BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND ) TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, ) ) Docket No. UT-980340 Complainant, ) ) AT&T, NEXTLINK & SCS v. ) OPPOSITION TO USWC PETITION ) FOR RECONSIDERATION U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ) Respondent. ) ) AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. ("AT&T"), NEXTLINK Washington, Inc. ("NEXTLINK"), and Shared Communications Services, Inc. ("SCS") respectfully submit the following memorandum in opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Temporary Relief filed by U S WEST Communications, Inc. ("U S WEST" or "USWC"). The Commission correctly concluded that, as a matter of both state policy and federal law, U S WEST is required to implement intraLATA dialing parity by February 8, 1999, and the Commission should not delay that implementation simply because U S WEST refused to prepare to comply with its legal obligations. DISCUSSION A. The Commission Correctly Interpreted the Act to Require That U S WEST Implement IntraLATA Toll Dialing Parity By February 8, 1999. Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act") establishes the duty of all local exchange companies -- including U S WEST -- "to provide dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service." 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3). As the Commission observed, the sole exception to this requirement is contained in Section 271(e), which exempts U S WEST from the requirement to provide intraLATA dialing parity until February 8, 1999, or the date when U S WEST is granted authority to provide interLATA services, whichever is earlier. The Commission correctly interpreted these provisions to require that when the exemption in Section 271 expires on February 8, 1999, U S WEST must provide intraLATA toll dialing parity pursuant to Section 251. U S WEST, however, contends that the date of February 8, 1999, is "arbitrary" because, as the Commission acknowledged, Section 251 "does not contain a deadline for compliance." Order at 15. Such a contention does not withstand even the slightest scrutiny. Section 251 does not contain a deadline for compliance with any of its requirements, including the obligations of all local exchange companies to interconnect, to pay reciprocal compensation, and to provide number portability, as well as incumbent carriers' duties to provide unbundled network elements, services for resale, and collocation. U S WEST cannot credibly maintain that the absence of an explicit statutory deadline for compliance relieves carriers of their obligations under the law. U S WEST further asserts that the Commission's interpretation of the Act is "unjust and unreasoned" because that interpretation is contradicted by the Commission's observations that two other states have taken a different position and that the Commission has granted temporary relief from the Act's dialing parity requirement for Inland Telephone Company. These observations are not at all inconsistent with the Commission's statutory interpretation. The Commission is not bound by legislative actions in North Dakota and Idaho, nor are such state legislative determinations even arguably indicative of Congressional intent. Similarly, the Commission's grant of temporary relief to Inland Telephone Company demonstrates a recognition that that company -- like all local exchange service providers -- is obligated to provide dialing parity, but that circumstances unique to that small rural company justified delaying its compliance with its legal obligations. The Commission's conclusion that the clear language of the Act demonstrates Congressional intent to require that all local exchange carriers implement intraLATA toll dialing parity does not conflict with the facts that two state legislatures have chosen to defy federal law and that one small rural company's unique circumstances justified temporary relief from that law. February 8, 1999, is the date on which U S WEST's exemption from the requirement to provide intraLATA toll dialing parity expires. On that date, U S WEST is subject to the same obligations as every other local exchange company to provide dialing parity pursuant to Section 251. The deadline of February 8, 1999, therefore, is not arbitrary, nor was it determined by the Commission -- it was imposed by Congress. The Commission properly concluded, as have the vast majority of states in U S WEST's service territory, that the Act, state law, and public policy all require U S WEST to implement intraLATA toll dialing parity by February 8, 1999. B. The Commission Should Not Delay U S WEST's Implementation of IntraLATA Toll Dialing Parity. The Act and the Commission require that U S WEST implement intraLATA toll dialing parity by February 8, 1999, but U S WEST requests additional time to prepare. U S WEST's request should be denied. U S WEST has had almost three years since the passage of the Act to prepare, and this docket was initiated only after lengthy informal discussions between U S WEST and most of the other parties to this proceeding failed to result in U S WEST's acknowledgement of, and agreement to abide by, its dialing parity responsibilities. The customers of virtually every other local exchange carrier in the state of Washington will have unfettered access to their chosen intraLATA toll provider, or will have such access by February 8, 1999. U S WEST should not be allowed to rely on its refusal to comply with its legal obligations as an excuse for further delay in bringing the benefits of competitive choice to the Washington consumers that currently obtain their local service from U S WEST. U S WEST nevertheless contends that the record in this docket supports such a delay, quoting extensively from a 1997 Oregon Public Utilities Commission order in which that commission refused to require dialing parity implementation more expeditiously than the FCC had required. U S WEST also asks the Commission to reconsider its decision to strike most of the Declaration of Kelly Champagne and to admit that declaration in its entirety to supplement the record in support of U S WEST's position. AT&T, NEXTLINK, and SCS agree with Commission staff that this declaration is irrelevant to the issue of whether the Commission should require U S WEST to implement dialing parity by February 8, 1999, and that the Commission properly excluded it. Not only is this evidence irrelevant, but U S WEST failed to abide by the schedule established by all parties -- including U S WEST -- and submitted this declaration with its reply comments, long after declarations were supposed to have been submitted and two days before oral argument. The Commission properly refused to permit U S WEST to abuse the established procedure by attempting to introduce new evidence at that late stage of the proceeding, without any showing that the evidence could not have been presented in a timely manner, and when other parties had no meaningful opportunity to respond. In re Investigation of Telephone Dialing Parity in Oregon, Docket No. UT 132, Order No. 97-107 (March 18, 1997). U S WEST neglects to mention that three days before U S WEST filed its Petition in this docket, the Oregon Commission issued a subsequent order in that same Docket No. UT 132 that rejected the very claims for additional time that U S WEST presents here and required U S WEST to implement intraLATA toll dialing parity by February 8, 1999: We realize that planning for and implementing dialing parity requires substantial effort by LECs. However, in Order No. 97-107 we adopted February 8, 1999, as the date for implementation of dialing parity by USWC. USWC has developed dialing parity plans in other states, and should have worked on its Oregon dialing parity plan pursuant to Order No. 97-107. USWC should be able to file its Oregon dialing parity plan by November 9, 1998, and implement it by February 8, 1999. These dates will allow for a quick but orderly implementation of dialing parity for USWC in Oregon. Id., Order No. 98-433 at 3 (October 23, 1998) (emphasis added). A copy of the Oregon Commission order is attached for the Commission's convenience. U S WEST already has implemented intraLATA toll dialing parity in several states and currently is in the implementation process in several others, including Oregon, with completion scheduled for February 8, 1999. U S WEST obviously can, and should be required to, implement dialing parity in Washington by that same date. CONCLUSION The Commission properly ordered U S WEST to comply with its legal obligations, consistent with state policy to encourage the development of effective competition in all intrastate telecommunications markets. Accordingly, the Commission should deny U S WEST's Petition and should continue to require that U S WEST implement intraLATA dialing parity in Washington by February 8, 1999. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day of November, 1998. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Attorneys for AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., NEXTLINK Washington, Inc., and Shared Communications Services, Inc. By Gregory J. Kopta WSBA No. 20519 Deborah Whiting Jaques NEXTLINK Maria Arias-Chapleau 1003 Montello Avenue Susan D. Proctor Hood River, OR 97031 AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. Pamela Ballard 1875 Lawrence Street, Room 1575 Shared Communications Services, Inc. Denver, CO 80202 810 SE Belmont Portland, OR 97214