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	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)	PHASE II
		
		DOCKET NOS. UT-960369, UT-960370, 
		                           UT-960371
		
		
		U S WEST’S ANSWER TO MOTION TO COMPEL BY COVAD


 U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) hereby files its Answer to the Motion 
to Compel Responses to Data Requests filed by Covad on September 16, 1998.  
This answer is filed pursuant to WAC 480-09-480(7).  U S WEST believes that its 
objections to Covad’s data requests are well taken and that U S WEST should not 
be required to respond to those data requests, as they are well outside the 
scope of this Phase II proceeding.  Further, they seek information outside the 
stated scope and purpose of Covad’s intervention in this proceeding, and seek 
to broaden the issues in this docket.  

BACKGROUND
 On August 31, 1998, Covad served 31 data requests on U S WEST.  U S WEST 
served its objections to those data requests on September 10, 1998, objecting 
to most of those requests as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeking data not 
relevant to the pricing decisions to be made in Phase II.  
ARGUMENT
 Covad sought intervention in this docket in August, well after the proceedings 
were underway.  Covad represented to the Commission that it would not broaden 
the scope of the proceedings, and that it intended only to address the issues 
of physical collocation and the proper pricing for UNEs, specifically, the loop.
 Covad’s data requests seek to explore issues well outside the scope of this 
docket, and indeed, well outside the scope of even Phase I.  In fact, Covad’s 
data requests in this case seem to be nothing more than a data mining 
expedition, in search of information that Covad may use in other disputes.  The 
Commission should not sanction or condone this activity by allowing Covad 
access to this data, which has no bearing whatsoever on this case, and which is 
not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
 Covad did not participate in the Phase I of this docket.  However, there can 
be no real dispute that for purposes of Phase II, Covad is bound by the 
Commission’s decisions in Phase I, including the decisions in the Eighth 
Supplemental Order.  There, the Commission held that by following TELRIC 
principles, “a cost floor that reflects the prospective economic costs incurred 
by an efficient supplier is established for each network element.  In Phase II 
of this proceeding, the cost will be used to set the price for the network 
element.”  Eighth Supplemental Order at ¶ 11.  However, acceptance of any of 
Covad’s arguments in its motion to compel would gut this provision of the Order.
COVAD’S REQUESTS
3-6 and 13
 Covad argues that it needs responses to data requests 3-6 and 13, which are 
all directed at the retail pricing of xDSL services, in order to advance its 
theory of the case, and to rebut U S WEST’s theory.  Unfortunately, Covad never 
explains what its theory is, as it relates to the issues in this case and the 
proper price for the loop.  
 Covad’s data requests on this issue are set forth below.  As can be seen, they 
are on their face irrelevant, and seek only to gain information which might 
give Covad an advantage in marketing its own DSL services.
3. Please produce any and all price floor or “imputation” analyses prepared 
since 1995 relating to your “Megabit,” “Megacentral,” or any other services or 
elements used in the provision of xDSL services in Washington, whether or not 
filed with the WUTC, including all drafts and backup, documents, assumptions, 
and workpapers.
4. Please produce any and all documents that reflect or relate to pricing 
strategies for your “Megabit,” “Megacentral,” or any other services or elements 
used in the provision of xDSL services in Washington.
5. Please produce any and all documents that reflect or relate to 
considerations or analyses of the prices of unbundled network elements or 
collocation as they might or might not relate to pricing of “Megabit,” 
“Megacentral,” or any other services or elements used in the provision of xDSL 
services in Washington.
6. Please produce any and all documents filed with the FCC, WUTC, OPUC or other 
state regulatory agency since 1995 relating to the pricing of “Megabit,” 
“Megacentral,” or any other services or elements used in the provision of xDSL, 
whether or not such documents were designated “Confidential,” :Proprietary,” or 
the like.
13. Explain and quantify what loop costs, if any, U S WEST attributes to its 
Megabit services?

 U S WEST objected to these data requests as follows:  “U S WEST objects to 
this data request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome and not being 
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar 
as it seeks information entirely irrelevant to these proceedings.  As set forth 
in the Eighth Supplemental Order, the Commission limited the scope of this 
phase of the proceeding as follows:
The second phase of this proceeding is an investigation . . . to determine, 
using the cost methodology and costs established in the instant Order, the 
proper level of prices to be charged by these companies for interconnection, 
unbundled network elements, transport and termination, wholesale and resale 
discounts, and interim number portability and collocation.  

Eighth Supplemental Order at 2.
 High speed data transmission services, such as Megabit and Megacentral, are 
entirely beyond the scope of this proceeding.
 Further, Covad’s belated Motion to Intervene states: ‘Covad only intends to 
address issues that have already been identified by other parties and, in 
particular, to respond to testimony filed by U S WEST and GTE.’  Covad’s Motion 
to Intervene at 4.  No party has identified high speed data transmission 
services as an issue in this docket and U S WEST has not offered any testimony 
regarding this issue.  Accordingly, the data request is beyond the issues for 
which Covad sought intervention and the information will not be provided.  
Finally, there is no issue in the Administrative Law Judge’s issues list to 
which this request is reasonably related.”
 U S WEST believes that this objection is valid, for all the stated reasons.  
Furthermore, U S WEST believes that Covad has stated its true intent for this 
discovery at page 3 of its motion, as follows: “Covad questions whether U S 
WEST has priced its retail DSL services properly in relation to its costs, . . 
.”  Thus, through this discovery effort, Covad seems to want to challenge (or 
gather information for a complaint against) U S WEST’s xDSL prices.  This 
proceeding is not the proper forum to do so.  If Covad has a complaint against 
U S WEST’s retail prices, Covad may file a complaint to litigate that issue.  
However, imputation analyses, and arguments about whether the loop should be 
allocated or not, and if so, to which services, are not proper issues for this 
case, or for discovery in this docket.
 It appears as though Covad is arguing that UNE prices must be established 
based on whether U S WEST’s retail prices pass an imputation test, or that the 
Commission must consider what impact UNE prices will have on imputation/retail 
rates before it sets those prices.  This is absurd.  
 First of all, it has not been determined that the costs/prices of UNEs must be 
imputed to the prices for U S WEST’s retail services.  U S WEST does not 
purchase UNEs from itself, but rather uses its own network facilities to 
provide finished services to end users.  There is no legal or policy 
requirement that U S WEST’s prices pass an imputation test.  Further, even if 
there were such a requirement, the costs and prices for UNEs must be determined 
on the basis of the evidence in this record – not on the basis of how those 
costs or prices might affect an imputation analysis.  
 Covad finally argues that it is entitled to U S WEST’s xDSL imputation 
analysis to establish that U S WEST does not impute any loop costs to its xDSL 
service and that the prices for the UNE loop should therefore be $0.  U S WEST 
concedes the first point, but absolutely disputes that the second point follows 
from or is supported by the first.
 The costs for UNEs, and this is a point which Covad either fails to understand 
or intentionally ignores, have already been established in this docket.  
Further, those costs are a price floor, and cannot be disregarded as Covad 
would have the Commission do.  The Commission is considering in this docket the 
proper markups over cost for UNEs.  The analysis and argument that Covad seeks 
to introduce is not probative of that issue, and responses to these data 
requests should not be compelled.

7-8 and 27-29
 Covad further seeks responses to data requests 7-8 and 27-29.  Those requests, 
and U S WEST’ s objections, are set forth below.
 Request 7. Describe in detail all the differences in the manner in which U S 
WEST locates and acquires space for its own DSLAM equipment in its COs and the 
manner in which it provides physical, collocation space for Covad in 
Washington.  Please provide diagrams, floor space and equipment and bay line up 
drawings to respond fully to this request. 
 Response to 7.  U S WEST objects to this data request as being vague, overly 
broad, unduly burdensome, and not being reasonably calculated to lead to the 
discovery of admissible evidence insofar as it seeks information entirely 
irrelevant to these proceedings.  It is vague in that U S WEST does not 
understand what is meant by “all the differences in the manner in which U S 
WEST locates and acquires space”.  U S WEST does not “acquire” space in its own 
central offices; U S WEST already owns that space.  Further, the request is 
unduly burdensome and overly broad.  Covad has requested physical collocation 
in 20 offices in Washington, pursuant to its interconnection agreement.  Covad 
is fully aware of how U S WEST provides collocation space for Covad in 
Washington, which varies by request, central office and space availability.  U 
S WEST has already provided, in response to MCI data request 02-003, its 
methods and procedures regarding physical collocation.  Other terms and 
conditions are contained in the interconnection agreement between the parties.  
U S WEST does not believe that the terms and conditions regarding the 
provisioning of space are at issue in this proceeding. 
 Request 8. Identify in detail and quantify all of the different costs U S WEST 
incurs in the case of locating and acquiring space for its own DSLAM equipment 
in its COs in Washington.
 Response to 8.  See response to Data Request Number 7.
 Request 27. Provide all U S WEST documents, including electronic mail, created 
after February 8, 1996 which relate to U S WEST's consideration of different 
forms of physical collocation for CLECs that could cost less than cage-based 
physical collocation. 
 Response to 27. U S WEST objects to this data request on the basis that it 
seeks information that is not relevant to this proceeding.  The request is also 
vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and improperly asks for speculation 
regarding types of collocation that “could” cost less than cage-based physical 
collocation.
 Request 28. Provide all U S WEST documents, including electronic mail, created 
after February 8, 1996 which relate to U S WEST's consideration of the 
feasibility of cageless physical collocation for CLECs.
 Response to 28.  U S WEST objects to this data request as seeking information 
that is irrelevant.  U S WEST concedes that cageless physical collocation for 
CLECs is feasible; this is not in issue.
 Request 29. Produce the document(s) delivered by U S WEST to the arbitrator in 
Docket No. UT-970316. 
 Response to 29. U S WEST objects to this data request.  Docket No. UT-970316 
was closed upon the Commission’s approval of the negotiated Covad - U S WEST 
interconnection agreement.  As such, the information sought is not calculated 
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Moreover, in this proceeding, 
the Commission has stated:
There is no need for the Commission to resolve the contract dispute between U S 
WEST and Covad to consider cageless collocation in this proceeding.

Twelfth Supplemental Order, Docket No. UT-960371, at 3.  Accordingly, 
information regarding the U S WEST - Covad Interconnection Agreement, and its 
development, has been deemed by the Commission to be irrelevant.
     Covad claims that it seeks information relating to the costs for cageless 
collocation, in support of its theory that prices for cageless should be less 
than that for caged.  U S WEST submits that Covad should have pursued this 
issue in arbitration, or in Phase I of this proceeding. U S WEST is not 
obligated by law or by any Commission order to offer cageless physical 
collocation.  Nor is there any showing that cageless is different in any way 
from caged collocation, except in the absence of a caged enclosure.  Covad’s 
data requests, especially to the extent that they seek information to which it 
was not entitled during the arbitration, are improper discovery and should be 
denied.
 Further, U S WEST’s own provisioning practices do not bear on whether U S WEST’
s prices are discriminatory.  Under the Telecommunications Act, the issue of 
discrimination is related only to whether U S WEST treats all similarly 
situated CLECs the same. “The fact that interconnection and unbundled access 
must be provided on rates, terms, and conditions that are nondiscriminatory 
merely prevents an incumbent LEC from arbitrarily treating some of its 
competing carriers differently than others. . . .”  Iowa Utilities Board v. 
FCC, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 18183, *80, (1997).  The issue of how U S WEST 
provisions to itself it does not enter into consideration of the issue of 
discrimination, because U S WEST is not provisioning physical collocation to 
itself.
Requests 14-16 and 19-20
 Covad seeks information in these requests which relates to its theory that the 
cost of the loop should be allocated.  However, what is entirely unclear, and 
is ultimately Covad’s downfall, is where these loop costs might be allocated 
to.  Covad has this proceeding confused with a retail pricing proceeding.  
First of all, it is not appropriate to allocate the costs of the loop – it is 
not even appropriate to discuss cost allocation in the context of costing and 
pricing the UNE – the cost of the loop cannot be allocated anywhere except to 
the loop.  That is how this proceeding has been conducted from its inception, 
that the elements would be costed and priced as individual UNEs, and that 
TELRIC based costing would be employed.  Covad’s suggestion here that it be 
permitted to explore the issue of the allocation of the loop runs counter to 
the Commission orders in this docket and should not be permitted.
CONCLUSION
 For the foregoing reasons, Covad’s motion to compel responses to data requests 
3-8, 13-15, 19-20, and 27-29 should be denied.
 Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of September, 1998.

      U S WEST Communications, Inc.



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