REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT 2 GENERAL PRICING PRINCIPLES 3-13 BONAFIDE REQUEST PROCESS 14-20

Transcription

1 REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT PARAGRAPH(S) PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT 2 GENERAL PRICING PRINCIPLES 3-13 BONAFIDE REQUEST PROCESS COLLOCATION ACCESS TO NETWORK ELEMENTS ON AN UNBUNDLED BASIS RIGHT OF WAY WHITE PAGES 61 CONCLUSION 62 i

2 AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS Affidavit Description Reference HHHH July 23, 1999 Letter to MCI 8 IIII MCIW ASRW For Diverse Routing (Third Party Proprietary) JJJJ Adjacent Structure Physical Collocation Form 25 KKKK Pacific s Response No. 14 to AT&T s Data 39 Request LLLL 8/23/99 Updated External Handbook RSM Policy 44 MMMM 8/23/99 Pacific s Reply to Cox Request for 61 Mediation NNNN Pacific s Response to Protests to Advice fn.65 Letter No (Collocation Tariff) iii

3 AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER 1. I am the same Curtis Hopfinger who previously filed an affidavit 1 in Pacific Bell s ( Pacific s ) initial 271 compliance application submitted on July 15, PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT 2. My affidavit clarifies issues and concerns raised by CLECs relating to Pacific s prices for local interconnection, Unbundled Network Elements ( UNEs ), reciprocal compensation, resale local services, and other local products and services. My affidavit rebuts the mischaracterization made by MCI regarding Pacific s Commission-ordered Bona-Fide Request ( BFR ) process. My affidavit also corrects the erroneous allegations the CLECs make concerning Pacific s collocation and UNE offerings that are fully compliant with the Commission s Decision (December 17, 1998)( Final Decision ) and the FCC s recent collocation order ( FCC Advanced Services Order ). 2 GENERAL PRICING PRINCIPLES 3. Claims made by AT&T that Pacific s Commission-approved UNE, collocation, and resale prices do not comply with the Act 1 2 All references to Hopfinger Affidavit refer to my affidavit filed in this proceeding on July 15, Hopfinger Attachment refers to attachments submitted with the July 15, 1999 filing. Hopfinger Reply Attachment refers to attachments to this affidavit. FCC 99-48, CC Docket No , In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, released March 31,

4 are without merit. Pacific has fully complied with the Act and Commission rules and regulations in the pricing of UNEs, collocation, interconnection, resale services, and all features and functions provided to CLECs. These UNEs, services, and functions are provided to CLECs through Commission-approved Interconnection Agreements ( ICAs ) and Commission-approved tariffs. In approving these rates, the Commission followed the provisions of Section 251(d) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ( Act ) and the Commission has acknowledged it did in fact comply with this provision when approving rates. 3 ICA and tariff rates are currently effective and will remain so until the Commission approves new rates. The Commission continues to update costs and prices through the current OANAD proceeding. Pacific s Section 271 application cannot be held hostage regarding pricing issues pending before the Commission, when Pacific has diligently complied with the Commission-approved tariffs and ICAs. 4. Northpoint raises the issue of Pacific s ability to charge for xdsl loop conditioning. 4 This issue was recently addressed in an arbitration with MFS WorldCom ( MFSW ), 3 4 Sprint Arbitration D , Finding of Fact 5. In approving the AT&T interconnection agreement, the Commission stated in its standards for review that [t]he state commission cannot require an interconnection agreement through arbitration that does not meet the requirements of Section 251 of the Act and the standards set forth in Section 252(d) relating to pricing for interconnection, network elements, transport, termination and wholesale rates. Decision , 69 Cal.P.U.C.2d 610, 613. NorthPoint Comments, p

5 where the arbitrator found that the FCC clearly prescribes both the obligation of the ILEC to condition the loop and the obligation of the requesting carrier... to bear the ILEC cost of compensating the ILEC for such conditioning. 5 See also Deere Reply Affidavit, 66. NorthPoint is incorrect in stating that that Pacific will not charge retail customers conditioning charges. Pursuant to Pacific s tariff, Pacific will charge a retail customer $900 for conditioning if the customer elects to place an ADSL order after being quoted the applicable rate. It should not be surprising that a customer would decline to proceed with Pacific s retail ADSL when CLECs can offer xdsl without paying conditioning charges under existing ICAs. 5. The allegations of Nextlink and MCI of unnecessary installation charges on unbundled digital loops are without merit and conflict with Commission-approved charges. 6 When a CLEC converts services from access type services to UNEs, Pacific applies the appropriate Commission-approved charges. These are either the approved ICA rates for the UNEs and/or the approved tariff rates for access services. Pacific must apply these charges if it is to remain in compliance with Commission-approved tariffs and 5 6 Final Arbitrator s Report, Application , In the Matter of the Petition of Pacific Bell for Arbitration of an Interconnection Agreement with MFS/WorldCom Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, issued August 4, 1999, ( II.B DSL Capable Loops Appendix UNE, p. 14). Nextlink Comments, VII, p. 55 ; MCI, II(2)(C), pp

6 interconnection agreements. This is one of many examples of a CLEC s use of the 271 process to relitigate issues previously settled by the Commission or FCC. Such arguments must be rejected. 6. AT&T claims that Pacific's Accessible Letter of February 8, 1999 (CLECC ), which fulfills Pacific s obligation to make branding terms and conditions available to all its CLEC customers, somehow violates AT&T s ICA. The Accessible Letter announcement of branding availability is a generic offering and was designed to enable CLECs to quickly amend their agreements and take advantage of the now technically feasible branding capability. Pacific recognizes the parties' contractual obligations to negotiate changes to terms and conditions of existing Interconnection Agreements. The Accessible Letter announcement was not a requirement by AT&T to accept terms or conditions which are inconsistent with its ICA. Each CLEC can choose to utilize the generic Memorandum of Agreement to amend its current agreement, or the CLEC can work with its Pacific account manager to negotiate language specific to the CLEC's interconnection agreement. As with all negotiations, Pacific begins by offering a generic version of the terms and conditions. As with all negotiations, parties are free to negotiate, with the generic generally used as the starting point. 7. Contrary to MCI s allegations, a CLEC may order dedicated transport for cross-boundary dedicated transport in DS1, 4

7 DS3, OC-3, and OC-12 levels. 7 See Deere Reply Affidavit, 72 and Deere Affidavit 109 for discussion of available dedicated transport levels. In addition, Pacific s generic pricing appendix contains prices based on TELRIC plus joint and common costs. Hopfinger Attachment P, p. P-3, submitted with the July 15, 1999 filing. The Commission recognized in the Final Decision that some higher band optical speeds may be offered only as ICB. App. B, pp Pacific previously responded to CLECs requests for information on how ancillary equipment pricing was developed. Pacific s July 23, 1999 letter to MCI, states that all of the ancillary equipment prices set forth in Accessible Letter CLECC , were developed at costbased TELRIC prices, with the exception of two of the items currently offered as tariffed services. These two services are Customer Network Reconfiguration and Alternative Service Wire Center Diversity. The approved tariff prices were used for these two services. 9 Hopfinger Reply Attachment HHHH. Whether or not these prices are interim will depend on the terms negotiated by the CLECs. These prices are merely those proposed by Pacific. Neither AT&T, MCI, nor any other CLEC has requested the cost studies, nor MCI Comments, II(5)(B), pp App. B refers to Appendix B to the Final Decision. Tariff rates, rather than new TELRIC rates, were used for Customer Network Reconfiguration and Alternate Wire Center because these items are not stand-alone ancillary equipment but are services already available to interexchange carriers at approved tariffed rates. Tariff F.C.C. No. 128, Section 7.2.8(D)(7) and Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. G8, Section 8.5.1(B)(3), respectively. 5

8 initiated any negotiations on the proposed prices. Neither AT&T, MCI, nor any other CLEC has advised the Director of the Telecommunications Division by letter of any impasses in the negotiations on issues relating to the ancillary equipment list, as required by the Final Decision, Conclusion of Law 47. Therefore, it is inappropriate for AT&T and MCI to raise any issues about the negotiations or question the proposed pricing in these proceedings. 9. MCI provides a confusing complaint pertaining to Pacific s proposed factor for estimating terminating charges for local calls when a CLEC purchases unbundled switching from Pacific. First, MCI mischaracterize Pacific s proposed factor as unilaterally determined. This is not true, Accessible Letter CLECC , 10 clearly states [at] such time any CLEC purchases Unbundled Local Switching, the CLEC should notify the Account Manager whether this factoring proposal is acceptable, or whether it wishes to submit an alternative proposal to Pacific for consideration. Ironically, MCI was the only CLEC to file comments objecting to Pacific s proposal, yet Pacific s proposal was based on the negotiated factor contained in MCI s ICA. 11 Currently, no CLEC, including MCI, has proposed an alternative factor to the one Pacific suggested for use in estimating this traffic. MCI s complaint that the factor Hopfinger Attachment X submitted with the July 15, 1999 filing. MCI Comments, Exh. 6.1, p. 8. 6

9 was intended to be temporary is true, but irrelevant in the absence of any request by MCI to negotiate the factor. 10. AT&T alleges that Pacific is violating the ICA and alleges that Pacific is refusing to treat local calls over switched access trunks on a bill and keep basis. Pacific has not prohibited AT&T from routing local calls over switched access. Pacific charges for local traffic that AT&T routes over local interconnection trunks on a bill-and-keep basis and does not charge AT&T access charges. This includes any local traffic that overflows to local interconnection trunks. The dispute to which AT&T refers involves local traffic that AT&T terminates on switched access trunks that AT&T, acting as an interexchange carrier, purchases from Pacific's tariffs. When AT&T chooses to use interexchange access services for local service, in lieu of the local service arrangements made available through the AT&T/Pacific ICA, Pacific believes that AT&T must pay the associated charges. 11. With respect to the arbitration award issued in February 1998, Pacific complied by remitting $1.5 million to AT&T as well as crediting AT&T on an ongoing basis for terminating access charges associated with AT&T s local Digital Link traffic. 12 AT&T, however, has attempted to expand the scope of the arbitration award to include other traffic. Pacific 12 In the Arbitration between AT&T and Pacific Regarding the Interpretation of Their Interconnection Agreement Terms for Local Traffic Trunking, J.A.M.S. Reference No

10 disagrees with AT&T regarding the scope of the award. AT&T has unilaterally withheld payment of additional disputed amounts not covered by the award, in violation Pacific's tariffs. The scope of the prior award is currently before the arbitrator. Moreover, the arbitrator's award was limited to an interpretation of the ICA language, not the Act. 12. AT&T refers to the DS1 cost studies approved in the OANAD costing phase to support its request for certain termination equipment. 13 Pacific will provide the appropriate termination equipment referenced in the AT&T comments. AT&T is correct that the approved cost study for the DS-1 UNE loop does include terminating equipment. This equipment is a RJ48 type jack and Pacific will provide this jack when furnishing a DS-1 UNE loop. If there are any instances where the RJ48 jack was not provided with the DS- 1 UNE loop, Pacific will work with AT&T to correct this oversight. 13. MCI brings up resale issues that this Commission has addressed or is addressing in other proceedings. The Commission upheld Pacific s limitation on resale of Centrex service to single-business end users in D The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California subsequently remanded the issue to the Commission for further proceedings. The Commission will review the issues 13 AT&T Comments, pp ; ATT, DeYoung/Fettig Aff

11 of limiting CLECs ability to aggregate traffic in order to obtain volume discounts on toll and the retention of restrictions on the resale of Centrex as discussed in D The rehearing of these issues will allow parties to submit additional information on Pacific s restrictions. The Commission will evaluate these issues in accordance with paragraph 953 of the FCC s Local Competition Order. BONAFIDE REQUEST PROCESS 14. MCI asserts that Pacific has unilateral control over the BFR process. 14 This is not true. The BFR process resulted from the 271 collaborative workshop, included input from MCI and the other CLECs, and was ultimately required by the Final Decision, App. B., pp Additionally, the BFR process is subject to the terms of each CLEC s ICA, which is jointly filed by the CLEC and Pacific and approved by the Commission. This hardly resembles a process over which Pacific has unilateral control. Pacific does not have the unilateral ability to decide when a CLEC s request for a service requires a BFR, and when to accept or reject each BFR. This is determined by each ICA. Each CLEC should know the specific UNEs or interconnection arrangements it has negotiated into its ICA. Generally-available products are listed in the generic pricing and UNE appendices attached to the July 15, 1999 filing as Hopfinger Affidavit Attachment O and Q, respectively. Additionally, the 14 MCI, App. IV, p. 5. 9

12 generic appendices are updated as new UNEs or interconnection arrangements are made generally-available. The CLECs receive notification of these updates via accessible letters. Consequently each CLEC knows when it must submit a BFR. In addition, the CLECs ICAs clearly state when some other process should be used to request something from Pacific, such as the many types of collocation available to CLECs. In the event the CLEC mistakenly submits a BFR, rather than following the appropriate procedure in its ICA, Pacific refers the CLEC to the appropriate process. App. B, p. 11. Pacific is the only party capable of determining whether its deployed network is capable of supporting a requested BFR and/or in what manner the service can be provisioned. The reason for this is simple. Not all ILEC networks have the same network configuration and capabilities, i.e., SWBT has a robust AIN platform, whereas Pacific does not. However, if the CLEC disagrees with a denial of any BFR, its ICA provides for dispute resolution. Therefore, Pacific does not have unilateral control over the ultimate decision of whether a BFR is technically feasible. 15. MCI confuses the BFR escalation process and the dispute resolution process in the ICAs. 15 This confusion leads MCI to the erroneous conclusion that the dispute resolution process and the BFR escalation process are contradictory. 15 MCI, App. IV, pp

13 Section 6.6 of the CLEC Handbook clearly states the purpose of the BFR escalation process is to provide our customers with clear and concise information regarding a process for escalations within the BFR interval. The escalation process provides a process for escalations regarding a specific BFR. If the escalation process does not resolve a BFR issue within the BFR interval, then the ICA dispute resolution process may be used. These two processes work in conjunction with each other. Therefore, the expedited process for escalation of BFR compliments, not contradicts the contractual dispute resolution processes. 16. MCI incorrectly describes the facts relating to Pacific s provisioning of diverse routing of interconnection facilities for MCI's Irvine, California switch. 16 Hopfinger Reply Attachment IIII is the chronology and supporting documentation of the events leading up to and the completion of MCI s BFR request. As described below, Hopfinger Reply Attachment IIII demonstrates that once Pacific received a legible request from MCI, the 30-day timeframe was indeed met for this requested item. 17. To support its allegation that its request for diverse routing was submitted on August 11, 1998, MCI relies on its Exhibit This is a copy of Revision E of the Access Service Request Worksheet ( ASRW ) form prepared by Pacific 16 MCI, App. IV, pp

14 for CLECs to submit. CLECs use this form to request wholesale construction of access services from Pacific s tariff. The date of August 11, 1998 at the top of this form is the date that Pacific issued Revision E of the ASWR form. August 11, 1998 is not the date the form was submitted by MCI. MCI's own Exhibit 18.2, dated October 16, 1998, indicates no request had been made and asks for Pacific to "...get the process started..." Pacific has no record of ever receiving a copy of MCI s Exhibit 18.2, the unsigned October 16, 1998 letter. In any event, it is up to the CLEC, not Pacific, to get the process started by submitting a valid BFR request. The first record Pacific has of MCI raising this issue is in late November in a call to the Pacific Account Manager. MCI s request was unclear and incomplete. The parties had discussions to clarify the request. It was not until February 23, 1999 that MCI submitted a legible ASRW form, rather than the appropriate BFR form. Hopfinger Attachment IIII, Exh.7. Despite MCI s failure to submit the proper documentation as required by the BFR process approved by the Commission, on March 5, 1999, ten days after receipt of the legible ASRW, Pacific responded that it would provide diverse routing as requested. Hopfinger Attachment IIII, Exh. 8. On March 15, 1999, 20 days after receipt of the legible ASRW, Pacific issued a final quote to MCI, with wholesale construction prices. Hopfinger Attachment IIII, Exh. 9. Pacific clearly met the BFR timeframes established in 12

15 Appendix B despite the fact that the request was not properly submitted by MCI. MCI signed a contract for the diversity routing BFR on April 8, 1999 with a 180-day commitment for completion. Hopfinger Attachment IIII, Exh. 10. Pacific is scheduled to complete the request by October 5, App. B, p MCI's comments suggest that Pacific has unilateral control to determine whether a BFR should be generally-available because only one item has been made generally available since the Final Decision. 17 MCI has misstated and omitted crucial information in its allegations. As stated in Hopfinger Affidavit, 50, BFRs that have generalapplicability are added to the appropriate generic appendix. Pacific does not analyze whether a requested BFR is generally-applicable unless and until the requested BFR is accepted by the requesting CLEC because Pacific does not develop the BFR unless the CLEC advises Pacific it accepts the proposal. Of the 17 BFRs submitted to Pacific since the Final Decision, only seven were ultimately accepted by the requesting CLEC. Three of the seven BFRs accepted by CLECs did not have general-applicability. One BFR was for Local Number Portability ("LNP") capability in an office that had not been converted to LNP. See Fleming Aff. 14. All switches in California were converted to LNP by January 31, 1999 so there was no need to make this particular BFR 17 MCI, App. IV, pp

16 generally-applicable. Two BFRs were requests for a specific location, one for HDSL and one for a Wholesale Construction. 18 Four of the BFRs were from one CLEC for adjacent location interconnection. 19 As a result, adjacent location interconnection was determined to be generallyapplicable and became Adjacent Location for Accessing UNEs. Hopfinger Affidavit, 50 & Hopfinger Attachment O, Furthermore, Pacific has not received any BFRs, from any CLEC, for the UNE Port Centrex or PBX Inward Dial referenced by MCI as having general-applicability. 20 However, the UNE Port and PBX Inward Dial are available in the MCI ICA as set forth in Attachment Pacific has no record of three requests for diverse routing and MCI provided no evidence or facts to support this claim. In any event, diverse routing, as requested by MCI, is not generally-applicable as it is location specific. Diverse routing is offered on an ICB basis, as it requires wholesale construction between two points specified by the CLEC. App. B, p Sprint complains on page 39 of its brief that Pacific has implemented a maze of complicated and unnecessary procedures... and Pacific has proposed a complicated and burdensome approach.... But when Pacific sought Requests for the construction of facilities between specific locations do not fit the definition of general-applicability. These four requests for adjacent interconnection were received from ACI over a three month period. MCI, App. IV, p. 4. See also generic Pricing Appendix, Hopfinger Attachment P. 14

17 clarification of Sprint s comments to determine the basis for its claims, Sprint stated that in an answer to discovery that its comments were based on the understanding that Pacific required the use of a BFR to process non-standard DSL. 20. Sprint s response to Pacific s information request is bewildering considering that Sprint s existing ICA contains language for the provisioning of xdsl. Contrary to what Sprint may have understood, at no point has Pacific represented to Sprint that it must use a BFR to order nonstandard DSL. Even though Sprint s current ICA permits the ordering of xdsl loops, without the need of submitting a BFR, Sprint has not issued a single request for a xdsl loop. Furthermore, there are over 30 existing ICAs in place that allow CLECs to deploy SDSL and HDSL-2 technologies over Pacific s UNE loops. COLLOCATION 21. MCI claims to address the requirement that Pacific issue accessible letters to indicate changes to its collocation rules. 22 Appendix B, p. 8. However, MCI, as well as ACI, raise concerns that relate to the frequency of changes to and the content of the physical collocation application form and the availability of an adjacent collocation application form MCI, Appendix VII referring to App. II.E. MCI, Appendix II, pp ; ACI Comments, IV.G, p

18 22. Since the FCC Advanced Services Order established new forms of collocation, Pacific created a new physical collocation application form that has been modified twice. Each version of the form has been provided to CLECs by accessible letter. 24 As MCI noted, that form includes a request for forecast information. In an effort to ensure the application form meets the needs of both the CLECs and Pacific, the form was reviewed with the CLECs at the Collocation Operations Forum on July 22, At the forum, Pacific requested input on the usefulness of the form. Pacific also informed CLECs at the forum that provision of the forecast information is optional. The CLECs were told that the application form would be revised to reflect the input provided at the forum and would be sent out again via an accessible letter. Pacific is currently making the changes resulting from the discussion during the forum and will issue the revised form in September. The revision will also clarify that the forecast request is optional MCI s allegations that it was somehow denied cageless collocation is misleading and without merit. 27 Pacific had no obligation to provide cageless collocation prior to the See Hopfinger Affidavit Attachments BB and DD submitted within the July 15, 1999 filing. See Hopfinger Attachment EE, submitted with the July 15, 1999 filing. Although providing a forecast is optional, a forecast includes the information necessary for Pacific to determine what EISCC facilities are needed by a CLEC at its physical collocation space. Without a forecast, Pacific will be unable to pre-provision EISCC facilities. MCI, App. II, pp

19 effective date of the FCC Advanced Services Order. Pacific worked diligently between the March 31, 1999 publication of the FCC Advanced Services Order and its June 1, 1999 effective date to develop methods and procedures to ensure the availability of cageless collocation. In fact, Pacific provided MCI and all CLECs notification of the application process for obtaining cageless collocation on May 28, Contrary to allegations raised by MCI, Pacific has made available generic contract language, Hopfinger Attachment SSS, that complies with the FCC s Advanced Services Order. CLECs may obtain cageless collocation, in compliance with the Advanced Services Order. In fact, Pacific has processed over 100 orders for cageless collocation. 24. AT&T states it submitted cageless collocation applications that Pacific rejected. 29 AT&T s statement is misleading. On May 28, 1999, Pacific published Accessible Letter CLECC on its web site that provided the application form for cageless collocation. 30 The accessible letter included interim rates for cageless collocation serving arrangements. The letter also stated the rates are subject to true up pending the approval of Pacific s proposed tariff, Advice Letter AT&T submitted a deposit check based on rates proposed by AT&T in the OANAD Hopfinger Attachment BB. AT&T Turner Aff., 49 See Hopfinger Attachment BB submitted with the July 15, 1999 filing. Id. 17

20 proceeding, and the deposit submitted by AT&T was for one bay of equipment, not the 35 bays of equipment requested in the application. Furthermore, the application form contained inconsistent information about the amount of cageless collocation space requested. The application was not rejected; it was held by Pacific in an effort to work through the issues with AT&T. At AT&T s request, Pacific subsequently returned the applications and deposit payment. 25. Pursuant to FCC Advanced Services Order, adjacent structure physical collocation ( adjacent collocation ) is provided in cases where all space inside the central office is exhausted. Pacific recently developed an application form for adjacent collocation. This form was posted on the CLEC website in the Collocation Handbook on August 26, Hopfinger Attachment JJJJ is a copy of the form and a copy of the What s New page informing CLECs of the posted form. Pacific has not received any requests for adjacent collocation. 26. MCI comments that approval of Pacific s amended and withdrawn 851 application would have unreasonably limited space for collocation. 32 This allegation is incorrect for three reasons. First, an affiliate cannot obtain or reserve space in a central office until the 851 application is approved. Second, 851 approval does not guarantee an affiliate space in a central office. If space 32 MCI, App. II, pp

21 in the office is exhausted when 851 approval is granted, the affiliate will not get space. Third, as required by the Final Decision, an affiliate will never be granted space in an exhausted central office. In addition, process has been put into place so that in the future, all locations where central offices are located will be identified as such in 851 applications. 27. ORA states [i]t is not clear from Pacific s documentation, however, what impact its recent 851 asset transfer application (A ) will have on collocation space availability in those offices already declared to be exhausted. 33 There are no central offices in A ; therefore there is no impact on exhausted offices. 28. ORA questions whether the collocation template is sufficient for collocator to-collocator connections when a cage is not involved. 34 Pacific s template language does not restrict the collocator-to-collocator connection based on the type of physical collocation arrangement a CLEC utilizes. 35 Nor does the template require that both interconnecting CLECs have the same type of collocation arrangement. Therefore, collocator-to-collocator connections can be made regardless of the interconnecting CLEC s physical collocation arrangement. Appendix B, p ORA Comments, p. 23. ORA Comments, p. 23. Hopfinger Attachment SSS, filed July 15, 1999, Sections

22 29. MCI questions the wording of Pacific s collocation template. 36 MCI objects to the way Pacific paraphrased the language in the FCC Advanced Services Order. For example, Pacific chose to restate the FCC phrase not use unreasonable to use reasonable. This did not change the meaning of the FCC order and the template language is consistent with the FCC ruling. MCI raises an exception that some language contained in the FCC Advanced Services Order is not contained in the template, and that some of the language in the template is not contained in the Advanced Services Order. 37 It is not reasonable to suggest that the template language, which is a contract between Pacific and a CLEC, would mirror the FCC Advanced Services Order language. The contract captures legal and regulatory requirements and provides the details of how those requirements will be satisfied. Such details are not included in the FCC Advanced Services Order. The template filed as Hopfinger Attachment SSS, submitted with the July 15, 1999 filing, clearly demonstrates Pacific s compliance with the FCC Advanced Services Order. While Pacific believes its collocation template fully complies with the FCC Advanced Services Order, Pacific will nevertheless continue to work with MCI, or any other CLEC, to include all applicable regulatory requirements in the template MCI, App. II, D, pp MCI also indicated that it had requested a copy of the template from Pacific and has received no response. On August 20, 1999, a copy of the template was sent to MCI. MCI, App. II, D, pp

23 30. MCI s claim that Pacific delayed the provisioning of cageto-cage connections is false. 38 MCI submitted an Access Service Request ( ASR ) to order a cage-to-cage connection from its Brooks Fiber collocation cage to another CLEC s cage in the same central office. The Brooks Fiber ICA does not have a provision for cage-to-cage interconnection. Therefore, the Interexchange Carrier Service Center ( ICSC ) was unable to process the ASR for the request. The manager in the ICSC advised MCI the request could not be processed as issued and advised MCI to issue an ASR using the MCI Access Carrier Name and Address ( ACNA ) because the MCI interconnection agreement has the provision for cage-to-cage connections in it. The Account Manager worked with the MCI representative and provided complete instruction on how to complete the ASR. Pacific received the corrected ASRs on August 11, 1999, processed, and assigned due dates of August 23, 1999 and August 25, Both orders have been completed. App. B, p MCI and ORA confuse the Physical Collocation Space Availability Report with other requirements. 39 The FCC in its FCC Advanced Services Order required incumbent LECs to provide, to any requesting CLEC for any central office, a report describing the amount of space available for collocation, the number of collocators, any modifications in the use of the space since the last report, and measures MCI, App. II, p MCI, App. II, F.1, p. 23; ORA Comments, p

24 being taken to increase space. 40 The FCC also stated it expected state commissions will permit incumbent LECs to recover the costs of implementing these reporting measures from collocating carriers in a reasonable manner. 41 Pacific has proposed a charge of $150 for this report to recover the costs for the work to produce the report, called the Physical Collocation Space Availability Report MCI confuses the Physical Collocation Space Availability Report with the floor plans required for walk throughs of exhausted central offices. 43 The Final Decision requires that prior to a central office walk through, Pacific provide the requesting CLEC the floor plans showing the square footage, location of ADSL equipment, and an indication of whether equipment is in use, idle, or obsolete. App. B, p. 10. In addition, D requires Pacific to provide floor plans showing additional information, such as space occupied by collocators, space housing administrative offices, and space reserved for future use, when the CLEC requests a walk through of an exhausted central office. Pacific has complied with these requirements and will continue to do so. Unlike the Physical Collocation Space Availability Report, which is FCC Advanced Services Order, 58. Id. See Hopfinger Affidavit, 94, Attachments PP and RR, sheets 740-H-16 and 740-J-6, submitted with the July 15, 1999 filing. MCI, App. II, F.1, p

25 provided for any central office, floor plans are provided only for those central offices where space for physical collocation is exhausted, since a walk through is required only for an exhausted central office. These floor plans are provided only to a CLEC that has properly requested a walk through of the exhausted central office and are provided at no charge ORA confuses the Physical Collocation Space Availability Report with the requirement to post a list of exhausted central offices on Pacific s web site. 45 The Final Decision required Pacific to post on its web site any CO which Pacific has determined has no space available for physical collocation. App. B, p. 10. ORA states that: Pacific has met the requirement that it post on its website information about central offices where Pacific has judged that space for collocation is unavailable. But the degree of this compliance is compromised by the fact that Pacific proposes to tariff its Physical Collocation Space Availability Report. ORA Comments, p. 25. The Physical Collocation Space Availability Report provides specific information about any central office in which a CLEC is interested. As explained above, that report is unrelated to the web site posting of central offices where there is no space available for physical collocation. The Final Decision requirement cited by ORA, which is similar to 44 Hopfinger Aff., ORA Comments, p

26 FCC Advanced Services Order, 58, only requires the posting on the web site of a list of those central offices in which space for physical collocation is exhausted. App. B, p. 10. Pacific has complied with this requirement ORA seeks additional information as to the number of physical collocation cages built that are less than 100 square feet. 47 As of August 20, 1999, Pacific has built 20 cages with less than 100 square feet in 13 central offices. Of these 20 cages, 17 were constructed after issuance of the Final Decision and three were constructed before the issuance of Final Decision. 35. The FCC Advanced Services Order requires that Pacific provide CLECs with reasonable access to restrooms and parking while at Pacific s premises where collocation is required. 48 This requirement became effective on June 1, Nextlink claims that Pacific does not comply with this requirement. 49 Pacific has implemented new policies and practices compliant with this new requirement. In every situation where Pacific is provisioning a new physical collocation request, steps are included in the provisioning process to assure compliance with the requirement to provide reasonable access to restrooms and parking. In central offices where physical collocation currently exists and access to the restrooms was not previously included within See Hopfinger Affidavit, 95. ORA Comments, p. 23 FCC Advanced Services Order, 49. Nextlink, pp

27 the collocation area, a Pacific employee will escort the CLEC to the restroom. Signs have been posted in these central offices giving the telephone number for the CLEC to call when access to the restroom is needed. As additional orders for physical collocation are received for these central offices, additional access to restrooms will be implemented. Generally, parking is provided to CLECs as well as Pacific employees, vendors and contractors doing similar work on a first-come, first-served basis. Exceptions to this include parking lots with controlled access or where Pacific employees pay for parking. In those situations, parking will not be provided unless access to the collocation space requires entrance from the parking lot or there is no other available parking nearby. 36. Nextlink and AT&T erroneously imply that Pacific has failed to comply with FCC and Commission requirements to remove obsolete unused equipment to make space available for physical collocation. 50 Nextlink and AT&T fail to accurately quote the FCC or Commission requirements with respect to obsolete unused equipment. The provision from D , cited by Nextlink, requires Pacific to identify idle or underutilized equipment on floor plans used for a walk through. 51 In addition, the Final Decision requires Pacific to indicate on walk through floor plans whether equipment is in use, idle, or obsolete. App. B, p. 10. The FCC Advanced Nextlink, p ; AT&T Comments, p. 39 and Turner Aff., 47. D , pp , Appendix A, p. ii. 25

28 Services Order requires Pacific to remove obsolete unused equipment in exhausted offices when requested to do so by a CLEC or upon order of the Commission. 52 None of these decisions require Pacific to remove any equipment unless requested to do so. Pacific has not received requests to remove any obsolete unused equipment. Nevertheless, as noted in the next paragraph, Pacific has removed obsolete equipment, without a CLEC request or Commission order, from one of its central offices, thereby allowing the creation of additional space for physical collocation and the removal of that central office from the list of exhausted central offices. 37. The central office referred to by Nextlink in its comments was exhausted at the time Nextlink originally requested physical collocation in September Subsequently, Pacific decided to replace the existing backup generators with generators that took up less space. The replacement was completed in May Nextlink and other CLECs who had requested space in this central office were advised that physical collocation space had become available in the central office. This was not, as Nextlink implies, a situation in which Pacific refused to remove obsolete equipment to prevent physical collocation. Central offices are dynamic, with changes occurring constantly. The replacement of these generators occurred and permitted the 52 FCC Advanced Services Order, Nextlink Comments, pp

29 creation of two additional physical collocation spaces in addition to the 12 physical collocation cages already existing or under construction. 38. AT&T erroneously alleges that Pacific is required to remove underused equipment. 54 As discussed in paragraph 32 above, there is no requirement in D , the Final Decision, FCC Advanced Services Order, or any other Commission or FCC order that Pacific remove underused equipment. It would be unnecessarily disruptive to customers who are still served by such equipment to move them to other equipment. Furthermore, whether equipment is underused depends on how the term underused is defined. Mr. Turner appears to use a definition based on some unspecified number of working circuits. This definition is impractical, as it could require frequent moving of working circuits to consolidate equipment, increasing the possibility of outages. Pacific applies the same definition to its own equipment as it applies to a CLEC to determine if the CLEC s equipment is utilizing its collocation space are there any working circuits. If any other definition were adopted, it would have to be applied equally to CLECs and Pacific. 39. AT&T s criticisms of Pacific s placement and removal of administrative functions within central offices is misplaced. 55 AT&T cites to no FCC or Commission requirement that Pacific must remove administrative functions located in AT&T Comments, p. 39 and Turner Aff., 47. AT&T, Turner Aff.,

30 its central offices. Despite the fact there is no such requirement, Pacific has routinely consolidated, relocated, or removed administrative functions within its central offices in order to make space available for physical collocation. This was explained in Pacific s Response No. 14 to AT&T s First Set of Data Requests. Hopfinger Reply Affidavit KKKK. 40. Contrary to AT&T s unsupported inference, 56 it is unreasonable to expect Pacific to remove or relocate functions if doing so would be operationally or logistically impracticable for the business. It is unreasonable to expect Pacific to bear the cost of the removal or relocation when the removal or relocation would not have been necessary but for the request for physical collocation. 41. AT&T notes that existing ICAs do not cover new forms of collocation. 57 As discussed in Hopfinger Affidavit 21-25, the order requiring these new forms of collocation was not effective until June 1, The ICAs with AT&T and most of the CLECs could not possibly contain provisions for collocation arrangements that did not exist when those ICAs were negotiated. Hopfinger Attachment SSS filed July 15, 1999 is a comprehensive collocation ICA template drafted by Pacific to include all of the new forms of collocation that is available to any CLEC Id. AT&T Kargoll Aff., pp

31 42. Some of the commenters imply that Pacific is improperly using the Commission s walk through process to delay the provision of physical collocation space to CLECs. 58 This suggestion is based on the instances where physical collocation space subsequently became available in an exhausted central office where a walk through occurred or was scheduled. Rather than demonstrate any improper use of the process, the fact that space has become available in these situations demonstrates Pacific s continuing commitment to find space for physical collocation. For example, as described above in 32, space was made available in one central office after two back-up generators were replaced. In that same central office, additional physical collocation space became available when the FCC eliminated the requirement that CLECs access their collocation space only by way of entrances secured from Pacific s equipment. In other situations, building additions that were planned and/or in progress at the time the CLEC s request for collocation was denied, have subsequently been completed, making additional space for physical collocation available. In addition, Pacific continually reviews central offices where space for physical collocation is exhausted to see if there is any way to find additional space for physical collocation. 58 Nextlink, III.C., p. 25; Sprint, III.A., pp ; AT&T, Turner Aff.,

32 43. Sprint has alleged that Pacific has violated the FCC Advanced Services Order by refusing to permit Sprint, during a walk through of an exhausted central office, to also tour a Pacific Bell administrative building located near the central office. 59 Sprint claims that this refusal violates the provision of the FCC Advanced Services Order that requires an incumbent LEC, when conducting a walk through of an exhausted central office, to permit the CLEC to tour the entire premises in question, not just the area in which space was denied. 60 There are two problems with Sprint s allegation. First, the central office tour in question was conducted on the day the FCC released the FCC Advanced Services Order. Pacific cannot have violated an order that was issued the day the alleged violation occurred. Second, the FCC requirement is that the CLEC be permitted to tour the entire premises in question, not the surrounding property or other Pacific buildings. The FCC has defined premises as an incumbent LEC s central offices and serving wire centers, as well as all buildings or similar structures owned or leased by an incumbent LEC that house its network facilities. 61 The premises in question on this walk through was the central office, and Sprint was allowed to tour the entire central office. As Sprint was told, the nearby building is a training center. It was built to serve 59 Sprint Comments, p FCC Advanced Services Order, 57; 47 C.F.R (f) C.F.R

33 administrative functions. It is not a central office or serving wire center, and it does not house any Pacific network facilities. Pacific is not required to permit tours of such a building. 44. Several CLECs point out the failure of the Collocation section of the CLEC Handbook to accurately reflect the FCC Advanced Services Order s requirement that Pacific allow CLECs to use all of the features, functions and capabilities of collocated equipment. FCC Advanced Services Order Pacific regrets any concerns caused by its inadvertent failure to update the CLEC Handbook regarding RSMs. This oversight was corrected on August 23, 1999 when Pacific published and updated the RSM language in section 1.10 of the external CLEC Handbook, Collocation. Hopfinger Reply Attachment LLLL. This updated RSM language clearly states Pacific will not restrict switching or enhanced service capability for equipment installed for access to UNEs or interconnection. Pacific s proposed tariff, filed on July 9, 1999 (Advice Letter No ) states that Pacific will place no limitations on CLECs ability to use all of the functionality of their collocated equipment. See Hopfinger Affidavit, 82 and Hopfinger Attachment RR, Section submitted with the July 15, 1999 filing. 45. The Final Decision requires Pacific to assist CLECs who wish to interconnect at adjacent locations. Pacific has done so, 62 MCI, App. II, p. 13; ICG Comments, pp. 7, 22-23; Nextlink Comments, pp

34 establishing a new service for interconnection from adjacent locations. Hopfinger Affidavit, 50. While MCI and Sprint claim they are addressing this issue, they really address what they call adjacent off-site collocation, which they define as the provision of collocation at adjacent sites not belonging to Pacific. 63 Neither the Final Decision nor the FCC Advanced Services Order requires Pacific to provide collocation other than within its premises or on Pacific property adjacent to a central office where physical collocation is exhausted. FCC Advanced Services Order, 44. Pacific permits CLECs located at non-pacific property to interconnect with Pacific s network. However, this is interconnection not collocation and is not subject to collocation rules. Therefore, contrary to the assertions of ACI and AT&T, Pacific does not offer and has not provided adjacent off-site collocation. 64 Rather, Pacific offers interconnection at adjacent locations. This is consistent with the requirement in the Final Decision for Pacific to make every effort to assist carriers who wish to interconnect at adjacent locations. App. B, p.8. (emphasis added) MCI, App. VII referring to App. II, B(3); Sprint Att. A referring to III. C, D. ACI Comments, p. 10.; AT&T Comments, pp The transcript provided by AT&T is the testimony of an ACI witness. Pacific asked ACI to provide documents to support its allegations that Pacific had provisioned adjacent off-site collocation. ACI objected and refused to provide the documents, stating Pacific already had the documents. Pacific has no such documentation because none exists. Pacific has only provisioned interconnection at adjacent locations to ACI. See footnote 20 above. 32

35 46. Commenters suggest that Pacific s 271 application should not be approved because Pacific is not currently providing cageless physical collocation as required by the FCC Advanced Services Order. 65 Pacific has not yet turned over any cageless physical collocation space because the installation intervals on the first applications have not completed. The FCC Advanced Services Order became effective on June 1, Since that date, six CLECs have submitted 101 applications for cageless physical collocation. The first two applications were received on June 4, The applications were processed in 10 days, and the installation interval began on June 14, These cageless physical collocation spaces will be turned over to the requesting CLEC on October 2, The other applications are at various points in the application or installation process. The requirement that Pacific provide cageless physical collocation is relatively new. It was ordered by the FCC more than three months after the Final Decision was issued and was not effective until more than five months after the Final Decision was issued. Pacific s compliance filing cannot be delayed because new obligations and requirements are imposed. That would create a moving target that neither Pacific nor any other service provider could ever hope to 65 ACI Comments, pp. 10; Nextlink Comments, pp ; and Comptel Comments, p. 16. Commenters also raise as a basis for denying Pacific s 271 Application numerous issues previously raised in protest to Pacific s Advice Letter No Pacific responded to each of the issues raised by the protests in its response dated August 6, See Hopfinger Reply Aff., Attachment NNNN. 33