BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


In the Matter of the Pricing proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale
.......................................................................….

In the Matter of the Pricing Proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale for U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, 
INC.
…………………………………………………..
In the matter of the Pricing Proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale for GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)	
		DOCKET NO.  UT-960369
		
		
		DOCKET NO.  UT-960370
		
		
		DOCKET NO.  UT-960371
		
		
		U S WEST’S OBJECTION TO LATE INTERVENTION BY COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY


 U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) hereby objects to the intervention in 
this docket of Covad Communications Company.  Pursuant to the provisions of WAC 
480-09-430, Covad’s petition is late-filed and does not state good cause for 
late intervention to be granted.  WAC 480-09-430(1)(a) requires a party to 
petition in writing for leave to intervene prior to, or at the time the matter 
is initially called for hearing or prehearing conference.  This case was called 
for prehearing conference on December 9, 1996.  Covad’s petition is thus 20 
months late under the 

terms of the rule.  Even allowing that Covad might have been able to establish 
good cause for a petition filed after December 9th, it is U S WEST’s position 
that the latest that Covad could have been permitted to intervene in this 
matter would have been prior to the execution and approval of the negotiated 
interconnection agreement between U S WEST and Covad in early 1998.  
 U S WEST will respond to the petition to intervene by the paragraph 
designations set forth in that petition:
 1. Responding to paragraphs 1 through 4 of the petition, U S WEST does not 
agree that Covad will not broaden the issues in this docket.  Otherwise, U S 
WEST does not take issue with the statements set forth in paragraphs 1 through 
4 of the petition.
 2. Regarding paragraph 5 of the petition to intervene, U S WEST does not agree 
that Covad has a substantial interest in this proceeding that is properly 
asserted at this time.  It is correct that Covad has a negotiated 
interconnection agreement with U S WEST in Washington.  Covad voluntarily 
entered into that agreement in lieu of having issues arbitrated before the 
Commission.  The Washington Commission approved the interconnection agreement, 
which contains provisions that prices for network elements and resold services 
will be “trued up” based on the outcome of this proceeding.  Covad did not 
assert a desire to intervene in this proceeding or participate in the 
determinations in this proceeding at the time it was negotiating the 
interconnection agreement.  
 Certainly, Covad considered the terms of the agreement that it entered into 
and accepted that the UNE and other prices would be subject to true-up as the 
result of a proceeding to which it was not a party.  Clearly, if Covad wished 
to participate in this docket, the time to request late intervention would have 
been prior to the execution of an agreement in which Covad voluntarily assented 
to be bound by the outcome of a docket to which it was not a party.  
 With regard to Covad’s second basis for intervention, that it purchases 
unbundled conditioned loops from U S WEST and has a substantial interest in the 
pricing proceeding on that basis, U S WEST reasserts its argument above, that 
Covad should have taken that into account prior to agreeing in its negotiated 
interconnection agreement to be bound by the outcome of a docket to which it 
was not then a party.  Covad states no reason why it is necessary for it to 
become a party now, in August of 1998.  Covad has inexcusably delayed its 
request for intervention almost six months past the time Covad absolutely knew 
that it might be interested in the outcome of this docket.  
 With regard to Covad’s third allegation in paragraph 5, that it requires 
cageless physical collocation and that it is not known whether any other CLEC 
will even address cageless collocation pricing, U S WEST submits that if this 
is true then Covad will, in fact, be expanding the scope of the issues in this 
proceeding if it wishes to address cageless collocation pricing.  Thus, Covad’s 
assertion in paragraph 2 is false and, under the terms of WAC 480-09-430, Covad 
has not properly requested intervention in this matter because Covad intends to 
expand or broaden the issues in this proceeding.
 3. Responding to Covad’s petition , paragraph 6a, U S WEST states that Covad’s 
discussion does not in fact establish good cause for its late-filed petition to 
intervene.  What Covad’s allegations do establish is that Covad was 
incorporated two months prior to the prehearing conference in this matter and 
that Covad was aware of the existence of this docket well before the present 
date.  Covad began negotiating with U S WEST in July of 1997 and entered into 
an interconnection agreement of February 26, 1998. 
 4. In response to Covad’s paragraph 6b, U S WEST submits that it is not 
relevant to the petition to intervene whether or not Covad’s interests may, or 
may not, be adequately 

represented by the parties who are in the docket as of this date.  Covad admits 
that it was aware of this docket some time ago, and further admits that it was 
well aware of the true-up provisions to the pricing in the contract that would 
be controlled by this docket.  Nevertheless, Covad chose to enter into the 
agreement without concurrently asking leave to intervene in this proceeding.  
Further, Covad asserts that it needs to intervene to address cageless 
collocation costing and pricing issues.  As noted above, U S WEST believes that 
such intervention could potentially broaden the scope of the issues addressed 
in this Phase II and would be improper for that reason.
 5. Responding to paragraph 6c, U S WEST states that the only issues in this 
docket are the ones set forth in the issues list.  U S WEST is not certain how 
Covad’s “substantive input on the issues to be examined in this docket as they 
impact the ability of the CLECs to provide innovative high bandwidth services” 
are related to any of the issues set forth on the issues list.  Covad is aware 
of the existence of the issues list, yet fails to point to any one of the 
numbered issues which it will address which will provide the valuable 
substantive input it claims.
 6. Responding to paragraph 6d, U S WEST submits that U S WEST and likely other 
parties will be substantially prejudiced by the late grant of intervention to 
Covad.  Covad’s claim that it only intends to address issues that have already 
been identified by the other parties is belied by its earlier claims that it 
needs to be in this docket to address issues that no one else might address.  
Covad does not identify any of the testimony filed by U S WEST and GTE to which 
it intends to respond.  Further, even though Covad claims that it will not seek 
any modifications to the current schedule and that parties will have an 
opportunity to conduct discovery, this is not correct.  U S WEST could have 
been conducting discovery of Covad with regard to its positions on the various 
issues well prior to the filing of any testimony by Covad, if Covad had timely 
intervened in this docket.  Intervention at this late date would highly 
prejudice U S WEST.  Further, any delay of the schedule to accommodate Covad’s 
late intervention would also prejudice the parties to this proceeding who have 
an interest in adhering to the current schedule.  
 Thus, U S WEST respectfully submits that Covad’s late-filed petition to 
intervene must be denied.  
 Respectfully submitted this 18th day of August, 1998.

      U S WEST Communications, Inc.

      By:_______________________________
       Lisa A. Anderl, WSBA No. 13236