BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Docket No. 01B-493T
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION BY RUBY RANCH INTERNET COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION FOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(b) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996, WITH QWEST CORPORATION REGARDING RATES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS FOR INTERCONNECTION.
REBUTTAL testimony
of
ROBERT J. HUBBARD
FOR
Qwest Corporation
JANUARY 24, 2002
INDEX
Identification of Witness 3
Purpose of Rebuttal Testimony 4
I. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS
Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, EMPLOYER AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
A. My name is Robert J. Hubbard. I am employed by Qwest Corporation, as a Director in the Local Network Organization. My business address is 700 West Mineral, Littleton, Colorado 80120.
Q. BRIEFLY OUTLINE YOUR EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND.
A. I am a Director of Technical Support in Qwest's Interconnection Strategies Group, the group responsible for the development of strategies to implement the unbundling of Qwest's network as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act"). I provide technical support regarding unbundling issues to the Qwest Network and Public Policy departments.
I have over 35 years experience with two Regional Bell Operating Companies, Qwest and Indiana Bell Telephone Co, in their network departments. I worked for over 11 years at Indiana Bell and Qwest as a cable splicer and as a cable repairman involved in all aspects of splicing and repairing copper cables. At Qwest, I eventually moved from splicing and repairing into the engineering department as a design engineer for outside plant, designing copper and fiber facilities, and Analog and Digital Carrier Systems. I then went into the planning department as an outside plant planner, in which I planned for future jobs involving fiber cable placement and upgrades to the existing outside plant network. In 1997, I moved into my present job as a Director in the Interconnection Planning Department.
I have had substantial involvement in Qwest's preparation for line sharing. For example, I studied possible network architectures in advance of Qwest's response to the FCC's First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket No. 98-147 ("Line Sharing Order"). Also, in Minnesota, I participated in the technical trials -- both the Lab and Field Tests -- that were ordered by the Minnesota Commission. During both the Lab and Field Tests, I provided technical and engineering input, and evaluated the outcome of the tests.
II. PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY.
A. The purpose of my Rebuttal testimony is to address a few of the technical aspects of Mr. Oppedahl Direct Testimony.
Q. IN YOUR OPINION, IS THIS DOCKET TECHNICAL IN NATURE?
A. No. It is technically feasible for a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) to interconnect with a subloop element by utilizing a Field Connection Point (FCP). It seems to me that the issues that are at dispute in this case is the Interconnection Agreement as it relates to pricing and insurance. Even though Mr. Oppedahl has spent a considerable amount of effort in his direct testimony addressing the technical aspects of the network, based upon the complaint filed in this docket, the only two issues in contention are pricing and insurance.
Q. MR. OPPEDAHL STATES ON PAGE 16 OF HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY THAT THERE IS NO METALLIC CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SDSL EQUIPMENT AND THE VOICE EQUIPMENT. IS THIS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT?
A. No. What Mr. Oppedahl has failed to point out is that there is a metallic connection between all equipment, and that is through the cable sheath and the common grounding of all equipment. All outside cable is made utilizing an inner metallic sheath, which is utilized to provide common grounding and bonding of cable and equipment.
Q. EVEN WITH PROPER BONDING AND GROUNDING, FROM BOTH PARTIES, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE DAMAGE TO THE NETWORK FROM FOREIGN VOLTAGE?
A. Yes. Even with proper bonding and grounding in all equipment and cable it is still possible to incur damage to equipment from foreign voltage. If either the Ruby Ranch microwave tower or the DSLAM itself came in contact with foreign voltage, then that voltage could travel through the metallic sheath and energize each pair of wires within that cable. The electrical charge would go to ground at the weakest point, which could be a Network Interface Device (NID), attached at each customer premise or some other point within the network. If this occurred, then Qwest would have to dispatch a technician to each location to repair the carbon protectors within each NID. Qwest would then seek to recover costs associated with the repair of service to Qwest customers from the cost causer.
Q. MR. OPPENDAHL PROVIDED TESTIMONY REGARDING QWEST'S CROSS-CONNECT BOX AND A PHOTO OF THE INSIDE OF THE BOX. DOES MR. OPPEDAHL'S TESTIMONY ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE CROSS-CONNECT BOX AT RUBY RANCH?
A. Yes. The photo supplied by Mr. Oppedahl appears to be a photo of the cross-connect box located within the Ruby Ranch subdivision.
Q. WHAT DOES MR. OPPENDAHL'S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATE?
A. This testimony confirms that Mr. Oppedahl, or someone else associated with Ruby Ranch, has apparently gained access to Qwest's cross-connect box without Qwest's knowledge or permission. To gain access to one of Qwest's cross-connect boxes, you must first request a joint meet. A Qwest technician attends the joint meet to ensure that the authorized party is able to open the cross box, knows what he or she is doing, and does not do anything while working at the site that jeopardizes Qwest's equipment or the services to customers served through the cross box. The technician also makes sure that the authorized party properly completes all his or her work, closes the cross box, removes waste, and does not leave the equipment or area in a condition that could cause problems. By gaining unauthorized access into Qwest's property by opening the cross box on his own, Mr. Oppedhal (or who ever opened the cross-connect box) put Qwest customers at risk of losing their voice service, for example, by accidentally tearing down cross connect wire. This kind of action and risk illustrates why Ruby Ranch should have insurance to protect itself, Qwest and third parties.
Q. ARE THERE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CONNECTING TO QWEST NETWORK?
A. Absolutely. If there is trouble associated with any of Ruby Ranch's circuits, then it is the requirement of Ruby Ranch to prove whether the trouble is in its network or within the Qwest network. A joint meet, at the FCP, with a Qwest technician and a Ruby Ranch technician would have to be scheduled and then the testing would have to be completed on the specific circuit in question for trouble isolation.
Q. WHAT ARE THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC SWITCHED TELEPHONE NETWORK (PSTN)?
A. As noted earlier, concerns about unauthorized entrance to the cross-connect box, there is no guarantee that Ruby Ranch would contact Qwest to set up a joint meet. If any member of Ruby Ranch entered the Qwest network and caused any unintentional damage to the Qwest network, then Qwest would want to seek recovery for the damage caused. This is another reason why Ruby Ranch would want to protect itself by having insurance.
Q. BESIDES THE RISKS TO EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES YOU HAVE DISCUSSED, ARE THERE OTHER RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING THE TYPE OF SERVICES RUBY RANCH IS SEEKING TO PROVIDE THROUGH AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT?
A. Yes, there are the human risks. As I stated at the start of my testimony, I have many years' experience in the field installing, maintaining and replacing telecommunications equipment. I have had personal experience with a number of injuries suffered by technicians, contractors and subcontractors during the process of installing or maintaining cable and related equipment, such as cross-connect boxes, telephone pedestals and NIDs in customers' homes and businesses. These injuries can be directly related to the many types of activities that it takes to install or maintain telecommunications equipment, such as cutting yourself while working with cable, wire or switches. People have also been injured because they mishandled equipment. Injuries can also be indirectly related to equipment installation or maintenance, such when a technician or contractor is involved in an accident traveling to or from worksites. Since these injuries are work-related, you cannot rely on general health insurance or your own home owners or auto insurance, they have to be covered by workers' compensation insurance or by general liability insurance carried by your employer. Likewise, you can hurt someone else while you are on your way to or from a worksite or while you are working, and anyone you injure is going to look to your employer's insurance.
Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
A. As I stated in my opening, I don't believe this docket to be of a technical nature. It is technically feasible to connect to the Qwest subloop network. Again, the only two issues in this docket are pricing, and insurance. What I have attempted to point out is that things happen to cause damage to the network, whether through a surge of foreign voltage or in the construction of facilities, where Ruby Ranch would bury its own cable to the Qwest FDI and unintentionally cut a Qwest cable. Damage does occur and I would believe that both Ruby Ranch and Qwest would want to be covered by insurance against these kinds of loss.
Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
A. Yes.
The forgoing Rebuttal Testimony of Robert J. Hubbard was prepared by Robert J. Hubbard for Qwest Corporation and is respectively submitted to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission dated this 24 Day of January 2002.
____________________________________