Direct Testimony of Gary Goldstein

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAHCOMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, ) INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, ) ) Claimant, ) vs. ) Docket No. 03-035-28 ) PACIFICORP, dba UTAH POWER , an ) Oregon Corporation, ) ) Respondent. )1 234 INITIAL TESTIMONY5 OF6 GARY GOLDSTEIN7 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC891011 July 2, 200412131 1 Initial Testimony of Gary Goldstein 2 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 3 Docket No. 03-035-28 4 Page 1 5 61 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 a6 Designer since 1979. Although my title has changed over the years, I have basically had7 the same job.8 Q: Please describe your responsibilities as a Designer.9 A: In conjunction with other Comcast employees in the Design10 department, I design the route and placement of Comcast’s cables and other facilities11 that are necessary in the construction of our cable system in order to serve Comcast’s12 customers. Basically, I draw maps showing where the facilities need to go. This13 involves walking out into the field to measure distances between poles and to determine14 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 Comcast16 employees or contractors. After the walk-out, I draw the maps which tell the17 construction department where to go and what types of facilities to construct. Although18 my titles have changed and my responsibilities have expanded to include supervising19 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 the3 construction I’ve designed. For example, all of the design maps I draw for the Salt Lake4 Valley upgrade go to Comcast’s Upgrade Project Manager, Rodney Bell. 5 Q: What happens after you submit the maps to the Project6 Managers?7 A: Sometimes the Project Managers want to make adjustments or8 changes based on conditions in the field. For example, sometimes there is a discrepancy9 between the maps and the field or a problem with a customer that prevents us from10 accessing poles in particular yard. Other times the make-ready on a given pole ends up11 being much more expensive than originally estimated, so we redesign the route to12 construct our facilities underground or otherwise avoid that particular pole. There are13 any number of reasons why the design must be modified in the field. I can’t always14 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 we17 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 process2 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 for5 the Salt Lake Valley.6 Q: Why is that?7 A: I was only involved in permitting in the Salt Lake area, as I8 understand it, permitting processes varied district by district. 9 Q: Can you describe the procedure in the Salt Lake Valley10 district?11 A: Yes. Pole attachment permitting was not my direct area of12 responsibility, but I worked directly with Stuart Smythe who was responsible for13 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 go15 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 pole17 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 the3 applying party to identify itself, the basis for its authority to attach—which was the pole4 attachment agreement—and the poles to which it sought to attach. Several sample5 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. I8 believe it said “Exhibit A” across the top. It may have been an exhibit to the pole9 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 was13 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 our17 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 maps3 showing the power poles and routing marked on them. Utah Power had a system that4 numbered each map. Tele-communications, Inc.’s map number was the same as Utah5 Power’s map number. Tele-communications, Inc., also gave each pole on the map a6 number. So, for example, if the Map No. was 39, then the first pole would be 39-1, the7 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 the10 field because very few poles were labeled. 11 Q: What happened after Mr. Smythe submitted the Exhibit A’s12 with maps attached?13 A: Sometimes Utah Power would propose make-ready changes by14 returning a copy of the maps to us with make-ready requirements marked on it. Usually15 we would either incorporate the changes, or, if the changes were too costly, re-route the16 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-ready18 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, what5 would happen next?6 A: We would countersign the Exhibit A, indicating that we7 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, granting10 permission to attach to all of the poles on the attached maps.11 Q: Who retained copies of the Exhibit A’s and the attached12 maps?13 A: A number of copies were made. We kept one set of the14 applications as they were submitted and then another set of copies that were15 countersigned by Utah Power indicating final approval to attach. It is my understanding16 that a set of copies was provided to Utah Power, but I cannot say what PacifiCorp did17 with those copies or whether they kept them. Depending on whether other parties18 needed to be involved with the make-ready, additional sets may have been provided to19 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 this2 process during the initial build of the system. Were you ever responsible for3 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 was6 unavailable. Additionally, during the 1980s, after he left the company, I was involved7 with some construction work and sometimes had to apply for permits necessary to8 complete the construction. Although it was not my specific responsibility, it was9 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 poles13 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 and16 went back to doing design work only.17 Q: PacifiCorp has stated that the reason that it has discovered so18 many unauthorized attachments is because Comcast has raced through its upgrade19 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 the3 permitting system that existed in the 1970s and 1980s. Individual permits were not4 granted for each pole. Instead, the system was based on maps that authorized5 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 upgrade7 even began. 8 Q: Why does that matter?9 A: Because we have not made a significant number of new10 attachments in the last ten years. We are just adding additional cable to existing11 attachments. I would estimate that the majority of Comcast’s attachments have been in12 place for 15-25 years. An upgrade doesn’t generate the amount of new attachments13 PacifiCorp appears to think Comcast is making. Therefore, at least some portion of the14 “unauthorized attachments” that PacifiCorp is trying to charge Comcast for would15 necessarily have been permitted 15-25 years ago.16 Q: PacifiCorp has stated, in connection with this law suit, that it17 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 200419 where I heard PacifiCorp representatives say that an audit was conducted during that20 time frame. I also heard them say that this audit was a “baseline” for the current audit7UT_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 before2 1997, I don’t understand why they wouldn’t have raised the unauthorized attachment3 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’t6 recall ever receiving notice of it, or receiving any results from it. The only audit I recall7 was done during the 1980s. As far as I am aware, the only purpose of the audit in the8 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

Direct Testimony of Gary Goldstein

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support