Exhibit Mdg 3.0

STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application and Complaint of ) WESTPHALIA TELEPHONE COMPANY and ) GREAT LAKES COMNET, INC. against ) Case No. U-17660 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ) GLOBAL CROSSING LOCAL SERVICES, ) INC. and WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC RESPONSE TESTIMONY OF MACK D. GREENE ON BEHALF OF LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC GLOBAL CROSSING LOCAL SERVICES, INC. and WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC EXHIBIT MDG 3.0 Response of Mack D. Greene Level 3 Exhibit MDG 3.0 Public Version STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application and Complaint of ) WESTPHALIA TELEPHONE COMPANY and ) GREAT LAKES COMNET, INC. against ) Case No. U-17660 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ) GLOBAL CROSSING LOCAL SERVICES, ) INC. and WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC ) RESPONSE TESTIMONY OF MACK D. GREENE Response of Mack D. Greene Level 3 Exhibit MDG 3.0 Public Version 1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BUSINESS 2 ADDRESS. 3 A. My name is Mack D. Greene. I am a Director with Level 3 Communications, LLC. My 4 business address is 1025 Eldorado Blvd, Broomfield, Colorado. I am filing this 5 testimony on behalf of Level 3 Communications, Global Crossing Local Services and 6 WilTel Communications. 7 Q. ARE YOU THE SAME MACK GREEN THAT PROVIDED DIRECT 8 TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE ON OCTOBER 2, 2014? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR RESPONSE TESTIMONY? 11 A. I am testifying on behalf of Level 3 Communications, LLC (“Level 3 LLC”), Global 12 Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. (“Global Crossing”), and WilTel Communications, 13 LLC (“WilTel”) (Level 3, Global Crossing and WilTel are together referred to herein as 14 “Level 3”). Each of these companies are Respondents in this case, and each have 15 independent claims to recover excessive access charges paid to Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. 16 (“Great Lakes” or “GLC”) and Westphalia Telephone Company (“Westphalia” or 17 “WTC”). Westphalia and Great Lakes have filed a complaint with the Commission, and 18 Level 3, WilTel and Global Crossing have counterclaimed to recover the excess 19 payments. 20 I previously submitted testimony on October 2, 2014 in support of Level 3’s 21 counterclaims. This response testimony responds to the testimony submitted by GLC and 22 WTC in support of their case in chief. There is some overlap in this responsive testimony 23 with the Direct Testimony I submitted in support of Level 3’s counterclaims. To the Response of Mack D. Greene Level 3 Exhibit MDG 3.0 Public Version 24 extent necessary, I adopt my Direct Testimony for purpose of responding to 25 Complainant’s Direct Testimony of Mr. Fox, Mr. Summersett, and Mr. Eaton. In this 26 testimony, I will provide additional information to respond to the claims made by 27 Complainants. Tim Bruny provided testimony on October 2, 2014 containing accounting 28 of the amounts paid and the refund that is due to Level 3; that testimony also responds to 29 GLC and WTC’s claims of what amounts are claimed to be owed. 30 Q. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF LEVEL 3’S DISPUTE WITH GREAT LAKES AND 31 WESTPHALIA? 32 A. As described in my Direct testimony, in 2010, Level 3 began to see a spike in the volume 33 of calls destined to Level 3’s toll free (888, 800, 866, etc., “8YY”) customers routed 34 through the Great Lakes’ tandem in Westphalia, Michigan. Invoices sent by Great Lakes 35 and Westphalia represent that these telephone calls were originated by Local Exchange 36 Carrier of Michigan (“LEC MI”), but we have learned that LEC MI’s end users did not 37 originate these calls. Great Lakes must demonstrate that the calls originated with an end 38 user placing a call from the LEC MI local exchange. We do not believe, based on the 39 calling party number of the call detail records, and other information developed through 40 discovery, that these calls originate with a LEC MI end user or in the LEC MI local 41 exchange. The list of the LEC MI Local Exchanges is set for in LEC MI’s MPSC Tariff 42 No. 1R, parts of which are submitted as Exhibit Level 3 MDG 3.1. For those calls that do 43 originate in LEC MI’s local exchange, Great Lakes can only charge rates equivalent to 44 the rates charged by the incumbent local exchange carrier (“ILEC”) in the LATA in 45 which the calls originate. In this instance, Michigan Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T 46 Michigan”) is the ILEC in Southfield, and Great Lakes is limited to charge no more than Response of Mack D. Greene Level 3 Exhibit MDG 3.0 Public Version 47 AT&T Michigan’s tandem switched access rates, and the rates per minute per mile for 48 the transport. 49 Q. MR. SUMMERSETT AND MR. FOX ASSERT THAT LEVEL 3 HAS FAILED TO 50 PAY FOR TANDEM SWITCHED AND TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR 51 CERTAIN CALLS. DOES LEVEL 3 DISPUTE THAT MANY OF THE CALLS 52 WERE ACCESS CALLS? 53 A. Yes. Through discovery and admissions made by GLC and WTC, we have come to learn 54 that the telephone calls that are the subject of the dispute are were not telephone calls that 55 were originated by a LEC MI end user, and therefore, neither LEC MI local exchange 56 switch nor the upstream GLC tandem provided Level 3 access to LEC MI’s end users. 57 Recall in my earlier testimony that I described the purpose of access charges. Access 58 charges are intended to compensate the originating local exchange carriers, LEC MI in 59 this instance, and their partners for the network cost it incurs in making its network 60 available so that Level 3 can “access” LEC MI’s end user who wishes to complete a call 61 to Level 3’s 8YY customer. We have come to learn that the vast majority of the charges 62 in questions relate to calls to Level 3 that are not originated by LEC MI’s end users. 63 Q. YOU STATE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT WAS NOT 64 ORIGINATED BY A LEC MI END USER PLACING A CALL TO LEVEL 3. ON 65 WHAT BASIS DO YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT? 66 A. There are several statements made by GLC and WTC that confirm these facts. GLC 67 exhibit GLC-4 purports to describe the network configuration for the supposed access 68 services provided by LEC MI, GLC and WTC. However, based on the description of the 69 diagram from Mr. Summersett of GLC and Mr. Irvin of LEC MI, the vast majority of the Response of Mack D. Greene Level 3 Exhibit MDG 3.0 Public Version 70 traffic in dispute could not be originated from a LEC MI end user. 71 Mr. Summersett’s exhibit shows two transport lines, which he described as Trunk 72 Group 313 to carry “Southfield All Types” and Trunk Group 331 “8YY Toll” calls. 73 Q. WHAT IS A TRUNK GROUP? 74 A. Calls are routed over physical transport facilities, which can be fiber or copper wire of 75 varying capacities (DS1, DS3, OC-12, etc.) or combinations of these physical facilities. 76 These physical facilities are programed with equipment at each end of the physical route 77 to create virtual call paths. A transport route is like an Interstate highway, while a trunk 78 is like solid white lines painted on the highway to create virtual call paths. Like the 79 physical facility, the trunk groups can also be rated according to capacity, such as a DS1, 80 DS3, or OC-12. 81 Q. WHAT ARE THE TRUNK GROUPS CONNECTING LEC MI’S END OFFICE 82 AND GLC’S TANDEM, AS REFERENCED IN EXHIBIT GLC-4? 83 A. Three things. First, according to Mr. Irvin, Trunk Group 313 was used to route local 84 exchange traffic that originates with a LEC MI end user. This is reflected in the dashed 85 lines of Exhibit GLC-3 in the top of the LEC MI End Office (“EO”). According to Mr. 86 Irvin, LEC MI’s local exchange switch did indeed switch its end user calls and route 87 these calls to Trunk Group 313. The calls that were routed over Trunk Group 313 were 88 connected to local loop facilities connected to its end users located in the local exchange 89 territory of LEC MI. 90 Calls routed over Trunk Group 331 were not from LEC MI end users. Exhibit Response of Mack D. Greene Level 3 Exhibit MDG 3.0 Public Version 91 Level 3 MDG 3.2 (Conf. Irvin Dep. at 51.1) Calls over Trunk Group 331 were not even 92 connected to local loop facilities in the LEC MI end office, nor did the LEC MI end 93 office provide local switching functionality for the calls. Exhibit Level 3 MDG 3.2 94 (Conf. Irvin Dep. at 47, 51.) Instead, these calls were transited through a different piece 95 of equipment that resided across the street from the LEC MI local switch. Exhibit Level 96 3 MDG 3.2 (Conf. Irvin Dep. at 52.) Calls that were routed over Trunk Group 331 were 97 delivered to a session border controller that received traffic from the Internet, and 98 specifically from 7 Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses. Exhibit Level 3 MDG 3.2 (Conf. 99 Irvin Dep. at 56.) LEC MI did not provide local switching on the calls, and only 100 converted the calls from IP to TDM; LEC MI did not even know that GLC was billing 101 the calls as locally switched.

Load more