WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION ) DOCKET NO. UT-971063 SERVICES, INC., ) Complainant, ) VOLUME VIII ) Pages 737-825 v. ) US WEST COMMUNICATIONS, ) INC., ) Respondent. ) _____________________________) A hearing in the above matter was held on June 5, 1998, at 9:27 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, Attorney at Law, 1600 Seventh Avenue, Room 3206, Seattle, Washington, 98191. 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: CRAIG WISEMAN Direct Examination by Ms. Anderl 748 Cross-Examination by Mr. Hunt 749 Cross-Examination by Ms. Smith 767 Examination by Judge Berg 775 Redirect Examination by Ms. Anderl 793 Recross-Examination by Mr. Hunt 812 ROBERT IANNOTTA Direct Examination by Mr. Hunt 819 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anderl 821 INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT: MARKED: ADMITTED: Exhibit T-110 745 749 Exhibit C-111 746 749 Exhibit 112 746 749 Exhibit 113 746 750 Exhibit 114 746 750 Exhibit 115 746 750 Exhibit C-116 746 750 Exhibit C-117 746 750 Exhibit C-118 746 750 Exhibit C-119 746 750 Exhibit C-120 746 750 Exhibit C-121 746 750 Exhibit C-122 746 750 Exhibit HC-123 746 830 Exhibit HC-124 747 830 Exhibit C-125 747 818 Exhibit C-126 747 818 Exhibit 127 795 806 Exhibit C-128 796 806 Exhibit 129 796 802 Exhibit 130 796 806 Exhibit 131 796 806 Exhibit C-132 796 806 Exhibit 133 796 806 Exhibit 134 796 806 Exhibit 135 796 806 Exhibit C-136 796 denied JUDGE BERG: This is a continuation of hearing in Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Docket Number 971063, MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc., Complainant, versus US West Communications, Inc., Respondent. Today's date is June 5, 1998. For the record, the exhibit previously marked as 85, a compressed transcript of Mr. Tews, US West has designated those pages which it wishes to have referenced in the record as being relevant to completing of the picture of other references to Mr. Tews' deposition testimony. Those pages are pages 44, pages 49 through 55, and pages 80 through 85. Only those pages will be considered as relevant information to this proceeding. All other pages contained in that compressed transcript are not relevant to this proceeding. MR. HUNT: I guess, Your Honor, if you could explain to me the distinction between the relevant and -- could somebody still cite the pages that she doesn't designate in their brief and could the Court consider them? JUDGE BERG: No, no, the whole purpose of admitting the document in its entirety was merely for ease of convenience. Being a compressed transcript to begin with, there are multiple pages ganged up on a single page. The copies were available in their entirety. The whole purpose of requiring US West to designate those pages which it considered relevant to the previously admitted exhibit was, in fact, to draw a distinction between those pages which may be referenced and considered by the parties in their legal arguments, as well as those pages which the Commission will consider in review of the evidence in this case, as well. MS. SMITH: Your Honor, is it a fair understanding, then, that only those pages designated by Ms. Anderl are the pages that are actually part of the record? JUDGE BERG: Well, the document as a whole has been admitted into the record, but only -- MR. HUNT: At the risk of -- can we just clean this up, maybe, and have US West submit copies of these pages in place of that exhibit? JUDGE BERG: Let's be off the record for a moment. (Recess taken.) JUDGE BERG: We'll be back on the record. I've considered the objections of MCI. I'm unfamiliar with the transcript as a whole. MCI believes or has indicated that if there's not some -- besides the fact that the admission of the deposition as a whole conflicts with the precise rule relating to the admission of deposition transcripts, they've also indicated that there may be some prejudice or some possible irrelevant information that would be considered in the course of these proceedings if the transcript as a whole were to be admitted. In reviewing the pages which are being referred to by US West, I'm going to change the decision from the bench regarding the admission of the document as a whole. While it may have been distributed as a whole, that, in and of itself, does not create any of the prejudice or possible negative impact that MCI is concerned about. MCI is concerned about the way this document will be considered in the course of rendering a decision in this case, as it would exist as part of the entire record. So Exhibit 85, as admitted, will be modified, and the following pages of the compressed transcript will remain part of Exhibit 85. The cover sheet to the compressed transcript, page one through page four, page 41 through 44, page 49 through 56, and page 77 through page 88. MS. SMITH: Your Honor, again, I'm very sorry to linger on this issue. I think Staff would move that only those pages specifically designated by US West be included in the record, as opposed to those pages plus any other pages that appear on the condensed transcript. JUDGE BERG: I'm going to admit into the record the condensed transcript sheets that contained the pages referenced by US West. The only pages that the parties may make reference to in their briefing or will be considered by the Commission in review of the evidence will be those pages designated by US West, that being page 44, page 49 through 55, and page 80 through page 85. If the parties have any other objections, they can present them in writing in the form of a motion. I'm tired of dealing with this. MR. HUNT: We're ready to move on, Your Honor. I just have two questions for Ms. Anderl on this deposition. Did Mr. Tews sign or make any corrections, because I don't recall receiving a signature page or a corrections page. MS. ANDERL: He did. There were no corrections. MR. HUNT: Okay, thank you. JUDGE BERG: All right. At this time, we'll go ahead and mark exhibits for the testimony of Mr. Craig Wiseman. On the US West exhibit list, the testimony of Craig Wiseman will be marked as Exhibit T-110. Wiseman Exhibit 1-C will be marked as Hearing Exhibit C-111. Wiseman Exhibit 2 will be Exhibit 112. Working off the list of exhibits prepared by MCI, Request Number MCM 05-196 shall be Exhibit 113. MCM 05-197 shall be 114. MCM 05-198 shall be 115. Common funding document, Project Number 62WN634 will be C-116. Common funding document, Project Number 62WD -- and those letters will all be caps -- 62WD817 will be Exhibit C-117. Common funding document, Project Number 62WE740 will be Exhibit C-118. Common funding document, Project Number 52WE273 will be marked as Exhibit C-119. Common funding document, Project Number 72WA603, will be marked as Exhibit C-120. Common funding document, Project Number 82WD652 will be C-121. Common funding document, Project Number 72WD043 will be Exhibit C-122. Request number MCM 01-0 -- excuse me, let me amend this. The US West response to request number MCM 01-087 will be marked as Hearing Exhibit number HC, for highly confidential, dash 123. And the US West response to MCM 01-073 will be marked as Hearing Exhibit HC-124. The report of increased DS1s in Seattle and in Tacoma by office, dated 4/16/98, will be marked as C-125. And Request Number MCM 05-206 will be marked as Exhibit C-126. MR. HUNT: Your Honor, one small clean-up on that. Those common funding documents were produced in response to an MCI data request. I didn't attach the copy of the request to the first document. I didn't attach it to any, because I didn't want to cloud up the record. In talking with Ms. Anderl, she'd like me to insert it at least once, provide one copy for one of the exhibits, so I will do that and attach the data request later for C-116. JUDGE BERG: All right. Is that something that we can -- MR. HUNT: We can do that at a break, Your Honor. It's just a matter of making a copy. JUDGE BERG: That's great. That will be attached to C-116. And then the record will reflect that all of the common funding documents which have been marked as hearing exhibits were all responses to request number MCM 07-207. All right. Mr. Wiseman, will you please stand, sir. Whereupon, CRAIG WISEMAN, having been first duly sworn by Judge Berg, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: JUDGE BERG: Ms. Anderl, if you'll proceed to qualify your witness. MS. ANDERL: Thank you. D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N BY MS. ANDERL: Q. Good morning, Mr. Wiseman. A. Good morning. Q. Finally. Please state your name and your business address for the record? A. My name's Craig Wiseman, W-i-s-e-m-a-n. My business address is 700 West Mineral Avenue, Littleton, Colorado. Q. Are you the same Craig Wiseman who caused to be filed the testimony that's been identified as Exhibit T-110, and then two exhibits that are attached, C-111 and Hearing Exhibit 112? A. Yes, I am. Q. Do you have any changes or corrections to make to that testimony? A. No. Q. Mr. Wiseman, if I were to ask you the questions contained in that testimony today, would your answers be the same? A. Yes, they would. MS. ANDERL: Your Honor, I would offer Exhibit T-110, C-111, and Hearing Exhibit 112. JUDGE BERG: Are there any objections? MR. HUNT: No objections. JUDGE BERG: Hearing Exhibits T-110 through 112 will be admitted into the record. MS. ANDERL: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Wiseman is available for cross. JUDGE BERG: All right. Mr. Hunt, will you be conducting cross? MR. HUNT: Yes, I will. JUDGE BERG: All right. Please proceed. C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N BY MR. HUNT: Q. Good morning, Mr. Wiseman. My name's Bill Hunt. I'm with MCI. I'm sure you know that. We've spoken on these subjects a number of times in the last couple months. A. Good morning, Mr. Hunt. Q. How are you doing? A. Great. Q. Before we get started, I would like you to take a look at the stack of documents that I have placed on the table in front of you in which, in our discussions with the ALJ, we've marked as Exhibit C-116 through C-122. I'm sorry, no, 113 to C-122. And I would just ask you to satisfy yourself if those are true and accurate copies of US West data responses to MCI requests? A. As far as I know, they are. Q. Subject to check? A. Subject to check. MR. HUNT: I would move that we admit them, Your Honor. MS. ANDERL: No objection. JUDGE BERG: All right. Hearing Exhibits 113 through C-122 will be admitted into the record. Q. I believe, Mr. Wiseman, you testified that you started your current position around August of 1996? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And on page one, lines 15 to 24, when you discuss your work on various industry forums, isn't it true that you held those positions from 1992 to August 1996? A. I think that's approximately right, yes. Q. So isn't it true, then, that during that time period, from August -- or from 1992 up through July of 1996, or even the present, I'm sorry, you were not involved with US West's network capacity planning and growth in the state of Washington or the city of Seattle on a day-to-day basis? A. That's true. Q. On page two, lines 21 to 24 of your testimony, you talk about permanent number portability, and you talk about the impact it has on US West and the network; is that correct? A. The impact that number portability has on our provisioning? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. And when you use the phrase "significant impact on network capacity," isn't its real impact on your ability to schedule network expansion in other jobs? A. Would you refer me to -- Q. Okay. In your testimony, at page -- lines 17, page 20. I'm sorry, it's page two, line 17. A. Maybe we're not on the -- maybe my page is numbered differently. I don't see significant. Q. Okay. Hang on a second. I put the wrong page number. I'm sorry, it's page three, line 18, starting -- sentence starts on line 17 and runs through line 20. A. Yes. What I've said in that statement is that long-term number portability does not have a significant impact on the existing switching capacity, but it did impact our ability to provision and install equipment on time. Q. And if I remember correctly in your deposition, it was that it's just really the ability to schedule vendors, schedule work that had to be done at the switches, one other project that had to be done; is that correct? A. Well, it wasn't just one other project; it was a mandate, and it has to be done at a certain time. And the scheduling occurs nationwide, and therefore, if you miss the schedule date in Tacoma faucet that Lucent has given us, then it could be many more months later before Lucent would have another slot available to install that equipment. So it carries a lot more significance than just another job. Q. When you said it was a mandate, isn't it true that that whole project -- and let's just refer to permanent number portability as the project -- was a result of a Federal Communications Commission Order; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And in that order, isn't it true that the FCC set a schedule to phase in permanent number portability throughout the country; am I correct? A. Yes, through the ten largest MSAs, I believe, or 100 largest MSAs, I believe. Q. Do you recall when the FCC issued its permanent number portability order? A. No. I think it was sometime in 1996, but I don't recall. Q. Would you accept, subject to check, that it was July 1996? A. Yes. Q. Would you also accept, subject to check, that in the original order, Seattle was scheduled for implementation of permanent number portability in the first quarter of 1998? A. Yes. Q. Isn't it true, then, that US West started its work deploying permanent number portability in the Seattle area during the summer of 1997? A. Started, I believe, in -- actual deployment of the equipment started in April of '97. However, the actual planning work started in 1996. Q. Do you know the exact date when US West began to deploy the schedule -- the equipment in Seattle/Tacoma? A. April of 1997. Q. Just Seattle, I'm sorry. So isn't it fair to say, then, Mr. Wiseman, that any work that had to be done for deploying equipment on permanent number portability in Seattle, since it started in April of 1997, would have had no bearing or no impact on any facilities -- network facility issues that arose with MCI starting as early as March 1996 until April 1997? A. No, because there were other facility issues involved. We had to provide signaling system seven links for the database that was going to be installed. We had to increase the signaling links between our switches. We did not have to wait for that to occur or to begin before the actual installation of the long-term number portability functions in the switch, which was what we're addressing here as beginning in April of '97. So we were actually using up facility capacity that was available in the Seattle area to increase the size of the signaling links. Q. When did that start, then? A. It started in '96. I don't know exactly when. Q. Is it fair to say that it would have been after the FCC order? A. Yes. Q. On page three, line 25 of your testimony, you make the statement that US -- nor has US West ignored MCI's forecasted interconnection trunk requirements or exhibited anti-competitive conduct. Is that -- A. That's correct. Q. That's correct. I'd like you to look at the document that has been marked as Exhibit 113. Isn't it true, Mr. Wiseman, that US West did not include the forecast that MCI gave it on March 7th, 1996, into its network planning program? A. We did not include the forecast that MCI gave us at that time. Q. Thank you. A. We did not have a process to do so. However, we did, as this response goes on to explain, include a demand estimate for CLEC interconnection requirements. Q. You substituted your own estimate for what MCI had given? A. It wasn't a matter of substituting; it was a matter of modifying our systems to accept CLEC forecasts. And that modification was completed in the first quarter of '97. It was our understanding or our thoughts at the time, in 1996, that the initial demand of CLECs would be relatively small and we would be able to fulfill that from our existing capacity provisioned and then -- MR. HUNT: Excuse me. Your Honor -- THE WITNESS: -- we would grow those forecasts later. MR. HUNT: Excuse me, Mr. Wiseman. Your Honor, I would ask that the witness' last part of his answer be stricken. I asked a very simple question related to the data request. Ms. Anderl will have the opportunity on redirect to ask any questions she wants to ask. JUDGE BERG: I'm not going to strike the question. It sounded like it was responsive to me. Q. Mr. Wiseman, I'd have you look, then, again, at what is now Document 114. Isn't US West -- if I was to say isn't it true that US West did not include it in its network plan, would that be true? A. I would give you the same answer I gave on the last one. Q. And also, then, for Document 115, which relates to MCI's June 20th, 1996 forecast, would your answer be the same? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. I believe -- isn't it true, Mr. Wiseman -- I think you said first quarter of 1997, but isn't it really true that US West didn't develop or begin to gather CLEC forecasts and incorporate them into general trunk forecasts until April of 1997? A. April was the issue of the general trunk forecast that included those forecasts that you're referencing. But the process was completed in the first quarter in order to implement that and include them in the April GTF. Q. Isn't it true that US West destroys those forecasts or those general trunk forecasts after each quarter? A. No, it's not true that we destroy them. The system does not archive them, and therefore, it's a rolling forecast. And therefore, as the new forecast comes in, it replaces the old forecast. It's not destroyed by US West. Q. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wiseman, I'd like to draw your attention to what has been marked as exhibit -- and it's not in the package. It was an exhibit that was introduced yesterday, C-94, and was on the table separate from -- may I approach, Your Honor? I want to make sure he's got the right one. JUDGE BERG: Yes, sir. MR. HUNT: That's the one. Thanks. JUDGE BERG: Mr. Hunt, we're making reference to C-94; is that correct? MR. HUNT: Yes, I believe so. JUDGE BERG: Has that been given any other exhibit designation in this hearing? MR. HUNT: No, it was introduced through Ms. Aguilar yesterday. JUDGE BERG: All right. Thank you. Q. Mr. Wiseman, I'd like you to look at that document, specifically the language in the Why section of the document. Did you participate in the preparation or creation of the language contained in that section of the document? A. Excuse me. There's two documents attached. Q. I'm sorry, it's the second one of Attachment A. A. The 62WD631? Q. Yes. A. All right. Q. Did you participate in the preparation and the creation of any of the language in the Why section of that document? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you review or read the language in that section of the document within six months after its preparation? A. No. Q. Okay. Were you aware of the existence of the language in that section of the document when you filed your prefiled testimony in this proceeding? A. No, I wasn't. Q. Did you know of the existence of this specific document when you filed your testimony in the proceeding? A. No, I did not. Q. In your present job duties, then, would you have, at any time, prepared, created, reviewed a common funding document in the normal course of your business duties? A. No, I would not have prepared or filed one. Q. Okay. Mr. Wiseman, I'd ask you, then, to look at what is Document C-117. My apologies. C-116, please. I'm getting out of order. Mr. Wiseman, looking at the language in the Why section of this document, if I was to ask you the same questions I just asked you about, preparation of the document, review of the document, knowing of its existence when you filed your testimony, or would you have prepared this document during the course of your duties, would your answer be the same? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Wiseman, now I'd like you to look at C-117. And before we do that, just a definitional question. Would you agree that the acronym or designation AEC, as it's used in the telecommunications realm, is for an alternate exchange carrier or an alternative exchange carrier? A. Yes. Q. Now, if you would look at the Document C-117. In the What section of that document, if you would go up to the fifth line up from the bottom of the What section, there's a phrase at the end that starts with "This," and that's as much as I'll say. A. Yes. Q. Do you see that, that section? A. Yes, I do. Q. Did you participate in the preparation and creation of the language contained in this section of the document? A. No, I did not. Q. And just to speed things up a little, if I had asked you the same questions that I asked you about the previous two documents, about any role in preparing this document, knowing of its existence when you filed your testimony, would your answers be the same? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. Mr. Wiseman, I'd like you to take a look at what's been marked as Document C-120. And I'd like you to also take a look at the language in the Why section. A. All right. Q. Okay. If I was to ask you the same questions about your role in preparation of the document, would your answer be the same? A. Yes. Q. I'd like you now to look at document C-121. A. All right. Q. And on this document, Mr. Wiseman, isn't it true that at the time that it was prepared -- isn't it a fair statement to say this document contains projections or estimated exhaust dates at this switch after certain augments or this job that it discusses is completed? I'm directing your attention to the bottom of the trunk section of the document. This is for job 82WD652. A. Yes, that appears to be what it says. Q. Thank you. And I forget, did I ask you if you had any role in the preparation of this document? A. No, but my answer is the same. Q. It would be the same, okay. Thank you. One moment, Your Honor. If I may approach, Your Honor? JUDGE BERG: Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Wiseman, if you could please turn to Attachment Four, and on my copy, it is page six, Section 10.2.3. JUDGE BERG: Could I have that reference once more, Mr. Hunt? MR. HUNT: It's Section 10.2.3 of the permanent interconnection agreement, which is already in the record. And I apologize, I don't recall the hearing exhibit number. JUDGE BERG: I believe that's Exhibit 12. Yes. Q. Mr. Wiseman, I should probably start with a more basic foundation question. Do you recognize the document that we've put in front of you? A. Yes, it's an interconnection agreement. Q. And it's the interconnection agreement that was the result of an arbitration between MCI and US West before this Commission; is that correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. Were you a witness in that proceeding? A. Yes, I was. Q. And just very briefly, can you just tell me what you testified about in the arbitration? Were you the network witness for US West? A. I was one of the network witnesses for US West. I testified on switching, signaling system seven, unbundled elements, collocation. Q. Did you testify any on forecasts? A. No. Q. Mr. Wiseman, I would ask you to look at Section 10.2.3, and just tell me if you're familiar with that process that is laid out there? A. If I may for a minute, I do believe that in my testimony I referenced the fact that forecasts were necessary in order for us to build the network. Q. Thank you. A. But I don't believe that I talked in any detail about what was included in a forecast or any of that. Q. Thank you. JUDGE BERG: Excuse me, Mr. Hunt. Just for additional reference on the record, the section number you're referring to, 10.2.3 -- MR. HUNT: Yes. JUDGE BERG: Is that -- which part of the agreement? MR. HUNT: I'm sorry, Attachment Four. JUDGE BERG: Thank you. Q. All right. Are you familiar with that process that it outlines there? A. In 10.2.3? Q. Yes, and the subsections under it, the two subsections as well, I'm sorry. A. I'm familiar with the concept, yes. Q. And isn't it true, then, that US West, if it believes trunk groups aren't being utilized properly, can ask that the groups be resized? Isn't this a mechanism to do that? A. It appears that we could have a meeting and try to reconcile it. I believe that's what I read this to say. Q. Doesn't it say, though, that either side can issue an order to resize a trunk group, last part of Section 2.2.3.1? A. Yes, it does. Q. So it's fair to say that US West, if it feels trunk groups aren't being utilized properly, could issue an order to have them resized; isn't that fair? A. Yes. MR. HUNT: Your Honor, if I could have just maybe five minutes to confer with Mr. MacIver? JUDGE BERG: All right. Why don't we take a five-minute break and we'll be off the record. (Recess taken.) JUDGE BERG: Back on the record. Before we resume cross-examination of Mr. Wiseman, I will just re-note for the record that Commission Staff had made an objection to the Bench's ruling on the admissibility of Exhibit 85, or at least to the form of the admitted Exhibit 85. There was an off the record discussion during the break where the Assistant Attorney General made one suggestion for addressing Commission Staff's objection, and I'd like to go ahead and let Ms. Smith state that for the record. MS. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. Commission Staff did object to the admission of the pages of the deposition that were included on the condensed transcript page that were not referenced by Ms. Anderl, and Staff suggested that those pages that were not referenced by Ms. Anderl just be Xed out of the exhibit and not made part of the record. JUDGE BERG: I think that's a good suggestion. My understanding is that it may make it easier for Ms. Smith in the event that we need to address this record on appeal sometime in the future, which I'm sure we all hope will not happen. So just for the parties' information, the Exhibit 85, which is admitted into the record, will look something similar to this. MR. HUNT: Your Honor, that's fine with MCI. I would just -- for everyone's sake again, I have the original transcript, and I can leave the original pages, if that's what the Commission wants, or if this is what the Commission wants, that's fine. I just make the offer that the original transcript is here with me. JUDGE BERG: This works for me. What I'll probably do in the future is just direct the offering party to designate all ganged up pages as being relevant and deal with any objections there may be to those pages at that time. But in the meantime, this seems to be a satisfactory fix for all parties. MS. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. JUDGE BERG: Thank you, Ms. Smith. All r