WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION ) DOCKET NO. UT-971063 SERVICES, INC., ) Complainant, ) VOLUME VII ) Pages 570-736 v. ) US WEST COMMUNICATIONS, ) INC., ) Respondent. ) _____________________________) A hearing in the above matter was held on June 4, 1998, at 10:21 a.m., at 1300 Evergreen Park Drive Southwest, Olympia, Washington, before Administrative Law Judge LAWRENCE BERG. The parties were present as follows: The Complainant, MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES, INC., by William P. Hunt, III, Attorney at Law, 707 17th Street, Suite 4200, Denver, Colorado, 80202, and Clyde MacIver, Attorney at Law, 4400 Two Union Square, 601 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, 98101-2352. The Respondent, US WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., by Lisa A. Anderl and Peter Butler, Attorneys at Law, 1600 Seventh Avenue, Room 3206, Seattle, Washington, 98191. For TRACER, Joel Paisner, Attorney at Law, 601 Union Street, Suite 5450, Seattle, Washington, 98101-2346. THE COMMISSION, by Shannon E. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, 1400 South Evergreen Park Drive Southwest, Olympia, Washington 98504-0128. Barbara L. Spurbeck, CSR Court Reporter INDEX OF WITNESSES WITNESS: PAGE: VICTORIA AGUILAR Direct Examination by Ms. Anderl 577 Cross-Examination by Mr. Hunt 580 Cross-Examination by Ms. Smith 615 JEFFREY TEWS Direct Examination by Ms. Anderl 620 Cross-Examination by Mr. Hunt 622 Cross-Examination by Ms. Smith 631 Examination by Judge Berg 643 Redirect Examination by Ms. Anderl 649 Recross-Examination by Mr. Hunt 660 DAVID GRIFFITH Direct Examination by Ms. Smith 671 Cross-Examination by Mr. MacIver 674 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anderl 679 Examination by Judge Berg 721 Recross-Examination by Mr. MacIver 727 Recross-Examination by Ms. Anderl 734 INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT: MARKED: ADMITTED: Exhbiit T-87 575 580 Exhibit 88 575 580 Exhibit 89 575 582 Exhibit C-90 576 582 Exhibit 91 576 582 Exhibit C-92 576 582 Exhibit 93 576 582 Exhibit C-94 576 582 Exhibit 95 576 582 Exhibit 96 576 582 Exhibit 97 577 582 Exhibit 98 577 582 Exhibit T-99 619 622 Exhibit 100 619 622 Exhibit 101 620 622 Exhibit C-102 620 622 Exhibit C-103 620 622 Exhibit C-104 620 622 Exhibit C-105 620 622 Exhibit 106 620 623 Exhibit 107 660 withdrawn Exhibit T-108 670 673 Exhibit T-109 671 673 JUDGE BERG: All right. We'll be on the record. This is a continuation of a Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission hearing in Docket Number 971063, captioned MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc., Complainant, versus US West Communications, Inc. Respondent. Today's date is June 4, 1998. On the record, there has been a distribution of exhibits relating to the testimony of Ms. Dodie Osborn and Mr. Terry Dodd by MCI. There has also been a distribution of an exhibit list and exhibits relating to the testimony of Victoria Aguilar, which we will mark at this time. If everybody would just follow along with this. MR. HUNT: Excuse me. Ms. Smith just pointed out to me, the second document in that package I gave you is actually Hearing Exhibit 15, which is already in the record. It was introduced yesterday by US West. I just put an extra copy in for the witness' use. So that's data request to the second document, marked MCM 04-150, that was entered into the record yesterday. JUDGE BERG: Give me the numerical designation. Oh, I see. MR. HUNT: I believe it's Hearing Exhibit -- MR. MacIVER: It's not on the list. It's in the packet. MR. HUNT: It's in the packet. It was just for ease, so everybody could -- JUDGE BERG: Mr. Hunt, what was the exhibit number we attached to that? MR. HUNT: My records show it's Hearing Exhibit 15. JUDGE BERG: All right. Thank you very much. So Ms. Aguilar, as we go through this, I'm going to assign numbers, and I'll be transposing numbers onto the documents themselves, and you may want to do the same thing. The prefiled testimony of Ms. Aguilar will be marked as Exhibit T-87. The prefiled exhibit Aguilar 1 will be marked as Exhibit 88. MCI Request O4-146 will be marked as Hearing Exhibit 89. The next document in succession has already been admitted as a hearing exhibit. That is Hearing Exhibit 17. MR. HUNT: I'm sorry. JUDGE BERG: Quite all right. MS. AGUILAR: I'm sorry, which exhibit -- MCImetro request is that? JUDGE BERG: That shows -- it's the second page in the packet that Mr. Hunt distributed. At the top, it's identified as Request Number MCM O4-150. MS. AGUILAR: Okay. JUDGE BERG: That was previously admitted as Exhibit 17. MCM 01-069 will be marked as Hearing Exhibit 90. MR. HUNT: This should be marked confidential. JUDGE BERG: Thank you, Exhibit C-90. Request Number 05-212 will be Exhibit 91. Request number MCM 04-185 will be marked as Exhibit C-92. Request Number MCM 05-213 will be marked as Exhibit 93. Request Number MCM 04-186 will be marked as Exhibit 94. MS. ANDERL: C-94. JUDGE BERG: Thank you, C-94. Request Number MCM 05-214 will be marked as Exhibit 95. Mr. Hunt, with regards to MCM 04-152, or Ms. Anderl, the response to 04-152 makes reference to a confidential attachment A. Is any of the other information contained on this page confidential? MS. ANDERL: No. JUDGE BERG: All right. MCM 04-152 shall be marked as Exhibit 96. Request Number MCM 04-154 shall be marked as Exhibit 97. And Request Number MCM 07-224 shall be marked as Exhibit Number 98. Before I swear this witness in, are there any other matters that the parties wish to address on the record before we start? MR. HUNT: Just give me one second to talk to Mr. MacIver. JUDGE BERG: All right. Hearing nothing from the parties -- MR. HUNT: I'm sorry. We're ready to proceed. JUDGE BERG: All right, thank you. Ms. Aguilar, if you'll stand and raise your right hand. Whereupon, VICTORIA AGUILAR, having been first duly sworn by Judge Berg, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: JUDGE BERG: Please be seated. Ms. Anderl, would you please proceed to qualify your witness? D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N BY MS. ANDERL: Q. Good morning, Ms. Aguilar. A. Good morning. Q. Would you please state your name and your business address for the record? A. Victoria T. Aguilar, that's spelled A, as in apple, G, as in Gary, u-i-l-a-r. My position is vice president of interconnect implementation at US West Communications. Q. Are you the same Victoria Aguilar who filed direct testimony in this docket along with the attached Exhibit VA-1, those documents which have now been marked as Hearing Exhibits T-87 and 88? A. Yes, I am. Q. And do you have any changes or corrections to make to that testimony? A. Yes, I do. Q. Could you please do that now? A. Certainly. With respect to page four, beginning at line 16, starting at the sentence that reads, Region-wide, the numbers contained in the rest of those sentences need to be altered because they have changed since submission of this testimony. It should now read, Region-wide, US West has been in negotiations with 280 different companies that are entering the local service market, period. The next sentence should be amended to read, The interconnection -- insert the word related -- agreements US West has negotiated under the Telecommunications Act fall into five categories: Resale, facilities based, wireless -- insert the words and paging -- EAS, and situations where US West is the CLEC, period. The following sentence should be amended to read, Of the 280 companies, 85 are resellers, 109 are facilities based, 76 are wireless -- insert the words and paging -- six are ILECs with whom US West has negotiated EAS agreements, and four are ILECs where US West is the CLEC, period. Moreover, there are changes on page five, beginning at the line five, with the sentence starting, As of. It should be amended to read, As of May 13th, 1998, US West has had a total of 891 interconnection -- insert the word related -- agreements in progress, period. The following sentence should read, Of these, 492 have been approved, and 399 more had been filed with and were awaiting approval. Deleting the words "by state commissions." The following sentence should be amended to read, Another 75 were being negotiated, period. Excuse me, there's no amendment there. The next sentence, there is amendments. In Washington, US West has currently 113 interconnection -- insert the word related -- agreements on file with this Commission; 60 interconnection -- insert the word related -- agreements have received final approval, and 53 others are still pending, period. Q. Do you have any other changes or corrections to make to your testimony? A. No, I do not believe I do. Q. And with the changes that you've just described for the record, is your testimony true and correct, to the best of your knowledge? A. Yes, it is. Q. If I were to ask you those questions today, would your answers be the same as set forth herein with the changes just made? A. Yes, they would. MS. ANDERL: Your Honor, I would offer Exhibit T-87 and 88, and tender the witness for cross. JUDGE BERG: Any objections to the admission of those two exhibits? MR. HUNT: No. JUDGE BERG: T-87 and 88 shall be admitted into the record. Mr. Hunt, you may initiate your cross-examination of the witness. C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N BY MR. HUNT: Q. Good morning, Ms. Aguilar. My name's Bill Hunt. I'm with MCI in Denver. A. Good morning. Q. I have a few questions for you. MS. SMITH: Excuse me, Mr. Hunt. Could you pull the mic a little closer? I'm having some trouble hearing you. Q. Before we get started, I'd like you to take a look at the documents that are on the table in front of you and have already been marked Exhibits 89 through 98. I'd like you just to take a minute and to look at each document and to familiarize yourself with those documents? A. And you would also ask me to review the exhibit that was premarked Exhibit 17? Q. Yes. I'm not going to offer -- for the purposes of this, I'm going to try to offer these, so I'd rather you just look at 89 through 98. Seventeen is already in the record. A. Okay. Q. Ms. Aguilar, I'd like you to satisfy yourself that they are true and correct copies of US West's responses to MCI data? A. Oh, if that's the purpose, certainly, yes, these certainly are. MS. ANDERL: I would like to note, though, Mr. Hunt, that not all of them are complete. And I don't think we have an objection to that, but at least one referenced in Attachment A that was not included. MR. HUNT: Correct. MS. ANDERL: And if that's your purpose, that's fine. MR. HUNT: That was correct. I did not want to use that part of the document. Well, if there's no objection, we will admit these. MS. ANDERL: We'll stipulate to their admission. We do not believe that all of them are appropriate to come in through Ms. Aguilar, but I suppose we can deal with that if you ask her questions about them. MR. HUNT: Certainly. I think that's what maybe I'll do. JUDGE BERG: All right. In that case, at this time, Exhibits 89 through 98 will be admitted into the record. Q. Ms. Aguilar, could you briefly describe your current responsibilities as vice president for interconnection implementation? A. Certainly. I like to describe my job function as encompassing interconnection from start to finish. My personal involvement is as a strategist player. I manage four, five now, different individuals, who are either directly or indirectly related to various aspects of interconnection implementation. It begins with one of my executive directors, a woman by the name of Kathy Fleming, who handles the front end of interconnection, which is the negotiation process that was articulated in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, particularly Sections 251 and Sections 252. Q. Excuse me, Ms. Aguilar. I was really just curious as to what your responsibilities were, and not your entire organization. A. My responsibilities do reflect the breadth of my entire organization. Q. Okay. A. I don't think it's as lengthy as you're anticipating it will be. Q. Okay. A. Do you wish me to proceed? Q. Proceed. A. Ms. Fleming's organization handles the negotiation process through negotiations teams, which impact various aspects of the organization, over which I do not have managerial control or strategy authority. The next phase of interconnection, over which I have responsibility, is the implementation aspect that directly runs out of or flows from the negotiation process. I have a director in charge of that organization, and I am intimately involved with them to implement the -- or help devise strategies that will enable US West to efficiently and effectively implement the negotiation contracts, such as the contract that we are here to discuss -- or contracts that we are here to discuss today. The other three direct reports I have are less directly related to interconnection and/or interconnection implementation, but do have tangential responsibilities related to that, and my involvement really is as overseeing various witness aspects, program management or project management aspects of interconnection, and FCC-related interconnection issues. Q. Isn't it true you've had this position since January of '98? A. January 15th of '98. Q. Who held the position before you? A. Mr. Robert Limb. Q. What positions did you hold with US West between November of '94 and January of 1998? A. Two positions, technically. Beginning in November of 1994, I began with US West as an attorney in Minnesota, supporting the eastern region states of Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska. In that capacity, I served as a state regulatory attorney, appearing in state regulatory contested case proceedings and other activities. Beginning in May of 1997, I assumed a new position, as a senior attorney. In the senior attorney position, I had lead state responsibility for the state of New Mexico, as well as managerial authority over various aspects of the individuals employed within the US West Law Department. Q. Is it fair to say, then, that your time with US West, you've not been involved with either of the three negotiations of the three interconnection agreements that are in the record in this case? A. With respect to Washington, the state of Washington? Q. The state of Washington, yes. A. That is correct. Q. Prior to taking your current position, did you have any personal knowledge or involvement of the issues that were raised in this complaint? A. Could you please explain by what you mean, personal knowledge? Q. Well, were you at all involved in any of the initial litigation in this complaint? A. I was not intimately involved with any of the litigation in this complaint. I was, however, very aware of it, as an employee and a lawyer in the state regulatory department. Q. Were you aware of any issues that may have been business issues that had arisen between US West and MCI prior to filing this complaint? A. That's an awfully broad question. Can you give me a little more context? Q. Well, I'm restricting my question to Washington state. Were you aware of any of the issues that have been raised in this complaint by MCI, lack of interconnection trunks? A. To the extent that the complaints in this particular proceeding are not unique to the state of Washington as they relate to MCI, I'm aware -- again, as a state regulatory lawyer, we were very aware, as a group, of what the complaints were for MCI in many, many states, even though I was not involved in the state of Washington. Q. With regards to the corrections you made in your testimony earlier this morning, why did you insert related between interconnection and agreements? A. The reason for that is really one of structural and managerial reasons. The interconnection -- interconnection-related activity more accurately reflects what my team has been engaged in, meaning it runs the full gamut of interconnection agreements, resale agreements, wireless agreements, paging agreements, EAS agreements, and ancillary agreements. As the vice president of interconnection implementation, those are all the activities that the team is actively involved in and, thus, responsible for. I inserted the word related, because prior to that insertion, the number of contracts, I think, was 407, or something close to that figure, and those were strictly interconnect agreements, which are a subset of the magnitude of the project which this team undertakes. Q. Give me a minute, because I think the numbers have changed. But your testimony at page four, lines 20 to 22, I guess what is now 280? A. Correct. Q. Of those companies you've been in negotiations with, how many of them are located in the state of Washington and would be resellers? A. I don't have that detailed information here with me. I do believe, based on my team's update, the most recent update I have -- and this certainly, to some extent, would be public information available through the Commission and/or its Staff, but I believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 47 companies, CLECs, that we are involved with in the state of Washington. Q. As resellers? A. That I do not know. Q. Okay. So if I was to ask you each of the specific categories that you've identified, would you know what the number would be for any of those categories? A. Not off the top of my head. That is information that, to the extent it is not deemed confidential or proprietary, which some of the information I think you know would be, but to the extent that you deem that relevant, I could certainly supplement my testimony. Q. On page five of your testimony, lines nine to 11, the number of interconnection agreements on file with the Commission here in the state of Washington, I believe that number's now 113? A. That's correct. Again, that number is effective as of May 13th. These numbers change literally daily. Q. I understand. You say now 60 have received final approval. Do you know how many of them would be with resellers, facilities-based carriers, wireless carriers, or any of the categories that you've listed? A. I could obtain that information. Q. You don't know now? A. Not off the top of my head. I would remind you that we have 891 of these, and I really am not that intimately familiar with the numbers per state, per CLEC. Q. Can you give me an example of the type of situation when you refer to US West as the CLEC? A. That would be simply the example of when US West essentially steps into the shoes of, in this instance, an MCI-tied entity, where we're wishing to interconnect with other entities, other telecommunications carriers which we are interested in pursuing by virtue of the rights under the Telecommunications Act. Q. Is US West a CLEC anywhere in the state of Washington? A. Actually, let me -- I don't want to misstate this. I do believe that US West does have an approved agreement in the state of Washington as a CLEC. Q. Is it offering any type of services under that agreement? MS. ANDERL: Your Honor, I'm going to have to object to this line of questions at this point. It's interesting, but I don't think it's relevant. MR. HUNT: I think it is relevant. She's made certain statements about the scope and the size of the effort of US West's interconnection efforts. And I'm just trying to find out what the scope of that effort is here in the state of Washington. JUDGE BERG: Just in terms of giving some definition to the scope of US West's activities in the state of Washington, I'll let the line of questioning go forward. I think we're probably close to the end of that. MR. HUNT: We're almost to the end of that. Q. The one agreement in the state of Washington, though, can you tell me who US West would be interconnecting with? A. I wish that I could. I just learned that information yesterday from the chief negotiator on that, and I did not ask that follow-up question, nor have I reviewed personally that agreement, so I am not in a position to tell you what services would be offered underneath it. Q. Ms. Aguilar, now turning to page 10, lines one to four of your testimony, is it true that the figure of $190 million on interconnection-related activities, the first three quarters of 1997, is for the 14-state US West region? A. Yes, that is correct. You should probably be aware that the actual numbers for 1997 are substantially higher than that. Q. I think we're getting there. A. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Q. Ms. Aguilar, are you testifying from prepared notes or an outline in that binder, or is that your own -- is there anything in that binder that's not in your testimony? A. What's in my binder is my testimony, all of the data requests that had something to do with my name, along with the DPS's witness, Mr. Griffith's testimony, and some notes that I have that cross-reference my testimony with the data requests MCI served with respect to my testimony. Q. I'm going to set that aside for the moment and go back to it. Isn't it true, Ms. Aguilar, that in the fourth quarter of 1996, US West more than doubled its spending on interconnection related activities over the previous three quarters? MS. ANDERL: Excuse me, did you say 1996 or 1997? Q. I hoped I said 1997, which is in your testimony? A. I believe you said 1997 -- or 1996, but I think I understood you mean to 1997. I'm sorry, the question is isn't it true that the revenue -- the monies that US West spent in the last quarter of 1997 -- Q. Let me ask you a better question. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Let me ask a better question. You state that US West is going to spend 406 million in calendar year 1997; is that correct? A. I said -- I stated that US West expected to spend approximately that amount, that is correct. Q. And that is a 14-state figure? A. And that is correct, as well. Q. And isn't it true that more than half of that spending came in the fourth quarter of the year, based on the figures you have in your testimony? A. Based on the approximations expected, that would have been a true statement. Q. Can you tell me why there was such a huge ramp up or doubling of spending toward the end of 1997? A. Let me provide context to that. I am not the vice president -- Q. Start with the first question. Could you tell me why? A. Well, I think I can provide context. MS. ANDERL: Your Honor, I think the witness is allowed to explain her answer. MR. MacIVER: If she gives it. MS. ANDERL: That's what she's going to do. JUDGE BERG: I understand. I think all MCI is saying is that they would like to get the qualified answer first and the explanation second. And if that can't be done, then the witness can indicate that she can't answer the question, as posed. THE WITNESS: I think I can answer the question if it is recognized on the record that I am not here as a finance witness; I am not here to discuss in detail the numbers behind the numbers which are stated as facts. And I can give additional background. So if your question is to ask me what, as a company, US West was anticipating, I believe I can answer that from a policy perspective with my understanding in the position that I have currently. But if you are attempting to investigate specifics as they relate to the numbers and exactly what analysis entailed in getting to those numbers, I most certainly am not the vice president of finance for carrier wholesale and I could not attest to that. Q. My question is related to the second half of your answer, so I'm going to move on. Thank you. A. Okay. Q. My apologies, Ms. Aguilar. I gave myself a wrong cite to your testimony, and if you will give me a minute, I will find it. A. Certainly. Q. Ms. Aguilar, on page 13 -- I'm sorry, no, page 12, lines 13 and 14, you said that US West already complies with obligations for network change and rearrangement notification. My first question to you is what is your understanding of what would be a network change or a rearrangement notification? A. Well, my understanding as to -- it relates to -- this is in conjunction with Mr. Beach's suggestion that we comply with certain aspects of what he believes to be orders of the Commission. And I believe I answered that request in the context of the LERG data, that is public information, and all the changes that are attendant with the kind of activity that the industry recognizes need to be made to the network and systems, as they relate to upgrades, technical upgrades, as well as specifically as it relates to interconnection, the kind of systematic changes to switches, to networks, et cetera, technological updates that are made as a result of interconnection activity. Q. When you made that statement in your testimony, had you reviewed the section of the interconnection agreement, the permanent interconnection agreement, that related to notices? MS. ANDERL: Your Honor, could Counsel give the witness a cite to that section? It's a very long agreement. MR. HUNT: I believe it was in the record yesterday as hearing -- I think it was Exhibit 15. Section 29.1, I believe. I'll give her a copy of it. THE WITNESS: Is this the notification section, Counsel? MR. HUNT: Yes. THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. MS. ANDERL: I'm sorry, Mr. Hunt, where are we, 29.1? MR. HUNT: It's 29.1. THE WITNESS: I know that I have reviewed that section. I believe that your question, however, asked me had I reviewed it prior to development of the testimony? Q. That's correct. A. I do not know for sure. Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Aguilar, I'd ask you to look at what has been marked as Hearing Exhibit 15, which your Counsel had introduced into the record yesterday. MS. ANDERL: Seventeen. THE WITNESS: Seventeen? Q. I still have it as 15. Yes. A. Oh, right. Q. Looking at what has been already marked as Confidential Exhibit C-90 and 91, this is going to be a little tedious because of the way the answers were structured, so I'm just going to go through this slowly. Actually, you're going to also need 93. A. Ninety-three? Q. Because that actually has the US West answer on it. A. Just as a point of clarification, as I review C-90 and 91 and 93, am I reviewing these still being mindful of Exhibit 17? Q. Yes. A. Okay, thank you. Q. Isn't it true, Ms. Aguilar, based on US West's response to what is Document 93, isn't it true that US West did not provide notice of a network change pursuant to any of the methods you've outlined in Hearing Exhibit 17 that are contained in document C-90? MS. ANDERL: I'm sorry, Mr. Hunt. Could you repeat the question for my benefit? MR. HUNT: Okay. Well, maybe we can do it this way. It will be a little cleaner. Q. I'd like you to look at the document that's been marked as C-90. A. Correct. Okay, I've got that. Q. The attachment to it -- the information references a job being done on a switch in the US West network? A. If I may beg your indulgence for a second, because this was not directly related to my testimony. This was not a data request, because there were many, many, as you know, in this docket that I personally scoured. So let me just have a moment to read this, because it really doesn't have much to do with my testimony, or at least wasn't in conjunction with my testimony. Q. Take your time. I apologize this is so confusing. A. That's okay. We can get there. Q. Looking at -- do you have C-90 in front of you? A. I have C-90. Q. And that is a document that references an expansion being done at a Seattle -- A. Tandem. Q. -- location? A. That's correct. Q. Now, document -- A. Well, it was an expectation, was it not, necessarily something that was being done? I think the language states that it was an expectation that that augmentation would occur with a certain amount at a certain location. And it goes on to state that the work was scheduled. Q. Do you know if this work was done or not? A. No, I do not. Perhaps Mr. Wiseman does. I do not. But I don't believe that it states that it was done. Q. Looking at Document 91, then -- A. Okay. Q. And specifically the sub part A. This is where we get to your data requests. A. Okay. Q. To your list of notices. MCI asked if notice of this job had been noticed in any of the methods which you listed? A. Okay. This is, okay, notice of the job that we were just talki