dickinson wright , m

2 1 5 S . W A S H I N G T O N S Q U A R E , S U I T E 2 0 0

L A N S I N G , M I C H I G A N 4 8 9 3 3 - 1 8 1 6

T E L E P H O N E : ( 5 1 7 ) 3 7 1 - 1 7 3 0

F A C S I M I L E : ( 5 1 7 ) 4 8 7 - 4 7 0 0

h t t p : / / w w w . d ic k in s o n - w r ig h t . c o m

W I L L I A M J . C H A M P I O N I I I

w c h a mp io n @ d ic k in s o n w r ig h t . c o m

October 3, 2008

C o u n s e l l o r s A t L a w

D E T R O I T B L O O M F I E L D H I L L S L A N S I N G G R A N D R A P I D S A N N A R B O R

W A S H I N G T O N , D . C .

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Via E-Docket

Mary Jo Kunkle

Executive Secretary

Michigan Public Service Commission

6545 Mercantile Way

Lansing, MI 48911

Re: In the matter of the formal complaint of Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a

AT&T Michigan, against ACD Telecom, Inc.

MPSC Case No. U-15682

Dear Ms. Kunkle:

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case is the Formal Complaint of AT&T

Michigan, Direct Testimony of David Piasecki on Behalf of AT&T Michigan, and Proof of

Service.

If you should have any questions, please contact me.

Very truly yours,

William J. Champion III

WJC:jkt

Enclosures

LANSING 34060-253 416706v1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In the matter of the formal complaint of ) Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a ) Case No. U-15682 AT&T Michigan, against ACD Telecom, Inc ) )

FORMAL COMPLAINT OF AT&T MICHIGAN

Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan (“AT&T Michigan”),

complains against ACD Telecom, Inc. (“ACD”) as follows:

1. AT&T Michigan is a Michigan corporation that provides regulated and unregulated

telecommunication services in the State of Michigan, including basic local exchange

service and toll service.

2. ACD is a provider of regulated and unregulated telecommunication services in the State

of Michigan, including basic local exchange service, toll service, and switched access

service.

3. ACD provides intraLATA and interLATA switched access services, including "Local

Access Switching" in the State of Michigan pursuant to its Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section

10.

4. Under ACD's Tariff No. MPSC 2, Section 10.1:

The same rates, terms and conditions for providing access services shall apply as set forth in the Company's tariff FCC No. 1, Access Service, D. Switched Access Service and H. Special Access Service and K. Rates and Charges, Section 1, Switched Access, and Section 6, special Access Service.

2

5. Under ACD's Tariff FCC No. 1, Access Service, K Rates and Charges, Original Page 71,

ACD's rates for both originating and terminating Local Switching are:

The same rate charged for similar services by the incumbent local exchange carrier that would provide interstate exchange access services to the end-user if the end-user were not served by ACD Telecom, Inc.

6. ACD's Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 12.1 provides that:

Except as provided elsewhere in this section, the rates and charges for access services and Network Interconnection Services shall be the same as the rates and charges set forth in the Company's Tariff, FCC No. 1, Access Service, K. Rates and Charges. The Rates for Local Access Switching are set forth in Section 12.4.

7. Contrary to the representation in ACD’s Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 12.1, Section 12.4

of ACD's Tariff MPSC No. 2 does not set forth the rates for Local Access Switching.

The rates for Local Access Switching are set forth in Section 12.3 of that tariff.

8. Effective December 21, 2007, ACD quadrupled the rates for both originating and

terminating Local Access Switching, set forth in its Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 12.3, 1st

Revised Sheet No. 3, from $.025 per access minute to $.10 per access minute.

9. In connection with its provision of intrastate toll services in the State of Michigan, AT&T

Michigan is required to purchase terminating Local Access Switching from ACD in order

to terminate toll calls from its customers to the local exchange service customers of ACD.

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF MCL 484.2311 AND 484.2362

10. AT&T Michigan realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 9.

11. ACD is a telecommunication provider of both basic local exchange service and toll

service.

3

12. Section 311(1) of the Michigan Telecommunications Act ("MTA"), MCL 484.2311,

provides that:

A telecommunication provider of both basic local exchange service and toll service shall impute as provided under section 362 to itself its prices of special toll access service and switched access service for the use of essential facilities it uses in the provision of toll, WATS or other service for which toll access service is a component.

13. Section 362(2) requires that:

The rate of a telecommunication service shall exceed the sum of both of the following:

(a) The tariffed rates, including access, carrier common line, residual interconnection, and similar charges, for the noncompetitive service or its functional equivalent that is actually used by the provider of local exchange service, as those rates would be charged a customer for the use of that service.

(b) The total service long run incremental costs of all other components of the provider of local exchange service.

14. Under Section 311(1) of the MTA, ACD's rates for intrastate toll service must exceed the

price it charges its competitors, such as AT&T Michigan, for originating and terminating

access service, plus its incremental costs for other components of its toll service, such as

billing and collection and interoffice transport.

15. Under ACD's Tariff MPSC No. 1, Section 4.l.1, ACD offers calling plans under which

intrastate toll calls are priced at $.05 per minute or less – less than one half of ACD's

rates for originating and terminating access, let alone other costs incurred by ACD in

providing toll service.

16. Under ACD's $24.95 "Digital Value” package, toll calls are rated at $.05 per minute.

17. Under ACD's $29.95 "Digital Value Plus" package, for an additional $5.00 over the rate

of its Digital Value package, customers receive 120 minutes of free toll calls, equivalent

to a rate of $.0417 per minute, with calls over the allotment billed at $.05 per minute.

4

18. Under ACD's $34.95 "Digital Value Plus 250" package, for an additional $10 over the

rate of its Digital Value package, customers receive 250 minutes of free toll calls,

equivalent to a rate of $.04 per minute, with calls over the allotment billed at $.05 per

minute.

19. ACD has violated the MTA by failing to impute its prices of switched access service to

itself in its prices for intrastate toll services.

20. AT&T Michigan has been harmed by ACD's illegal and anticompetitive behavior as set

forth herein.

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF MCL 484.2502(1)(A), (H)

21. AT&T Michigan realleges and incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 20.

22. Under Section 502(1)(a) of the MTA, a provider of telecommunication services shall not:

Make a statement or representation, including the omission of material information, regarding the rates, terms or conditions of providing telecommunication service that is false, misleading, or deceptive.

23. Under Section 502(1)(h) of the MTA, a provider of telecommunication services shall not:

Cause a probability of confusion or a misunderstanding as to the legal rights, obligations, or remedies of a party to a transaction by making a false, deceptive, or misleading statement or by failing to inform the customer of a material fact, the omission of which is deceptive or misleading.

24. ACD's intrastate tariff contain statements that are false, misleading, or deceptive and

likely to cause a probability of confusion or a misunderstanding of the parties' rights and

obligations in violation of MTA Section 501(1)(a) and (h). Specifically:

a. Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 10.1, states that the rates for switched access service

are the same as those in its Tariff FCC No. 1, when that is not true.

5

b. Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 12.l, states that the rates for local switching are set

forth in section 12.4 of Tariff 2, when that is not true.

COUNT III: VIOLATION OF MCL 484.2305(N)

25. AT&T Michigan realleges and incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1

through 24.

26. MCL 484.2305(n) provides that a provider of basic local exchange service shall not

“[p]erform any act that has been prohibited by this act or an order of the commission.”

27. ACD has violated Sections 311, 362, and 502 as set forth in Counts I and II.

WHEREFORE, AT&T Michigan requests that the Commission:

1. Order ACD Telecom, Inc., to cease and desist violating the MTA.

2. Require ACD Telecom, Inc., to file a cost study demonstrating its compliance

with the MTA.

3. Order remedies and penalties against ACD Telecom, Inc., under Section 601 of

the MTA to make AT&T Michigan and other toll providers whole, including

ordering ACD Telecom, Inc., to refund excessive access charges to AT&T

Michigan and other affected providers.

4. Fine ACD Telecom, Inc., in an appropriate amount for each day its revised

intrastate switched access charges have been in effect.

5. Order such other and additional relief as may be appropriate.

6

Respectfully submitted,

Craig A. Anderson (P28968) AT&T Michigan 444 Michigan Avenue, Room 1750 Detroit, Michigan 48236 (313) 223-8033 and DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC John M. Dempsey (P30987) William J. Champion III (P31934) 301 E. Liberty, Suite 500 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone: (734) 623-1660 Fax: (734) 623-1625 [email protected] Dated: October 3, 2008

LANSING 34060-253 407155v3

STATE OF MICHIGAN


In the matter of the formal complaint of ) Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a ) Case No. U-15682 AT&T Michigan against ACD Telecom, Inc ) )

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

DAVID PIASECKI ON BEHALF OF

AT&T MICHIGAN

October 3, 2008

Direct Testimony of David Piasecki On Behalf of AT&T Michigan

Case No. U-15682 October 3, 2008

Page 1 of 12

Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. 1

A. My name is David Piasecki. My business address is 444 Michigan Avenue, Room 1670, 2

Detroit Michigan 48226. 3

Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY? 4

A. I am employed by Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan, as 5

Director of Regulatory Finance in AT&T Michigan's Regulatory Policy Organization. 6

Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR CURRENT JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. 7

A. As the Director of Regulatory Finance in the Michigan state regulatory organization, my 8

primary job responsibilities are in the areas of: financial analysis, cost dockets, inter-9

carrier compensation issues, N11 services, and various compliance reporting 10

requirements, including data reporting for the Commission’s annual report on local 11

competition. 12

Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY. 13

A. I graduated from the University of Detroit in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in 14

management science. In 1979, I received a Master’s degree in business administration 15

from the same institution. I have 26 years of experience with AT&T Michigan, working 16

in various areas of regulatory, financial analysis, and financial reporting. I began my 17

career with Michigan Bell in 1979 as a Financial Analyst - corporate budgets in the 18

corporate accounting department. In 1983, I was promoted to Assistant Manager of new 19

product profitability analysis in the corporate finance group. In 1985, I was promoted to 20

Manager in the corporate strategic planning group. In 1989, I transferred to the federal 21

regulatory department as Manager of interstate separations and financial reporting. In 22



Page 2 of 12

1992, I transferred to the Michigan state regulatory department and assumed 1

responsibility for the Michigan state cost model. In 1993, I assumed responsibilities as 2

Manager, corporate strategies, in the Michigan state organization. In 1998, I was 3

promoted to Director – Financial Cost Models in the Regulatory Policy Organization. In 4

2000, I transferred to the Michigan state regulatory organization and was primarily 5

responsible for state regulatory support of retail filings. In 2003, I was appointed 6

Director – Regulatory Finance. I was responsible for various financial analysis and 7

compliance reporting requirements, including those related to relay service, public utility 8

assessment, and 911. I also became responsible for management of cost dockets and 9

service quality rulemaking proceedings. In 2007, I assumed my current responsibilities. 10

Q. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMISSION? 11

A. Yes. I have either submitted prefiled testimony or testified as an expert witness in the 12

following proceedings before the Commission: Case No. U-10085 subscriber 13

connections; Case No. U-10715 Consumer Price Index-1% (“CPI-1%”); Case No. 14

U-11556 CPI-1%; Case No. U-10851 AT&T Michigan access complaint; Case No. 15

U-11831 Biennial Cost Docket (shared and common costs); Case No. U-14731 CP100 16

initial rates; and Case No. U-15036 CP100 rate increase. 17

Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? 18

A. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the intrastate switched access charges 19

imposed by ACD Telecom, Inc. (“ACD”) as set forth in its intrastate access tariff, as well 20

as its intrastate toll rates as set forth in its retail tariff. I will demonstrate that ACD’s 21



Page 3 of 12

intrastate toll rates are inconsistent with its obligations under the Michigan 1

Telecommunications Act. 2

Q. ARE YOU SPONSORING ANY EXHIBITS? 3

A. Yes, I am submitting herewith the following exhibits: 4

• Exhibit C-1 (DP-1): ACD Telecom Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 2, Original Sheet 5

No. 39; 6

• Exhibit C-2 (DP-2): ACD Telecom Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 10, Original 7

Sheet No. 1; 8


Sheet No. 1; 10


Sheet 3; 12

• Exhibit C-5 (DP-5): ACD Telecom Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 12, 1st Rev. 13

Sheet 3; 14

• Exhibit C-6(DP-6): ACD Telecom Tariff FCC No. 1, Original Page 71; 15

• Exhibit C-7 (DP-7): ACD Telecom Tariff MPSC No. 1, Section 4, Original Sheet 16

1 and Original Sheet 2. 17

Q. WHAT IS ACCESS SERVICE? 18

A. Access service is defined in Section 102(a) of the Michigan Telecommunications Act 19

(“MTA”) to mean “access to a local exchange network for the purpose of enabling a 20

provider to originate or terminate telecommunication services within the local exchange. 21

Except for end-user common line services, access service does not include access service 22



Page 4 of 12

to a person who is not a provider.” The MTA definition is consistent with the definition 1

in ACD’s Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 2, Original Sheet No. 39 (Exhibit DP-1). 2

Q. DOES AT&T MICHIGAN PURCHASE ACCESS SERVICES FROM ACD? 3

A. Yes. AT&T Michigan is required to purchase switched access from ACD in order to 4

terminate toll calls from its toll service customers to ACD’s local exchange customers. 5

Q. ARE ACD’S RATES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS FOR ACCESS SERVICE SET 6

FORTH IN ACD’S TARIFFS? 7

A. Yes; however, I believe the tariffs are confusing and misleading. 8

Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN. 9

A. ACD’s Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 10.1, Original Sheet No. 1, Exhibit DP-2, provides: 10

The same rates, terms and conditions for providing access services shall apply as 11 set forth in the Company’s Tariff FCC No. 1, Access Service, D. Switched Access 12 Services and H. Special Access Service and K. Rates and Charges, Section 1, 13 Switched Access, and Section 6, special Access Service. 14 15 In essence, this tariff provision provides that ACD’s intrastate access charges mirror its 16

interstate access charges. 17

Q. WHY DO YOU SAY THAT IS CONFUSING? 18

A. Contrary to Section 10.1’s unequivocal statement that ACD’s interstate rates, terms, and 19

conditions apply to intrastate access services, ACD’s Tariff MPSC No. 2, Section 12.1, 20

Original Sheet No. 1, Exhibit DP-3, carves out an exception for the “Local Access 21

Switching” access service. That tariff section provides: 22

Except as provided elsewhere in this section, the rates and charges for access 23 services and Network Interconnection Services shall be the same a s the rates and 24 charges set forth in the Company’s Tariff, FCC No. 1, Access Service, K. Rates 25 and Charges. 26

27



Page 5 of 12

The Rates for Local Access Switching are set forth in Section 12.4. (Emphasis 1 added 2

3 Q. SO WHICH TARIFF PROVISION APPLIES – SECTION 10.1 OR SECTION 4

12.1? 5

A. That is a source of confusion. ACD apparently believes that Section 12.l, rather than 6

Section 10.1, applies. 7

Q. WHAT ARE THE RATES FOR LOCAL ACCESS SERVICE SET FORTH IN 8

SECTION 12.4? 9

A. That is another source of confusion. There are no rates for local access service set forth 10

in Section 12.4. Section 12.4 sets forth the rates for Local Call Termination Service. The 11

rates for Local Access Switching are actually set forth in ACD’s Tariff MPSC No. 2, 12

Section 12.3. It is these rates that ACD is imposing on toll providers like AT&T 13

Michigan. 14

Q. WHAT ARE ACD’S RATES FOR INTRASTATE LOCAL ACCESS 15

SWITCHING? 16

A. Effective October 27, 2007, ACD’s rates were $0.025 per minute for both Originating 17

and Terminating Local Access Switching, as shown on Exhibit DP-4. Less than two 18

months later, effective December 21, 2007, ACD quadrupled the rates to $0.10 per 19

minute for both Originating and Terminating Local Access Switching, as shown on 20

Exhibit DP-5. 21



Page 6 of 12

Q. DOES THE MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT ADDRESS ACCESS 1

CHARGES? 2

A. Yes. There are a number of provisions of the MTA that address intrastate access charges. 3

Section 310(2), for example, provides that access service rates that do not exceed the 4

rates allowed for the same interstate services by the federal government are just and 5

reasonable. 6

Q. DO ACD’S INTRASTATE ACCESS CHARGES EXCEED THOSE ALLOWED 7

FOR THE SAME INTERSTATE SERVICES? 8

A. Yes, at least where ACD provides switched access services in AT&T Michigan’s 9

exchanges. ACD’s interstate local switching rates are found in its Tariff FCC No. 1, 10

Original Page 71, Section K, 1.2 (Exhibit DP-6). Under its interstate access tariff, ACD 11

charges the same rates for both originating and terminating local switching as “charged 12

for similar services by the incumbent local exchange carrier that would provide interstate 13

access services to the end-user if that end-user were not serviced by ACD Telecom, Inc.”1 14

So in AT&T Michigan exchanges, ACD mirrors AT&T Michigan’s interstate terminating 15

switching access rates for interstate toll calls. Its terminating rate would be 16

approximately $.003153 per minute. Its intrastate terminating switched access rates in 17

the same exchanges are more than thirty times higher. 18

1 47 CFR § 61.26 prohibits CLECs from charging interstate access charges that exceed the

rates of the competing ILEC.



Page 7 of 12

Q. DOES SECTION 310(2) APPLY TO ACD? 1

A. It is my understanding that this section does not apply to basic local providers that have 2

250,000 or fewer customers in the state. If ACD has fewer than 250,000 customers, then 3

the section would apparently not apply to it. 4

Q. ARE THERE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE MTA THAT ADDRESS ACCESS 5

SERVICES? 6

A. Yes. Section 311(1) provides that: 7

A provider of both basic local exchange service and toll service shall impute as 8 provided in section 362 to itself its prices of special toll access service and 9 switched access for the use of essential facilities it uses in the provision of toll, 10 WATS, or other service for which toll access service is a component. 11

12 Q. DOES ACD PROVIDE BOTH BASIC LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE AND 13

TOLL SERVICE? 14

A. Yes. 15

Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE IMPUTATION REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN 16

SECTION 362. 17

A. Section 362(2) imposes a specific imputation test that is referenced in Section 311. 18

Under Section 362(2), the price of a telecommunication services must exceed the sum of 19

the following: 20

(a) The tariffed rates, including access, carrier common line, residual 21 interconnection, and similar charges for the noncompetitive service or its 22 functional equivalent that is actually used by the provider of local exchange 23 service, as those rates would be charged a customer for the use of that service. 24

25 (b) The total service long run incremental costs of other components of the 26 provider of local exchange service. 27

28



Page 8 of 12

Q. DOES SECTION 362 APPLY TO ACD? 1

A. Yes. Section 311 makes 362’s imputation test applicable to ACD, since ACD provides 2

both basic local exchange service and toll service. In addition, Section 362, by its own 3

terms, applies because ACD is a provider of basic local exchange service and it: 4

• has a service that competes with the service of another provider (i.e., toll service); 5

• the competing provider utilizes a service from ACD, such as terminating switched 6

access, that is not available from any other provider of local exchange service in 7

the marketplace; and 8

• the provider uses that same noncompetitive service or its functional equivalent to 9

provide service to its customers, which ACD does by providing toll service to its 10

local exchange customers. 11

The statutory requirements for applying the imputation requirements of Section 362 are 12

all met. AT&T Michigan (and other providers) compete with ACD in the provision of 13

intrastate toll service. The competing providers must use ACD’s switched access 14

services to provide toll service to ACD’s local exchange customers and/or to terminate 15

toll calls to those customers. ACD uses the same or functionally equivalent access 16

services to provide its own competitive toll service. 17

Q. DO SECTIONS 311 AND 362 ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE 18

ACD’S ACCESS SERVICE PRICES? 19

A. AT&T Michigan does not take a position on whether Sections 311 and 362 allow the 20

Commission to directly regulate ACD’s clearly excessive intrastate switched access rates. 21



Page 9 of 12

I believe that the Commission does, however, have the authority to prohibit ACD from 1

violating the imputation requirements imposed on it by Sections 311 and 362. 2

Q. DOES AT&T MICHIGAN CONTEND THAT ACD IS VIOLATING THE 3

IMPUTATION PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 311 AND 362? 4

A. Yes. 5

Q. WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR CONTENTION? 6

A. ACD is required to impute into its prices of toll service its prices for switched access 7

services that it charges competing carriers such as AT&T Michigan (as well as the total 8

service long run incremental costs (“TSLRIC”) of all other components of toll service). 9

As I testified earlier, ACD’s prices for both originating and terminating switched access 10

services are $0.10 per minute. In order to meet its imputation obligations under Sections 11

311 and 362, ACD’s toll prices must, at a minimum, exceed its prices for originating and 12

terminating switched access services – essential services which all of ACD’s competitors 13

must use. Of course, ACD also incurs other costs of providing toll service to its 14

customers, such as billing and collection and transporting calls between exchanges. 15

AT&T Michigan does not, at this time, have access to ACD’s TSLRIC for these 16

components of its toll service. Even without including ACD’s cost of transport, billing 17

and collection, and other components of its toll service, ACD’s toll prices do not come 18

close to meeting the statutory imputation test. 19

Q. WHAT ARE ACD’S TOLL PRICES? 20

A. ACD has four calling plans that include residential Basic Local Exchange Service, 21

unregulated features, and toll service. These are described in its Tariff MPSC No. 1, 22



Page 10 of 12

Section 4, Original Sheets 1 and 2 (Exhibit DP-7). Under its $24.95 “Digital Value 1

Package,” ACD charges $0.05 per minute for toll service. ACD’s $29.95 “Digital Value 2

Plus Package” is identical to its Digital Value Package, but includes 120 minutes of toll 3

service for the additional $5.00 per month charge – an effective rate of just $.042 per 4

minute for toll service – with additional minutes charged at $0.05. ACD’s $34.95 5

“Digital Value Plus 250 Package” is identical to the Digital Value Package, but includes 6

250 minutes of toll service for the additional $10.00 per month charge – an effective rate 7

of just $0.04 per minute – with additional minutes charged at $0.05. In all cases, ACD’s 8

rates for toll service are at least fifty percent lower than either its originating or 9

terminating switched access rates, let alone its overall cost of providing toll service, 10

including interoffice transport and billing and collection.2 11

Q. HOW DOES ACD’S TOLL PRICING HARM COMPETITION? 12

A. ACD is extracting intrastate access charges that far exceed its interstate access charges 13

from competitive toll carriers, such as AT&T Michigan, that have no choice but to pay 14

the charges in order to originate toll calls from and/or terminate toll calls to ACD’s local 15

exchange customers. ACD is then able to use the excessive revenues extracted from 16

these competing toll carriers to undercut its competitors’ toll pricing. Apart from this 17

unfair competitive advantage, ACD’s pricing clearly discourages intrastate toll 18

competition for ACD’s local exchange customers by making it unprofitable for toll 19

providers to serve those customers. While toll providers may have little choice with 20

respect to paying ACD’s excessive terminating access charges, a toll provider has little 21

2 ACD also offers a $49.94 “Digital Unlimited Plan” that includes unlimited toll calling.



Page 11 of 12

financial incentive to compete for the intrastate toll business of ACD’s local exchange 1

customers when ACD’s originating switched access charges exceed ACD’s toll rates. 2

This is exactly the type of behavior I believe the Legislature intended to bar by requiring 3

local exchange carriers, like ACD, to impute their access charges into their toll rates. 4

Q. WHAT SHOULD THE COMMISSION TO DO TO PREVENT THIS 5

ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT? 6

A. First, and most importantly, the Commission should order ACD to comply with the 7

imputation requirements of the law. ACD could do this by either lowering its intrastate 8

access rates, raising its toll calling plan rates, or some combination of the two. To ensure 9

compliance, the Commission should require ACD to submit a cost study demonstrating 10

that its revised rates are in compliance with the law; that is, that ACD’s toll rates exceed 11

its tariffed rates for access services required by its toll competitors, together with the 12

TSLRIC of all other components of ACD’s toll service. Second, the Commission should 13

require ACD to clearly set forth its revised rates in its tariffs and eliminate all misleading 14

cross-references. Third, the Commission should fine ACD an appropriate amount under 15

the provisions of the MTA for each day its revised intrastate access tariff has been in 16

effect. Finally, since it clearly would not be appropriate to retroactively increase the rates 17

ACD charges its customers for toll service, the Commission should require ACD to 18

provide an accounting to AT&T Michigan and other toll providers and to award damages 19

to AT&T Michigan in the amount of the access charges paid by AT&T Michigan to ACD 20

since ACD’s revised access tariff rates went into effect on December 27, 2007. 21



Page 12 of 12

Q. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? 1

A. Yes. 2

LANSING 34060-253 415642v3 3


DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

DAVID PIASECKI

MPSC CASE NO. U-15682

OCTOBER 3, 2008

EXHIBIT C-1


DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

DAVID PIASECKI


OCTOBER 3, 2008

EXHIBIT C-2


DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

DAVID PIASECKI


OCTOBER 3, 2008

EXHIBIT C-3


DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

DAVID PIASECKI


OCTOBER 3, 2008

EXHIBIT C-4


DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

DAVID PIASECKI


OCTOBER 3, 2008

EXHIBIT C-5


DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

DAVID PIASECKI


OCTOBER 3, 2008

EXHIBIT C-6


DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

DAVID PIASECKI


OCTOBER 3, 2008

EXHIBIT C-7

STATE OF MICHIGAN


In the matter of the formal complaint of )

Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a ) Case No. U-15682

AT&T Michigan against ACD Telecom, Inc )

)

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF MICHIGAN )

) ss

COUNTY OF WASHTENAW )

Jacqueline K. Tinney, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is employed at

Dickinson Wright PLLC, and that on October 3, 2008, she caused a copy of the Formal

Complaint of AT&T Michigan and Direct Testimony of David Piasecki on Behalf of AT&T

Michigan to be served upon the following parties via email:

ACD Telecom Kevin Shoen

[email protected]

Jacqueline K. Tinney

Subscribed and sworn to before me,

a Notary Public in and for said County,

this 3rd

day of October, 2008.

Elaine M. Masters, Notary Public

Washtenaw County, Michigan

Acting in Washtenaw County, Michigan

My Commission Expires: 9/23/13

LANSING 34060-253 416704v1

dickinson wright , m

Documents