IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION COMPETITIVE Transcript …

THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF QWEST CORPORATION TO RECLASSIFY LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICES AS FULLY COMPETITIVE

Transcript of Proceedings August 4, 2003

BEFORE THE PUBLIC ROBERT SAHR, GARY HANSON,

UTILITIES COMMISSION, C H A I r n VICE CHAIRJ!GW (by telephone)

COMMISSION STAFF Rolayne Ailts Wiest John J. Smith Karen Cremer Kelly Frazier Greg Rislov Harlan Best Keith Senger Dave Jacobson Michele Farris Tina Douglas Bonnie Bjork Pam Bonrud

APPEARANCES

Brett Koenecke Darla Rogers

Reported By Cheri McComsey Wittler, RPR

1 105 S. EUCLID AVENUE. SUITE E PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA 57501 (605) 945-0573

OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF QWEST CORPORATION TO RECLASSIFY TC03-057 LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICES AS FULLY COMPETITIVE

Transcript of Proceedings August 4, 2003

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, ROBERT SAHR, CHAIRMAN

2 GARY HANSON; VICE CHAIRMAN (by telephone)

3 COMMISSION STAFF Rolayne Ailts Wiest

4 John J. Smith Karen Cremer

5 Kelly Frazier Greg Rislov

6 Harlan Best Keith Senger

7 Dave Jacobson Michele Farris

8 Tina Douglas Bonnie Bjork

9 Pam Bcnrud

!o APPEARANCES

!I Brett Koenecke Darla Rogers

!2

!3 Reported By Cheri McComsey Wittler, RPR

!4

APPERRRNCES BY TELEPHONE

David Saville Susan Travis Tom Welk Larry Toll Ben Dickens Matthew McCaulley Cindy Grosvenor Wendell Aanerud Mary LohneS Tom Simmons John Coleman Kyle White Doug Eidahl Christi Dewitt John Burke Tim Goodwin

The following is a TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS,

held in the above-entitled matter, at the South Dakota

State Capitol, Room 412, 500 East Capitol Avenue,

Pierre, South Dakota, on the 4th day of August 2003,

commencing at 2:30 p.m

3 1 CHAIRMAN SAHR: TC03.057, In the 2 Matter of the Application of Qwest Corporation t o 3 Reclassify Local Exchange Services as Fully 4 Competitive. And the question today is shall the 5 Commission grant Qwest's motion to strike and 6 exclude testimony? 7 Mr. Welk. 8 MR. WELK: Mr. Goodwin is going t o 9 argue the motion, Mr. Chairman. 10 CHAIRMAN SAHR: Mr. Goodwin. 11 MR. GOODWIN: Thank you, 12 Mr. Chairman. I don't think I announced my 13 attendance on the call earlier so I certainly 14 understand. 15 CHAIRMAN SAHR: I t may have been 16 hard t o get a word i n edgewise. 17 MR. GOODWIN: There were a few 18 opportunit ies. Be that as i t may, I wil l proceed. 19 I won't go over each witness with each 20 testimony i n connection wi th the mot ion that we've 2 1 filed. I ' l l leave that for the Commission to 22 review. 23 Also we have received only two responses t o 24 our motion, and that is f rom Black Hills and also 25 f rom WorldCom or MCI. Neither of those responses

4 actually contested, at least with respect to what I would call the irrelevant testimony or what they have called the pub l ic interest testimony. They have not argued that the testimony that we have identified in the mot ion actually applies to statutory criteria. They just say it 's relevant anyway.

So we'll address the principle of the motion rather than the specifics because there's no specific testimony that they've pointed out that this is relevant tor th is reason because i t applies t o this statutory criteria.

What their responses were focused on i n terms of the substantive identification of the testimony is on our price squeeze issue, and I'II address that first.

In relation t o both issues of price squeeze and relevance, our argument is based on the fact that th is statute exclusively lists the criteria. I t doesn't say th is is 49.31.3.2 and the criteria are l isted in a mandatory fashion. It doesn't say

22 the Commission may consider among other factors or 23 shall consider among other things and then l ist 24 five factors. 25 The language is very clear, that the

PRECISION REPORTING, LTD. (605) 945-0573 Page 1 to Page 4

Case Cornoress

5 Commission in determining how telecommunication service is to be classified "shall consider" and

I then the five factors are listed. There's no I additional criteria or an option for additional 1 criteria to be listed. j Moreover, the statute does not permit any 1 conditions to be placed on the granting of a 3 certificate .. or, excuse me, of the application 1 for fully competitive service. 0 What i t does say in the first sentence of 1 49.31-3.2, it says, "The Commission, after Notice 2 of Hearing shall waive," and again that's mandatory 3 language, "eliminate, or modify any of its rules or 4 orders affecting telecommunications services if it 5 finds that a telecommunication service is a fully 6 competitive service." 7 That can only mean one thing if you give 8 effect to every word of that statute, and that is 9 that after an application such as Qwest in this 10 proceeding i s acted upon and granted, if that's the ! I end result, then there is a mandatory set of 12 actions that the Commission must take then to make !3 sure that its orders are consistent with its !4 classification as fully competitive. It does not !5 permit, as WorldCom's response would seem to

6 1 suggest, that there can be additional orders or 2 additional conditions or additional modifications 3 in a forward looking manner to any order of the 4 Commission. 5 Now that has relevance in terms of the price 6 squeeze in that that is the recommended solution by 7 Mr. Stacey who testifies on behalf of several of 8 the interveners in this case. And to a certain 9 extent Mr. Best, who has testified on behalf of 10 that. 11 They argue that, well, there should be a 12 condition placed on Qwest in that i t should not be 13 allowed to price below a certain floor. Mr. Stacey 14 articulates this is a price squeeze. We've gone 15 through this and submitted discovery to find out, 16 well, what is the revenue part of this. Because 17 the price squeeze is how much does the wholesale 18 unit of services, whether that's true UNEs or 19 UNE.Ps or some combination of UNEs and facilities, 20 whether that cost that Qwest charges is greater 2 1 than the revenue that could be generated from the 22 purchase of those services by CLECs. 23 Now in Black Hills' response it's very telling 24 because they simplify i t down to just Qwest's 25 wholesale price versus Qwest's retail price. And

7 they said that's how the price squeeze would exist, and they say on the second page of their response this is because CLECs could not set a competitive retail rate without losing money on each customer.

I think it's fairly axiomatic whether they lose money on each customer is dependent upon their whole revenue picture. And, indeed, there is no single rate equivalent on the retail side to the wholesale products of UNE, whether those are aggregated in the limited portion or whether you have the UNE.P platform.

I mean, at the initial level you have a choice of whether you supply using those UNE products, either 1TR or 1.FB type services. In addition, once those are purchased and once those network elements are purchased and a CLEC has a retail customer, they get access revenue. That's both originating and terminating access.

In addition, they can sell features associated with the switching, such as custom calling, call forwarding, call return, caller ID. Moreover, it provides a platform, if you will, for the CLEC to sell additional services that aren't necessarily local exchange services, but they have a greater opportunity in platform to sell those, like voice

8 mail and toll, if it's associated .. if the CLEC is associated with an interexchange carrier.

Like, for example, MCI .. one of the interveners is WorldCom .. does have a toll provider so they have the opportunity to gain that revenue as well. So you can't line it up one for another. And that's why when the witnesses talk about price squeeze testimony the revenue question is so important.

And we've been through this on the discovery side. WorldComls response is, well, we've responded to all the discovery. Now that's a little bit disingenuous, and part of that is because, I think, of mistake of mind. And, that is, we never sent WorldCom that precise and disputed discovery request on the price squeeze issues that we dealt with the last time we were before the Commission on this matter.

That doesn't change -. the fact that they didn't get those discovery requests and didn't object to them is really of no moment because the reason we object to that testimony on price squeeze is because there is no foundation for it because we don't have this additional evidence of any of the revenue side of the price squeeze argument.


jse compress

9 And so whether they received these discovery

requests, responded t o them, objected to them or not, they don't have foundation for that testimony.

Now on the public interest or irrelevant type of testimony that we have identified throughout, and this is largely categorized by the testimony that says, well, Qwest doesn't take advantage of the current regulatory freedoms that it has, Qwest isn't investing enough in the exchanges that we serve, Qwest doesn't have good service, those types of complaints that are littered throughout the intervener's testimony.

And if you look at the factors, there's five and specific limited factors which the Commission may - - or shall consider, and no more may they consider in responding and valuating Qwest's application. We filed this motion to l imit the hearing, and we don't want to spend four days on listening to this additional testimony when i t doesn't help the Commission any. It doesn't advance the ball any towards getting the Commission where it needs to in relation to these five -. (Inaudible).

So we ask that the Commission examine the testimony that we've referenced and the arguments

10 that we've made and exclude the testimony that doesn't relate to the statutory criteria and exclude also the price squeeze testimony because not only does i t not relate to statutory criteria but i t is unsupported by adequate foundation.

Now one thing I'd like to clear up before I turn the argument over to my opponents is that Mr. Evans noted that there was a mistake, I guess, in the designation of Mr. White's testimony in Appendix A, which we attached to the motion, which identified the summary of 'the testimony we seek 'to exclude.

And he is correct because the third set of testimony that we seek to exclude is identified as pages 13, line 8 through 14, line 16, and that should begin at page 13, line 18, not 8. So there should be a 1 in front of that 8. So it should read from 13, line 18 to page 14, line 16.

And with that clarification, I have nothing further.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. MCI WorldCom.

MS. TRAVIS: This is Susan Travis and Tom Dixon couldn't be here today so I kind of disagree with what Qwest is saying. Qwest and

11 staff brought up the public interest argument, and public interest is really an undefined - - it's a broad area. So we feel like we are entitled to respond to their public interest statements.

As far as having the price squeeze, we feel like price squeeze is important and it's relevant in this case. It's because of Qwest's market power and how the market may hold prices close to cost, which is part of the criteria that was listed in the statute.

And on the additional conditions we feel like Mr. Gates and Mr. Best's recommendations and modifications t o the rules and orders that the Commission could choose is relevant to this because the Commission has the power to grant Qwest's application.

So I feel like because that question in the discovery was not presented to WorldCom, we should be able to submit our testimony and have i t heard, even though other companies, I guess, did not respond to that.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. And, Ms. Travis, I should also note that Brett Koenecke is here in Pierre, and I don't know -- are you appearing on behalf of MCI WorldCom?

12 MR. KOENECKE: I had planned on it,

but I don't know that I need to any longer, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. Black Hills.

MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is Kyle White, Linn Evans is not able to join us today. I'd like to have the opportunity to visit about the issues before us.

Is that acceptable? CHAIRMAN SAHR: Why don't you go

ahead. MR. WHITE: Okay. With regards to

the issue of price squeeze, we did point out that we believe the price squeeze issue is simply defined as the difference between the wholesale price that is available for these competitive .. or these local exchange services versus the Qwest retail price.

And we believe that it should not be dependent upon a competitor's ability to be competitive based solely upon their ability to market and attract customers for services that have already been defined fully competitive by the Commission today including with - - (Inaudible) .- access services,


Case Compress

voice mail, caller ID, and other features. The issue really before the Commission is can

these services, these local exchange services, be defined as fully competitive and will there be price squeeze, thr i f t , associated with Qwest having their application granted.

In relation t o my testimony, what I have attempted to do is t o recognize for the Commission that there are really two definitions in the statute. Unfortunately, I don't have those before me.

But Qwest is relying solely on the definition of fully competitive services. But my recollection is that in the definition of noncompetitive services there is a provision tha t says they may be those services tha t are such tha t they require continued regulations, and it was the - - (Inaudible).

So that's why I provided testimony with regards to the characteristics of Qwest's behavior i n other jurisdictions and also a recognition that these are essential services for customers in the State of South Dakota. Qwest has been in monopoly position.

So I believe the question the Commission has

14 before it is a two-part question, one, is there competition that exists; two, even if that competition exists, are these services ones that do not require regulation.

So that's basically our position. We would request that the Commission not approve Qwest's petition.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. Staff. MS. CREMER: Thank you. The

Commission's mandate is found i n both statute and case law, and that 's the protection of public interest. So I believe tha t even if Qwest had not injected the public interest argument into this matter, that the Commission was t o always consider public interest. And I believe WorldCom addresses that very well i n their brief.

Mr. Best's recommendation should not be stricken, and he should be allowed to testify as to his recommendation as he is an expert witness. His recommendation is based upon his education and experience. Qwest can always cross-examine Mr. Best as t o the basis of his recommendations so there's no prejudice t o them. The Commission need only give it the weight they feel it deserves.

We believe that the Commission should deny

15 1 Qwest's motion. 2 CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. 3 MR. GOODWIN: Mr. Chairman, 4 Mr. Goodwin, if I might have a l i t t le rebuttal. 5 CHAIRMAN SAHR: Yes. You bet. Go 6 ahead. 7 MR. GOODWIN: Some of the 8 interveners as well as staff have raised the issue 9 of this public interest. Now first it 's not a 10 statutory criteria of the Commission's regulations I I t o require an application for classification as 12 fully competitive t o include a statement as to why 13 the grant ing of the application would be in the 14 public interest. 15 Now I would argue that that requirement was 16 met in this case for the application, but just 17 because i t is required t o be contained in the 18 application, does not mean i t is relevant .- those 19 kinds of criteria are relevant to the determination 20 by the - - (Inaudible). 21 CHAIRMAN SAHR: Mr. Goodwin, if you 22 can hear us, we can't hear you. Mr. Goodwin, we 23 lost you there. 24 MR. GOODWIN: Okay. I'll t ry t o 25 pick up where I think I was when the noise began.

'If 1 CHAIRMAN SAHR: Rewind about a half 2 a minute. 3 MR. GOODWIN: Okay. We're not 4 trying t o argue, nor would we ever, that the 5 Commission should grant our application even if i t 6 were established t o be against the public interest. 7 But I think the statutory criteria defined the 8 public interest i n this case. 9 Moreover, a lot of this testimony as to 10 whether, you know, Qwest - - what Qwest's behavior's 11 been in other jurisdictions, the DSL testimony, 12 whether they take advantage of existing 13 regulations, et cetera, is irrelevant even to the 14 so-called public interest criteria, which we 15 believe is extra statutory and outside the criteria 16 tha t you are supposed t o apply i n this case. 17 So in summary we think the statutory criteria 18 established how the Commission is supposed t o 19 evaluate the public interest in this case. 20 CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. 21 Mr. Eidahl, I only skipped you because you hadn't 22 filed a response, but d id you want to comment? 23 MR. EIDAHL: Actually Darla Rogers 24 will be responding for us on this matter. 25 CHAIRMAN SAHR: The same thing woul


go for Darla, and I think we have Matt McCaulley on the line as well. At this point I would give either one of you the chance to respond.

MR. MCCAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, this is Matt McCaulley. If I could have just a brief moment or two.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Yes. Go ahead. MR. MCCAULLEY: Prairie Wave did not

submit a brief. We feel this issue has been adequately briefed by Black Hills and MCI WorldCom so we'd just like to join in the arguments they set forth in those briefs. And just one .. as I see it, one of the core issues here as staff has pointed out is whether or not the Commission is solely limited to those five factors set forth in the Subsection 3.2.

I'll just point out, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the statute says "shall consider" but it does not say shall only consider or shall exclusively consider, and if I believe the legislature wanted the Commission to only consider those five factors, exclusive of everything else, the legislature would have said so.

So I think interpreting or looking at 3.2 in the whole scheme of the regulatory authority given

to the Public Utilities Commission, certainly the public interest can be considered, and I think at least as to Prairie Wave and the testimony that Qwest seeks to strike certainly is relevant under the public interest part of the analysis of this.

So Prairie Wave would also ask that Qwest's motion to strike be denied as to Prairie Wave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. Ms. Rogers or Mr. Koenecke.

MR. KOENECKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should respond on behalf of Midcontinent as well as perhaps WorldCom. Midcontinent is one of the targets of this motion as well.

I'm a little bit struck here. I feel like Qwest is like the guy who runs an ad in the paper saying I was liabled in last week's paper and half of the people who didn't see i t the first time now

20 have seen'it the second time. We've spent perhaps ,21 an inordinate amount of time on this testimony.

I! limiting and restrictive that the Commission can only consider those factors is the correct reading of this statute at all.

And, finally, I think the Commission should and will give the testimony that's sought to be stricken here the weight which it deserves. The question goes more to weight than relevancy. The weight is there. It's been offered substantially, and we think that the testimony sought to be stricken here should be considered for those reasons. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. Ms. Rogers.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Chairman Sahr. I concur with the comments that already have been made. I too do not construe 49.31-3.2 to be as limiting as Qwest is arguing in this case.

The Public Utilities Commission is a public body charged with looking after the public interest of all the citizens of South Dakota. And I think that you can never turn your back on that duty, and I don't think that the list in that particular statutory section would ever take away your ability to always consider public interest.

I would also concur that I think you have the

I think the Commission not only should consider, as Mr. McCaulley said, but I think it has to consider the public interest. I don't think that the description of the five factors as being

PRECISION REPORTING, LTD. (605) 945-0573

2 full ability to give the testimony as it comes in the weight that it deserves, and if you believe it does not go to any of the issues in the docket, you can certainly disregard it. But I think you have that discretion, and I think that Qwest's motion should be denied. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. Did I miss anybody else? Thank you.

Mr. Goodwin, I just have a couple of questions for you. And the first one would be what some of the other parties have raised is a question of "shall consider" under 49.31.3.2.

What makes you think that that's an exclusive list and that the Commission could not consider other factors, and particularly in light of the fact that there are three categories where service could be classified, noncompetitive, emerging, and fully competitive?

MR. GOODWIN: Certainly. I think 20 that the other two categories .- or, I guess, the 21 emerging competitive is really combined into 3.2, 22 but the noncompetitive criteria are not before no 23 application to have this service classified as 24 noncompetitive. 25 Moreover, specifically looking at the

Page 17 to Page 20

language, I think if the legislature wanted to say this was not an exclusive list, they would not have used mandatory language. In other words, there's so many other phrases that could easily have been used, for example, may consider among other things or shall consider among other things, but none of those are listed here. I t is "shall consider" standing by its self and then five factors.

If those alternate wordings could have been inserted into the statute, we believe that the legislature intended those five factors to be controlling here. And the issue of noncompetitive is not really joined in this case, although certainly as we've always argued, that's always on the table. If we are deemed fully competitive, the Commission can come back and say we think now after certain events or certain facts have changed that we need to revisit that, those factors would be applied at that time and not at this time.

The division between the two types of applications and proceedings are made clear by the fact that the criteria are for the two separate sets of applications or proceedings.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Just a follow.up question on that. If someone were able to come in

22 and prove that either the entire state or certain markets were noncompetitive, wouldn't that be relative to whether or not i t was fully competitive?

It's a bit of a Catch.22, isn't it? Why isn't making sure that the services are properly classified .. and looking at all three categories, I don't see how that would be nonrelevant because if someone could come in and show that there's areas or the entire state was noncompetitive, I think they could make a pretty good case that it shouldn't be fully competitive.

MR. GOODWIN: Two parts, Mr. Chairman. First is that I think there's a new issue here, and one that you've kind of interjected, and that's on an exchange.by.exchange basis. And perhaps that's an issue for another time, but I don't think either of the statutes permit a classification on an exchange.by.exchange basis.

But be that as i t may, those issues may be somewhat in play. However, I think we have to deal with the statute as it is sitting before us. And the statute that's sitting before us is a well considered statute and a scheme considered by the

2: legislature, and I think we should follow it.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. And then just one more follow.up question is a number of the parties have argued that even if this evidence were allowed to come into play, that Qwest could always argue relevancy or have some other objection.

What harm would you see to letting the evidence come in and then having the parties .. other parties be able to argue or make whatever .. or allow Qwest then to make an objection to that?

MR. GOODWIN: I think the harm is just that it's essentially futile and wastes the Commission's time and all the parties' time. When we have four days set up for these hearings next week, and I think we should make every effort to conserve that time and make sure that i t is spent on matters that are going to ultimately inform and assist the Commission's consideration of the application, and to the extent that we're talking about extraneous matters, that's just not time well spent, regardless if the testimony is just totally discounted, as we believe that it should be.

If it's going to end up being totally discounted, why not have i t discounted in advance so that our time spent at the hearing is more

24 efficiently spent on the key criteria that the Commission will be using to evaluate the application.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. Vice Chairman Hanson, do you have any questions?

VlCE CHAIR HANSON: I might have some comments when you're ready for a motion, but, no, I don't have any questions.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Any questions from counsel?

MR. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN SAHR: I think the issue is

an important one and one that I'd like to have a little more time to reflect upon. So my motion would be to take this under advisement, and especially considering that we do not have one of the Commissioners present, I certainly would like to give him the opportunity to review the record and participate in this issue as well.

So at this point in time my motion would be to take the matter under advisement and to rule on i t at a later date.

VlCE CHAIR HANSON: Chairman Sahr, my inclination .. I will certainly second that. My inclination right now, and I'll reflect with you on


27 the abil ity for the Commission to go forward and handle this i n a speedy manner. I think it 's just one additional motion that we need t o look at, consider, and take care of one or the other before hearing.

MS. CREMER: If I may, this is Karen Cremer.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: Yes. MS. CREMER: I do know WorldCom,

when I spoke t o them, their witnesses are coming from out of state so they need to make travel arrangements for Mr. Stacey and Mr. Gates.

Do you know when you were going t o be issuing tha t decision? The hearing begins next Tuesday.

CHAIRMAN SAHR: I assume their witnesses are coming - - are they coming either way?

MS. CREMER: No. I believe if you struck their testimony or large portions of i t , you know, there was going t o be - - that, I don't know.

I do know i n talking to them there was some issue about who would come, both - - you know, there would be that . So that was the only thing that I

Case Compress 25

1 any additional information .. discussion tha t you 2 wish to have with the information that we have 3 looked at up t o this juncture. 4 My inclination is t o support Qwest's motion t o 5 strike and t o exclude testimony. I 'm a b i t 6 frustrated with the durat ion of this and the 7 difficulty of gett ing t o the meat of the issue and 8 deciding the meat of t h e issue. 9 Certainly it appears t o me, at least 10 regardless of the avenue tha t we take, everyone 11 will have and has had adequate opportunity to 12 provide the Commission with information we need to 13 make a proper decision. 14 And as much as I get frustrated with red tape 2 5 and bureaucracy, I don ' t want t o become part of - - 16 I don't want the PUC t o be viewed certainly and 1 17 don't want t o have t h e brakes on as a Commission as 18 we thoughtfully examine the issues. 19 And as much as tha t may appear t o be the case 20 at times, certainly t h e parties - - and I don't mean 21 to give an attorney joke here, b u t certainly the 22 attorneys and the parties are assisting the PUC in 23 every effort of not being dilatory but certainly 24 drawing things out t o the extent that it 's 25 extremely diff icult t o get t o the meat of the issue

26 1 and to decide what ul t imately needs to be decided. 2 So I'll look forward to a decision and t o 3 moving along more quickly here. And certainly, 4 Mr. Cha~rman, that 's no reflection on you 5 whatsoever. The concern I have is that we have 6 second mot~ons for protective orders, we have just 7 one order -. request after the next and 8 stipulations and motions t o strike and on and on 9 and on. 10 I t just gets t o a point where we stack so many 11 things on top of each other I 'm a bit frustrated, 12 and I perhaps am frustrated with the parties more 13 than anything else here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14 CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. And that 15 was a second; is tha t correct? 16 VICE CHAIR HANSON: That's correct 17 CHAIRMAN SAHR: Thank you. And I 18 should note that I don't believe that anything that 19 would be related t o this either by Qwest or by the 20 other parties is anything tha t should delay the 21 hearing or cause any undue hardship. 22 I think basically al l we're figuring ou t is 23 what gets put on the scales of justice and what 24 weight's going to be given t o that. So I don't 25 think there should be anything that should affect

was wondering, if you knew when. CHAIRMAN SAHR: Well, I appreciate

tha t being brought to our attention and we

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1

3

4

5

6

, 8

9

10

, , 12

,3

14 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

certainly a re always appreciative of people's I t ravel schedules. At the same time, w e need to I move forward i n an appropriate manner, and I think I i t 's something where we do need to ref lect on this l and take i t under advisement. I

And certainly I think f rom the oral arguments I today that we've got a l i t t le bit more information I to act on. So whi le I appreciate that, I can't I without ta lk ing to the other Commissioners say when I this wi l l b e taken care of. I 'm sure we'll move as I quickly as possible. So we'll keep that in mind. I

Anything else? I


- - STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA )

:SS CERTI Fl CATE

COUNTY OF HUGHES 1

I, CHERl MCCOMSEY WITTLER, a Registered

Professional Reporter and Notary Publ ic i n and for the

State of South Dakota:

DO HEREBY CERTIFY that as the duly-appointed

shorthand reporter, I took in shorthand the proceedings

had i n the above-entitled matter on the 4 t h day of

August 2003, and that the attached i s a t rue and

correct transcription of t he proceedings so taken.

Dated at Pierre, South Dakota th is 6th day

of August 2003.

Cheri McComsey Witt ler, Notary Pub l ic and Registered Professional Reporter

PRECISION REPORTING, LTD. Page 29 to Page 29

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA )

: ss

COUNTY OF HUGHES 1

CERTIFICATE

I, CHERI MCCOMSEY WITTLER, a Registered

Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the

State of South Dakota:

DO HEREBY CERTIFY that as the duly-appointed

shorthand reporter, I took in shorthand the proceedings

had in the above-entitled matter on the 4th day of

August 2003, and that the attached is a true and

correct transcription of the proceedings so taken.

Dated at Pierre, South Dakota this 6th day

of August 2003.

Notary Public and Registered Professional Reporter

PRECISION REPORTING, LTD. 105 S. Euclid Ave., Suite E, Pierre, SD 57501

(605) 945-0573

Word Index Brakes [I] 25:17

Articulates [I] 6:14 Assist [I] 23:18 Assisting [I] 25:22 Associated [4] 7:19 8: l 8:2 13:5

[Z] 4:8 4:15 Rddresses [I] 14:15 Adequate [Z] 1 0 5 25:lI Adequately [I] 17:lO Advance 121 9:21 23:24

- [2] 1:21 11:23 Brief D] 14:16 17:5 17:9 Briefed [I] 17:lO Briefs [I] 17:12 Broad [I] 11:3 Brought [Z] 11:l 27:25

Assume I11 27:15 idvan t age

[Z] 9:7 16:12 Advisement [3] 24:15 24:21 28:5 Affect [I] 26:25 Affecting [I] 5:14

Attached [2] 1O:lO 29:11 Attempted [I] 13:8 Attendance [I] 3:13 Attention [I] 27:25 Attorney [I] 25:21

Bureaucracy [I] 25:15 Burke [I] 2:9 Aggregated

[I] 7:lO Ahead [3] 12:12 15:6 17:7

Caller [Z] 7:21 13:l Capitol [Z] 2: 14 2: 14 Care

Attorneys [I] 25:22 Ailts

rll 1:13 AEtract [I] 12:22 August [4] 1:9 2:15 29:11 29:14 Authority [I] 17:25 Available [I] 12:17 Avenue [Z] 2: 14 25: 10 Axiomatic [I] 7:5

Ailow [I] 23:lO Allowed 131 6:13 14:18 23:5 Alternate [I] 21:9 Amount [I] 18:21 Analysis [I] 185 Announced [I] 3:12

[Z] 27:4 28:lO Carrier [I] 8:2 Case

Catch-22 [I] 22:5 Categories [3] 20:16 20:20 22:7 Categorized [I] 9% Certain [5] 6:8 6:13 21:17 21:17 22:l

Ball [I] 9:21

Appear [I] 25:19 APPEARANCES 121 1:20 2:l

Based r31 4:18 12:21 14:20 Certainly [la 3:13 18:l l8:4 2O:4 2O:l9 21:14 Basis [3] 14:22 22:17 22:20 Become [I] 25:15 Began [I] 15:25

Appearing [I] 11:25 Appendix r11 l0:lO

24:17 24:24 25:9 25:16 25:20 25:21 25:23 26:3 28:l 28:6 Certificate [Z] 5:8 29:2 -. .-

CERTIFY [I] 29:R Begin

[I] 10:16 Cetera [I] 16:13 CHAIR [3] 24:6 24:23 26:16

Applications [Z] 21:21 21:23 Applied [I] 21:19 Applies 121 4:5 4:11

Begins [I] 27: 14 Behalf [4] 6:7 6:9 11:25 18:12 Behavior [I] 13:20

Chairman

[I] 2:5 Abilitv Appreciate

[2] 27:24 28:s Appreciative [I] 28:l

Below [I] 6:13 Ben [l] 2:4 Best [3] 1:16 6:9 14:22 Best s 121 11:12 14:17 Bet [I] 15:5 Between [2] 12:16 21:20 Bit [6] 8:13 18:16 22:5 25:5 26:11 28:7

151 12:21 i2:22 1 ~ 3 20:1 27:i Able [4] 11:19 12:7 21:25 23:9 Above-entitled [Z] 2: 13 29: 10 Acceptable [I] 12: 10 Access [3] 7: 17 7: 18 12:25 Act [I] 28:8

2G:14 26:17 27:8 27:15 27:24 Chance [I] 17:3 change [I] 8:19 Changed [I] 21:17 Characterist [I] 13:20 Charged [I] 19:19 Charges [I] 6:20 Cheri [3] 1:23 29:5 29:18 Choice [I] 7:12

Appropriate [I] 28:3 Approve rll 1 4 5 Area [I] 11:3 Areas [I] 22: 10 Argue [q 3:9 6:ll 15:15 16:4 23:6 23:9 Argued r31 4:4 21:14 23:4

Acted [I] 5:20 Actions [l] 5:22 Ad [I] 18:17 Addition [Z] 7: 14 7: 19 Additional

B j ork [l] 1:18 Black [4] 3:24 6:23 12:5 17:lO Body [l] 19:19

Argument 151 4:18 8:25 10:7 11:l 14:13

Choose [I] 11:14 Christi [I] 2:8 Cindy [l] 2:5

Arguments r31 9:25 17:ll 285

Bonnie [I] 1:18 Bonrud [I] 1:19

PRECISION REPORTING, LTD. From 1 to Cindy

21arif ication I ] 10:19 :lassif ication Q] 5:24 15:ll 22:19 :lassif ied 141 5:2 20:17 20:23 22:7 3lear :3] 4:25 10:6 21:21 2LEC :3] 7:16 7:22 8:l 2LECs [Z] 6:22 7:3 :lose jl] 11% 2oleman [I] 2:7 kombination [l] 6:19 "mbined [I] 20:21 2oming [3] 27:lO 27:16 27:16 2ommenc ing [l] 2:16 lomment [I] 16:22 Zommen t s [Z] 19:15 24:7 lommission

18 20:14 21:16 24:2 25:12 25:17 27:l Commissionls [4] 14:lO 15:lO 23:13 23:18 Commissioners [Z] 24:17 28:9 Companies [l] 11:20 Competition [Z] 14:2 14:3 Com~etitive

Competitorls [I] 12:21 Complaints [I] 9:11 Concern [I] 265 Concluded [I] 28:13 Concur [Z] 19:15 19:25 Condition [I] 6:12 Conditions [3] 5:7 6:2 11:ll Connection [I] 3:20 Conserve [l] 23:16 Consider

27:4 Consideration [I] 23:18 Considered [4] 18:2 19:lO 22:25 22:25 Considering [l] 24:16

Word Index Citizens I [ll 19:20 (

(

I (

I (

I (

I (

I (

I (

I (

I (

I (

I (

I (

I (

I (

I

(

I

I

I

I

1

Consistent [I] 5:23 Cons true

l] 19:16 2ontained :1] 15:17 Zontes ted :1] 4:l 2ontinued :1] 13:17 'ontrolling :I] 21:12 :ore rl] 17~13 'orporation [Z] 1:5 3:2 lorrec t 1.51 10:13 19:2 26:15 26:16 29:12 20s t [Z] 6:20 11:s lounsel [I] 24: 10 " m y [l] 29:3 Zouple 111 20:9

Zross -examine [I] 14:21 Zurrent rll 9:8 zustom [l] 7:20 =us tomer [3] 7:4 7:6 7:17 Customers

Dakota

Darla [3] 1:21 16:23 17:l Date [l] 24:22 Dated [I] 29:13 Dave [I] 1:17 David [1] 2:2 Days 121 9:18 23:14

- - Deait [I] 8:17 Decide [I] 26:l Decided [I] 26:l Deciding [I] 25:8 Decision [3] 25:13 26:2 27:14 Deemed [I] 21:15 Defined [4] 12:16 12:24 13:4 16:7 Definition [Z] 13:12 13:14 Definitions [I] 13:9 Delay [I] 26:20 Denied [Z] 18:7 2 0 5 Deny

bependent [Z] 7:6 12:20 Description [I] 18:25 Deserves [3] 14:24 19:6 20:2 Designation [11 10:9 betermination [I] 15:19 Determining [I] 5:l Dewi t t [I] 2:8 Dickens [I] 2:4 Difference [I] 12:16 Difficult 111 25:25 Difficulty [I] 25:7 Dilatory [I] 25:23 Disagree [I] 10:25 Discounted [3] 23:22 23:24 23:24 Discovery [7] 6:15 8:lO 8:12 8:16 8:20 9:l 11:18 Discretion [I] 205 Discussion [I] 25:l Disingenuous [I] 8:13 Disputed [I] 8:16 Disregard [I] 20:4 Division [l] 21:20 Dixon [I] 10:24 Docket [l] 20:3 Doug [I] 2:8 Douglas [I] 1:18 Down [I] 6:24 Drawing [l] 25:24 DSL 111 16:ll Duly-appointed 1;] 29% Duration [I] 255 Duty [I] 19:21

E Easily [I] 21:4 East [l] 2:14 Edgewise [I] 3:16 Education [I] 14:20 Effect [I] 5:18 Efficiently [I] 24: 1 Effort [Z] 23:15 25:23 Eidahl

[3] 2:8 16:21 16:23 Either [a 7:14 17:3 22:l 22:18 26:19 27:16 Elements [I] 7:16 Eliminate [I] 5:13 Emerging [Z] 20:17 20:21 End [Z] 5:21 23:23 Entire [Z] 22:l 22:lO Entitled [I] 11:3 Equivalent [I] 7:8 Especially [I] 24:16 Essential [I] 13:22 Essentially [I] 23:12 Established [Z] 16:6 16:18

Evaluate [Z] 16:19 24:2 Evans [Z] 10:8 12:7 Events [I] 21:17 Evidence [3] 8:24 23:4 23:s Examine [Z] 9:24 25:18 Example [Z] 8:3 2 1 5 Exchanae

Exchange-by-exchange [Z] 22:16 22:19 Exchanges [l] 9:9 Exclude [6] 3:6 1O:l 10:3 10:12 10:1425:5 Exclusive [3] 17:22 20:13 21:2

Excuse [I] 5:8 Exist [I] 7:l Existing [I] 16:12 m--- u n . L ~ t ~ [Z] 14:2 14:3 Experience [l] 14:21 Expert [l] 14:19 Extent [3] 6:9 23:19 25:24 Extra [I] 16:15 Extraneous [I] 23:20 Extremely [I] 25:25

F Facilities [I] 6:19 Fact [4] 4:18 8:19 20:16 21:22 Factors [13] 4:22 4:24 5:3 9:13 9:14 17:15 17

PRECISION REPORTING, LTB. From Citizens to ~ i a c t o r ~

Word Index !2 18:25 l9:2 20:15 21:8 21:ll 21:18 pacts 11 21:17 pairly 11 7:5 ?ar 11 11:5 Parris 11 1:17 Pashion 11 4:21 Peatures 21 7:19 13:l Pew 11 3:17 . 4

Figuring 11 26:22 Filed 31 3:21 9:17 16:22 Finally :I] 19:4 Pirst -61 4:lG 5:lO 15:9 18:19 20:lO 22:14 Five 191 4:24 5:3 9:13 9:22 17:15 17:22 18: 25-21:s 21:ll Floor [I] 6:13 Focused [I] 4: 13 Follow [I] 23 : 1 Follow-up 121 21:24 23:3

Forth [2] 17:12 17:15 Forward [4] 6:3 26:2 27:l 28:3 orw ward in^ [I] 7:21 Foundation [3] 8:23 9:3 10:5 Four [2] 9:18 23:14 Frazier [I] 1:15 Freedoms 111 9:8 Front [I] 10:17 Frustrated [4] 25% 25:l4 2G:ll 26:12 Full [I] 20: 1 Fully 1131 1:5 3:3 5:9 5:15 5:24 12:24 13:4 13:13 15:12 20:18 21:15 22:3 22:12 Futile [I] 23:12

Gain rll 8:5 GARY [l] 1:12 Gates [2] 11:12 27:12

Given [2] 17:25 26:24 Goodwin

Grant [3] 3:5 11:15 16:5 Granted [2] 5:20 13:G

Ial f 121 1G:l 18:18 Iandle '11 27:2

iear [2] 15:22 15:22 3eard [I] 11:19 Hearing [7] 5:12 9:18 23:25 26:21 27:5 27:14 28:13 Hearings [I] 23: 14 Held [l] 2: 13 Help [I] 9:20 HEREBY [I] 29:8 Hills [3] 3:24 12:5 17:lO Hills [l] G:23 Hold [I] 11:8 HlJGHE S [I] 29:3

ID 121 7:21 13:l Identification [l] 4: 14 Identified [4] 4:5 9:5 1O:ll 10:14 Important [3] 8:9 11:G 24:13 Inaudible [4] 9:23 12:25 13:18 15:20 Inclination [3] 24:24 24:25 25:4 Include [I] 15:12 Including [I] 12:25 Indeed 111 7:7 Inf orm [I] 23: 17 Information [4] 25:l 25:2 25:12 28:7 Initial [I] 7:12 In j ec ted [I] 14:13 Inordinate -L

PRECISION REPQRTIMG, LTD.

[l] 18:21 Inserted [I] 21: 10 Intended [I] 21:ll Interest

Interexchange [ll 8:2 interjected 111 22: 16

~ntervener s [I] 9:12 Interveners [3] 6:8 8:4 15:8 Investing [I] 9:9 Irrelevant 131 4:2 9:4 16:13 is sue 1151 4:15 12:14 12:15 13:2 15:8 17:9 i i i z 22:15 22:17 2 4 : ~ m i 9 25:7 25:8 25:25 27:21 Issues [q 4:17 8:17 12:9 17:13 20:3 22:21 25:18 Issuing 111 27: 13

Jacobson 111 1:17 john [3] 1:14 2:7 2:9 Join [2] 12:7 17:ll Joined [I] 21:13 Joke [I] 25:21 Juncture [I] 25:3 Jurisdictions [2] 13:21 1G:ll Justice [I] 26:23

Karen 121 1:14 27:7 Keep [I] 28:ll Keith [I] 1:16 Kelly [l] 1:15

Kind [2] 10:24 22: 15 Kinds [l] 15:19 Koenecke [5] 1:21 11:23 12:l 18:lO 18:ll Kyle 121 2:7 12:7

Language [4] 4:25 5:13 21:l 21:3 Large [I] 27:18 Largely [l] 9:G

Last [2] 8:17 18:18 Law [I] 14:ll Least [3] 4 1 18:3 25:9 Leave [I] 3:21 Legislature 151 17:21 17:23 21:121:1123:1 tetting [I] 23:7 Level [I] 7:12 Liabled [I] 18:18 Light [I] 20:15 Limit [I] 9:17 Limited 131 7:lO 9:14 17:15 Limiting [2] 19:l 19:17 Line [7] 8:G 10:15 10:15 1O:lG 10:18 10:18 17:2 Linn [I] 12:7 List 141 4:23 19:22 20:1421:2 Listed 151 4:21 5:3 5:5 ll:9 2l:7 is tening [l] 9:19 Lists [I] 4:19 Littered [I] 9:11 Local 151 1:5 3:3 7:24 12:18 13:3 ~ohnes [I] 2:6 Look [3] 9:13 26:2 27:3 Looked [I] 25:3 Looking [q G:3 17:24 19:19 20:25 22:7 Lose [I] 7:G Losing [l] 7:4 Lost [I] 15:23

Mail [2] 8:l 13:l Mandate [I] 14:lO Mandatory [4] 421 5:12 5:2121:3 Manner [3] 6:3 27:2 28:3 Market [3] 11:7 11:8 12:22 Markets [I] 22:2 Mary [I] 2:G Matt [2] 17:l 17:5 Matter [8] 1:4 2:13 3:2 8:18 14:14 16:24 24: 21 29:lO Matters [2] 23:17 23:20 Mat thew [I] 2:4

Factors to Matthew

Word Index

[q 2:4 17:l 17:4 17:5 17:8 18:23 McComsey 131 1:23 29:5 29:18 MCI [5] 3:25 8:3 10:21 11:25 17:lO Lean [4] 5:17 7:12 15:18 25:20 Meat [3] 25:7 25:8 25:25 Members [I] 17:17 Met [l] 15:lG Michele 111 1:17 Midcontinent [Z] 18:13 18:14 Might [Z] 15:4 24:G Mind [Z] 8:1428:11 Minute [l] 16:2 Miss [l] 20:8 Mistake [Z] 8:14 103 Modifications [Z] G:2 11:13 Modify [I] 5:13 Moment [Z] 8:21 17:G Money [Z] 7:4 7:G Monopoly [I] 13:23 Moreover

I [4] 5:G 7:21 16:9 20:25 Motion

Mot ions [Z] 266 26:8 Move [Z] 28:3 28:lO Moving [l] 26:3 Must [I] 5:22

Needs [Z] 9:22 2G:l Network [I] 7:15 Never [Z] 8:15 19:21 New [I] 22:14 Next [3] 23:14 26:7 27:14 Noise [l] 15:25 Noncompetitive [7] 13:14 20:17 20:22 20:24 21:12 22: 2 22:lO None

I [l] 21:G Nonrelevant [l] 22:8 Notary [Z] 29:G 29:18 Note

Ibject 21 8:21 8:22 lb jected 11 9:2 lb j ec t ion 21 23:G 23:lO 1% f ered l] 19:8 h c e '21 7: 15 7: 15 h e '181 5:17 8:3 8:G 10:G 14:l 17:3 17: i2 1 7 : ~ m i 4 20:10 22:15 23:3 24: L3 24: 13 24: 16 26:7 27:3 27:4 Ines '11 14:3

jpportuni ty [5] 7:25 8:5 12:8 24:18 25:ll 3pt ion [I] 5:4

%der [Z] 6:3 26:7 3rders [5] 5:14 5:23 G : l 11:13 2G:G Originating [I] 7: 18 Outside [I] 16:15

P.m. [I] 2:16 Page [3] 7:2 10:16 10:18 Pages [I] 10:15 Pam [l] 1:19 Paper [Z] 18:17 18:18 Part [5] 6:lG 8:13 11:9 18:5 25:15 Participate rll 24:19 Particular [l] 19:22 Particularly [I] 20:15 Parties

Parties [I] 23: 13 Parts [l] 22:13 People rll 18:19 People I s [l] 28: 1 Perhaps [4] 18:13 18:20 22: 17 26: 12 Permit [3] 5:G 5:25 22:19

etition 11 14:7 hrases 11 21:4 ick

11 15:25 ic ture

L] 7:7 lierre 31 2:15 11:24 29:13 llaced 11 5:7 6:12 llanned 11 12:l Ilatf o m 31 7:11 7:22 7:25 'lay 21 22:22 23:5 'M 11 28:13 'oint 51 12:14 17:2 17:17 24:20 2G:lO 'ointed 21 4:lO 17:14 'ortion 11 7:lO 'ortions 11 27:18 'osition 21 13:24 14:5 Jossible 11 28:ll lower 21 11:7 11:15 Jrairie 41 17:8 18:3 18:G 18:7 Jrecise 11 8:15 ?re judice 11 14:23 ?resent :I] 24: 17 'resented I] 11:18 ?retty :I] 22: 11

Principle [I] 4:8 Proceed 111 3:18 Proceeding [I] 5:20 Proceedings [ a 1:8 2:12 21:21 21:23 29:9 29:12 Products [Z] 7:9 7:13 Professional 121 29:G 29:19 Proper [I] 25:13 Properly [I] 22:6 Protection [I] 14:ll Protective [I] 2G:G Prove [l] 22: 1 Provide [I] 25: 12 Provided [I] 13:19 Provider [I] 8:5

7

I I I I I I

I

I I I I I I I I

- I

(

I

I

- -

I :

~;?flect [3] 24: 14 24:25 28:4 Reflection [I] 2G:4 Regardless [Z] 23:21 25:lO

?rovides :I] 7:22 ?revision I] 13:15 ?ublic 261 1:l 1:11 4:3 9:4 11:l 11:2 11:4 i4:ii i 4 : n 14:15 15:g 15:14 1 6 : ~ 16 3 16:14 16:19 18:l 1S:2 18:5 18:24 L9:18 19:18 19:19 19:24 29:G 29:18 PUC [Z] 25:lG 25:22 Purchase [I] G:22 Purchased [Z] 7:15 7:lG Put 111 2G:23

aues tions Q

[4] 20:9 24:5 24:8 24:9

R Raised [Z] 15:8 20:ll Rate [Z] 7:4 7:8 Rather [I] 4:9 Read rll 10:18 Reading [I] 19:2 Ready [I] 24:7 Really [6] 8:21 11:2 13:2 13:9 20:21 21:13 Reason [Z] 4:11 8:22 Reasons [I] 19:ll Rebuttal [I] 15:4 Received [Z] 3:23 9:l Reclassify [Z] 1:5 3:3 Recognition [I] 13:21 Recognize [I] 13:8 Recollection [I] 13:13 Recommendation [3] 14:17 14:19 14:20 Recommendations 121 11:12 14:22 Recommended [I] 6:G Record [I] 24: 18 Red [I] 25: 14 Referenced 111 9:25

PREClSlON REPORTING, LTD. From McCaulley to Regardless

legis tered 11 29:5 29: 19 :egulat ion 11 14:4 legulations 31 13: 17 15: 10 16: 13 legulatory 11 9:8 17:25 !elate Z] 10:2 10:4 !elated 11 26:19 !elation 31 4:17 9:22 13:7

Word Index

~elative 11 22:3 kelevance 21 4:18 G:5 Lelevancy 21 19:7 23:G Lelevant

Regards [2] 12:13 13:20

Lelying 11 13:12

I 1

Leported 11 1:23 Eeporter 31 29:G 29:9 29: 19 Eeques t 31 8:lG 14:G 2G:7

R [: R 1: R 1: R [: R 1: R

E I: E [ 1; [: I; [ F

1 F 1 I [ I

I [ I I I I I 1 I I f I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I

I

Zequests 21 8:20 9:2 tequire 31 13:lG 14:4 15:ll Zequired 11 15:17 tequirement :I] 15:15 tespec t :11 4: 1 iespond :4] 11:4 11:21 17:3 18:12 iesponded :2] 8:12 9:2 iesponding 21 9:lG 16:24 iesponse [5] 5:25 G:23 7:2 8:11 16:22 Responses [3] 3:23 3:25 4: 13 Restrictive [I] 19:l Result [l] 5:21 Retail [5] 6:25 7:4 7:8 7:lG 12: lc) Return 111 7:21 Aevenue [7] 6:lG G:21 7:7 7:17 8:G 8:8 8:25 Review [2] 3:22 24:18 Revisit [I] 21:18 Rewind [I] 1G:l Rislov [I] 1:15 ROBERT [I] 1:11 Rogers [5] 1:21 1G:23 18:lO 19:13 19:14 Rolayne [I] 1:13 Room [I] 2: 14 RPR [I] 1:23

tule 11 24:21 tules 21 5:13 11:13 tuns 11 18:17

Saville I] 2:2 icales ;1] 26:23 Schedules [I] 28:2 S c heme [2] 17:25 22:25 Second [5] 7:2 18:20 24:24 2G:G 2G:15 Section [l] 19:23 See [4] 17:12 18:19 22:8 23:7 Seek [2] 1O:ll 10:14 Seeks [I] 18:4 Seem [l] 5:25 self 111 21:8 sell [3] 7:19 7:23 7:25 Senger [I] 1:lG Sent [I] 8:15 Sentence 111 5:lO Separate [I] 21:22 Serve [l] 9:lO Service [A 5:2 5:9 5:15 5:lG 9:lO 20:lG 20:2? Services

Set [6] 5:21 7:3 10:13 17:ll 17:15 23:14 Sets [I] 21:23 Several i l l G:7

Shorthand [2] 29:9 29:9 Show [I] 22:9 Side [3] 7:8 8:11 8:25 Simmons [I] 2:G Simplify [I] 6:24 Simply [I] 12:15 Single [I] 7:8 Sitting [2] 22:23 22:24 Skipped [I] 1G:21

Smith 21 1:14 24:ll io-called 111 16:14

iolution [I] G:G Someone [2] 21:25 22:9 Somewhat [l] 22:22 Sought [2] 19:5 19:9 South [8] 1:2 2:13 2:15 13:23 19:20 29:l 29: 7 29:13 Specific 121 4: 10 9: 14

Specifics [I] 4:9 Speedy [I] 27:2 Spend [I] 9:18 Spent [5] 18:20 23:lG 23:21 23:25 24:l Squeeze [la 4:15 4:17 G:G 6:14 6:17 7:l 8:8 8 16 8:22 8:25 10:3 11:5 ll:G 12:14 12: 15 13:5 ss [I] 29:2 Stacey [3] G:7 G:13 27:12 Stack [I] 2G:lO Staff [5] 1:13 11:l 14:8 15:8 17:13 Standing [I] 21:8 State [8] 1:2 2:14 13:23 22:l 22:lO 27:11 29:l 29:7 Statement [I] 15:12 Statements [l] 11:4 Statute

Statutes [I] 22:18 Statutory [9] 4:G 4:12 162 10:4 15:lO 16:7 16: 15 16:17 19:23 Stipulations [I] 2G:8 Stricken [3] 14:18 19:G 19:lO Strike [5] 3:5 18:4 18:7 25:5 26:8 Struck [2] 18:lG 27:18 Submit [2] 11:19 17:9 Submitted [I] 6:15 Subsection [l] 17:lG Substantially [I] 19:8 Substantive 111 4:14 Suggest [I] 6:l Summary [2] 1O:ll 1G:17 Supply

[I] 7: 13 Support [I] 25:4 Supposed [Z] 1G:lG 1G:18 Susan [2] 2:2 10:23 Switching [I] 7:20

T Table [I] 21:15 Tape [I] 25:14

~ ~ 0 3 - 0 5 7 [2] 1:5 3:l Telecommunication [Z] 5:l 5:15 Telecommunications [I] 5:14 Telephone [2] 1:12 2:l Terminating 111 7:18 Terms 121 4:13 G:5 Testified [I] 6:9 Testifies [I] 6:7 Testify 111 14: 18

13:19 16:9 1G:ll 18:3 18:21 19:5 19 9 20:l 23:21 25:5 27:18 They 've [I] 4: 10 Third 111 10:13

Three 121 20:lG 22:7 Thrift [I] 13:5

Tim [l] 2:9 Tina [l] 1:18 Today [5] 3:4 10:24 12:8 12:24 28:7 Toll [3] 2:3 8:l 8:4 Tom [3] 2:3 2:G 10:24 Took [I] 29:9 TOP [I] 2G:ll Totally [2] 23:21 23:23 Towards [I] 9:21 Transcript [2] 1:8 2:12 Transcription 111 29: 12 Travel [2] 27: 11 28:2 Travis [4] 2:2 10:23 10:23 11:23 True [2] 6:18 29:ll

PRECISION REPORTING, LTD. From Regards to True

Word Index

urn ] 10:7 19:21

wo-part ] 14: 1 YPe (1 7:14 9:4

ltimately !1 23: 17 26: 1 nde f ined 11 11:2 'nder j] 18:4 20: 12 24:15 24:21 28:5 'ndue 11 26:21 m !I 7:9 7: 13 m - P L] 7:11 NE-Ps L] 6: 19 m s 11 6: 18 6: 19 lnf ortunately 11 13:lO hit 11 6:18

Talua t ing 11 9:16 Tersus 21 6:25 12:18 Tice 51 1:12 24:4 24:6 24:23 26:16 Jiewed 11 25:16

Waive 111 5:12 hastes [I] 23:12 Nave [4] 17:8 18:3 18:6 18:7 Week [I] 23:15 Week1 s [l] 18:18 Weight [5] 14:24 19:6 19:7 19:8 20:2 Weight s [I] 26:24 Welk [3] 2:3 3:7 3:8 Wendell

Vhat soever :I] 26:5

fiite ;4] 2:7 12:6 12:7 12:13

Nhite I s [I] 10:9

mole [Z] 7:7 17:25

Nholesale [4] 6:17 6:25 7:9 12:16

Wiest [I] 1:13

Wish [I] 25:2

Witness [Z] 3:19 14:19

Witnesses [3] 8:7 27:lO 27:16

Wittler [3] 1:23 29:5 29:18

Wondering [I] 27:23

Word [Z] 3:16 5:18

Wordings [I] 21:9

Words [I] 21:3

WorldCom [lo] 3:25 8:4 8:15 10:22 11:18 11:25 14: 15 17: 10 18: 13 27:9

WorldComls [Z] 5:25 8:11

[l] 2:5

PRECISION REPORTING, LTB. From Try to WorldComls

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION COMPETITIVE Transcript …

Documents

Transcript of IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION COMPETITIVE Transcript …