Direct Testimony of Gary Goldstein
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, ) INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, ) ) Claimant, ) vs. ) Docket No. 03-035-28 ) PACIFICORP, dba UTAH POWER , an ) Oregon Corporation, ) ) Respondent. )
1 2
3
4 INITIAL TESTIMONY
5 OF
6 GARY GOLDSTEIN
7 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
8
9
10
11 July 2, 2004
12
13
1 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 1 5 6
1 Q: Please state your name and occupation.
2 A: My name is Gary Goldstein. I work for Comcast as a Designer.
3 My place of business is Sandy, Utah.
4 Q: Please state your work history.
5 A: I have been employed by Comcast and its predecessors as a
6 Designer since 1979. Although my title has changed over the years, I have basically had
7 the same job.
8 Q: Please describe your responsibilities as a Designer.
9 A: In conjunction with other Comcast employees in the Design
10 department, I design the route and placement of Comcast’s cables and other facilities
11 that are necessary in the construction of our cable system in order to serve Comcast’s
12 customers. Basically, I draw maps showing where the facilities need to go. This
13 involves walking out into the field to measure distances between poles and to determine
14 how best to install associated equipment, such as cabinets or power supplies.
15 Sometimes I do the walk-out myself, other times I delegate this to other Comcast
16 employees or contractors. After the walk-out, I draw the maps which tell the
17 construction department where to go and what types of facilities to construct. Although
18 my titles have changed and my responsibilities have expanded to include supervising
19 others, I basically have been doing the same type of work since I began working at Tele-
20 communications, Inc. in 1979.
7UT_DOCS_A #1157446 v1 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 2 5 6 1 Q: What happens to the maps after you design the network?
2 A: I send the maps out to the Project Managers who oversee the
3 construction I’ve designed. For example, all of the design maps I draw for the Salt Lake
4 Valley upgrade go to Comcast’s Upgrade Project Manager, Rodney Bell.
5 Q: What happens after you submit the maps to the Project
6 Managers?
7 A: Sometimes the Project Managers want to make adjustments or
8 changes based on conditions in the field. For example, sometimes there is a discrepancy
9 between the maps and the field or a problem with a customer that prevents us from
10 accessing poles in particular yard. Other times the make-ready on a given pole ends up
11 being much more expensive than originally estimated, so we redesign the route to
12 construct our facilities underground or otherwise avoid that particular pole. There are
13 any number of reasons why the design must be modified in the field. I can’t always
14 anticipate all construction related concerns at the drafting table.
15 Q: Do you make the changes?
16 A: Yes. The Project Managers then submit those changes and we
17 make them in the Design department.
7UT_DOCS_A #1157446 v1 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 3 5 6 1 Q: Can you describe what pole attachment permitting process
2 Utah Power had in place when you started working for Tele-communications, Inc.
3 in 1979?
4 A: I can only describe the permitting process that was in effect for
5 the Salt Lake Valley.
6 Q: Why is that?
7 A: I was only involved in permitting in the Salt Lake area, as I
8 understand it, permitting processes varied district by district.
9 Q: Can you describe the procedure in the Salt Lake Valley
10 district?
11 A: Yes. Pole attachment permitting was not my direct area of
12 responsibility, but I worked directly with Stuart Smythe who was responsible for
13 permitting and, therefore, I became aware of, and participated in, the permitting process.
14 Basically, Mr. Smythe took maps that I, or other designers, created and would then go
15 on a three-party walk-out into the field with representatives of Utah Power and Qwest,
16 which was then known as Mountain Bell. The parties would visually check each pole
17 and come to agreement on what make-ready was necessary. Stuart would mark make-
18 ready notes on his copy of the map and submit it attached to an Exhibit A.
7UT_DOCS_A #1157446 v1 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 4 5 6 1 Q: What is an Exhibit A?
2 A: Exhibit A was a single page application form that requested the
3 applying party to identify itself, the basis for its authority to attach—which was the pole
4 attachment agreement—and the poles to which it sought to attach. Several sample
5 Exhibit A’s are attached to this testimony as Exhibit 1.
6 Q: Do you know why it was called “Exhibit A?”
7 A: I do not know. It was the term the power company gave it. I
8 believe it said “Exhibit A” across the top. It may have been an exhibit to the pole
9 attachment agreement.
10 Q: Did Mr. Smythe list each individual pole on the Exhibit A?
11 A: No, that is not how it worked. Instead of identifying each pole,
12 the Exhibit A simply made a blanket reference to the poles marked on the map that was
13 attached to the Exhibit A.
14 Q: Was it the parties’ practice to identify the poles by number?
15 A: There was a numbering system that Tele-communications, Inc.
16 placed on the maps during the initial walk out. We created those numbers for our
17 internal use, but I do not believe the power company used them.
7UT_DOCS_A #1157446 v1 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 5 5 6 1 Q: Can you describe the numbering system?
2 A: Yes. The maps were copies of Utah Power’s service maps
3 showing the power poles and routing marked on them. Utah Power had a system that
4 numbered each map. Tele-communications, Inc.’s map number was the same as Utah
5 Power’s map number. Tele-communications, Inc., also gave each pole on the map a
6 number. So, for example, if the Map No. was 39, then the first pole would be 39-1, the
7 second would be 39-2 and so forth.
8 Q: Were the poles numbered in the field?
9 A: Only some of them had tags. We couldn’t rely on numbers in the
10 field because very few poles were labeled.
11 Q: What happened after Mr. Smythe submitted the Exhibit A’s
12 with maps attached?
13 A: Sometimes Utah Power would propose make-ready changes by
14 returning a copy of the maps to us with make-ready requirements marked on it. Usually
15 we would either incorporate the changes, or, if the changes were too costly, re-route the
16 cable facilities to avoid the pole in question. Once it was agreed upon as to what make-
17 ready work was required, Utah Power would provide a cost estimate for that make-ready
18 work.
7UT_DOCS_A #1157446 v1 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 6 5 6 1 Q: What happened after Utah Power provided the cost estimate?
2 A: We would either agree to pay all or some of the make-ready, or,
3 as I mentioned previously, we would try to find a less costly way to route the facilities.
4 Q: Assuming you agreed to the make-ready estimates, what
5 would happen next?
6 A: We would countersign the Exhibit A, indicating that we
7 authorized PacifiCorp to do the make-ready and bill us for the work.
8 Q: How did Utah Power grant final authority to attach?
9 A: Utah Power would countersign the Exhibit A, granting
10 permission to attach to all of the poles on the attached maps.
11 Q: Who retained copies of the Exhibit A’s and the attached
12 maps?
13 A: A number of copies were made. We kept one set of the
14 applications as they were submitted and then another set of copies that were
15 countersigned by Utah Power indicating final approval to attach. It is my understanding
16 that a set of copies was provided to Utah Power, but I cannot say what PacifiCorp did
17 with those copies or whether they kept them. Depending on whether other parties
18 needed to be involved with the make-ready, additional sets may have been provided to
19 third parties.
7UT_DOCS_A #1157446 v1 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 7 5 6 1 Q: Now, you said that Stuart Smythe was responsible for this
2 process during the initial build of the system. Were you ever responsible for
3 permitting?
4 A: Although I was never solely responsible for permitting,
5 sometimes I would stand in for Stuart and do the three-party walk-outs when he was
6 unavailable. Additionally, during the 1980s, after he left the company, I was involved
7 with some construction work and sometimes had to apply for permits necessary to
8 complete the construction. Although it was not my specific responsibility, it was
9 something that needed to be done, so I often did it.
10 Q: What permitting process did you follow?
11 A: I submitted Exhibit A forms with maps similar to those Mr.
12 Smythe submitted. This didn’t happen very often though, because most of the poles
13 were permitted during the initial build.
14 Q: Did you submit any applications during the 1990s?
15 A: No. By 1989, I stopped working on construction projects and
16 went back to doing design work only.
17 Q: PacifiCorp has stated that the reason that it has discovered so
18 many unauthorized attachments is because Comcast has raced through its upgrade
19 without securing the necessary authorizations. Are you familiar with these claims?
20 A: Yes I am.
7UT_DOCS_A #1157446 v1 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 8 5 6 1 Q: Are they accurate?
2 A: I don’t think so. In my opinion, PacifiCorp isn’t considering the
3 permitting system that existed in the 1970s and 1980s. Individual permits were not
4 granted for each pole. Instead, the system was based on maps that authorized
5 attachments based on entire geographic areas. Besides, I would say approximately 99%
6 of the attachments in Comcast’s service areas were installed before the current upgrade
7 even began.
8 Q: Why does that matter?
9 A: Because we have not made a significant number of new
10 attachments in the last ten years. We are just adding additional cable to existing
11 attachments. I would estimate that the majority of Comcast’s attachments have been in
12 place for 15-25 years. An upgrade doesn’t generate the amount of new attachments
13 PacifiCorp appears to think Comcast is making. Therefore, at least some portion of the
14 “unauthorized attachments” that PacifiCorp is trying to charge Comcast for would
15 necessarily have been permitted 15-25 years ago.
16 Q: PacifiCorp has stated, in connection with this law suit, that it
17 conducted a pole audit in 1997 or 1998. Are you aware of this?
18 A: I was at a hearing at the Public Service Commission in April 2004
19 where I heard PacifiCorp representatives say that an audit was conducted during that
20 time frame. I also heard them say that this audit was a “baseline” for the current audit
7UT_DOCS_A #1157446 v1 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 9 5 6 1 Osmose is conducting. Since most of the attachments in place now were placed before
2 1997, I don’t understand why they wouldn’t have raised the unauthorized attachment
3 issue back then, if it actually is an issue.
4 Q: Did you participate in that audit?
5 A: No. I’m not familiar with the audit at all. If it was done, I don’t
6 recall ever receiving notice of it, or receiving any results from it. The only audit I recall
7 was done during the 1980s. As far as I am aware, the only purpose of the audit in the
8 1980s was to count up all attachments for billing purposes.
9 Q: Does this conclude your testimony?
10 A: Yes.
7UT_DOCS_A #1157446 v1