BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION In the Matter of: ) ) MFS COMMUNICATION COMPANY ) Docket No. UT-960323 INC.'s ) ) Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to ) 47 U.S.C. ' 252(b) of the ) Interconnection Rates, Terms and ) Conditions with U S WEST ) Communications, Inc. ) ) ) In the Matter of: ) ) Docket No. UT-960326 TCG SEATTLE ) ) Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to ) 47 U.S.C. ' 252(b) of the ) Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) ) ) In the Matter of the Interconnection ) Agreement Between: ) Docket No. UT-960337 ) ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE, INC., and ) U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ) Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. ' 252 ) ) DIRECT TESTIMONY OF FRANK CROAN ON BEHALF OF TCG SEATTLE March 12, 1998 Direct Testimony of Frank Croan Page Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, EMPLOYER, AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. A. My name is Frank Croan. My business address is Teleport Communications Group, Inc. (TCGI), 2730 Camelback Road, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona. I am testifying on behalf of TCG Seattle, which is an affiliate of TCGI. Q. WHAT ARE YOUR CURRENT POSITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES AT TCGI? A. Since April 1997, I have been the Director of Carrier Relations assigned to U S WEST. I am responsible for the execution of TCG=s interconnection agreements with U S WEST, including the implementation of provisions for interconnection, collocation and the provision of unbundled network elements. I also work with local public safety officials to develop the necessary arrangements to meet TCGI affiliates= obligations for the provision of 911 services within the U S WEST region. Q. HAVE YOU HELD OTHER POSITIONS AT TCG? A. Yes. Prior to accepting my present position I was Director of Operations for TCG Phoenix. In that job my responsibilities included network construction and expansion, network engineering, service provisioning and installation, and activities related to maintenance and repair. The network construction and expansion responsibilities included the planning and deployment of TCG=s collocations within US WEST central offices in Phoenix and the installation and maintenance of a Class 5 switch. Q. WHAT IS YOUR BACKGROUND PRIOR TO JOINING TCG? A. Prior to joining TCG, I was the New Business Development manager for Times Mirror Cable (ATMC@) with responsibility for carrier relations with TCG in a number of markets. I also represented TMC in regulatory matters in Arizona. Prior to that, I was General Manager in Memphis, Tennessee with Time Warner Communications and Kansas City FiberNet. I have also held responsibility for engineering and operations in other Time Warner Divisions. I have previously testified before Commissions in Missouri, Kansas, Tennessee and Arizona. Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND. A. I have an Associate Degree in Electronic Engineering from Cleveland Institute of Technology, with additional course work in Business Administration at University of Denver and Memphis State University. In addition, I have attended numerous continuing education classes in both engineering and operations. Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? A. The purpose of my testimony is to address a reasonable timetable for U S WEST Communications, Inc. ("U S WEST") to review requests for physical collocation and review of U S WEST denials of requests for physical collocation. I discuss TCG Seattle's proposed timetable for future requests for physical collocation, as well as a proposal for implementing physical collocation in the central offices at issue in this proceeding. Q. WHAT IS TCG SEATTLE'S PROPOSED TIMETABLE? A. TCG Seattle proposes that the Commission follow the FCC's recommendation in paragraph 607 of its Local Competition Order and adopt the procedures outlined in the ex parte letter AT&T filed with the FCC. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit FC-1, and I understand it was previously provided to the parties in this proceeding in response to the Administrative Law Judge's request. I understand that NEXTLINK Washington, L.L.C., and Electric Lightwave, Inc., concur in this proposal and that it is largely consistent with WorldCom's recommendations. Unfortunately, time did not allow the parties to develop a unified proposal. The procedure adopted by the Commission should include, at a minimum, the following requirements: (1) U S WEST should be required to respond to an interconnecting carrier's written request for physical collocation with a space availability analysis -- including any consolidation of space or reclamation review -- no later than 15 days after the interconnector submits its request. (2) If U S WEST's response is to deny physical collocation, U S WEST should be required to provide that denial in writing both to the interconnector and to the Commission. The denial must contain, at a minimum, all of the information identified in the AT&T ex parte FCC filing, including (a) an analysis of the central office space as currently used, (b) any possible reclamation, consolidation, or planned expansion or other future use of that space, (c) a complete and detailed disclosure of all space that U S WEST has reserved or that is being used for the storage of unused or underutilized equipment, and (d) any internal U S WEST policies for dedicating and using administration, maintenance, equipment, and storage space in its central offices, which should also include the number of employees per shift who use that space and the extent of that use, both currently and over the last five years (to ensure that space originally designed for several employees is not now being used by only a few). (3) Immediately after submitting its response, U S WEST should allow the interconnector and Commission staff representatives to tour the central office to make their own assessment of the availability of physical collocation space. Concurrently with this review, or no later than two weeks after U S WEST submits its response, U S WEST representatives, the requesting interconnector, and Commission staff would meet as an audit team to review the company filing and analyze the on-site review. (4) The audit team would present its findings and recommendations -- including implementation measures and deadlines for completion -- to the Commission in an audit report submitted no later than 30 days after the interconnector submitted its initial request to U S WEST. If the audit team cannot provide a unanimous report, each member of the team may, within the same time frame, separately specify its proposed solution, implementation measures and deadlines, and supporting information. (5) The Commission should issue a ruling within 30 days after the audit report and/or individual reports is/are filed. If the Commission orders U S WEST to provide physical collocation, the order should prescribe the measures U S WEST must take and deadlines for compliance with those measures. Stated in the form of a timetable, the proposed schedule for evaluating denials of requests for physical collocation would be as follows: Physical collocation request to U S WEST "Request Date" Response from U S WEST, including filing of Request Date + 15 days supporting data if request is denied Tour and audit of central office space completed Request Date + 30 days Presentation of audit findings to Commission, Request Date + 45 days including recommended resolution and implementation deadlines Commission Order Request Date + 75 days Q. ARE THESE REASONABLE TIME FRAMES FOR EVALUATING A REQUEST FOR, AND U S WEST DENIAL OF, PHYSICAL COLLOCATION? A. Yes. Identifying the availability of central office space for physical collocation is not rocket science. A qualified engineer can review the blue prints of a central office and conduct a physical inspection to determine the status of inactive or underutilized equipment in less than a day. If U S WEST maintains current records as it should, a written report on space availability could easily be completed within one week, less than half the time allowed in the proposed schedule. An efficient audit team should be able to conduct the same inspection and prepare written findings and recommendations within one week, even though the schedule allows for four weeks. The 30 days allotted for Commission review should also be sufficient since Commission staff will have already been involved in the process and have made its recommendations. This schedule, therefore, requires reasonably prompt action to resolve disputed requests, but it nevertheless represents an initial delay of almost three months in obtaining physical collocation if U S WEST denies the request. Once U S WEST has agreed, or the Commission orders, physical collocation, the interconnector's actual occupancy of the space is still dependent on construction schedules, including any required reclamation -- a process that in the past has often taken several months. Physical collocation is critical to facilities-based competitors' ability to provide service to their customers, and accordingly, requests for physical collocation should be implemented as soon as possible. TCG Seattle has been waiting well over a year for resolution of U S WEST's denial of TCG Seattle's request for physical collocation in the Seattle Main central office, and the delay has had a serious detrimental effect on TCG Seattle's ability to provide service to customers. CLECs' ability to provide quality services in competition with U S WEST should not be delayed any longer than is absolutely necessary, and certainly not as a result of foot-dragging by the incumbent monopoly provider with an obvious incentive to delay the advent of effective competition. Q. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT IS MEANT BY "UNUSED OR UNDERUTILIZED EQUIPMENT" IN THE CONTEXT OF MAKING SPACE AVAILABLE FOR PHYSICAL COLLOCATION? A. Certainly. "Unused or underutilized equipment" merely refers to central office equipment that U S WEST previously installed and used to provide service but that now is no longer in service or is being phased out of service. Telecommunications equipment is constantly being updated and replaced by newer equipment once it has reached the end of its useful life. U S WEST often simply leaves the old equipment in place when it is replaced, which is possible because advances in technology have reduced the size of telecommunications equipment to the point where a much smaller piece of equipment can now do the work of one or more much larger pieces and in a different central office location. U S WEST should not be allowed to deny physical collocation that CLECs need to serve their customers because U S WEST is using the available space to store equipment that is (or soon will be) no longer used. I would add one cautionary note, however. U S WEST should not be allowed to delay or deny physical collocation by using space inefficiently, i.e., by spreading out fully operational equipment or circuits to lend the appearance of utilized equipment when in reality that equipment is obsolete and would otherwise be removed from service. The concept of reclamation of "underutilized" equipment, therefore, should also include a review to ensure that U S WEST is legitimately using equipment and that the equipment has not been configured to preclude having space available for collocation. U S WEST should be required to reconfigure circuits and/or equipment if that review demonstrates that current configuration is not reasonably necessary for legitimate business and operations purposes and is likely to have been made in an effort to thwart collocation. Q. HOW DOES TCG SEATTLE RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE BE APPLIED TO THE REQUESTS FOR PHYSICAL COLLOCATION AT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING? A. TCG Seattle and the other CLECs have obviously already requested, been denied physical collocation in, and toured the central offices at issue in this proceeding, and the Administrative Law Judge has determined that U S WEST should be required to make space available for physical collocation, including through reclamation of unused and underutilized equipment. U S WEST, therefore, should be required to implement decision immediately. At the hearing last fall, Mr. Anderson detailed the areas in which U S WEST can reclaim space for collocation in the Bellevue Glencourt central office. Mr. Marchie testified -- and the Administrative Law Judge found -- that administrative space should be made available in the Seattle Main central office. In addition to administrative space, Mr. Marchie testified that Seattle Main has a substantial amount of unused and underutilized equipment that could be reclaimed for physical collocation -- a statement that Mr. Reynolds did not dispute on behalf of U S WEST. In addition, I attended a meeting last September in which U S WEST representatives identified substantial space on the 10th and other floors that U S WEST has identified as areas for future reclamation to accommodate requests for physical collocation. No purpose would be served by having an audit or additional Commission involvement in making space available for physical collocation for TCG Seattle in Seattle Main or Bellevue Glencourt, as contemplated by the generic schedule TCG Seattle has proposed. Accordingly, the Commission should require that within 14 calendar days of the Commission's final order, U S WEST -- in consultation with TCG Seattle -- must complete space preparation and allow TCG Seattle to begin installing its collocated equipment in the Seattle Main and Bellevue Glencourt central offices. Within 21 calendar days of the Commission's order, U S WEST should be required to have completed installation of power and interconnection cabling and facilities. If U S WEST fails to meet these deadlines, it should be required to waive all nonrecurring charges for the work and should be subject to whatever penalties are available under state law or Commission rules. Regardless of whether U S WEST complies with this schedule, U S WEST should not be allowed to impose nonrecurring charges for converting virtual collocation to physical collocation if the requesting carrier agreed to virtual collocation only because U S WEST improperly denied physical collocation. This is an expedited schedule, but it is realistic. TCG has completed just such construction within those time frames. Compliance may require that U S WEST have their employees or contractors work extra shifts and on weekends to complete the work within the allotted time, but any additional expense incurred is the result of needless delay caused solely by U S WEST's insistent and continued refusal to accommodate legitimate and reasonable requests for physical collocation. TCG Seattle has been severely hampered in its ability to serve its customers as a result of this U S WEST-imposed delay, and TCG Seattle must incur significant and unnecessary additional expense to request virtual collocation in Seattle Main because its existing equipment has almost exhausted its capacity. Under these circumstances, U S WEST should be required to comply with its legal obligations as soon as possible and should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of its delaying tactics or to continue to impose arbitrary and unwarranted additional costs on its competitors through further unjustified delay. Q. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE EVIDENCE ALREADY INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE IN THE SEATTLE MAIN CENTRAL OFFICE? A. I do not have anything to add to the testimony Mr. Marchie provided on behalf of WorldCom during the hearing last fall. I would like to observe, however, that TCG Seattle specifically requested that U S WEST provide information about its policies on the use of administrative space in its central offices in general, and in the central offices at issue in this proceeding in particular. A copy of the letter requesting this information is attached to this testimony as Exhibit FC-2. U S WEST has never provided any such information to TCG Seattle, nor did U S WEST include any of the requested information in its oral presentation and exhibits presented during the hearing. Q. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? A. Yes, it does.