AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER TABLE OF CONTENTS …

AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGERTABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

SUBJECT PARAGRAPH(S)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 3

PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT 4–8

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 ACT 9–14

GENERAL PRICING PRINCIPLES 15–35

RECIPROCAL COMPENSATION 36-42

BONAFIDE REQUEST PROCESS 43-51

RESALE 52-54

Promotions 55-59

UNBUNDLED SWITCHING 60-61

COLLOCATION 62-65

Current Status 66-67

Caged Physical Collocation 68

Cageless Physical Collocation 69

Other Forms of Physical Collocation 70-71

Shared Cage Physical Collocation 72-73

Microwave Collocation 74-75

Adjacent Structure Collocation 76-77

Virtual Collocation 78-80

CLEC Equipment 81-85

Handbook Issues 86-92

Central Office Space Management 93-109

Provisioning 110-121

AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGERTABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

SUBJECT PARAGRAPH(S)

Security 122-129

Collocation Summary 130

CHECKLIST ITEM (II) ACCESS TO NETWORK ELEMENTSON AN UNBUNDLED BASIS

131-134

UNE Combinations 135-140

RIGHT TO USE 141-142

WHITE PAGES LISTINGS 142-152

HIGHER BANDWIDTH – OPTICAL LEVELS 153

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS 154

CONCLUSION 155

AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGERTABLE OF ATTACHMENTS

iii

DescriptionAffidavitReference

A Checklist Provisioning Status ¶14B Summary of Unbundled Network Elements

Recurring Prices¶19

C Schedule Cal.P.U.C 175-T Section 16 ¶20,¶68,¶74

D FCC 128 Section 16 ¶20,¶74,¶78,¶84

E Proposed Collocation Tariffs ¶20,¶70,¶106,¶107,¶108,¶109,¶113,¶118,

¶121F Memorandum From Chris Boyer Dated March

15, 1999 Re: CLEC Access to AINFunctionality

¶28

G Accessible Letter CLECC 99-093 dated March24, 1999 – Coordinated Cuts Regarding UNELoop and/or Number Portability

¶29

H Accessible Letter CLECC 99-136 dated April27, 1999 – Bona Fide (BFR) Process andGenerally Available Generic Appendices

¶44

I CLEC Handbook Section 6.0 – Bona FideRequest Process[PB Proprietary]

¶44,¶49

J Intentionally Left BlankK Public Version of CPUC Report of BFRs ¶47,¶48L CPUC Report of BFRs

[Third Party Proprietary]¶47,¶48

M Matrix of Interconnection AgreementLanguage on INER/BFR

¶49

N Accessible Letter CLECC 99-179 dated May18, 1999 – Adjacent Location Method forAccessing Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs)

¶50

O Generic Appendix UNE[PB Proprietary]

¶50,¶132,¶133

P Interim Recurring UNE Generic Rates Sheet(dated March 29, 1999)[PB Proprietary]

¶50

Q Interim Recurring UNE Generic Rates Sheet(dated April 15, 1999)

¶50


iv


[PB Proprietary]R Matrix Approved CPCN Applications ¶54S Advice Letters and Memorandum Notices on

Promotional Offerings¶55

T Intentionally Left BlankU Intentionally Left BlankV Intentionally Left BlankW Matrix of Promotional Offerings Filed

On/After October 5, 1998 IncludingMemorandum Notices[PB Proprietary]

¶59

X Accessible Letter CLECC 99-155 dated May6, 1999 – Notification of Update to theGeneric Contract Language Pertaining toBilling Terminating Unbundled (UNE) LocalSwitching

¶60

Y Page 8, MCI ICA ¶60Z Letter from Pacific Bell to CLEC dated

March 19, 1999 [Third party Proprietary]¶61

AA Follow-up Letter from Pacific Bell to CLECdated June 4, 1999 [Third PartyProprietary]

¶61

BB Accessible Letter CLECC 99-200 dated May28, 1999 – Notification of ApplicationProcess for Cageless Collocation

¶22,¶69

CC Accessible Letter CLECC 99-079 dated March15, 1999 Notification of AlternativePhysical Collocation Arrangements

¶70

DD Accessible Letter CLECC 99-249 dated July12, 1999 – Revised Physical CollocationRequest Form

¶67

EE Accessible Letter CLECC 99-247 dated July12, 1999 – Notification of Pacific Bell’sCollocation Operations Forum in California

¶66

FF Intentionally Left BlankGG Interconnector’s Collocation Service

Handbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section1.10.1[PB Proprietary]

¶84

HH Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section

¶87


v


1.1.2[PB Proprietary]

II Accessible Letter CLECC 99-073 dated March12, 1999 – Collocation Survey

¶88

JJ CLEC Handbook Collocation Web Survey ¶88KK Accessible Letter CLECC 98-084 dated

September 16, 1998 – Enhanced InternetWebsite Handbook

¶89

LL “What’s New” Page of CLEC Handbook Website[PB Proprietary]

¶90

MM Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.3, March 1999 Summary ofChanges to Interconnector’s CollocationService Handbook

¶90

NN Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.3, March 1999 SamplePages

¶91

OO Matrix of Accessible Letters ¶92PP Accessible Letter CLECC 99-225, dated June

18, 1999 – Collocation Space AvailabilityReport

¶94

QQ Accessible Letters (9) various dates –Notification of Denied Central Offices forCollocation Space

¶95

RR Revised Collocation TariffsJuly 9, 1999 Ver.

¶21,¶71,¶73,¶76,¶76,¶81,¶83,¶85,¶94,¶96,

¶102,¶113,¶114,¶115,¶116,¶122,¶123,¶124,¶125,¶126,¶127,¶128,

¶129,SS Interconnector’s Collocation Service

Handbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 3.8[PB Proprietary]

¶97

TT Accessible Letter CLECC 98-071 datedAugust 18, 1999 – Collocation SpaceReservation

¶98


vi


UU Intentionally Left Blank ¶99VV Interconnector’s Collocation Service

Handbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section3.4.1[PB Proprietary]

¶100

WW Floor Plan Showing ADSL EquipmentSubmitted to CPUC February 26, 1999.

¶104

XX Matrix of Denied Central Offices Inspectedby CLEC Representatives[Third Party Proprietary]

¶105

YY Example of Package Provided to CLEC Priorto Walkthrough [PB Proprietary]

¶105

ZZ Accessible Letter CLECC 99-205 dated June1, 1999 – Notification of NonrefundableDeposit for Space Reservation

¶101

AAA Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 3.5[PB Proprietary}

¶101

BBB Accessible Letter CLECC 99-081 dated March15, 1999 – Collocation 60% SpaceUtilization

¶106

CCC Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 3.3[PB Proprietary]

¶106

DDD Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 1.5[PB Proprietary]

¶73

EEE Accessible Letter CLECC 99-077 dated March15, 1999 – Sub-Leasing of CollocationSpace in Central Office

¶107

FFF Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 9.5[PB Proprietary]

¶107

GGG Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.3, March 1999 Section1.5, 1.5.1, and 3.3[PB Proprietary]

¶69,¶70

HHH Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 3.11[PB Proprietary]

¶108

III Interconnector’s Collocation Service ¶71


vii


Handbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 1.4,1.4.1, 1.5[PB Proprietary]

JJJ Accessible Letter CLECC 99-085 dated March18, 1999 – Refund of Nonrecurring Chargesfor Occupied Cages Surrendered

¶109

KKK Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 9.10[PB Proprietary]

¶109

LLL Brooks Fiber, MGC Communication and AT&TAdvice Letters for Remote Switch Module(RSM) Arrangements

¶84

MMM 271 Results for Collocation Cage andAugment Jobs with Due Dates in January1999 [Third-party Proprietary]

¶111

NNN Memo from A. Wiedenmann dated March 1,1999 Re: Collocation Job StatusNotification Form

¶112

OOO Pacific Bell Collocation DelayNotification and Status Report Form Letter

¶112

PPP Accessible Letter CLECC 99-078 dated March15, 1999 – Notification of Interval forCage-to-Cage Connections BetweenCollocation Cages

¶113

QQQ Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section1.9.2[PB Proprietary]

¶113

RRR Intentionally Left BlankSSS Generic Appendix Collocation (Ver. 7.9.99) ¶117TTT Accessible Letter CLECC 99-071 dated March

12, 1999 – Acceptance of Surety Bonds forCollocation

¶118

UUU Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 9.4and 9.4.1.[PB Proprietary]

¶118

VVV Intentionally Left BlankWWW Accessible Letter CLECC 99-126 dated April

13, 1999 – Notification of Proposal toShorten Prioritization Process Timeframes

¶120


viii


XXX Accessible Letter CLECC 99-184 dated May20, 1999 – Notification of Time Intervalsfor the Prioritization Process

¶120

YYY Accessible Letter CLECC 99-092 dated March24, 1999 – Notification of ContiguousCollocation Cage Policy

¶121

ZZZ Interconnector’s Collocation ServiceHandbook Issue 3.4, June 1999 Section 9.3– Application for Two or More ContiguousCages[PB Proprietary]

¶121

AAAA Intentionally Left BlankBBBB Accessible Letter CLECC 99-166 dated May

12, 1999 – UNE Third-Party Software Right-To-Use (RTU) Requirement

¶141

CCCC Accessible Letter CLECC 99-237 dated June30, 1999 – Notification of Revisions tothe UNE Third-Party Software Right-To-use(RTU)

¶141

DDDD CLEC Handbook Section 2.1 IntellectualProperty: Right-To-Use (RTU) [PBProprietary]

¶141

EEEE Generic Appendix NCS – Network CombinationService

¶137

FFFF Customer Care Pages San Gabriel ValleyWhite Pages

¶149

GGGG Accessible Letter CLECC 99-163 dated May11, 1999 – Notification of SynchronousOptical Network (SONET) UnbundledDedicated Transport (UDT) OC3-OC12

¶153

1

AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER

1. My name is Curtis L. Hopfinger. My business address is

Four Bell Plaza, Room 1322, Dallas, Texas 75202. My title

is Director-Industry Markets for SBC Telecommunications,

Inc. SBC Telecommunications Inc. is a first tier

subsidiary of SBC, whose primary function is to provide

management services and support to Pacific Bell

(“Pacific”), Southern New England Telephone, Southwestern

Bell Telephone Co., and Nevada Bell.

2. As Director-Industry Markets, my current responsibilities

include representing Pacific wholesale marketing positions

to regulatory bodies and other external stakeholders. The

wholesale marketing group’s primary responsibilities are to

develop the wholesale marketing opportunities for Pacific,

to negotiate local interconnection agreements with

Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (“CLECs”), to

participate in state arbitration proceedings where

agreements cannot be reached on all issues, to comply with

the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“the Act” or “FTA”) and

federal and state laws concerning the implementation of

increased local exchange service competition.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

3. I began my career with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

(“SWBT”) in 1970. From that time to 1978, I served mainly

in positions and locations dealing with various aspects of

2

business office line operations. My responsibilities

included serving small and large business customers. From

1978 to 1979, I was responsible for coordination with

independent telephone companies in the state of Missouri.

In this capacity I supervised the ordering and provisioning

of interconnection facilities and other jointly provided

services between SWBT and the independent telephone

companies in the state. In 1979, I was appointed Area

Manager Rate Administration responsible for the tariffing

and pricing of products and services provided by SWBT in

Missouri. From 1986 through 1990, I held positions dealing

with docket coordination with the Missouri Public Service

Commission and analyzing legislative issues in the state of

Missouri. In 1990, I was appointed District Manager Rate

Administration responsible for the development and

implementation of regulatory policy as well as the

development of pricing, terms and conditions for SWBT’s

five-state area. From 1990 through 1993, I also worked in

the company’s cost study organization and additionally held

a temporary position in the company’s directory compliance

organization. In 1993, I was appointed District Manager-

Regulatory in Texas where I coordinated and worked with the

Texas Public Utility Commission. I accepted my current

position as Director Industry Markets on August 1, 1997. In

my current position I have testified before the California

3

Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) in the Open Access and

Network Architecture Development(“OANAD”)1 pricing

proceedings, actively participated in the California 271

collaborative workshops, and testified in numerous CLEC

arbitration proceedings in California.

PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT

4. The Act provides three methods by which telecommunications

carriers may enter the local market. First, section

251(c)(2) requires Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers

(“ILECs”) to provide facilities-based competitors with non-

discriminatory interconnection to the ILEC’s network, "at

any technically feasible point," and on terms that are

"just and reasonable." Thus, a CLEC that wishes to

construct its own telecommunications network is assured its

customers will be able to call and be called by users of

the ILEC's network.

5. Second, section 251(c)(4) enables new entrants to purchase

finished telecommunications services from the ILEC and then

resell those services to its customers in competition with

the ILEC. And third, section 251(c)(3) gives new entrants

access to network elements on an "unbundled basis" and

permits the new entrant, to "combine such elements in order

to provide telecommunications service." Thus, carriers are

entitled to lease some or all of the individual elements of

the ILEC’s network. They can combine the UNEs together or

1 R.93-04-003; I.93-93-04-002

4

with other facilities which they lease or own, for the

provision of service to end users. Such access to network

elements allows the new entrant to compete with the ILEC on

a facility basis without the requirement to build out its

own network.

6. My affidavit describes Pacific’s methodology for

establishing prices for local interconnection, Unbundled

Network Elements (“UNEs”), reciprocal compensation, resold

local services, and other local products and services that

are just, reasonable and in accordance with all

requirements of the Act. These prices are included in

Pacific’s Interconnection Agreements (“ICAs”) and in

Pacific’s applicable tariffs. Additionally, I discuss the

CPUC proposed UNE rates included in the Proposed Decision

released May 10, 1999 (“Proposed Decision”). These proposed

rates are based on CPUC approved costs. My affidavit, will

also describe how Pacific has met the resale requirements

of the Act.

7. My affidavit, together with the affidavits of other Pacific

witnesses, demonstrates that Pacific’s local exchange

service markets are open to competition as all of the items

specified in the competitive checklist of Section

271(c)(2)(B) are either currently being furnished or are

available to any requesting carrier. As a result of our

efforts, CLECs seeking to provide service to local exchange

service customers have access to the Pacific network and

interconnection facilities necessary to make such service

5

available in a timely, efficient and reasonable basis on

nondiscriminatory terms and at just and reasonable rates.

8. My affidavit demonstrates that CLECs seeking to inter-

connect with Pacific's network may do so through any of

Pacific’s collocation arrangements or any feasible

interconnection point, and that Pacific makes those

arrangements available on rates, terms and conditions that

are just, reasonable and non-discriminatory. My affidavit

also shows that Pacific provides for the inclusion of CLEC

directory listings in the appropriate Pacific white pages

directories. My affidavit shows that Pacific has

established reciprocal compensation arrangements for the

transport and termination of CLEC local exchange calls

using just and reasonable terms and conditions.

Additionally, I will demonstrate that Pacific has satisfied

the compliance items identified by the Commission on

December 17, 1998 in D.98-12-069 (“Final Decision”)2 for

each of the areas described above.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 ACT

9. The extensive efforts undertaken by Pacific to implement

the requirements of the Act are discussed in detail in the

various affidavits accompanying this application. Among

other things, these affidavits demonstrate that the Act has

required and will continue to require significant

2 Cites to the body of the Final Decision are marked FD followed by the pagereference. Cites to Appendix B of the Final Decision are marked App. B,followed by the page reference.

6

expenditures by Pacific. From February 8, 1996 through

March 31, 1999, Pacific spent approximately $746.1 million

to provide interconnection for local competition and meet

system and operational changes needed to comply with the

Act. Listed below are some of the areas that Pacific has

incurred expense and capital dollars to comply with the

Act:

10. Tandem Trunking: Significant changes to Pacific’s trunking

network have been made in order to accommodate the change

in traffic flows as CLECs enter the local marketplace. See

Deere Affidavit for details on the network.

11. Development of OSS Capabilities: As discussed in the

Viveros Affidavit, Pacific has spent over $88 Million since

the passage of the Act. Significant resources have been

devoted to development and implementation of multiple

electronic interfaces for the purpose of enabling CLECs to

obtain access to Pacific’s Operations Support Systems

(“OSS”) for pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning,

maintenance, repair and billing of interconnection

facilities, UNEs and resale.

12. Long Term Number Portability (LNP): Implementation of long

term number portability was a matter of enormous scope and

technical complexity involving development, modification

and deployment of new software and/or hardware by multiple

suppliers for every switching and signaling network

component within Pacific’s network, in addition to the

provision of several new network components. As of March

7

31, 1999, Pacific has expended approximately $298.2 million

on this item alone. See Fleming Affidavit for details on

LNP.

13. Local Service Center (LSC)/Local Operations Center (LOC)

Operations: As outlined in the Murray and Tenerelli

Affidavits, Pacific established these centers staffed

exclusively to handle the preordering, ordering, billing,

provisioning, maintenance and repair of CLEC service orders

and trouble tickets. See the Murray and Tenerelli

Affidavits for details.

14. Hopfinger Attachment A is a table showing Pacific’s

provision of checklist items to CLECs in California.

Pacific’s provisioning of individual checklist items is

discussed in the various affidavits accompanying this

application. The quantities shown on Hopfinger Attachment

A are current as of May 31, 1999.

GENERAL PRICING PRINCIPLES

15. Standards for interconnection via voluntary negotiations

are established in 47 U.S.C. §252(a)(1). That section of

the Act specifies that upon receiving a request for

interconnection, service or network elements pursuant to 47

U.S.C. §251, Pacific may enter into a binding agreement

with the requesting CLEC without regard to the standards

set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of 47 U.S.C. §251.

The agreement is to include a detailed schedule of itemized

charges for interconnection and each service or network

8

element included in the agreement. Pacific’s

interconnection agreements comply with this provision.

16. Pricing standards for interconnection and UNEs are

established in 47 U.S.C. §252(d)(1). That section of the

Act specifies that prices for interconnection and unbundled

elements shall be determined by the state commission based

on cost, “determined without reference to rate-of-return or

other rate-based proceeding” and must be nondiscriminatory

and, “may include a reasonable profit.” Pacific has

complied with all orders from the CPUC establishing rates

for interconnection and network elements pursuant to 47

U.S.C. §252(c). The CPUC has determined these prices to be

in compliance with the requirements of 47 U.S.C.

§252(d)(1).

17. For the exchange of calls, 47 U.S.C.§252(d)(2) requires

that to be determined just and reasonable, reciprocal

compensation prices must “ . . . provide for the mutual and

reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated

with the transport and termination on each carrier’s

network facilities of calls that originate on the network

facilities of the other carrier . . .” Furthermore, 47

U.S.C. §252(d)(2) requires the costs for reciprocal

compensation to be based on a, “ . . . reasonable

approximation of the additional costs of terminating such

calls” and indicates that arrangements waiving mutual

recovery (such as bill and keep) are not precluded.

However, that section of the Act does preclude the FCC and

9

state commissions from engaging, “in any rate regulation

proceeding to establish with particularity the additional

costs of transporting or terminating calls . . . ” Decision

96-12-034 approving the CPUC’s Arbitration Opinion in the

AT&T Application 96-08-040 of the Pacific Interconnection

Agreement, adopted a bill and keep arrangement for

reciprocal compensation of local traffic, except for out of

balance situations. The CPUC determined that this

arrangement was in compliance with the requirements of 47

U.S.C. §252(d). Id., V,A,1,b. However, the CPUC does not

preclude parties from mutually agreeing to other

compensation agreements. In fact, MFS and PacWest have

compensation arrangements that provide for reciprocal

payments on the termination of local traffic. PacWest GTC

§5.3, MFS §VI.

18. In response to the provisions of 47 U.S.C. §251(d), the

FCC, on August 8, 1996, released the First Report and

Order, FCC 96-325 (“Order”),3 establishing regulations to

implement the requirements of 47 U.S.C. §251. Among the

numerous issues addressed in the Order is its definition of

the costing and pricing standards to be used in

interconnection arbitration. The FCC Order established the

pricing policy for unbundled elements as well as transport

and termination pricing based on “forward-looking economic

3 In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in theTelecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket Nos. 96-98 and 95-185, FirstReport and Order, FCC. 96-325, 11 FCC 15499 (rel. Aug. 8, 1996)

10

cost” which it defines as the sum of the total element long

run incremental cost (“TELRIC”) of the element plus a

reasonable allocation of common costs.

19. Pacific submitted TELRIC cost studies in the OANAD

proceeding in California. The proposed decision, issued

May 5, 1999, (“Proposed Decision”) determined appropriate

cost-based prices for interconnection and UNEs based on

TELRIC plus a 19% adder for shared and common costs.

Hopfinger Attachment B contains detailed lists of prices

set forth in the Proposed Decision.

20. Pacific’s current collocation tariffs contain the rates,

terms, and conditions for physical collocation. The rates

are contained in Cal. Schedule P.U.C. No. 175-T, Section 16

and FCC Tariff No. 128, Section 16. Hopfinger Attachments C

and D, respectively. The rates contained in Schedule Cal.

P.U.C. No. 175-T are subject to CPUC approval. Hopfinger

Attachment E is a copy of the revised California

collocation tariff filed on April 1, 1999 to implement the

requirements of the Final Decision relating to collocation.

21. On April 1, 1999, Pacific filed a proposed tariff to

implement the requirements of the Final Decision. As a

result of the FCC’s recent order in Docket No. 99-48,

released March 31, 1999 and effective on June 1, 1999 (“FCC

Docket 99-48 Order”) the way in which physical collocation

is provided and the way in which charges may be imposed

have changed. On July 9, 1999, Pacific filed with the CPUC

proposed physical collocation tariffs that are compliant

11

with FCC 91-141 and the FCC Docket 99-48 Order. Hopfinger

Attachment RR is a copy of the July 9, 1999 proposed tariff

sheets with rates, terms and conditions for Pacific’s

physical collocation offerings. Pacific has proposed rates

at TELRIC plus a 21% adder for shared and common costs as

the appropriate cost based prices for physical collocation.

The July 9, 1999 proposed tariff in some instances

necessarily modified the April 1, 1999 proposed tariff.

Both of these proposed tariffs are pending CPUC approval.

22. In the interim, until the proposed tariffs are approved,

Pacific will continue to charge for caged physical

collocation pursuant to its effective tariff, with one

exception relating to infrastructure charges described

below. For cageless physical collocation, in order to

avoid delay in meeting CLECs’ requests for this new form of

collocation, Pacific has established interim prices, that

will be trued up to the prices in the proposed tariff once

it becomes effective. See Accessible Letter CLECC 99-200,

dated May 28, 1999. Hopfinger Attachment BB.

23. Prior to the FCC’s Docket 99-48 Order, infrastructure

charges (i.e., charges related to the preparation of space

to make it suitable for physical collocation) were charged

entirely to the first collocator, with rebates as

12

additional CLECs collocated in the same eligible structure.4

The FCC’s Docket 99-48 Order no longer permits this and

Pacific’s proposed tariff reflects that change. Until the

July 9, 1999 proposed tariff becomes effective, Pacific

will allocate the infrastructure charges listed in the

existing tariff so that a CLEC will pay an amount

proportional to the amount of the physical collocation

space requested.

24. When Pacific’s July 9, 1999 proposed tariff becomes

effective, Pacific will allocate site preparation and

security measures charges on a pro-rated basis so that each

collocator in a particular eligible structure will be

responsible for the cost of site preparation and security

measures proportional to the amount of physical collocation

space obtained by that collocator.

25. For shared cage physical collocation, Pacific does not

charge more for site preparation or nonrecurring charges

than it charges for provisioning a cage of similar

dimensions and material to a single collocator. The charge

for site conditioning and preparation undertaken by Pacific

to construct the shared collocation cage or condition the

space for collocation use, will be pro-rated and allocated

4 Eligible structure is defined as the central office, serving wire centeror tandem office, a building or similar structure owned or leased byPacific that houses its network facilities or a structure that housesPacific’s transmission facilities, including CEVs, huts and cabinets thatservice as remote terminal sites and house Pacific’s telecommunicationsequipment such as loop concentrators or multiplexers and house networkfacilities. See RR, §2.6.

13

to each collocator occupying the shared collocation cage

based on the percentage of the total space used by that

collocator.

26. Pacific does not assess all of its incremental costs of

providing Interim Number Portability (“INP”) on CLECs.

Pacific does not charge CLECs for INP. In accordance with

the December 17, 1998, CPUC Decision 98-12-044, Pacific

amended its tariff to delete charges to the CLECs for INP.

In lieu of tariff rates, the decision permitted Pacific, as

well as other carriers, to recover the incremental costs

for INP through an interim end-user surcharge of $.01 per

year per active line served. Pacific has elected not to

impose the end user surcharge. When Pacific forwards an

INP call it shares terminating access revenue with the

carrier terminating the call.

27. As ordered in the Final Decision, Pacific does not charge

RCF tariff rates for CLECs remaining on INP longer than 90

days. App. B, p. 23. In addition, Pacific has negotiated

with each CLEC, regarding the 90-day INP to LNP conversion

window based on individual volumes and CLEC needs. WS5

Agreement 5.7.1. More than 150 days have elapsed since LNP

was ubiquitously available. Yet, as of May 31, 1999

Pacific still had over 5,793 INP lines in service. The

CLECs have completed the migration of approximately 90% of

5 “WS” refers to 271 Workshop Agreement

14

the INP lines that existed when LNP first became available

in California on July 17, 1998.

28. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific does not charge

CLECs for regulatory costs associated with making AIN

capabilities available. App. B, p. 23. On April 15, 1999,

Pacific removed the language related to such a charge from

the CLEC Handbook, Interconnection,

§ 5.3.6, Step 6. As further proof of Pacific's compliance

Hopfinger Attachment F, is a copy of an internal memo sent

to the wholesale marketing product manager communicating

Pacific's practice in compliance with the Final Decision.

29. Pacific has complied with the Final Decision requirement to

offer to negotiate updated To Be Called Cut (“TBCC”)

charges on 15-minute increments based on current loaded

labor rates. WS Agreement 5.4.1.2. On March 24, 1999

Pacific issued Accessible Letter CLECC 99-093 offering to

negotiate the (TBCC) order charges based on current loaded

labor rates. Hopfinger Attachment G. As expected, the new

15-minute increment rates based on current labor rates were

higher than the old 30-minute increment rates established

several years ago. No CLEC has asked Pacific to negotiate

the new 15-minute increment TBCC rates.

30. There are some elements for which a price or product

description has not been determined because there has been

no request for the element. If a CLEC requests these

elements in ICA negotiations or through an Interconnection

and Network Element Request (“INER”)/Bona Fide Request

15

(“BFR”), Pacific will conduct cost studies on a case-by-

case basis. UNEs with general applicability obtained by a

CLEC using the INER/BFR process are made generally

available, under the same terms and conditions, to all

CLECs. Additional information on the INER/BFR process is

provided later in my affidavit. ICAs that have To Be

Determined (“TBD”) listed on a rate element will not

require a INER/BFR. Items are shown as TBD when the rate

is not available at the time the contract is signed.

Additionally, Pacific’s arbitrated and CPUC-approved

interconnection agreements call for negotiation on other

items for which a price currently does not exist. AT&T,

Att. 8; MCI, Att. 8, App. A; ACI, App. F.

31. Pacific has reached agreement on the interim prices that

would be filed as an addendum to the Pacific/MCI

interconnection agreement for all UNEs where “TBD” prices

currently exist. WS Agreement 3.4.1.1.

32. With respect to resale pricing, 47 U.S.C. §252(d)(3)

indicates wholesale prices should be set, “ . . . on the

basis of retail rates charged to subscribers for the

telecommunications service requested, excluding the portion

thereof attributable to any marketing, billing, collection

and other costs that will be avoided by the local exchange

carrier.” Pacific calculated avoided costs following its

review of the methodology contained in the Order. The

CPUC’s Decisions 96-03-020 and 97-08-59 set an interim

16

discount of 17% for all telecommunications services

required for resale.

33. The CPUC has ruled that the rates, terms and conditions

contained in Pacific’s approved ICAs comply with sections

251 and 252. Furthermore, the ALJ stated in the draft

decision in the OANAD UNE proceeding, that the prices

“. . . satisfy the requirements of Sections 251(c)(2),

251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of

1996.” In approving the Sprint interconnection agreement,

the CPUC ruled, “The arbitrated agreement complies with

Sections 251 and 252 of the Act.”6 In approving the AT&T

interconnection agreement, the CPUC stated in its standards

for review that, “The state commission cannot require an

interconnection agreement through arbitration that does not

meet the requirements of Section 251 of the Act and the

standards set forth in Section 252(d) relating to pricing

for interconnection, network elements, transport,

termination and wholesale rates.”7

34. The rates, terms and conditions in Pacific’s CPUC approved

agreements are available to any CLEC who desires the same

rates, terms and conditions. Under Section 252(i) of the

Act, any carrier may opt into an entire approved

interconnection agreement or part of an approved

interconnection agreement provided the CLEC accepts all

legitimately related terms and conditions.

6 96-09-043, FF 57 Decision 96-12-034

17

35. As set out above, Pacific has complied with the pricing

methodology and rules established by the CPUC. Pacific

will continue to comply with CPUC-approved pricing

methodology and rules for any additional rates established

by the CPUC in the future. The CPUC has approved prices

for interconnection, unbundled elements, transport and

termination of local traffic, based on costs determined

without reference to a rate-of-return or other rate-based

proceeding.

RECIPROCAL COMPENSATION

36. Reciprocal compensation refers to the compensation

arrangements for the transport and termination of local

calls. The CPUC, in reviewing and approving

interconnection agreements, has established various payment

arrangements for reciprocal compensation. These payment

arrangements include bill and keep, modified versions of

bill and keep (that have various levels of payment

depending on whether the traffic is out-of-balance) and

payments of compensation based on minutes of use or set up

charges. See e.g., AT&T Agreement, Attachment 18, p. 17.

Pacific Bell has entered into over 60 interconnection

agreements with competing carriers and almost all of these

agreements contain some form of bill and keep compensation.

The CPUC, following hearings, held that bill and keep was

the preferred method of compensation for interconnection

agreements with CLECs. Decision No. 95-12-056, App. A.

18

Pacific Bell has had interconnection agreements with only

two companies, PacWest Telecom, Inc. and MFS Intelenet of

California, Inc., that required payments to the inter-

connecting carrier on a per minute of use basis and these

two contracts were not negotiated under the terms of the

Telecommunications Act.

37. Pacific Bell has paid and continues to pay, reciprocal

compensation payments to numerous CLECs under the

interconnection agreements that have been negotiated and

approved by the CPUC. Pacific Bell and CLECs have

exchanged more than 17 billion minutes of use over

interconnection trunks in California in 1998 and in the

first five months of 1999, over 18 billion minutes of use

were exchanged. These data do not include minutes for

Internet-bound traffic.

38. The FCC has determined that reciprocal compensation

payments under the Act apply only to local exchange

traffic. There has been a dispute, that continues today at

both the federal and state level, exactly as to what

traffic is local traffic and, therefore, subject to

reciprocal compensation payments. The dispute concerns

whether Internet-bound traffic is properly characterized as

local or interstate and what payments, if any, should apply

to this traffic. The issues surrounding this dispute are

pending in various proceedings before the CPUC, at the FCC,

and in the courts.

19

39. The CPUC concluded that Internet traffic is local in a

decision in October 1998 (D.98-10-057) (“October Decision”)

and reaffirmed that decision again in June 1999 in the

Final Arbitrator’s Report in the Pacific Bell/PacWest

arbitration proceeding (Application No. 98-11-024). The

Final Arbitrator's Report, adopted by the CPUC in

D.99-06-088, expressly relied on the October decision and

decided to “stay the course” until further decisions of the

FCC or the CPUC. Pacific Bell has filed applications for

rehearing of both decisions and the application for

rehearing of the October Decision is on the CPUC calendar

for July 22, 1999. In addition, there are other pending

proceedings involving this issue that affect the amount of

potential payments between Pacific Bell and CLECs,

including PacWest's complaint against Pacific Bell (No. 97-

11-034), MFS’s complaint against Pacific Bell (No. 97-09-

032), Pacific Bell’s complaint against PacWest (No. 98-11-

085) and in the CPUC's Local Exchange Competition

proceeding, how central office codes can be used to rate

and route local calls and the rights and obligations of

carriers in particular serving arrangements. See, Draft

Decision of ALJ Pulsifer, (R.95-04-043; I.95-04-044),

mailed July 2, 1999.

40. The FCC has held that Internet-bound calls are non-local,

interstate traffic not subject to reciprocal compensation

payments, but also has held that state commissions, under

appropriate circumstances and consistent with federal law,

20

might nevertheless order incumbent local exchange carriers

to pay reciprocal compensation for Internet-bound traffic.

Declaratory Ruling, In Re Implementation of the Local

Competition Provisions etc., CC Docket No. 96-98, 96-68,

February 25, 1999. That FCC decision is the subject of

appeals both by CLECs and by certain LECs.

41. As to the MFS and PacWest agreements not subject to the

Act, Pacific Bell has been paying estimates of the disputed

amounts of Internet-bound traffic into separate accounts

for the benefit of MFS and PacWest pending the final

resolution of the disputes over the nature of this traffic.

This procedure was instituted by Pacific Bell in connection

with complaints that it filed in California state court

concerning this issue against PacWest and MFS and the court

said this was a reasonable procedure under the

circumstances. Further, in D.97-12-085, dated December 16,

1997, the CPUC denied MFS's request to require Pacific Bell

to pay the disputed amounts to it, rather than into the

separate accounts. Even if Internet-bound traffic is

finally determined to be local and subject to payments

under the local interconnection agreements, depending on

the terms of the agreement and the type of serving

arrangement CLECs may owe Pacific compensation. If Pacific

prevails in the complaint filed against PacWest (No.98-11-

085), PacWest and other CLECs would be required to make

payments to Pacific Bell for providing their toll-free 800

21

like or foreign exchange-like service.8 Therefore, it is

appropriate to place disputed amounts in escrow pending

resolution of the multiple related dockets.

42. Before the CPUC's review of this compliance filing is

complete, we will commence paying PacWest reciprocal

compensation consistent with the terms of the inter-

connection agreement adopted by D.99-06-088, although

Pacific Bell will make those payments subject to protest

and possible refunds dependent on the court review of that

decision and the court review of this issue in related

proceedings. Pacific's payments of reciprocal compensation

to CLECs have been made in accordance with the relevant

CPUC and court decisions and orders.

BONAFIDE REQUEST PROCESS

43. The Bona Fide Request (“BFR”) process, previously referred

to as the INER process, is the process that a CLEC utilizes

to request Unbundled Network Elements (“UNEs”), inter-

connection arrangements or other arrangements which do not

currently exist in the CLEC’s ICA and have not been

previously defined in the generic appendices.

44. In the Final Decision, the Commission required Pacific to

publish the INER/BFR process in an accessible letter and

update the CLEC Handbook to include the exact processes,

8 The FCC held in its Second Louisiana Decision that Application of BellSouthCorporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth LongDistance, Inc. for Provision of In-Region InterLATA Services in Louisiana.CC Docket 98-121; FCC98-271 (Oct. 13, 1998) it did not currently take intoaccount a BOC’s failure to pay reciprocal compensation for Internet trafficin evaluating checklist compliance. Id. at para.303

22

timelines, escalation procedures, response detail

parameters and standardized forms for requests and Pacific

responses. App. B, pp. 10-11; 11 WS Agreement 2.3.1.1.

Pacific has complied with this requirement. Hopfinger

Attachment H is Accessible Letter CLECC 99-136 dated April

27, 1999, which introduces the redefined INER process and

renames it the BFR process. Pacific’s product and account

managers have also received training in the new process and

tracking mechanisms are in place to monitor BFRs as they

move through the process. The exact process, timelines,

escalation procedures, response parameters and standardized

Pacific response formats including sample response letters

and blank forms are located in the CLEC Handbook,

Interconnection, section 6.0. Hopfinger Attachment I.

45. These INER/BFR response requirements contained in the Final

Decision require Pacific to:

• provide “yes” responses within 30 days and include high

level cost categories (labor, equipment, etc.) for

provision;

• if wholesale construction is necessary, provide cost

support within an additional 24 days;

• provide sufficient detail in any cost support information

to allow the CLEC to negotiate for provision of the UNE.

• provide “no” responses within 15 days;

• for “no” responses based on technical unfeasibility,

provide a detailed reason the request is not technically

feasible;

23

• for “no” responses where Pacific refers the CLEC to an

alternative to the UNE or interconnection requested,

Pacific must be able and willing to provide that

alternative in a timely manner and provide details on

provision of the suggested alternative within the same 15

days as the “no” response to an INER request. App. B, p.

11, WS Agreement 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.4.

46. Pacific’s BFR process incorporates these response

parameters for accepted, rejected, and wholesale

construction-required BFR requests. Section 6.4.2 of the

CLEC Handbook outlines Pacific's guidelines for "yes"

responses and Section 6.4.1 outlines Pacific’s guidelines

for “no” responses that comply with the Final Decision.

Pacific has also incorporated these guidelines into its

Account and Product management training material. Pacific

notified the CLECs of these changes via Accessible Letter

CLECC 99-136 dated April 27, 1999.

47. While Pacific did not immediately meet the new timelines,

Pacific has met the 30-day deadline for "yes" responses on

all BFRs received since mid-January. Hopfinger Attachment

L and K are third party proprietary and public versions

respectively of a matrix of BFRs received since December

17, 1998. The matrix BFRs demonstrates that Pacific missed

the “no” response deadline for one of the three “no”

responses provided. The missed response was due on

Thursday and was provided the following Monday. One

response was due on a Saturday and the response went out

24

the following Monday, which is not a miss. Pacific

provided alternatives on all three of the "no" responses.

The first request Pacific denied was a request for inside

wire. In the denial, Pacific recommended its deregulated

inside wiring offering. The second denied request was for

Pacific to extend cable outside of the central office for

purpose of extending loops. In the denial, Pacific

recommended that the CLEC bring its own cable to the last

manhole with enough slack cable for Pacific to terminate it

on the intermediate distribution frame in the central

office. Pacific has since then made the arrangement it

recommended generally available as the Adjacent Location

product. See paragraph 50 below. The last denied request

was for collocation via an environmentally-controlled

trailer. Pacific recommended the CLEC use a virtual

collocation arrangement. Details for the provisioning of

virtual collocation are contained in the CLEC Handbook.

48. The Final Decision further required Pacific, in its

compliance filing, to report to the Commission the number

of INER/BFRs processed, the time elapsed for each INER/BFR

processed, the results of the INER/BFRs processed and

whether the INER/BFR resulted in a UNE being provided, by

CLEC, from the date of the Final Decision. App. B, p. 11.

Hopfinger Attachment K and L are public and proprietary

versions of a report, titled CPUC INER Activity Report,

identifies each INER/BFR submitted since December 17, 1998

25

and provides the requested information. Pacific has not

received a new INER/BFR since the end of March.

49. The Final Decision also directed Pacific to use the

INER/BFR process only where UNEs have not been previously

defined and to develop a generic appendix of generally

available UNEs, which obviates the use of INER/BFR for

those elements. App. B, p. 11. Pacific modified sections

6.3 and 6.4 of the Interconnection portion of the CLEC

Handbook to set forth Pacific's guidelines to comply with

this order. Hopfinger Attachment J. Pacific has also

incorporated these guidelines into its Account and Product

management training material. Hopfinger Attachment M, is a

matrix of CLECs whose interconnection agreements contain

INER/BFR language identifying when the INER/BFR process is

required.

50. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific has also created

a process to add generally-applicable new UNEs and other

requested products developed through the INER/BFR process

to the appropriate generic appendix. Pacific has offered

CLECs UNEs via a generic UNE appendix since December 1996

in the AT&T ICA. The UNE generic appendix is updated as an

UNE of general applicability is provided to a CLEC in

response to an INER/BFR. In fact, this newly designed

process was used to comply with the Final Decision

requirement that Pacific shall make every effort to assist

carriers who wish to interconnect at adjacent locations.

App. B, p. 8. Hopfinger Attachment N, the Accessible

26

Letter CLECC 99-179 dated May 18, 1999, announced the

general availability of the “Adjacent Location Method for

Accessing UNEs” product. In order to provide the new

“Adjacent Location” product, Pacific updated the existing

generic UNE appendix to include the new product. Hopfinger

Attachment O. Pacific also added it to the generic Pricing

Appendix. Two additional attachments are included to

illustrate "before" and "after" examples of the Pricing

Appendix. The "before" example is dated March 29, 1999 and

the "after" example is dated April 15, 1999. Hopfinger

Attachment P and Q, respectively. The April 15, 1999

Pricing Appendix includes the new product called "Adjacent

Location for Accessing UNEs."

51. If the requesting CLEC does not agree with the terms,

conditions or price of a requested UNE, it may use the

escalation process included in section 6.6 of the

Interconnection section of the CLEC Handbook or through the

dispute resolution terms and condition in their

interconnection agreement. AT&T, Att. 6, 1.6.2 and Att. 3;

Brooks, XXIX; MCI, Att. 6, 1.6.2 & Att. 3

RESALE

52. The checklist requires Pacific to demonstrate that its

retail telecommunications services are, "available for

resale in accordance with the requirements of sections

251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3)." 47 U.S.C. §271(c)(2)(B)(xiv). 47

U.S.C. section 251(c)(4) requires incumbent LECs to offer

27

for resale at wholesale rates any telecommunications

service the carrier provides at retail to subscribers who

are not telecommunications carriers and not to prohibit

such resale nor impose unreasonable or discriminatory

conditions on resale of such services. Pacific's

agreements fully satisfy these requirements by making

available all retail telecommunications services provided

by Pacific that are subject to the resale obligation under

the Act and applicable FCC's Rules. In addition, Pacific

has made several other services available for resale,

beyond the requirements of the Act and the Rules, i.e.,

additional directory listings, remote call forwarding, and

split billing.

53. The services provided for resale are equal in quality and

are provided within the same provisioning intervals and

subject to the same terms and conditions applicable to

retail customers.

54. A CLEC may purchase Pacific's resold services without

having an interconnection agreement by ordering from

Pacific’s Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. 175-T, Section 18.

Additionally, CLECs ordering resale services from the

tariff can enter into a Data Exchange agreement with

Pacific for the recording and transferring of billing

records to assist the reseller in billing its end users.

As of May 31, 1999, Pacific had an installed base of

approximately 267,000 resale access lines for Pacific’s

CLEC customers. There were 233 CLECs certified or pending

28

certification to offer resold local exchange service in

California. Of these, 113 requested Certificates of Public

Convenience and Necessity as pure resellers, 15 as pure

facilities-based, and 105 CLECs requested certification to

operate as either resellers, facilities-based local

exchange providers or to provide a combination of

facilities/resale services. Pacific has negotiated and

signed, with CLECs, 15 resale agreements, and 52

interconnection agreements that contain resale provisions.

Additionally, Pacific has entered into 43 Data Exchange

agreements that support those CLECs choosing to purchase

from the resale tariff by providing billing detail. See

Hopfinger Attachment R for a detailed list of CLECs

certified or pending certification, to provide local

exchange service in California as well as a list of CLECs

with whom Pacific has negotiated agreements.

Promotions

55. The Final Decision contains seven requirements addressing

resale of promotions. Retail promotions are filed in

Pacific’s tariffs. To introduce a new retail promotion,

Pacific files a tariff revision using the advice letter

process. The advice letter itself describes the promotion

and the relevant retail tariff sheets are attached. If a

promotion is over 90 days, it must be filed in both the

relevant retail tariff and the resale tariff (Schedule Cal.

P.U.C. No. 175-T). Accordingly, the advice letter for

29

these promotions have attached retail and resale tariff

pages. Pacific is required to clearly state in the text of

each Advice Letter or Memorandum Notice whether a

particular promotion is available to resellers. App. B,

p. 24. Since December 17, 1998, Pacific has introduced 38

promotions. Of these 38 promotions, 19 have been offered

for resale. The advice letters introducing these 19

promotions indicated that they were available for resale.

During the same time period, Pacific has issued five

Memorandum Notices. Two of the notices ended promotions

which were in total less than 90 days. Memorandum Notices

59 and 62. Two of these notices extended promotions and

indicated that the promotions were available for resale.

Memorandum Notices 60 and 61. Both of these promotions

were available for resale from the first day they began.

The fifth notice extended a promotion, but inadvertently

failed to note that the promotion had been available for

resale from the day it began. Memorandum Notice 63.

However, the tariff sheets for the resale and retail tariff

attached to the fifth notice showed that the promotion was

available for resale. Additionally, the Advice Letter

introducing the promotion extended by the fifth notice also

stated the promotion was available for resale. Hopfinger

Attachment S contains copies of the 19 Advice Letters and

five Memorandum Notices with retail and resale tariff

sheets attached.

30

56. A Memorandum Notice is sent to the CPUC to extend or

terminate a promotion. If Pacific extends a promotion, the

Final Decision requires Pacific to specify in the

Memorandum Notice the total length of time the promotion

will have been in effect, including the extension. App. B,

p. 25. Pacific has extended three promotions since

December 17, 1998. Memorandum Notices 60, 61, and 63. The

notices for these extensions listed the total length of

time the promotion was in effect.

57. For promotions over 90 days, the Final Decision directs

Pacific to clearly state on each of its retail tariff

sheets whether the promotion is available for resale. App.

B, p. 24. Pacific is also required to include the

appropriate Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. 175-T tariff sheet and

to indicate on the Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. 175-T tariff

sheet the specific rates or charges that resellers will

pay. App. B, p. 24. Since December 17, 1998, Pacific has

offered 19 promotions for resale. Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No.

175-T sheets, attached to the advice letters for these

promotions, indicate the promotions are available for

resale and identify, as appropriate, the rates the reseller

will pay, the credits offered or the waiver of charges.

58. The Final Decision required Pacific to clearly state, for

promotions over 90 days, which components of a bundled

service of telecommunications and non-telecommunications

services were available for resale. App. B, p. 25. Since

December 17, 1998, Pacific has not offered any promotions

31

over 90 days that involve bundles of both

telecommunications and non-telecommunications services.

Pacific has modified its internal practices to require that

if Pacific offers a prohibition of a bundle of

telecommunications services and non-telecommunications

service, it will clearly specify which components of the

retail offering are available for resale. In addition,

Product Managers have been informed of these requirements.

59. In its Final Decision the Commission ordered Pacific to

provide evidence, from the date of the Final Staff Report,

that it has not violated the FCC’s and the CPUC’s rules

regarding promotional offerings. App. B, p. 24.

Hopfinger Attachment W is a matrix of the promotional

offerings (including advice letters and memorandum notices)

Pacific has made since October 5, 1998. The matrix

indicates that for promotions offered from the date of the

Final Staff Report until the issuance of the Final

Decision, Pacific complied with the requirement to offer

promotions over 90 days for resale. For promotions offered

after the Final Decision, the matrix shows if the promotion

was offered for resale as well as compliance with the

requirements in the Final Decision regarding advice

letters, memorandum notices, and tariff sheets.

UNBUNDLED SWITCHING – TERMINATING CHARGES FACTOR

60. Pacific has complied with the Final Decision requirement

that the parties develop a factor for estimating

32

terminating charges for local calls when a CLEC provides

unbundled switching. App. B, p. 21. WS Agreement 4.1.1.1.

Accessible Letter CLECC 99-155 issued on May 6, 1999

informs all CLECs of updated Generic contract language

available to CLECs for estimating unbundled switch port

terminating usage. Hopfinger Affidavit X. In addition to

the availability of generic language, Pacific has an

interconnection agreement with MCI that incorporates the

proposal for estimating terminating usage to UNE switch

ports. The MCI agreement has been in effect since February

3, 1997. Hopfinger Attachment MCI, Attachment 6, §

4.1.1.4.

61. On March 19, 1999, Pacific sent a letter to a CLEC

confirming conversations with the CLEC and requesting an

agreement on the factor for estimating terminating charges.

Hopfinger Attachment Z. No response was received from the

CLEC.9 Again on June 4, 1999, a follow-up letter was sent

to the CLEC asking whether they agreed with the proposed

factor. Hopfinger Attachment AA. As of July 7, 1999,

Pacific had not received a response.

9 Third Party PROPRIETARY

33

COLLOCATION

62. Pacific offers physical (caged, cageless, shared cage,

microwave and adjacent) and virtual collocation to CLECs as

a means of connecting the facilities and equipment of the

two companies, as well as a means of providing access to

UNEs. Where it is demonstrated to be technically feasible,

Pacific will make other forms of interconnection available

to off-site CLEC locations. The Deere Affidavit addresses

the technical aspects of these interconnection arrangements

in greater detail.

63. Pacific will permit collocation of equipment necessary for

access to those UNEs identified at the conclusion of the

pending FCC proceeding to determine which elements meet the

necessary and impair requirements of the Act.

64. This section of my affidavit discusses Pacific's processes

and procedures for provisioning collocation to CLECs as

required by the Final Decision and the FCC Docket 98-48

Order, and on rates, terms, and conditions that are just,

reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, under subsection

251(c)(6) of the Act. As discussed above in paragraphs 20

and 25, collocation is provided under the rates, terms and

conditions contained in Pacific’s collocation tariffs and

ICAs.

65. Pacific’s CPUC approved and proposed tariffs and approved

ICAs include specific provisions regarding the terms and

conditions for collocation. Pacific offers physical

collocation on a non-discriminatory basis and at just and

34

reasonable cost based rates. In California, Pacific

charges for physical collocation in accordance with the

terms and conditions stated in its interconnection

agreements and CPUC and FCC approved tariffs for

collocation.

Current Status

66. Pacific has a significant embedded base of collocators in

California, which Pacific believes is significantly more

than any other state. As of May 31, 1999 Pacific has

constructed and turned over 1000 collocation cages to

CLECs. In addition, 386 cages are under construction.

Pacific's standard build-out interval for caged collocation

in California is 120 days. Pacific’s tariff permits longer

intervals in certain circumstances. There are 20 different

CLECs collocated in Pacific’s central offices. Increasing

demand for collocation space has led to an exhaust of

physical collocation space in some of Pacific’s central

offices. Available space in the central offices

continually changes as CLECs obtain space. At present,

Pacific has identified 18 central offices that are

currently out of space for caged physical collocation. As

an alternative to caged physical collocation, Pacific

offers, where space is available, cageless physical

collocation, and virtual collocation. Where feasible,

Pacific offers adjacent collocation to CLECs at locations

where physical collocation space has been exhausted.

35

67. All requesting collocators are provided a copy of Pacific's

Collocation Order/Application Form, Interconnector’s

Collocation Service Handbook and TP76300MP. The

Interconnector’s Collocation Service Handbook (“Collocation

Handbook”) is posted in the CLEC Handbook under the heading

Collocation (“CLEC Handbook, Collocation”). Additionally,

collocators may obtain publicly available copies of state

and federal tariffs, Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. 175-T and

Tariff FCC 128, respectively. These documents provide the

collocator with a wide range of information on physical

collocation. These details include insurance requirements,

equipment standards, billing details, liability issues,

quotes and other intervals for the various activities

throughout the application process and other information

necessary to the completion of a collocation arrangement.

Pacific’s processes and procedures contained in these

documents ensure that physical and virtual collocation

arrangements are available on terms and conditions that are

“just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” in accordance

with section 251(c)(6) and the FCC rules and orders

implementing that section. Hopfinger Attachment DD is a

copy of Accessible Letter CLECC 99-249, dated July 12,

1999, providing revised copies of the Collocation

Order/Application Form for physical collocation. On July

12, 1999 Pacific sent Accessible Letter 99-247 inviting

CLECs to a forum to address the issues of ordering and

provisioning collocation. Hopfinger Attachment EE. As set

36

out in these documents, CLECs may locate equipment used for

interconnection or access to UNEs in their collocation

space, and may install, operate, and maintain their own

equipment within physical collocation space. Physical

collocators may arrange with Pacific for the installation

of cross-connections between their equipment and Pacific's

UNE facilities and for trunking to other Pacific offices.

In addition, physical collocators can place facilities,

fiber or copper, allowing them to interconnect with other

physically collocating carriers in the same central office.

(47 U.S.C. §251(c)(6) and §51.323(a),(h),(i)). W.S.

Agreement 6.7.1.1.

Caged Physical Collocation

68. Pacific provides caged physical collocation to requesting

CLECs on a first-come first-served basis, under the same

terms and conditions available to similarly situated CLECs

at the time of such request. Pacific offers caged physical

collocation pursuant to approved tariffs. Hopfinger

Attachment C, § 16.3.1.

Cageless Physical Collocation

69. Pacific provides CLECs with cageless physical collocation

in any unused space, as defined in Pacific’s July 9, 1999,

proposed collocation tariff, within the eligible structure.

Hopfinger Attachment RR, §16.10.1(A)(4). Pacific provides

CLECs with an entrance to the central office premises, and

once inside, the CLEC has direct access to their equipment.

37

Pacific makes cageless physical collocation space available

in single-relay rack/bay increments. Pacific does not

require CLECs to use an intermediate interconnection

arrangement, such as a point of termination (“POT”) frame.

Attachment BB, dated May 28, 1999, is a copy of Accessible

Letter CLECC 99-200, that Pacific issued providing interim

terms and conditions for cageless physical collocation

pending approval of Pacific’s July 9, 1999 proposed tariff

or a negotiated ICA or ICA amendment. The interim cageless

physical collocation prices will be used subject to true up

to the final collocation tariff approved by the CPUC or an

approved ICA. Pacific will offer cageless physical

collocation pursuant to CPUC approved tariffs and

interconnection agreements.

Other Forms of Physical Collocation

70. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific provides

alternatives to its caged physical collocation offerings

including common cage collocation and cages with less than

100 square feet for those offices where less than 100

square feet is available. App. B, p. 8, WS Agreement

6.9.1.1. Pacific issued Accessible letter CLECC 99-079

advising CLECS of the availability of common cage

collocation and cages with less than 100 square feet.

Hopfinger Attachment CC. In March 1999 Pacific updated the

CLEC Handbook, Collocation, sections 1.5, 1.5.1 and 3.3 to

reflect additional information concerning common cage

38

collocation and cages with less than 100 square feet.

Hopfinger Attachment GGG. Additionally, Section 16.5.1 of

the Pacific’s April 1, 1999 proposed tariff specifies the

availability of common cage collocation and Section 16.5.2

specifies the availability of cages with less than 100

square feet. Hopfinger Attachment E.

71. The requirement for common cage collocation has been

subsumed within the shared cage requirement of the FCC

Docket 99-48 Order. In addition, as a result of the

changes in that order relating to physical collocation,

cages will be available in 50 square foot increments,

starting at 50 square feet. Consequently, Pacific’s July

9, 1999 proposed tariff eliminates the separate offerings

of common cage collocation and cages of less than 100

square feet. Hopfinger Attachment RR, §§ 16.10.1(A)(2) and

16.4.3. Pacific also modified its Collocation Handbook in

July 1999 to reflect this change. Hopfinger Attachment

III.

Shared Cage Physical Collocation

72. Pacific will make shared cage physical collocation

available to new entrants who jointly and cooperatively

submit related applications for the same cage. A shared

collocation cage is a caged dedicated space shared by two

or more collocators pursuant to terms and conditions agreed

to and between the collocators.

39

73. Shared cage physical collocation will be made available

pursuant to the proposed tariff filed by Pacific with the

CPUC on July 9, 1999 or the terms of the CLEC’s

interconnection agreement. Hopfinger Attachment RR,

§16.10.1(A)(2). General information about Pacific’s shared

cage physical collocation is located in CLEC Handbook,

Collocation, section 1.5. Hopfinger Attachment DDD.

Microwave Collocation

74. Pacific allows physical collocation of microwave facilities

where technically feasible, or virtual collocation for

microwave if physical collocation is not technically

feasible. Pacific’s Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. 175-T,

section 16.2.2 and Tariff FCC 128, section 16.2.2 provide

for physical collocation of microwave facilities on an

individual case basis(“ICB”). See Attachments C and D.

75. CLECs obtain microwave collocation by submitting a

Collocation Order/Application Form. All state licenses

required to conduct work are the collocator’s

responsibility. Additional information regarding microwave

collocation can be obtained in the CLEC Handbook,

Collocation, section 1.2.5.

Adjacent Structure Collocation

76. When space is exhausted inside an eligible structure,

Pacific will permit CLECs to physically collocate in

adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar

structures to the extent technically feasible. Pacific

40

permits CLECs to construct or otherwise procure such

adjacent structure, subject to reasonable maintenance and

safety requirements. Permit, zoning and other state and

local requirements must be met. Pacific will provide power

and physical collocation services and facilities to such

adjacent structures. Hopfinger Attachment RR,

§16.10.1(A)(5).

77. Pacific permits CLECs to place their own equipment,

including, but not limited to, copper cables, coaxial

cables, fiber cables, and telecommunications equipment, in

adjacent structures constructed by the CLEC itself.

Virtual Collocation

78. Pacific provides CLECs virtual collocation for the purpose

of interconnecting with Pacific’s facilities and equipment

and for access to UNEs. The Act requires that virtual

collocation be made available by Pacific where physical

collocation is not “practical for technical reasons or

because of space limitations,” Section 251(c)(6).

Additionally, Pacific exceeds the requirements of the Act

and will provide, upon a CLEC’s request, virtual

collocation even if there are no physical collocation space

limitations at Pacific’s location. CLECs may purchase

virtual collocation from Pacific’s FCC approved tariff. A

copy of Pacific’s Tariff FCC No. 128, section 16.5 is

attached as Hopfinger Attachment D. If a CLEC elects not

to order from the interstate tariff, Pacific provides

41

intrastate virtual collocation to CLECs pursuant to their

interconnection agreement using an ICB process at rates,

terms and conditions designed to meet each CLEC’s virtual

collocation arrangement requirements.

79. Pacific offers virtual collocation as described above, in a

non-discriminatory manner at rates based on TELRIC costs

that are just and reasonable.

80. The CLEC may make a request to collocate equipment that is

non-standard and not currently used by Pacific. New

equipment will be provided on an ICB at rates that are

based on the cost of the equipment. In the case of non-

standard equipment, the timeline includes provisions to

establish network compatibility and address any technical

feasibility issues.

CLEC Equipment

81. Pacific permits collocation of any equipment that is “used

or useful” for either interconnection or access to UNEs,

regardless of other functionality inherent in such

equipment. Hopfinger Attachment RR, §16.2.30.

82. As required by the FCC’s Docket 99-48 Order, Pacific will

not place any limitations on the ability of competitors to

use all the features, functions and capabilities of

collocated equipment, including, but not limited to

switching and routing features and functions. Hopfinger

Attachment RR, §16.2.30

42

83. The FCC does not require Pacific to allow the collocation

of equipment, “used exclusively for switching or for

enhanced services.” If Pacific objects to the collocation

of equipment by a requesting telecommunications carrier,

Pacific will prove to the CPUC that the equipment will not

be actually used by the telecommunications carrier for the

purpose of obtaining interconnection or access to UNEs from

Pacific. Hopfinger Attachment RR, §16.2.30

84. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific allows CLECs to

collocate RSMs for purposes of accessing UNEs. Hopfinger

Attachment E, Section 16.2.30, App. B, p. 10, WS Agreement

6.11.1.1. Pacific has updated the Section 1.10.1 to

reflect compliance with this requirement. Hopfinger

Attachment GG is the updated handbook language affirming

this policy. See also Hopfinger Attachment LLL for a copy

of Brooks Fiber, Amendment 6, Advice Letter 19494, filed

June 18, 1998; MGC, Amendment 1, Advice Letter 19450, filed

May 26, 1998; AT&T Advice Letter 1442, filed June 11, 1998.

85. Pacific also allows physically collocating carriers the

option to elect to install their own equipment or have a

qualified third party do the installation within their

dedicated collocation space. Hopfinger Attachment RR,

§16.4.5.

43

Handbook Issues

86. To inform CLEC’s and accommodate any concerns raised during

negotiations and/or arbitration, Pacific maintains and

issues revisions to the Collocation Service Handbook.

87. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific does not require

CLECs to comply with changes in the Collocation Handbook

which are in conflict with the terms of their ICAs. In all

cases, the ICA provisions govern and can only be changed

through negotiation between the parties. FD, p. 118.

Hopfinger Attachment HH, CLEC Handbook, Collocation,

§1.1.2.

88. Pacific offers the following documents to demonstrate

compliance with the Final Decision requirement that Pacific

has solicited input from CLECs to clarify the Collocation

Handbook to ensure that it is a useful reference tool for

collocators. App. B, p. 7. Attached as Attachment II is a

copy of Accessible Letter CLECC 99-073, dated March 12,

1999 reminding all CLEC's of a customer survey, which had

been available online since September 1998, to solicit CLEC

feedback for purposes of enhancing the handbook for CLEC

use. Hopfinger Attachment JJ is a copy of the online

customer survey. In response to CLEC comments Pacific has

made the following changes to the handbook:

• Section 1 of the handbook was updated June 1, 1999, to

include all forms of collocation available to CLECs,

which include caged, cageless, adjacent structure

collocation, unique collocation arrangements.

44

• Unnecessary sections such as "Contracted Products" were

removed.

• Section 6 now includes the current restroom and parking

policy. The section also includes combustibles policy and

building maintenance.

• Section 9 includes all application processing and

ordering information to improve the organization of the

handbook.

89. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific posted its

Collocation Handbook on the web. App. B, p. 7. Hopfinger

Attachment KK is Pacific's September 16, 1998 Accessible

Letter CLECC 98-084, advising CLECs of the website address.

CLECs must first sign a nondisclosure agreement to obtain a

password to access the website.

90. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific keeps the

Collocation Handbook on the website up to date, and

includes a summary of all Collocation Handbook changes

made, at a minimum, over the preceding two months. App. B,

p. 7. In fact, Pacific applied these improvements to the

entire CLEC Handbook. Pacific provides a historical summary

of changes to the CLEC Handbook under the "What's New" web

page. Hyperlinks on each of the summary entries take users

directly to the modified document. A recent copy of the

"What's New" web page is attached to this affidavit as

Hopfinger Attachment LL. Additionally, Pacific includes a

detailed summary of changes to its CLEC Handbook on the

CLEC website. This summary precedes the handbook text on

45

the electronic version of the handbook. Hopfinger

Attachment MM is an example of the summary of changes.


institute a revision system that prospectively shows, on

each section of the Collocation Handbook, the date of the

latest change. App. B, p. 7, and WS Agreement 7.1.1.1.

Again, Pacific extended this improvement to the entire CLEC

Handbook. Beginning with the March 17, 1999 release of the

CLEC Handbook, Pacific added parenthetical date references

to reflect the date a paragraph was last modified. The

changed date is placed in the index and on the actual

paragraph modified. Hopfinger Attachment NN contains

sample pages from the on-line Collocation Handbook showing

the paragraph change dates on the index and on the actual

paragraphs.

92. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific issues

accessible letters for all changes in its collocation

rules, and makes those letters available to all collocators

by posting them on the website. App. B, p. 8, and WS

Agreement 6.3.1.1. Hopfinger Attachment OO is a matrix of

accessible letters, pertaining to changes in collocation

rules, that Pacific issued from September 1998 through July

12, 1999. These accessible letters are available on the

CLEC website. A brief description of the content of the

accessible letter, the date the letter was published and

the reference number of the accessible letter is contained

in the matrix.

46

Central Office Space Management

93. To the extent technically feasible Pacific gives CLECs the

option of collocating equipment in any unused space, as

defined in Pacific’s proposed July 9, 1999, collocation

tariff, within Pacific’s eligible structure, and does not

require CLECs to collocate in a room or isolated space

separate from Pacific’s own equipment. Pacific will not

impose unreasonable segregation requirements that impose

unnecessary additional costs on competitors. Pacific will

take reasonable steps to protect its own equipment, such as

e.g., enclosing the equipment in its own cage, and other

reasonable security measures.

94. Collocators may submit, in writing, a request for a report

indicating availability of physical collocation space in a

specific central office. Pacific will respond to the

requesting collocator within 10 days of the submission of

the request and will provide a report indicating Pacific’s

available physical collocation space in the premises

requested. The report specifies the amount of physical

collocation space available in the requested central

office, the number of collocators, any planned building

additions or equipment removal jobs and any amount of space

that will be recovered. Attachment PP is Accessible Letter

CLECC 99-225 notifying CLECs of this report and how to

request it. Hopfinger Attachment RR, §16.11.15.

47

95. Pacific has complied with the requirement in the Final

Decision to post on its website any central office that

Pacific has determined has no space available for physical

collocation. App B., p. 10. Accessible Letters issued by

Pacific demonstrating compliance with this requirement and

notifying CLECs of exhausted central offices are contained

in Hopfinger Attachment QQ: Accessible Letters CLECC 98-081

dated September 3, 1998; CLECC 98-088 dated September 21,

1998; CLECC 98-120 dated November 11, 1998; CLECC 98-127

dated November 13, 1998; CLECC 99-018 dated January 26,

1999; CLECC 99-050 dated February 18, 1999; CLECC 99-050

dated February 18, 1999; CLECC 99-175 dated May 18, 1999;

and CLECC 99-211 dated June 7, 1999. As with all

accessible letters, these notification letters are posted

on the CLEC website for viewing.

96. The collocation walk-through process established by the

CPUC in D.98-12-068, released December 17, 1998, allowed

Pacific 15 days to provide a response to the CLEC as to

whether Pacific can accommodate a request for collocation.

The FCC’s Docket 99-48 order allows only 10 days. Pacific

has modified its process, and the language in its July 9,

1999 proposed tariff, to reflect the shorter time period.

In addition, Pacific has revised its practices to comply

with the requirement of the FCC’s Docket 99-48 order that a

CLEC that has been denied physical collocation space in an

eligible structure be permitted to tour the premises in

48

question within 10 days of the denial of space. Hopfinger

Attachment RR,§ 16.10.2(A).

97. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific provides floor

plans to CLECs prior to any walkthrough that include square

footage as well as noting the location of its equipment

used to provide ADSL service and an indication of whether

equipment is in use, idle or obsolete. App. B, p.10.

Hopfinger Attachment SS is CLEC Handbook, Collocation,

Section 3.8. that lays out terms and conditions for central

office tours that comply with the Final Decision. In

February 1999, Pacific offered walkthroughs to all CLECs on

the waiting list for the 26 denied offices. As of May 31,

1999, CLECs have elected to attend a total of 15

walkthroughs. Reports were submitted by Pacific and the

CLECs to the CPUC following the walkthroughs. The CPUC

Staff has also visited several of the central offices. A

CPUC determination regarding space availability is pending.

Prior to the walkthroughs, a package with information on

the exhausted central office was provided to each CLEC.

The package included the physical collocation denial form,

office relief plan documentation, documentation of reserved

space, documentation of open space and floor plans.

98. A CLEC is placed on a waiting list for an exhausted central

office according to the date the CLEC submitted its

application. WS Agreement 6.4.1.1. Hopfinger Attachment TT

is a copy of Pacific's Accessible Letter CLECC 98-071 dated

August 18, 1998 advising CLECs of this policy change and

49

attaching the guidelines Pacific will follow when placing

CLECs on the waiting list.

99. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific will report to

the CPUC, when a Pacific affiliate drops out of a business.

e.g., Video Services, etc., whether the space is recycled

to all requesting collocators, or the affiliate or Pacific

reclaims it. WS Agreement 6.10.1.2. To date no affiliate

has dropped out of business so there has been nothing to

report.

100. CLEC Handbook, Collocation, section 3.4 and 3.4.1

demonstrates Pacific’s compliance with the Final Decision’s

interim requirements for space reservation. In addition,

Pacific modified its internal practices and trained its

Space Planners on the new requirements to assess central

office space availability and mark up the central office

floor plans based on the interim requirements. The interim

requirements provide that: (1) Pacific reserves space for

similar equipment (e.g., transmission equipment) for no

longer than 12 months, but only if collocators are also

permitted to reserve space for the same length of time;

(2) Pacific, CLECs and Pacific’s affiliates have the right

to reserve space for a 12-month planning horizon; (3)

Pacific can reserve space for dissimilar equipment for no

more than five years, with dissimilar equipment defined as

switching equipment, MDFs and power. Final Decision, p.

137, App. B, p. 10. Hopfinger Attachment VV.

50

101. Pacific has complied with the Final Decision interim

requirements on deposits for space reservation for similar

equipment. These interim reservation requirements provide

that: 1) Any entity, including Pacific, which wants to

reserve space shall provide Pacific a $2,000 nonrefundable

deposit; 2) In the case of CLECs or other non-affiliated

companies, the $2,000 shall be applied against the

collocation construction fee; 3) Any entity, including

Pacific, which does not use the reserved space within the

twelve month time frame will forfeit its deposit; and, 4)

Such forfeitures will be credited against the collocation

charges of the next carrier to collocate in that particular

central office. App. B, p. 10. Pacific notified the CLECs

of the interim deposit rules in Accessible Letter CLECC 99-

205, issued June 1, 1999. Hopfinger Attachment ZZ. This

interim deposit requirement is also set forth in the CLEC

Handbook, collocation, section 3.5. Hopfinger Attachment

AAA. To date, Pacific has not received any requests for

such reservation. As this interim requirement is

inconsistent with the FCC’s first-come first-serve rules,

Pacific filed a Petition to Modify the interim space

reservation requirements. Pacific will conform its

practices to any subsequent ruling by the CPUC on this

issue.

102. In order to increase the amount of space available for

physical collocation, Pacific will remove obsolete unused

equipment from its eligible structures that have no space

51

available for physical collocation upon reasonable request

by a collocator or upon order of the CPUC. In addition, in

those offices where Pacific has determined it does not have

adequate space to meet forecasted physical collocation

demand, Pacific will remove obsolete unused equipment

necessary to meet forecasted demand in the office in

advance of a reasonable request from a CLEC, or order from

the CPUC. Hopfinger Attachment RR, §16.10.2(D)

103. As required by the Final Decision, in any central office in

which all options for physical collocation offered by

Pacific have been exhausted, Pacific will not provide

additional space in that central office to any of its

affiliates. Final Decision, p. 122, App. B, p. 8. Pacific

has modified its internal methods and procedures to comply

with this requirement. In addition, CLEC Handbook,

Collocation, Paragraph 3.7.1 states, "Pacific Bell shall

not be permitted to provide additional space in that

[denied] Central Office for any of its affiliates." Since

December 17, 1998. Pacific has not provided additional

space to any affiliate in an exhausted central office.

104. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific provides

information on space used in a central office for retail

ADSL service for the CPUC's use to determine whether space

is available in particular central offices. App. B, p. 8.

For example, Hopfinger Attachment WW is an enlargement of a

portion of a floor plan for a central office that shows the

52

location of Pacific's ADSL equipment. This floor plan was

submitted to the CPUC on February 26, 1999.

105. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific identifies the

location of its ADSL equipment in any walkthrough of an

exhausted central office. App. B, p. 8. Evidence of this

compliance is included in Hopfinger Attachments XX, a

matrix of the denied offices inspected by CLEC

representatives and YY, a denial of physical collocation

package.

106. Pacific has complied with the Final Decision to allow CLECs

to augment their collocation space when they reach a 60

percent utilization rate and to allow CLECs to begin the

application process prior to reaching the 60 percent

utilization rate if the CLEC expects to achieve 60 percent

utilization before the process is completed. App. B, pp. 8-

9. Hopfinger Attachment BBB is Pacific's Accessible Letter

CLECC 99-081 made available to CLECs on March 15, 1999,

advising CLECs of this policy change. Pacific has updated

the CLEC Handbook, Collocation, section 3.3 to reflect

compliance with the Final Decision. Hopfinger Attachment

CCC. Furthermore, on April 1, 1999 Pacific filed revised

tariff language to Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. 175-T, Section

16.3.3, that reflects compliance with the Final Decision.

Hopfinger Attachment E, § 16.3.3.

107. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific allows a

collocator to enter into sublease-type arrangements with

other collocators for use of caged physical collocation

53

space. Each collocator, including those subleasing cage

space, is subject to the terms and conditions of Pacific’s

proposed tariff. Pacific will communicate directly with

sub-leasing carriers for ordering UNEs. App. B, p.8.

Hopfinger Attachment EEE is Pacific's Accessible Letter

CLECC 99-077, dated March 15, 1999, advising CLECs of this

practice. Pacific also updated CLEC Handbook, Collocation,

Section 9.5 to reflect compliance with the Final Decision,

App, B, p. 8 and the FCC’s Docket 99-48 Order. Hopfinger

Attachment FFF. Furthermore, in its April 1, 1999 and July

9, 1999 proposed tariffs, Pacific filed revised tariff

language to Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. 175-T, Section

16.10.1(A)(3), that reflects compliance with the Final

Decision and the FCC Docket 99-48 Order. Hopfinger Attach-

ment E, section 16.2.29 and RR, Section 16.10.1(A)(3).

108. As recommended in the Final Staff Report, Pacific will

reclaim collocation space from a CLEC who accepts a

collocation space, has all the cabling in place to make

that collocation space operational, but does not use that

space within six months from the date it is operational.

FSR, p. 67.10 Hopfinger Attachment HHH is a copy of CLEC

Handbook, Collocation, section 3.11 stating this

reclamation policy. Additionally, in its April 1, 1999

proposed tariff, Pacific modified Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No.

175-T, Section 16.3.3. Hopfinger Attachment E. To date,

10 Final Staff Report(“FSR”)

54

Pacific has not had to reclaim space to satisfy an

outstanding request for collocation space.

109. Hopfinger Attachment JJJ is Accessible Letter CLECC 99-085

dated March 18, 1999, which advised CLECs that Pacific

would refund non-recurring cage installation charges to a

carrier that surrendered their collocation space at

Pacific’s request to satisfy another carrier’s request.

App. B, p. 9. Pacific also updated the CLEC Handbook,

Collocation, section 9.10 to reflect this policy in its

April 1, 1999 proposed tariff, filed revised tariff

language to Schedule Cal P.U.C. No. 175-T, section 16.3.4

to reflect this new policy. Hopfinger Attachments E and

KKK, respectively. As of June 30, 1999, no refunds have

been required, as Pacific has not reclaimed any collocation

cages.

Provisioning

110. Pacific will process an application for collocation space

submitted by a competitor while that competitor’s state

certification is pending or before the competitor and

Pacific have entered into a final interconnection

agreement.

111. Pacific has complied with the Final Decision requirement

that it completes physical collocation installations within

the 120-day provisioning timeframe established in its

Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. 175-T tariff, and in accordance

with time frames established in its ICAs with CLECs. App.

55

B, p. 9. Pacific compliance is demonstrated in the monthly

tracking report of cage construction which shows the number

of days for each installation. See Hopfinger Attachment

MMM. Pacific has not missed any collocation installation

dates since October 1998.

112. Pacific has modified its internal process to comply with

the Final Decision requirement that "[i]f Pacific falls

behind in the physical collocation process, it shall issue

weekly status reports to the requesting carrier." App. B,

p. 9. Hopfinger Attachment NNN is an internal memo

notifying the collocation point of contact and engineering

point of contact personnel of Pacific’s obligation to issue

weekly status reports if Pacific falls behind in the

physical collocation process. Hopfinger Attachment OOO is

a template of a CLEC notification letter that will be

issued to a CLEC should Pacific encounter a delay in

completing a collocation order. No report has been issued

as Pacific has met all physical collocation intervals since

October 1998.

113. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific offers

collocator-to-collocator connections between collocation

cages leased by two or more CLECs within 15 days of a

request. App. B, p. 8. Hopfinger Attachment PPP is

Pacific's Accessible Letter CLECC 99-078, dated March 15,

1999, advising CLECs of this policy. Pacific has updated

the CLEC Handbook, Collocation, section 1.9.2 to reflect

compliance with the Final Decision. Hopfinger Attachment

56

QQQ. Furthermore, in its April 1, 1999 and July 9, 1999

proposed tariffs, Pacific filed revisions to Schedule Cal.

P.U.C. No. 175-T, Section 16.2.27, that reflect compliance

with the Final Decision and FCC Docket 99-48 Order.

Hopfinger Attachments E and RR.

114. Pacific does not require competitors to purchase any

equipment or cross-connect capabilities solely from Pacific

at tariffed rates. Hopfinger Attachment RR, section

16.2.27.

115. Pacific permits a collocating CLEC to interconnect its

network with that of another collocating CLEC at Pacific’s

eligible structure and to connect its collocated equipment

to the collocated equipment of another CLEC within the same

eligible structure provided that both CLECs are collocated

with Pacific and the collocated equipment is also used for

interconnection with Pacific or for access to Pacific’s

UNEs. Hopfinger Attachment RR, section 16.2.27.

116. Pacific permits CLECs to provide their own cross-connect

facilities between collocated equipment located in

Pacific’s eligible structure, using either copper or

optical facilities, subject to the same reasonable safety

requirements Pacific places on its own similar facilities.

Hopfinger Attachment RR, section 16.2.27.

117. In the Final Decision, the CPUC required Pacific to develop

a template for various types of collocation and for cage-

to-cage connections, which is readily available to CLECs

upon request. FD, p. 133, App. B, p. 8. Hopfinger

57

Attachment SSS is a copy of the generic collocation

appendix available to any CLEC.

118. Accessible Letter CLECC 99-071, dated March 12, 1999,

advised CLECs that Pacific would comply with the

requirement in the Final Decision that Pacific allow

carriers to submit a bond to cover the 50% advance payment

in lieu of a check. App. B., p. 9. Hopfinger Attachment

TTT. The letter also advised CLECs that consistent with

the Final Decision, Pacific would cash the bond if the CLEC

does not submit the required 50% down payment within 30

days of the commencement of construction. In addition,

Pacific reflected these policy changes in the CLEC

Handbook, Collocation, sections 9.4 and 9.4.1, dated March

17, 1999 and filed revised tariff language on April 1,

1999, Schedule Cal P.U.C. No. 175-T, Section 16.2.1

Hopfinger Attachments UUU and E, respectively. As of June

30, 1999, no CLEC has elected to submit a 50% bond in lieu

of a check.

119. In the Final Decision, the CPUC stated that Pacific shall

accept applications and payment in advance of its advice

letter becoming effective but that no construction work

should commence until the advice letter is approved. App.

B, p. 9. However, if Pacific followed this portion of the

Final Decision, it would unnecessarily prolong the

installation interval for collocation cages and jeopardize

Pacific’s ability to meet the collocation installation

intervals set forth in the tariffs, ICAs and the Final

58

Decision. Therefore, on March 5, 1999, Pacific met with

the CPUC Staff to discuss Pacific’s policy to accept

applications and payment for collocation requests in

advance of the associated advice letter becoming effective.

Pacific’s policy is to begin the installation of

collocation cages upon receipt of a completed application

and deposit regardless of advice letter approval. The CPUC

staff agreed that Pacific should not change its

installation policy. The July 9, 1999 proposed tariff

eliminates the requirement that physical collocation space

be tariffed on a central office-specific basis.

Consequently, it will not be necessary to file an advice

letter when a CLEC requests physical collocation space in

an eligible structure where collocation has not been

previously provided.

120. In order to comply with the Final Decision which requires

Pacific to determine a timeframe other than 30 days as

acceptable for submitting the check or surety bond, Pacific

issued Accessible Letter CLECC 99-126, dated April 13,

1999, proposing a shortened time frame for submitting the

check or surety bond. Hopfinger Attachment WWW. App. B,

p. 9. The CLECs preferred not to adopt Pacific’s proposed

10-day interval and have elected to maintain the current

30-day timeframe. In response to CLECs’ comments, Pacific

issued Accessible Letter CLECC 99-184, dated May 20, 1999,

advising CLECs that the 30-day timeframe would not change.

Hopfinger Attachment XXX.

59

121. Accessible Letter 99-092, dated March 24, 1999, advised

CLECs that Pacific has adopted the Final Decision to fill

in cages in a manner that allows for contiguous growth of a

CLEC’s collocation area. Hopfinger Attachment YYY. This

satisfies the requirements that, if other carriers want to

collocate in that central office and the unassigned

contiguous space is needed, the space will be granted to

the first carrier filing an application and submitting the

requisite deposit or bond. If unassigned contiguous space

is needed, Pacific will notify the carrier reserving

contiguous space that the contiguous space is no longer

available. FD, p. 123, App. B, p. 9. Pacific also

reflected this change in policy in the CLEC Handbook,

Collocation, section 9.3. Hopfinger Attachment ZZZ. On

April 1, 1999, Pacific filed revised tariff language to

update Schedule Cal P.U.C. No. 175-T, section 16.3.3(B).

Hopfinger Attachment E.

SECURITY

122. Protection of Pacific’s network is crucial to its ability

to provide service to all of its customers. To assure that

protection Pacific imposes reasonable security measures on

collocating CLECs. Those security measures may include,

but are not limited to, enclosing Pacific’s equipment, use

of security cameras or other monitoring devises, badges

with computerized tracking systems, identification and

access swipe cards, and other reasonable measures that

60

Pacific may determine to be necessary. The security

measures will apply in varying combinations, depending on

what is appropriate for a particular eligible structure.

Hopfinger Attachment RR, section 16.10.1(B)(4).

123. Pacific does not use any information collected in the

course of implementing or operating security arrangements

for any marketing or other purpose in aid of competing with

other CLECs. Hopfinger Attachment RR, § 16.10.1(B)

124. CLEC personnel and technicians who have access to Pacific’s

collocation areas must be security qualified and know-

ledgeable about Pacific’s security standards. They will

undergo the same level of security training as Pacific’s

employees or authorized contractors. They are not required

to receive security training from Pacific, but Pacific will

provide the CLECs with information about the specific type

of security training required. Hopfinger Attachment RR, §

16.10.1(B)(1).

125. Pursuant to Pacific’s July 9, 1999 proposed tariff, Pacific

and CLECs will establish disciplinary procedures applicable

to certain actions that damage or place the employees,

equipment, facilities, or network of Pacific or other CLECs

in jeopardy. Disciplinary procedures will also be

established to address violations of Pacific’s security,

safety, network reliability and business conduct policies

and practices. Hopfinger Attachment RR, § 16.10.1(B)(2).

126. CLECs have access to their physical collocation dedicated

space 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for purposes of

61

installing, maintaining or repairing their collocated

equipment. Hopfinger Attachment RR, § 16.4.6.

127. Pacific may require CLECs to use a central entrance to an

eligible structure, but does not require construction of a

new entrance for CLECs’ use. Hopfinger Attachment RR, §

16.10.1(A)(4).

128. Pacific allows collocators to access their collocated

equipment without requiring a security escort or delaying

the CLEC’s employee’s entry into the eligible structure by

requiring a Pacific employee to be present. Hopfinger

Attachment RR, Section 16.10.1(B)(5).

129. Pacific provides CLECs reasonable access to restroom

facilities and parking while at Pacific’s premises.

Hopfinger Attachment RR, § 16.2.20.

COLLOCATION SUMMARY

130. In summary, Pacific has made available and is providing

collocation to requesting carriers in California at just

and reasonable prices in compliance with Pacific’s

obligations under the Final Decision, the Act and the FCC

orders relating to collocation. Pacific provides

significantly more physical collocation space to CLECs in

California as compared to any information disclosed by

other ILECs nationwide. Pacific has steadily worked to

improve its processes and procedures for the provision of

collocation, through discussions with collocating carriers

and revisions to Pacific’s procedures. Pacific has not

62

missed an installation interval for physical collocation

since October, 1998. In its collocation practices Pacific

has attempted to address the concerns of individual

collocators while ensuring fair and consistent treatment of

all CLECs.

ACCESS TO NETWORK ELEMENTS ON AN UNBUNDLED BASIS

131. As discussed in the Deere Affidavit, Pacific provides any

requesting telecommunications carrier, “nondiscriminatory

access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any

technically feasible point."

132. Pacific currently provides access to UNEs by permitting

those CLECs that are collocated to combine or access UNEs

in Pacific’s central office pursuant to the terms and

conditions of the collocation tariffs discussed in the

collocation portion of this affidavit. Pacific also makes

available five different options through which CLECs may

access Pacific’s UNEs in order to combine them to provide

finished telecommunications services to their end-user

customers. Hopfinger Attachment O is a copy of the

"Appendix UNE" section of Pacific’s generic interconnection

agreement language which contains the terms and conditions

under which Pacific makes UNEs available for

telecommunications carriers to combine. Additionally, the

Deere Affidavit provides a technical description of the

five access methods in his affidavit.

63

133. If a CLEC wishes to utilize any of the five methods for

access outlined in Hopfinger Attachment O Pacific will

negotiate reasonable terms and conditions for doing so.

Pacific provided proposed pricing for the five methods of

access in the OANAD collocation pricing phase of Docket

R.93-04-003. The proposed prices are equal to Pacific’s

TELRIC cost plus the 21% joint and common cost originally

established by the CPUC in Decision 98-02-106. Pacific has

satisfied the requirements of the Act by giving CLECs full

and nondiscriminatory access to UNEs as discussed in the

Deere affidavit.

134. Pacific agreed in the 271 Workshop to provide frame

equipment and repeaters necessary to extend UNEs into the

CLEC’s collocation cage under method one of Pacific’s “Five

Methods of Access to UNEs” to enable the CLEC to combine

the UNEs. WS Agreement 6.1.1.1. At present, no CLEC has

requested Method One. However, Pacific continues to make

Method One available and filed cost studies and proposed

prices for method one in the OANAD collocation pricing

proceedings.

UNE COMBINATIONS

135. Pacific continues to honors its ICAs with numerous CLECs to

provide combined UNEs, including arbitrated interconnection

agreements with AT&T, MCI and Sprint that include terms for

provisioning UNEs on a combined basis. Additionally, under

the provisions of section 252(i) of the Act, other CLECs

64

have opted into these agreements for the remaining term of

the contract.

136. In compliance with the recent Supreme Court order,11 Pacific

will not “disassemble” already combined UNEs when a CLEC

orders such already combined UNEs. This normally occurs

when a CLEC is taking over an existing end-user account.

The CLEC must order these already combined UNEs with

specificity and should the CLEC order UNEs other then the

already combined UNEs, Pacific will treat the order as a

new combination.

137. Pacific will combine UNEs for a CLEC under Network

Component Service (NCS). Through NCS Pacific performs the

combining of certain UNEs on behalf of the CLEC to permit

the CLEC to provide an end-to-end telecommunications

service to end users exclusively utilizing Pacific UNEs.

Although those alternatives go beyond Pacific’s obligations

under the Act and do not fall under the requirements of

Section 271, Pacific, by offering those options, has

facilitated entry by facilities-based CLECs into the local

market. This offering is fully explained in Pacific’s

Generic Interconnection Agreement, Appendix NCS Hopfinger

Attachment EEEE. To date, no one has requested NCS. See

also Deere Affidavit for discussion of five methods of

access to UNEs.

11 AT&T v Iowa Utils.Bd., 119 S.Ct.721 (1999)

65

138. Pacific has made available the extended loop (link), or

multi-wire center loop, as required by the Final Decision.

App. B, p. 17. The extended loop functionality is a

combination of currently available UNEs. The following UNE

elements for local loop, dedicated transport and cross

connects are available today in Pacific under existing CLEC

contracts in order to satisfy this voice grade extended

loop request.

Loop types:• 2-Wire Analog Loop• 4-Wire Analog Loop

Dedicated Transport elements:

• Interoffice Transport Fixed• Interoffice Transport Variable• Entrance Facility• Multiplexing

Cross Connect types:

• 2-Wire Analog Loop to point of access/collocation• 4-Wire Analog Loop to point of access/collocation• DS-1, DS-3, etc. to point of access/collocation

These UNEs are made available and combined at the prices

set forth in the generic pricing appendix.

139. The extended loop functionality provides CLECs the ability

to serve their end users using a voice grade analog 2 or 4-

wire loop cross-connected to dedicated transport. Extended

loop is only available to a CLEC when the CLEC is the

provider of the end user’s switched local telephone

66

exchange service. Extended loop is not intended to

displace existing Pacific access services.

140. The dedicated transport portion of the extended loop is

established from the CLEC customer’s Pacific servicing wire

center to the CLEC’s collocation cage in a different

Pacific wire center. Pacific will combine these elements

pursuant to the existing terms and conditions of each

CLEC’s contract or by amendment to include any element,

term or condition necessary to facilitate extended loop.

RIGHT TO USE


provide: 1) A list of the software vendors; 2) A

description of the specific license agreements for each

type of software, i.e., specific uses, limits on number of

users, or number of minutes; 3) Contacts with the switch

vendors to determine if the switch vendors want the CLEC to

sign a nondisclosure agreement to obtain the information;

and, 4) At the written request of a CLEC, negotiate at no

charge a right to use agreement for use of the software

that parallels Pacific’s right to use. App. B, p. 16, FD

p. 152. Hopfinger Attachment BBBB is a copy of Accessible

Letter CLECC 99-166 informing CLECs of the availability of

the list of software vendors and licenses and Pacific’s

offer to negotiate on behalf of the CLEC. The list of

vendors and licenses is dynamic. Attachment CCCC is a copy

of Accessible Letter CLECC 99-237 advising the CLECs that

67

further negotiations with the software vendors resulted in

a subsequent agreement that no additional RTU need be

negotiated for CLECs at this time for the UNEs defined in

existing contracts. If new UNEs are defined, Pacific will

investigate the need for additional RTUs. Hopfinger

Attachment DDDD is a copy of the CLEC Handbook, UNE,

Section 2.1, which was updated to reflect this policy

change.

WHITE PAGES LISTINGS

142. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(viii) of the Act requires Pacific to

provide, "White pages directory listings for customers of

the other carrier's telephone exchange service." Pacific’s

directory affiliate publishes the listings of the CLEC’s

customer within Pacific’s appropriate white pages

directories. These listings are included within the

listings of Pacific’s customers. These listings include

name; address and telephone number as specified by the CLEC

143. In addition to providing listings, Pacific provides initial

and annual delivery of its white pages directories to

customers of resellers and facilities-based CLECs on the

same basis as it does to its own customers. Pacific has

worked with CLECs to improve the delivery process. More

specifically, Pacific responded quickly, and at the most

senior level, to resolve concerns regarding directory

delivery in gated communities and apartment complexes.12

12 Third Party Proprietary.

68

Pacific Bell worked to resolve differences between the

directory company and the CLEC so that the CLEC customers

would receive directories in the manner in which the CLEC

wanted them delivered. Pacific also provided the CLEC

directly with directories so that the CLEC could provide

emergency response to customers, if needed. Pacific also

has in place methods and procedures by which a requesting

CLEC can obtain additional copies of white pages

directories subsequent to the normal directory distribution

cycle on the same terms and conditions as Pacific

customers. Finally, Pacific provides access to its white

pages directory listings in readily accessible magnetic

tape or electronic format. AT&T, Attachment 4 §5; MCI,

Attachment 4, §6; Sprint, Attachment, §6. CLECS may also

validate their end-users’ listings and directory delivery

information anytime by utilizing the web-based Listings

Lookup that was introduced in September, 1998. The Web-

based Listings Lookup is located on the Pacific CLEC

website.

144. A white pages end-user listing is provided to a CLEC’s

customers in the same manner as Pacific provides the

listing to its own retail customers. CLEC end user listing

information is included alphabetically, with Pacific end

user listings. AT&T, Attachment 4, §2; MCI, Attachment 4,

§1. As of May, 31 1999 in California, Pacific directories

contain more than 231,000 listings of CLEC telephone

numbers. CLECs who provide local exchange service through

69

the purchase of unbundled switching, or solely through

their own facilities, may have their customers included in

Pacific’s white pages directories. MCI, Attachment 4, §4.

All CLEC subscriber listing information is included in the

Pacific white pages in the same type and format as Pacific

subscriber listing information. Sprint, Attachment 4, §2.

145. Pacific manages CLEC white pages listing information in the

same manner as it does its own. AT&T, Attachment 4, §2.

The Directory white pages database contains information

pertinent to how the end user listings will appear in the

white pages Directory such as end user name, address and

listed telephone number. In addition, the database

contains directory delivery information regarding the

number of directories to be delivered and where those

directories should be delivered.

146. Pacific makes available, to all requesting CLECs, primary,

additional and foreign listings under the terms and

conditions contained in the CLECs’ respective

interconnection agreements on the tariff. CLEC Handbook,

Ancillary Services, §3.2 informs readers on primary,

additional and foreign listings. PDO §V.A. A primary

listing is associated with the end user subscribing to the

local telephone service. An additional listing is one

requested by an end user that pertains to, or is associated

with, the primary listing. A foreign listing is one that

does not fall within the local scope of the directory in

which it is listed. Each of these types of listings will

70

contain a name, telephone number and may contain an address

in the white pages directory.

147. Directory publication schedules are provided via the on

line CLEC Handbook, Ancillary Services, § 3.5.2. in the

White Pages Listings User Guide, under the heading PB/NB

Directory Closing Dates. Information relating to paid

advertising and coverage of specific directories may be

obtained by a CLEC from Pacific Directory. CLECs requesting

business listing enhancements and Yellow Page advertise-

ments for their business end users are referred to Pacific

Directory, a separate, non-regulated affiliate of Pacific.

148. If the CLEC’s local calling scope differs from Pacific’s

geographic scope for a particular white pages directory,

and the CLEC wants to include its listings in a directory

outside the scope of the local directory, the CLEC may list

such end user listing information in Pacific’s white pages

on a foreign listing basis. Schedule Cal. P.U.C. Tariff

No. 175-T, §9.3 and CLEC Handbook, Ancillary Services,

§3.2. This is the same policy applicable to Pacific’s

retail operations.

149. Even though not required by section 271, Pacific will

include CLEC specific information, i.e., business office,

residence, office, repair bureau, etc., in the white pages

directory customer guide section. Under all existing

interconnection agreements, Pacific provides up to two

pages at no charge to the CLEC. In recent contract

negotiations Pacific has offered 1/8 page of space in the

71

“Customer Guide Section” free of charge. At its option,

the CLEC may purchase additional space in the directory in

accordance with the nondiscriminatory rates contained in

Schedule Cal P.U.C. No. 175-T, section 9.2, “Customer Guide

Service Tariff.”13 To date, eight CLECs have made

arrangements to appear on customer guide pages. One or

more of these CLECs appear in the Customer Guide Pages in

69 of Pacific’s directories. The CLEC Customer Guide Pages

from the San Gabriel Valley White Pages Directory are

attached as Hopfinger Attachment FFFF.

150. Pacific maintains a “White Page Listings User Guide” that

provides CLECs with instructions for placing white pages

listings. A copy of this guide is available on the CLEC web

site.

151. Upon request from a CLEC, Pacific will transmit the CLEC’s

end user subscriber listing information to designated third

party directory publishers pursuant to the terms and

conditions agreed to by the Parties.

152. As requested by the CPUC Staff in the Final Staff Report,

page 22, Pacific re-examined the CLEC Handbook in reference

to complex captions and determined that additional

information would assist CLECs in handling end user

requests for complex captions. On April 13, 1999, Pacific

posted to the CLEC Handbook, Listings, section 3.5,

13 This issue was arbitrated in the recent MFS arbitration A.99-04-037. Thedraft decision states that Pacific is only required to provide 1/8th pageto the CLECs for free.

72

Ordering (including Section 3.5.2 Listings, Straight-Line &

Simple Caption Listings and Complex Caption Listings) under

white pages directory listings in the ancillary services

section for Pacific and Nevada. See CLEC Handbook What’s

New and Listings, section 3.5.2. The information added to

the CLEC Handbook provides CLECs with the process to be

followed by their end user when their end user requests a

complex caption listing. Pacific’s Marketing Directory

Unit (MDU) negotiates all complex caption listings

including those requested by CLEC end users. The MDU

negotiates directly with the end user or with the CLEC and

also establishes an independent foreign white page listing

account to directly bill the end user. The information now

available in the CLEC Handbook also provides the telephone

numbers and hours of operation for MDU. CLECs are not

billed for these listings or held responsible for accepting

or making changes to these listings. This is the same

process used in Pacific’s retail operations. Currently, 19

different CLECs have ordered complex captions for their

customers.

HIGHER BANDWIDTH – OPTICAL LEVELS

153. As required by the Final Decision, Pacific has made higher

bandwidth services such as optical level bandwidths

available to CLECs. OC3 and OC12 services are offered and

priced pursuant to costs developed using the TELRIC

principle, as required for UNEs. Pacific developed these

73

costs as part of its compliance with Final Decision.

Pacific offers OC48 on an ICB. App. B, p. 20-21.

Accessible Letter CLECC 99-163, issued May 11, 1999,

describes how the CLEC may obtain OC3 and OC12 services, as

well as, describing the availability the updated training

effective June 1, 1999. Hopfinger Attachment GGGG.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES

154. Pacific has complied with the requirement in the Final

Decision to allow a CLEC to re-negotiate its ICA to include

any or all of the dispute resolution processes in ICAs

Pacific has executed with CLECs in California. App. B, p.

12. Pacific permits a CLEC to request re-negotiation of

the dispute resolution provisions in its interconnection

agreement without requiring the CLEC to re-negotiate all of

the other terms and conditions of the ICA. Between

December 17, 1998 and May 31, 1999, Pacific signed and

filed with the CPUC 12 agreements with CLECs. Ernest

Communications adopted MCI's dispute resolution provisions,

e.Spire adopted Level 3 Communications's dispute resolution

provisions, MediaOne adopted AT&T's dispute resolution

provisions, and RCN Communications and PaeTec

Communications both adopted ACN's dispute resolution

provisions. The dispute resolution provisions from

Pacific's generic agreement were adopted by Computer

Business Sciences, NOS Communications, Pre-Paid Phones,

TelWest, Tesco and Total Media Technologies.

74

CONCLUSION

155. As demonstrated herein, Pacific has made available, and

CLECs are actually using products, services and UNEs

through Pacific’s CPUC approved interconnection agreements

and Pacific’s CPUC approved tariffs that are in compliance

with the Act's Competitive Checklist. This concludes my

affidavit.

75

I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and

correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed on July 9, 1999

_____________________________Curtis L. HopfingerDirector-Industry MarketsSBC Telecommunications, Inc.

Documents

AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER TABLE OF CONTENTS …