Please note: The attachments to the comments were not available electronically 
and therefore are not included as part of this document.

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


In the Matter of the Investigation )
Into U S WEST Communications Inc.'s ) DOCKET NO. UT-970300
Compliance with Section 271 of the )
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) AT&T AND NEXTLINK COMMENTS
) ON DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER


 AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. ("AT&T") and NEXTLINK 
Washington, L.L.C. ("NEXTLINK), provide the following Comments on the draft 
Order on Investigation and Policy Statement ("Draft Order") in this docket.
INTRODUCTION
 AT&T and NEXTLINK commend the drafter(s) of the Draft Order for a job well 
done.  The Draft Order (1) establishes an appropriate procedural schedule for 
the Commission's consideration of a Section 271 filing by U S WEST 
Communications, Inc. ("U S WEST"), (2) requires the development of a 
comprehensive factual record of U S WEST's compliance with the competitive 
checklist and of the state of local competition in Washington, and (3) resolves 
several preliminary issues in advance of an actual filing by U S WEST, allowing 
the Commission, U S WEST, and other interested parties to maximize the use of 
the 90 day evaluation period.  The Draft Order also is consistent with the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act), the Federal Communications Commission's 
("FCC's") interpretation of the Act, and procedural orders issued by other 
state commissions in U S WEST's service territory.  Accordingly, AT&T and 
NEXTLINK recommend that the Commission adopt the Draft Order as revised to 
include issues referenced in the Draft Order's request for additional comments. 
COMMENTS
 A. The Draft Order Is Consistent With FCC Decisions and Other State Commission 
Procedural Orders.

 The FCC's recent decision on Ameritech Michigan's Section 271 application 
clarified not only the FCC's interpretation of Section 271's substantive 
provisions but the FCC's expectations of consultation with state commissions.  
The FCC stated in no uncertain terms that it will look to the Commission to 
develop a comprehensive factual record on U S WEST's compliance with Section 
271 requirements, including the status of local competition in Washington:
In requiring the [FCC] to consult with the states, Congress afforded the states 
the opportunity to present their views regarding the opening of the BOCs' local 
networks to competition.  In order to fulfill this role as effectively as 
possible, state commissions must conduct proceedings to develop a comprehensive 
factual record concerning BOC compliance with the requirements of section 271 
and the status of local competition in advance of the filing of section 271 
applications. We believe that the state commissions' knowledge of local 
conditions and experience in resolving factual disputes affords them a unique 
ability to develop a comprehensive, factual record regarding the opening of the 
BOCs' local networks to competition.

In re Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271, CC Docket No. 
97-137, FCC 97-298, Memorandum Opinion and Order ¶ 30 (August 19, 1997) 
("Ameritech Michigan Order") (emphasis added).  Indeed, the FCC stressed the 
importance of the development of such a record as part of the review process 
and linked its deference to state commission conclusions to the nature and 
extent of that record:
The [FCC] has discretion in each section 271 proceeding to determine what 
deference the [FCC] should accord to the state commission's verification in 
light of the nature and extent of state proceedings to develop a complete 
record concerning the applicant's compliance with section 271 and the status of 
local competition.  We will consider carefully state determinations of fact 
that are supported by a detailed and extensive record, and believe the 
development of such a record to be of great importance to our review of section 
271 applications.

Id. (emphasis added).
 The Draft Order pre-dates the Ameritech Michigan Order but is fully consistent 
with the FCC's decision.  The Draft Order would require that U S WEST file all 
information U S WEST intends to file with the FCC, as well as evidence 
sufficient to answer the questions posed by the Commission.  Draft Order at 
13-14.  Such evidence must include "actual and complete information about 
USWC's provisioning [access and interconnection] to itself, to affiliates, and 
to interconnecting companies," id. at 5, and information "about the number of 
customers, the nature of service, and other elements to enable the Commission 
to understand whether the [local exchange] market is indeed open and whether 
one or more competitors are offering more than token competition to USWC."  Id. 
at 10.  The Draft Order thus requires the development of the "comprehensive 
factual record" the FCC has determined is critical to its review of any Section 
271 application filed by U S WEST.  The Draft Order's resolution of other 
preliminary issues is also consistent with the FCC's interpretation of the 
Act.  See In re Application of SBC Communications, Inc., CC Docket No. 97-121, 
FCC 97-228, Memorandum Opinion and Order ¶ 27 (June 26, 1997) (BOC cannot apply 
under Track B if the BOC has received a request for negotiation from an 
unaffiliated competing carrier that, if implemented, would satisfy the 
requirements in Track A).
 The initial procedural schedule included in the Draft Order is also consistent 
with orders issued by other state commissions in U S WEST's service territory.  
The commissions in Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nebraska have all adopted 
the NARUC 90 day time period for consideration of a U S WEST 271 application in 
advance of its filing with the FCC and have established procedural schedules 
for that 90 day period that are similar or virtually identical to the Draft 
Order's schedule.  A copy of these orders is attached to these comments. 
Although AT&T and NEXTLINK continue to believe that 90 days is very little time 
to develop and evaluate what is likely to be a significant volume of relevant 
material, the proposed procedural schedule maximizes the ability of the 
Commission, U S WEST, and interested parties to compile the requisite 
comprehensive factual record within that limited time frame. 
 B. The Commission Should Require That U S WEST File a Factually Complete 
Application Including Detailed Evidence On Its Alleged Compliance With Section 
271 Requirements.

 The Draft Order invited additional comments on what specific information 
should be provided on five specific topics:  (1) U S WEST's provisioning of 
access and interconnection; (2) the existence of "more than an insignificant 
level of competition"; (3) full implementation of checklist items; (4) separate 
affiliate requirements; and (5) the existence of a competitive market.  In an 
appendix to its Opening Comments, AT&T provided a detailed list of issues (in 
the form of questions) the Commission should consider in evaluating each 
checklist item, affiliated interest requirements, and the status of competition 
in the local exchange market. The attached Oregon Public Utility Commission 
Order incorporates many of these same issues and requires that U S WEST provide 
information responsive to the specific questions raised in that order.  AT&T 
and NEXTLINK believe that the issues listed in the AT&T Appendix and the Oregon 
Order should be incorporated into the final Commission Order and that U S WEST 
should be required to provide responsive evidence as part of its filing in 
Washington.
 AT&T and NEXTLINK propose three further modifications to the Draft Order.  
First, the Commission should issue a protective order now, rather than when U S 
WEST files its notice with the Commission.  Some of the evidence U S WEST must 
provide as part of its filing will be confidential, and given the short time in 
which interested parties must review the filing and prepare information 
requests, those parties should be able to receive the entire filing when U S 
WEST submits it to the Commission.  
 Second, the Draft Order should expressly state that the procedures it 
establishes apply to each application U S WEST makes with the FCC for interLATA 
authority under Section 271.  The applications of Ameritech Michigan and SBC in 
Oklahoma demonstrate that an RBOC may not be successful the first time it files 
with the FCC.  The Commission should clarify that U S WEST, should it 
experience a similar rejection of its first Section 271 application for 
Washington, must submit updated evidence to this Commission under the 90 day 
procedural schedule prior to filing any subsequent application with the FCC.  
 Finally, the procedural schedule should require, as has the FCC, that U S 
WEST's notice filing be factually complete as initially filed, and that any 
subsequent information provided by U S WEST be strictly limited to responding 
to interested party filings.  See Ameritech Michigan Order ¶¶ 49-59 (imposing 
same requirement on FCC filings).  U S WEST should be strongly discouraged from 
gaming the procedure by withholding or otherwise failing to provide evidence 
until their reply and thus effectively preventing the Commission and interested 
parties from adequately evaluating or responding to that evidence.
CONCLUSION
 The Draft Order establishes an appropriate procedural schedule and is 
consistent with FCC and other state commission orders.  AT&T and NEXTLINK, 
therefore, recommend that the Commission adopt the Draft Order with the 
modifications discussed in these Comments.
 DATED this _____ day of September, 1997.

      Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
      Attorneys for AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., and 
NEXTLINK Washington, L.L.C.



      By       
       Gregory J. Kopta
       WSBA No. 20519

Deborah Whiting Jaques   Susan D. Proctor
NEXTLINK     AT&T Communications of the 
1003 Montello Avenue   Pacific Northwest, Inc.
Hood River, Oregon  97031   1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 1575
      Denver, Colorado  80202