BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


MCImetro ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES, INC.,

 Complainant,

v.

U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

 Respondent.	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)	
		
		DOCKET NO. UT-971063
		
		 

 
 
U S WEST'S REPLY BRIEF



July 31, 1998


REPLY TO MCI’S OPENING BRIEF
I.  INTRODUCTION
 MCI, as well as Commission Staff and TRACER, seem to believe that they have 
discovered an item of huge significance in the common funding document, 
document ID 62WD631, Exhibit C-94.  All of the other parties tried to assign 
enormous significance to this document, largely because it is the only shred of 
evidence which even appears to support MCI’s grand conspiracy theory.  In fact, 
upon closer and more careful analysis, it is clear that this document provides 
no support for MCI’s absurd theory of the case.  The simple fact of the matter 
is that this document, as evidenced by the dates contained on the first page, 
was prepared during late 1996.  At that time, U S WEST did not, in fact, have a 
process in place to incorporate CLEC forecasts into its general trunk 
forecasts.  This fact is undisputed on the record.  What is also undisputed is 
that U S WEST considered each and every single one of MCI’s forecasts and 
believed that those orders could be filled out of existing capacity.  (Exhs. 
113-115, C-132-135; Tr. 778-779).  
 In fact, if U S WEST had not been faced with the unprecedented and 
unforeseeable growth on its network during the 1996 through 1998, U S WEST 
could have filled those orders out of existing capacity.  In addition, as 
exemplified by the June 1996 order for capacity at the Seattle tandem, U S WEST 
did fill MCI’s orders out of existing capacity when such capacity was 
available.  Beginning in April 1997, U S WEST did begin to incorporate MCI’s 
forecasts into its general trunk forecasts, as well as the forecasts of other 
CLECs.  The testimony of Mr. Wiseman is undisputed on this matter.  Mr. Wiseman 
also clearly establishes that Exhibit C-94 did not contain a statement of 
corporate policy, and that U S WEST did not ever have a corporate policy as MCI 
alleges the common funding document establishes.  (Tr. 811).
 As instructed by the Administrative Law Judge, U S WEST’s reply brief follows 
the format of MCI’s and other parties’ opening briefs.  U S WEST expressly 
disagrees with many of the headings used, but has followed that format for ease 
of reference.
II.  STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Interconnection is Essential for a Competitive Local Market.
 U S WEST agrees that interconnection is essential.  U S WEST takes its legal 
obligations to interconnect very seriously and has never denied interconnection 
to any competitive local exchange carrier, nor has U S WEST conditioned its 
obligation to interconnect on the availability of facilities.  However, MCI’s 
focus on the importance of interconnection conveniently ignores the fact that 
MCI also has obligations as far as interconnection is concerned.  Chief amongst 
those obligations is the obligation to provide accurate and timely forecasts to 
U S WEST and to place orders for capacity consistent with the forecasted 
quantities.  MCI has done neither and has largely created most of the 
difficulty it faced by its own inability to plan for future growth.  
B. The Commission’s Orders in the Interconnection Case.
 U S WEST agrees that the Commission’s decisions in the interconnection case 
contain the language set forth in MCI’s brief.  However, the essential element 
that MCI misses in this discussion is that U S WEST could not plan for 
interconnection in advance of MCI’s provision of forecasts or actual orders.  
MCI did not advise U S WEST as to when and where MCI desired interconnection, 
or in what quantity.  Plain and simple, U S WEST could not have been expected 
to build its network out for interconnection absent those essential facts.  
C. U S WEST has not Created a Barrier to Entry.

 U S WEST has addressed the allegations in its opening brief that it ignored 
the forecasts provided by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers.  This allegation 
is demonstrably false.  The evidence on the record clearly shows that U S WEST 
considered all of the forecasts and determined that the quantities could be 
provisioned out of the existing capacity.  (Exhs. 113-115, C-132-135, Tr. 
778-779).
 Nor does highly Confidential Exhibit 140 demonstrate anything to the contrary, 
in spite of MCI’s attempts to argue that it does.  Highly Confidential Exhibit 
140 was a very early market loss projection and forecast by U S WEST.  U S WEST 
had no way to know when and where CLECs would enter the market and the forecast 
was by definition at that point a “best guess.”  Furthermore, although U S WEST 
might have been able to forecast market share loss in the aggregate, it had no 
ability to forecast where the market share would be lost, i.e., out of which 
central offices, or what type of trunking capacity would be required to fill 
orders by CLECs to accommodate the CLEC acquisition of U S WEST customers.
 U S WEST has submitted many common funding and network planning documents into 
the record in this docket and provided dozens more to MCI in response to data 
requests.  (Exhs. C-116-122).  U S WEST would simply point out that the other 
common funding document which was a part of Exhibit C-94, a document which 
post-dates Document ID 62WD631, does indicate that the network planning 
directly incorporates CLEC forecasts and anticipated capacity demand, 
indicating that 28% of the additional trunks are for handling the CLEC impact.  
 MCI notes on page 7 of its brief that at the end of 1997 it actually had 125 
DS1s in service in Seattle and Tacoma.  U S WEST does not dispute this number 
and in fact believes that it establishes that contrary to MCI’s allegations 
throughout this case, U S WEST has been meeting its obligation to interconnect 
with MCI.  Nothing could be more tangible or credible evidence of the fact that 
U S WEST is meeting its obligation to interconnect than the fact of MCI’s 
interconnection with 3,000 DSOs in service as of seven months ago.  
 Finally, U S WEST would address MCI’s discussion of MCI’s “problems” in other 
states.  There is simply no evidence on this record that MCI faced any 
difficulties in Denver, Phoenix or Portland, nor is there evidence that U S 
WEST has failed to adequately provision facilities in those cities.  The 
network capacity issues which effected U S WEST in Seattle were present 
regionwide and to the extent that any network capacity shortages did exist in 
Seattle or other cities, they could be attributed to the same factors presented 
in this case, i.e., CLEC interconnection, internet usage, and vendor facilities 
shortages due to number portability implementation.  MCI goes on to make much 
of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Decision in the MCI complaint in 
that state.  U S WEST does not deny that the Minnesota Commission decision was 
adverse to it in some respects.  However, significantly, the Minnesota 
Commission found specifically that no penalties were appropriate in that 
complaint.  The Minnesota Commission weighed MCI’s theory of the case and MCI’s 
allegation that U S WEST’s conduct was some sort of an overall plan, design, or 
conspiracy to block entry into the local market.  The Commission also 
considered U S WEST’s position and argument that it was, in fact, caught by 
surprise by the demands on the network that were unforeseeable.  The Minnesota 
Commission found U S WEST’s position to be the more credible one and as such 
declined to refer the matter to the Attorney General’s Office for the 
assessment of penalties.  
D. The Importance of Interconnection at the Tandem.
 U S WEST has addressed the issue of tandem interconnection in its opening 
brief at pages 14-15 and will not repeat those arguments here.  
E. The 1995 Interim Interconnection Agreement.
 U S WEST believes that the 1995 interim interconnection agreement is 
significant because U S WEST recognized its obligation to interconnect under 
Washington State law well before the passage of the Federal Act and prior even 
to any Commission decisions on the issue.  U S WEST voluntarily entered into an 
agreement with MCImetro for local interconnection, belying any suggestion that 
U S WEST had any intent, plan, or design to slow MCI’s entry into the local 
market.  
F. U S WEST’s Interconnection Response to the March and April, 1996 Orders.
 MCI spent 3-1/2 pages of its brief complaining that U S WEST refused to 
interconnect in March and April, 1996.  MCI ignores the fact that it submitted 
its first order in violation of the interim interconnection agreement which 
required that MCImetro provide a forecast prior to placing an order.  (Exh. 
T-29 at 3 and Exh. 14, letter of 3/7/96).  Furthermore, U S WEST had no way of 
knowing that MCI was going to place its orders in March, after entering into an 
interconnection agreement in September the year before.  U S WEST’s switch was 
already out of capacity at the time MCI placed the orders and a switch growth 
job was well under way.  This job was completed in May of 1996 and MCI’s 
facilities were provisioned at that time, on May 14, 1996.  The fact that MCI 
placed orders for and received facilities in quantities almost triple MCI’s 
initial projections of its capacity needs, indicates that U S WEST did 
everything in its power to provision MCI’s facilities in a timely manner.  Any 
suggestion that U S WEST refused to interconnect in March and April of 1996 is 
unsupported on this record and is patently false.  
G. The 1996 Interim Interconnection Agreement.
H. Throughout 1996 and 1997, MCImetro Continued to Complain as a Result of 
Capacity Issues in Seattle.

 U S WEST provisioned additional orders for MCI’s facilities out of its 
existing capacity in June, 1996.  However, due to the unprecedented and 
unforeseeable growth on the network, U S WEST once again faced capacity 
constraints and early exhaust at the tandem in August of 1996.  A growth job on 
that switch to add capacity had already been scheduled and was projected to be 
complete in March, 1997.  As described in the testimony of Mr. Wiseman, and as 
is unrebutted by any party to this proceeding, it simply takes at least seven 
months to add capacity when facilities are not in place.  MCI goes on to 
complain at great length about the DEOT solution in the Seattle switch.  
Ironically, U S WEST has proposed direct end office trunking solutions as early 
as March, 1996.  (Exh. C-76).  The unrebutted testimony of Mr. Dodd in this 
matter establishes that the DEOT solution was a solution that the parties 
worked through jointly and cooperatively.  The fact that MCI now seeks to twist 
the DEOT situation into a basis for a complaint, alleging “a two week delay” is 
entirely inconsistent with the efforts of the parties in September, 1996 to 
reach a solution.
 Furthermore, U S WEST is baffled as to how MCI can complain about the DEOT 
solution, when the 1996 and 1997 agreements both specifically provide for 
direct end office trunking when the tandem capacity is exhausted.  Thus, DEOT 
was entirely consistent with both of the interconnection agreements.  Whether 
MCI believed the solution to be more efficient or not is entirely irrelevant, 
as it was required under the 1996 and 1997 interconnection agreements.  (Exh. 
11, Appendix B, ¶ 3.3 and Exh. 12, Attachment 4, ¶ 10.4).
 MCI also complains about the lack of actual traffic data for calls originating 
at U S WEST and terminating to MCImetro.  U S WEST has stated countless times 
on this record, and the testimony is unrebutted, that it does not have such 
data available to it.  The fact that Mr. Iannotta may or may not have gotten 
such data from other incumbent LECs is entirely irrelevant to the matter at 
issue in this case.  There is no testimony from any witness in this docket that 
suggests that U S WEST had the data and refused to provide it.
 U S WEST acknowledges that the NXX translations were not initially entered 
correctly to route the traffic off the tandem and on to the direct end office 
trunk.  However, that matter was resolved quickly and MCI has not established 
that its customers experienced any call blocking during that time.  Further, U 
S WEST’s inability to properly enter the NXX information to route the traffic 
off the tandem on to the end office trunk was in part due to MCI’s failure to 
provide such information to U S WEST properly.  (See Exhs. C-102 and T-99 at 
7-8).
 MCI’s complaints about the provisioning intervals for the DEOTs are not well 
taken.  As noted in this case, and as acknowledged by MCI, the interval for 
provisioning facilities when no facilities are in place is determined on an 
ICB, or individual case basis.  Such was the case with the DEOTs and U S WEST 
was thus not in violation of any of the agreements.  MCI also complains about 
additional orders for direct end office trunks in January of 1997.  MCI 
complains that U S WEST told MCI that the orders would be treated as a project 
and prioritized. U S WEST understands that MCI was not happy with this 
solution; however, there is neither allegation nor proof of any violation of 
law or interconnection agreement in this instance.  U S WEST was certainly 
permitted to designate the orders for DEOTs to 19 separate end offices as a 
complex project and MCI has no basis for complaint.  
 MCI also complains on brief, as it did in testimony, that it was not happy 
with the solution to convert 27 DS1s to two-way traffic and give up 12 of its 
incoming DS1s.  However, the only witnesses in this case who were present at 
that meeting were Dodie Osborn and Mr. Iannotta.  Ms. Osborn testified under 
oath that Mr. Iannotta never expressed to her that he was unhappy with this 
solution; Mr. Iannotta never rebutted Ms. Osborn’s testimony, even though he 
had a round of written testimony and oral testimony on the stand as 
opportunities to do so.  Thus, MCI’s complaint about the conversion of one-way 
trunks to two-way trunks and its agreement to give up the 12 DS1s is obviously 
a matter which is a complaint for purposes of litigation but which was not a 
business complaint at the time the agreement was reached.  
 MCI persists in alleging that it was U S WEST’s fault that MCI slashed its 
sales plan in Seattle and Tacoma.  There is no basis for this allegation on the 
record.  Further, even if MCI did slash its sales plan, which U S WEST does not 
dispute, that is not evidence of damages to MCImetro or fault by U S WEST.  MCI 
has provided no evidence whatsoever as to what its actual sales performance was 
during the period in question nor did it provide evidence to substantiate 
allegations of lost customers.
I. U S WEST did not Refuse to Provide Interconnection in Tacoma. 

 As discussed above, MCI has presented no evidence whatsoever that U S WEST 
caused MCI any damage in the Tacoma market.  MCI’s decision to halt or curtail 
its sales plan may have been reached for any number of reasons.  In addition, U 
S WEST, as of June, 1997, had met MCI’s forecasted demand for capacity in 
Tacoma.  As discussed in U S WEST’s Opening Brief, MCI provided U S WEST with 
the forecast in August of 1996 and U S WEST provided MCI capacity in accordance 
with that forecast.  The May 1997 forecast was of absolutely no use to U S WEST 
in provisioning MCI facilities one or two months later.  As noted previously in 
this case, additional capacity takes at least seven months to provision.  Thus, 
MCI’s forecast in May of 1997 for capacity needed in June of 1997 was 
apparently nothing more than a self-serving document, designed to be used as a 
springboard for litigation in subsequent complaints when U S WEST was unable to 
meet the capacity requirements set forth in the forecast.  In fact, U S WEST 
did fill MCI’s orders for Tacoma in less than seven months, out of a capacity 
addition that was already underway.
J. The 1997 Definitive Interconnection Agreement.
K. U S WEST did not Fail to Provide Forecasts and Notices Required by the 
Interconnection Agreements.

 U S WEST notes that the obligation to provide forecasts is a reciprocal 
obligation and is contained in both the 1996 and 1997 agreements.  However, MCI’
s first complaint about the lack of forecasts was brought forth in the formal 
filing in this docket in June 1997.  MCI cannot complain that U S WEST has 
violated the 1996 and 1997 agreements until MCI itself has complied with the 
terms of those agreements.  One of the specific requirements in each of those 
agreements is that if MCI believes U S WEST could be in breach of any of the 
provisions of the agreement, MCI must notify U S WEST of the breach and give U 
S WEST an opportunity to cure.  (See Exh. 12, ¶ 32.1.1).  MCI has not provided 
any evidence in this record that it gave U S WEST formal notice that it 
believed U S WEST was in breach of the agreements by not providing forecasts.  
MCI must adhere to the provisions of the interconnection agreement before it 
can seek relief or claim rights thereunder.  MCI’s failure to notify U S WEST 
of the alleged breach and provide an opportunity to cure the breach means that 
MCI cannot now seek relief from this Commission as to U S WEST’s failure to 
provide forecasts prior to 1998.  
 U S WEST has discussed the issue of whether or not tandem exhaust is a major 
network project in its opening brief (pages 25-26) and will not repeat that 
discussion here.  Suffice it to say that U S WEST is under no obligation to 
advise MCI of the tandem exhaust.
L. U S WEST Properly Refused to Allow MCImetro to Exchange Traffic Through its 
Access Network.

 See generally, page 9 of U S WEST’s Opening Brief.
 While MCI complains that it is required to interconnect through the local 
network, U S WEST points out the obvious answer in this case is that MCI is 
interconnecting for purposes of the exchange of local traffic.  There is 
absolutely nothing wrong or unreasonable about MCI provisioning local service 
and interconnection through the same network and facilities that U S WEST uses 
to provision its own local service.
M. MCImetro and Other CLEC Interconnection Trunks Constitute a Small Percentage 
of the DS1s in U S WEST’s Seattle and Tacoma Switches

 U S WEST notes that the allegation contained in this section is entirely 
unsupported in the record.  U S WEST did add tandem trunks to Tacoma switch at 
the same time that MCI had an order for tandem trunks at that switch.  In fact, 
MCI’s order for those trunks was filled out of the capacity that U S WEST was 
adding at that time.  (Exh. C-103, Item 34 on page 3, and Tr. 700-701).  U S 
WEST did not delay MCI’s request for service in Tacoma, but filled its request 
in the order in which it was received as capacity was added to enable U S WEST 
to do so.  
N. U S WEST has not Unreasonably Delayed Interconnection or Blocked Calls to 
MCImetro.

 MCI alleges in this section that U S WEST had capacity in its Tacoma end 
offices even though it told MCI that interconnection had to be delayed due to 
lack of capacity.  MCI suggests that Exhibit C-25 be compared with Highly 
Confidential Exhibit HC-141.  MCI misreads these exhibits.  For example, while 
the Sumner end office shows 3 D1s not in use, and MCI has an order pending, it 
is not clear that there are not other orders ahead of MCI, or that the order is 
not held for other reasons, such as interoffice facilities, not ports.
 With regard to MCI’s allegations regarding blocking, U S WEST has addressed 
this issue in its opening brief and does not believe that Highly Confidential 
Exhibit No. 123 establishes any violations of either Commission rules or the 
Interconnection Agreement, given that MCI did not establish the time period 
during which the blocking occurred, nor did it offer any substantive proof that 
it was caused by U S WEST.  
III.  ARGUMENT
A. U S WEST has not Violated the State Constitution, State Statutes, Commission 
Orders and the Federal Telecom Act.

 U S WEST denies that its conduct is in violation of either the state 
constitution, state statutes, Commission orders, or the Federal Telecom Act.  
As set forth in U S WEST’s Opening Brief, U S WEST has consistently stepped up 
to its legal obligation to provide interconnection and has made every effort to 
do so in a timely manner.  The demands on U S WEST’s network capacity which 
caused capacity shortages were unforeseeable and U S WEST was therefore in 
certain instances unable to provision MCI facilities during the time frames MCI 
desired.  However, U S WEST’s network was equally impacted by the facilities 
shortage and as such there can be no allegation or conclusion that U S WEST’s 
treatment of MCI was in any way discriminatory or prejudicial.  Furthermore, U 
S WEST considered MCI’s forecast and met with MCI on a weekly basis for the 
past 2 years to enable and facilitate local interconnection.  Although MCI 
alleges that it provided detailed forecasts to U S WEST, U S WEST provided 
information on this record as to what is required in a forecast, and it can be 
seen by looking at MCI’s forecasts that they contained no such levels of 
detail.  (See, for example, Exh. 129).
B. U S WEST has not Violated the Interim and Definitive Interconnection 
Agreements.
1. U S WEST has not Breached its Obligations Under the 1995 Interim Agreement 
with MCImetro.

a. U S WEST did not breach Section 1.5 of the 1995 Interim Agreement.  U S WEST 
used its best efforts to install and make available to MCImetro the services 
ordered by MCImetro.

 U S WEST denies that it was in any way in breach of the 1995 Interim 
Agreement.  U S WEST did use its best efforts to install and make available to 
MCImetro the services ordered by MCImetro.  As discussed in U S WEST’s Opening 
Brief, there was no provisioning interval set forth in that agreement.  U S 
WEST made every effort to provide the facilities to MCI and, in fact, expedited 
MCI’s orders.  (Exh. T-29 at 5).  MCI alleges that U S WEST is in breach of the 
“best efforts” clause by failing to include MCI’s forecasts and refusing to 
provide an interconnection trunk.  Both allegations are false.  In the first 
place, U S WEST would never have been able to incorporate the “forecast” 
contained in the 1995 interim agreement because the information provided was 
simply that MCI would order up to 8 DS1s before the contract terms would be 
renegotiated.  This in no way constitutes a forecast.  Furthermore, the 
contract does not describe where or when MCI would require service.  As such, 
the information was not nearly detailed enough to include in a general trunk 
forecast. 
 Further, MCI makes the ridiculous claim that it gave U S WEST ample notice and 
opportunity to provide the facilities.  U S WEST has no idea what MCI is 
talking about in this section of its brief, as MCI provided U S WEST with an 
order for facilities on March 5, 1996, which it apparently expected U S WEST to 
fill that same day.
 Nor did U S WEST hinder implementation of the March 1996 order.  While MCI’s 
order did have several technical defects, including the fact that it was 
submitted prior to a forecast and the fact that it did not contain NXX codes as 
required, U S WEST did not delay the provisioning of the facilities associated 
with that order in any way because of those technical defects.  MCI’s order was 
filled as soon as capacity was available.  The availability of such capacity 
was not impacted by the technical defects of MCI’s order and U S WEST did not 
delay the implementation of those orders.  
2. U S WEST has not Breached its obligations under the 1996 Interim Agreement 
with MCImetro. 

a. U S WEST did not breach Section 2.3 of the 1996 Interim Agreement. 

 U S WEST absolutely disagrees.  MCI relies on Section 2.3 of the interim 
agreement which simply requires U S WEST to provide to MCImetro those services 
and facilities described in the agreement for the purposes of the 
interconnection of the parties’ network.  U S WEST has repeatedly done so, and 
as of the end of 1997 had provided MCI 3,000 DS0s in fulfillment of its 
obligation under the 1996 interim agreement.  
b. U S WEST has not breached Section 3.2 of the 1996 Interim Agreement 
regarding forecasts to MCImetro.

 See discussion in Section II.K. above regarding the requirement that MCI 
provide U S WEST with notice of the breach.  MCI cannot seek relief under this 
provision of the interconnection agreement because MCI has itself failed to 
comply with the notice requirements of the interconnection agreement.
c. U S WEST has not breached Section 3.4(c) of the 1996 Interim Agreement by 
failing to provide forecasts and descriptions of major network projects 
anticipated for the following six months.

 See discussion in Section II.K. above.
d. U S WEST has not breached Section 3.7 of the 1996 Interim Agreement by 
allowing call blockage to exceed the contract standard.

 See the discussion at page 25 of U S WEST’s Opening Brief.  MCI failed to 
establish the time period when the blocking occurred.  U S WEST raises Section 
2.9, the force majeure provisions, as a defense to any alleged breach.
e. U S WEST has not breached Section 3.9(b) of the 1996 Interim Agreement by 
failing to provision interconnection trunks within the appropriate standard.

 U S WEST has discussed this allegation previously in this reply brief and also 
in its opening brief.  The standard provisioning interval when facilities are 
not available is on an ICB basis and as such, U S WEST was not in violation of 
the interconnection agreement.  Furthermore, a review of the interconnection 
facilities ordered by MCImetro and detailed in Exhibit C-68 shows that MCI 
never requested delivery of any of those interconnection trunks within the 
standard five-day provisioning interval if facilities had been available.  MCI’
s suggestion that U S WEST is somehow in breach of the agreement by failing to 
provision facilities within five days is simply ridiculous.  
f. U S WEST has not breached Section 3.3(a) of the 1996 Interim Agreement by 
failing to notify MCImetro of exhaust at the tandem when it was forecast.

 U S WEST does not understand how MCI extracts an obligation to notify exhaust 
of the tandem from any of the provisions it cites.  U S WEST does not believe 
it was obligated to do so.  Further, U S WEST might maintain the anticipated 
exhaust date, but does not have any obligation to provide that information to 
MCImetro and is especially not obligated to provide that information when the 
tandem exhaust is unanticipated, or earlier than originally anticipated.
3. U S WEST has not breached its obligations under the 1997 Definitive 
Agreement with MCImetro.
.
a. U S WEST has not breached Att. 4, Section 10.2 by failing to provide 
forecast information on a quarterly basis.

 See discussion above regarding MCI’s requirement to provide notice of breach.
b. U S WEST has not breached the Definitive Agreement by failing to provide 
notice of major network projects or network capacity exhaust that could impact 
upon MCImetro.

 U S WEST has discussed this issue in its Opening Brief and will not repeat 
that argument here.  However, it is perhaps helpful to resort to the dictionary 
definition of the word “projects,” since MCI seems to fail to understand what 
constitutes a major network project.  [insert dictionary definition here]  
Further, MCI’s suggestion that U S WEST should have notified it of number 
portability is simply beyond pale.  MCI participated in the FCC docket 
regarding permanent number portability and filed comments in every round of 
those proceedings.  MCI was well aware of the implementation of permanent 
number portability and the resources that would be required.  
c. U S WEST has not breached its obligations under the Definitive Agreement for 
the provisioning of local interconnection service trunks.

 U S WEST has discussed this allegation previously in this reply brief and also 
in its opening brief.  The standard provisioning interval when facilities are 
not available is on an ICB basis and as such, U S WEST was not in violation of 
the interconnection agreement.  Furthermore, a review of the interconnection 
facilities ordered by MCImetro and detailed in Exhibit C-68 shows that MCI 
never requested delivery of any of those interconnection trunks within the 
standard five-day provisioning interval if facilities had been available.  MCI’
s suggestion that U S WEST is somehow in breach of the agreement by failing to 
provision facilities within five days is simply ridiculous.  
 Again, MCI has not requested provisioning during the standard interval for 
most of its interconnection trunks, and thus cannot allege a violation of those 
standard intervals.
d. U S WEST has not impaired the service of MCImetro and has breached its 
obligations under Part A, Section 1.2.

 U S WEST believes that this allegation is unfounded.  MCI has provided no 
evidence that service to other carriers other than U S WEST and MCImetro has 
been impacted in any way.  MCI failed to cite to any part of the record to 
support this allegation.  
C. U S WEST has not Discriminated Against MCImetro, nor is it in Violation of 
the State Constitution, State Statutes and the Federal Telecom Act.

 MCI completely fails to support its allegations of discrimination.  U S WEST 
treated MCI the same as it treated itself and other carriers.  There is no 
evidence that MCI or its customers suffered any disproportionate level of call 
blocking relative to U S WEST or U S WEST’s customers.  U S WEST treated all 
carriers the same is that it complied with its obligations under individual 
interconnection agreements.  For some carriers, that meant U S WEST was 
obligated to allow interconnection at the access tandem; for MCI, it did not.  
MCI suggests that U S WEST should give it preferential treatment by offering 
terms not included in an approved agreement.  U S WEST does not believe this is 
permitted by law.
D. The Commission Should not Grant the Relief and Penalties Requested by 
MCImetro.
 U S WEST does not believe that any penalties are warranted in this instance as 
discussed in its Opening Brief.  U S WEST further objects to any consideration 
of the Iowa Board Order attached to MCI’s brief as Appendix B.  There is simply 
no showing that such an order has any bearing on the case in Washington, or any 
relevance to the issues raised in Washington.  U S WEST believes that Appendix 
B should be stricken from MCI’s brief.
IV.  DAMAGES
 The Commission has absolutely no statutory authority to hold a hearing on or 
assess any measure of damages under the interconnection agreement or any other 
provision of law.  The only provision of Title 80 which refers to damages, i.e.
, RCW 80.04.440 specifically reserves that issue for the court.  Interestingly, 
while MCI suggests that a second hearing should be held after liability has 
been determined in order to assess damages, MCI’s entire discussion of the 
damages issue is devoid of any statutory citations or reference to any other 
authority which might allow the Commission to conduct such a hearing.  MCI’s 
discussion in this part of its brief is in direct violati