BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION



MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES, INC.

Complainant,

         v.

U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Respondent.	    NO. UT-971063
	
	BRIEF OF COMMISSION STAFF

 The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Staff (“Staff”) submits 
this brief in support of its request that the Commission issue an order 
requiring US West Communications, Inc. (“US West”) to comply with state and 
federal laws, which mandate local exchange competition, and comply with its 
interconnection agreements with MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. 
(“MCImetro”).  Because this is the first complaint alleging violations of 
interconnection decisions and agreements in Washington, the Commission should 
send a strong message to US West that it must comply with its obligations to 
interconnect with its competitors.

I.  BACKGROUND
 A. The Law and Policy of the State of Washington Require Local Exchange 
Competition

 The Washington Legislature has made competition in telecommunications markets 
a matter of state policy.  RCW 80.36.300.  The Washington Supreme Court 
reiterated this policy in Electric Lightwave, Inc. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm’
n, 123 Wn.2d 530, 869 P.2d 1045 (1994), where the court rejected the argument 
that exclusive franchise service areas in the telecommunications industry were 
the law in Washington.  Thus, it is state policy to promote competition in the 
local exchange. 
 The Commission regulates, in the public interest, the rates, services, 
facilities, and practices of public utility companies, including 
telecommunications companies.  RCW 80.01.040.  In so regulating, the Commission 
must implement the state policy favoring competition in the telecommunications 
markets.
 In keeping with its mandate to promote competition in the local exchange, the 
Commission entered into a proceeding to decide the “terms and conditions under 
which competitors for local exchange service will interconnect their networks 
in order to exchange traffic between their customers.”  Fourth Supplemental 
Order Rejecting Tariff Filings and Ordering Refiling; Granting Complaints, In 
Part, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission v. US West 
Communications, Inc., (“Interconnection Case”), Consolidated Docket Nos. 
UT-941464, -941465, -950146, -950265, at 6 (Oct. 31, 1995).  In that order, the 
Commission explained how interconnection is necessary to ensure competition in 
the local exchange:
Technically and economically efficient interconnection of the incumbent LEC and 
new entrant [alternative local exchange company] ALEC networks is essential to 
the emergence of a competitive local exchange market.  Denial of technically 
and economically efficient interconnection arrangements creates a barrier to 
entry. The Commission is persuaded that ALECs should have considerable 
flexibility to configure their networks in a manner they deem suitable.

Id. at 45.  In the Fourth Supplemental Order, the Commission directed US West 
to file interconnection tariffs.  Id. at 97-99.  In addition, the Commission 
expressly rejected the contention that a company’s obligation to interconnect 
is limited to the availability of facilities:
The Commission will not allow any carrier, regardless of the terms offered to 
its own customers, to condition its obligation to interconnect at meet points 
and to complete local calls delivered by originating carriers on the 
availability of facilities.

Ninth Supplemental Order Rejecting Tariff Filings, Interconnection Case, at 19 
(March 13, 1996).  This complaint involves the Commission’s orders in the 
Interconnection Case as well as the statutes and rules governing 
telecommunications companies in the State of Washington.
 B. Local Exchange Competition Is Mandated by Federal Law
 In addition to the laws and policies of the State of Washington requiring 
competition in the local exchange, Congress also has mandated local competition 
on a national level.  On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
(“Act”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq, became law.  The purpose of the Act is to:
[P]rovide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework 
designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced 
telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans 
by opening all telecommunications markets to competition . . . .
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 113 (1996).  As an incumbent 
local exchange carrier, US West is obligated by the Act to, among other things, 
interconnect with competitive providers, such as MCImetro.  47 U.S.C. § 
251(c)(2).  US West must interconnect its network with MCImetro “at any 
technically feasible point” and the interconnection provided by US West must be 
“at least equal in quality” to the interconnection it provides to itself.  Id. 
 The Act provides that telecommunications companies will provide 
interconnection pursuant to agreements that are negotiated by the parties, 
arbitrated by state commissions, or both.  47 U.S.C. § 252(a) and (b).  The 
agreements must be consistent with the Act and state law and policy.  47 U.S.C. 
§ 252(e).
 C. The Interconnection Agreements Between US West and MCImetro
  1. The September 1, 1995 Interconnection Agreement
 The September 1, 1995, agreement was executed between MCImetro and US West 
pending the outcome of the Interconnection Case.  Exh. 10 at 1.  Under this 
agreement, US West initially was to provide one T-1 trunk for termination of 
local traffic and two T-1 trunks for origination and termination of 
interexchange toll traffic from US West’s tandem switch to MCImetro’s Class 5 
switch.  Id. at 2.  This agreement also provided that the parties may order 
additional quantities of the above as growth may require.  In addition to these 
facilities, the agreement clearly contemplated that either party might order 
more than eight DS1s.  Id.  This agreement was effective September 1, 1995.
  2. The Interim Agreement
 MCImetro and US West entered into an interim interconnection agreement pending 
execution of a definitive agreement pursuant to the Act.  Exh. 11 at 2.  The 
interim agreement was effective August 26, 1996 and superseded the provisions 
of the September 1995 agreement. Id. at 4.
 Among other things, this agreement provided that both parties would work 
toward the development of joint forecasting for traffic utilization over trunk 
groups.  In situations where one party’s requirements exceed forecasted 
quantities for forecasted locations, the facilities would be provisioned as 
available, with the further agreement that the parties would use their best 
reasonable efforts to meet the requirements as quickly as possible.  Id. at 5.  
If MCImetro’s and US West’s forecasts were to vary by more than 24 DS0 trunks, 
the parties would try to reconcile the difference to within 24 DS0s.  However, 
should the parties not be able to reconcile the difference, the trunk groups 
would be provisioned at the higher forecast.  Id.
 This agreement also provided that US West would “to the greatest commercially 
reasonably extent possible” make available additional trunking facilities at 
the Seattle and Tacoma tandems.  Id. at 32-33.  In situations where capacity 
shortage may occur at the tandems, the agreement provided for direct end-office 
trunking (DEOT).
  3. The Definitive Agreement
 MCImetro and US West entered into an interconnection agreement that was the 
result of negotiation and arbitration pursuant to the Act.  This agreement was 
effective August 20, 1997. This agreement also provided for forecasting and 
provisioning of trunk groups.  Exh. 12, Attachment 4.  This agreement is on 
appeal to the United States District Court, Western District of Washington.  It 
has not been stayed.
 D. MCImetro’s Complaint
 On June 24, 1997, MCImetro filed a complaint against US West alleging, among 
other things, that US West failed to provide adequate interconnection 
facilities to accommodate the interconnection of its telecommunications network 
with MCImetro’s network.  MCImetro asks the Commission to order US West to 
provide sufficient and adequate facilities to permit interconnection in a 
reasonable, efficient, and timely manner, and to notify MCImetro of predicted 
capacity constraints in advance.  MCImetro also asked the Commission to order 
US West to reduce the blocking experienced by MCImetro’s customers to a level 
no greater than the blocking experienced by US West’s end-use customers.  In 
addition, MCImetro requested that the Commission find that US West subjected 
MCImetro to unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage and failed to provide 
MCImetro with nondiscriminatory access to non-competitive services.  Finally, 
MCImetro asks the Commission to impose penalties against US West for its 
violations of the public service laws.  Compl. at 14-15.
II.  ARGUMENT
 A. US West Failed to Comply With Its Obligation to Provide Interconnection

  1. MCImetro’s First Request for Interconnection at the Seattle Tandem (Compl. 
¶¶ 11-19)

 On March 5, 1996, MCImetro requested nine DS1s for local one-way outgoing 
traffic from its switch in Seattle to US West’s local tandem switch in 
Seattle.  Exh. 41.  Rather than provision this order, US West informed MCImetro 
that it did not have sufficient ports to fill the order.  Exh. 44.  US West did 
not have sufficient capacity in March of 1996 to fill this order even though 
the September 1, 1995 interconnection agreement put US West on notice that 
MCImetro would likely order at least 8 DS1s.  Exh. 10.
 As explained by Staff witness David Griffith, US West’s lack of facilities has 
a negative effect on competition:
[I]f the incumbent local exchange company does not have adequate trunks, there 
will be an adverse impact on both the incumbent’s customers and the customers 
of its competitors.  In this instance, MCImetro must use US West’s trunk 
network for completing calls between MCImetro’s customers and US West’s 
customers.  If MCImetro cannot obtain any trunks from US West, it will be 
impossible for MCImetro to provide service.  On the other hand if US West does 
provide trunks, but cannot fully meet MCImetro’s requests for peak loads, 
service quality will suffer.  In either case,  MCImetro and other carriers, 
cannot compete effectively.

Exh. T-108 at 4-5, ll. 18-21, 1-5.
 Concerned about the lack of capacity, MCImetro informed US West that it was 
delaying customer orders and experiencing customer blockage in a letter dated 
April 3, 1996.  Exh. 43. Thus, US West was fully aware that its failure to 
provision the order adversely impacted MCImetro’s attempts to compete in the 
local exchange.  Despite this knowledge, US West canceled MCImetro’s order for 
nine DS1s on the grounds that MCImetro had failed to provide US West with a 
forecast and because MCImetro did not provide US West with its “NXX” numbers 
for the trunks.  See Exh. T-29 at 3.  US West’s cancellation of this order was 
unreasonable.
 First, the order was placed on March 5, 1996, and on that day US West informed 
MCImetro that it could not provision the order due to lack of ports.  Exh. T-40 
at 5.  Based on discussions with US West, MCImetro understood that the order 
would be filled on April 17, 1996, after US West completed its tandem port 
augment.  Exh. 44.  This date was later changed to April 21, 1997.
 Having told MCImetro that the March 5, 1996, order could not be filled because 
of capacity exhaust, US West informed MCImetro for the first time on April 17, 
1996 that it had canceled the order.  Prior to that date, MCImetro had no 
indication that there were any problems with its order and was simply waiting 
for US West to address its capacity shortages.  It was unreasonable for US West 
claim it could not complete an order because of its capacity problems and then, 
following communication with MCImetro regarding the resolution of these 
problems, cancel the order for totally unrelated reasons and keep the fact of 
the cancellation a secret from MCImetro for 43 days.
 Second, it was unreasonable for US West to cancel the order for lack of a 
forecast.  By the terms of the September 1, 1995 interconnection agreement US 
West was on notice that MCImetro likely would be seeking at least eight DS1s.  
Exh. 10 at 2.  In addition, nothing in the September 1, 1995 agreement required 
forecasts, and nothing in the agreement would allow US West to cancel an order 
because MCImetro did not submit a forecast.  In any event, MCImetro provided US 
West with a forecast on March 7, 1997 and a revised forecast on April 15, 1996. 
Exhs. 44; C-45. 
 Third, US West should not have canceled the order for lack of MCImetro’s “NXX” 
numbers.  US West did not need the numbers in order to provide the trunks.  MCI 
had requested one-way outgoing trunks and MCImetro’s NXX numbers are not needed 
to route outgoing calls from MCImetro to US West.  Exh. T-65 at 10-11.  
Further, US West did not even request the NXX numbers until April 23, 1996, 
after it had informed MCImetro that it had canceled the order.  Exh. 44.
 MCImetro resubmitted its order for the nine DS1s on April 17, 1996, and also 
submitted two other orders, one for 15 additional DS1 one-way outgoing trunks, 
and another for two DS1 two-way IXC trunks.  Exh. 44.
 The resubmitted order was rejected for yet another reason.  US West’s fourth 
excuse for failing to provision the order was because its tandem could not 
support B8ZS clear channel capacity.  Exh. 44.  US West earlier had informed 
MCImetro that its entire network was B8ZS ready.  Id.; see also Exh. 33 (US 
West told MCImetro prior to March 5, 1996 that it should be “no problem” to 
have DS1 trunks designed B8ZS).  US West communicated this problem to MCImetro 
on April 22, 1996.  MCImetro supplemented its order for a lesser quality 
alternative to B8ZS.
 Notwithstanding US West’s delays and excuses, US West finally installed the 
trunks on May 14, 1996.  Exh. T-40 at 8.  MCImetro had waited 70 days for its 
order to be filled.
  2. MCImetro’s Second Request for Interconnection at the Seattle Tandem 
(Compl. ¶¶ 20-31)

 On August 19, 1996, MCImetro informed US West that it would need additional 
capacity at the Seattle tandem in mid-September.  Exh. T-40 at 9.  US West’s 
response to MCImetro was that US West still had no port capacity at its Seattle 
tandem, and had no plans to increase capacity in the near future.  Id.
 As set forth in the Interim Agreement, in situations where capacity is 
exhausted at the tandem, the parties agreed to an end office trunking plan to 
enable traffic to be completed between the companies’ subscribers.  Exh. 11 at 
34.  As provided by the agreement, MCImetro proposed direct end-office trunks 
(“DEOT”) as an interim solution to the tandem capacity problem.  Exh. T-40 at 
9.  DEOT would allow MCImetro to bypass US West’s constrained tandem by 
purchasing trunks that would connect directly to US West’s end-offices.  Id.
 While DEOT would allow traffic to flow between US West’s subscribers and 
MCImetro’s subscribers, it was not an ideal solution.  DEOT is more expensive 
for MCImetro than interconnecting at the tandem.  By using DEOT, MCImetro would 
be required to purchase interconnection to most, if not all, of US West’s 
end-offices in the Seattle area.  On the other hand, interconnection at a 
single point, such as the tandem, would allow MCImetro to cover the same 
geographic area with a single connection.  Id.  Thus, US West’s failure to 
interconnect with MCImetro at the tandem increased MCImetro’s cost of entering 
the local market.
 Even though the parties had agreed in the Interim Agreement to use DEOT when 
the tandem was at capacity, US West was not prepared to implement DEOT.  US 
West agreed to the DEOT solution, after a two week dely to consider the 
proposal.  Id. at 10-11.  
 Prior to ordering the DEOTs, MCImetro needed information from US West in order 
to make the best and most efficient choice of US West end-offices for direct 
trunking.  Id. at 11. MCImetro requested US West provide it with end-office 
recommendations based on actual traffic data for call originating on US West’s 
network and terminating on MCImetro’s network. US West was either unwilling or 
unable to provide this information.  Therefore, on November 26, 1996,  MCImetro 
ordered DEOTs to the five US West end-offices with the largest number of access 
lines.  MCImetro also believed DEOTs to these end-offices would alleviate some 
of the blocking problems it had been experiencing.  Id. at 12-13.
 US West did not fill the orders for the DEOTs.  Instead, US West informed 
MCImetro that it could not complete the orders because of port constraints at 
the end offices.  MCImetro witness Robert Iannotta aptly described MCImetro’s 
dilemma:
US West’s refusal to provide capacity at its tandem or in the requested end 
offices created a “Catch-22” situation for MCImetro:  Unable to get the 
necessary capacity from US West at the Seattle tandem that it needed to provide 
service, MCImetro undertook an expensive and time intensive solution only to be 
told that there was no capacity at the end offices.

Id. at 13, ll. 13-17.   
 The DEOTs finally were delivered on January 8, 1997.  MCImetro originally had 
informed US West that it needed capacity beginning in mid-September.  MCImetro’
s planned interconnection, another small step in the direction toward local 
exchange competition, was delayed by US West for over three months.  The DEOTs 
were delayed over 24 days from the date they were ordered.  This delay exceeds 
US West’s standard provisioning intervals.  Exh. 100.
 Even when MCImetro’s requests for DEOTs were installed, significant blocking 
occurred, which resulted in MCImetro requesting additional DEOTs, which were 
installed at intervals exceeding US West’s standard provisioning intervals.  
Id. at 14-15.  The blocking continued and MCImetro discovered that US West did 
not have the complete NXX dialing codes loaded for the MCImetro’ DEOTs in its 
switches, even though MCImetro had provided the numbers to US West.  Id. at 
16.  As a result, the end-office switches were continuing to route the calls to 
US West’s overloaded tandem.  Ironically, it was to avoid the blocking at this 
tandem that MCImetro had implemented the more expensive DEOT solution.  Because 
of the significant blocking problems, MCImetro cut its sales plans for the 
Seattle market.  Exh. T-20 at 8. This result is the exact opposite of the 
intent of the federal Act and state policy to promote local competition.
  3. MCImetro’s Request for Interconnection at the Tacoma Tandem (Compl. ¶¶ 
32-35)

 Early in 1997, MCImetro entered the Tacoma market when it ordered and received 
48 circuits between its switch in Seattle and US West’s Tacoma tandem.  Id. at 
18.  However, as in Seattle, MCImetro experienced significant blocking problems 
at US West’s Tacoma tandem and requested additional capacity.  And again, US 
West failed to provide adequate facilities.
 MCImetro ordered additional capacity on June 3, 1997.  Id.  US West informed 
MCImetro the Tacoma tandem was out of port capacity and that US West did not 
intend to address the capacity problem until at least October 31, 1997.  Id. at 
19.  Although MCImetro had provided US West with its forecasted needs on May 1, 
1997, US West was totally unprepared to provide additional capacity in June.  
US West suggested DEOT for Tacoma.  While DEOT was an alternative to 
interconnection at the tandem, it was not MCImetro’s preference because it is 
more expensive, and as detailed below, DEOT would cause further delay.
 In order to facilitate DEOT, MCImetro needed to purchase a DS3 transport 
facility from MCImetro’s Seattle switch to US West’s Tacoma central office, 
which would be used to transport the traffic from the DEOTs to MCImetro’s 
switch.  Id.  MCImetro ordered the DS3 on June 18, 1997, and US West gave 
MCImetro a delivery date of June 26, 1997 for the DS3.  Id. However, US West 
canceled that order because it could not be filled in accordance with US West’s 
tariff.  Id. at 20.
 The tariff issue was a billing issue and for several months MCImetro, MCI 
Telecommunications Corporation and US West worked out the details.  When the 
billing details were resolved, MCImetro again requested the DS3 and US West 
gave a delivery date of September 10, 1997 for the facility.  US West did not 
deliver the DS3 as promised, but rescheduled the delivery date to December 4, 
1997,  because it did not have sufficient interoffice facilities.  Id.; see 
also Exh. 57.  However, US West was able to deliver the DS3 on November 5, 
1997.  Id.
 With the installation of the DS3, MCImetro was finally ready to order the 
DEOTs in Tacoma.  The delivery of these trunks was delayed.  Id. at 20.  US 
West finally installed trunks to the Tacoma tandem on November 10, 1997.   
However, the delays and insufficient capacity had a devastating impact on 
MCImetro’s ability to enter the local market.  As stated by MCImetro witness 
Drew Londgren:
MCImetro believes that it could be providing service to more customers if US 
West provided sufficient network capacity.  While the number of customers grows 
slowly, MCImetro has had to revise downward its sales plan to take into account 
the barriers to market entry that MCImetro has had to overcome.

Exh. T-1, at 7.  This result is contrary to the pro-competitive policies of 
Congress, the Washington Legislature and the Commission.
 B. US West Failed to Incorporate MCImetro’s Forecasts Into Its Own Network 
Forecasts and Otherwise Failed To Adequately Forecast for Network Growth 

 As in any industry, forecasting demand is important in telecommunications.  
However, forecasts, by their nature, will rarely be exact:
The art of forecasting has always required the inclusion of unknown factors, 
because forecasting is an attempt at predicting the future.  Some factors are 
considered to be somewhat of an unknown quantity because they may not be fully 
quantifiable.  However, these factors are relevant and are known to have an 
impact on the final results. 

Exh. T-108 at 8, ll. 7-13.  

 In an attempt to shift the focus of MCImetro’s complaint from US West’s 
failure to provide adequate facilities, US West witness, Craig Wiseman 
testified that US West was a victim of unanticipated demand and was unable to 
meet the unprecedented growth requirements on its network.   Mr. Wiseman cited 
the growth in the internet, CLEC interconnection and long-term number 
portability as unanticipated demands on its network.  Exh. 110 at 2.  None of 
these factors justifies US West’s failure to have adequate capacity.
 As Mr. Griffith explained, US West has known for years that there will be 
local exchange competition.  The Electric Lightwave decision was issued in 1994 
and the Commission issued its order in the Interconnection Case in 1995.  Nor 
did the Telecommunications Act of 1996 take anyone in the industry by 
surprise.  US West knew CLEC interconnection was forthcoming yet did not have 
the capacity in place.  Likewise, the rapid growth of the internet has been 
known for years.  US West should have taken these factors into consideration 
when building its facilities, both for the sake of competitors and its own 
subscribers.
 Mr. Wiseman also mentioned long-term number portability.  However, this was 
not in place in the Seattle and Tacoma areas during the timeframe of the 
complaint.  Long-term number portability cannot excuse US West’s failure to 
have adequate capacity.
 MCImetro and US West provided for forecasts in the Interim Agreement.  This 
agreement, which was in effect from August 26, 1996 to August 20, 1997, 
provided that the parties would try to reconcile their forecasts:
If differences in quarterly forecasts of the parties vary by more than 24 
additional DS0 two-way trunks, the companies shall meet to attempt to reconcile 
the forecasts to within 24 DS0 trunks.  If the parties are unable to reach such 
a reconciliation, the Local Interconnection Trunk Groups will be provisioned to 
the higher forecast.

Exh. 11 at p. 5.  The parties anticipated that they would exchange forecasts, 
and in the event the forecasts differed, the higher forecast would be used.  
This agreement also included a provision to alleviate the affects of 
over-forecasting:
At the end of three months, the utilization of the Local Interconnection Trunk 
Groups will be reviewed and if the average CCS utilization for the third month 
is under 75 percent (75%) of the capacity, either party may issue an order to 
resize the trunk group, which shall be left with not less than 25 percent (25%) 
excess capacity.  In the event that such resizing is necessary, the party whose 
higher forecast was used as the basis for the original provisioning will 
reimburse the other party for the expense of resizing based upon applicable 
tariff rates for service installation charges.

Id. at 5-6
 MCImetro provided forecasts to US West.  See Exhs. C52, C-53, C-54; see also, 
Exh. 10 at 2.  Because US West did not have capacity at the Seattle and Tacoma 
tandems or at its end-offices, it is clear that US West did not incorporate 
MCImetro’s forecasts into its own forecasts for network management and growth.  
In failing to incorporate MCImetro’s forecasts into its network plans, US West 
ensured that it would not have capacity available to fulfill MCImetro’s 
requests.
 C. US West’s Refusal to Expand its Facilities for CLEC Interconnection Was 
Dictated By Company Policy

 Rather than comply with state and federal law and policy directing local 
exchange competition, US West instituted a company policy designed to ensure 
that competition would either not take hold or, if attempted, would not be 
successful.  This company policy is set forth in Exhibit C-94:
***Confidential ***

See also Exh. C-116.  The documents that contain this policy statement are used 
for planning additional network capacity.  As these documents reveal, 
***Confidential***  Despite the fact that US West may go through the motions of 
entering into interconnection agreements, it clearly does not intend to comply 
with its legal obligation to interconnect.

 D. CLEC Demands on US West’s Network Are Nominal And Are Not an Excuse for US 
West’s Refusal to Accommodate MCImetro’s Requests for Interconnection

 It is clear from the record in this case that CLEC demands on US West’s 
network are not so great as to justify US West’s refusal to fill MCImetro’s 
orders or US West’s delay of those orders.  Highly confidential evidence in the 
record shows that ***Confidential***  See Tr. Vol. 9, pp. 830-36; Exh. HC-124, 
HC-141.  Staff witness Mr. Griffith’s review of highly confidential US West 
internal documents highlighted this fact:
The data revealed that during that time frame USWC added to its Tacoma tandem 
switch well over 1,000 new tandem trunks while MCI had only requested 120 
tandem trunks.  At the same time USWC had more than 5,000 trunks terminating on 
the tandem.  Since movement of customers to MCI’s network would have relieved 
some of the congestion pressures on US West’s network, it is difficult to 
understand why US West refused to accommodate MCI’s requests.

 Exh. T-109 at 5. By adding over 1,000 new tandems, US West added 42 DS1s, while MCImetro had 
requested only 5 DS1s.  This data reveals that when capacity is available, its 
is not used to accommodate the interconnection requests of CLECs.  This 
exemplifies US West’s corporate policy not to proactively engineer its network 
for CLECs.
 E. US West’s Refusal to Interconnect With MCImetro Violates the State 
Constitution, State and Federal Law, the Commission’s Orders, and Its 
Interconnection Agreements with MCImetro

  1. US West Violated the Washington Constitution

 The Washington Constitution requires telecommunications companies to transmit 
each other’s messages without delay or discrimination.  Wash. Const. art. XII, 
§ 19.  US West’s failure and refusal to interconnect with MCImetro is a 
violation of the Washington Constitution.

  2. US West Violated State Law
 Various provisions of state law require US West to interconnect with other 
telecommunications companies and prohibit anticompetitive and discriminatory 
behavior between companies.  US West’s constitutional requirement to 
interconnect is reiterated in RCW 80.36.200, which requires all 
telecommunications companies to “receive, transmit and deliver, without 
discrimination or delay” the traffic of other carriers.  Under state law, US 
West is required to perform its obligation to interconnect with MCImetro in a 
“prompt, expeditious and efficient manner” and maintain its network so that its 
facilities are “modern, adequate, sufficient and efficient.”  RCW 80.36.080.  
US West also must provide “suitable and proper facilities and connections” as 
demanded.  RCW 80.36.090.  US West failure to have adequate facilities for 
interconnection and its refusal to interconnect in a timely manner, if at all, 
violates these statutes.
 US West also is prohibited from treating its competitors in an anticompetive 
and discriminatory manner.  US West is prohibited from subjecting another 
carrier to “any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect 
whatsoever.”  RCW 80.36.170.  US West also is prohibited from granting to 
itself an “undue or unreasonable preference or advantage” with respect to 
access to noncompetitive services, nor may it subject MCImetro with any “undue 
or unreasonable prejudice or competitive disadvantage” with respect to such 
access.  RCW 80.36.186.  US West severely prejudiced and disadvantaged MCImetro 
when it refused to interconnect in a timely manner and when its inadequate 
tandem capacity required MCImetro to interconnect using the more expensive 
DEOT.  US West’s clear advantage to itself is illustrated by the fact that when 
capacity is available, US West uses that capacity for itself and will not 
accommodate CLEC interconnection.  US West’s has violated RCW 80.36.170 and 
.186.
  3. US West Violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996
 The Act requires ILECs, such as US West, to interconnect with CLECs.  Although 
US West entered into negotiations with MCImetro and participated in the 
arbitration of the interconnection agreement, US West has not complied with the 
provisions of that agreement.  US West’s failure to interconnect with MCImetro 
as requested is a violation of the Act and is contrary to the stated purpose of 
the Act.
  4. US West Violated the Commission’s Orders in the Interconnection Case.
 Under the provisions of the Commission’s orders in the Interconnection Case, 
US West is responsible for building and maintaining its facilities up to the 
meet point for exchanging traffic. Interconnection Case, 4th Supp. Order, at 
46.  US West has failed to provide the facilities necessary in order to 
exchange traffic between its end-use customers and MCImetro’s end-use 
customers.  The record in this case is replete with evidence that US West 
conditions interconnection on the availability of facilities.  This is in 
direct violation of the Commission’s Ninth Supplemental Order in the 
Interc