February 3,2012 Via Hand Delivery Sandra S. Squire Executive Secretary Public Service Commission 201 Brooks Street Charleston, W
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JOSEPH J. STARSICK, JR. Associate General Counsel - Southeast Region Frontier Communications d Communications 1500 MacCorkle Ave., S.E. Charleston, West Virginia 25396 (304)344-7644 Joseph. [email protected] February 3,2012 Via Hand Delivery Sandra S. Squire Executive Secretary Public Service Commission 201 Brooks Street Charleston, West Virginia 25323 Re: 11-1781-T-T Dear Ms. Squire: Please find enclosed for filing in the original plus 12 copies of the Responses Of Frontier West Virginia Inc. To First Set Of Interrogatories, Data Request Or Requests For Information By The Staff Of The Public Service Commission Of West Virginia For Frontier West Virginia Inc. in the above-referenced matter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, (State Bar No. 3576) JJSjr/sc Enclosure cc: Kathy L. Buckley, Executive Director Chris Howard, Esq. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON CASE NO. 11-1781-T-T FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA INC. Tariff Filing for Revision of Current Tariff RESPONSES OF FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA INC. TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, DATA REQUEST OR REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION BY THE STAFF OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA Frontier West Virginia Inc. (“Frontier”) hereby filly and completely answers Staffs First Set of Interrogatories, Data Request or Requests for Information by the Staff of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (“Staffs First Discovery Requests”) pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, C.S.R. 150-1-1, et seq. By hereby hlly and completely answering the Staffs First Discovery Requests, Frontier reserves all objections, and waives none, including without limitation any objection with respect to any future requests, even if related to a Request answered below. 1 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF’S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA INC. PROPOUNDED JANUARY 13,2012 CASE NO. 11-1781-T-T (1) Has Frontier-WV provided any notice to current and prospective customers affected by this proposed tariff change? If yes, please explain how such notice was provided and when. Answer: Yes. Attached as Exhibit 1-lA is the notice to all Interexchange (“IXC”) Carriers, Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (“CLECs”) and Wireless Carriers, dated December 20, 201 1. Attached as Exhibit 1-1B is the Public Notice of Tariff Filing That May Affect Rates, sent on January 20, 201 1for publication. 2 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF’S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA INC. PROPOUNDED JANUARY 13,2012 CASE NO. 1 1- 178 1-T-T (2) Proposed tariff Section 2.3.12. a methodology for calculating the “PVU factor”: (a) Why is the “Relevant VoIP Traffic” minutes in this methodology limited to terminating VoIP-PSTN access minutes? Answer: The FCC was clear in its Order that it was not requiring reductions in originating access rates. The FCC stated that it was “limiting reform to terminating access charges at this time”, ’ and noted its intent to “fbrther evaluate” other charges such as originating access at a later date. The FCC explicitly noted that it could not take action on originating access because there was an insufficient record to do so. Accordingly, in the FNPRM, the FCC “seek[s] comment on that final transition for all originating access charge~,”~ which would necessarily include the access charges associated with calls that originate on the PSTN and terminate in VoIP. We believe it is clear that the FCC intended to preserve the status quo for originating access rates for calls originating on the PSTN while it develops a record on appropriate transition and recovery mechanisms for these charges in the fbrther rulemaking. The parts of the Order capping and continuing intrastate access rates for the interim do not note any exception for traffic originated on the PSTN and terminated via VoIP.4 Moreover, the only portion of the Order’s VoIP-PSTN discussion that addresses originating access rates with any specificity itself acknowledges that originating access rates are “subject to the phase-down and elimination of those charges pursuant to a transition to be specified in response to the FNPRM’,’- in other words, there is no intent to flash-cut these rates to interstate levels in the present Order. The Order does not ’ Report & Order and FWPRMat 7 739. * Id. “W]e address those elements in the FNPRM.” (that is, a Future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). Id. at 7 1298 (emphasis added). 4 Id. at 7 818. ‘‘[w]e take immediate action to cap all interstate originating access charges and intrastate originating access charges for price cap carriers. Although we do not establish the transitionfor rate reductions to bill-and-keep in this Order, we seek comment in the FNPRA4 on the appropriate transition and recovery mechanism for ultimately phasing down originating access charges. A cap on interstate originating access represents afirst step as part of our measured transition toward comprehensive reform. .” (Emphasis added.). Id. at 7 961, n. 1976. 3 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF’S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA INC. PROPOUNDED JANUARY 13,2012 CASE NO. 11-1781-T-T include any revenue recovery available for these lost revenues, clearly something the FCC would have incorporated had they intended originating rates be reduced. Requiring interstate rates for intrastate originating switched access on PSTN originating- VoIP terminating traffic would create a new arbitrage opportunities out of an Order that was intended to eliminate such gaming of the system. There has never been any dispute about originating access charges that terminate on VoIP. Frontier knows the jurisdiction of the traffic that originates on its network, but cannot determine how a call terminates - on the PSTN or via VoIP. As a result, Frontier would be forced to rely on another carrier’s specified percentage of VoIP-terminated traffic in a situation where the carrier has the incentive to inflate its actual percentage of VoIP traffic. A disparity in originating rates for intrastate traffic terminating on the PSTN versus on an IP network could incent an interexchange to specifj a larger percentage of VoIP-terminated traffic in an attempt to minimize their costs. Since the FCC does not set a timefi-ame for addressing originating traffic, as it does for terminating traffic, the arbitrage opportunity would continue in perpetuity until hrther FCC action. (b) Will Frontier-WV allow the customer’s “PVU factor” to be based on the number of the customer’s retail VoIP subscriptions in West Virginia? Answer: Frontier’s carrier customer will be able to provide their Percentage VoIP Usage (“PVU”) to Frontier, and they can utilize the number of retail VoIP subscriptions as a percentage of their overall retail customers in establishing the PVU. 4 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF’S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA INC. PROPOUNDED JANUARY 13,2012 CASE NO. 11-1781-T-T (3) Is the Company’s billing system currently capable of implementing the “PVU factor” methodology proposed in this tariff filing? If not, what is the expected date of such implementation? Answer: Frontier’s billing system is capable of implementing the PVU provided by the customer, similar to how it implements PIU (Percent Interstate Usage) for switched access currently. 5 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF’S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA INC. PROPOUNDED JANUARY 13,2012 CASE NO. 11-1781-T-T (4) In regards to proposed tariff section 2.3.12(B) Rating of VoIP-PSTN Traffic: (a) Please provide the current specific “rates equal to the Company’s applicable tariffed interstate switched access rates” to be applied to the “Relevant VoIP-PSTN Traffic” and the specific FCC tariff citation for each such applicable rate. Answer: Please see attached Exhibit 1-4. (b) For VoIP-PSTN Traffic that is not calculated to be “Relevant VoIP-PSTN Traffic” by the proposed “PVU factor” methodology, please provide the applicable rate(s) that will be applied to such Traffic. Answer: “Relevant VoIP-PSTN Traffic” is simply that VoIP-PSTN traffic which is included in terminating intrastate access minutes. It is identified by the PVU. Other VoIP-PSTN Traffic is not subject to the filed tariff language and is to be billed at the rates currently in place. To the extent such traffic is included in terminating interstate access minutes, it is billed at terminating interstate access rates. To the extent such traffic is included in originating access minutes, it is billed the originating interstate or intrastate access rates according to what jurisdiction the traffic is. To the extent such traffic is not included in access minutes, it would be governed by an interconnection agreement between Frontier and the carrier exchanging such traffic with Frontier. 6 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF’S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA INC. PROPOUNDED JANUARY 13,2012 CASE NO. 11-1781-T-T (5) Is the Company’s current billing system capable of determining actual VoIP traffic ffom non-VoIP traffic? If no, does the Company plan to develop this capability? When? Answer: Frontier’s system cannot determine actual VoIP originated traffic that terminates on its network. It does not currently have plans to develop this capability, and does not believe that hnctionality exists due to the lack of requirements to identify traffic as such in the call detail or call signaling information that is passed between carriers. 7 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF’S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA INC. PROPOUNDED JANUARY 13,2012 CASENO. 11-1781-T-T (6) Please provide a copy ofthe Company’s most recent FCC Form 477. Answer: Please see attached Exhibit 1-6, which is the most recent FCC Form 477 for West Virginia.