I, Robin Gleason, Being of Lawful Age and Duly Sworn Upon My Oath, Do Hereby Depose And

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C., 20554In the Matter of ) ) Application by SBC Communications Inc., ) Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and ) WC Docket No. 03-16 Southwestern Bell Communications Services, ) Inc. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA ) Services in Michigan )REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF ROBIN M. GLEASON REGARDING MICHIGAN STATE REGULATORY PROCEEDINGSTABLE OF CONTENTSSUBJECT PARAGRAPH INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT 2 CLECA AND LDMI: A DISTORTED VIEW 4 Quality of Service 6 Ernst & Young Performance Measurement Audit 11 IntraLATA Toll Dialing Parity 15 Term Contracts 16 Public Interest 17 MPSC’s Conduct in Endorsing Michigan Bell’s § 271 20 Application AVAILABILITY OF UNE-P 24 COMPLIANCE PLANS 26 OTHER COMMENTS Interconnection and NXX Code Issues 29 Adjacent “Off-Site” Arrangement 31 Line Loss Reports 34 Mobile Account Theft and Stop Service Order 36 I, ROBIN M. GLEASON, being of lawful age, and duly sworn, do hereby depose and state as follows:INTRODUCTION1. My name is Robin M. Gleason. I am the same Robin M. Gleason who filed an affidavit in this proceeding on January 16, 20031 (“January 16, 2003 § 271 application”). PURPOSE OF THIS REPLY AFFIDAVIT 2. The purpose of this Reply Affidavit is to respond to certain claims and inaccuracies made by other parties in their affidavits or comments submitted in response to Michigan Bell’s January 16, 2003 § 271 application. 3. More specifically, I will address in my Reply Affidavit comments made by the Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Association of Michigan, the Small Business Association of Michigan, the Michigan Consumer Federation (herein collectively referred to as “CLECA”)2, LDMI Telecommunications, Z-Tel Communications, TDS MetroCom, the MPSC, the state Attorney General, Todd Gardner of The Iserv Company (“Iserv”)3, Larry Williams, Dean Belisle, and Thomas LaPrise. 1 See Affidavit of Robin M. Gleason attached to Application by SBC Communications Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan, WC Docket No. 03-16 (FCC filed Jan. 16, 2003) (App. A, Tab 13). 2 The Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Association of Michigan, the Small Business Association of Michigan, and the Michigan Consumer Federation filed joint comments. 3 Mr. Gardner attaches a Proposal for Decision in MPSC Case No. U-13526 where he was a witness. The MPSC has not yet rendered an opinion in the case. 2 CLECA AND LDMI: A DISTORTED VIEW 4. CLECA and LDMI comment on quality of service, performance data, pricing, dialing parity, term contracts, benefits of § 271 approval, and Michigan Bell’s financial situation. They further comment on alleged inappropriate conduct by the MPSC in endorsing Michigan Bell’s § 271 application.4 5. On the whole, the comments of CLECA and LDMI are outdated, inappropriate, misplaced and have no relevance in this § 271 proceeding. Quality of Service6. LDMI comments that Michigan Bell “lies” about its quality of service. Without any support, LDMI and CLECA comment that Michigan Bell takes longer to fix aCLEC problem than its own problems. LDMI and CLECA further belittle the MPSC for allegedly never bringing Michigan Bell to task for this. Citing to outdated 2001 FCC data, CLECA also comments that Michigan Bell provides substandard service.5 7. LDMI and CLECA’s comments on quality of service are misplaced.6 In addition, LDMI and CLECA appear to confuse Michigan Bell’s wholesale performance with its retail performance. 4 Jerry Finefrock, Vice President-Regulatory Affairs for LDMI, is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors of CLECA. 5 LDMI ex parte Slide Presentation at 2; CLECA at 9-11. 6 LDMI also generically comments that it has “Problems with Non-Native Numbers.” (LDMI ex parte Slide Presentation at 38). LDMI fails, however, to provide sufficient facts to specifically identify its alleged problems. Moreover, Michigan Bell’s Account Management team is not aware of any current hunting arrangement problems raised by LDMI related to voicemail. Michigan Bell and LDMI have, however, held extensive discussions regarding voice mail service (a deregulated product that requires a separate contract with Michigan Bell). LDMI entered into such a contract with Michigan Bell in December 2002. Again, LDMI’s allegations are too vague for Michigan Bell to specifically respond to, but Michigan Bell stands ready to address any such issues on a company-to-company basis.3 8. First, Michigan Bell’s wholesale performance has been the subject of extensive MPSC review, including a partially completed analysis by BearingPoint and an audit by Ernst and Young (“E&Y”). As discussed in the affidavits filed by James Ehr in this docket, Michigan Bell is providing CLECs nondiscriminatory access as required by § 271. The most recent Michigan Bell performance data from January 2003 overwhelmingly demonstrate that Michigan Bell continues to provide excellent wholesale service.7 9. As I discussed in my January 16, 2003 affidavit, Michigan Bell’s performance measurements are the result of extensive industry wide collaborative efforts, dating back to 2000. Via the collaborative process, the MPSC, the MPSC Staff, the Michigan Attorney General, CLECs, and Michigan Bell were able to successfully develop performance measurements to track Michigan Bell’s wholesale performance for CLECs. And as more fully discussed in the Ehr affidavits, the MPSC adopted a comprehensive remedy plan in Case No. U-11830 under which Michigan Bell must compensate CLECs, and in some cases the state, for its failure to meet approved performance standards. The performance remedy plan is in place and functioning.8 10. Second, Michigan Bell’s retail service quality is irrelevant to this § 271 application. As noted in the Introduction to the FCC’s January 2003 report entitled “Quality of Service of the Local Operating Companies,” cited by 7 See Reply Affidavit of James Ehr for a further discussion of Michigan Bell’s most recent performance measurement results. (Reply App., Tab 7) 8 Michigan Attorney General Michael A. Cox noted in his comments at 8 that the MPSC had put into place a comprehensive set of wholesale performance measures that will be vigilantly monitored, a remedy plan that will provide financial penalties for noncompliance, and an expeditious process to address any complaints regarding anti-competitive behavior. 4 CLECA, “(t)he Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) does not impose service quality standards on communications common carriers.” Rather, retail service quality standards are and have been the subject of monitoring and close supervision by the MPSC, and Michigan Bell’s service quality has improved. As noted by Mr. Thomas Lonergan, Director of the MPSC’s Communications Division, at a November 25, 2002 Public Hearing on Michigan Bell’s § 271 application:[A] couple of parties brought up the issue of Ameritech retail service quality. Although it’s not quite clear to me how that bears on the checklist, I didn’t want to let that go without responding. It’s no secret that Ameritech had severe retail service quality issues in the year 2000, and those continued into the year 2001, and recently there has been some information released about how Ameritech Michigan was the worst state in 2001 for repair response times. While that may be true, I’m happy to report that that’s not true today. It’s not true in 2002. The Commission and staff put a lot of work into making sure that didn’t continue, and SBC Ameritech has, to their credit, improved that substantially. Last month the repair time was 13 hours, not 37 hours as was the average in 2001. I wanted to kind of correct the record there. (App. C, Tab 125, at Tr. 6036-6037). Ernst & Young Performance Measurement Audit11. In regard to the MPSC’s decision to rely on a performance measurement audit by E&Y, CLECA comments that Michigan Bell brought in its financial auditor, E&Y, “for only one reason” that is, to “end-run” the process.9 LDMI further adds that Michigan Bell’s decision to bring in E&Y as its “own tester” was “an outrageous act.”10 Their comments on this point are simply false. 9 CLECA at 3. 10 LDMI ex parte Slide Presentation at 2. 5 12. Michigan Bell retained E&Y to perform an audit of its performance measurement process in order to provide the MPSC with additional evidence that its reported performance results were accurate and could be relied upon for a demonstration of“competitive checklist” compliance. Contrary to the claims of CLECA, MichiganBell did not do any “end run” around the § 271 review process, but rather, the E&Y audit report provided the MPSC and provides this Commission with more, not less, information upon which to determine § 271 compliance. 13. With regard to the inference that E&Y’s objectivity is questionable because it is SBC’s financial auditor, the MPSC noted in its January 13, 2003 Report:The Commission has determined that it is reasonable to review the results of the E&Y performance measure audit to determine whether the performance measure data reported by SBC for June, July and August 2002 may be utilized to support checklist determinations made elsewhere in this report. First of all, the Commission does not agree that either new statutes regarding the provisioning of consulting and auditing services by a single firm or the fact that E&Y is SBC’s financial auditor preclude its participation in the performance measure audit. E&Y is functioning as an auditor on this matter and the Commission has seen no indication that E&Y’s determinations have been compromised in any way due to the fact that it is also SBC’s financial auditor. (January 13, 2003 Report at 18 (App. C, Tab 33)). 14. Finally, the MPSC also concluded that not only BearingPoint but that E&Y should complete the tests.11 Thus, the MPSC did not relieve BearingPoint of its obligation to continue testing under the Master Test Plan on account of the E&Y audit. More importantly, on the issue of whether there was sufficient data from the completed portions of the BearingPoint test and E&Y audit to support a § 271 approval, the MPSC concluded that “[f]or purposes of checklist support, however, the Commission believes that Section 271 consideration may proceed and that the 11 January 13, 2003 Order at 3 (App. C, Tab 133). 6 results of more than 85% of SBC’s reported performance for June, July and August 2002 may be utilized for checklist support purposes.”12 IntraLATA Toll Dialing Parity15. Although CLECA is somewhat unclear, it appears that CLECA alleges in its comments that Michigan Bell’s profits are up over the last decade because it delayed implementation of intraLATA toll dialing parity.13 Suffice it to say that CLECA’s comments on this point are not only confusing, but also misplaced. With regard to toll dialing parity, Michigan Bell pursued its legal rights with regard to appropriate compliance with state statutes, and the Michigan appellate courts agreed with its position in substantial part. Also, Michigan Bell is in compliance with the MPSC’s decisions with regard to intraLATA toll dialing parity.14 Term Contracts16. CLECA comments that Michigan Bell’s stellar performance in IntraLATA toll pricing is the result of a scheme of anti-competitive long-term contracts, and that as a result, it has held IntraLATA long distance customers captive.15 Here, CLECA attempts to re-argue its position that Michigan Bell should be barred from using the same type of term contracts used by its competitors; a position the 12 January 13, 2003 Report at 22-23. 13 CLECA at 18-19. 14 See, In re MCI Telecommunications Complaint, 460 Mich 396, 441; 596 N.W.2d 164 (1999), where the Michigan Supreme Court stated, “Thus, it appears that appellee Ameritech has indeed complied with its own implementation plan and the PSC’s order, and that intraLATA dialing parity has finally come to exist in Michigan before the issuance of today’s opinion.” 15 CLECA at 19. 7 MPSC has consistently and repeatedly rejected, most recently last year in MPSC Case No. U-13193, and before that in Case No. U-11525. Public Interest17. LDMI comments on local and long distance rates in Michigan, claiming that long distance prices in Michigan are down 65% over the last ten years, while MichiganBell’s local phone prices are up 42%.16 LDMI also comments on Michigan Bell’s local phone rates as compared to those across the nation.17 CLECA and LDMI further comment on the revenue and profit margins of the different carriers across the nation.18 LDMI and CLECA fail to provide any insight into the relevance of these comments to § 271 checklist compliance. CLECA suggests, however, that based upon this information, the public interest and competition will be harmed.19 18. The suggestion by CLECA and LDMI that the public interest will not be served by a grant of § 271 relief in Michigan is belied by the findings of the MPSC that the local market is open in Michigan and that Michigan Bell has met the § 271 “competitive checklist.” Further, it is belied by the comments of state Attorney General Cox:SBC Communications, Inc.’s (SBC) application for in-region, long distance authority represents a significant step in the process of implementing the pro-competitive and pro-consumer policy established by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. In light of the regional structure of SBC’s operation support systems in the five Ameritech states of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, the resolution of SBC’s application will have a tremendous impact on 16 LDMI ex parte Slide Presentation at 11-13; CLECA at 17. 17 LDMI ex parte Slide Presentation at 14; CLECA at 17. 18 CLECA at 16-21; LDMI ex parte Slide Presentation at 15-20. 19 The public interest benefits of Michigan Bell’s entry into the interLATA market in Michigan are extensively addressed in Michigan Bell’s Brief filed on January 16, 2003, and its Reply Brief filed concurrently with this Reply Affidavit. 8 the continuing efforts to open all telecommunications markets to competition not only in the State of Michigan, but throughout the above-noted five-state region and beyond. (State Attorney General Comments at 1). State Attorney General Cox further commented: SBC’s entry into the in-region long distance market in Michigan should further consumers’ interests by increasing competition in that market…. (State Attorney General Comments at 2). Finally, state Attorney General Cox concluded that: The Michigan Attorney General supports Section 271 approval for SBC in Michigan because it will enhance competition for long distance, and the bundling of telecommunications services. It is expected that with diligence by the Michigan Attorney General’s office and the MPSC, authorizing SBC to provide in-region long distance service in Michigan will not harm local competition. (State Attorney General Comments at 8). (Emphasis added.) 19. Based upon the entire record in this proceeding, it is clear that Michigan Bell’s entry into the interLATA market will stimulate further competition, and further open up the telecommunications market in Michigan.20 MPSC’s Conduct in Endorsing Michigan Bell’s § 271 Application20. LDMI and CLECA accuse the MPSC of inappropriate conduct in endorsing Michigan Bell’s § 271 Application, accusing the MPSC of making a political, not fact-based, decision. LDMI further insinuates some type of nefarious behavior on the part of the MPSC.21 20 The comments of Larry Williams and Dean Belisle concerning the extent of telecommunications competition in Michigan are also at odds with those of the state Attorney General and the MPSC. 21 LDMI ex parte, Slide Presentation at 6; CLECA at 9. 9 21. These comments are inappropriate and contrary to the overwhelming evidence demonstrating § 271 compliance. 22. As previously addressed in my January 16, 2003 Affidavit, the MPSC, the MPSC Staff, and CLECs played an active role, via the collaborative process, in addressing and promoting telecommunications competition in Michigan. The state§ 271 collaborative sessions were successful in resolving many issues that have since enhanced the CLECs’ ability to provide their services in Michigan’s local telecommunications market. In addition, OSS enhancements, process improvements, new product introductions, and performance measurement refinements were also successfully implemented for purposes of Michigan Bell’s § 271 Application via the collaborative process.22 23. It appears that LDMI’s attack on the MPSC, and its insinuation of inappropriate conduct stems not from any evidence, but from its view that the MPSC should have blindly ignored the overwhelming evidence demonstrating Michigan Bell’s compliance with § 271, albeit at the expense of Michigan telecommunications customers. 22 See Affidavit of Robin M. Gleason (App. A, Tab 13). 10 AVAILABILITY OF UNE-P 24. Z-Tel23, the state Attorney General24, and the MPSC25 comment on the continued availability of UNE-P in the context of § 271 approval. 25. Michigan Bell contends that this §271 proceeding is not the appropriate forum to debate the continued availability of UNE-P. In its Triennial Review proceeding, this Commission is addressing what individual unbundled network elements must be made available under the “necessary” and “impair” standard of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which may affect the continued availability of the UNE-P. That is the appropriate place to deal with this issue. COMPLIANCE PLANS26. TDS MetroCom26 asserts that because the MPSC required Michigan Bell to file additional compliance plans in its January 13, 2003 Order, § 271 approval is premature. 27. In its January 13, 2003 Report, the MPSC indicated that Michigan Bell’s current performance met all of the § 271 checklist requirements. The MPSC further indicated, however, in its companion January 13, 2003 Order, that Michigan Bell’s current performance in a number of areas could be improved and that Michigan Bell has proposed to make improvements. (January 13, 2003 Order at 1). The MPSC ordered that Michigan Bell provide detailed compliance and/or improvement plans for each of the items addressed in the January 13, 2003 Order.23 Z-Tel at 11-12. 24 Michigan Attorney General at 5-6. 25 MPSC January 13, 2003 Report at 3. 26 TDS MetroCom at 8-10. 11 As required by the January 13, 2003 Order, Michigan Bell submitted on February 13, 2003 a detailed draft compliance and improvement plan for each of the items27 listed in the January 13, 2003 Order. On March 4th and 5th 2003, per the MPSC’s Order, there will be collaborative discussions to address the compliance and improvement plans. On March 13, 2003, Michigan Bell will submit final, modified (as necessary) plans, per the January 13, 2003 Order. 28. Michigan Bell continues to work with the MPSC, MPSC Staff, the Michigan Attorney General’s office and the CLECs to develop compliance and improvement plans in accordance with the MPSC’s January 13, 2003 Order. This is not evidence of noncompliance with the § 271 checklist requirements, but rather an indication that the MPSC will continue to exercise oversight of Michigan Bell’s continued compliance and will seek to further improve Michigan Bell’s processes and procedures for delivery of wholesale services. OTHER COMMENTSInterconnection and NXX Code Issues29. Todd Gardner of Iserv28 alleges anti-competitive behavior on the part of MichiganBell, citing to an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) proposal for decision (“PFD”) in Case No. U-13526. In U-13526, TelNet alleged that Michigan Bell failed to provide “equal in quality” interconnection, and that it refused to activate new TelNet NXX codes. Mr. Gardner’s comments are improper and, without 27 On February 13, 2003, Michigan Bell filed at the MPSC, draft Compliance Plans for Customer Service Inquiry Accuracy, Directory Listings and Directory Assistance Database Accuracy and Special Service and UNE Repair Coding Accuracy as well as draft Improvement Plans for Line Loss Notifier Communications, Pre-Order Processing Timeliness, Change Management Communications, and Billing Auditability. See SBC Feb. 19, 2003 ex parte in this proceeding. 28 Iserv at 1, Attachment 1. 12 question, premature. A PFD is just what its name suggests - a proposal. It is not a final decision of the MPSC. Before this or any other PFD can become a final order, it must survive at least two rounds of exceptions and the MPSC’s scrutiny. Exceptions have been filed, and the parties are awaiting a MPSC decision to accept, reject, or modify this proposal. 30. As to the merits of Mr. Gardner’s claim, it is Michigan Bell’s position that the issues and facts in Case No. U-13526 do not justify the ALJ’s recommendation. Michigan Bell is confident that the full MPSC, after reviewing the record, will reject outright the ALJ’s proposal. Moreover, the issues raised in U-13526 are issues of first impression. In the TelNet matter, Michigan Bell made a good faith interpretation of certain federal law requirements. Those requirements, when considered in conjunction with corresponding state law, created a situation that was never before analyzed by the MPSC. Adjacent “Off-Site” Arrangement 31. TDS comments29 on an arbitration proceeding dating back to 2001 where an arbitration panel ruled that Michigan Bell “refused” to agree to terms related to off-site collocation. 32. Michigan Bell disagreed with the arbitration panel’s recommendation on this issue, noting that nothing in the Michigan Telecommunication Act (“MTA”) gave the MPSC authority to order Michigan Bell to offer the off-site arrangements that were belatedly requested by TDS after both parties’ initial positions were submitted to the panel. Michigan Bell believed that even if the MTA purported 29 TDS MetroCom at 36. 13 to provide some basis for off-site arrangements, which it does not, the MPSC must yield to the dictates of federal law under both the terms of the MTA itself and fundamental notions of federal preemption. Moreover, it was Michigan Bell’s position that TDS’s revision of its original position on this issue, in the midst of the proceeding, and TDS then being permitted to submit an untimely and completely different revised position, which was then adopted by the arbitration panel, was inappropriate and inconsistent with not only the 1996 Act, FCC regulations and prevailing case law, but also the MPSC’s own procedures for handling arbitration proceedings. Despite Michigan Bell’s exceptions the MPSC adopted the panel’s recommended decision on this issue in its September 7, 2001 Order. 33. Although Michigan Bell believed, and still believes, that the decision of the MPSC on this point was incorrect, on December 3, 2001, TDS and Michigan Bell jointly moved and requested approval of an interconnection agreement in compliance with the findings of the MPSC’s September 7, 2001 Order. Subsequently, on December 20, 2001, the MPSC approved the arbitrated agreement. As noted in the Reply Affidavit of Scott J. Alexander (Reply App., Tab 1), neither TDS, nor any other CLEC, has requested such an offsite arrangement. Line Loss Reports34. Z-Tel comments about the untimely provision of line loss reports, and that Michigan Bell’s provision to Z-Tel of line loss reports and wholesale billing information is inferior to that provided to Michigan Bell’s retail operations. On 14 this point, Z-Tel further states that Michigan Bell’s winback program is anti- competitive and adversely affects the public interest.30 35. As more fully discussed in the Joint Reply affidavit of Mark Cottrell and Beth Lawson (Reply App., Tab 5), line loss notice is identical as between Michigan Bell’s retail and wholesale operations. That is, Michigan Bell’s retail operation uses the same line loss notifier as is provided to CLECs. Mobile Account Theft and Stop Service Order36. Thomas LaPrise comments that someone used his wife’s social security number to open an Ameritech mobile account and that only with the intervention from the Attorney General’s office was the credit report due to account theft corrected. Michigan Bell is concerned about the crime of account or identity theft, and has steps in place to address this issue with its landline customers. The theft of someone’s mobile telephone account, however, is not relevant to this § 271 proceeding. 37. Mr. LaPrise also comments on an apparent delay in a stop service order that he requested of AT&T (to be submitted to Michigan Bell) in the early August 2002 timeframe. Michigan Bell first responds that Mr. LaPrise’s comments are based on a bare assertion, unsubstantiated by any facts. The Commission should not credit anecdotal evidence of this kind in its § 271 evaluation. Second, and as more fully discussed in the Justin Brown Reply Affidavit (Reply App., Tab 2), Mr. LaPrise was informed by AT&T that there was no record of him requesting a stop service order until September 3, 2002. This is contrary to Mr. LaPrise’s 30 Z-Tel at 8-10. 15 contention that he notified AT&T in August 2002 to request a stop service order. Finally, once AT&T submitted the disconnect request, Michigan Bell timely processed the request by September 7, 2002. 38. Pursuant to Part II. E. of the Consent Decree entered into between SBC Communications Inc. and the Federal Communications Commission, released on May 28, 2002, see Order, In re SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 10780 (2002), I hereby affirm that I have (1) received the training SBC is obligated to provide to all SBC FCC Representatives; (2) reviewed and understand the SBC Compliance Guidelines; (3) signed an acknowledgment of my training and review and understanding of the Guidelines; and (4) complied with the requirements of the SBC Compliance Guidelines. 39. This concludes my Affidavit. 16

I, Robin Gleason, Being of Lawful Age and Duly Sworn Upon My Oath, Do Hereby Depose And

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