DOCSLIB.ORG

Testimony of Susan M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Testimony of Susan M STATE OF NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES In the Matter of the Board’s Investigation Regarding the Reclassification of Incumbent Docket No. TX1 1090570 Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) Services as Competitive — Phase II TESTIMONY OF SUSAN M. BALDWIN AND SARAH M. BOSLEY ON BEHALF OF THE NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF RATE COUNSEL STEFANIE A. BRAND DIRECTOR AND RATE COUNSEL Division of Rate Counsel 31 Clinton Street, 11th Floor P.O. Box 46005 Newark, NJ 07101 (973) 648-2690 - Phone (973) 624-1047 — Fax www.rDa.state.nI.us [email protected] Filed: February 24, 2012 REDACTED VERSION ALLEGED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REDACTED Testimony of Susan M. Baldwin and Sarah M. Bosley NJ BPU Docket No. TX1 1090570 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Qualifications 1 Assignment 4 Summary 6 II. PROCEDURAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND 11 Regulatory and statutory context for proceeding 11 III. INCUMBENT CARRIERS 16 Background 16 Verizon NJ 17 CenturyLink 23 IV. LOCAL EXCHANGE MARKETS 35 Market structure 35 Companies offer telecommunications services to residential and business consumers using various technologies, and consumer demand varies by platform and customer class 38 Public FCC data demonstrates that ILECs still own or control the vast majority of wireline telephone lines in their operating territory in New Jersey 40 Cable companies compete only in the bundles market, leaving low-income and moderate- income consumers as well as those who do not want to buy bundles with few alternatives 43 Wireless use is prevalent but, for the vast majority of households, does not yet represent an economic substitute for basic local exchange service 46 Assessment data provides information about the scale of ILECs’ rivals 51 Rate Counsel’s survey demonstrates a lack of economic substitutes for ILECs’ basic local Testimony of Susan M. Baldwin and Sarah M. Bosley NJ BPU Docket No. TX1 1090570 exchange service 53 ILEC-provided data provide evidence of the lack of economic substitutes for basic local exchange service 54 Rivals’ entry in Verizon NJ’s markets 55 CLECs serving Verizon NJ’s residential local markets 62 Migration among cathers 67 Analysis of CenturyLink’s rivals 69 Intermodal alternatives do not discipline the rates, terms and conditions of residential dial tone services provided by the ILECs 74 A duopoly does not represent effective competition 78 The FCC’s denial of Verizon’s petitions for forbearance in six Metropolitan Statistical Areas includes analyses and findings that are germane to this proceeding 83 The Board should dismiss any ILEC arguments regarding the cost of basic local exchange service unless the Board conducts a comprehensive investigation of the allocation and assignment of costs and revenues associated with ILECs’ networks in New Jersey 97 Conditions of service 99 The Board should rate-regulate essential, noncompetitive services to protect consumers form supracompetitive rate levels and service quality deterioration 100 Summary of findings and recommendations regarding residence and business local exchange service 101 V. DISCRETIONARY SERVICES MARKET 103 Presently, discretionary services are classified as competitive services 103 Discretionary services are integrally related to basic local exchange service, and, therefore, they do not confront any more competition than does basic local exchange service 105 The Board’s deliberations regarding the classification of discretionary features will affect significant quantities of residential and business consumers 107 II Testimony of Susan M. Baldwin and Sarah M Bosley NJ BPU Docket No. TX1 1090570 Prices for discretionary services provide evidence about the level of competition 113 The cost to carriers of providing discretionary features is negligible 116 Summary of findings and recommendations regarding discretionary services 119 VI. DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE 121 Background 121 Analysis of data shows continuing consumer demand for DA 121 Public interest concerns and analysis of competitive alternatives 128 Implications of competitive classification 133 Summary of findings and recommendations regarding directory assistance service 134 Conclusion 136 Tables Section III (Incumbent Carriers) Table C- 1 Verizon NJ Business Customers Table C-2 Residential Installation Orders: Standalone versus Bundled- October 2010 — September 2011 - CenturyLink Table C-3 Distribution of Business Demand for Local Exchange Service CenturyLink Table 4 Rates for Services Covered by Stipulations Section IV (Local Exchange Markets) Table 5 Total Switched Access Lines and VoIP Subscriptions in New Jersey as of December 31, 2010 Table 6 Total Residential Switched Access Lines and VoIP Subscriptions In New Jersey as of December 31, 2010 Table 7 Composition of Non-Incumbent Wireline Service — December 31, 2010 Ill Testimony of Susan M. Baldwin and Sarah M. Bosley NJ BPU Docket No. TX1 1090570 Table 8 Composition of Residential Non-Incumbent Wireline Service — December 31, 2010 Table C-9 Facilities-Based Competitors to Verizon NJ (2009-2011, sorted by September 2011 lines) Table C-b CLEC Lines Served Based on Verizon NJ’s Wholesale Facilities, Residential and Business Customers, 2009-2011 Table C-il CLEC Presence in Residential Local Markets in Verizon NJ’s Territory, Based on Verizon NJ’s Wholesale Facilities, ranked by CLEC “number” Table C-b 2 CLEC Presence in Residential Local Markets in Verizon NJ’s Territory,Based on Verizon NJ’s Wholesale Facilities, ranked by scale of CLEC Table C- 13 Win Backs and Win Overs: 2009-2011, Verizon NJ Table C- 14 Residential Resale in CenturyLink’ s Territory Table C- 15 CLEC Presence in Business Local Markets in Verizon NJ’ s Territory Table C- 16 CLEC Presence in Business Local Markets in Verizon NJ’ s Territory (ranked by scale of CLEC) Table C- 17 There Is Negligible Competition for Business Local Exchange Service Section V (Discretionary Services Market) Table C- 18 Total Demand by Basic Standalone Residential Customers, Verizon NJ Table C- 19 Residential Demand for Discretionary Features by Basic Customers: Stratification Verizon NJ Table C-20 Residential Demand for Discretionary Features by “Package” Customers: Stratification, Verizon NJ Table C-2 1 Residential Demand for Discretionary Features by Basic Customers: Stratification CenturyLink Table C-22 Residential Demand for Discretionary Features by “Package” Customers: Stratification, CenturyLink Table 23 Monthly Rates for Selected Discretionary Features —Verizon NJ Testimony of Susan M. Baldwin and Sarah M. Bosley NJ BPU Docket No. TX1 1090570 Table 24 Monthly Rates for Selected Discretionary Features — CenturyLink Section VI (Directory Assistance) Table C-25 Monthly Average of Residential DA Calls November 2010-October 2011 Verizon NJ Table C-26 Monthly Average of Residential DA Calls October 201 0-September 2011 CenturyLink Figures Figure 1 Residential Wireline Market in New Jersey as of December 31, 2010 Figure C-2 Carriers by Percent of Gross State Revenues List of Attachments Attachment A Statement of Qualifications of Susan M. Baldwin Attachment B Statement of Qualifications of Sarah M. Bosley Exhibits Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-i Verizon NJ’s confidential responses to RC-VNJ-4 (wire centers where Verizon NJ offers residence service and business service) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-2 Verizon NJ’s confidential responses to RC-VNJ-5 (identifies the wire center that serves each municipality within Verizon NJ’s service territory) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-3 Verizon NJ’s confidential responses to RC-VNJ-6 (quantity of Lifeline customers by wire center in each year, 2009 through 2011) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-4 Verizon NJ’s confidential responses to RC-VNJ-lO (quantities of households encompassed by each of Verizon NJ’s wire centers) v Testimony of Susan M. Baldwin and Sarah M. Bosley NJ BPU Docket No. TX1 1090570 Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-5 Verizon NJ’s confidential responses to RC-VNJ-48, parts a through f (Form 477s) (incorporated by reference) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-6 CenturyLink’s confidential responses to RC-CTL-47 (Form 477s) (incorporated by reference) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-7 Verizon NJ’s confidential responses to RC-VNJ-7a (provides lines disaggregated by wire center) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-8 Verizon NJ’s confidential responses to RC-VNJ-14 (data regarding demand for packages) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-9 Verizon NJ’s confidential responses to RC-VNJ-6e (demand for single line business by wire center, December 2010, September 2011) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-10 Verizon NJ’s confidential responses to RC-VNJ-2 (demand for mass market services) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C- 11 Excerpt from CenturyLink’ s confidential response to RC CTL-6 Revised (lines by wire center, residence primary, residence additional, Lifeline, business total) Exhibit SMB- 12 CenturyLink’ s response to RC-CTL-4 (CenturyLink lines by wire center) Exhibit SMB-l 3 CenturyLink’s response to RC-CTL-5 (municipalities) Exhibit SMB-14 CenturyLink’s response to RC-CTL-89-A (exchange map) Exhibit SMB-l 5 CenturyLink’s response to RC-CTL-l 0 (quantities of households by wire center) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C- 16 CenturyLink’ s complete confidential response to RC-CTL 6 (incorporated by reference) (includes business lines disaggregated by quantities per customer) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-I 7 CenturyLink’s confidential response to RC-CTL-2 (numbers of customers per service) Confidential Exhibit SMB-C-18 CenturyLink’s confidential responses to RC-CTL-59 (disaggregation of business demand by quantity per customer, October 2010 —
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Call for an Investigation of Verizon New Jersey's Financials
    New Networks STATE OF NEW JERSEY Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0350 TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN THE MATTER OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE INC.’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ) OPPORTUNITY NEW JERSEY COMMITMENTS ) DOCKET NO. TO12020155 DISSOLVE THE STIPULATION AGREEMENT IMMEDIATELY. 1) OPRA (OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT) REQUESTS 2) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY UPGRADE THE STATE–BASED UTILITY PLANT 3) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY’S MASS CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION WITH VERIZON’S AFFILIATES, INCLUDING VERIZON INTERNET, VERIZON BUSINESS, VERIZON LONG DISTANCE, AMONG OTHERS 4) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND OTHER TIES BETWEEN VERIZON NEW JERSEY AND VERIZON WIRELESS 5) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION: CHARGING CUSTOMERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL VERIZON’S AFFILIATE COMPANIES’ PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, INCLUDING FIOS CABLE TV, INTERNET, BROADBAND, WIRELESS, AND OTHER LINES OF BUSINESS Submitted by: Bruce Kushnick, New Networks Institute Tom Allibone Director of Audits, Teletruth President, LTC Consulting, a New Jersey firm Alexander Goldman, Law Student, Brooklyn Law School Contacts: [email protected], [email protected], 1 New Networks Statement: New Networks & Teletruth requests that the proposed Stipulation Agreement between Verizon New Jersey and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) be dissolved immediately, our OPRA requests be upheld, and an investigation start immediately. The State should then require Verizon New Jersey to either wire 100% of their state territory, as required by law, with a fiber optic service capable 45 Mbps in both directions; or start a proceeding to give back the billions collected, including damages to every Verizon customer.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE 2012 ANNUAL REPORT THE WORL D’S BIGGEST CHALLEN GES DESERVE EVEN BIGGER SOLUTIONS. { POWERFUL ANSWERS } FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS $115.8 $33.4 $0.90 $2.20 $2.24 $1.975 $2.030 $110.9 $31.5 $0.85 $2.15 $1.925 $106.6 $29.8 $0.31 CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS REPORTED ADJUSTED DIVIDENDS REVENUES FROM OPERATING DILUTED EARNINGS DILUTED EARNINGS DECLARED PER (BILLIONS) ACTIVITIES PER SHARE PER SHARE SHARE (BILLIONS) (NON-GAAP) CORPORATE HIGHLIGHTS • $15.3 billion in free cash flow (non-GAAP) • 8.4% growth in wireless retail service revenue • 4.5% growth in operating revenues • 607,000 FiOS Internet subscriber net additions • 13.2% total shareholder return • 553,000 FiOS Video subscriber net additions • 3.0% annual dividend increase • 17.2% growth in FiOS revenue • 5.9 million wireless retail connection net additions • 6.3% growth in Enterprise Strategic Services revenue • 0.91% wireless retail postpaid churn Note: Prior-period amounts have been reclassified to reflect comparable results. See www.verizon.com/investor for reconciliations to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the non-GAAP financial measures included in this annual report. In keeping with Verizon’s commitment to protect the environment, this report was printed on paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). By selecting FSC-certified paper, Verizon is making a difference by supporting responsible forest management practices. CHAIRMAN’S LETTER Dear Shareowner, 2012 was a year of accelerating momentum, for Verizon and the communications industry. The revolution in mobile, broadband and cloud networks picked up steam—continuing to disrupt and transform huge sectors of our society, from finance to entertainment to healthcare.
    [Show full text]
  • SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Thomas Caldwell Vice
    THE BELL OPERATING COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 9th Revised Title Page 2 Cancels 8th Revised Title Page 2 SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Thomas Caldwell T Vice President, Marketing & Sales T Verizon Communications Inc. One Verizon Way, 2nd Floor T Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 T For Verizon Delaware Inc. Verizon Maryland Inc. Verizon New England Inc. Verizon New Jersey Inc. Verizon New York Inc. Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. Verizon Virginia Inc. Verizon Washington DC Inc. Verizon West Virginia Inc. Kelly Boggs Manager – Pricing BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. 675 West Peachtree St. N.E., Room 34S91, Atlanta, Georgia 30375 For the States of: Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee This page filed under Transmittal No. 29 T The names, titles and address of the tariff's Issuing Officers are located on Title Pages 2 through 4 Issued: May 31, 2006 Effective: June 15, 2006 THE BELL OPERATING COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 10th Revised Title Page 4 Cancels 9th Revised Title Page 4 SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Patrick Doherty T Director – Access Regulatory T AT&T Inc. T Four SBC Plaza, Room 1921, Dallas, Texas 75202 T For Ameritech Operating Companies Nevada Bell Telephone Company Pacific Bell Telephone Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company The Southern New England Telephone Company Susan S. Henson T Staff Advocate - Public Policy T on behalf of N Wendy M. Moser N Vice President - Public Policy N Qwest Corporation 1801 California Street, Room 4700, Denver, Colorado 80202 For the States of: Arizona Colorado Idaho Iowa Minnesota Montana Nebraska New Mexico North Dakota Oregon South Dakota Utah Washington Wyoming This page filed under Transmittal No.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of ) ) Offer of Comparably Efficient ) Inter
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Offer of Comparably Efficient ) Interconnection to Providers of ) Enhanced Directory Assistance Service ) COMPARABLY EFFICIENT INTERCONNECTION PLAN I. Introduction and Summary The Verizon telephone companies (“Verizon”) hereby propose to offer comparably efficient interconnection (“CEI”) to competing providers of wholesale Enhanced Directory Assistance (“EDA”) Service.1 Verizon will comply fully with the nonstructural safeguards that apply to the offering of enhanced services on an integrated basis by the former Bell Operating Companies .2 One of these 1 This plan is being filed by the Verizon telephone companies that were formerly affiliates of Bell Atlantic Corporation and are identified in Attachment A. Other Verizon telephone companies that were formerly affiliates of GTE Corporation are not required to post a CEI plan before offering an enhanced service. 2 See Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, (Computer III), CC Docket No. 85-229, Phase I, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986) (Phase I Order), recon., 2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987), further recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1135 (1988) Reconsideration Order, second further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989) (Phase I Second Further Reconsideration), Phase I Order and Phase I Reconsideration Order vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Phase II, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 (1987) (Phase II Order), recon., 3 FCC Rcd 5927 (1988) (Phase II Further Reconsideration Order), further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1988) (Phase II Further Reconsideration Order), Phase II Order vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217; Computer III Remand Proceedings, 5 FCC Rcd 7719 (1990) (ONA Remand Order), recon., 7 FCC Rcd 909 (1992), pets.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Showing Pursuant To: 101.103 (D) Frequency Coordination Procedures
    Supplemental Showing Pursuant To: 101.103 (d) Frequency Coordination Procedures Reference: Fixed Wireless Holdings, LLC Clearwire Spectrum Holdings LLC Clearwire Spectrum Holdings II, LLC Clearwire Spectrum Holdings III, LLC Clearwire Hawaii Partners Spectrum LLC Job Number: 111214COMSTI01 NC−CLT288A − NC−CLT048A, NC ; NC−CLT076A − NC−CLT263D, NC ;NC−CLT245F − NC−CLT242A, NC ; NC−GSB090B − NC−GSB072C, NC ;NC−GSB034B − NC−GSB031A, NC ; TX−DAL5954B − TX−DAL0189B, TX; NC−GSB075B − NC−GSB097A, NC ; NC−CLT032B − NC−CLT002A, NC; NC−CLT254F − NC−CLT289A, NC ; NC−RAL018A − NC−RAL006A, NC; NC−RAL241A − NC−RAL198A, NC ; NC−RAL041A − NC−RAL025A, NC; NC−RAL096A − NC−RAL107A, NC ; NC−RAL146A − NC−RAL0256A, NC ; NC−GSB0150A − NC−GSB104B, NC ; NC−GSB998A − NC−GSB040A, NC ; TX−DAL0010A − TX−DAL6175B, TX ; MA−BOS5372A − MA−BOS5808A, MA; MA−BOS5514A − MA−BOS6183A, MA ; NC−GSB060A − NC−GSB062A, NC ; NC−GSB068B − NC−GSB997A, NC ; NC−GSB088A − NC−GSB085A, NC ; NC−GSB097A − NC−GSB099C, NC ; NC−GSB108B − NC−GSB119A, NC ; NC−GSB999A − NC−GSB030A, NC ; NC−RAL015C − NC−RAL008A, NC ; NC−RAL025A − NC−RAL018A, NC ; NC−RAL050A − NC−RAL042A, NC ; NC−RAL096A − NC−RAL095A, NC ; NC−RAL998A − NC−RAL022D, NC ; HI−HON056A − HI−HON0130A, HI ; GA−ATL991A − GA−ATL584A,GA ; TX−AUS0100A − TX−AUS0125A, TX ; TX−AUS0179A − TX−AUS0130A, TX ; TX−AUS0232A − TX−AUS0058B, TX ; TX−AUS0025A − TX−AUS0081A, TX ; IL−CHI0505 − IL−CHI0957A, IL ; NC−GSB105A − NC−GSB0150A, NC ; NC−RAL055A − NC−RAL051A, NC ; FL−JCK079A − FL−JCK125A, FL ; RED998 − RED007, CA ; FL−JCK057A − FL−JCK225A, FL ; PA−PHL062A
    [Show full text]
  • The Verizon Telephone Companies Business Product Guide No
    THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES BUSINESS PRODUCT GUIDE NO. 3 4th Revised Page 1 Cancels 3rd Revised Page 1 INTERSTATE INTRALATA MESSAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE CHECK SHEET Title Page 1 and Pages 1 to 3-47, inclusive, of this product guide are effective as of the date shown. Original and revised pages as named below contain all changes from the original product guide that are in effect on the date hereof. Number of Number of Number of Revision Revision Revision Except as Except as Except as Page Indicated Page Indicated Page Indicated Title 1 Original 3-4 1st 3-44 Original 3-5 Original 3-45 Original 1 4th* 3-6 Original 3-46 Original 2 Original 3-7 Original 3-47 Original 3 Original 3-8 Original 4 Original 3-9 Original 3-10 Original 1-1 Original 3-11 Original 1-2 Original 3-12 Original 3-13 Original 2-1 1st 3-14 Original 2-2 1st 3-15 Original 2-3 1st 3-16 Original 2-4 Original 3-17 Original 2-5 Original 3-18 Original 2-6 Original 3-19 Original 2-7 Original 3-20 Original 2-8 Original 3-21 Original 2-9 Original 3-22 Original 2-10 Original 3-23 Original 2-11 Original 3-24 1st 2-12 1st 3-25 1st 2-13 Original 3-26 1st 2-14 Original 3-27 2nd* 2-15 1st 3-28 2nd 2-16 Original 3-29 1st 2-17 Original 3-30 1st 2-18 Original 3-31 1st 2-19 1st 3-32 1st 2-20 1st 3-33 1st 2-21 Original 3-34 Original 3-35 1st 3-1 3rd 3-36 Original 3-2 Original 3-37 Original 3-3 1st 3-38 Original 3-39 Original 3-40 1st 3-41 Original 3-42 Original 3-43 Original * New or Revised Page Issued: August 31, 2018 Effective: September 1, 2018 THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES BUSINESS PRODUCT GUIDE NO.
    [Show full text]
  • THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 21 1St Revised Page 5-1 Cancels Original Page 5-1
    THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 21 1st Revised Page 5-1 Cancels Original Page 5-1 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION (D)(x) 5. Verizon New Jersey Inc. Special Construction Cases (S)(y) 5.1 Charges for the State of New Jersey (Company Code 5120) 5.1.1 Special Construction Cases Prior to April 1, 1984 This section contains special construction charges for facilities provided to Other Common Carriers in accordance with Bell Atlantic - New Jersey, Inc. Tariff F.C.C. No. 33, Facilities for Other Common Carriers, prior to April 1, 1984. These special construction cases are subject to the regulations specified in 2.1 through 2.8 preceding, with the following exception. When the initial liability period expires, an annual underutilization charge applies to the difference between 70% of the number of original specially constructed facilities and the number of facilities in service at filed tariff rates at that time. For purposes of determining the underutilization charge, any facilities subject to minimum period monthly charges are considered to be in service at filed tariff rates. United States Transmission Systems, Inc. Install 600 pair entrance cable and building riser to 26th floor at Gateway I, Newark, New Jersey. Nonrecurring charge $1,174.59 Maximum Termination Liability $8,826.00 Subject to a Tariff filing fee for individual case removal at the time of premature discontinuance of use of the facilities contained in this special construction. Effective: December 1, 1975 Expires: November 30, 2011 Annual underutilization liability $4.00 per pair Initial liability period 24 months Effective: December 1, 1975 Expires: November 30, 2011 RCA Global Communications Install 400 pair entrance cable and building riser from the basement, building #4, to 8th floor, building #8, Front and Cooper Streets, Camden, New Jersey.
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon Communications Inc
    Verizon Communications Inc. Section 272 Biennial Agreed Upon Procedures Report for the engagement period January 3, 2001 to January 2, 2003. (Redacted Version) TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A Procedures for Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks, Inc., Verizon Select Services Inc, and Verizon Global Solutions, Inc. Appendix B Procedures for CODETEL International Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Inc., TELUS Communications (Quebec) Inc., Compania Anonima Nacional Telefonos de Venezuela, and Telecom New Zealand USA Limited Appendix B-1 Procedures for Former GTE Section 272 affiliates, Step D Appendix C Follow-up Procedures on the Prior Engagement Appendix D Procedures for Subsequent Events Attachment A Objective VIII: Performance Measure Results Attachment B Objective VIII: Linear Graphs Attachment C Verizon’s Response to Comments on the Biennial Section 272 Report filed on June 2001 As part of Verizon’s response to the Follow-up Procedures on the Prior Engagement (Reference Appendix C), Verizon included their response, dated June 11, 2002, to comments on the Verizon Biennial Section 272 Reports filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers on June 11, 2001 and June 18, 2001. Attachment D General Standard Procedures for Biennial Audits Required Under Section 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended Attachment E Verizon’s Comments on the Verizon Biennial Section 272 Report filed on June 12, 2003 PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED Appendix A enumerates the procedures performed in connection with the Bell Operating Companies (“Verizon BOC”)1 and Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (“ILEC”)2 of Verizon Communications, Inc. (collectively referred to as the “Verizon BOC/ILEC” or the “Company” or “Management”), and the Section 272 affiliates3.
    [Show full text]
  • THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 1St Revised Page 15-1 Cancels Original Page 15-1
    THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 1st Revised Page 15-1 Cancels Original Page 15-1 ACCESS SERVICE 15. Exceptions to Access Service Offerings The services offered under the provisions of this tariff are subject to availability as set forth in 2.1.4 preceding. In addition, the following exception applies: 15.1 The following offerings are limited to the same customer at the same location. Inside moves, rearrangements or additions will be permitted. Interstate Served Direct Foreign Exchange Service With the exception of Presubscription, as set forth in 4.2 preceding, the regulations and rates set forth in this tariff do not apply to customers of record as of December 11, 1984 for the type of connections and in the locations listed following. The regulations and rates for these connections are the applicable Telephone Exchange Service regulations and rates specified in the Local General Tariffs for the exchanges from which the connections are provided. In addition, regulations and rates for the associated channel between the locality in which the customer is located and the exchange from which the connection is provided, apply as specified in AT&T's Tariff F.C.C. No. 9 for Series 2000, Type 2006, Channels. Exchange from which Customer Location Connection is Type of Locality State Provided Connection (D) (D) Haymaker, New York Eldred, Pennsylvania Rural Marydel, Delaware Greensboro, Maryland Individual Mason and Pennsylvania Hagerstown, Maryland Individual Dixon Middleburg Pennsylvania Hagerstown, Maryland Individual Wingerton Pennsylvania Hagerstown, Maryland Individual (Issued under Transmittal No. 1377) Issued: July 2, 2018 Effective: July 17, 2018 Vice President, Federal Regulatory (T) 1300 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005 (T) THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C.
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper on the Cable-Telco Duopoly's Development of New Jersey's Information Infrastructure
    WHITE PAPER THE CABLE-TELCO DUOPOLY’S DEPLOYMENT OF NEW JERSEY’S INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE: ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABILITY prepared for the Public Advocate of New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel by Susan M. Baldwin Sarah M. Bosley Timothy E. Howington January 19, 2007 PREFACE The New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel submits this paper to contribute affirmative recommendations to assist the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in establishing cable franchise regulations that protect consumers of noncompetitive telecommunications and cable services from subsidizing Verizon’s and the cable industry’s entry into new lines of business. 1 Carefully constructed safeguards will yield just and reasonable rates for basic cable and basic telecommunications services and will also support the continuing evolution of a sophisticated information infrastructure for the state of New Jersey. Also, by deterring improper cross-subsidization, safeguards will contribute to the establishment of accurate pricing signals, and, therefore, to the economically efficient deployment of investment throughout the state by suppliers that compete on an equal footing. Structural separations, whereby the company’s business segments providing noncompetitive services operate separately from those business segments that provide competitive offerings, are critically important in those instances in which the economies of scope are such that firms use substantial amounts of common network plant investment and common resources to support noncompetitive, regulated and (purportedly) competitive, unregulated services. The benefit of structural safeguards to today’s consumers is that, if implemented and enforced adequately, consumers of regulated services will not subsidize unregulated services. Therefore, rates will be lower than they otherwise would be, and, furthermore, will correspond more accurately with the underlying costs of providing those regulated services.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Prior Testimony
    RECORD OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY, INC. 2010 California Public Utilities Commission, O1 Communications, Inc. (U 6065 C) v. Verizon California., a California Corporation (U 1002 C), C.08-02-013 and Verizon California., a California Corporation (U 1002 C) v. O1 Communications, Inc. (U 6065 C) C. 09-06-025, on behalf of O1 Communications, Inc., Reply Testimony filed February 3, 2010. Witness: Lee L. Selwyn 2009 Illinois Commerce Commission, Frontier Communications Corporation, Verizon Communications, Inc., et al, Joint Application for Approval of a Reorganization, Docket No. 09-0268, on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, Citizens Utility Board, Direct Testimony filed October 20, 2009, Rebuttal Testimony filed December 14, 2009. Witness: Lee L. Selwyn Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, James Thomas, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Global Vision Products, Inc., Antony Imbriolo, Derrike Cope, David L. Gordon, Powertel Technologies, Inc., Craig Dix, Henry Edelson and Robert Debenedictis, Defendants, Case No. RG03-091195, on behalf of the Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor, Oral testimony and cross examination on November 9, 2009. Witness: Colin B. Weir United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Judy Larson, Barry Hall, Joe Milliron, Tessie Robb, and Willie Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AT&T Mobility LLC f/k/a Cingular Wireless LLC and Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Sprint Nextel and Nextel Finance Company, Civ. Act. No. 07-5325 (JLL), on behalf of PinilisHalpern, LLP and Law Offices of Scott A.
    [Show full text]
  • MCI ICA Amendment
    AMENDMENT To INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), effective as of March 11, 2005 (the “Effective Date”), amends each of the Interconnection Agreements listed in Exhibit A hereto (the “Interconnection Agreements”), and is made by and between each of the Verizon incumbent local exchange carriers (individually and collectively “Verizon” or the “Verizon Parties”) and each of the MCI competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”) that is a party to an Interconnection Agreement with Verizon (individually and collectively “MCI” or the “MCI Parties”), all as shown in Exhibit A. Verizon and MCI are referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Parties have agreed to amend the Interconnection Agreements to increase the charges applicable to MCI’s DS0 UNE-P lines in service with Verizon as of March 10, 2005 (“Embedded Base”); and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend all of the Interconnection Agreements to effectuate the foregoing, and for the ease of administration, have elected to do so through this single Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Rates Applicable To Embedded Base. The monthly recurring charge that MCI shall pay Verizon for the DS0 (or POTs) switch port for each Embedded Base line shall be increased by: (a) $2.75 between March 11, 2005 and May 31, 2005 and (b) $1.00 between June 1, 2005 and March 10, 2006. 2. Successor Terms. Each Party agrees that, if they establish new or replacement interconnection agreements superceding those set forth in Exhibit A to this Amendment that are effective between March 11, 2005 and March 10, 2006 (including, for avoidance of doubt, interconnection agreements established through adoptions of other agreements under Section 252(i) of the Act), they shall implement the terms of this Amendment into such new or replacement interconnection agreements.
    [Show full text]