Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND ) In the Matter of the Investigation of Non-Recurring ) Charges for Telecommunications Interconnection ) Services ) ) In the Matter of the Investigation into Recurring ) Rates for Unbundled Network Elements Pursuant ) To the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) ) Case No. 8879 OPPOSITION OF WORLDCOM, INC. TO VERIZON’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE I. INTRODUCTION. WorldCom, Inc. (“WorldCom”), by its attorney, hereby opposes Verizon Maryland Inc.’s (“Verizon”) Emergency Motion to Modify Procedural Schedule (“Motion”) and request for additional time to prepare cost studies, supporting documentation and testimony requested by the Public Service Commission of Maryland (“Commission”) in Case No. 8879. Verizon’s Motion to extend the deadline to file the requested cost studies, underlying cost documentation, and supporting testimony in Case No. 8879 should be denied. Based on the substance of Verizon’s Motion, this is clearly just another delay tactic by Verizon. Verizon states that it seeks to extend the deadline to file UNE rate element cost studies and underlying cost documentation for two reasons. First, Verizon states that the Commission’s Order in Case No. 8842 (Line Sharing Case) affects the cost studies in 8879 in two respects: 1) the 8842 Order establishes certain parameters and filing requirements for future cost study submissions; and, 2) the 8842 Order made all of the line sharing rate elements interim, and required Verizon to submit updated cost studies in this proceeding. Second, Verizon states that “given the fact that there are three Commissioners who have never before heard an Unbundled Network Element proceeding,” it proposes to hold an informational workshop for the Commission on May 7, 2001, to provide the Commission with explanatory information concerning the cost study methodology. II. WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE SPLITTER ELEMENT, THE COMMISSION’S 8842 ORDER IMPOSES NO NEW COST STUDY REQUIREMENTS THAT VERIZON CANNOT MEET BY APRIL 30, 2001. Verizon states that the Commission enunciated new, additional requirements in the 8842 Order, which prevent Verizon from meeting the existing April 30, 2001 deadline. WorldCom disagrees. In the 8842 Order, the Commission enunciated general principles that have applied for some time to all cost study submissions in Maryland, including that the cost study be based on Maryland-specific information, contain detailed testimony, etc. The only Commission requirement contained in the 8842 Order that could possibly impact Verizon’s ability to file pursuant to the current 8879 deadline is the inclusion of the splitter element in the cost studies. With the possible exception of the splitter element, there is nothing new or dramatic in the 8842 Order that should require Verizon to need more time. In Pennsylvania, Verizon has filed cost studies relative to DSL issues, so even this is nothing entirely new to Verizon. Given that, Verizon should be deemed to have had sufficient time between the date of the 8842 Order and the 8879 2 deadline to file the additional cost information pertaining to the splitter element. Verizon has had sufficient time to prepare the requested cost studies and testimony on the splitter issue. Notwithstanding, WorldCom would not object if Verizon is allowed more time to file testimony and cost studies relative solely to the splitter element. III. THE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP SHOULD TAKE PLACE ONLY AFTER ALL VERIZON COST STUDIES AND TESTIMONY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, AND ALL PARTIES SHOULD BE INVITED AND ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE. Verizon states that the Informational Workshop will “provide the Commissioners with a full understanding of Verizon’s underlying cost methodology, how Verizon’s network relates to the UNEs it must provide to CLECs, and how Verizon develops costs for those UNEs.” WorldCom believes an informational session or data conference is a good thing if properly done. However, WorldCom sees no value in such a conference if it is held prior to the filing of Verizon’s cost studies, supporting documentation and testimony in 8879. Indeed, holding such a “workshop” prior to the filing of the studies would be less than useful since parties would not be prepared to ask specific questions (and, therefore, the “workshop” would be little more than a Verizon road show). To that end, WorldCom supports Verizon’s request to hold an informational workshop/data conference for the Commission and the parties IF it is held after Verizon has filed pursuant to the current deadline in 8879. WorldCom posits that a conference held after the submission of Verizon’s cost studies would give the Commission, Staff, and the parties an ideal opportunity to address real Maryland issues relative to the real Marylandspecific cost studies. It would also be our opportunity to eliminate a lot of needless 3 discovery, provided Verizon is prepared to respond to questions. In WorldCom’s opinion, to hold the informational session prior to the submission of cost studies and testimony would be a waste of time and resources; to hold the sessions after the submission would actually save time and resources. On or about March 15, 2001, Verizon’s sister company, Verizon Washington DC Inc. (“Verizon DC”), offered and held a similar data conference in the District of Columbia in connection with that jurisdiction’s UNE rate case. Cost studies in the DC proceeding were filed at the end of January, 2001. Like Verizon (Maryland) seeks to do in this Motion, Verizon DC desired to restrict the issues addressed and questions raised at that data conference, stating in effect that the meeting should not be allowed to take the place of discovery. As a result, the meeting resulted in little getting accomplished. In order to rectify that result, the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia (“DC Commission”) recently issued an order requiring Verizon DC to appear at two additional data conferences (one for Commission Staff, one for the parties) in connection with the District’s UNE rate case.1 In that Order, the DC Commission specifically required Verizon DC to be prepared to respond to questions regarding the entire cost study (that had been previously filed in January), including retail and wholesale recurring and non-recurring costs.2 Only in that way, the DC Commission recognized, would staff and the parties have an opportunity to address issues in a substantive manner. While the 1 See Formal Case No. 962, In the Matter of the Implementation of the District of Columbia Telecommunications Competition Act of 1996 and Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Order No. 11960 rel. March 30, 2001. 2 On April 6, 2001, Verizon DC filed a motion for clarification of Order No. 11960. The DC Commission has not yet issued its clarifying order. 4 DC Commission ultimately got it right on its second bite of the apple, this Commission can do so on the first. CONCLUSION As WorldCom has consistently argued, the fact that Verizon has not devoted the resources to develop requested cost studies and testimony should not become the problem of Maryland competitors or consumers, who deserve to reap the benefits of local competition that will come once appropriate UNE and NRC rates are established. Local competition in Maryland will continue to be nonexistent and thwarted should Verizon’s delay tactics be granted. Contrary to representations made in Verizon’s Motion, the Commission has not ordered Verizon in 8842 to do anything that would justify an extension of the schedule in 8879. Finally, WorldCom supports the idea of a data conference/informational workshop only if it is scheduled after the timely submission of Verizon’s cost studies, supporting documentation and testimony pursuant to the Commission’s current procedural schedule in this case. Respectfully submitted, Marc J. Williams WorldCom, Inc. 1133 19th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 April 17, 2001 5