Third Supplemental

Reply Affidavit of Curtis L. Hopfinger

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

December 8, 2000

i

THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL

REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER

ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT PARAGRAPH

Introduction and Purpose of Affidavit 1-2

Compliance with the Supplemental Order

Clarification

3-8

Collocation Reconsideration Order 9-31

Conclusion 32

ii

THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL

REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS L. HOPFINGER

ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS

SUBJECT ATTACHMENT(S)

Certification Form for Reconfiguration Attachment 1

1

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT

1. My name is Curtis L. Hopfinger. I am Vice President –

Regulatory for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. My

business address is One Bell Plaza, Room 3043, Dallas,

Texas 75202. I filed affidavits in this proceeding on

March 31, 1998, May 20, 1998, July 15, 1999, September 7,

1999, March 6, 2000, April 25, 2000, August 23, 2000, and

September 29, 2000.

2. On September 15, 2000, Assigned Commissioner Josiah L.

Neeper issued an Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling (“ACR”)

ordering Pacific Bell Telephone Company (“Pacific”) to

update on September 29, 2000 the record with respect to

its compliance with several of the Federal Communications

Commission's (“FCC’s”) orders, including the Collocation

Reconsideration Order1 and the Supplemental Order

Clarification.2 On October 13, 2000, several competitive

local exchange carriers (“CLECs”)3 and the Office of

Ratepayer Advocates (“ORA”) responded to Pacific’s

1 In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering AdvancedTelecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local CompetitionProvisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Dkt. Nos. 98-147 & 96-98,Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking inCC Dkt. No. 98-147 [and] Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CCDkt. No. 96-98, FCC No. 00-297 (rel. Aug. 10, 2000)(“CollocationReconsideration Order”).2 In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of theTelecommunications Act of 1996, CC Dkt. No. 96-98, Supplemental OrderClarification, 15 FCC Rcd 9587 (rel. June 2, 2000) (“Supplemental OrderClarification”), paras. 1, 22.3 Reply comments were filed by IP Communications (“IP”) and by a group ofCLECs including Rhythms Links, Inc.; WorldCom, Inc.; AT&T Communications ofCalifornia, Inc., PacWest Telecomm, Inc., ICG Telecom Group, Inc., and SprintCommunications Company L.P. (“CLEC Coalition”).

2

September 29 filing. The purpose of this affidavit is to

respond to the allegations and claims made by the CLECs

and ORA, as requested by the California Public Utilities

Commission (“CPUC”) Staff. On December 1, 2000, the

Assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling

directing Pacific to file these comments on December 8,

2000.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER CLARIFICATION

3. The CLEC Coalition contends that “Pacific has not shown

that it allows CLCs to convert existing circuits to EELs

[enhanced extended links] as required by the FCC.” CLEC

Coalition Reply Comments, p. 36. That statement is

incorrect. As set forth in my September 29 affidavit,

after the FCC adopted and released the Supplemental

Order, Pacific designed and adopted policies and methods

and procedures to implement the order and to enable

requesting carriers to order combinations of network

elements to replace existing special access services,

provided that the carrier is providing a significant

amount of local exchange service to the customer.

Pacific posted information on its CLEC website

(https://clec.sbc.com), explaining the conversion process

and offering a form for a CLEC to use to certify that it

carries a significant amount of local exchange traffic

for a particular end user-customer.

3

4. The CLEC Coalition expresses concern regarding so-called

“additional procedures” for converting special access

circuits to combinations of network elements that

allegedly contravene the Supplemental Order

Clarification. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 37.

The CLEC Coalition references Pacific’s process that

requires a requesting carrier to (1) provide

certification in some format that the subject special

access circuits fall within the parameters established by

the FCC in the Supplemental Order Clarification and (2)

provide a spreadsheet that contains basic, limited

information about the circuits to be converted. Id. The

Coalition protests as “burdensome” Pacific’s requirement

that a requesting carrier submit both a spreadsheet and

an Access Service Request (“ASR”) to order a conversion

to UNEs. Id. at 38.4 Providing a spreadsheet, ASR, and

Local Service Request (“LSR”) to implement a special

access-to-UNEs conversion is not only consistent under

the FCC’s rules, but also a reasonable, justified

business practice.5 The certification spreadsheet and

ASR serve entirely different functions and are processed

by different organizations. The certification

spreadsheet should be sent to a requesting carrier’s

4 Contrary to the suggestion in the CLEC Coalition's Reply Comments (at page39), billing for conversions from special access should be treated like thebilling for all other UNEs, with billing switching to UNE prices on the dateof conversion, not the date of the conversion request.5 See Affidavit of Curtis L. Hopfinger (Sep. 29, 2000), Attachment 1, p. 2(complete ordering description including submission of the spreadsheet, inaddition to, and not in lieu of, the issuance of ASR/LSR/EDI).

4

account manager prior to the CLEC placing the order to

convert its access circuits to UNEs. The account manager

will use the spreadsheet to verify that the requesting

carrier has provided an option for eligibility for

conversion, to confirm that the CLEC has correctly

identified its circuits, and to verify that these

circuits are in existence. After this step has been

completed, the CLEC should submit an order, the ASR, to

the Access Service Center (formerly known as the

Interexchange Customer Service Center) to discontinue

billing of the access circuit and to remove the special

access circuit from the access inventory database.6

Furthermore, the certification spreadsheet and the ASR

are different. The ASR contains detailed access ordering

information adhering to the Ordering and Billing Forum

(“OBF”) national standards. The ASR contains four

sections: the administrative section, the bill section,

contact section and the circuit section. The

certification spreadsheet requests the circuit ID, option

(eligibility under the Supplemental Order Clarification),

ASR/LSR (local service request) issue date, desired due

date, and “A” and “Z” locations of the circuit.

5. The CLEC Coalition contends that Pacific unnecessarily

requests that CLECs provide the end user’s name and

address when seeking special access conversions. CLEC

6 Id. at Attachment 1, p. 3.

5

Coalition Reply Comments, p. 37. In my September 29

affidavit, I stated that, following the release of the

Supplemental Order Clarification, “Pacific revised its

certification form to ensure its consistency with the

order. Pacific revised the form to request only that the

CLEC provide the circuit ID number and A and Z location

[sic] for the circuits to be converted to loop-transport

combinations.”7 Although revisions to the certification

form were made, Pacific inadvertently left a field on the

form for the end user’s name and address. This was an

unintentional oversight.8 Pacific has since revised the

form and deleted the request for the end user’s name and

address. The revised certification form was posted to

Pacific’s CLEC website on November 27, 2000. See

Attachment 1.

6. Additionally, the CLEC Coalition claims that Pacific does

not comply with the FCC’s requirement that special access

conversions be implemented in a timely manner and instead

treats conversion requests as negotiated, coordinated

projects. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 38. Pacific

will handle special access conversion requests as

projects to ensure that there is no disruption in an end

user’s service. Project status ensures the relevant

organizations coordinate order status and processing and

7 Id. at para. 7.8 Pacific notes that, to date, it has received no requests for special accessto loop-transport combinations.

6

a smooth transition to a loop-transport combination. For

illustration, Pacific uses separate repair organizations

for special access circuits and UNEs. When special

access circuits are converted to UNEs, it is necessary to

ensure that all affected organizations have updated

circuit identification records and that the circuits have

been physically tagged with the new identification.

Furthermore, it is reasonable and appropriate to handle

conversion requests as projects because requests/orders

could greatly vary in the number of circuits to be

converted. Despite repeated requests, Pacific has not

received any forecasts of potential or anticipated

conversion activity. Provided that it receives complete

and accurate information from the requesting carrier,

Pacific will be able to process and implement a special

access conversion request in a timely manner, consistent

with the Supplemental Order Clarification. Finally,

other than stating the conversion process should be

simple and completed without delay, the FCC did not

establish any firm provisioning requirements. Pacific’s

methods and procedures will ensure that conversions are

done in a timely manner and without any interruption in

an end user’s service.

7. The CLEC Coalition also asserts that Pacific’s request

that CLECs notify it within 10 days if an EEL or loop-

transport combination no longer meets the certification

criteria is prohibited by the Supplemental Order

7

Clarification. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 37.

As stated in the procedures for converting access to UNEs

(Hopfinger Affidavit (September 29, 2000), Attachment 1),

Pacific requests that “[i]f a requesting

telecommunications carrier becomes aware that the circuit

does not meet the certification criteria . . . it shall,

within 10 days, notify [Pacific] . . . .”9

This is a reasonable request. The FCC has repeatedly

acknowledged that permitting the use of UNE combinations

in lieu of special access services could cause

“substantial market dislocations and would threaten an

important source of funding for universal service.”10 The

FCC also stated that “[w]e expect that requesting

carriers will maintain appropriate records that they can

rely upon to support their local usage certifications.”11

Pacific is making a reasonable request of carriers to

notify the company if they become aware that the circuit

does not consistently meet the certification process. If

a circuit should fail to qualify under the definition of

“significant amount of local service” that the FCC

promulgated in the Supplemental Order Clarification, the

circuit should be converted back to a special access

service arrangement. There is nothing in the

Supplemental Order or Supplemental Order Clarification

9 Hopfinger Affidavit (Sept. 29, 2000), Attachment 1, p. 2 (emphasis added).10 Supplemental Order Clarification, para. 7.11 Id. at para. 32.

8

that restricts Pacific from making such a reasonable

request.12

8. Pacific has fully complied with the FCC’s Supplemental

Order Clarification and any CLEC operating in California

that meets the criteria outlined thereunder has the

ability to request that special access services be

converted to combinations of unbundled network elements.

COLLOCATION RECONSIDERATION ORDER

9. The CLEC Coalition contends that "Pacific is not in

compliance with the FCC's Collocation Reconsider Order,"

ignoring Pacific's existing collocation tariff which

addresses both application and provisioning intervals.

CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 24.

10. Pacific is in full compliance with the Collocation

Reconsideration Order, FCC 00-297. As I stated in my

September 29, 2000 affidavit, revised section 51.323(l)

establishes a 10-day application interval and a 90-day

physical collocation provisioning interval “except to the

extent a state set its own deadlines or the incumbent LEC

has demonstrated to the state commission that physical

collocation is not practical for technical reasons or

because of space limitations.”13 Because this Commission

12 In the AT&T Arbitration, the Commission acknowledged that it is appropriateto have use restrictions on UNEs, and that the AT&T agreement should reflectthe dictates of the FCC’s Supplemental Order Clarification. Application ofAT&T Communications of California for Arbitration of an InterconnectionAgreement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company, A.00-01-022, Final Arbitrator’sReport, p. 100.13 Revised 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(l) (emphasis added).

9

has already established its own application and

provisioning intervals, Pacific is in compliance with

revised section 51.323(l).

11. In fact, the Commission has considered and approved

collocation provisioning intervals for Pacific on

numerous occasions:

• Pacific’s state collocation tariff contains Commission-

approved provisioning and application intervals.14

• In D.98-12-069, the Commission evaluated and rejected

CLEC requests that the provisioning timeframe “be

shortened to 90 days.”15 The Commission stated that

“Pacific should demonstrate that it completes physical

collocation installations within the 120-day

provisioning time frame established in its 175-T tariff

. . ..”16

• In D.99-08-020, the Commission again considered and

approved provisioning and application intervals for

Pacific.17 The Commission opted for Pacific’s standard

physical collocation provisioning interval of 120 days,

along with a space availability interval of 15 days and

a price quote interval of 30 days.18 The Commission

rejected a CLEC-proposed provisioning interval of 90

14 See SCHEDULE CAL. P.U.C. NO. 175-T, § 16.2.22 (application interval of 30days) and § 16.8 (provisioning intervals of primarily 120 days).15 D.98-12-069, mimeo, pp. 129-130.16 Id.17 Re Monitoring Performance of Operations Support Systems, D.99-08-020 (Aug.5, 1999).18 D.99-08-020, mimeo, pp. 52-54.

10

days and a CLEC-proposed space availability interval of

10 days.19

• In the MFS/Worldcom arbitration, the Commission adopted

Accessible Letter CLEC 99-200 as a basis for providing

terms on “space review and delivery intervals for

cageless collocation.”20 That accessible letter

contains Pacific’s standard 110-day cageless

collocation provisioning interval and a 10-day

application interval.21

• Likewise, in the AT&T arbitration, the Commission

adopted Pacific’s existing physical collocation

intervals.22

12. Each of these situations was clearly contemplated by the

FCC in its Collocation Reconsideration Order, which did

not mandate or preempt state commissions from setting

intervals different from those contained in revised

section 51.323(l). As the FCC states, “[a] state could

set its own standards by statute, through an existing or

future rulemaking order, by enforcing a state tariff, or

19 Id. at 51-54.20 In the Matter of the Petition of Pacific Bell for Arbitration ofInterconnection Agreement with MFS/Worldcom, A.99-03-047, Final Arbitrator’sReport, p. 37.21 Accessible Letter CLECC 99-200 (May 28, 1999).22 Application of AT&T Communications of California for Arbitration of anInterconnection Agreement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company, A.00-01-022,Final Arbitrator’s Report, p. 301. The Commission’s decision adoptedintervals for all forms of physical collocation by way of its inclusion of theterms and conditions contained in Pacific’s Advice Letter No. 20412.Application of AT&T Communications of California for Arbitration of anInterconnection Agreement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company, D.00-08-011,mimeo, pp. 22-23 (Aug. 3, 2000).

11

by applying the precedent of a state arbitration

decision.”23 Accordingly, the Collocation Reconsideration

Order does not necessitate any modification to Pacific’s

current physical collocation intervals.

13. Furthermore, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and

Order on November 7, 2000 in which it clarified its

position:

To eliminate any potential for confusion in this area,we clarify that an incumbent LEC need not file SGAT ortariff amendments pursuant to the CollocationReconsideration Order in states that have affirmativelyestablished such standards on either an interim orpermanent basis.24

In other words, even if the intervals established by this

Commission are “interim,” they satisfy the FCC’s

requirements and Pacific need not amend its tariff to

reflect the 90-day interval.

14. Pacific acknowledges that its existing intervals are

under review in the Collocation Phase of the OANAD

proceeding. In that proceeding, parties submitted

proposed tariff language addressing application and

provisioning intervals. Pacific submitted evidence on

the record supporting the reasonableness of its current

intervals. 25 Pacific is awaiting the outcome of that

proceeding, but that does not change the fact Pacific

23 Collocation Reconsideration Order, para. 22.24 In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering AdvancedTelecommunications Capability, CC Dkt. No. 98-147, Memorandum Opinion andOrder, FCC No. DA00-2528 (rel. Nov. 7, 2000), para. 5.25 See e.g., OANAD (R.93-04-003/I.93-04-002) Exh. 5002, Testimony of Adams(for Pacific), pp. 13-14.

12

already has Commission-approved intervals that except it

from any requirement to modify its intervals to comport

with the national standards contained in section

51.323(l).26

15. Finally, it should be noted that the issue of national

provisioning intervals is still undecided. The FCC

recently granted a waiver from compliance with the

provisioning intervals set forth in the Collocation

Reconsideration Order to Pacific’s parent company, SBC

Communications (“SBC”).

16. This waiver was granted based on detailed comments

submitted by SBC, Verizon and Qwest explaining how the

FCC’s proposed intervals were unreasonable and

impractical. The FCC stated that these comments “greatly

expand the record on reasonable physical collocation

intervals beyond what was available to the Commission

when it adopted the Collocation Reconsideration Order.”

See Collocation Reconsideration Order, para. 10.

17. With this expanded record, it is simply unclear what type

of intervals the FCC will adopt, if any. What is clear

now is that the 90-day standard does not apply.

18. The Coalition states that Pacific's collocation tariff is

not valid because it is incorporated in its exchange

26 Even if one were to argue that Pacific does not have Commission-approvedintervals, which it does, Pacific’s affirmative showing in OANAD satisfies therequirements of the Collocation Reconsideration Order. As the FCC notes,“[a]n incumbent LEC, of course, may petition a state to extend the applicationprocessing and provisioning interval deadlines . . ..” CollocationReconsideration Order, para. 22.

13

access tariff, thus there is "no tariff approved by the

Commission, or even filed by Pacific, that establishes a

120-day interval for caged collocation utilized for local

interconnection or access to UNEs.” CLEC Coalition Reply

Comments, p. 28. This statement is incorrect.

19. Pacific’s Commission-approved 175-T tariff addresses

local interconnection and access under the Act.27 The

tariff even states that it can be used for

interconnection at sections 16.1 and 16.4. Moreover,

CLECs have been using Pacific’s 175-T tariff to collocate

for purposes of local interconnection and accessing UNEs

for some time. If these CLECs are using the 175-T tariff

to interconnect for local exchange or access to Pacific’s

UNEs, they cannot now say that 175-T does not provide

terms and conditions to do just that.

20. The CLEC Coalition contends that Pacific's proposed

collocation tariff fails to comply with the FCC's

directives in the Advanced Services Order and the

Collocation Reconsideration Order regarding the provision

of a space availability report within 10 calendar days,

because Pacific's tariff provides for an extension of

time to twenty-five days if the collocator submits more

than 5 requests for a report. CLEC Coalition Reply

Comments, pp. 32-33.

27 Pacific has a separate federal collocation tariff, FCC No. 128, section 16.

14

21. Section 16.10.2(C) in Pacific's proposed collocation

tariff does provide for a metering of space availability

requests. The report delivery interval of the first five

space available requests is 10 calendar days. The

delivery interval for six to twenty requests is 25

calendar days. In the year 2000, no CLEC has requested

even one space availability report from Pacific.

22. Pacific's metering of space availability reports is

consistent with Pacific's practice to meter collocation

provisioning intervals, which was agreed to by the CLECs

and incorporated in Pacific's Performance Measures 40 and

41.28

23. The CLEC Coalition alleges that, "Pacific's proposed

adjacent collocation tariff requires collocators to

abandon their adjacent collocation arrangement if space

becomes available within the central office." CLEC

Coalition Reply Comments, p. 34.

24. I addressed the changes that Pacific was making to its

tariff to comply with the FCC Collocation Reconsideration

Order in my September 29, 2000, affidavit including

changes to the adjacent collocation rules. In my

affidavit, I stated:29

28 This process was described in Pacific’s July 28, 2000 filing in thisproceeding (See p. 44 attached thereto): Pacific follows the metering processset forth in its proposed cageless collocation tariff. As part of theFebruary 2000 Performance Measures review, the CLECs have agreed toincorporate the metering concept in Performance Measures 40 and 41. 29 Affidavit of Curtis Hopfinger (Sep. 29, 2000), paras. 9-19.

15

Revised section 51.323(k) adds the followingsentence to existing rules that require anincumbent LEC to make adjacent collocationavailable when space is legitimately exhausted inan incumbent LEC structure:

If physical collocation space becomes available ina previously exhausted incumbent LEC structure,the incumbent LEC must not require a carrier tomove, or prohibit a competitive LEC from moving, acollocation arrangement into that structure.Instead, the incumbent LEC must continue to allowthe carrier to collocate in any adjacentcontrolled environmental vault, controlledenvironmental vault, or similar structure that thecarrier has constructed or otherwise procured.30

25. Pacific modified its internal procedures effective

October 10, 2000, as stated in my September 29 affidavit,

and filed an amendment to its proposed tariff on November

8, 2000 (Advise Letter 21470) so that when physical

collocation space becomes available inside a Pacific

structure, absent agreement otherwise, a carrier can

either maintain its adjacent collocation arrangement or

move into the newly available structure. 31 The CLEC

Coalition also raises issues in its Reply Comments that

are currently the subject of litigation in the OANAD

proceeding regarding offsite interconnection arrangements

and whether adjacent collocation arrangements should be

available at all central offices, not just space-

exhausted offices. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, pp.

33-34.

30 Revised 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(k).31 Hopfinger Affidavit (Sep. 29, 2000), p. 10.

16

26. The OANAD proceeding has been briefed and a proposed

decision is now pending. The proposed decision, when

final, will resolve the collocation issues raised by the

CLEC Coalition in this proceeding. Therefore, there is

no need for the Commission to address those here.

27. The FCC made it clear that adjacent collocation must be

on the incumbent LEC’s premises. As the FCC states, the

definition of premises “excludes land and buildings in

which the incumbent has no interest.”32 Therefore, as

Pacific has maintained in the past, it is not obligated

to provide collocation at locations adjacent to but not

on Pacific’s property (commonly referred to as “adjacent

off-site”). Pacific will, however, continue to provide

interconnection to carriers locating equipment at off-

site locations.

28. The CLEC Coalition further alleges that "Pacific's

affiliate ASI will always be accommodated in the central

office and will not be forced to use adjacent collocation

arrangements, thus discriminating against CLECs that do

sometimes have to use adjacent collocation due to space

constraints in the central office.” CLEC Coalition Reply

Comments, p. 40.

29. The CLEC Coalition’s statements are extremely misleading.

First, ASI is subject to the same collocation rules as

32 Collocation Reconsideration Order, para. 44.

17

any other CLEC. According to the SBC/Ameritech merger

conditions:

4.a. The network planning and engineeringfunctions related to Advanced Services that arethe responsibility of the separate AdvancedServices affiliate and which may not be performedby an incumbent LEC include:

4.(3)Arranging and negotiating for collocationspace with the incumbent LEC under the same termsand conditions, and utilizing the processes thatare made available to unaffiliatedtelecommunications carriers, and arranging for anynew Advanced Services Equipment to be delivered.33

30. If a central office is exhausted, ASI, like any other

CLEC, has the choice of virtual or adjacent collocation.

Additionally, Pacific provides traditional virtual

collocation regardless of the availability of physical

collocation. Second, the CLEC Coalition's statement that

“CLCs that do sometimes have to use adjacent collocation

due to space constraints in the central office are

disadvantaged” is misleading. No CLEC has requested

adjacent collocation space in California or any other SBC

state. CLEC Coalition Reply Comments, p. 40.

31. In fact, out of more than 13,000 collocation arrangements

in the SBC ILECs' 13-state service area there are no

known adjacent space collocation arrangement either in

place or in progress. If, the CLEC Coalition is

referring to adjacent interconnection, as I stated above,

33 SBC/Ameritech Merger Conditions, Appendix C, p. 7 at para. 4.(3) p. 7.

18

Pacific does provide interconnection to carriers locating

equipment at off-site locations.

CONCLUSION

32. This concludes my affidavit.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

19

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is

true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and

belief.

Executed in Dallas, Texas, this 8th day of December 2000.

______________________________Curtis Hopfinger

HOPFINGER THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY AFFIDAVIT – ATTACHMENT 1

CH Attachment 1 - 1