i

REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM C. DEERETABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT PARAGRAPH (S)

CHECKLIST ITEM (i) INTERCONNECTION 3-27

CHECKLIST ITEM (ii) NONDISCRIMINATORYACCESS TO NETWORK ELEMENTS

28-37

CHECKLIST ITEM (iv) LOCAL LOOP 38-68

CHECKLIST ITEM (v) LOCAL TRANSPORT 69-73

CHECKLIST ITEM (vi) LOCAL SWITCHING 74-75

CHECKLIST ITEM (vii) E911, DIRECTORYASSISTANCE, AND OPERATOR CALLCOMPLETION

76-77

CHECKLIST ITEM (xi) LOCAL NUMBERPORTABILITY

78-80

OTHER NETWORK ISSUES – ANCILLARYEQUIPMENT

81–86

ii

REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM C. DEERETABLE OF ATTACHMENTS

Description AffidavitReference

GGG MediaOne Data Response No. 5 toPacific’s First Set of Data Requests

¶ 6

HHH July 21, 1999 Letter from JerryGilmore to Theresa CabralPACIFIC BELL AND THIRD PARTYPROPRIETARY INFORMATION

¶ 11

III June 18, 1999 Email from TrishCvetovac to Al FinnellPACIFIC BELL AND THIRD PARTYPROPRIETARY INFORMATION

¶ 14

JJJ August 20, 1999 Letter from JohnStankey to Greg TerryPACIFIC BELL AND THIRD PARTYPROPRIETARY INFORMATION

¶ 14

KKK MCI Data Response No. 25 to Pacific’sFirst Set of Data Requests

¶ 15

LLL MCI Data Response No. 26 to Pacific’sFirst Set of Data Requests

¶ 20

MMM TGSRs Sent by Pacific to AT&T PACIFICBELL AND THIRD PARTY PROPRIETARYINFORMATION

¶ 22

NNN Pacific Data Response No. 21 toNorthpoint’s First Set of DataRequestsPACIFIC BELL PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

¶ 41

OOO Technical Publication TP76740 ¶ 43PPP Technical Publication TP76750 ¶ 43QQQ Draft ANSI Standard ¶¶ 44, 63RRR Sprint Data Response No. 5 to

Pacific’s First Set of Data Requests¶ 52

SSS Sprint Data Response No. 7 toPacific’s First Set of Data Requests

¶ 49

TTT Sprint Testimony from MissouriProceeding

¶ 64

UUU Excerpts from MFS WorldCom and PDOInterconnection Agreements

¶ 47

VVV July 23, 1999 Letter from John Stankeyto Michael Beach

¶ 84

1

1. I am the same William Deere who previously filed an

affidavit1 in Pacific Bell’s (“Pacific’s”) initial

compliance application.

2. The purpose of this affidavit is to rebut allegations

raised by the CLECs in their August 16, 1999 comments

regarding NXX code openings, trunking, ATM interconnection,

access to network elements, unbundled loops, unbundled

transport, unbundled switching, E911, number portability,

and ancillary equipment.

INTERCONNECTION

NXX Code Opening

3. No CLEC disputes that Pacific provides positive

notification of NXX code openings by posting this

information on the Web within 24 hours of opening. 2

However, MCI claims Pacific has not met this compliance

item because Pacific maintains only a 30-day rolling

history of code openings. 3 Pacific only posts a 30-day

rolling history because of the enormous size of this file.

MCI considers this an unreasonably short timeframe and

suggests Pacific maintain information on the web for 180

1 “Deere Affidavit” refers to my affidavit filed in this proceeding on July15, 1999. Citations to Deere Attachments A through FFF refer to attachmentsfiled on July 15, 1999. Deere Attachments GGG through VVV are attached tothis reply affidavit.2 Deere Aff., ¶ 45.3 MCI Comments, pp. 26-27.

2

days. However, MCI offers no business justification for

its demand and the Commission did not require this in

Decision 98-12-069 dated December 17, 1998 (“Final

Decision”). Therefore, MCI’s new demand is not a basis for

finding that Pacific failed to comply with the Final

Decision.

4. MCI and ORA claim Pacific has not satisfied the Final

Decision requirement to deploy an automated NXX code

opening system.4 They claim Pacific is merely making

“future promises.” However, both parties fail to note that

the requirement to deploy the system was specifically

premised on the fact that Pacific’s vendor Lucent could not

complete the phased deployment of the automated NXX code

opening system until the third quarter of 1999. 5 The CLECs

and the Commission Staff were expressly advised of this

during the 271 Workshops. 6

5. Subsequent to Pacific’s July 15, 1999 filing, Pacific has

completed the deployment of the automated system in all of

Southern California and 88% of the offices in Northern

California. Pacific anticipates completion of statewide

deployment by September 15, 1999.

4 MCI Comments, p. 26; ORA Comments, pp. 29-30.5 Deere Aff., ¶ 46.6 Final Staff Report, p. 90.

3

6. MediaOne alleges that over the past year, Pacific (1) has

objected to the CLLI code locations for NXX code openings

and (2) has opened MediaOne’s codes 30 days after the LERG

date.7 Regarding the CLLI location issue, see paragraphs 9

through 11 below. With respect to the code opening issue,

in response to a data request, MediaOne identified two

codes Pacific allegedly had not opened by the LERG date

(818-293 and 818-356); in addition, MediaOne alleged three

codes (661-430, 661-670 and 805-670) were not opened until

30 days after the LERG effective date. 8

7. Pacific's investigation shows that 818-293 was opened in

94% of Pacific's switches by the LERG effective date, and

opened in the remaining 6% of switches within 5 days after

the LERG effective date. However, MediaOne did not notify

Pacific, via the LERG, until February 17 that the code was

due to be opened on March 12, leaving Pacific only 23 days

to open the code in 187 offices. The industry standard

requires carriers to notify the industry, via the LERG, 45

days in advance that a code needs to be opened. In the

case of 818-356, MediaOne again failed to give the proper

45-day advance notice. Pacific was notified, via the LERG,

7 Cox MediaOne Comments, pp. 7-8.8 MediaOne Data Response No. 5, Deere Att. GGG.

4

on February 17 that this code needed to be opened by March

26, again giving Pacific only 28 days to open the code,

rather than the required 45 days. Pacific managed to open

818-356 in 96% of its switches by the LERG effective date

and the remaining 4% of the switches within five days after

the LERG effective date.

8. In the case of 661-670 and 805-670 which MediaOne did list

in the LERG 45 days in advance of opening, Pacific opened

those codes in 75% of its switches by the LERG effective

date, and 661-430 was opened in 85% of Pacific’s switched

by the LERG effective date. In all three cases, the codes

were opened in the remaining switches within 15 days of the

LERG effective date, not 30 plus days as alleged by

MediaOne. As a matter of fact, for the months of April

through June 1999, Pacific has opened a higher percentage

of CLEC codes by the LERG effective date, then Pacific’s

own codes, providing better than parity performance to

CLECs.9

TRUNKING

9. MediaOne and AT&T raise issues regarding Common Language

Location Identifier (“CLLI”) locations for trunks. AT&T

states Pacific failed to implement the basic industry

9 Johnson Aff., Att. D, p. 70.

5

standard for routing of traffic from its tandem switches to

CLEC switches because Pacific has not implemented the type

of interconnection which uses a CLLI code and Switch Homing

Arrangement (“SHA”) indicator. 10 MediaOne states that

Pacific has objected to CLLI code locations. 11 The Final

Decision does not contain any requirements regarding how

CLLI codes are used for trunking. Nonetheless, Pacific

addresses these allegations below.

10. Pursuant to industry standards, carriers can use pseudo-

CLLIs to identify switches in the LERG. If a CLEC uses

psuedo-CLLIs in the LERG, it must also use them to assign

trunk groups for the originating and terminating switches

(A and Z points). Subsequently, the industry developed the

SHA indicator, which allows CLEC to use the true CLLI name

of its switch in the LERG and to indicate multiple tandems

to which calls for the code are routed. A CLEC can use

either psuedo-CLLIs or true switch CLLIs in the LERG. It

is well understood within the industry that whichever

option the CLEC chooses, it must insure that the trunking

it establishes with Pacific matches the CLLI locations in

the LERG so that the CLEC’s traffic routes properly.

10 AT&T Comments, p. 40.11 Cox MediaOne Comments, p. 7.

6

11. AT&T and MediaOne created problems with routing of traffic

because they did not take the necessary steps required for

their trunks in Pacific’s network to match the CLLIs they

had entered in the LERG. MediaOne established trunk groups

using the CLLI for its true switch location; however, it

used pseudo-CLLIs in the LERG to identify the termination

point for its trunks. Pacific could open the NXX codes,

but MediaOne had failed to establish trunk groups for

routing traffic to the pseudo-CLLI locations it listed in

the LERG. Without trunking, calls to these codes would

have reached a vacant code message. Pacific met with

MediaOne and explained the repercussions of not correcting

these problems. At MediaOne’s request, Pacific implemented

a workaround by inputting non-standard translations to

route traffic to MediaOne’s NXX codes, even though such

routing did not match the LERG. By insisting on such a

solution, MediaOne violated the terms of its

interconnection agreement (“ICA”). MediaOne refused to

implement any of the options Pacific proposed to resolve

this issue. Finally, as a last resort, Pacific offered to

place trunk orders with MediaOne to establish the proper

trunk architecture.12 Pacific usually does not do this

12 July 21, 1999 letter from Jerry Gilmore to Theresa Cabral,Deere Att. HHH.

7

because CLECs prefer ASR control with two-way trunking.

Although Pacific agreed to submit these orders in July, the

MediaOne employee designated to coordinate the trunk orders

with Pacific has been unavailable to work with Pacific on

this issue.

12. Pacific experienced a problem directing traffic to AT&T’s

network because AT&T’s code administrator unilaterally

changed from using pseudo-CLLIs in the LERG, to using true

CLLIs and the SHA indicator in May 1998. AT&T has provided

no explanation as to why it waited over a year to raise

this issue. Contrary to AT&T’s assertions, for new trunks

AT&T orders using true CLLIs, Pacific can open codes

entered by AT&T in the LERG using the true CLLI and the SHA

indicator. However, AT&T replaced its pseudo-CLLIs with

true CLLIs in the LERG without renaming its trunk groups.

At the time, AT&T’s existing trunk groups in Pacific’s

network were identified with pseudo-CLLIs. Accordingly,

when AT&T opened a new code using the true CLLI, AT&T did

not have sufficient trunking in place to carry traffic to

the new NXX code.

13. Before placing the SHA indicator in the LERG, AT&T should

have first redesigned its trunks groups to terminate to its

actual switches, i.e., using the true CLLI for its

switches. AT&T completely failed to do so. Consequently,

8

AT&T lacked sufficient trunking to open the codes as

specified in the LERG.

14. AT&T did not want Pacific to route traffic as set forth in

the LERG. Instead, AT&T demanded that Pacific do non-

standard translations so that calls could complete to the

new codes. By doing so, AT&T violated the terms of its

ICA. Pacific complied with AT&T’s demand as a temporary

workaround measure. To rectify this problem on a long-term

basis, Pacific agreed to create ASRs and submit them on

behalf of AT&T.13 Pacific has gone to extreme lengths to

resolve a problem created by AT&T’s code administrator and

has encountered chronic problems with AT&T’s

unresponsiveness in dealing with this trunking issue. 14

15. MCI alleges Pacific failed to follow the TGSR process for

underutilized trunks because Pacific sent TGSRs to MCI in

February 1999, after peeling MCI tandem traffic off its

trunk groups and directing it to MCI’s tandem. 15 MCI’s

claims are vague and contain no specific facts; thus,

Pacific cannot respond specifically to these allegations.

Pacific requested that MCI identify when Pacific

disconnected trunk groups without sending a TGSR. MCI

13 Pacific June 18, 1999 Proposal, Deere Att. III.14 August 20, 1999 letter from John Stankey to Greg Terry, Deere Att. JJJ.15 MCI Comments, pp. 21-22.

9

refused.16 Additionally, MCI’s allegations seem to be about

rerouting of traffic, not the TGSR process which is used

for underutilized and blocked trunks, and thus do not

allege facts showing Pacific failed to follow the TGSR

process. Furthermore, Pacific has not redirected traffic

to the tandem from MCI’s end office trunk groups without an

order from MCI to establish a direct end office trunk

group.

16. Pacific uses the TGSR process approved in the Final

Decision to request that MCI’s unused trunks to the tandem

be disconnected. MCI and its affiliated companies usually

refuse to issue disconnect orders because they claim the

trunks will be needed in the future. In such cases,

Pacific waits until the month identified by MCI as the

month traffic utilization should increase. When the

traffic still does not increase, Pacific again asks for the

trunks to be disconnected because of underutilized trunks.

17. For example, Pacific sent Brooks a TGSR in January 1999 to

disconnect trunks on a group in the Sacramento area that

had 648 trunks in service of which Brooks was only using

217 trunks. Pacific requested disconnection of 168 trunks,

which would leave 528 trunks in service, more than double

16 MCI Response No. 25 to Pacific’s First Set of Data Requests,Deere Att. KKK.

10

those actually used by Brooks. Brooks responded that its

traffic should soon increase and did not want to

disconnect. In May 1999, a second TGSR was sent, and

again, Brooks responded that it was expecting an increase

in traffic.

18. In August 1999, Pacific contacted Brooks for the third time

and was told that due to its forecast, it would not

disconnect at this time. As of September 1, 1999 Pacific

has not disconnected these trunks. MCI continues to

underutilize its trunk groups. For example, for the time

period August 16, 1998 through August 30, 1999, MCI’s

utilization was only 39% for the entire state.

19. MediaOne complains that Pacific caused a delay in

disconnecting and reestablishing underutilized trunk

groups, which resulted in blocking. 17 This is not true.

MediaOne contacted Pacific on July 27, 1999 to discuss

disconnecting underutilized trunks off of two tandem trunk

groups. MediaOne wished to reuse these facilities on

another tandem trunk group associated with a different

tandem to relieve a blocking condition. In order to reuse

those facilities, MediaOne needed to rename them. To

accomplish this, Mediaone placed those orders with Pacific

17 Cox MediaOne Comments, p. 6.

11

on July 27, 1999. On the Firm Order Confirmation (“FOC”)

date, Pacific informed MediaOne the due date would be

August 26, 1999. Pacific noted on the FOC that MediaOne

had provided the wrong facility name on its orders and that

MediaOne needed to issue a new facility order to establish

the correct facility name. Pacific informed MediaOne that

it did not need to cancel its disconnect orders; it just

needed to correct the facility order. Pacific also said

the orders would carry the same Firm Order Date that was

given on the FOC. Instead of following Pacific’s

instructions, MediaOne cancelled all orders (disconnects

and augments) and re-issued new orders. Although MediaOne

issued new orders, Pacific still used the same due dates to

which it had previously committed. The disconnect order

due on August 26, 1999 was completed on August 26, and the

augment order due on August 26, 1999 completed on August

27, 1999. Moreover, on an overall basis, MediaOne has not

experienced unacceptable levels of blocking; for April,

May, and June 1999, MediaOne’s blocking for two-way trunks

to the tandem is 0.73%.

20. MCI alleges Pacific has taken down CGO (analog swit ches)

offices immediately when it orders new DSOs (digital

switches) while the standard is to wait until a new end-

12

office switch is in place before disconnecting the CGO

trunk group, usually about two months. 18 MCI’s comment is

not related to any compliance item. Pacific requested in

discovery that MCI identify the offices with cutovers

referenced in this allegation. MCI refused. 19 Without

identification of the offices at issue, Pacific cannot

respond to the specific allegations. In general, for

cutovers from an analog to a digital switch, Pacific

handles CLEC traffic the same way it handles its own

traffic. All trunks are tested and validated prior to

cutover. Pacific maps the routing, trunking, and services

so that the impact of the cut is transparent to the

customer. On the night of the cutover from the analog to

the digital switch, the old switch is turned down and the

new switch is turned up for service. The cutover of all

trunks to the digital switch is performed after midnight.

Pacific informs CLECs well in advance of the switch

replacement that the replacement will occur. Pursuant to

the Act, Pacific provides network disclosures on its

website months in advance. 20 These are posted on SBC’s

18 MCI Comments, p. 22.19 MCI Data Response No. 26 to Pacific’s First Set of Data Requests, DeereAtt. LLL.20 See “Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating CompanyProvision of Enhanced Services,” CC Docket No. 95-20, Report and Order (rel.March 10, 1999) (discussing Local Competition Second Report and Order).

13

website, which is linked to the CLEC Handbook. 21 Planned

switch replacements are also noted in the LERG. Finally,

Pacific sends CLECs a Major Project Control Sheet 29 weeks

before the cutover to notify the CLEC of trunk groups which

must be moved at the time of the switch replacement. It

has always been Pacific’s practice to disconnect the analog

switch at the time the digital switch is turned up.

Pacific has never heard of any “standard,” nor has MCI

specifically identified one that would require the analog

switch to remain in service for two months.

21. Cox alleges call blocking has occurred as a result of

untimely and incorrectly provisioned trunks in the San

Diego area.22 Cox’s allegations about provisioning of one

meet-point trunk is addressed in the Murray Reply

Affidavit, paragraphs 34 through 35. Although Cox

complains about isolated incidences of blocking, these

allegations are not reflective of the overall service

Pacific provides to Cox; for the months of May, June, and

July 1999, the average blocking for Cox’s two-way final

trunks to Pacific’s tandems is 0.03%. With respect to the

Cox allegations regarding “intermittent call blocking”

21 www.sbc.com. 22 Cox MediaOne Comments, pp. 3-4.

14

between February and April 1999, 23 Pacific’s records reflect

that in response to an increase in Cox traffic beginning in

January, Cox experienced some blocking of overflow traffic

on its final trunk groups to the San Diego tandem in

February and March. A Cox order for 460 trunks was

completed on February 1, 1999 and an intermediate high-

usage (“IH”) group was also established to relieve overflow

to the tandem. This order was for 336 trunks due on March

24, 1999 and was completed early on March 3, 1999. An

augment order to the IH groups for 240 trunks was due on

March 31, 1999 and completed on April 14, 1999. While this

provisioning was two weeks late, Pacific records reflect

that the blocking was relieved by the study week period of

March 29, 1999. There has been no more blocking on this

group since that study week.

22. AT&T also alleges it has experienced call blocking. 24 AT&T

has created its own problems with blocking because it has

not augmented its trunk groups as requested by Pacific. If

AT&T had responded to TGSRs as Pacific requested, had

augmented its own equipment in a timely manner, and had

provisioned adequate trunking, AT&T could have avoided

blocking conditions. For example, with respect to the

23 Cox MediaOne Comments, p. 7.24 AT&T Comments, p. 40.

15

Oakland tandem, there are still six TGSRs outstanding

involving a total of 432 trunks. 25 Pacific issued these

TGSRs in February to establish end office trunking in order

to relieve potential blocking that could occur at the

tandem. Beginning in March 1999, Pacific made numerous

contacts with AT&T asking for AT&T to augment its trunks;

AT&T did not do so. AT&T told Pacific that it could not

establish these groups due to its own lack of switch power

packs and facilities. This reference to facilities refers

to facilities owned by AT&T, not facilities AT&T orders

from Pacific. As of September 3, 1999, seven months after

Pacific issued the TGSRs, AT&T provided Pacific with PON

numbers and has promised to send through orders to augment

and provision new trunk groups. These orders should have

been issued seven months ago, when Pacific first sent the

TGSRs.

23. MCI alleges that Pacific has not provided interconnection

at technically feasible points because Pacific has informed

MCI that it must have trunks in place to each tandem in the

LATA.26 This issue is outside the scope of this compliance

proceeding and was resolved in Pacific’s favor in the MFS

WorldCom arbitration. Pacific recommends that the

25 Deere Att. MMM.26 MCI Comments, pp. 23-26.

16

Commission honor the arbitrator's resolution of this issue

as consistent with the Act and reject MCI’s pattern of

endlessly relitigating issues.

24. Contrary to MCI’s allegations, Pacific allows MCI to

physically interconnect at technically feasible points in

Pacific’s network. However, separate and apart from how

MCI chooses to physically interconnect, MCI must have

sufficient trunk groups installed so the parties can

exchange traffic between their end users. MCI did not want

to install sufficient trunking and thus, this issue was

recently arbitrated with respect to the MFS WorldCom ICA.

25. In the Final Arbitrator's Report, the Arbitrator found

"[i]f [WorldCom] wants to exercise this right [to use a

single POI to serve an entire LATA], and cause Pacific to

incur higher costs, [WorldCom] must pay Pacific higher

transport costs than [WorldCom] has agreed to pay." 27 The

Arbitrator noted that the "Act requires that transport and

termination compensation be set based on the additional

costs of terminating such calls." 28 The Arbitrator further

observed that WorldCom "failed to provide contract language

27 Final Arbitrator’s Report, Application 99-03-047, “In the Matter of thePetition of Pacific Bell for Arbitration of an Interconnection Agreement withMFS/WorldCom Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of1996,” issued August 4, 1999, II.F, “Network Interconnection General Termsand Conditions section 5.1.2 and Appendix 1TR” section 2.2, pp. 46-47 (“FinalArbitrator’s Report”).28 Id.

17

regarding logical trunk groups, and has no contract

language regarding the related pricing increases to reflect

this arrangement, including extra tandem costs involved." 29

MFS WorldCom wants the benefits of a single POI, but wants

Pacific to absorb all the costs -- both Pacific and the

Arbitrator properly rejected this scheme. Pacific never

objected to the logical trunk group approach as an

alternative to a POI for every tandem and still does not,

provided it is properly compensated in accordance with the

Act for its extra costs. The Arbitrator ordered MFS

WorldCom either to produce additional contract language

requiring it to establish logical trunk groups to each

tandem and "to compensate Pacific for its additional costs

resulting from use of a single POI" or "to subtend every

access tandem.”30 This issue will be resolved when the

Commission rules on the Final Arbitrator’s Report.

ATM INTERCONNECTION

26. As ELI admits, it first requested ATM interconnection

several months after this Commission issued its Final

Decision.31 ATM interconnection is not a compliance item in

the Final Decision. The decision only requires Pacific to

29 Id.30 Id.31 ELI Comments, pp. 13-14; Bewick Aff., ¶ 19.

18

demonstrate it offers Frame Relay interconnection and no

party has disputed the fact that Pacific has complied with

this requirement.32

27. ELI implies that Pacific has failed or refused to provide

ATM interconnection and that the Commission should

intercede. ELI is the first CLEC to request ATM

interconnection. On May 12, 1999, Pacific provided ELI

with an appendix for Frame Relay interconnection. ELI

asked if this appendix included ATM interconnection and

Pacific replied it did not. ELI did not raise this issue

again until June 21, 1999, and Pacific informed ELI that it

would check with product marketing regarding development of

the ATM interconnection product. Pacific is currently in

the process of designing the product. Pursuant to the Act,

Pacific intends to negotiate ATM interconnection with ELI

and all other CLECs once it is available. If the parties

are unable to resolve this matter, it would be subject to

arbitration by the Commission pursuant to section 252 of

the Act. It would be premature for the Commission to issue

any order with respect to ATM interconnection on the scant

information before it and prior to the completion of

negotiation/arbitration of this issue.

32 Final Decision, App. B., p. 16; Deere Aff., ¶ 17.

19

NONDISCRIMINATORY ACCESS TO NETWORK ELEMENTS

28. AT&T’s complaints about Pacific’s five methods of combining

UNEs are not based on facts concerning the use of the five

methods. First, Mr. Finnell complains of customer service

outages due to the requirement to disconnect and reconnect

a pair of UNEs.33 This is not the case. UNEs already

combined will not be disconnected from each other;

therefore, there is no interruption to an existing service.

Conversely, a CLEC is only required to combine UNEs that

are not currently connected; therefore, there is no

existing service to be interrupted.

29. Mr. Finnell sets forth a second complaint, concerning the

possible limit on the number of cross-connects that can be

made in a single office on a single day. 34 This allegation

suffers from the same misconception that all customers a

CLEC may desire to serve will require cross-connections to

be made in one of the points of access. This is not true.

No customer with existing service will have to have new

cross-connections placed. Only customers requesting new

services or a new location will require the CLEC to combine

the UNEs. Since these are usually customers that Pacific

33 AT&T, Finnell Aff., ¶¶ 48-50.34 Id. at ¶¶ 54-59.

20

would have to place cross-connections for today, there is

relatively little increase in workload on the Pacific

frame.

30. CLECs in California have ordered thousands of UNE loops

that have been extended to CLEC collocation arrangements.

These loops require the same types of cross-connections

required to extend UNEs to the five methods of access for

combining UNEs. Pacific has not had to staff additional

shifts of frame technicians for this work and contrary to

the assertions of Mr. Finnell, there will be no need to

staff three shifts a day to meet the CLEC-generated load

for new UNE combinations.

31. Mr. Finnell’s concerns about the limits to physically

separating integrated digital loop carrier (“IDLC”) loops

also assume that Pacific will be changing existing

combinations of facilities. 35 As discussed above, this is

not the case. New UNE combinations will not involve IDLC

loops because Pacific is not required to provide unbundled

IDLC.36 Mr. Finnell next expresses concern for the “frail”

jumper wires used on the distribution frame. 37 Again, since

Pacific will not be removing jumpers from existing

35 Id. at ¶¶ 60-64.36 See ¶¶ 38-41 below.37 AT&T, Finnell Aff., ¶¶ 65-66.

21

combinations of facilities, there is no danger that these

wires will break.

32. Manual combining of CLEC facilities remote from the MDF

does not result in service that is less reliable than the

service Pacific provides to its retail customers. Mr.

Finnell describes combining UNEs in a central office where

only a single cross-connection is required to combine a

loop and a switch port in the incumbent LEC’s network. He

claims that any additional cross-connects will degrade

service. 38 However, Pacific often has multiple cross-

connections between its loop facilities and the switch port

and these circuits are not degraded.

33. Multiple cross-connections and the use of an Intermediate

Distribution Frame (“IDF”) are commonly used to improve

service and provide increased transmission performance on

local loops. For instance, when a customer desires a loop

with no greater than 5 dB loss, a loop is cross-connected

on the MDF to a tie cable to the IDF. At the IDF, it is

cross-connected to the input side of a device to improve

the transmission characteristics of the loop. The output

side of this equipment also appears on the IDF and a cross-

connection is placed to another tie pair back to the MDF.

38 Id. at ¶¶ 65-69.

22

At the MDF, another cross-connection is placed to connect

the improved loop to the switch. A total of four cross-

connections and two tie cable pair are inserted into this

loop-to-switch-port combination in order to improve the

transmission capabilities of the circuit.

34. Once placed, a cross-connection is a stable part of the

circuit that does not degrade the capabilities of the

circuit. There is nothing inherent in cross-connections

that will degrade service or cause a service outage. A

CLEC providing service with its own switch may have more

cross-connection points than will be required for a CLEC

using UNEs at a point of cross-connect. However, no CLEC

has argued that its own cross-connections are points of

additional failure that make it impossible to provide high

quality service to customers.

35. A CLEC that operates it own switch and uses a Digital Loop

Carrier (“DLC”) collocated in a Pacific central office

switch will connect a loop to its switch as shown in the

diagram below.

23

36. The local loop will be cross-connected at the MDF to a tie

cable terminated on the Point of Termination (“POT”) frame

in the collocation space. The CLEC will cross-connect the

tie cable pair to the DLC. The DLC is cross-connected to a

Lightwave Terminal (“LWT”), which is cross-connected

through a Fiber Termination Panel (“FTP”) to the

interoffice transmission facility. The interoffice

transmission facility terminates on a FTP in the CLEC

central office and a series of cross-connections are used

to connect the channel through a LWT, a multiplexer and a

MDF or digital cross-connect panel to be cross-connected to

the CLEC switch. This example includes seven cross-

connection points. A CLEC using combined UNEs in an

extended loop arrangement will require most of the same

cross-connections as described for the collocation

arrangement above. The central office operations required

to extend UNEs to a point of access is no different that

POT

MUX

MDF

PACIFIC

CLEC Collocation Cage CLEC Premises

Local Loop

MDF = Main Distribution FramePOT = Point of TerminationDLC = Digital Loop CarrierLWT = Lightwave Terminal

FDP = Fiber Distribution PanelSW = SwitchMUX = Multiplxer

DLC

LWT

FDP

FDP

LWT

MDF

SW

24

what is done to extend UNEs to a collocation arrangement

for a facility-based provider or for Pacific to insert

transmission enhancing equipment into a loop. Thus, Mr.

Finnell has not demonstrated that the five methods of

providing access to combine UNEs are unworkable or

discriminatory.

37. In paragraph 70 of his affidavit, Mr. Finnell also claims

xDSL services are negatively affected by Pacific’s methods

of combining UNEs. Mr. Finnell fails to realize that xDSL

services do not even involve the combination of UNEs. When

a CLEC orders an xDSL service from Pacific, the only UNE

involved is the loop. Pacific’s UNE loop is then connected

to the CLEC’s xDSL equipment, so no "combining" of

Pacific’s UNEs is involved.

LOCAL LOOP

IDLC

38. In the Final Decision, the Commission rejected the CLECs’

demand for access to Integrated Digital Loop Carrier

(“IDLC”), stating, “[t]he FCC has not established any

definitive requirement with respect to these issues.” 39 The

Commission should therefore reject MCI’s continued demand

for access to IDLC.

39 Final Decision, p. 162.

25

39. MCI claims it should be allowed to access IDLC loops in

order to provide ADSL services over IDLC. 40 While

technology to provide ADSL over IDLC loops is under

development, Pacific has no such technology deployed in its

network. In fact, neither the IDLC or Universal Digital

Loop Carrier (“UDLC”) equipment deployed in Pacific’s

network is capable of providing ADSL services.

40. MCI cites to the language in a FCC Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to support its continued request for

unbundled DLC.41 The FCC has not yet issued an order on

this issue. MCI’s reliance on the FCC’s FPRM regarding DLC

loops is misplaced. The FCC’s NPRM tentatively states that

DLC unbundling may be appropriate if the incumbent LEC is

capable of providing xDSL services over that loop. 42 As

40 MCI Comments, pp. 85-87.41 Id. at p. 87.42 The FCC stated:Unbundling DLC-Delivered Loops. As discussed in the Order above, we grantALTS' request for a declaratory ruling that incumbent LECs are required toprovide loops capable of transporting high-speed digital signals wheretechnically feasible. This requirement includes the obligation to unbundlehigh-speed data-compatible loops whether or not a remote concentration devicelike a digital loop carrier is in place on the loop. We tentatively concludethat providing an xDSL-compatible loop as an unbundled network element ispresumed to be "technically feasible" if the incumbent LEC is capable ofproviding xDSL-based services over that loop. Consistent with the pro-competitive goals of the Act, we tentatively conclude that the incumbent LECshall bear the burden of demonstrating that it is not technically feasible toprovide requesting carriers with xDSL-compatible loops. We seek comment onthese tentative conclusions.

“In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering AdvancedTelecommunications Capability,” FCC 98-48, CC Docket No. 98-147, ¶ 167(emphasis added) (rel. March 31, 1999) (Advanced Services Order).

26

stated above, Pacific has no equipment in its network

capable of providing ADSL services over DLC.

41. Similarly, the Commission should reject the belated attempt

by MCI and Northpoint to require Pacific to provide sub-

loop unbundling to IDLC through remote access. 43 The

Commission has already rejected sub-loop unbundling to IDLC

through remote access.44 Moreover, Northpoint’s erroneously

assumes Pacific has remotely deployed DSLAMs for retail

customers.45 Northpoint’s allegations are based on a

misreading or misinterpretation of Pacific’s Response No.

21 to Northpoint’s First Set of Data Requests. 46 In that

response, Pacific stated it had tested one remote DSLAM

equipment. However, the data response does not indicate

that Pacific has deployed remote DSLAM equipment. Pacific

has not and does not intend to deploy the remote DSLAM

equipment it tested for its own retail customers.

42. Similarly, the Commission should reject Sprint’s request

for line sharing and packetized voice services over shared

loops as part of the § 271 compliance items. 47 Sprint

43 Northpoint Comments, pp. 19-20; MCI Comments, pp. 85-87.44 Final Decision, p. 162.45 Northpoint Comments, p. 20.46 Deere Att. NNN.47 Sprint Comments, p. 42.

27

ignores this Commission’s ruling that Pacific is not

required to share a loop with other carriers. 48 In

addition, in its Advanced Service Order, the FCC held that

an ILEC may be able to demonstrate line sharing may not be

feasible due to practical or policy considerations. 49 The

FCC stated:

We decline, however, to mandate line sharing at thefederal level at this time under the accompanyingReport and Order. Although we find no evidence thatline sharing is not technically feasible, we findthat the record does not sufficiently address theoperational, pricing, and other practical issuesthat may arise if LECs are compelled to share lineswith competitors. We acknowledge that theCommission has concluded that a "determination oftechnical feasibility does not include considerationof economic, accounting, billing, space, or site,concerns." Several incumbent LECs have raised,however, billing, accounting, and other operationalissues, that we would like to consider before wedetermine whether to mandate line sharingnationwide. For example, how will two carrierscoordinate and manage assignment, maintenance,repair, and billing systems? While none of theissues raised by the incumbents challenge thetechnical feasibility of line sharing, we believethat there may be practical considerations that havenot been adequately addressed in the existingrecord. Moreover, there may be policyconsiderations that weigh against line sharing, evenif the Commission were to conclude that technicaland operational concerns could be met. For example,would line sharing create disincentives forinvestment in facilities or in using the fullcapability of the local loop? As a result, we seekadditional comments in the Further NPRM in order todevelop a more comprehensive record on the policy

48 In Re Petition of PDO Communications, Inc. , D.99-01-009, p. 20(Jan. 7, 1999).49 Advanced Services Order, ¶ 97.

28

and practical ramifications of federally mandatedline sharing, including any policy considerationsthat weigh against line sharing. 50

The fact it is technically “possible” to share a loop

between two technologies does not indicate it is possible

or reasonable to share a loop between two service

providers. Sprint’s complaint has nothing to do with

whether Pacific has complied with § 271 and the

requirements of the Final Decision.

XDSL

43. ACI, MCI, and Sprint make vague assertions that Pacific has

not complied with the Final Decision with respect to

adopting national standards for the provision of xDSL

services.51 However, in their comments, they do not offer

any evidence to support these vague allegations. In fact,

contrary to these assertions, Pacific has adopted all

current ANSI standards. As described in Deere Affidavit,

paragraph 90, Pacific’s Technical Publication TP76730 is

consistent with the ANSI ADSL standard T1.413. 52

50 Id. (footnotes omitted).51 ACI Comments, p. 28; MCI Comments, App. III, p. 7; and SprintComments, p. 40.52 TP 76730 is Deere Attachment N filed July 15, 1999.

29

Similarly, as stated in Deere Affidavit, paragraph 91, the

recommendations regarding HDSL in ANSI TR.28 have also been

incorporated into Pacific’s TP 76740. 53 Further, while not

addressed in my initial affidavit, standard T1.601

regarding BRI ISDN is also followed by Pacific. Although

T1.601 does not explicitly cover xDSL, this standard is

applicable to IDSL, which is addressed in TP 76750. 54 These

three standards are the same as those identified by the FCC

in paragraph 67 of its Advanced Services Order as the

“existing industry standards.” 55 The FCC stated that:

T1.601 defines the technical standards for theprovision of BRI ISDN service. T1.413 defines thetechnical standards for the provision [sic] ADSLservice. TR28 [sic] defines the technical standardsfor the provision [sic] HDSL service. We recognizethat TR.28 is not a Committee T1 approved standard.TR.28’s universal deployment, however, results inits status as a de facto standard. 56

44. As also described in Deere Affidavit, paragraph 91, Pacific

continues to monitor the status and direction of the draft

spectrum management standards under development by ANSI. 57

When it is finally adopted by the industry as a standard,

53 Deere Att. OOO.54 Deere Att. PPP.55 Advanced Services Order, ¶ 67.56 Id., at ¶ 67, fn. 167.57 Deere Attachment QQQ is a copy of the latest draft of this emergingstandard.

30

it will be incorporated into Pacific’s spectral management

program; in fact, Pacific’s program is already compatible

with this draft standard. Currently, the xDSL “classes”

defined in the draft standard equate to Pacific’s technical

publications as follows:

Class 1 Very-low band DSL58 TP76750

Class 3 Mid-band DSL59 TP76740

Class 5 High-band asymmetric60 TP76730

Finally, in Deere Affidavit, paragraph 91, I explained that

Pacific’s spectral management program is intended to

minimize the risk of service degradation or failure to xDSL

customers. This is true, both now and as new industry

standards are developed and approved in the future, whether

the xDSL customers are served by Pacific or a CLEC.

45. The Final Decision required Pacific to alert all CLECs, via

accessible letter, of updates to its technical publication

on xDSL standards in TP 76730.61 While not disputing that

Pacific has satisfied this requirement, Sprint complains,

58 According to the draft ANSI standard on spectrum management, ¶ 5.2.1,class 1 was formerly known as VLB, or “very-low band.”59 According to the draft ANSI standard on spectrum management, ¶ 5.2.3,class 3 was formerly known as MB, or “mid-band.”60 According to the draft ANSI standard on spectrum management, ¶ 5.2.5,class 5 was formerly known as HBA, or “high-band asymmetric.”61 Final Decision, App. B, p. 19.

31

that it must read each new technical publication to

determine whether Pacific is complying with adopted

national standards.62 It is reasonable for a CLEC to review

such technical documents; both this Commission and the FCC

have acknowledged the need for CLEC access to, and review

of, an ILEC’s xDSL deployment guidelines. 63

46. Sprint argues that Pacific has not demonstrated it has

defined xDSL compatible loops in cooperation with CLECs, or

according to industry standards. 64 As I explained in Deere

Affidavit, paragraph 93, Pacific held at least four

meetings with CLECs to discuss xDSL issues, including xDSL-

compatible loops. In addition, Pacific has defined xDSL

loop types in accordance with both existing and emerging

industry standards. The table below cross-references the

industry standard to the corresponding paragraphs in

Pacific’s Technical Publication L-780063, “Unbundled

Network Elements”, Deere Attachment T.

62 Sprint Comments, p. 41.63 Final Decision, App. B, p. 19; Advanced Services Order, ¶ 72.64 Sprint Comments, pp. 38-41.

32

Para Type of xDSL Loop

IndustryStandard

Referenced inThis

Paragraph

3.1 High-Band Asymmetric(ADSL)

T1.413

3.2 Very Low-Band Symmetric(IDSL)

T1.601 andSpectralManagementStandard*

3.3 Mid-Band Symmetric (HDSL-1)

TR28 andSpectralManagementStandard*

3.4 Low-Band Symmetric SpectralManagementStandard*

3.5 High-Band Symmetric(HDSL-2)

SpectralManagementStandard*

3.7 Very High-Band (VDSL) SpectralManagementStandard*

* The ANSI Spectral Management Standard is currently in draftform.

47. Northpoint claims competition will be restricted because

Pacific offers six standard unbundled loops for xDSL

instead of a single, generic ISDN/xDSL loop. 65 Pacific’s

65 Northpoint Comments, pp. 12-14.

33

initial interconnection agreements included a single

ISDN/xDSL type of loop. However, as different xDSL

technologies evolved and became more defined, more became

known about the physical requirements and operating

characteristics of each technology. By defining xDSL-

compatible loops according to industry standards, Pacific

is already offering, in its UNE Appendix, Hopfinger

Attachment O, the maximum flexibility needed for all xDSL

technologies. This is because all xDSL types fall into one

or more "classes" defined in ANSI's draft standard on

spectrum management. Pacific's six standard xDSL loop

types do not restrict the CLECs' choice of xDSL because

they equate directly to the six ANSI classes. If a CLEC's

chosen type of xDSL complies with the ANSI-proposed power

spectrum density (“PSD”) requirements for its ANSI class, a

loop for that type of xDSL is offered by Pacific. Contrary

to Northpoint's assertion that Pacific's loop types omit

the high-speed SDSL it wishes to offer, as long as

Northpoint's SDSL technology conforms to the appropriate

ANSI PSD requirement or does not cause unacceptable levels

of interference, Northpoint has every opportunity to deploy

its technology of choice. Indeed, Pacific is willing to

work with all CLECs to determine the appropriate loop to

ensure that a loop is provided that will meet their needs,

34

yet comply with industry standards or not cause

unacceptable levels of interference. Furthermore, the

recent interconnection agreements arbitrated with MFS

WorldCom and PDO Communications reflect these distinctions

in the types of xDSL loops. 66

48. Northpoint’s comments could create some confusion about the

types of UNE loops offered by Pacific. Northpoint first

refers to the four standard loop types listed in my initial

affidavit.67 These four loop types simply describe the

physical characteristics of the different available UNE

loops, i.e., two-wire vs. four-wire, and analog vs.

digital. Northpoint then refers to the six xDSL loop types

described in Deere Attachment T. As shown in the table

above, these six xDSL loop types differentiate between the

operating characteristics of the types of xDSL. There is a

simple relationship between the physical types and the xDSL

types, shown in the table below.

66 MFS WorldCom, App. UNE, ¶ 4.3.2; PDO Communications, App. D, ¶ 4.2.5,Deere Att. UUU.67 Deere Aff., ¶ 32.

35

Physical Type xDSL Type

2-Wire Analog High-Band Asymmetric (ADSL)High-Band Symmetric (HDSL-2)Very High-Band (VDSL)

4-Wire Analog Mid-Band Symmetric (HDSL-1)

2-Wire Digital Very Low-Band Symmetric (IDSL)

4-Wire Digital None*

* Used for DS1 services such as T1 and ISDN PRI

49. While Northpoint claims Pacific will restrict competition

because it has defined too many xDSL loop types instead of

one generic type, Sprint complains that Pacific stifles

competition because it has defined too few types of xDSL

loops. 68 Sprint argues that Pacific has left out the loop

types that “comply and correspond to industry standards.”

By erroneously referring to Pacific’s general physical

types of UNE loops described above, i.e., two-wire vs.

four-wire loops, and analog vs. digital loops, Sprint

ignores the fact Pacific has defined different xDSL loops

according to existing and emerging standards as explained

in paragraphs 46 and 47 above. Furthermore, as Sprint

68 Sprint Comments, pp. 38-40.

36

admits, Pacific has not denied orders for other types of

xDSL loops, i.e., SDSL, VDSL, or HDSL2. 69

50. CompTel claims Pacific does not satisfy checklist items

(ii) and (iv) because it does not provide competitors with

access to “xDSL-equipped loops.” 70 CompTel defines an xDSL-

equipped loop as a loop equipped by Pacific with the

capability to provide xDSL services to end-user customers.

CompTel bases this claim on its understanding that the loop

should include all of the features and functions of the

electronics that may be attached to the loop, such as

Pacific’s DSLAM. CompTel misreads the requirements for

UNEs. The FCC defined the local loop UNE as follows:

(a) Local Loop. The local loop network element isdefined as a transmission facility between adistribution frame (or its equivalent) in anincumbent LEC central office and an end usercustomer premises;71

This definition of a facility between the distribution

frame and the end-user premises clearly does not include

the electronics at the central office or on the customer’s

premises needed to provide xDSL service. If CompTel’s

concept of a UNE loop were accepted, Pacific would be

69 Sprint Response No. 7 to Pacific’s First Set of Data Requests,Deere Att. SSS.70 Comptel Comments, pp. 13-15.71 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a).

37

required to provide the functions of the local switch as a

part of the loop, eliminating the need for unbundled

switching.

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

51. I demonstrated in Deere Affidavit, paragraphs 94 through

95, that Pacific’s spectral management program is

competitively neutral. Contrary to the allegations of

ACI,72 Pacific has substantiated the validity of segregating

ADSL services in a separate binder group based on the test

data, ANSI and other third-party analysis, 73 and assumptions

used to develop its spectrum management process known as

the Selective Feeder Separation (“SFS”) process. In

addition, contrary to the CLEC allegations, SFS allows the

widest possible deployment of xDSL type services. 74 SFS

does so by protecting all xDSL technologies from

unnecessary and preventable interference from other xDSL

technologies, or from non-xDSL technologies such as T1.

The deployment of different types of xDSL technology should

not be accomplished at the expense of the quality of xDSL

services provided to all customers.

72 ACI Comments, p. 33.73 See ¶¶ 57 and 61.74 Subsequent tests confirm this outcome. See ¶¶ 55-56.

38

52. Some parties assert Pacific’s spectrum management program

is not competitively neutral because Pacific’s program

“could” deny CLECs’ xDSL orders. 75 As stated in the Deere

Affidavit paragraph 94, Pacific has not denied any CLEC’s

request for xDSL on the basis of the type of xDSL it wishes

to deploy. The CLECs have not offered any evidence to

substantiate their fears that SFS may result in denial of

ADSL orders. In response to discovery requests, Sprint

admits Pacific has never denied an xDSL order based on

spectrum management.76 None of the orders identified by ACI

in response to Pacific’s data request were denied based on

spectrum management.77 Therefore, the CLECs have no

evidence that Pacific has or will use the spectrum

management process in an uncompetitive manner.

53. AT&T criticizes Pacific’s SFS program for placing all ADSL

into the same binder group, claiming this limits the CLECs’

own deployment of ADSL in this binder group. Thus, AT&T

claims SFS is not competitively neutral. 78 First, SFS

utilizes a separate binder group for ADSL only where one is

available; otherwise, any carrier’s ADSL (including

75 Sprint Comments, pp. 41-42; MCI Comments, App. III, p. 10; NorthpointComments, pp. 16-17; and ACI Comments, pp. 28-37.76 Sprint Responses No. 5 to Pacific’s First Set of Data Requests,Deere Att. RRR.77 See Murray Reply Aff. ¶ 29 for discussion of orders identified by ACI.78 AT&T, Finnell Aff., ¶ 46.

39

Pacific’s) will be assigned where technically feasible.

Second, AT&T’s statement is untrue because, even with a

dedicated ADSL binder group, the CLECs have the same

opportunity as Pacific’s retail customers to use the

designated ADSL binder group for ADSL services. In other

words, the CLECs have non-discriminatory access to

designated ADSL binder groups.

54. In addition, MCI, Sprint, and ACI also complain that

Pacific’s spectral management program is not competitively

neutral because it establishes dedicated binder groups for

ADSL.79 As explained in Deere Affidavit, paragraphs 94

through 95, Pacific’s SFS program segregates ADSL from

other types of xDSL because of the demonstrated degradation

of ADSL caused by certain types of xDSL and vice versa. 80

Therefore, the segregation of ADSL is competitively neutral

as it protects retail and wholesale ADSL from interference

by other technologies and protects other technologies from

interference from ADSL.

55. Subsequent to developing SFS, Pacific conducted additional

tests that support the segregation of ADSL. During the

week of March 29, 1999, Pacific and its research affiliate,

SBC Technology Resources, Inc., conducted a test of

79 MCI Comments, p. 65 and App. III, p. 10; Sprint Comments, p. 41; and ACIComments, pp. 32-33, 38.80 Deere Attachment U provides data to support this practice.

40

interference between xDSL technologies deployed over actual

copper plant. The goal of the testing was to understand

the impact of interference between various xDSL

technologies in the same binder group using different xDSL

technologies deployed in an actual field environment. Four

types of xDSL technologies were considered: DMT ADSL, CAP

ADSL, 2B1Q SDSL, and IDSL. The loop configuration was

approximately 11.4 kft of mixed 26 and 24 gauge (10.75 kft

of equivalent 26 gauge), plus a 300 foot 26 gauge bridged

tap. A 1.5 kft spool of 26 gauge cable was used to extend

the loop length. The results, which fully confirm and

support Pacific’s SFS program, are as follows:

• The DMT ADSL was shown to not be a significant source of

interference to itself, as anticipated from previous lab

results. The prior lab results were a driving force

behind Pacific’s introduction of the SFS approach to ADSL

deployment. The CAP ADSL was found to have a small impact

on the DMT ADSL downstream, and no effect on the DMT ADSL

upstream. This is because the CAP ADSL also uses non-

overlapped spectrum.

• The 2B1Q SDSL product was capable of four rates, 192, 384,

768, and 1,152 kbps. SDSL at the 768 and 1,152 kbps

rates, and especially the latter, were strong sources of

interference for ADSL (both CAP and DMT). Pairs capable

41

of supporting downstream rates of around 3,500 kbps with

ADSL interference dropped to as low as about 500 kbps with

SDSL 1,152 interference. The degradation to ADSL

downstream performance decreased as the SDSL data rate

decreased. ADSL upstream performance was also degraded by

SDSL. Lower rates of SDSL as well as IDSL also caused

reductions in ADSL performance, albeit not as significant

as for the higher SDSL rates. ADSL was shown to be a

source of degradation to SDSL, although the degradation

from ADSL to SDSL was not as severe as the other way

around.

56. In these same tests, the impact of time-va rying crosstalk

caused by switching modems on and off was also

investigated. It was found that, even in situations where

acceptable ADSL performance could be achieved with SDSL

interference, it took some time (typical values between 30

seconds and several minutes) for the ADSL modems to adjust

to the new interference environment. This could negatively

effect customer satisfaction, especially for applications

such as video conferencing and Internet Protocol (“IP”)

telephony.

57. Pacific’s segregation of ADSL is further supported by the

International Engineering Consortium which sponsors, on its

website, a Web ProForum tutorial titled “Spectral

42

Compatibility of Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Systems

Tutorial.”81 Section 6 of this tutorial states “[t]he best

case for deployment of [frequency division multiplexed]

ADSL services is to fill the cable completely with ADSL and

eliminate all [near end crosstalk].”

58. To date, the CLECs have not provided any empirical data

proving Pacific’s SFS program is inappropriate. Failure to

segregate ADSL in separate binder groups would place all

customers’ xDSL services at too great a risk of degradation

or failure. No CLEC has offered any evidence to refute the

findings provided by Pacific. Responsible spectrum

management should not be based on CLECs’ speculation that

mischaracterizes Pacific’s SFS as anti-competitive.

59. As discussed in the 271 Workshops, and as stated in Deere

Affidavit, paragraph 95, binder groups adjacent to ADSL-

dedicated binder groups can be used for all other types of

xDSL without restriction. Consequently, Pacific is not

disadvantaging facility availability for the non-ADSL

technologies.

81 This Internet tutorial is copywrited material and has not been attached tomy affidavit; however, it may be accessed by clicking on the “Web ProForumsOn-Line Tutorials” button on the web site of the International EngineeringConsortium at www.iec.org.

43

60. AT&T complains Pacific’s spectral management program was

unilaterally developed and imposed upon the CLECs with only

minimal CLEC input.82 This is not true. Pacific solicited

input from CLECs, and, as described in the Deere Affidavit,

paragraph 95, appropriate CLEC input has been incorporated

into Pacific’s spectral management program. Pacific must

not, however, compromise the integrity of its network for

all users by agreeing to CLEC proposals such as intermixing

all forms of xDSL in the same binder groups, which is

contrary to Pacific’s laboratory and field test data and

would jeopardize the quality of all customers’ xDSL

services, whether these customers are served by Pacific or

the CLECs.

61. AT&T alleges the CLECs submitted a proposal to randomly

scatter ADSL throughout the entire cable cross-section,

using a Power Spectral Density (“PSD”) mask. 83 The CLECs’

proposal essentially was to do no spectrum management, and

let xDSL services, including ADSL, be assigned in a cable

purely by chance. Contrary to AT&T’s comments, the draft

ANSI standard that utilizes the PSD mask approach does not

preclude the use of a dedicated binder group for ADSL. In

fact, the ANSI draft states that ADSL is one of the

82 AT&T, Finnell Aff., pp. 44-45.83 Id. at 46.

44

“guarded” loop transmission systems, i.e., it is protected

with respect to the spectral compatibility of other

systems.84 While not requiring a separate binder group for

ADSL, the draft standard allows the use of a separate

binder group, acknowledging that “conformance with this

standard does not guarantee spectral compatibility or

acceptable performance under all possible operating

conditions” and that “in some cases, additional spectrum

management measures will be needed to ensure spectral

compatibility.”85 Based on Pacific’s tests, ADSL services

should be placed in dedicated binder groups whenever

possible.86 The CLECs have offered no empirical evidence to

the contrary.

62. AT&T states Pacific’s SFS is not competitively neutral

because it forces a CLEC to reveal its marketing plans to

Pacific and then Pacific fails to tell CLECs which central

offices are pre-qualified for ADS. 87 First, Pacific does

not ask for the CLECs’ marketing plans. Pacific merely

requires the CLEC to negotiate into its ICA the specific

types of xDSL it intends to deploy. Pacific also asks the

84 Draft ANSI standard on “Spectrum Management for Loop Transmission Systems,”clause 4.3.1.85 Draft ANSI standard on “Spectrum Management for Loop Transmission Systems,”clause 1.3, ¶ 3.86 See Deere Att. U and ¶ 55 above.87 AT&T, Finnell Aff., pp. 46-47.

45

CLEC, consistent with the Final Decision, to identify the

type of xDSL loop it is requesting from Pacific. Even the

draft ANSI standard involves identifying the class of xDSL

technology a CLEC requests. 88 Pacific needs this

information so it can provision the appropriate loop and

perform responsible spectrum management. Pacific also

requests a forecast, not by specific xDSL technology, so

that Pacific can ensure that it has adequate personnel to

provision the CLECs’ requests in a timely manner. Second,

a list of central offices, which are pre-qualified for

ADSL, is available to AT&T and all CLECs at a Pacific

public website.89

63. MCI complains Pacific’s spectral management process is

anti-competitive because Pacific requires a CLEC to

identify the specific xDSL technology, e.g., HDSL, SDSL, it

wishes to offer its customer. 90 MCI asks that Pacific

accept the ANSI-proposed xDSL class, e.g., class 1, class

2,91 in lieu of the xDSL type. MCI’s suggestion is

inconsistent with the Final Decision requirement that the

88 Draft ANSI standard on “Spectrum Management for Loop Transmission Systems,”clause 5.2.89 https://sw10.pacbell.com/ADSLPROD/SilverStream/Pages/adsl_aptos.html.90 MCI Comments, App. III, pp. 5-6.91 See the draft ANSI-standard on spectrum management, Deere Att. QQQ.

46

CLECs must identify the xDSL technology they intend to

deploy.92 A change in direction at this late date would

negatively impact Pacific’s plans for xDSL order flow-

through in October 1999, as those plans are based on the

CLECs providing the appropriate NC/NCI code for the

specific xDSL technology they intend to deploy. In

addition, as stated by Pacific in the 271 Workshops, the

technology the CLEC intends to deploy is necessary

information for Pacific to provision the appropriate loop

for the specific type of xDSL service. Pacific does not

ask the CLECs for the xDSL type in order to gain some

competitive advantage, or to design spectral management

criteria to prevent the CLECs from obtaining a usable loop.

Instead, as explained in Deere Affidavit, paragraph 91,

this information is necessary to minimize the risk of

spectral interference and to ensure Pacific provisions the

correct type of loop for the technology CLEC intends to

deploy.

64. Sprint has acknowledged that CLECs need to notify LECs of

the type of xDSL service the CLEC wishes to deploy. Sprint

92 Final Decision, App B., p. 20; see also Murray Aff., ¶ 38.

47

has testified in Missouri that “you have to specify what

kind of [xDSL] service you’re providing over [the loop]

because of the issue of spectrum compatibility, . . ., so

the LEC has to know, . . ., what kind of technology, what

kind of DSL technology you’re using to make sure it doesn’t

interfere with anything else.” 93 This testimony fairly

states Pacific’s need for spectrum management.

65. Although not related to any compliance item, Northpoint

proposes Pacific eliminate retail and wholesale charges for

conditioning a loop for xDSL use. 94 When a customer, retail

or wholesale, requires an xDSL-capable loop, and the only

available loop contains devices that interfere with the

ability of xDSL to function properly or at all, then these

interferors must be removed from the loop. These

interferors may include load coils, bridged tap, or

repeaters. Pacific would not otherwise remove these

devices from this loop absent a request for the xDSL-

capable loop. In its First Report and Order on

Interconnection, the FCC recognized the need for Pacific to

be reimbursed for the removal of these devices under these

circumstances, stating:

93 Testimony of Sprint witness Carl H. Laemmli in the July 8, 1999, hearing inCase No. TO-99-461, “In the Matter of the Petition of Sprint CommunicationsCompany, LP, for Arbitration of Unresolved Interconnection Issues RegardingxDSL with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.” Deere Att. TTT.94 Northpoint Comments, pp. 18-19.

48

Our definition of loops will in some instancesrequire the incumbent LEC to take affirmative stepsto condition existing loop facilities to enablerequesting carriers to provide services not currentlyprovided over such facilities. For example, if acompetitor seeks to provide a digital loopfunctionality, such as ADSL, and the loop is notcurrently conditioned to carry digital signals, butit is technically feasible to condition the facility,the incumbent LEC must condition the loop to permitthe transmission of digital signals. Thus, we rejectBellSouth's position that requesting carriers "takethe LEC networks as they find them" with respect tounbundled network elements. As discussed above, somemodification of incumbent LEC facilities, such asloop conditioning, is encompassed within the dutyimposed by section 251(c)(3). The requesting carrierwould, however, bear the cost of compensating theincumbent LEC for such conditioning. 95

The FCC explained what it meant by “conditioning” as follows:

Such loop conditioning may involve removing loadcoils or bridged tap that interfere with thetransmission of digital signals. 96

66. The Arbitrator in the MFS Worldcom a rbitration recently

held that “Pacific shall be permitted to charge for DSL

loop conditioning.”97 As Northpoint points out in its

comments, SBC has proposed loop conditioning charges in its

other states.98 Where orders have been issued by the state

commissions regarding such charges, these charges have been

95 “In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of theTelecommunications Act of 1996,” FCC 96-325, CC Docket No. 96-98, ¶ 382(footnotes omitted) (rel. Aug. 8, 1996).96 Id. at ¶ 826.97 Final Arbitrator’s Report, II.B, “DSL Capable Loops – Appendix UNE, p. 14.98 Northpoint Comments, p. 19, fn. 15.

49

adopted.99 In these orders, conditioning was defined as the

removal of load coils, bridged tap, and repeaters from

loops.

67. MCI states that it and other CLECs have been “trying to get

incumbent LECs to address [the] older ‘noisy’ technologies,

such as AMI T1, which can interfere with the deployment of

new advanced services.”100 In response to CLECs’ concern,

Pacific now segregates all DSL assignments from binder

groups containing AMI T1. Technology for AMI T1 has been

around for more than 25 years. Newly-deployed advanced

services notwithstanding, AMI T1 remains a very useful and

cost-effective technology for many large customers, such as

banks, credit card verification providers, and other large

users of telecommunications. In addition, AMI T1 is the

technology over which all copper-based DLC is provisioned.

Fiber is not always an economic alternative to AMI T1 for

DLC or large customers’ DS1 needs. Rearranging and

consolidating existing AMI T1 facilities is often cost-

prohibitive, and most of these customers are extremely

99 For example, the Missouri Public Service Commission found that it “cannotadopt Sprint’s suggestion that no charge be made for conditioning.” MissouriPublic Service Commission’s Arbitration Order, Case No. TO-99-461, “In theMatter of the Petition of Sprint Communications Company, L.P., forArbitration of Unresolved Interconnection Issues Regarding xDSL withSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company," issued August 3, 1999, p. 5.100 MCI Comments, App. III, p. 13.

50

reluctant to have their services interrupted to accommodate

the change or rearrangement. The FCC is addressing the

grandfathering or replacement of AMI T1 in the Further NPRM

portion of its Advanced Services Order. In the interim,

Pacific has agreed with the CLECs to assign all AMI T1 in

separate binder groups from those used for all forms of

xDSL.

Extended Link

68. MCI complains that Pacific does not offer extended link at

higher bandwidth.101 Pacific will offer higher bandwidth

pursuant to the Final Arbitrator’s Report in the MFS

WorldCom proceeding.102 As ordered by the Arbitrator,

Pacific only provides extended loop functionality when the

CLEC’s end user for the bandwidth is the CLEC’s customer

for switched local exchange service. 103

LOCAL TRANSPORT

69. The Final Decision required Pacific to demonstrate the

specific circumstances in which a CLEC would be required to

negotiate an amendment to its ICA in order to implement

101 MCI Comments, pp. 45-46.102 Final Arbitrator’s Report, II.C “Extended Loop-UNE Appendix,” pp. 17-19.103 Id.

51

meet-point unbundled transport. 104 As clearly stated in

Deere Affidavit, paragraph 108, the specific circumstances

are whenever the CLEC does not have meet-point unbundled

transport language in its ICA.

70. Contrary to MCI’s and ORA’s allegations, the contract

language proposed by Pacific in Accessible Letters CLECC

98-116 and 99-112(Deere Attachments Y and Z) may either be

accepted by the CLEC without modification and incorporated

into the CLEC’s ICA or the CLEC may negotiate the terms and

conditions before incorporating them into their ICA. MCI

has made no attempt to incorporate or negotiate these terms

into its ICA.

71. The Final Decision required Pacific to demonstrate that

CLECs were able to obtain meet-point unbundled transport. 105

MCI argues that Pacific has not satisfied this

requirement.106 As stated in Deere Affidavit, paragraph

107, Pacific has demonstrated compliance by identifying

three CLECs who have ordered and been provisioned meet-

point dedicated transport.

72. Unbundled meet-point dedicated transport, also referred to

as cross-boundary, is dedicated transport that goes from

104 Final Decision, App. B, p. 20.105 Id.106 MCI Comments, pp. 89-96. See Murray Reply Affidavit regarding MCI’sallegations pertaining to ordering of unbundled transport.

52

Pacific’s franchise area into the franchise area of another

ILEC. The only difference is that Pacific only provides

one end of the transport. All speeds of dedicated

transport are also available for cross-boundary transport.

Therefore, contrary to MCI’s allegations, a CLEC may order

cross boundary dedicated transport in DS1, DS3, OC-3, and

OC-12 levels. As stated in Deere Affidavit, paragraph 109,

OC-48 dedicated transport will be made available on an

individual case basis (“ICB”). In fact, the Commission

recognized in the Final Decision that some higher band

optical speeds may be offered only on as ICB. 107 To date,

no CLEC has submitted a request for an ICB for OC 48

dedicated transport or OC 48 cross-boundary dedicated

transport.

73. As demonstrated in paragraph 132 of the Deere Affidavit,

Pacific permits CLECs’ traffic to overflow from dedicated

transport facilities to Pacific’s shared transport network.

In Appendix VII to its filing, MCI alleges that its

Appendix II(5)(A) addresses this requirement. However,

there is nothing in that section that addresses this

specific compliance item.

107 Final Decision, App. B, pp. 20-21.

53

LOCAL SWITCHING

74. MCI alleges that Pacific unreasonably refused to provide

Feature Group D signaling or unbundled switching with an

AIN solution.108 The March 2, 1999 ruling from the Assigned

Administrative Law Judge (“March 2 Ruling”) states that at

the switching workshop held in February 1999, Pacific

presented test results demonstrating that MCI’s FGD request

was not technically feasible. 109 In fact, at the February

workshop, MCI abandoned its FGD request in favor of an AIN

proposal for customized routing. 110 Although as explained

in the March 2 Ruling MCI’s AIN request is beyond the scope

of Pacific’s compliance filing, Pacific has followed the

Commission’s directions regarding MCI’s request. The March

2 Ruling states that Pacific must have additional

information from MCI to determine if it can perform the

test and the ruling lists the clarifying questions to which

MCI was required to respond. 111 MCI has never provided the

information ordered by the ruling, nor was MCI willing to

identify the AIN triggers needed for testing of the routing

requested by MCI. By contrast, Pacific provided all

108 MCI Comments, pp. 100-105.109 March 2 Ruling, p. 2.110 Id.111 Id. at p. 3.

54

necessary information to MCI to set up a T1 for testing

this proposal and sent monthly reports to the Commission

regarding the status of its efforts to secure cooperation

from MCI. Given MCI’s failure to cooperate and apparent

disinterest in the AIN test, it is completely disingenuous

for MCI to now blame Pacific and the Commission for its

decision to put the AIN test on hold. Additionally, MCI’s

request for third party testing is inappropriate given

MCI’s failure to cooperate in the testing after the

February workshop and the fact no other CLEC has made such

a request.

75. MCI also inaccurately states that the Commission ordered

Pacific in February to test routing of intraLATA FNPA

directory assistance traffic in connection with unbundled

local switching.112 The issue of including testing of FNPA-

555-1212 calls in the Lucent and Nortel test plans was

never raised at the February workshop, nor did the March 2

Ruling order Pacific to test this call type. The Lucent

test plan attached to the March 2 Ruling reflects that this

was not a call pattern to be tested. After the Lucent test

had already been completed, AT&T requested and Pacific

agreed to test FNPA-555-1212 routing as part of both the

112 MCI Comments, p. 108.

55

Lucent and Nortel test plans. Pacific completed these test

plans and reported them to the Director of the

Telecommunications Division. 113

E911

76. AT&T claims Pacific is not providing parity E911 service to

AT&T in violation of the ICA because Pacific has not

converted AT&T’s 911 trunking to SS7 signaling. 114 AT&T

offers no cite to its ICA to support this allegation. In

fact, AT&T’s ICA does not require SS7 deployment with

respect to 911 trunking. Pacific is presently converting

its network and will offer SS7 signaling for 911 to CLECs

by the fourth quarter of 1999. In 1997, Pacific began the

process of migrating existing 911 network from the

traditional Centralized Automated Message Accounting

("CAMA”) analog to a newer, more robust network

architecture using SS7 signaling. At the time, there were

no standards or implementations that could be followed.

Pacific, with help from what was formerly Bellcore, began

testing and developing SS7 standards for 911. By May 1998,

Pacific began migrating its 2800 911 trunks from the CAMA

architecture to SS7. This migration is still underway and

113 Deere Att. GG.114 AT&T, Finnell Aff., ¶¶ 110-116.

56

will completely the end of 1999. Pacific was and still is

one of the first RBOCs to begin converting its entire

network to SS7. Pacific’s strategy was to migrate to the

new network while keeping the old network in place until it

is confident that all issues regarding this architecture

for 911 service are identified and resolved. Contrary to

AT&T’s assertion, SS7 signaling will not reduce the number

of trunks required to provide 911 service for CLECs.

Reduction of the number of trunks is not a function of

providing SS7 signaling.

77. Contrary to AT&T’s assertion, rate centers have no

application to 911.115 They are not used in determining

routing or coverage area. The only boundaries utilized in

911 are the selective router boundaries and Public Safety

Answering Point (“PSAP”) boundaries. Selective router

boundaries are specific geographic areas and do not

overlap. Contrary to AT&T’s assertion, Pacific routes 911

calls based on NPA/NXX, not based on line number. Pacific

only has access to and knowledge of its own selective

routers. Because Pacific does not utilize the selective

router of another company, it does not have overlay maps

depicting the selective routers deployed by Pacific and

115 AT&T, Finnell Aff., ¶¶ 117-125.

57

other companies. In addition, selective routers are part

of an ILEC’s proprietary network configuration. Even if

Pacific had access to the data, it would be inappropriate

for Pacific to provide another ILEC’s proprietary

information to any other company.

LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY

78. Cox complains of problems with ported numbers reassigned by

Pacific.116 In response to data requests, Cox reports

problems with 16 telephone numbers. In the early part of

1999, Pacific had a legacy system conversion problem in its

software which caused the status on some telephone numbers

to be changed from ported-out to disconnected. This

resulted in the telephone numbers being made available for

assignment to Pacific retail customers at the end of the

aging period. Pacific discovered the problem and fixed the

software prior to the next scheduled system conversions.

Pacific also began bi-monthly database comparisons of

ported telephone numbers from its LSMS, against the

“available numbers” inventory system. The intent of the

comparison is to find and fix status errors prior to

reassignment. These comparisons were started in late

January, when the problem was discovered, and continue

116 Cox MediaOne Comments, pp. 17-19.

58

today. There were some residual problems found later in

the year that originated from the initial legacy system

conversion in late 1998. These problems have also been

identified and corrected.

79. As to the alleged misconduct of Pacific's service

representatives, all service representatives are covered

annually on maintaining a competitively neutral wholesale

service environment, and records of coverage are

maintained. Pacific investigates any specific reports of

misconduct and appropriate action is taken.

80. MCI states that Pacific is in violation of the Act with

regard to providing effective and efficient number

portability and in violation of Public Utilities Code

section 7932 by allegedly not allowing a customer that has

ported out of the Pacific network to be reached by someone

who dials his seven-digit number. 117 MCI, not Pacific, is

responsible for this problem. MCI's accusation stems from

an issue which first arose in the industry Local Number

Portability Task Force Operations Team meeting (where MCI

is a regular participant) on February 24, 1998, not June

1999, as alleged by MCI. At the February meeting, Pacific

provided information regarding NPA split impact on ported-

117 MCI Comments, p. 135.

59

number call completion during the permissive dialing period

of an area code split, and asked each company to evaluate

its own network for impacts. The concern was that during

the permissive dialing period customers may experience

trouble completing calls, if a solution was not brought

forward. The issue was again addressed in the March 1998,

June 1998, July 1998, November 1998 (November meeting

hosted by MCI in San Francisco), and December 1998

operations meetings. During these meetings, Pacific

discussed its proposed solution with the industry and

solicited input and other proposals. Finally, in December

1998, at the Operations Team meeting, Pacific notified the

industry it would proceed with implementation of its

proposal, and none of the participants opposed Pacific’s

proposal or offered alternatives. Contrary to MCI’s

allegations, Pacific’s proposal does not require an invalid

NPA NXX combination to be opened as a non-native NOC in the

switch. The solution involves an incoming translation

effort, not a code opening effort. Therefore, it allows

incoming seven digit dialed calls to a ported number to

route properly during the permissive dialing period of an

NPA split. Pacific and the majority of the

telecommunications carriers in California proceeded with

implementation of Pacific’s proposed and successfully used

60

this procedure in the 805/661, 213/323, 714/949, 415/650,

and 510/925 area code splits, as well as the must recent

619/858 area code split referred to by MCI. Pacific

remains open to any alternative solutions, which are

technically feasible. At this time, to Pacific’s

knowledge, no alternatives have been brought forward.

OTHER NETWORK ISSUES

Ancillary Equipment

81. As required by the Final Decision, Deere Affidavit

paragraph 224 demonstrates that Pacific provides any piece

of equipment required to make a UNE function as specified

in the ICA at no charge. 118 No CLEC alleges that Pacific

has charged or attempted to charge for any equipment

necessary to make a UNE function as described in the ICA.

Nevertheless, MCI continues to demand that Pacific go

through the unnecessary step of developing a generic ICA

amendment that specifies each individual piece of equipment

that will be provided in all situations encountered for

each UNE.119 For instance, a local loop ordered for the

provision of basic local telephone service might require no

ancillary equipment. However, if this same loop is used

for some type of special service arrangement, Pacific may

118 Final Decision, App. B. p. 16.119 MCI Comments, App. V, p. 4.

61

use a Metallic Loop Termination device to condition the

loop for the service desired by the CLEC. If this same

loop is used to provide a digital service, there may need

to be a signal regenerator installed in the loop. If the

loop is used as part of a multi-point circuit, a bridging

device must be installed. As part of the discussion

between Pacific and the CLECs concerning ancillary

equipment, each of the above situations was discussed,

along with many others, and the necessary ancillary

equipment was identified. As stated in Deere Affidavit,

paragraph 224, Pacific has provided and will continue to

provide any UNE with all of the functionality described in

the CLECs’ interconnection agreements, including any

required ancillary equipment.

82. MCI erroneously alleges that Pacific fails to state

categorically whether there is a charge for the six

standard ancillary equipment items. 120 The prices for the

six standalone ancillary equipment items are found in

Accessible Letter CLECC 99-147, Deere Attachment SS.

Pacific clearly stated that a charge would apply if the

ancillary equipment was not necessary to make the UNE

function as defined in an individual CLEC’s ICA.

120 MCI Comments, App. V, pp. 7-8.

62

83. AT&T complains that Pacific has not complied with the

Commission’s requirement to provide access to ancillary

equipment.121 Deere Affidavit paragraphs 229 through 232

explains (1) that Pacific has developed and shared with the

CLECs a list of ancillary equipment, options on existing

UNEs, or new UNEs necessary for CLECs to provide certain

UNEs or UNE combinations and (2) that CLECs are able to

order and obtain use of the ancillary equipment. While MCI

claims these instructions are vague, it offers no

specifics.122 MCI does not claim that it lacks knowledge of

how to order these items. In fact, MCI does not even claim

it intends to order any of these items.

84. MCI also falsely alleges Pacific has only made available

six of the 28 items requested by the CLECs. 123 In response

to a similar claim by MCI, Pacific sent a letter to MCI on

this issue on July 23, 1999, three weeks prior to MCI

filing its comments in opposition. 124 As explained in Deere

Affidavit, paragraphs 229 through 233, as well as in the

Deere Attachment VVV, Pacific provides 12 of the items

requested: four as stand-alone ancillary equipment, three

as options on existing UNEs, two as existing UNES, and

121 AT&T Comments, pp. 47-48.122 MCI Comments, App. V, pp. 1-4.123 Id. at pp. 1-2.124 Deere Att. VVV.

63

three more as parts of existing UNEs when required to make

the UNEs function as defined in the CLECs’ interconnection

agreements. As also explained in paragraphs 236 of the

Deere Affidavit and Deere Attachment VVV, an additional

eight items are available for negotiation as new forms of

interconnection, new UNEs, or collocation. Pacific has

stated it will not provide eight items because they are not

deployed in Pacific’s network or are customer premise

equipment (“CPE”) which Pacific does not provide to CLEC

end users.125

85. MCI’s primary complaint regarding ancillary equipment is

“SBC/Pacific still will not agree to provide MCI with all

of the ancillary equipment options that parties began

discussing following the 271 Collaborative Workshops.” 126

However, MCI neglects to admit that it was told at the 271

Workshops and in subsequent discussions, that much of what

it requested was not ancillary equipment, but rather was

major requests for new forms of interconnection, new UNEs,

or collocation that should be negotiated with Pacific

pursuant to the Act and the ICA.

125 Deere Aff., ¶¶ 234-235.126 MCI Comments, p. 34.

64

86. To the extent MCI, AT&T, or any party feels they have

reached an impasse on the ancillary equipment negotiations,

they were to “advise the Director of the Telecommunications

Division by letter.”127 No party has so advised the

Director. Therefore, it is inappropriate to raise the

issue for the first time in comments on Pacific’s

compliance filing.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

127 Final Decision, Conclusions of Law 47.