Docstoc

0031

Document Sample
0031 Powered By Docstoc
					Gary L. Field                                                                    3493 Woods Edge Drive, Suite 100
Gary A. Gensch *                                                                    Okemos, Michigan 48864-5985
Hai Jiang                                                                               Telephone (517) 913-5100
                                                                                          Facsimile (517) 913-3471
Of Counsel :
Norman C. Witte                                                                        Writer’s contact information:
John R. Liskey                                                                            glfield@fieldlawgroup.com
Joy L. Witte                                                                                          (517) 913-5102
Kimberly L. Savage
Matthew J. Stephens                                                                          www.fieldlawgroup.com
   * Also Licensed in Indiana



                                                                         April 4, 2012


Mary Jo Kunkle, Executive Secretary
Michigan Public Service Commission
4300 W. Saginaw
Lansing, MI

        Re:       In the matter of the petition of ACD Telecom, Inc. et al. for Arbitration of Interconnection rates,
                  terms, conditions, and related arrangements with Michigan Bell Telephone Company d/b/a
                  AT&T Michigan. Case No. U-16906

Dear Ms. Kunkle:

     Enclosed for filing is CLECs’ Response to AT&T’s Motion to Strike CLEC
Documents or, in the Alternative, to Abate Proceeding; and Proof of Service.

        Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or concerns.

                                                                         Very truly tours,

                                                                         FIELD LAW GROUP, PLLC
                                                                                                     Digitally signed by Gary L. Field


                                                                          Gary L. Field
                                                                                                     DN: cn=Gary L. Field, o=Field Law Group,
                                                                                                     PLLC, ou,
                                                                                                     email=glfield@fieldlawgroup.com, c=US
                                                                                                     Date: 2012.04.04 11:02:18 -04'00'

                                                                         Gary L. Field

GLF/cm
Enclosures

cc w/enc: Parties of Record
                                 STATE OF MICHIGAN

                 IN THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In the matter of the petition of ACD Telecom, Inc.,     )
Arialink Telecom, LLC, CynergyComm.Net, Inc.,           )
DayStarr LLC, Lucre, Inc., Michigan Access, Inc.,       )            Case No. U-16906
Osirus Communications, Inc., Superior Spectrum          )
Telephone and Data, LLC, TC3 Telecom, Inc., and         )
TelNet Worldwide, Inc. for Arbitration of               )
Interconnection rates, terms, conditions, and related   )
arrangements with Michigan Bell Telephone               )
Company d/b/a AT&T Michigan.                            )


           CLECs’ Response to AT&T’s Motion to Strike CLEC Documents
                    or, in the Alternative, to Abate Proceeding


      On March 28, 2012, AT&T Michigan filed a Motion to Strike CLEC Documents or,

in the Alternative, to Abate Proceeding (“Motion to Strike”). For the reasons

enumerated below, AT&T’s Motion to Strike is without merit:

      1)      There is nothing on the record to strike because the CLEC Documents

were filed under seal.

      2)      Because the CLEC Documents were filed under seal, they are viewable

only by the Commission and its Staff. AT&T represented in its Brief filed in this matter

on March 16, 2012, that it has “no objection” to sharing the ICBs – presumably in their

entirety – with the Commission and its Staff. See AT&T Brief, p 23. If AT&T has no

objection to the Commission and its Staff seeing the ICBs themselves, it is strange that

AT&T objects to the Commission and its Staff seeing a very general description of the

nature of the ICBs, which was filed under seal.

      3)      If AT&T is fearful that Mr. Champagne may not have accurately described

the ICB contracts and would rather the Commission and its Staff see the ICBs
themselves, so that the Commission and its Staff can draw their own independent

conclusions as to their nature, the CLECs support providing the ICBs themselves to the

Commission and its Staff.

       4)     The CLEC Documents contain no confidential information. The CLEC

Documents contained no specifics, just a general description of the nature of AT&T’s

ICB.

       5)     AT&T offers no explanation why the general information contained in the

CLEC Documents is confidential information.

       6)     In its March 16, 2012 filing in this matter, AT&T offered its own general

description of the nature of the ICB contracts. On page 7 of her affidavit, Patricia H.

Pellerin creates an overall impression that the ICB contracts are of “unavoidable

complexity.” She averred:

              “Conclusion. While CLECs would like the entire ICB contract resale
              process to be as simple as using a cookie cutter, where every cookie
              looks the same, the disclosure and resale of ICB contracts is not that
              straightforward. ICB contracts are, by their very nature, variable, and the
              process must reflect that variability. AT&T Michigan’s proposed language
              strikes a reasonable balance between the CLECs’ desire for “one size fits
              all” and the unavoidable complexity that is inherent in ICB contracts.”

       7)     AT&T’s own general description of the ICB contracts is no more

confidential than CMC’s general description of the nature of the ICB contracts.

       8)     As the CLEC Documents show, AT&T’s general description of the overall

nature of the ICB contracts is false.

       9)     The CLECs are entitled to proffer evidence to refute such false

statements.




                                             2
       10)    The misimpression of the nature of ICB contracts that AT&T has been

creating since at least 2006 in MPSC Case No. U-14975 regarding AT&T’s duty to resell

telecommunications services in ICB contracts is a significant reason why litigation has

been protracted. AT&T continued such false descriptions of complexity before the Sixth

Circuit. See footnote 1 in the Sixth Circuit’s opinion at CMC Telecom v Michigan Bell,

637 F3d 626, 630 (6th Cir 2011).

       11)    The boilerplate, check-the-box nature of AT&T’s ICB contracts permits an

automated, simplified offering process. Thus the CLEC Documents are highly relevant

and essential to the procedural issues before the Commission and should not be

disregarded, as AT&T requests.

       12)    Contrary to the premise of its Motion to Strike, AT&T has previously

represented to CLECs in writing that its interest in confidentiality relates to protecting

such information from being disclosed to the public. See Exhibit A. The general

information in the CLEC documents was provided in this docket in a manner that

protected AT&T’s basic interest in confidentiality.

       13)    Paragraph 9 of the Protective Order provides a procedure seeking the

Disclosure of information on the Public Record. The CLECs followed the procedures

specified in paragraph 9 of the Protective Order.

       14)    Paragraph 10(f) of the Protective Order specifically states that, even if

information is in fact Confidential Information, the obligations of the Protective Order do

not apply if the information “is submitted to a regulatory commission, agency or court of

competent jurisdiction under a protective agreement or order.”      The CLECs submitted

the information to the MPSC under seal and subject to statutory protections.



                                              3
       15)    Paragraph 10(f) of the Protective Order also specifically states that, even if

information is in fact Confidential Information, the obligations of the Protective Order do

not apply if the information “is required by law or regulation to be disclosed, but only to

the extent and for the purposes of such required disclosure.” In its October 4, 2011

Order in Case No. U-14975, the Commission ruled that AT&T is required to provide

sufficient details regarding its ICBs offerings to CLEC.

       16)    The Federal District Court must defer to the Commission’s jurisdiction, not

vice versa. The Sixth Circuit specifically found that the procedure for AT&T’s offering of

services in ICB contracts was a matter for the Commission and that the details of such

procedure were not within the scope of the District Court’s jurisdiction. See CMC

Telecom v Michigan Bell, 637 F3d 626, 632-633 (6th Cir 2011).



   WHEREFORE, the CLECs request that the Commission deny AT&T’s Motion.

                                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                                  ACD Telecom, Inc., Arialink Telecom, LLC,
                                                  CynergyComm.net, Inc., DayStarr LLC,
                                                  Lucre, Inc., Michigan Access, Inc., Osirus
                                                  Communications, Inc., Superior Spectrum
                                                  Telephone and Data, Inc., TC3 Telecom,
                                                  Inc., and TelNet Worldwide, Inc.
                                                                          Digitally signed by Gary L. Field


                                                  Gary L. Field
                                                                          DN: cn=Gary L. Field, o=Field Law Group,
                                                                          PLLC, ou,
                                                                          email=glfield@fieldlawgroup.com, c=US
Dated: April 4, 2012                                                      Date: 2012.04.04 11:02:41 -04'00'

                                                  Gary L. Field (P37270)
                                                  Gary A. Gensch, Jr. (P66912)
                                                  FIELD LAW GROUP, PLLC
                                                  3493 Woods Edge Drive, Suite 100
                                                  Okemos, Michigan 48864
                                                  (517) 913-5100
                                                  glfield@fieldlawgroup.com
                                                  Attorneys for CLECs


                                             4
Exhibit A
Gary L. Field
                Digitally signed by Gary L. Field
                DN: cn=Gary L. Field, o=Field Law Group, PLLC,
                ou, email=glfield@fieldlawgroup.com, c=US
                Date: 2012.04.04 11:03:10 -04'00'

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:5/25/2013
language:Unknown
pages:10
langkunxg langkunxg http://
About