocation Reconsideration
Order in my September 29, 2000, affidavit including
changes to the adjacent collocation rules. In my
affidavit, I stated:29
28 This process was described in Pacific’s July 28, 2000 filing in thisproceeding (See p. 44 attached thereto): Pacific follows the metering processset forth in its proposed cageless collocation tariff. As part of theFebruary 2000 Performance Measures review, the CLECs have agreed toincorporate the metering concept in Performance Measures 40 and 41. 29 Affidavit of Curtis Hopfinger (Sep. 29, 2000), paras. 9-19.
15
Revised section 51.323(k) adds the followingsentence to existing rules that require anincumbent LEC to make adjacent collocationavailable when space is legitimately exhausted inan incumbent LEC structure:
If physical collocation space becomes available ina previously exhausted incumbent LEC structure,the incumbent LEC must not require a carrier tomove, or prohibit a competitive LEC from moving, acollocation arrangement into that structure.Instead, the incumbent LEC must continue to allowthe carrier to collocate in any adjacentcontrolled environmental vault, controlledenvironmental vault, or similar structure that thecarrier has constructed or otherwise procured.30
25. Pacific modified its internal procedures effective
October 10, 2000, as stated in my September 29 affidavit,
and filed an amendment to its proposed tariff on November
8, 2000 (Advise Letter 21470) so that when physical
collocation space becomes available inside a Pacific
structure, absent agreement otherwise, a carrier can
either maintain its adjacent collocation arrangement or
move into the newly available structure. 31 The CLEC
Coalition also raises issues in its Reply Comments that
are currently the subject of litigation in the OANAD
proceeding regarding offsite interconnection arrangements
and whether adjacent collocation arrangements should be
available at all central offices, not just space-
exhausted offices. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, pp.
33-34.
30 Revised 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(k).31 Hopfinger Affidavit (Sep. 29, 2000), p. 10.
16
26. The OANAD proceeding has been briefed and a proposed
decision is now pending. The proposed decision, when
final, will resolve the collocation issues raised by the
CLEC Coalition in this proceeding. Therefore, there is
no need for the Commission to address those here.
27. The FCC made it clear that adjacent collocation must be
on the incumbent LEC’s premises. As the FCC states, the
definition of premises “excludes land and buildings in
which the incumbent has no interest.”32 Therefore, as
Pacific has maintained in the past, it is not obligated
to provide collocation at locations adjacent to but not
on Pacific’s property (commonly referred to as “adjacent
off-site”). Pacific will, however, continue to provide
interconnection to carriers locating equipment at off-
site locations.
28. The CLEC Coalition further alleges that "Pacific's
affiliate ASI will always be accommodated in the central
office and will not be forced to use adjacent collocation
arrangements, thus discriminating against CLECs that do
sometimes have to use adjacent collocation due to space
constraints in the central office.” CLEC Coalition Reply
Comments, p. 40.
29. The CLEC Coalition’s statements are extremely misleading.
First, ASI is subject to the same collocation rules as
32 Collocation Reconsideration Order, para. 44.
17
any other CLEC. According to the SBC/Ameritech merger
conditions:
4.a. The network planning and engineeringfunctions related to Advanced Services that arethe responsibility of the separate AdvancedServices affiliate and which may not be performedby an incumbent LEC include:
4.(3)Arranging and negotiating for collocationspace with the incumbent LEC under the same termsand conditions, and utilizing the processes thatare made available to unaffiliatedtelecommunications carriers, and arranging for anynew Advanced Services Equipment to be delivered.33
30. If a central office is exhausted, ASI, like any other
CLEC, has the choice of virtual or adjacent collocation.
Additionally, Pacific provides traditional virtual
collocation regardless of the availability of physical
collocation. Second, the CLEC Coalition's statement that
“CLCs that do sometimes have to use adjacent collocation
due to space constraints in the central office are
disadvantaged” is misleading. No CLEC has requested
adjacent collocation space in California or any other SBC
state. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 40.
31. In fact, out of more than 13,000 collocation arrangements
in the SBC ILECs' 13-state service area there are no
known adjacent space collocation arrangement either in
place or in progress. If, the CLEC Coalition is
referring to adjacent interconnection, as I stated above,
33 SBC/Ameritech Merger Conditions, Appendix C, p. 7 at para. 4.(3) p. 7.
18
Pacific does provide interconnection to carriers locating
equipment at off-site locations.
CONCLUSION
32. This concludes my affidavit.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
19
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
Executed in Dallas, Texas, this 8th day of December 2000.
______________________________Curtis Hopfinger
HOPFINGER THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY AFFIDAVIT – ATTACHMENT 1
CH Attachment 1 - 1