*Pages 1--454 from Microsoft Word - final 9-18-02.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Joint Application by BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., And BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. for Provision of In- Region, InterLATA Services in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 02 - 150 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 18, 2002 Released: September 18, 2002 By the Commission: Commissioner Copps issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 4 III. EVIDENTIARY CASE .................................................................................................. 12 IV. PRIMARY ISSUES IN DISPUTE................................................................................. 20 A. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 271( C)( 1)( A)........................................................................ 22 B. CHECKLIST ITEM 2 – UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS.................................................. 28 1. Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements ..................................................................... 29 2. Access to Operations Support Systems ...................................................................... 128 3. UNE Combinations (UNE- P and EELs)..................................................................... 209 V. OTHER CHECKLIST ITEMS ....................................................................................... 213 A. CHECKLIST ITEM 1 – INTERCONNECTION ......................................................................... 213 B. CHECKLIST ITEM 4 - UNBUNDLED LOCAL LOOPS............................................................ 232 C. CHECKLIST ITEM 5 – UNBUNDLED TRANSPORT ............................................................... 252 D. CHECKLIST ITEM 8 – WHITE PAGES DIRECTORY LISTINGS .............................................. 255 E. CHECKLIST ITEM 10 – DATABASES AND ASSOCIATED SIGNALING................................... 257 F. CHECKLIST ITEM 11 – NUMBER PORTABILITY ................................................................. 261 G. CHECKLIST ITEM 12 – LOCAL DIALING PARITY ............................................................... 267 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 2 H. REMAINING CHECKLIST ITEMS (3, 6, 7, 9, 13, AND 14) .................................................... 270 VI. SECTION 272 COMPLIANCE................................................................................... 271 VII. PUBLIC INTEREST .................................................................................................... 275 A. DANGERS OF PREMATURE ENTRY.................................................................................... 278 B. PRICE SQUEEZE ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 279 C. ASSURANCE OF FUTURE COMPLIANCE............................................................................. 293 D. MARKETING TACTICS ...................................................................................................... 296 E. OTHER ISSUES.................................................................................................................. 297 VIII. SECTION 271( d)( 6) ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY............................................ 302 IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 305 X. ORDERING CLAUSES................................................................................................... 306 APPENDIX A – LIST OF COMMENTERS APPENDIX B – ALABAMA PERFORMANCE METRICS APPENDIX C – KENTUCKY PERFORMANCE METRICS APPENDIX D – MISSISSIPPI PERFORMANCE METRICS APPENDIX E – NORTH CAROLINA PERFORMANCE METRICS APPENDIX F – SOUTH CAROLINA PERFORMANCE METRICS APPENDIX G – GEORGIA PERFORMANCE METRICS APPENDIX H – STATUTORY APPENDIX I. INTRODUCTION 1. On June 20, 2002, BellSouth Corporation and its subsidiaries, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. (collectively, BellSouth) filed an application pursuant to section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 1 for authority to provide in- region, interLATA service originating in the states of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. 2 We grant BellSouth’s application 1 We refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as the Communications Act or the Act. See 47 U. S. C. §§ 151 et seq. 2 See Joint Application by BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. for Provision of In- Region, InterLATA Services in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed June 20, 2002) (BellSouth Application); see also Comments Requested on the Joint Application by BellSouth Corporation for Authorization under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In- region InterLata Service in the States of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, WC Docket No. 02- 150, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 11303 (2002). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 3 in this Order based on our conclusion that BellSouth has taken the statutorily required steps to open its local exchange markets in these states to competition. 2. In ruling on BellSouth’s application, we wish to acknowledge the effort and dedication of the Alabama Public Service Commission (Alabama Commission), the Kentucky Public Service Commission (Kentucky Commission), the Mississippi Public Service Commission (Mississippi Commission), the North Carolina Utilities Commission (North Carolina Commission), and the South Carolina Public Service Commission (South Carolina Commission) (collectively, state commissions), which have expended significant time and effort overseeing BellSouth’s implementation of the requirements of section 271. The state commissions conducted proceedings to determine BellSouth’s section 271 compliance and provided interested third parties with ample opportunities for participation in their proceedings. The state commissions also adopted a broad range of performance measures and standards, 3 as well as Performance Assurance Plans designed to create a financial incentive for BellSouth’s post- entry compliance with section 271. Moreover, the state commissions have committed themselves to actively monitor BellSouth’s continuing efforts to open the local markets to competition. The Commission recognizes the vital role of the state commissions in conducting section 271 proceedings and their commitment to furthering the pro- competitive purposes of the Act. 4 We commend and thank all of the states for the time and effort they spent to investigate the merits of this application. 3. We also recognize BellSouth for the progress it has made in opening its local exchange markets to competition in each of the five states subject to this application. According to BellSouth, competitive local exchange carriers (competitive LECs) provide facilities- based local service to some 202,149 lines in Alabama, 93,252 lines in Kentucky, 84,637 lines in Mississippi, 353,542 lines in North Carolina, and 143,471 lines in South Carolina. 5 In addition, BellSouth states that competitive LECs have gained double- digit market share in Alabama (11.9 percent), North Carolina (13.4 percent), and South Carolina (11.8 percent), and have gained nearly as much market share in Mississippi (8.4 percent) and Kentucky (8.4 percent). 6 Finally, 3 The performance metrics measuring BellSouth’s performance in each of the states were calculated according to the business rules (the BellSouth Service Quality Measurement Plan or SQM) developed by the Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia Commission). See BellSouth Application App. A, Vol. 8a, Tab K, Affidavit of Alphonso J. Varner (BellSouth Varner Aff.) at para. 5. 4 See, e. g., Application of Verizon New York Inc., Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services, Inc., for Authorization to Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Connecticut, CC Docket No. 01- 100, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 14147, 14149, para. 3 (2001) (Verizon Connecticut Order); Application of Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/ b/ a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/ b/ a Verizon Enterprise Solutions) and Verizon Global Networks Inc. for Authorization to Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Massachusetts, CC Docket No. 01- 9, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8988, 8990, para. 2 (2001) (Verizon Massachusetts Order). 5 BellSouth Application App. A, Vol. 7, Tab J, Affidavit of Elizabeth A. Stockdale (BellSouth Stockdale Aff.) at Tables 1, 4, 7, 10, 13. 6 BellSouth Reply App., Vol. 4a, Tab I, Reply Affidavit of Elizabeth A. Stockdale (BellSouth Stockdale Reply Aff.) at para. 11. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 4 we note that, as of June 30, 2002, BellSouth states that it has provisioned approximately 15,913 loops in Alabama, 3,841 in Kentucky, 6,258 in Mississippi, 51,229 in North Carolina, and 14,901 in South Carolina. 7 II. BACKGROUND 4. In the 1996 amendments to the Communications Act, Congress required the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) to demonstrate compliance with certain market- opening requirements contained in section 271 of the Act before they would be permitted to provide in-region, interLATA long distance service. Congress empowered the Commission to review BOC applications to provide such service, and to consult with the affected state and the Attorney General. 8 5. We rely heavily on the work completed by the state commissions in our examination of this joint application. As noted above, each of the state commissions has undertaken significant review of BellSouth’s section 271 compliance. As summarized below, each commission assures us that BellSouth adheres to the pro- competitive requirements of the 1996 Act. 6. Alabama. On May 8, 2001, BellSouth notified the Alabama Commission of its intent to file an application to provide interLATA service in Alabama. 9 In response, the Alabama Commission initiated a proceeding to examine BellSouth’s compliance with the requirements of section 271. 10 On May 22, 2002, the Alabama Commission approved BellSouth’s petition for in- region, interLATA authority. 11 7 Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 14, 2002) (BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter.) 8 The Commission has summarized the relevant statutory framework in prior section 271 orders. See, e. g., Joint Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., d/ b/ a Southwestern Bell Long Distance for Provision of In- Region, InterLATA Services in Kansas and Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 00- 217, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 6237, 6241- 42, paras. 7- 10 (2001) (SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order), aff’d in part, remanded in part sub nom. Sprint Communications Co. v. FCC, 274 F. 3d 549 (D. C. Cir. 2001) (Sprint v. FCC); Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., d/ b/ a Southwestern Bell Long Distance pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Texas, CC Docket No. 00- 65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18354, 18359- 61, paras. 8- 11 (2000) (SWBT Texas Order); Application by Bell Atlantic New York for Authorization Under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In- Region, InterLATA Service in the State of New York, CC Docket No. 99- 295, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC 3953, 3961- 63, paras. 17- 20 (1999) (Bell Atlantic New York Order), aff’d, AT& T Corp v. FCC, 220 F. 3d 607 (D. C. Cir. 2000). 9 BellSouth Application at 8. 10 Id. at 8. 11 Id. at 9. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 5 7. Kentucky. On April 26, 2001, the Kentucky Commission initiated a proceeding to advise the Commission as to whether BellSouth should be permitted to enter the in- region, interLATA market in Kentucky pursuant to section 271 of the Act. 12 The Kentucky Commission held formal hearings focusing on BellSouth’s section 271 application, and issued an order “adopt[ ing] the performance measures, benchmarks and retail analogs, and penalty plan adopted by the Georgia Public Service Commission.” 13 On April 26, 2002, the Kentucky Commission concluded in an Advisory Opinion that BellSouth has achieved compliance with the requirements of the competitive checklist under section 271 of the Act. 14 8. Mississippi. On May 22, 2001, BellSouth notified the Mississippi Commission of its intent to file a section 271 application for Mississippi. 15 The Mississippi Commission’s proceeding, which was open to participation by all interested parties, culminated in an October 4, 2001 order concluding that BellSouth has met all legal requirements for section 271 authorization. 16 9. North Carolina. On April 12, 2001, BellSouth notified the North Carolina Commission of its intent to file a section 271 application for North Carolina. 17 The North Carolina Commission held evidentiary hearings from October 29 through November 6, 2001. 18 On May 23, 2002, the North Carolina Commission released its Notice of Decision, finding that BellSouth has satisfied its obligations under the competitive checklist and Track A of the Act, and that BellSouth’s entry into the interLATA market in North Carolina is consistent with the public interest. 19 10. South Carolina. On May 16, 2001, BellSouth notified the South Carolina Commission of its intent to file an application to provide interLATA telecommunications services in South Carolina. 20 In response, the South Carolina Commission initiated a proceeding to examine BellSouth’s compliance with the requirements of section 271. On February 14, 2002, 12 Kentucky Commission Comments at 1. 13 BellSouth Application at 11. 14 Kentucky Commission Comments at 41. 15 BellSouth Application at 13. 16 Id. at 14. 17 Id. at 16. 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 Id. at 18. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 6 the South Carolina Commission issued an order endorsing BellSouth’s application to provide interLATA service originating in the state of South Carolina. 21 11. The Department of Justice filed its recommendation regarding this joint application on July 30, 2002. 22 The Department of Justice recommended approval of BellSouth’s application for section 271 authority in the five states, stating that: BellSouth’s Application demonstrates that, in conjunction with the state commissions, it has made substantial progress in addressing issues previously identified by the department. 23 However, the Department expressed concern regarding several issues, including BellSouth’s treatment of its performance metrics and its change management process for operations support systems (OSS). 24 In supporting approval of BellSouth’s application, the Department of Justice noted that its conclusions were “subject to the Commission’s review of the concerns expressed in this Evaluation.” 25 Based on our analysis of these and other issues, we grant BellSouth’s application. III. EVIDENTIARY CASE 12. As a threshold matter, we address challenges to the validity of the data submitted by BellSouth. As BellSouth’s data are important to its showing of compliance with several different checklist items, it is appropriate for us to dispose of this issue before addressing compliance with each checklist item. 26 BellSouth has submitted performance metric data with its 21 Id. 22 Section 271 (d)( 2)( A) requires us to give “substantial weight” to the Department’s evaluation. 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 2)( a). 23 Department of Justice Evaluation at 15. 24 Id. at 8, 10, 11. 25 Id. at 3. 26 We note that the Commission discussed the importance of data validity issues in the Bell Atlantic New York Order, SWBT Texas Order, Verizon Massachusetts Order, and BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. See Joint Application by BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. for Provision of In- Region, InterLATA Services in Georgia and Louisiana, CC Docket No. 02- 35, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9018, 9027, para. 16 (2002) (BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3959, para. 11 (stating that the monthly review by the New York Commission of Bell Atlantic’s raw data, the collaborative proceedings conducted by the New York Commission concerning the performance metrics, and the review by KPMG and the New York Commission of Bell Atlantic’s internal controls surrounding the data collection process ensured that the performance data were accurate, consistent, and meaningful); SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18377- 78, para. 57 (noting that SWBT’s data had been subject to scrutiny and review by interested parties, to a large extent its accuracy had not been contested, and in those instances where it had been disputed, the Commission looked first to the results of data reconciliations between SWBT and competing carriers); Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9058- 59, para. 129 (claiming that (continued….) 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 7 application as evidence of meeting its nondiscriminatory requirements under the checklist. Each of the state commissions adopted the same SQM Plan that BellSouth used in Georgia and Louisiana for purposes of assessing section 271 compliance, and the audits and other checks on data reliability that we previously relied upon are also applicable here. 27 The SQM was developed in an open, collaborative proceeding conducted by the Georgia Commission. 28 The Georgia performance metric data has been subject to three audits ordered by the Georgia Commission, of which the first two are almost complete and the third is still in progress. 29 13. In its evaluation, the Department of Justice expressed concern about BellSouth’s alleged implementation of changes to the performance metrics without notification to competing LECs and regulators until after the changes were implemented. 30 Commenters also contend that BellSouth did not provide competitive LECs with adequate prior written notice when it implemented the Performance Measurement Analysis Platform (PMAP) 4.0. 31 We agree with the Department of Justice that, because of the potential impact on the reliability and usefulness of reported performance data, BOCs should provide adequate advanced notice and obtain prior regulatory approval of proposed changes to performance data. 32 We find, however, that there is no evidence in the record that BellSouth’s alleged failure to provide competitive LECs prior written notice impaired the quality or reliability of BellSouth’s data during the relevant period. In addition, the record makes clear that, at the time, there was no formal process that required BellSouth to provide notice or obtain approval prior to changing metrics. We note, however, that BellSouth has committed itself to following a new formal notification process recently ordered by the Georgia Commission in the applicant states, 33 in which regulators and competing (Continued from previous page) when performance metric data are challenged and have not been audited, competing carriers should be given access to their carrier- specific data, and to the underlying data used for any special studies of the BOC’s performance). 27 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 5, 26- 55; see also BellSouth Application at 24. 28 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 14- 25. 29 One exception remains open for the first two audits. BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 127- 59. An “exception” is a designation made by KPMG that identifies a problem with BellSouth’s performance encountered by KPMG in the course of its audit and test, which KPMG was unable to resolve. BellSouth Application Mississippi App. E, Tab 29, KPMG OSS Evaluation at II- 6. 30 Department of Justice Evaluation at 12- 14. The Department noted, in particular, that the changes in the calculation of the region- wide Service Order Accuracy metrics, and the conversion from the PMAP 2.6 data platform to PMAP 4.0, were made without advance public notice and regulatory review and approval. Id. at 12- 13. The Department argued that advance notice was needed for three reasons: “First, metrics calculated under new rules may no longer be directly comparable to metrics previously reported. Second, changes to audited measures limit the applicability of those audits. Third, changes could have substantive implications on commission-established rules.” Department of Justice Evaluation at 13- 14. 31 See, e. g., AT& T Comments App., Vol. IV, Declaration of Cheryl Bursh and Sharon Norris (AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl.) at para. 16. 32 Department of Justice Evaluation at 13. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 8 carriers will be notified by BellSouth of proposed changes to the metrics at least one month before they take effect. This will give competing carriers an opportunity to comment on any proposed changes, and the state commissions the opportunity to review them. 34 This process should meet the Department of Justice’s concerns about the allegation that BellSouth has unilaterally implemented changes to the metrics without advance notice or regulatory approval. 35 14. AT& T and ITC^ DeltaCom also challenge the validity of the data provided by BellSouth. Specifically, they claim that there are numerous discrepancies and errors in the reported data; 36 the business rules were not implemented properly; 37 the pattern of restatements of the data by BellSouth and BellSouth’s acknowledgements of problems with certain metrics indicate that the data are not stable enough to be relied upon; 38 and the data discrepancies uncovered when BellSouth switched from the PMAP 2.6 to the PMAP 4.0 data platform demonstrate that the data submitted in this proceeding using PMAP 2.6 are inaccurate, and raise serious questions concerning the integrity of the data using PMAP 4.0. 39 They also argue that BellSouth unilaterally changed the rules by which the metrics are calculated after the Georgia Commission had approved them, and does not follow a formal established change control (Continued from previous page) 33 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 111- 16; BellSouth Application Reply App., Vol. 4a, Tab J, Reply Affidavit of Alphonso J. Varner (BellSouth Varner Reply Aff.) at paras. 5- 14. In response to an emergency motion filed in Georgia by the Southeast Competitive Carriers Association (SECCA), which represents competing LECs, BellSouth and SECCA reached a settlement agreement on setting up a workshop to discuss the establishment of a formal notification process, and to allow participants to question BellSouth about recent changes it has made to the metric calculations. This agreement was approved by the Georgia Commission on June 18, 2002. BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 111- 13 & Exh. PM- 29. On July 2, 2002, the Georgia Commission approved a staff recommendation, based on an agreement between BellSouth and SECCA, that established a formal notification process for changes to performance metrics. The Georgia Commission ordered, among other things, that BellSouth provide one month’s notice of proposed changes to the metrics and provide regulators and competing carriers an opportunity to ask questions, and established a process for commenters to file comments, and for the Georgia Commission to block the changes if it chooses. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 7- 9 & Exh. PM- 1. 34 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 111- 16; BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 5- 14 & Exh. PM- 1. 35 Department of Justice Evaluation at 12- 14. We will monitor BellSouth's compliance with its obligation to provide notice. If evidence becomes available to the Commission sufficient to show a systemic problem with BellSouth's change management notification process, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 36 AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 35- 40; AT& T Reply App., Tab E, Reply Declaration of Cheryl Bursh and Sharon Norris (AT& T Bursh/ Norris Reply Decl.) at paras. 11- 20; Letter from Alan C. Geolot, Counsel to AT& T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 6 (filed Aug. 23, 2002) (AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter). 37 AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 41- 58; ITC^ DeltaCom Comments at 2. 38 AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 59- 62; ITC^ DeltaCom Comments at 2- 3. ITC^ DeltaCom recommends that the Commission conduct an annual audit of BellSouth’s performance data. ITC^ DeltaCom Comments at 3. 39 AT& T Bursh/ Norris Reply Decl. at paras. 23- 43; AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 5- 8. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 9 process for changing the metric calculations and notifying others of changes. 40 Commenters contend that the lack of a completed audit and the problems found by KPMG in its Georgia and Florida audits of BellSouth’s metric data, demonstrate that the data are unreliable; 41 and BellSouth has failed to meaningfully engage in data reconciliations as it had promised. 42 15. BellSouth argues that its internal and external controls and checks ensure that its data continue to be reliable. 43 BellSouth observes that the data have been subjected to repeated audits and regular review by state commissions in which competing carriers may raise concerns. 44 It asserts that it has developed a data platform that is regional, reliable, accurate, and open to inspection by competing LECs and regulators. 45 Regarding the conversion from PMAP 2.6 to PMAP 4.0, BellSouth further states that this was an incremental upgrade of its processing infrastructure that was necessary to increase the capacity of its system, improve its auditability, and allow BellSouth to provide state- specific measurements in North Carolina and Florida, as required by the North Carolina and Florida Commissions. 46 BellSouth further contends that PMAP 2.6 and PMAP 4.0 generated “substantially similar” results when applied to the same month’s data, and provided extensive evidence to demonstrate that the data discrepancies that appeared were small, and were mostly caused by corrections to errors in PMAP 2.6’s calculations and by PMAP 4.0’s improved ability to properly identify and classify orders. 47 40 AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 10- 21; ITC^ DeltaCom Comments at 2- 3; AT& T Bursh/ Norris Reply Decl. at paras. 44- 52; AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 5- 6. 41 AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 63- 75; AT& T Bursh/ Norris Reply Decl. at para. 43; AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at n. 12. 42 AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 22- 34; ITC^ DeltaCom Comments at 2; AT& T Bursh/ Norris Reply Decl. at paras. 9, 21- 22; AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 5- 6. AT& T proposes that a formal procedure be put into place, with detailed deadlines for BellSouth to respond to competing LEC requests for data reconciliation. AT& T Bursh/ Norris Reply Decl. at para. 22; Letter from Joan Marsh, Director – Federal Government Affairs, AT& T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 Attach. at 2- 3 (filed Sept. 9, 2002) (AT& T September 9 Ex Parte Letter). 43 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 117- 26. 44 Id. at paras. 125, 127- 59. 45 Id. at paras. 56- 73. The PMAP database processes two billion records composing 200 Gigabytes each month to produce the Monthly State Summary (MSS) and SQM performance metric reports made available to regulators and competing LECs. It currently contains a total of 2.5 Terabytes of data. Id. at paras. 65- 66. 46 Id. at paras. 74- 88. 47 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 89- 103; Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed July 18, 2002) (BellSouth July 18 PMAP 4 System Analysis Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 5, 2002) (BellSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter); BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 148- 240. 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 10 16. As we did in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, we find that, as a general matter, BellSouth’s performance metric data are accurate, reliable, and useful. This is based on extensive third party auditing, 48 the internal and external data controls, 49 BellSouth’s making available the raw performance data to competing carriers and regulators, 50 BellSouth’s readiness to engage in data reconciliations, 51 and the oversight and review of the data, and of proposed changes to the metrics, provided by state commissions. We are prepared to pursue appropriate enforcement action if evidence becomes available to the Commission sufficient to show that incorrect data were submitted to the Commission in violation of Commission rules. 17. We also find the PMAP 4.0 metric results sufficient to rely on for purposes of our analysis of BellSouth’s performance in the five states during the relevant period. BellSouth recently converted from the PMAP 2.6 to the PMAP 4.0 data platforms, and this change is first reflected in the April 2002 metric report. BellSouth and others have noted that there were certain discrepancies between the reports produced by the two platforms for the same month’s data, and commenter have suggested that these discrepancies prove that the performance metric data are too unreliable to use. 52 We disagree. Rather, we find, based on the evidence currently before us provided to us by BellSouth concerning the metrics involved, and the sizes and causes of the differences in results, that, for the relevant period, the discrepancies were usually small, often involving just a handful of orders, and that any discrepancies affecting the key metrics we traditionally rely on were too small to affect our analysis for the most important product categories. 53 We note that the current audit of the data in Georgia, part of which had audited the PMAP 2.6 data, will be extended to PMAP 4.0, and that the Georgia Commission will review the implementation of 4.0. 54 To ensure consistency in our data review, we do not rely on the February performance metric data, which was generated by PMAP 2.6, and instead rely on four months of data generated by PMAP 4.0 for March 2002 through June 2002. 55 48 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 125, 127- 59. 49 Id. at paras. 117- 26. 50 Id. at paras. 56- 73. 51 BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 15- 24. 52 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 92- 103; AT& T Bursh/ Norris Reply Decl. at paras. 23- 43. 53 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 89- 103; BellSouth July 18 PMAP 4 System Analysis Ex Parte Letter; BellSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter; BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 148- 240. 54 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 104- 08 & Exh. PM- 29. 55 Although the change from PMAP 2.6 to PMAP 4.0 took place in April 2002, BellSouth recalculated the March 2002 data for each of the five states and Georgia using PMAP 4.0 and submitted the results. See, e. g., Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed July 3, 2002) (BellSouth July 3 Alabama PMAP 4.0 Data Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed July 3, 2002) (BellSouth July 3 North Carolina PMAP 4.0 Data Ex Parte Letter). 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 11 18. We reject AT& T and ITC^ DeltaCom’s argument that BellSouth’s deficiencies in data reconciliation processes with competitive LECs preclude our reliance on BellSouth’s data. While it is in general difficult to determine whether one side or the other failed to act in good faith in this area, either because they did not make reasonable attempts to set up meetings, or did not provide reasonable requests for information, or provided inadequate responses to such requests, BellSouth has provided evidence that it has responded to AT& T’s and ITC^ Deltacom’s requests to meet, and did provide answers to questions about the data. 56 We note the importance of engaging in data reconciliation with requesting carriers, and of making the appropriate subject matter experts available for answering questions, and expect BellSouth to maintain this policy. 57 We cannot overstate the importance that BellSouth meet with competing carriers that have concerns about BellSouth’s published performance metric data and, when appropriate, engage in data reconciliation with carriers. 19. For all these reasons, we find that BellSouth’s data is sufficiently reliable for purposes of our section 271 analysis. 58 However, where specific credible challenges have been made to the BellSouth data, particularly with respect to checklist items 2 and 4, we will exercise our discretion to give that data lesser weight, and, as, discussed more fully below, look to other evidence in evaluating whether BellSouth has met its obligations under section 271. Independent of our section 271 determination here, we note that access to complete and accurate data will be important to the Commission’s assessment of BellSouth’s future performance for section 271( d)( 6) compliance. As discussed below, BellSouth is required to report to the Commission all monthly MSS performance metrics reports and Self- Effectuating Enforcement Mechanism (SEEM) monthly reports for each of the five states. Failure to provide complete and accurate data to the Commission could result in enforcement action. IV. PRIMARY ISSUES IN DISPUTE 20. As in past section 271 orders, we will not repeat here the analytical framework and particular legal showing required to establish checklist compliance with every checklist item. Rather, we rely on the legal and analytical precedent established in prior section 271 orders, and we attach comprehensive appendices containing performance data and the statutory framework for evaluating section 271 applications. 59 Our conclusions in this Order are based on, 56 BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 15- 24 & Exhs. PM- 6, 6a. 57 We encourage commenters that are dissatisfied with BellSouth’s current policy to raise the need for a more formal process before the relevant state commissions. 58 We note that our approval of this application is based upon the evidence before us, including the metric data submitted. If new evidence becomes available, such as exceptions found by KPMG as part of its audit, which demonstrate that there are significant problems with the metric data, this may have a significant impact on our evaluation of the metric evidence in future section 271 applications. In addition, if such new evidence demonstrates that BellSouth is not meeting its section 271 obligations in the five states, this may constitute grounds for an enforcement action under section 271( d)( 6). See 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 6). 59 See generally Appendices B (Alabama Performance Data), C (Kentucky Performance Data), D (Mississippi Performance Data), E (North Carolina Performance Data), F (South Carolina Performance Data), G (Georgia (continued….) 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 12 among other things, performance data as reported in monthly performance reports reflecting service in the most recent months before filing (March 2002 through June 2002). 60 21. We focus in this Order on the issues in controversy in the record. Accordingly, we begin by addressing whether the application qualifies for consideration under section 271( c)( 1)( A) (Track A), which requires the presence of facilities- based competitors serving both residential and business customers. Next, we address checklist item number 2, which encompasses access to unbundled network elements. 61 We then address checklist item numbers 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 12, which cover interconnection, access to unbundled local loops, transport, directory listings, databases and associated signaling, number portability, and dialing parity, respectively. The remaining checklist items are discussed briefly as they received little or no attention from commenting parties, and our own review of the record leads us to conclude that BellSouth has satisfied these requirements. Finally, we discuss issues concerning compliance with section 272 and the public interest requirements. A. Compliance with Section 271( c)( 1)( A) 22. In order for the Commission to approve a BOC’s application to provide in- region, interLATA services, a BOC must first demonstrate that it satisfies the requirements of either section 271( c)( 1)( A) (Track A) or 271( c)( 1)( B) (Track B). 62 To qualify for Track A, a BOC must have interconnection agreements with one or more competing providers of “telephone exchange service . . . to residential and business subscribers.” 63 The Act states that “such telephone (Continued from previous page) Performance Data), and H (Statutory Requirements). See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9240, Apps. B, C. 60 We examine data through June 2002 because such data performance occurred before comments were due in this proceeding on July 11, 2002. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18372, para. 39. 61 We note that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently opined in two relevant Commission decisions, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 3696 (1999) (UNE Remand Order) and Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order in CC Doc. No. 98- 147 and Fourth Report and Order in CC Doc. No. 96- 98, 14 FCC Rcd 20912 (1999) (Line Sharing Order). USTA v. FCC, 290 F. 3d 415 (D. C. Cir. 2002), petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc denied Sept. 4, 2002. The court's decision addressed both our UNE rules and our line sharing rules. The Commission is currently reviewing its UNE rules, Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 16 FCC Rcd 22781 (2001) (Triennial Review Notice). Further, the court stated that “the Line Sharing Order must be vacated and remanded.” USTA v. FCC, 290 F. 3d at 429. The court also stated that it “grant[ ed] the petitions for review[] and remand[ ed] the Line Sharing Order and the Local Competition Order to the Commission for further consideration in accordance with the principles outlined.” Id. at 430. On September 4, 2002, the D. C. Circuit denied petitions for rehearing filed by the Commission and others. See Order, Nos. 00- 1012 and 00- 1015 (D. C. Cir. filed Sept. 4, 2002). 62 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( A). 63 Id. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 13 service may be offered . . . either exclusively over [the competitor’s] own telephone exchange service facilities or predominantly over [the competitor’s] own telephone exchange facilities in combination with the resale of the telecommunications services of another carrier.” 64 The Commission has concluded that section 271( c)( 1)( A) is satisfied if one or more competing providers collectively serve residential and business subscribers, 65 and that unbundled network elements are a competing provider’s “own telephone exchange service facilities” for purposes of section 271( c)( 1)( A). 66 The Commission has further held that a BOC must show that at least one “competing provider” constitutes “an actual commercial alternative to the BOC,” 67 which a BOC can do by demonstrating that the provider serves “more than a de minimis number” of subscribers. 68 The Commission has interpreted Track A not to require any particular level of market penetration, however, and the D. C. Circuit has affirmed that the Act “imposes no volume requirements for satisfaction of Track A.” 69 23. We conclude that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of Track A in Alabama. We base this decision on the interconnection agreements BellSouth has implemented with competing carriers in Alabama and the number of firms that provide local telephone exchange service, either exclusively or predominantly over their own facilities, to residential and business customers. 70 In support of its Track A showing, BellSouth relies on interconnection agreements with, among others, Birch, ICG Communications, ITC^ DeltaCom, and Knology. 71 Each of these carriers has an approved interconnection agreement with BellSouth, and each provides facilities- 64 Id. 65 Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, To Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan, CC Docket No. 97- 137, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 20543, 20589, para. 85 (1997) (Ameritech Michigan Order); see also Application of BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc., for Provision of In- Region, InterLATA Services in Louisiana, CC Docket No. 98- 121, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 20599, 20633- 35, paras. 46- 48 (1998) (Second BellSouth Louisiana Order). 66 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20598, para. 101. 67 Application by SBC Communications Inc., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, To Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 97- 121, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8685, 8695, para. 14 (1997) (SWBT Oklahoma Order). 68 SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6257, para. 42; see also Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20585, para. 78. 69 Sprint v. FCC, 274 F. 3d at 553- 54; see also SBC Communications Inc. v. FCC, 138 F. 3d 410, 416 (D. C. Cir. 1998) (SBC v. FCC) (“ Track A does not indicate just how much competition a provider must offer either the business or residential markets before it is deemed a ‘competing’ provider.”) 70 BellSouth Application at 20- 21; see also BellSouth Stockdale Aff. at paras. 6a, 57 & Exhs. ES- 1, ES- 6, ES- 11- ES- 13 (citing confidential information). 71 BellSouth Application at 20- 21; BellSouth Stockdale Aff. at paras. 17, 19 & Table 2. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 14 based service to both business and residential customers. 72 We find that each of these carriers serves more than a de minimis number of residential and business customers predominantly over its own facilities and represents an “actual commercial alternative” to BellSouth in Alabama. 73 No commenter has challenged BellSouth’s assertion that it satisfies the requirements for Track A in Alabama. 24. In Kentucky, we also find that BellSouth demonstrates that it satisfies the requirements of Track A based on the interconnection agreements it has implemented with competing carriers and the numerous carriers providing facilities- based service to residential and business customers in this market. 74 In support of its Track A showing, BellSouth relies on interconnection agreements with, among others, AT& T and The Other Phone Company (AccessOne, Talk. Com, Omnicall). 75 The record demonstrates that each of these carriers serves more than a de minimis number of residential and business customers via UNE- P or full- facilities lines. 76 Thus, we find that there is an “actual commercial alternative” to BellSouth in Kentucky and that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of Track A in Kentucky. No commenter has challenged BellSouth’s assertion that it satisfies the requirements for Track A in Kentucky. 25. Based on the evidence in the record, we find that BellSouth satisfies Track A in Mississippi. In support of its showing, BellSouth cites interconnection agreements with, among others, ExpeTel (LS- One) and The Other Phone Company (AccessOne, Talk. Com, Omnicall), each of which independently satisfies the requirements of Track A. 77 We find that each of these carriers serves more than a de minimis number of residential and business customers predominantly over its own facilities. This represents an “actual commercial alternative” to BellSouth in Mississippi, and thus we conclude that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of Track A in that state. No commenter has challenged BellSouth’s assertion that it satisfies the requirements for Track A in Mississippi. 26. We also find that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of Track A in North Carolina. We base this conclusion on interconnection agreements BellSouth has implemented with competitive LECs, and the numerous carriers providing facilities- based service to 72 BellSouth Stockdale Aff. at para. 19; BellSouth Stockdale Reply Aff. at Exhs. ES- 3- ES- 4 (citing confidential information). 73 SWBT Oklahoma Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8695, para. 14. 74 BellSouth provides evidence that there are at least 28 facilities- based providers in Kentucky. BellSouth Application at 21; BellSouth Stockdale Aff. at para. 27 & Table 5. 75 BellSouth Application at 21; BellSouth Stockdale Aff. at para. 29 & Exh. ES- 7; BellSouth Application Appendix B- Kentucky. 76 BellSouth Stockdale Aff. at Exhs. ES- 14- ES- 16 (citing confidential information); Stockdale Reply Aff. at Exhs. ES- 4- ES- 5 (citing confidential information). 77 BellSouth Stockdale Aff. at para. 37 & Table 8 & Exh. ES- 8; BellSouth Stockdale Reply Aff. at para. 37 & Exhs. ES- 6- ES- 7 (citing confidential information); BellSouth Application Appendix B- Mississippi. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 15 residential and business customers in North Carolina. 78 Among these facilities- based providers are Business Telecom (BTI), CTC Exchange Services, MCI/ Worldcom, and Time Warner, each of which serves more than a de minimis number of residence and business lines. 79 Notably, the North Carolina Commission concludes that even the most conservative estimates show that competitive LECs serve more than a de minimis number of residential lines through their own facilities, and that the number of both residential and business lines served by competitive LECs is more than sufficient to show that there are competitive alternatives to BellSouth in North Carolina. 80 Given this evidence, we conclude that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of Track A in North Carolina. No commenter has challenged BellSouth’s assertion that it satisfies the requirements for Track A in North Carolina. 27. Finally, we find that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of Track A in South Carolina based on interconnection agreements it has implemented with competitive carriers in South Carolina. 81 The record demonstrates that Birch, ITC^ DeltaCom, Knology, and The Other Phone Company (AccessOne, Talk. Com, Omnicall) each serve more than a de minimis number of residential and business customers predominately over their own facilities and represent an “actual commercial alternative” to BellSouth in South Carolina. 82 Given this evidence, we conclude that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of Track A in South Carolina. No commenter has challenged BellSouth’s assertion that it satisfies the requirements for Track A in South Carolina. B. Checklist Item 2 – Unbundled Network Elements 28. Checklist item 2 of section 271 states that a BOC must provide “nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with sections 251( c)( 3) and 252( d)( 1)” of the Act. 83 Section 251( c)( 3) requires incumbent LECs to provide 78 BellSouth Stockdale Aff. at para. 43. 79 BellSouth Stockdale Aff. at para. 44; BellSouth Stockdale Reply Aff. at Exhs. ES- 8- ES- 9 (citing confidential information). 80 North Carolina Commission Comments at 255. 81 BellSouth Application at 23. 82 Id. See also BellSouth Stockdale Reply Aff. at Exhs. ES- 10- ES- 11 (citing confidential information). 83 47 U. S. C. § 271( B)( ii). Overturning a 1997 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 13, 2002, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld sections 51.315( c)-( f) of the Commission’s rules, which, subject to certain limitations, require incumbent LECs to provide combinations of unbundled network elements “not ordinarily combined in the incumbent LEC’s network” and to “combine unbundled network elements with the elements possessed by the requesting telecommunications carrier.” Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). In a prior decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s authority to adopt sections 51.315( a)-( b) of the Commission’s rules, which establish the general obligation of an incumbent LEC to provide combinations of network elements and require an incumbent LEC not to separate requested elements that it currently combines, except upon request. AT& T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U. S. 366, 385, 393- 95 (1999). 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 16 “nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.” 84 1. Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements 29. Section 252( d)( 1) provides that a state commission’s determination of the just and reasonable rates for network elements must be nondiscriminatory, based on the cost of providing the network elements, and may include a reasonable profit. 85 Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. 86 30. In applying the Commission’s TELRIC pricing principles in this application, we do not conduct a de novo review of a state’s pricing determinations. 87 We will, however, reject an application if “basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on matters so substantial that the end result falls outside the range that the reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce.” 88 We note that different states may reach different results that are each within the range of what a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce. Accordingly, an input rejected elsewhere might be reasonable under the specific circumstances here. 31. Commenters in these proceedings assert numerous challenges to BellSouth’s pricing that were never raised before the state commissions. Just as it is impractical for us to conduct a de novo review of the state commissions’ pricing determinations, it is likewise generally impractical for us to make determinations about issues that were not specifically raised before the state commissions in the first instance. During the course of their UNE pricing proceedings, the state commissions are able to cross examine witnesses, compel discovery, and direct the submission of additional record evidence on particular issues. This Commission lacks the time to employ such tools during the course of the 90- day statutory review period for section 271 applications. Without the means to test and evaluate evidence during this short statutory 84 47 U. S. C. § 251( c)( 3). 85 47 U. S. C. § 252( d)( 1). 86 See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96- 98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844- 47, paras. 674- 79 (1996) (Local Competition Order); 47 C. F. R. §§ 51.501- 51.515. The Supreme Court has recently upheld the Commission’s forward- looking pricing methodology in determining the costs of UNEs. Verizon v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. at 1679. 87 Application of Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc. for Authorization To Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania, CC Docket No. 01- 138, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 17419, 17453, para. 55 (2001) (Verizon Pennsylvania Order) (citations omitted); see also Sprint v. FCC, 274 F. 3d at 556 (“ When the Commission adjudicates § 271 applications, it does not – and cannot – conduct de novo review of state rate- setting determinations. Instead, it makes a general assessment of compliance with TELRIC principles.”). 88 Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17453, para. 55. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 17 review period, and without a state record to analyze with respect to issues not raised before the state commissions, we are often left to resolve factually complex issues based simply on the untested written assertions of various experts. 32. We take this opportunity to set forth the analytical framework we employ to review section 271 applications in these situations. As the Commission’s previous decisions make clear, a BOC may submit as part of its prima facie case a valid pricing determination from a state commission. In such cases, we will conclude that the BOC meets the TELRIC pricing requirements of section 271, 89 unless we find that the determination violates basic TELRIC principles or contains clear errors of fact on matters so substantial that the end result falls outside the range that a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce. 90 Once the BOC makes a prima facie case of compliance, the objecting party must proffer evidence that persuasively rebuts the BOC’s prima facie showing. The burden then shifts to the BOC to demonstrate the validity of its evidence or the state commission’s approval of the disputed rate or charge. 91 When a party raises a challenge related to a pricing issue for the first time in the Commission’s section 271 proceedings without showing why it was not possible to raise it before the state commission, we may exercise our discretion to give this challenge little weight. In such cases, we will not find that the objecting party persuasively rebuts the prima facie showing of TELRIC compliance if the BOC provides a reasonable explanation concerning the issue raised by the objecting party. 33. With these principles in mind and after thoroughly reviewing the record in this application, we find that BellSouth’s UNE rates in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, and are based on cost plus a reasonable profit as required by section 252( d)( 1). We therefore find that BellSouth’s UNE rates in the five states satisfy checklist item 2. Before we discuss commenters’ arguments and our conclusions, we summarize the pricing proceedings in each of the five states. 89 When a state commission makes a determination that rates are TELRIC- compliant, it may not have explicitly analyzed every component of such rates, particularly when no party has taken issue with the component. Indeed, we do not provide extensive analysis on checklist items that receive little or no attention from commenters when our own review of the record leads us to conclude that the BOC has satisfied these requirements. 90 See, e. g., Application by Verizon New Jersey Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/ b/ a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/ b/ a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc., for Authorization To Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in New Jersey, WC Docket No. 02- 67, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 12275, 12305, para. 68 (2002) (Verizon New Jersey Order). 91 Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20635- 39, paras. 51- 59. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 18 a. Background 34. Alabama. By order dated August 25, 1998, the Alabama Commission first established UNE rates for BellSouth in Docket 26029. 92 On October 5, 2000, the Alabama Commission opened Docket 27821 to establish interim and/ or permanent rates for xDSL loops and related elements and services. After initially denying a BellSouth motion to consolidate Docket 26029 (xDSL) with Docket 25980 (UNE rates), the Alabama Commission reconsidered, finding that “a combined proceeding for BellSouth would result in the most efficient use of the resources of all parties, including the [Alabama] Commission, and would minimize the possibility of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent decisions by the [Alabama] Commission.” 93 Hearings on the newly combined docket were held on May 14- 18, 2001. A total of 20 witnesses testified, and additional witnesses filed written testimony on behalf of the various parties, including BellSouth, ITC^ DeltaCom, Covad, BroadSlate, WorldCom, and SECCA. 35. In its UNE Rate Order, the Alabama Commission stated that, in evaluating BellSouth’s UNE pricing, it followed the Commission’s TELRIC pricing rules. 94 The Alabama Commission also adopted the following BellSouth cost models: (1) the BellSouth Telecommunications Loop Model (BSTLM) to support the cost development for UNEs, service-specific loops, and UNE combinations; (2) the Model Office Module of Telecordia’s Switching Cost Information System Model (SCIS/ MO) and the Simplified Switching Tool (SST) Model to support the cost development for all switch- related elements, including ports, usage, and vertical features; (3) the BellSouth Cost Calculator, which converts input data (material prices/ investments by field reporting code, recurring additives, non- recurring additives, and work times by job function code) into non- recurring costs; (4) the Capital Cost Calculator, which produces depreciation, cost of money, and income tax factors that are applied to investments to calculate capital costs; and (5) the Loop Multiplexer, Digital Loop Carrier (DLC), SONET, and DS- 1 price calculators, which develop the material price of specialized components used in provisioning various network capabilities. 95 None of the competitive LECs proposed alternative models but focused their challenges on the inputs BellSouth used in its models. 96 Although the Alabama Commission determined that BellSouth’s several cost models were appropriate for the purpose of adopting TELRIC- compliant rates, it adjusted many inputs to the models. 97 92 See Generic Proceeding to Establish Prices for Interconnection Services and Unbundled Network Elements, Alabama Public Service Commission, Order, Docket No. 27821 (May 31, 2002) (UNE Rate Order or Alabama Commission UNE Rate Order) at 2. 93 Id. at 8. 94 Id. at 11- 12. 95 Id. at 13- 14. 96 Id. at 18. 97 Id. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 19 36. With regard to the BSTLM, the Alabama Commission accepted BellSouth’s use of five different scenarios to set TELRIC rates and reduced BellSouth’s recurring loop rates by 17.5 percent. 98 In setting non- recurring rates, however, BellSouth did not rely on a cost model but instead chose to make estimates of the work times for activities required to provision each element. 99 BellSouth subject matter experts calculated the probability of each activity occurring. 100 These estimates were then entered into the BellSouth Cost Calculator on the non-recurring input sheet by element and multiplied by the appropriate labor rate. 101 After considering all of the evidence in the record, the Alabama Commission discounted non- recurring charges by 50 percent, with the exception of certain xDSL non- recurring charges, which were reduced by 53 percent. 102 37. The Alabama Commission also addressed a number of other pricing issues in the UNE Rate Order, including collocation costs, xDSL loops, loop conditioning, UNE deaveraging, line splitting and sharing, and UNE combinations. The Alabama Commission stated that it would entertain requests in the future for rate modification that are appropriately supported and filed. 103 38. Kentucky. The Kentucky Commission established UNE prices and the methodology for establishing UNE and interconnection rates on December 18, 2001, following an extensive two- year proceeding. 104 The proceeding included three rounds of data requests and responses, 105 as well as informal conferences with the parties. 106 In addition to reviewing the 98 Id. at 24- 25, 40- 41. BellSouth separately determines prices for loop and ports on a stand- alone basis and loops and ports in combination. See section IV. B. 1. b.( i), infra. The Commission previously approved this “multiple scenario” pricing methodology in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9041, para. 38. 99 Alabama Commission UNE Rate Order at 40. 100 Id. 101 Id. 102 Id. at 42. 103 Id. at 90. 104 BellSouth Application App. D, Vol. 2, Tab 17, Administrative Case No. 382, Kentucky Commission’s Inquiry into the Development of Deaveraged Rates for Unbundled Network Elements (Dec. 18, 2001) (Kentucky Commission UNE Rate Order). The Kentucky Commission noted also that it had previously established methodologies, interconnection prices, and UNE prices through arbitration proceedings. Id. at 2 (citing Case Nos. 96- 431, Petition by MCI for Arbitration of Terms and Conditions of a Proposed Agreement with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Concerning Interconnection and Resale under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and 96- 478, The Interconnection Agreement Negotiations Between AT& T Communications of the South Central States, Inc., and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Pursuant to 47 U. S. C. [sic]). 105 Kentucky Commission UNE Rate Order at 6. 106 Id. at 8. 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 20 record in its own proceeding, the Kentucky Commission reviewed the records and decisions of other commissions in the BellSouth region regarding the development of UNE rates. 107 In conducting its evaluation of UNE rates, staff from the Kentucky Commission, along with staff from the Alabama Commission, traveled to the offices of the Florida Commission to discuss “cost study models, inputs and expected results.” 108 Although the Kentucky Commission specifically solicited requests for a live hearing, no party requested a hearing. 109 39. During the proceeding, there was “little, if any, dispute regarding the use of the models submitted by BellSouth,” 110 which, as in Alabama and Louisiana, included BSTLM, SCIS/ MO, SST, the BellSouth Cost Calculator, the Capital Cost Calculator, the SONET Price Calculator, and DS- 1 Channelization Price Calculator. 111 The BellSouth Cost Calculator, used to determine non- recurring rates, included BellSouth estimates of work times for activities required to provision each element and the probability of each activity occurring. 112 Only WorldCom and SECCA filed a rebuttal to the cost studies and testimony submitted by BellSouth, 113 which the Kentucky Commission evaluated in its Order. 40. The Kentucky Commission adopted the results of a late- filed run of BellSouth’s cost models, which resulted in an additional 17.7 percent reduction in UNE rates. 114 During the course of the proceeding, the Kentucky Commission approved a joint stipulation specifying certain deaveraged rates applying to a limited number of commonly sought network elements. 115 In concluding its proceeding, the Kentucky Commission adopted rates that it found to be “reasonable, forward- looking, TELRIC- based prices,” while also advising that it would “continually monitor the appropriateness of these rates.” 116 Additionally, the Kentucky Commission ordered BellSouth to submit copies of all documents and information supplied to 107 Id. at 6. 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Id. at 8. 111 Id. at 9- 11. 112 Id. at 30- 31. 113 Id. at 5. 114 Id. at 35. 115 The Joint Stipulation was filed by AT& T of the South Central States, Inc., BellSouth, Cincinnati Bell Telephone, GTE South Inc. n/ k/ a Verizon South, Inc., WorldCom, and TCG of Ohio. This stipulation was adopted by order on March 24, 2000, and implemented on May 1, 2000. See id. at 2- 3. 116 Id. at 35. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 21 the Florida Commission in its UNE docket within ten days of filing in Florida and also ordered that the decisions reached by the Florida Commission would be implemented in Kentucky. 117 41. Mississippi. The Mississippi Commission set UNE rates over the course of three proceedings with a stated goal of establishing cost- based rates that are consistent with the Commission’s TELRIC methodology. 118 It first established permanent rates for UNEs and interconnection services in by order dated August 25, 1998. 119 Then, by Order dated April 20, 2000, the Mississippi Commission established different rates for certain UNEs in four cost-related rate zones within the State of Mississippi in order to reflect geographic cost differences. 120 Subsequently, in response to a petition from BellSouth dated December 8, 2000, the Mississippi Commission opened a proceeding to (1) update the UNE rates that it had established in 1998; (2) establish rates for additional UNEs identified by this Commission in various orders issued subsequent to the Mississippi Commission’s earlier UNE pricing order; and (3) set permanent geographically deaveraged rates for certain UNEs and combinations of UNEs. 121 42. As part of this proceeding, the Mississippi Commission conducted an evidentiary hearing on June 26- 28, 2001, in which BellSouth, Brooks Fiber, WorldCom, Access Integrated, and DixieNet participated. 122 On October 12, 2001, the Mississippi Commission issued a final UNE rate order. 123 43. In that order, the Mississippi Commission found that “BellSouth’s cost studies complied with all applicable legal standards and should be used to set UNE prices.” 124 With respect to recurring UNE rates, the Commission found, with certain modifications discussed below, that “BellSouth’s rates were cost- based and were the product of detailed cost studies that 117 Id. at 38. 118 Generic Proceeding to Establish BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ’s Interconnection Services, Unbundled Network Elements and Other Related Elements and Services, Docket No. 00- UA- 999 (Oct. 12, 2001) (Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order) at 4- 10 (citing Docket No. 97- AD- 544). 119 Id. at 1. 120 PSC’s Order Approving UNE Rates for BellSouth per Attached Joint Stipulation, Docket No. 2000- AD- 42 (April 20, 2000). These rates were either stipulated to, or were unopposed, by the parties in that docket and were based upon the statewide deaveraged rates that the Mississippi Commission established by order dated August 25, 1998, in Docket No. 97- AD- 544. See Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 1- 2. 121 Id. at 2. See BellSouth’s Petition for Establishment of Generic Proceeding To Establish Prices for BellSouth’s Interconnection Services, Unbundled Network Elements, and Other Related Elements and Services, Docket No. 00- UA- 999 (Dec. 8, 2000). 122 Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 2- 3. 123 Id. at 49. 124 Id. at 8. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 22 complied fully with the pricing standards set forth in the Act and with the [Commission’s] pricing rules.” 125 Specifically, the Mississippi Commission found that the BSTLM “properly calculated the costs of loops and loop- related UNEs” 126 and that BellSouth’s use of five BSTLM scenarios was reasonable. 127 44. The Mississippi Commission also rejected most of WorldCom’s proposed input changes to BellSouth’s recurring cost studies, including inputs relating to network design; engineering assumptions; structure, cable, and material costs; and expense and common costs. 128 The Mississippi Commission found that it was reasonable to use economic lives that it adopted in 1995 to determine BellSouth’s depreciation expense 129 rather than the shorter economic lives proposed by BellSouth, which were based on a 2000 depreciation study. 130 It decided to use an overall cost of capital of 10 percent, also adopted in a previous order, 131 rather than the 11.25 percent proposed by BellSouth. 132 In addition, the Mississippi Commission imposed a “competitive discount” of approximately ten percent on all loop and UNE combination recurring charges. 133 45. With respect to nonrecurring charges proposed by BellSouth, the Mississippi Commission adopted a 50 percent discount “in order to further stimulate the development of competition in Mississippi.” 134 It rejected, however, WorldCom’s proposal to eliminate non-recurring charges for certain collocation costs, OSS, and service orders. 135 The Mississippi Commission also found that the Unbundled Loop Modification (ULM) rates for load coil and bridged tap removal should apply “whenever BellSouth performed this work at the request of a CLEC.” 136 It concluded, however, that the ULM- Additive, which was designed to recover part 125 Id. at 10. 126 Id. at 11. 127 Id. at 11- 14. 128 Id. at 14- 24. 129 Id. at 24. 130 Proceeding to Establish BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ’s Interconnection Services, Unbundled Network Elements and Other Related Elements and Services, Docket No. 00- UA- 999 (Aug. 30, 2001) (BellSouth’s Proposed Mississippi UNE Rate Order) at 20- 21. 131 Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 24. 132 BellSouth’s Proposed Mississippi UNE Rate Order at 21- 22. 133 Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 24. 134 Id. at 25. 135 Id. at 26- 28. 136 Id. at 35. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 23 of the cost of removing load coils on copper loops of less than 18,000 feet, was “not appropriate and should not be charged to CLECs,” as BellSouth had proposed. 137 46. The Mississippi Commission also established different rates for UNEs in four zones based on logical groupings using wire centers, proposed by BellSouth, rather than the nine zones proposed by WorldCom. 138 It ordered that “only the recurring cost of unbundled loops and local channels below the DS3 level [including sub- loops and combinations involving those elements] will be geographically deaveraged.” 139 It also found that BellSouth’s modified daily usage file charges were reasonable and should be adopted. 140 47. North Carolina. In its UNE proceeding, Docket No. P- 100, Sub 133d, the North Carolina Commission held hearings that began in 1997 and continued through 2002. On December 10, 1998, following two weeks of hearings in which eight competitive LECs participated and the public was represented by the Public Staff and Attorney General, the state commission adopted permanent prices for unbundled network elements. 141 48. The North Carolina Commission demonstrated its commitment to developing UNE prices based on a forward- looking cost methodology and the Commission’s TELRIC principles. 142 The state commission, for example, rejected BellSouth’s proposed residual cost additive for the loop and port in its 1998 UNE order on grounds that it was inconsistent with forward- looking pricing and “would permit the reinstatement of embedded or historical cost recovery.” 143 The North Carolina Commission also concluded “that it would be more reasonable to modify the studies presented by the ILECs than to discard those studies in favor of the models 137 Id. at 33. 138 Id. at 35. 139 Id. at 38. 140 Id. at 43- 45. 141 General Proceeding to Determine Permanent Pricing for Unbundled Network Elements, Order Adopting Permanent Prices for Unbundled Network Elements, Docket No. P- 100, Sub 133d (Dec. 10, 1998) (North Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order). After rulings in this docket on motions for reconsideration (Aug. 18, 1999) and on comments and reply comments (Jan. 28, 2000), the North Carolina Commission issued an order adopting permanent UNE rates on March 13, 2000. 142 See id. at 11. 143 Id. at 17- 18. In evaluating the appropriate cost methodology for cost- based rates, the North Carolina Commission noted the following: “All of the parties to this proceeding generally agreed and took the position that the appropriate basis for establishing permanent prices for unbundled network elements is TELRIC plus a reasonable allocation of joint and common costs.” Id. at 10. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 24 presented by AT& T and MCI and then attempt to adjust those models to make them suitable to North Carolina.” 144 49. North Carolina used BellSouth’s BSTLM, the Switched Network Calculator Model for switching, and the SCIS/ MO for ports and feature costs. Although the North Carolina Commission adopted BellSouth’s cost models, it modified several of its inputs, including those related to residence/ business line weighting, loop distribution fill factor, capital structure, cost of capital, depreciation and tax rates, and structure sharing. 145 As a result of its adjustments and modifications to BellSouth’s inputs, the North Carolina Commission approved a statewide average loop cost of $15.60, compared to BellSouth’s proposed $19.02. 146 It also modified and adjusted BellSouth’s nonrecurring cost studies which it selected over the Nonrecurring Cost Model proposed by AT& T and MCI. 147 50. On March 30, 2000, the North Carolina Commission issued an order that established a Phase I proceeding to consider geographic deaveraging and issues arising from the Commission’s UNE Remand Order 148 and Line Sharing Order. 149 An evidentiary hearing that began on September 25, 2000, resulted in the North Carolina Commission issuing an order 144 Id. at 17- 18; see also Order Adopting Forward- Looking Economic Cost Model and Inputs, Docket No. P- 100, Sub 133b (April 20, 1998) (North Carolina Commission FLEC Order) at 19 (rejecting AT& T and MCI Hatfield 5.0 Model inputs for determining the forward- looking economic cost of providing universal service in North Carolina and concluding “that company- specific inputs, where they are forward looking and reasonable, should be used in lieu of default values”). 145 North Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 28- 29, 36, 41, 43, 50, 66. The North Carolina Commission found that BellSouth had incorrectly excluded a number of less costly business lines from its loop sample and adjusted the residential/ business line make- up of the sample, reducing loop rates by over $1 per month. Id. at 28- 29. See also BellSouth Application App. A, Vol. 2, Tab C, Affidavit of D. Daonne Caldwell (BellSouth Caldwell Aff.) at para. 175. The state commission increased BellSouth’s distribution fill factor to 44.6% from its proposed 41.2%, consistent with the Universal Service Fund Docket P- 100, Sub 133b. North Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 66. See also BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at para. 35. The forward- looking overall cost of capital was changed to 9.96%, compared to BellSouth’s proposed 11.25%. Id. at para. 36. Structure sharing percentages were adopted as approved in Docket No. P- 100, Sub 133b. Establishment of Universal Support Mechanisms Pursuant to Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. P- 100, Sub 133b, Order on Reconsideration, at 13- 14 (July 2, 1998). 146 BellSouth Application App. A, Vol. 4a, Tab G, Affidavit of John A. Ruscilli and Cynthia K. Cox (BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff.) at para. 175. The North Carolina Commission adjusted BellSouth’s cost studies, setting a rate of $15.88 ($ 15.60 associated with the loop and $0.28 with the amortized disconnect costs). Id.; see also BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at para. 188. 147 North Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 75- 83 (stating that the Nonrecurring Cost Model does not use North Carolina specific data, makes assumptions that are not reasonable or achievable, and produces inappropriate labor costs). 148 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3696. 149 Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20912. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 25 adopting permanent deaveraged UNE rates, effective December 11, 2001. 150 A Phase II UNE proceeding was held on October 23, 2000, to consider several policy issues concerning UNE combinations and the appropriate nonrecurring charges for xDSL loops. 151 The North Carolina Commission adopted final UNE rates, excluding geographic deaveraging, from its Phase I and II UNE proceedings on May 1, 2002. 152 51. On May 7 and 9, 2002, BellSouth voluntarily amended its SGAT to reduce many of its nonrecurring UNE rates in North Carolina and to eliminate the recurring and nonrecurring rates associated with switching vertical features. 153 On May 23, 2002, the North Carolina Commission “concluded that good cause exists to advise the Federal Communications Commission” that BellSouth satisfied its section 271 obligations, including the competitive checklist provisions. 154 The North Carolina Commission has opened a new generic cost 150 Proceeding to Determine Permanent Pricing for Unbundled Network Elements, Order Adopting Final Permanent Deaveraged UNE Rates, Docket No. P- 100, Sub 133d (April 5, 2002) (North Carolina Deaveraged UNE Rates Order). Competitive LECs sponsored 10 witnesses in the September 25, 2000, hearing. The Public Staff and Attorney General also participated. On March 15, 2001, the North Carolina Commission issued a recommended order and, due to several requests for reconsideration, established a comment cycle on its order. On December 11, 2001, the state commission issued its order finalizing deaveraged UNE rates. 151 On June 7, 2001, the North Carolina Commission issued a 185- page Recommended Order Concerning All Phase I and Phase II UNE Issues Excluding Geographic Deaveraging. After considering all exceptions filed by the parties, the state commission issued its Order Addressing Exceptions to Recommended Order on all Phase I and II Issues Except Geographic Deaveraging on December 31, 2001. BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at Exh. JAR/ CKC- 20. 152 General Proceeding to Determine Permanent Pricing for Unbundled Network Elements, Order Adopting Final Permanent Phase I and Phase II UNE Rates for BellSouth and Verizon, Docket No. P- 100, Sub 133d (May 1, 2002). 153 Letter from Edward L. Rankin, III, Counsel to BellSouth, to Geneva S. Thigpen, Chief Clerk, North Carolina Utilities Commission, Docket Nos. P- 55, Sub 1022, P- 100, Sub 133d (May 7, 2002) (BellSouth May 7 Letter). “If an ordered nonrecurring UNE rate in Louisiana was lower than the North Carolina rate, BellSouth substituted the Louisiana rate in its North Carolina SGAT Price List [not including collocation].” Id. at 2. Although BellSouth agrees with its state commission that North Carolina rates reflect UNE provisioning costs, it “recognized that some of the nonrecurring rates in North Carolina were higher than . . . in other BellSouth states [and] to avoid any conceivable issue, it . . . voluntarily reduce[ d] some of its nonrecurring rates until [the new generic cost proceeding] is completed.” BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at para. 175. 154 Application of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. to Provide In- Region InterLATA Service Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1966, Notice of Decision, Docket No. P- 55, Sub 1022 (May 23, 2002) (North Carolina Commission 271 Order) at 1. In its decision, the state commission also approved as interim, subject to true- up, BellSouth’s rates for remote terminal and virtual collocation elements, cable records, assembly point arrangements and unbundled copper loops- non- design (UCL- ND), including engineering information and testing. BellSouth has requested that the North Carolina Commission establish permanent rates for these elements in its current generic UNE proceeding. BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at paras. 176- 77. 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 26 proceeding, scheduled to begin in November 2002, to review updated cost information and revise cost- based rates, not including collocation. 155 52. South Carolina. By orders dated June 1, 1998 and September 18, 1998, the South Carolina Commission first set permanent rates for UNEs and interconnection services in Docket 97- 372- C. 156 The South Carolina Commission also established interim deaveraged rates for certain UNEs by order dated April 24, 2000. 157 At BellSouth’s request, the South Carolina Commission opened Docket 2001- 65- C to update the 1998 UNE rates, set additional UNE rates, and to establish permanent deaveraged rates for certain UNEs and UNE combinations. 158 During the evidentiary hearing on June 18- 21, 2001 for Docket 2001- 65- C, the South Carolina Commission heard testimony from 11 witnesses representing BellSouth, NewSouth, NuVox, Broadslate, ITC^ DeltaCom, KMC, and the South Carolina Consumer Advocate. 159 These parties also filed written testimony from ten additional witnesses. 160 After considering all of the pricing evidence, the South Carolina Commission issued its UNE Rate Order on November 30, 2001. 161 53. In concluding that BellSouth’s UNE rates complied with the Commission’s TELRIC pricing rules, the South Carolina Commission specifically approved the BSTLM and the five different network scenarios that BellSouth used to develop recurring and non- recurring charges. 162 The South Carolina Commission also determined that certain BellSouth UNE rates fell “at the upper end of a range of reasonable TELRIC rates” and therefore adopted the following “competitive discounts”: 20 percent discount off proposed recurring rates for all UNE loops and combinations, except for the four- wire DS1 digital loops, which was discounted by 30 percent, and a 50 percent discount off all proposed non- recurring charges. 163 According to the 155 BellSouth has proposed collocation rates in Docket Nos. P- 100, Sub 133j and P- 55, Sub 1022. It plans to update its SGAT Price List when the North Carolina Commission issues its final orders in these dockets. BellSouth May 7 Letter at 2 n. 4. 156 Generic Proceeding to Establish Prices for BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ’s Interconnection Services, Unbundled Network Elements and other Related Services, Public Service Commission of South Carolina, Order on UNE Rates, Docket No. 2001- 65- C (Nov. 30, 2001) (UNE Rate Order or South Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order) at 1. 157 Id. 158 Id. at 1- 2. 159 Id. at 2- 3. 160 Id. 161 Id. at 3. 162 Id. at 6. 163 Id. 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 27 South Carolina Commission, these discounts “produce[ d] rates that are within, and possibly below, a reasonable TELRIC range.” 164 54. The South Carolina Commission also set permanent deaveraged UNE rates in the UNE Rate Order. 165 After noting that states have considerable latitude in determining how to deaverage rates, the South Carolina Commission adopted BellSouth’s deaveraging proposal, which deaveraged loop- related UNEs into three geographic areas using existing BellSouth rate groups based on BellSouth’s SGAT. 166 The South Carolina Commission stated that, “[ u] nder BellSouth’s approach, customers who are located in the same geographic area and who have similar local calling areas would be in the same deaveraged zone for UNE pricing.” 167 Although the South Carolina Commission found that “deaveraging of UNEs will result in rates that vary in the opposite directions from the prices for BellSouth’s retail services,” 168 it nevertheless stated that BellSouth’s deaveraging methodology was consistent with the Commission’s rules. 169 55. In the UNE Rate Order, the South Carolina Commission also made determinations concerning rates for collocation, loop conditioning, line sharing and splitting, and UNE combinations. In adopting all of these rates, the South Carolina Commission noted that it would consider any new evidence in a subsequent docket. 170 b. Recurring Charges (i) Loop Rates 56. Loop Modeling. BellSouth separately determines prices for loops and ports on a stand- alone basis and in combination. The Commission approved this “multiple scenario” pricing methodology when considering BellSouth’s application to provide in- region, interLATA service originating in Louisiana pursuant to section 271. 171 Like the Louisiana Commission, the Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina Commissions also approved BellSouth’s proposal to use five different network scenarios for costing UNEs and UNE combinations. 172 164 Id. 165 Id. at 6- 8. 166 Id. 167 Id. 168 Id. 169 Id. at 7- 8. 170 Id. at 17. 171 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9041, para. 38. 172 See Alabama Commission UNE Rate Order at 24- 25; Kentucky Commission UNE Rate Order at 13- 15; Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 13- 14; South Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 6. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 28 Those five scenarios are: (1) the BST 2000 scenario – used to develop forward- looking investment for all network elements except copper loops and UNE combinations; (2) the Combo scenario – used to develop the material investment associated with loops used in combinations (two- wire analog voice grade loop); (3) the Copper only scenario – used to develop the material investment of network elements served only by unloaded copper feeder and distribution facilities; (4) the BST2000 ISDN scenario – all loops in BST2000 scenario are converted to ISDN loops and ISDN customers are added; and (5) the Combo- ISDN scenario – used to develop the costs of an ISDN loop when offered in combination. 173 57. As a result of this costing methodology, BellSouth determines prices for stand-alone loops based on the assumed use of Universal Digital Loop Carrier (UDLC) but determines prices for UNE loop/ port combinations based on the assumed use of Integrated Digital Loop Carrier (IDLC). 174 BellSouth assumes that UDLC is the appropriate technology for provisioning unbundled loops because IDLC technology integrates the loop directly into the switch. 175 BellSouth further assumes that it is less costly to provide a loop/ port combination using IDLC than using UDLC. Therefore, BellSouth’s methodology prices a loop and port, when purchased as individual elements, higher than a UNE loop/ port combination (UNE- platform). 58. WorldCom argues that BellSouth’s multiple scenario approach overstates costs by understating economies of scope. 176 According to WorldCom, there are inefficiencies inherent in this approach because it allows BellSouth to design networks for customer demand that would otherwise be served more efficiently using an alternate network design. 177 WorldCom illustrates its argument by explaining that, in developing the unbundled copper loop rates, BellSouth utilizes a model that assumes an all- copper network to reach all customer locations, even if a particular customer located far from a wire center would be more efficiently served using an alternative model, such as a remote terminal and fiber optics facilities. 178 WorldCom asserts that, 173 BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at paras. 41- 53. 174 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9041, para. 39. As explained in more detail in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, UDLC is an older version of DLC technology that is not directly integrated into the switch. UDLC requires digital signals to be routed through a central office terminal and converted back to analog signals before reaching the central office switch, making it capable of interfacing with any analog or digital central office switch. IDLC technology eliminates the need for digital- to- analog signal conversion by establishing a direct digital interface to a digital remote terminal, allowing delivery of the combined traffic directly into the switch without first separating the traffic from the individual lines. As a result, IDLC can operate only with a digital switch. See id. at 9042- 43, para. 43. 175 See BellSouth Reply App., Tab B, Reply Affidavit of D. Daonne Caldwell (BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff.) at para. 11. 176 WorldCom Comments at 15; WorldCom Comments, Tab B, Declaration of Chris Frentrup (WorldCom Frentrup Decl.) at para. 13. See also WorldCom Reply at 9- 10; WorldCom Reply, Tab. B, Reply Declaration of Chris Frentrup (WorldCom Frentrup Reply Decl.) at paras. 9- 12. 177 WorldCom Frentrup Decl. at paras. 13- 14. 178 Id. at para. 14. 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 29 because the model assumes the existence of unrealistically long copper loops, and averages the higher cost of such loops with the shorter loops that would exist in an efficient network, the model artificially inflates the cost of copper loops. 179 WorldCom also argues that this approach further overstates cost by assuming only UDLC will be used for stand- alone loops and by assuming that some of the IDLC used to provide UNE- platform will not meet the current industry GR- 303 protocol. 180 WorldCom contends that this approach violates sections 51.505( b), 51.511( b), and 51.503( b) of the Commission’s rules 181 by failing to take into account only the “lowest cost network configuration,” which, in turn, must take into account BellSouth’s provision of other elements and which must also be based on current levels of demand. 182 Finally, WorldCom argues that loops should have been priced using only the Combo scenario because the majority of demand in the BellSouth region is for plain old telephone service (POTS), and therefore prices should be based largely on provision of POTS. 183 59. BellSouth responds that the multiple scenario approach is consistent with TELRIC and captures economies of scale and scope. BellSouth represents that it uses the same overall line count for each scenario and thus considers the total quantity of facilities in each scenario. 184 BellSouth further contends that this approach most accurately reflects actual costs because it accounts for the differences in the manner in which BellSouth provisions different loops (e. g., stand- alone loops, UNE- platform loops) and reflects the cost differences associated with each. 185 BellSouth also notes that, because it cannot know today how a loop may be used by a competitive LEC in the future, its use of multiple scenarios is necessary. 186 BellSouth explains that the alleged inflation of copper loop costs described by WorldCom is impossible because specific length limits are imposed when developing costs. 187 179 Id. 180 Id. at para. 15 n. 2. 181 47 C. F. R. §§ 51.505( b), 51.511, 51.503( c). 182 See WorldCom Comments at 15- 16; see also WorldCom Reply at 10 n. 2. 183 WorldCom Comments at 16. 184 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at paras. 13- 14. 185 BellSouth contends that using only one scenario would, in fact, lead to under- recovery of costs because not all possible uses for a loop specific to a customer can be considered with a single scenario. BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 11. 186 Id. at para. 14. 187 Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communication Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 4 (filed Aug. 9, 2002) (BellSouth August 9 Ex Parte Letter). BellSouth explains that the UCL- Short Loop does not exceed 18,000 feet, the UCL- ND does not exceed 24,000 feet, and the HDSL- compatible loop does not exceed 12,000 feet. Id. Accordingly, BellSouth states that only loops that meet these length limitations are considered when the costs are calculated, and therefore it is impossible for the average cost of these shorter loops to be inflated by costs of longer loops. Id. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 30 60. As an initial matter, we note that various commenters, including WorldCom, also challenged BellSouth’s multiple scenario approach in response to BellSouth’s application to provide in- region, interLATA service originating in Louisiana pursuant to section 271, 188 as well as in the Alabama, Kentucky, and Mississippi UNE rate proceedings. 189 After evaluating such arguments, the Commission previously concluded that BellSouth’s multiple scenario methodology is consistent with TELRIC and does reflect economies of scale and scope because it considers the entire quantity of lines in each scenario. 190 The Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina Commissions similarly accepted BellSouth’s use of multiple loop modeling scenarios during their respective state UNE rate proceedings. 191 Based on the record before us, we find that the Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina Commissions reasonably accepted BellSouth’s use of multiple scenarios to price loops. For example, the Mississippi Commission addressed this issue in detail in its UNE rate order. It rejected WorldCom’s contention that the use of multiple scenarios violates TELRIC, emphasizing that BellSouth used the same overall line count in each scenario, therefore ensuring that the total quantity of facilities was considered in each scenario. 192 The Mississippi Commission also rejected the argument that the multiple scenario approach overstates costs, concluding that this methodology appropriately accounts for the differences in the manner in which BellSouth provisions different loops, and is, “in fact, necessary to accurately calculate BellSouth’s costs.” 193 61. We defer to the analyses of the state commissions, and we therefore reject WorldCom’s criticism of the multiple scenario approach. As we noted in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, because BellSouth considers the entire quantity of lines in each scenario, its methodology reflects economy of scope. 194 Moreover, WorldCom’s criticism does not respond to the concern noted by the state commissions that use of a single scenario might in fact result in under- recovery of costs. A proper loop costing methodology must reflect that some customers purchase stand- alone loops, and BellSouth is entitled to recover the forward- looking costs 188 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9041- 42, paras. 40- 41. 189 See Alabama Commission UNE Rate Order at 20- 24; Kentucky Commission UNE Rate Order at 13; Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 13. Although the South Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order did not reference comments on this issue, it did specifically evaluate BellSouth’s use of multiple scenarios. South Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 6. 190 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9041- 42, para. 41. 191 See Alabama Commission UNE Rate Order at 24- 25; Kentucky Commission UNE Rate Order at 13- 15; Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 13- 14; South Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 6. 192 Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 13- 14. 193 Id. at 14; see also Mississippi Commission Reply at 9; Alabama Commission UNE Rate Order at 25; Kentucky Commission UNE Rate Order at 11- 14; South Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 6. The findings of these state commissions are consistent with the findings of the Louisiana Commission, which found that using only one scenario would lead to under- recovery of BellSouth’s costs. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9041- 42, para. 41. 194 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9041- 42, para. 41. 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 31 associated with provisioning those loops that may differ from the costs associated with provisioning a loop/ switch combination (UNE- platform). 195 WorldCom does not explain how exclusive use of the Combo scenario would provide for recovery of these costs. We further find that BellSouth’s explanation regarding the manner in which copper loops are priced addresses WorldCom’s argument that the prices of such loops are inevitably inflated. 62. In addition, we reject WorldCom’s arguments regarding the impact of using UDLC technology for stand- alone loops. WorldCom has not provided cost analysis to show that IDLC is necessarily less expensive than UDLC when used for stand- alone loops and ports, and we remain unpersuaded, based on the evidence before us, that a current application of TELRIC would require 100 percent use of such technology for that purpose. 196 Indeed, as we explained in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, prior Commission orders have recognized that at least certain IDLC alternatives would likely be more expensive. 197 WorldCom’s related argument, that BellSouth’s prices for stand- alone loops would decrease if BellSouth used only GR- 303 technology, also has been previously rejected by this Commission. 198 As we have explained, BellSouth may use UDLC to set prices for stand- alone loops, and UDLC is not compatible with GR- 303 technology. 199 63. Accordingly, we find that WorldCom has not presented evidence sufficient to show that these state commissions erred in their decisions or to overcome the record evidence BellSouth has presented as to why the use of multiple scenarios is appropriate. 64. Loading Factors. WorldCom contends that BellSouth’s excessive loading factors greatly inflate switching and loop costs in each of the five states. 200 The loading factor (also called the EF& I factor, for “Engineered, Furnished and Installed”) represents the cost of labor and additional materials required to make equipment operational. It converts material costs to installed investment costs and thus provides for recovery of EF& I costs. 201 Based on the record, we conclude that each of the five state commissions made a reasonable determination that 195 See Alabama Commission UNE Rate Order at 25. 196 See generally BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9046, para. 50. 197 See id. 198 See id. at 9046, para. 50 n. 180. BellSouth states that there are additional costs and limiting factors to such an arrangement. BellSouth Caldwell Reply at para. 17. 199 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9046, para. 50 n. 180. 200 WorldCom Comments at 16. 201 Each state has a total of 30 loading factors. Twenty- four of them relate to the outside plant (OSP), and six of them relate to the central office equipment (COE). Half of both of the OSP and COE factors are material factors (applied only to the material), and half are telco factors (applied to material and vendor engineering and vendor installation). See Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 16, 2002) (BellSouth August 16 Ex Parte Letter); BellSouth Caldwell Reply Decl. at para. 34. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 32 BellSouth’s loading factors accord with TELRIC principles. As WorldCom itself states, competitive carriers “adamantly challenged BellSouth’s use of loading factors in the five states at issue here,” 202 and, in each case, the state commissions upheld the use of BellSouth’s loading factors. 203 We also note that WorldCom does not dispute BellSouth’s assertion that the loading factor methodology challenged here is the same methodology that we reviewed and accepted in the Georgia/ Louisiana proceeding. 204 Furthermore, we note that no party in this proceeding has challenged any particular loading factor or asserted that the derivation of any particular loading factor is not TELRIC- compliant. 205 65. WorldCom argues that BellSouth’s loading factors are derived from an embedded, rather than forward- looking, network and that this substantially overstates the EF& I costs in a forward- looking network. 206 WorldCom states that the fact that the loading factors vary substantially from state to state is evidence that the factors are improperly determined. 207 As an example, WorldCom notes that “the material in- plant loading factor for digital switching equipment in Kentucky was 28 [percent] higher than the factor used for this equipment in Mississippi, even though the cost of engineering and installing digital switching equipment should not vary significantly by state.” 208 WorldCom also contends that, based on runs of the BellSouth model for Florida and Georgia with certain adjustments WorldCom made to the loading factors, BellSouth’s loading factors appear to have overstated costs by at least 15 percent. 209 It submits exhibits from AT& T and WorldCom testimony filed in pending Florida 202 WorldCom Comments at 18. 203 Id. at 16; see also Alabama Commission UNE Rate Order at 25- 34, 40- 41; Kentucky Commission UNE Rate Order at 15; Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 17- 21; North Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 50- 52. Although there is no specific mention of loading factors in the South Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order, it is clear from the record that loading factors were discussed thoroughly during the course of the proceeding. See BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at Exh. DDC- 15 (Testimony of Don J. Wood, on behalf of NewSouth Communications, NuVox Communications, Broadslate Networks, ITC^ DeltaCom Communications, and KMC Telecom, in the South Carolina Commission UNE Rate Proceeding at 1253- 68 (June 4, 2001)) (Competitive Coalition Wood South Carolina Testimony). 204 BellSouth Application at 43; see also BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at para. 14. 205 WorldCom does assert that the fact that the material inplant loading factor for digital switching in Kentucky is 28% higher that the material inplant loading factor used for digital switching in Mississippi is evidence that the loading factors are improperly determined. We disagree. See discussion below. 206 WorldCom Comments at 17; WorldCom Frentrup Decl. at paras. 17- 18. WorldCom states that, “[ w] hile material costs would decrease in a forward- looking network, the costs of installation and maintenance would decrease even more, reducing the ratio of material to installed costs. In a forward- looking network, for example, most loops will be installed electronically via a circuit board without any need to rearrange circuits in the field.” WorldCom Comments at 17. 207 WorldCom Frentrup Decl. at para. 17. 208 Id. 209 WorldCom Frentrup Reply Decl. at para. 13. 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 33 and Georgia UNE cases that it says “itemizes the effect of correcting [loading] . . . and other factors.” 210 66. BellSouth counters that it developed its in- plant loading factors based on the latest year- end data available at the time the studies were conducted and that these forward-looking factors were applied to a forward- looking material price. 211 In addition, BellSouth states that in- plant factors should and do vary by state because “[ e] ach state negotiates vendor contracts independently, the work performed differs due to such factors as terrain and climate conditions, and state taxes are unique.” 212 Finally, BellSouth argues that using WorldCom’s proposed inputs to calculate fully loaded material prices are inappropriate because, among other reasons, “( 1) they do not reflect BellSouth’s material prices; [and] (2) the installation costs, engineering costs, exempt material expenses, and taxes are not reflective of BellSouth[ ’s] incurred costs.” 213 67. The North Carolina Commission addressed the argument that BellSouth’s loading factors are derived from an embedded, rather than forward- looking, network in its UNE pricing order and found that it was “appropriate to require the four ILECs to input the loading factors [proposed by BellSouth and] adopted and approved by the [North Carolina] Commission in the FLEC Docket.” 214 It specifically noted that it had found the loading factors to be forward-looking in that docket. 215 In addition, WorldCom made the same argument before the Alabama 216 and Mississippi Commissions, 217 and neither Commission found the argument persuasive. Competitive carriers also asserted that BellSouth’s loading factors in Georgia and Louisiana 210 Id. According to the exhibit that WorldCom submitted to the Florida Commission, loop costs would be reduced by 24.8% if the BellSouth model were changed to “Correct DLC In- plant Factors”; “Eliminate 25% Closing Factor and Correct Contract Labor Data”; “Update Inflation Factors”; “Correct Treatment for Exempt Material”; and “Correct Engineering Factors.” Id. at para. 14. Similarly, according to the exhibit that it submitted to the Georgia Commission, Zone One 2- Wire Analog Voice Loop costs would be reduced 15% if changes were made to account for “Inflation Double Count,” “Closing Factor,” “Exempt Material Loading,” “Indirect Labor Loading,” “Engineering Factors,” and “Bottoms- Up DLC Inputs.” Id. at para. 14. 211 BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at para. 11. 212 Id. at para. 12. 213 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Decl. at para. 25. 214 North Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 52. The FLEC Docket refers to a proceeding undertaken by the North Carolina Commission to determine the forward- looking economic costs of providing universal service in North Carolina. Id. at 5. 215 Id. at 52. 216 BellSouth Application App. D, Vol. 7a- b, Tab 16 Part B, (WorldCom, Inc. Direct and Rebuttal Testimony of Greg Darnell Before the Alabama Public Service Commission, Docket No. 27821, at 2803- 06 (April 20, 2001)). 217 BellSouth Application Caldwell Reply Aff. at Exh. DDC- 14, (WorldCom, Inc. Direct and Rebuttal Testimony of Greg Darnell Before the Mississippi Public Service Commission, Docket No. 2000- UA- 999, at 14- 15 (April 16, 2001)) (WorldCom Darnell Mississippi Testimony). 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 34 reflected embedded costs, 218 but we concluded that the loading factors in Georgia and Louisiana were determined in accordance with TELRIC principles. 219 WorldCom has not presented any new evidence or argument that persuades us that the state commissions committed clear error in their choice of loading factors. 68. We also reject WorldCom’s assertion that the fact that loading factors vary from state to state is evidence that the factors are improperly determined. We note that the state commissions in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina did not accept the claims of competitive carriers that argued in the state proceedings that it was appropriate to use Florida data to calculate loading factors in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina because these costs should not vary by state. 220 BellSouth offers credible evidence that cost variations can be attributed to differences in vendor contracts, terrain and climate conditions, and state taxes, and WorldCom has not rebutted this evidence. Furthermore, we find that WorldCom is not correct when it states that the material in- plant loading factor for digital switching equipment in Kentucky is 28 percent higher than the factor used in Mississippi. BellSouth has submitted documentation showing that the material in- plant loading factor for digital switching equipment is 1.478 for Kentucky and 1.447 for Mississippi, approximately a two percent difference. 221 As in our BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, we reject WorldCom’s unsupported contention that BellSouth’s loading factors vary more from state to state than can be explained by labor or other cost differences. 222 218 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9046- 47, para. 51, 9051, para. 61. 219 See id. at 9047- 48, paras. 52- 53, 9050- 51, paras. 60- 61. 220 BellSouth Application App. D, Vol. 8, Tab 17 (SECCA Testimony of Cynthia M. Wilsky and Don J. Wood Before the Alabama Public Service Commission, Docket No. 27821 at 3206- 09 (April 20, 2001)) (SECCA Wilsky/ Wood Alabama Testimony); BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at Exh. DDC- 13, (SECCA Rebuttal Testimony of Cynthia M. Wilsky and Don J. Wood Before the Kentucky Public Service Commission, Administrative Case No. 382 at 54- 55 (June 22, 2001)) (SECCA Wilsky/ Wood Kentucky Testimony); WorldCom Darnell Mississippi Testimony at 27- 28; Competitive Coalition Wood South Carolina Testimony at 1261- 62. Challengers did not raise this issue in the proceeding before the North Carolina Commission. 221 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 34. 377C is the field reporting code for digital switching. As noted previously, WorldCom does not challenge any particular loading factor or demonstrate that it was calculated in error. It merely alleges that all of the loading factors are inflated and that one of them is 28% higher than a comparable one in another state. Moreover, we note that even if WorldCom were to establish a 28% difference in comparable loading factors in different states, a mere comparison, without anything more, is not sufficient to establish clear error. See Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12306, para 70; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9035, para. 26; Application by Verizon New England, Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/ b/ a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/ b/ a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks, Inc., and Verizon Select Services, Inc., for Authorization to Provide In- Region, Inter- LATA Services in Vermont, CC Docket No. 02- 7, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7625, 7644, para. 35 (2002) (Verizon Vermont Order). 222 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9047, para. 52 n. 186 (rejecting, due to lack of supporting evidence, WorldCom’s assertions that loading factors varied more from state to state than could be explained by labor or other cost differences). 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 35 69. Furthermore, we are not convinced that WorldCom’s runs of the BellSouth model for Florida and Georgia, which purportedly rely on WorldCom’s adjustments to BellSouth’s fully loaded material prices, demonstrate that BellSouth’s loading factors for other BellSouth states overstate costs by fifteen percent. First, as we state above, WorldCom has not rebutted BellSouth’s evidence that cost variations among BellSouth states can be attributed to differences in vendor contracts, terrain and climate conditions, and state taxes. Given this unrebutted evidence, WorldCom’s model runs for Georgia and Florida do not provide a reliable measure of any overstatement of costs caused by the BellSouth’s loading factors in other BellSouth states. Second, WorldCom merely provides “itemizations” purporting to specify what items were inflated that it has submitted to the Georgia and Florida Commissions. 223 It does not explain or document the methodology, assumptions, calculations, or data relating to how it modified BellSouth’s loading factors. These simple itemizations do not provide us with an adequate basis to find that the five state commissions’ judgments regarding these loading factors violate basic TELRIC principles or constitute clear error. 70. WorldCom also asserts that BellSouth’s application of the same loading factor to all sizes of equipment overstates installed investment costs in more densely populated areas and understates these costs in less populated areas. 224 WorldCom states that, as a result, BellSouth does not properly deaverage costs. 225 BellSouth counters that its model is consistent with our pricing rules because its loading factors fairly reflect the average costs associated with installing a cable. 226 The state commissions in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina all considered the argument that applying the same loading factor to all sizes of equipment overstates installed investment costs in more densely populated areas and understates these costs in less populated areas, and in each case the states did not adjust their loading factors. 227 The Mississippi Commission specifically found that “[ w] hile the relationship of the combined costs of installation, labor, exempt material, sales tax, and engineering to total material cost may not be perfectly linear, the use of In- Plant factors produces representative cost results when viewed on a total cable placement basis.” 228 WorldCom also argued in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana proceeding that applying the same loading factors to all sizes of equipment would significantly impact total costs. 229 As we did in that proceeding, 230 we conclude that WorldCom has not 223 WorldCom Frentrup Reply Decl. at paras. 13- 14. As of yet, neither the Florida nor the Georgia Commission has issued its cost order. 224 WorldCom Comments at 17; WorldCom Frentrup Decl. at para. 21. 225 Id. 226 BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at para. 9. 227 SECCA Wilsky/ Wood Alabama Testimony at 3200- 03; SECCA Wilsky/ Wood Kentucky Testimony at 48- 49; WorldCom Darnell Mississippi Testimony at 26- 27; Competitive Coalition Wood South Carolina Testimony at 1255. Challengers did not raise this issue in the proceeding before the North Carolina Commission. 228 Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 19. 229 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9049, para. 56, 9052, para. 63. 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 36 presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the state commissions committed clear error with respect to BellSouth’s loading factors. 71. BellSouth’s loading factor methodology produces the average loading factor for all cable sizes included in the data from which it derives the factor. Use of the average loading factor will tend to overstate the cost of installing a cable that is larger than the average cable size when applied to the unloaded cable cost for such a cable. It will tend to understate the cost of installing a cable that is smaller than average when applied to the unloaded cable cost for such a cable. It overstates installation costs for large cables and understates these costs for small cables because cable costs are not a constant fraction of the unloaded cable cost to which the loading factor is applied. In concept, however, it will provide an accurate estimate of the cost of installing the average size cable when applied to the unloaded cable cost estimate for the average size cable. 72. We find for several reasons that BellSouth’s use of an average loading factor for all cables sizes is reasonable. First, while not perfect, the factor does reflect that cable installation costs do increase with the size of the cable being placed. For example, splicing costs are greater for a large cable than for a small cable because more labor is required to splice the larger cable. Applying a fixed loading factor to a relatively large unloaded cost for a relatively large cable produces, as it should, a relatively large dollar amount for engineering, furnishing, and installing such a cable. In fact, the loaded cable inputs developed by the Commission for use in its synthesis model – inputs that WorldCom supports for use in developing unbundled loop prices 231 – rely to some extent on fixed percentage loading factors. 232 73. Second, BellSouth provides evidence that its model produces a loop network with mostly small cables. 233 Use of an average loading factor for every cable size in a case such as (Continued from previous page) 230 Id. at 9049, para. 56, 9052, para. 64. 231 WorldCom Comments at 18; WorldCom Frentrup Decl. at para. 19. 232 Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service Forward- Looking Mechanism for High Cost Support for Non-Rural LECs, CC Docket No. 96- 45 and CC Docket No. 97- 160, Tenth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20156, 20231, paras. 168- 69 (1999) (Universal Service Tenth Report and Order). For example, the Commission adopted loadings for splicing costs of 9.4% and 4.7% for every copper and fiber cable size, respectively, and a 10% loading for incumbent LEC engineering costs for every copper and fiber cable size. Universal Service Tenth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20229, paras. 164- 65. 233 While copper cable typically is sold in sizes ranging from approximately 25 pairs to 4200 pairs, BellSouth supplied data showing that approximately 92% of the copper cable in its model loop network is 25 (63%), 50 (14%), 100 (10%), or 200 (6%) pair cable. BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 21. Based on these BellSouth data, the route- feet weighted average copper cable size in the loop network produced by its model is approximately 109 pair cable. While fiber cable typically is sold in sizes ranging from approximately 6 strands to 216 strands, BellSouth supplied data showing that approximately 91% of the fiber cable in its model network is 6 (3%), 12 (67%), 18 (9%), 24 (6%), 30 (4%), or 36 (3%) strand cable. See Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communication Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 29, 2002) (BellSouth August 29 Ex Parte Letter). Based on these BellSouth data, the route-feet weighted average fiber cable size in the loop network produced by its model is approximately 19 strand cable. 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 37 this, where the size of a substantially large percentage of the cable for which costs are developed is relatively close to the average cable size, will tend to produce relatively accurate estimates of the cost of installing cable. 74. Third, BellSouth also provides evidence that the average loading factor it uses to develop loop costs may tend to understate overall installation costs. The BellSouth model produces a loop network with relatively more small size cable than the actual cable placements reflected in the data from which BellSouth derives the copper cable loading factors. 234 As a result, cable loading factors based on relatively large cable sizes are applied to unloaded cable costs for relatively small cables. Given that the cost of installing cable is typically a smaller fraction of the unloaded cost of relatively large cables compared to this fraction for relatively small cables, 235 applying loading factors derived from data on relatively large cables to unloaded costs for relatively small cables will tend to understate the overall installation cost for cable. 75. Fourth, the use of an average loading factor has the benefit of simplicity without a significant loss of precision compared to use of multiple loadings. The complexity required to develop different loadings for different cable sizes, including the compilation and analysis of an enormous amount of disaggregated data that may not be readily available, even to the incumbent LEC, or the need to make many subjective judgments in the absence of these data, may not justify any possible gain in the precision of the loading estimates resulting from such a methodology. 76. For the foregoing reasons, WorldCom has not presented evidence sufficient to show that the five state commissions committed clear error in their decisions with respect to loading factors. Accordingly, we conclude that BellSouth’s loading factors do not reflect clear errors in factual findings so substantial that the end result falls outside the range that a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce. (ii) Switching Rates 77. AT& T challenges several technical aspects of BellSouth’s switching cost study and asserts TELRIC errors in all five states resulting from (1) flawed switch discount calculations; (2) embedded trunking cost calculations; (3) inappropriate assumptions regarding combined local/ tandem switches; and (4) improper allocation of “getting started” costs to 234 In particular, 85% of the copper cable reflected in the data from which BellSouth derives its loading factors is 25 (17%), 50 (28%), 100 (24%), or 200 (16%) pair cable. BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 21. Based on these BellSouth data, the route- feet weighted average copper cable size is approximately 156 pair cable. The cable in these data, like the copper cable produced by BellSouth’s model, is mostly relatively small size cable. In addition, 59% of the fiber cable reflected in the data from which BellSouth derives its fiber cable loading factors is 6 (approximately 0%), 12 (11%), 18 (1%), 24 (31%), 30 (approximately 0%), or 36 (15%) strand cable. See BellSouth August 29 Ex Parte Letter. Based on these BellSouth data, the route- feet weighted average fiber cable size is approximately 49 strand cable. The majority of the cable in these data, like the fiber cable produced by BellSouth’s model, is relatively small- size cable. 235 This is true due to the existence of certain fixed installation costs that do not vary with the size of the cable. 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 38 switching usage and features. 236 AT& T also poses detailed and overall challenges to BellSouth’s feature cost methodology, including the feature port additive. 237 78. At the outset, we note that all of these issues involve complex and fact- specific challenges related to BellSouth’s switching cost model or inputs which were approved in individual states only after state commissions made adjustments or modifications based on extensive hearings and evidence. Each of the state commissions has demonstrated a commitment to TELRIC principles in setting UNE prices. 238 Despite multiple opportunities over several years to bring these specific issues to the attention of state commissions in ongoing UNE proceedings in each of the five states, AT& T barely did so. 239 As a result, state commissions in the applicant states have not been afforded the opportunity to consider many fact- intensive questions presented for the first time by AT& T in response to this section 271 application. AT& T, furthermore, did not raise these specific, detailed complaints about BellSouth’s cost models before the Commission when we evaluated and approved BellSouth’s section 271 application for Georgia and Louisiana that used the identical models underlying this application. 240 With respect to the complaints that AT& T raises regarding switch discounts, trunking equipment, combined local/ tandem offices in BellSouth’s cost models, and allocation of switching costs, as discussed below, we find that these claims are insufficient to establish that the state commissions committed clear error. We also conclude that our benchmark analysis demonstrates that non- loop rates, which include the cost of features, in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina fall within the range that a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce. 79. Discounts. AT& T contends that BellSouth used the wrong discount for the 5ESS switch because it does not reflect the actual price BellSouth paid for new switches. 241 AT& T asserts that BellSouth used a small sample of recent switch purchases instead of using contract-specific new switch data and that, after applying the discount, switch prices actually exceeded 236 AT& T Comments at 34. 237 Id. at 34- 37. 238 See section IV. B. 1. a, supra. 239 AT& T did not raise the switching misallocation issue in the most current UNE cost proceedings in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina. It was raised in 1998 before the North Carolina Commission and in early generic cost dockets in other states, but it was rejected. AT& T raised other arguments related to features and discounts before state commissions, but not the specific ones it raises here. The arguments related to trunk equipment technology and combined local/ tandem offices were never presented before the commissions of the five applicant states. As we made clear in the Verizon Vermont Order, it is generally impracticable for the Commission to make fact- specific findings in the context of a section 271 proceeding when the state commission’s fact- specific findings were not challenged at the state level. Verizon Vermont Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7636, para. 20. 240 All five states use the Switch Cost Information System (SCIS) Model to generate switch unit investments. North Carolina uses the model that is identical to the one used in Georgia. Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina use the same model as Louisiana. BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at para. 28. 241 AT& T Comments App., Tab E, Declaration of Catherine E. Pitts (AT& T Pitts Decl.) at para. 5. 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 39 the contract prices. 242 BellSouth used this incorrect discount, according to AT& T, to calculate the “getting started” cost of the switch and in the new and growth melding process that determined the discount applied to other equipment, resulting in inflated switch costs. 243 AT& T also questions whether the use of a melded discount is appropriate 244 and whether it was proper to use 1999- 2002 as the sample period. 245 We find that AT& T has not persuaded us that commissions in the five applicant states committed clear error in adopting BellSouth’s “new” switch discount for use in the SCIS model. 80. As an initial matter, we found in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order that switching prices may be based on a meld of new and growth discounts. 246 We recognized that certain vendors have provided a greater discount for new switches and smaller discounts for growth or expansion of existing switches, and such discounts were only valid when an overall purchase of both new and growth equipment was made. 247 Moreover, we have previously stated that the split between new and growth discounts is a fact- intensive and specific determination that should be decided in the first instance by state commissions. 248 In this case, however, AT& T did not attempt to demonstrate to any of the state commissions, as it specifically asserts here, that BellSouth did not calculate the new and growth discounts properly, or how AT& T would have calculated them. 81. As the record shows, switch vendor contracts often are expressed in terms of a price per equivalent line, rather than a discount off the list price. 249 BellSouth’s switching cost model, however, requires an input of a percentage off the list price. To develop a vendor 242 AT& T Comments at 37; AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 6. 243 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 6. “BellSouth used the new (replacement) switch price for equipment included in the first cost (getting started cost) of the switch and a melded new and growth price for all remaining switch equipment.” Id. at para. 5. “The ‘first cost’ of the switch is the initial up- front cost of purchasing a replacement switch, while the growth cost is the cost of switch equipment for adding equipment to an existing switch.” Id. at n. 2. BellSouth disputes AT& T’s claim that BellSouth used a melded new and growth discount for the entire switch in North Carolina. AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 5 n. 1; BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 67. 244 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 5. 245 Id. at para. 7; see also AT& T Comments at 37. 246 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9057- 58, para. 78. AT& T did not argue there that the specific discounts that were applied by BellSouth were inappropriate. Id. at 9059- 60, para. 82. 247 Id. at 9059, para. 81. 248 Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12293, para. 43. We have found, however, that switch prices based on an assumption of 100% growth additions did not comply with TELRIC. Application by Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications Inc. (d/ b/ a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/ b/ a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc., for Authorization To Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Rhode Island, CC Docket No. 01- 324, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 3300, 3318, para. 34 (2002) (Verizon Rhode Island Order). 249 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 69. 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 40 discount percentage for use in the cost model, BellSouth used information from actual switch replacement jobs to determine what the price for a new switch would be without a discount, and then compared it to what was billed by the vendor with the discount. 250 BellSouth analyzed each of its 28 new switch jobs in 1998 covered under its then- current vendor contracts that reflected what BellSouth paid to its switch vendors. 251 To develop forward- looking switch costs, it is reasonable to use current switch prices, reflecting actual purchases and existing vendor discounts, as a starting point. LECs today generally have digital switches in place throughout their entire network and are purchasing relatively few new switches. As a result, a study size of 28 new switches may not be unreasonable. Expanding the study size would require information on older purchases that might be less relevant to determining what BellSouth would pay for a switch on a forward- looking basis. BellSouth’s cost studies were forward- looking in omitting analog switches and considering only the latest releases by switch vendors for switch generics and the latest central office processor. 252 82. The state commissions determined switch- related costs and set rates based on the discount rates and methodology contained in BellSouth’s cost studies. 253 As we stated in prior section 271 proceedings, state commissions may reasonably find that cost models can, in a forward- looking manner, take into account specific new and growth discounts that are reflected in contracts with vendors. 254 Based on the evidence, we do not believe that AT& T has established that the sample of recent switch purchases by BellSouth was clear error or that BellSouth relies on embedded switching costs that are inconsistent with TELRIC principles. 255 250 Id. “Using actual orders, BellSouth populated SCIS/ MO with engineering data (e. g., number of lines, number of trunks, CCS per line, etc.) taken directly from orders used to purchase new/ replacement switches. These SCIS/ MO runs produced a total non- discounted investment for the switch. The total material price was then compared to the actual billing from vendors. Since SCIS/ MO requires an input of a % off list price, BellSouth used an [iterative] process (i. e., repeatedly changing the SCIS/ MO discount input) to determine the correct switch discount required to match the amount actually billed per line. . . . Since the jobs were worked under the auspices of the current switch contracts, the actual billed data from actual new/ replacement jobs reflect the appropriate rates per contract.” Id. at paras. 69, 70. 251 Id. at para. 74. BellSouth used billed data from its BellSouth Construction Activity System of replacement/ new switch orders that reflected the amount paid by BellSouth to either Lucent or Nortel. “The 28 jobs BellSouth examined is [sic] extensive considering that the requirement for placing new switches or replacing existing analog switches is limited.” This “reflected the totality of all replacement/ new jobs that were worked under the current contracts and closed in 1998. . . .” Id. 252 Id. at para. 58. 253 Id. at 77. “In the generic cost dockets in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, [] the state commissions established switch- related rates based upon BellSouth’s cost studies, which developed switching investment by using BellSouth’s existing contracts with Nortel and Lucent . . . . BellSouth’s cost studies took into consideration the cost associated with both the initial placement and growth of the switch . . . .” BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at para. 105. 254 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9058- 59, paras. 79, 81. 255 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 6; Letter from Alan C. Geolot, Counsel to AT& T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 4 (filed Aug. 23, 2002) (AT& T August 23 (continued….) 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 41 Furthermore, BellSouth provides persuasive evidence that using actual billed data for jobs worked under vendor contracts is a more accurate way to determine discounts than attempting to derive this information directly from contracts, as AT& T argues. 256 By contrast, we are left with no analysis or work papers demonstrating how AT& T arrived at its assertion that BellSouth’s method of computing discounts led to prices that exceeded the contract rate, 257 and, without more, we reject that assertion. BellSouth also reasonably explains that it based its meld of new and growth discounts on the number of lines projected to be purchased between 1999 and 2002. We do not believe, as AT& T contends, that this is an inappropriate sample period. We find that it rationally corresponds to the specified time frame of the cost study. 83. AT& T also asserts that the appropriate melded discount would reflect 82 percent of the new switch discount and 18 percent of the growth discount. 258 AT& T apparently assumes that BellSouth would have received the same new and growth switch contract discounts regardless of the mix of new and growth purchases that BellSouth expected to make. As noted above, however, although vendors offer a higher discount rate for new switches and a lower discount for growth, vendors may realistically set the specific discount rates on the basis of the anticipated overall purchase. 259 BellSouth argues that AT& T’s “82% new purchase assumption is not realistic” because switch vendors would not have accepted the resulting reduction in their margin and that it “would invalidate the entire discount structure under which the contracts were negotiated.” 260 We find merit in BellSouth’s assertion that the levels of new and growth switch discounts reflect the vendors’ judgments about anticipated purchases. AT& T has not persuaded us that the new- growth switch discount alone could be changed without affecting the rest of the negotiated discount structure in the vendor contracts. 84. Using a meld of new and growth discounts in developing switching rates also recognizes that it may not be cost- effective to acquire all of the projected switching capacity (Continued from previous page) Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter) (contending that BellSouth’s reliance on embedded switches and overemphasis on growth/ add- on investment violate TELRIC principles); see also id. App., Supplemental Reply Declaration of Catherine E. Pitts (AT& T Pitts Supp. Reply Decl.) at paras. 12- 16. 256 Id.; BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at para. 71. Switch contracts do not provide the necessary detail and require interpretation and clarification of which rates apply. In addition, the “equivalent lines” expressed in a contract are not the same as the line count entered into the SCIS/ MO cost model, so taking the lines from the cost model and multiplying by the price per equivalent line from the contract would understate the cost of a new switch. BellSouth Caldwell Aff. at para. 72. 257 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 6 258 AT& T Comments at 37- 38; AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 8, Exh. 1. 259 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9059, para. 81; AT& T v. FCC, 220 F. 3d at 618 (stating that counsel for the Commission explained at oral argument that “growth additions to existing switches cost more than new switches because vendors offer substantial new switch discounts in order to make telephone companies dependent on the vendors’ technology to update the switches”). 260 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 76. 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 42 needed over the life of the switch at the outset. 261 In calculating switching rates, BellSouth applied the higher (new) discount rate to about one- third of the investment, leaving the melded discount rate to be applied to the remaining two- thirds of the investment. 262 This has the effect of substantially narrowing the difference in rates resulting from the melded discount rate that was used by BellSouth and that advocated by AT& T. In sum, we have been presented with no evidence or rationale that would persuade us that the split of new to growth discounts in the cost models approved by the commissions in the applicant states is not TELRIC- compliant. We conclude, therefore, that AT& T has not established any clear error by the commissions in the five applicant states. 85. Trunking Technology. AT& T claims that BellSouth does not model forward-looking trunk equipment technology because it fails to assume the ubiquitous deployment of a switch component known as Digital Network Unit- SONET (DNUS). 263 BellSouth admits that DNUS may be the latest technology for trunk terminations, but it disputes AT& T’s contention that it is the most forward- looking, economical deployment in all instances because it is a high-capacity interface. 264 BellSouth further asserts that, where the yearly growth rate justifies a high-capacity interface, BellSouth’s model assumes DNUS use. 265 Although AT& T states that it has raised this issue in the pending Georgia cost proceeding, it did not do so in any of the five states at issue here. 86. AT& T also asserts without any supporting analysis that “[ c] orrecting the SCIS inputs to reflect the DNUS equipment in the current Georgia [cost] proceeding lowered the trunk costs eight percent.” 266 Again, we note that, although this issue is apparently under consideration in the Georgia cost proceeding, AT& T did not raise it in any of the five states represented in this section 271 application. At bottom, we have nothing more than AT& T’s bare assertion that the use of DNUS technology would lower trunking costs, at least under certain circumstances, 267 261 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9059- 60, para. 82. 262 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at Exh. DDC- 5. 263 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 9 (stating that BellSouth assumes the use of a Digital Line Trunk Unit (DLTU)). 264 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 78. “The use of the DNUS decreases the cost per trunk, but only if it is fully utilized. The DNUS is a high capacity interface, capable of terminating 8,064 trunks. Thus, the utilization is relatively low except in a limited number of central offices where demand for trunk terminations is high.” Id. (emphasis in original). Because DNUS requires that the interfaces be at the DS- 3 level, it may also require additional expensive equipment to multiplex individual DS- 1s to the DS- 3 level. Id. 265 BellSouth Reply at 38. “DNUS is not intended to replace the DLTU in every office. BellSouth assumed the DNUS was present in an office if . . . the growth rate that triggers placement of DNUS equipment is 250 trunks per year, which is based on economic considerations . . . .” BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 79. BellSouth also contends that it chose to use the DLTU in all cases for packet trunks (Primary Rate ISDN) to reduce costs. Id. at para. 80. 266 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 9. 267 See nn. 264- 65, supra. 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 43 although it has not established the magnitude of that reduction in this section 271 proceeding. 268 Given the lack of any state record on this issue, AT& T’s unsupported assertions, and BellSouth’s reasonable explanation that DNUS is the cost- minimizing technology only where growth rates are high, 269 we conclude that AT& T has not demonstrated that any of the states committed clear error in adopting BellSouth’s assumption regarding trunk equipment technology. 87. Combined Local/ Tandem Modeling. AT& T claims that BellSouth’s cost model assumes its network uses only combined local/ tandem switches and that there are no switches that perform only local end- office or tandem functions. 270 AT& T asserts that this overstates costs by failing to reflect a greater discount for tandem switches, increasing the “getting started” costs, and understating switch utilization levels. 271 Although AT& T is correct that BellSouth's switching model assumes the exclusive use of combined local/ tandem switches, AT& T has not established that this assumption necessarily overstates costs. 272 88. As a preliminary matter, we note that it is appropriate for state commissions to consider these kinds of fact- specific issues pertaining to assumptions used in BellSouth’s cost model, but neither AT& T nor any other party raised these issues in the state proceedings. In response to AT& T’s arguments, BellSouth explains that it employed the local/ end office combination designation to capture the cost difference between the trunk termination of a local trunk and the termination of a tandem trunk. 273 In order to capture tandem trunks in the cost calculation, the SCIS/ MO requires that an office carry the local/ tandem designation. 274 BellSouth also provides an analysis showing that, despite AT& T’s contrary assertions, the combined local/ tandem office designation actually decreases getting started costs. 275 AT& T also fails to 268 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 9. Without endorsing AT& T’s claim, BellSouth provides an analysis to show that reducing the trunk per minute of use rates by 8% (times the 5ESS distribution) only reduces the calculated average monthly usage rate by less than 1%, or three cents on average per line, per month (based on standard switching assumptions that the Commission uses in its benchmark analysis). BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 81. 269 See section IV. B. 1, supra. 270 AT& T Comments at 38; AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 10. 271 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 10. AT& T appears to imply that tandem switches receive a greater discount than local end offices, and BellSouth does not reflect this in its cost study. 272 The SCIS model provides long- run, forward looking costs, but the “program was not specifically developed for BellSouth or for TELRIC cost studies.” North Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 54. 273 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 82. 274 Id. “The difference in investment is slight in the 5ESS switch. However, in the DMS switch, the difference is more substantial since Nortel recommends additional testing of the tandem trunk termination, which requires additional equipment.” Id. 275 Id. at para. 83. The getting started investment for a 5ESS end office/ tandem is approximately $550 (discounted) more per switch than an end office, increasing costs by $0.0008 per millisecond. The getting started investment for a DMS end office/ tandem is less per switch than the equivalent investment for an end office by about $22,000, reducing costs by about $0.03 per millisecond. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 44 offer sufficient evidence to support its implied conclusion that BellSouth receives a greater discount for combined local/ tandem switches than local end offices. 276 Furthermore, AT& T fails to substantiate its assertion that BellSouth overstates costs by understating the higher utilization levels associated with combined tandem/ local offices. 277 First, AT& T offers no analysis of the size of this cost impact, so we cannot evaluate the significance of its assertion. Second, even though BellSouth was constrained to designate only combined local/ tandem offices in the cost model, we are persuaded by BellSouth’s explanation that it was reasonable to use end office utilization data because the switch is actually serving an end office function in the network. 278 In sum, BellSouth offers reasonable explanations for the modeling assumption necessary to accommodate the limitations of the SCIS model. Accordingly, we find that BellSouth’s use of the combined local/ tandem switch in its cost model is not inconsistent with results that a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce. 89. Switch Allocation Issues. AT& T raises issues related to the allocation of switching costs and rate structure design. 279 It specifically argues that BellSouth should recover “getting started” costs “in the fixed port charges, and [its] allocation of these costs to the minute-of- use and feature port additive charges violates TELRIC’s cost- causation principles.” 280 AT& T contends that this disparity between the way BellSouth attempts to recover its switch costs and 276 See AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 10. “BellSouth obtains end offices under contract, but purchases tandem switches using a competitive bid process. BellSouth, however, applies only its end office discounts . . . to all of its switches.” Id. BellSouth responds that it “has not used the bid process since the late 1990s for end offices or tandems.” BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 85. 277 AT& T Comments at 38. AT& T contends that this understated utilization leads to increased costs per-processor- millisecond and inflated end- office and tandem minute- of- use and feature rate charges. 278 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 84. 279 AT& T also raises similar issues to those it raised in the Maine section 271 proceeding in which AT& T argued that the majority of switching costs are not usage- sensitive and should be recovered in the fixed port charge rather than usage elements. AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 14; Application by Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/ b/ a/ Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/ b/ a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc., for Authorization to Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Maine, CC Docket No. 02- 61, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 11659, 11674- 75, para. 27 (2002) (Verizon Maine Order). Consistent with prior section 271 orders, we believe that, as a general matter, rate design is appropriately decided by state commissions in the first instance. See, e. g., Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12300- 01, para. 58 (concerning recovery of labor costs associated with DUF rates). 280 AT& T Comments at 38- 39. “These ‘getting started’ costs are fixed and largely associated with maintenance, administrative, test, and spare equipment, memory, and other common equipment in the switch. Such ‘getting started’ costs do not vary with respect to the number of lines or switch usage. BellSouth has very low switch-processor utilization, which means that BellSouth’s switch processors will not exhaust on calls,” and thus the costs are not traffic sensitive. Id. According to AT& T, getting- started costs should be allocated to the port and not traffic sensitive elements because the number of switch modules required is driven by ports, not by calls or other usage. AT& T Pitts Decl. at paras. 11- 16; AT& T Pitts Supp. Reply Decl. at paras. 17- 19. AT& T also contends that BellSouth similarly misallocates a common part of the switch called Equivalent POTS Half Call to traffic sensitive instead of fixed rate elements. AT& T Comments at 38- 39; AT& T Pitts Decl. at paras. 11- 16. 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 45 the way it incurs costs disadvantages competitive LECs. 281 We conclude that BellSouth’s allocation of switching costs conforms to our rules and is consistent with the allocation ratios that the Commission has previously approved. AT& T’s evidence thus does not persuade us that the state commissions committed clear error in their allocation of switching costs. 90. As a preliminary matter, AT& T here refers to a feature port additive rate element that BellSouth no longer has in its rate structure. 282 To the extent that AT& T intends to refer to feature elements, we also note that BellSouth presently recovers these costs through the port, consistent with the manner in which AT& T contends they could be recovered. 283 91. At the outset, the record shows that no party raised these arguments in the most current state proceedings in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina. 284 In the North Carolina UNE proceeding, AT& T raised the same argument that getting started investment consists of non- traffic sensitive costs and thus should be recovered in the non- traffic sensitive port rate element, but it was rejected. 285 AT& T also contended, similar to its assertion here, that getting started costs consist of one- time fixed investments and that it is inappropriate to assume that this is traffic sensitive “because it does not follow the basic TELRIC principle of reflecting costs based on causation.” 286 The state commission, however, did not adopt AT& T’s proposal and maintained BellSouth’s allocation between non- traffic sensitive and traffic sensitive switch- related investments. 287 The record also shows that the state commissions in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina reached similar findings. 288 As we discuss below, we 281 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 15. “CLECs will incur a higher cost for usage than BellSouth incurs because the CLEC’s minute- of- use element is inflated by the fixed costs.” Id. 282 We discuss features separately. See para. 94, infra. Prior to its section 271 application, BellSouth took 55% of the then existing feature port additive charge and added it to the port element in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. BellSouth also voluntarily eliminated charges associated with UNE vertical features in North Carolina. There was no separate charge for features in Kentucky. 283 Letter from Joan Marsh, Director – Federal Government Affairs, AT& T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 1, 2002) (AT& T August 1 Ex Parte Letter). AT& T disputed the feature costs that BellSouth seeks to recover but agreed that any appropriate costs associated with features should be recovered through the port element rather than through usage charges. Id. 284 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 95. 285 BellSouth Application App. D, Vol. 8a- c, Tab 10, Part C, Docket No. P- 100, Sub 133d (Rebuttal Testimony of Catherine E. Petzinger (Pitts) on Behalf of AT& T Communications of the Southern States, Inc., Before the North Carolina Utilities Commission) (filed March 9, 1998) at 981 (AT& T North Carolina Testimony); BellSouth Caldwell Reply at para. 95. 286 AT& T North Carolina Testimony at 981. “In addition to the processor, there are numerous other items in the SCIS/ MO Getting Started Investment, which are one- time fixed investments incurred as a first cost. BellSouth, however, has assumed that the entire Getting Started Investment for every switch is traffic sensitive.” Id. 287 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 95. 288 Id. 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 46 believe the state commissions acted in a manner that is consistent with our rules and previous decisions. 92. The Local Competition Order adopted the general rule that incumbent LECs’ rates for interconnection and unbundled elements must recover costs in a manner that reflects the way they are incurred. 289 The Commission also adopted additional rate structure rules for shared facilities that give states the flexibility to decide whether to recover these costs through either usage- sensitive or flat- rated charges. 290 The Commission’s rules also provide that local switching costs shall be recovered through a combination of a flat- rated charge for line ports which are dedicated facilities, and either a flat- rated or per- minute usage charge for the switching matrix and for trunk ports which are shared facilities. 291 93. At the same time, the Commission declined to prescribe the appropriate allocation of switching costs as between the line port, which must be flat- rated, and the switching matrix and trunk ports. Because the Commission did not prescribe a specific allocation, the states retain the flexibility to adopt an allocation within a reasonable range. As we stated in the Verizon Maine Order, because some portion of switching costs is fixed, an allocation of 100 percent of the switching costs to the minutes- of- use element would be unreasonable per se. We also found that a state commission’s allocation of 30 percent fixed to 70 percent minutes- of- use does not fall outside a reasonable range. 292 BellSouth demonstrates that its allocation between non- traffic sensitive and traffic sensitive charges for the five applicant states is almost exactly the same here, ranging from an allocation of 32 percent fixed/ 68 percent minutes- of- use (Alabama) to 28 percent fixed/ 72 percent minutes- of- use (North Carolina and South Carolina). 293 Thus, we conclude that the switching allocations adopted by these five states are consistent with allocations the Commission has previously approved. 94. Vertical Features. AT& T poses a number of challenges to BellSouth’s feature cost development. BellSouth explains that it attempted to determine the forward- looking costs of providing competitive LEC customers with the ability to access all of the available features in 289 Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15874, para. 743. 290 Id. at 15877, para. 753. “Shared facilities are those used by multiple parties.” Id. at 15873, para. 741; see also 47 C. F. R. § 51.507( c). 291 Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15905, para. 810; 47 C. F. R. § 51.509( b). AT& T refers to “getting started” costs as “common equipment” in the switch. AT& T Pitts Decl. at paras. 11, 14. Thus, AT& T does not dispute that “getting started” costs refer to the portion of the switch that is a shared facility. 292 Verizon Maine Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 11676, para. 29. 293 Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed July 26, 2002) (BellSouth July 26 Ex Parte Letter). Non- traffic sensitive to traffic sensitive comparisons for each of the five states are as follows: Alabama, 32% to 68%; Kentucky, 30% to 70%; Mississippi, 29% to 71%; North and South Carolina, 28% to 72%. Id. 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 47 a switch. 294 The SCIS/ MO cost model, however, was not designed to calculate the cost of access to all switch features, so BellSouth developed the SST model to derive feature costs. 295 Generally, BellSouth tried to determine a feature cost that reflects the costs BellSouth incurs to give a typical customer access to all features and functions of a switch. 296 95. More specifically, BellSouth attempts to calculate the demand placed on a switch in a peak period (busy hour) for various kinds of feature calls and multiplies this by the number of features used by an average customer. 297 To get the average busy hour use, BellSouth used 56 features that it asserts are representative because they reflect a mix of features that use the various switch resources in processing feature- related calls, including the processor, line equipment, hardware, and signaling system. 298 BellSouth used retail cost studies to develop an average busy hour demand placed on these various switch resources. 299 BellSouth then multiplied the average busy hour demand by the number of features per average customer 300 to get the average feature- related demand placed on the switch per line. 301 Finally, it multiplied this demand by the cost it developed from another study which analyzed the various costs of the switching components involved in providing features. 302 BellSouth also attempts to show that its features costs are reasonable by offering an analysis using feature penetration rates in Georgia and comparing BellSouth’s feature rates to Verizon’s New York rates. 303 294 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 104. 295 Id. at paras. 104- 05. “[ N] umerous assumptions had to be made in the modeling process. For example, how to condense the list of existing features to a palatable, yet representative, subset; how to accurately reflect the variation in feature switch resource requirements (some features only use the processor, some need hardware, etc.); how to determine a reflective input for the number of milliseconds, octets, or holding times required by the typical feature; and how to determine the CLEC feature usage characteristics.” Id. 296 Id. at para. 104. 297 Switches are designed to handle calling for a peak period, or busy hour, and therefore switch costs are based on this capacity. 298 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 107. “An attempt was made to reflect each possible combination of the four switch components (processor, line, hardware, SS7) in the list of 56 features. Additionally, these 56 are some of the most common features purchased.” Id. They also are “a substantial portion of the 200 unique features that are available.” BellSouth Reply at 41; see also BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 108. 299 Id. at para. 110. 300 BellSouth derived the number of features per average user from its Complete Choice retail offering. Complete Choice customers have access to an extensive list of features, but BellSouth contends that the average customer uses only four features. Id. 301 Id. 302 Letter from Sean A. Lev, Counsel to BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed July 25, 2002) (BellSouth July 25 Ex Parte Letter). 303 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at paras. 114, 122- 26 & Exh. DDC 9- 11. 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 48 96. BellSouth used its cost methodology in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina to develop an average feature port additive rate for competitive LEC customers that ordered one or more features. Prior to filing this section 271 application, BellSouth incorporated 55 percent of the feature port additive rate into the port charge, paid by all customers. In response to AT& T criticism, BellSouth asserts that its modified features recovery is reasonable because 55 percent of its lines have at least one vertical feature and that this “take rate” is now reflected in the revenue- neutral pricing of features across all lines. 304 AT& T contends that BellSouth’s cost model for developing a composite feature rate is “fatally flawed.” 305 AT& T bases a substantial part of its argument related to feature costs on several technical aspects of BellSouth’s feature cost methodology and its complex calculations. 306 For example, AT& T argues that BellSouth’s underlying study of 56 features incorrectly mixes feature use together for various classes of service, fails to take into account usage characteristics based on penetration levels of features, and assumes 4.5 feature calls in the busy hour which are excessive. 307 AT& T also criticizes BellSouth’s assumption that every feature uses the same amount of processor time 308 and BellSouth’s inclusion of both central and distributed processor costs in the 5ESS switch, which AT& T contends results in double- charging for features that do not use the central processors. 309 AT& T further claims that BellSouth double- counts the hardware investment related to providing features, incorrectly uses averages in developing hardware unit investments, and does not 304 BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff. at para. 33; AT& T Comments at 36- 37 (arguing that BellSouth’s “take-rate” is too high and that as a result of BellSouth’s modified recovery of features, all customers, instead of only those who order features, pay an inflated feature charge in the port rate); see also AT& T Reply App., Tab C, Reply Declaration of Catherine E. Pitts (AT& T Pitts Reply Decl.) at paras. 2, 6 (asserting that North Carolina data “demonstrate that the 55% factor used to spread the cost of the feature port additive across all subscriber lines is unsupported by BellSouth information on the take rate for features”); AT& T Pitts Supp. Reply Decl. at para. 9. 305 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 20; AT& T Comments at 35- 37. 306 AT& T also argues that BellSouth’s feature port additive rate is not TELRIC- compliant because the same rate applied “whether a customer incurs the costs associated with one feature or a dozen features.” AT& T Comments at 35. A similar claim was raised before the Alabama and South Carolina Commissions. AT& T Reply at Attachs. 13- 16. AT& T also criticizes BellSouth’s consideration of feature- related hardware costs and the assumption that different switches process feature calls in the same way. AT& T Pitts Decl. at paras. 21- 25. 307 AT& T Pitts Decl. at paras. 19- 20; AT& T Pitts Reply Decl. at paras. 2, 3- 4 (using North Carolina data to support its argument that the 56 features underlying BellSouth’s cost methodology are not representative of features purchased by subscribers). “The result of BellSouth’s inappropriate averaging combined with usage data for [a] large number of features that are not purchased by subscribers produces costs that are inaccurate and are not based on cost causation principles.” Id. at para. 4; see also AT& T August 23 Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter at 3; AT& T Pitts Supp. Reply Decl. at paras. 3- 4, 6- 7. 308 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 11 n. 13; AT& T Pitts Reply Decl. at para. 5. “Even if it were correct to assign getting started costs and EPHC [Equivalent POTS Half Call] costs to features, which it is not, such an assignment should not assume that every feature uses the same number of milliseconds as a basic call, as each feature is different, and there is no relationship between a feature and the number of milliseconds for a basic call.” Id. 309 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 21. 48 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 49 substantiate hardware component costs. 310 In addition, AT& T contends that “the [hardware] capacities assume some level of average utilization that has not been identified or explained.” 311 97. AT& T did not raise these specific challenges to BellSouth’s feature cost methodology before any of the state commissions, and it has not subsequently asked them to address these issues. 312 As we have previously stated, the Commission does not have the time or the resources during our 90- day statutory review period for section 271 applications to resolve complex technical disputes about cost model assumptions. 313 That is why our decision- making process gives substantial weight to evidence that is submitted by the state. 314 In this case, however, there is no state record for us to review on the issues that AT& T raises, and we do not have the benefit of any state commission findings or evaluations to assist us. We are left with many fact- intensive, complex questions related to BellSouth’s new cost model and the numerous assumptions and inputs that it developed, such as whether it was appropriate for BellSouth to develop feature costs based on the 56 features it contends are “representative,” whether they are indeed representative, whether BellSouth reasonably relied on demand data from its retail Complete Choice plan to derive the number of features per average user, and so forth. We need not, however, resolve these complex issues regarding feature cost modeling because BellSouth’s non- loop rates in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina pass a benchmark comparison to BellSouth’s non- loop rates in Louisiana. We conclude, therefore, that the non- loop rates in these three states, which include the cost of features, fall within the range that a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce. 98. Benchmark Analysis. States have considerable flexibility in setting UNE rates, and certain flaws in a cost study, by themselves, may not result in rates that are outside the reasonable range that correct application of TELRIC principles would produce. 315 The 310 Id. at para. 22. AT& T also takes issue with BellSouth’s attempt to show that its feature rates are reasonable based on a comparison with Verizon’s rates in New York. AT& T Pitts Supp. Reply Decl. at paras. 10- 11 (responding to BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at paras. 122- 26). AT& T asserts that direct comparisons are inappropriate because BellSouth and Verizon used different cost studies and assumptions. AT& T further contends that the comparison, when correctly adjusted, shows that BellSouth’s “hardware- related features cost is significantly overstated once feature penetration rates are appropriately taken into account.” AT& T August 23 Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter at 4. 311 AT& T Pitts Decl. at para. 22. 312 AT& T asserts that feature- related issues were raised before the Alabama and South Carolina Commissions, but the documentation it provides shows different arguments were presented there by different parties. Specifically, SECCA argued that the Alabama Commission should reject BellSouth’s features rate because there is no incremental cost in providing features, or, alternatively, require BellSouth to unbundle features and price each separately. The same arguments were made by NewSouth, NuVox, Broadslate Networks, ITC^ DeltaCom, KMC Telecom, and WorldCom before the South Carolina Commission. AT& T Reply at Attachs. 13- 16. 313 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18375, para. 51. 314 Id. 315 Verizon Rhode Island Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 3319- 20, para. 37. 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 50 Commission has addressed past claims that a state commission has not applied TELRIC principles or has done so improperly by looking to rates in other section 271- approved states to see if the applicant state’s rates nonetheless fall within the range that a reasonable TELRIC-based rate proceeding would produce. 316 To determine whether a comparison is reasonable, the Commission will consider whether the two states have a common BOC; whether the two states have geographic similarities; whether the two states have similar, although not necessarily identical, rate structures for comparison purposes; and whether the Commission has already found the rates in the comparison state to be TELRIC- compliant or an appropriate benchmark. 317 Applying this standard to BellSouth’s rates in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, we find that Louisiana is a permissible state for UNE rate comparison purposes. 318 99. Having determined that the Louisiana rates are appropriate rates for the benchmark comparison, we compare BellSouth’s Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina non-loop rates to the Louisiana non- loop rates using our benchmark analysis, using state- specific data for weighting rates. 319 We find that BellSouth’s non- loop rates in these states satisfy our benchmark analysis and the requirements of checklist item 2. Specifically, BellSouth’s non- loop rates in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina are lower than BellSouth’s non- loop rates in Louisiana by 32, 25, and 20 percent, respectively. Comparing the costs, we find that the Alabama and Mississippi non- loop costs are higher than the Louisiana non- loop costs by 8 and 28 percent, respectively; the non- loop cost in South Carolina is 9 percent lower than in 316 See, e. g., Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12295- 96, para. 49; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6276, para. 82. 317 See Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12295- 96, para. 49; Verizon Rhode Island Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 3320, para. 38; Joint Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., d/ b/ a Southwestern Bell Long Distance Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Arkansas and Missouri, 16 FCC Rcd 20719, 20746, para. 56 (2001) (SWBT Arkansas/ Missouri Order); Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17457, para. 63. In the Verizon Pennsylvania Order, we found that several of the criteria should be treated as indicia of the reasonableness of the comparison. Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17457, para. 64; see also Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9002, para. 28; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6276, para. 82. 318 Louisiana is in the same geographic region, is served by the same BOC, has a similar rate structure, and the Commission has already found Louisiana’s rates to be TELRIC- compliant on their own merits. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9033- 34, paras. 23- 24. No commenter disputes that the Louisiana rates are an appropriate benchmark in determining TELRIC- compliance. 319 As in past applications, our benchmark analysis combines per- minute switching rates with other non- loop rates, such as port, signaling, and transport rates, because competing LECs most often purchase these together rather than separately and because state commissions often differ in determining how to recover certain costs. Verizon Rhode Island Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 3320- 21, para. 40; Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12297- 98, para. 53 (explaining it is reasonable to use state- specific assumptions). No party in this proceeding has challenged the appropriateness of this analysis. The cost for features is considered in the port rate. BellSouth provided state-specific usage data in response to our request. Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 8, 2002) (BellSouth August 8 Ex Parte Letter); BellSouth August 9 Ex Parte Letter. 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 51 Louisiana. Because the percentage differences between BellSouth’s Louisiana non- loop rates and BellSouth’s non- loop rates in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina do not exceed the percentage differences between BellSouth’s non- loop costs in Louisiana and BellSouth’s costs in the three other states, we conclude that BellSouth’s recurring non- loop rates in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina satisfy our benchmark analysis. 320 This analysis demonstrates that, despite concerns raised by AT& T related to BellSouth’s feature cost methodology in these three states, BellSouth’s non- loop rates, including the costs for features reflected in the port charge, fall within a range of rates that a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce. 321 (iii) Age of Rates 100. AT& T contends that BellSouth’s UNE rates for loops and switching in North Carolina are not TELRIC- compliant because they are based on outdated cost data that do not take into account reduced costs from current technologies and growth in demand. 322 We disagree. As background for our analysis, we have consistently recognized that rates may well evolve over time to reflect, among other things, new information and technology. 323 The U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit agreed that section 271 applications might never be approved if rates had to be updated constantly to reflect new information. 324 101. AT& T argues here that BellSouth’s “out- of- date cost studies that underlie its UNE rates” do not reflect efficiencies and cost reductions in loops and switching equipment. 325 We considered this argument in the Verizon Vermont Order, where we noted “[ m] uch of the 320 Although we do not rely on a benchmark comparison of Kentucky and North Carolina non- loop rates, we note that such comparison reveals that Kentucky non- loop rates pass a benchmark comparison to Louisiana non- loop rates (Kentucky’s non- loop costs are 14% higher; its non- loop rates are 40% lower), and North Carolina non- loop rates come within 1% of satisfying the benchmark (North Carolina’s non- loop costs are 10% lower than Louisiana’s; its non- loop rates are 9.6% lower). 321 Sprint v. FCC, 274 F. 3d at 561 (upholding the use of our benchmark analysis). 322 AT& T Comments at 39; AT& T Comments App., Tab D, Declaration of Michael Lieberman (AT& T Lieberman Decl.) at para. 6 (“ Because provision of local telecommunications services reflects economies of scale, scope and density, the substantial growth in demand that has occurred since 1996 should yield reductions in loop and switch UNE costs.”). 323 Verizon Vermont Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7637, para. 23; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4085- 86, para. 247; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9066, para. 96. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized the regulatory lag that accompanies price adjustments as one of the “pragmatic features of the TELRIC plan.” Verizon v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. at 1679. 324 AT& T v. FCC, 220 F. 3d at 617 (“[ W] e suspect that rates may often need adjustment to reflect newly discovered information . . . . If new information automatically required rejection of section 271 applications, we cannot imagine how such applications could ever be approved in this context of rapid regulatory and technological change.”). 325 AT& T Comments at 40. 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 52 underpinning of complaints by AT& T and WorldCom regarding Verizon’s switching rates is that the data underlying the inputs into Verizon’s switching cost studies is old.” 326 We noted there that neither AT& T nor WorldCom had asked the Vermont Commission to require Verizon to update the data and inputs for its switching cost studies when this newer information had, in fact, resulted in lower rates in more recent proceedings. 327 In this case, parties complained before the North Carolina Commission that UNE rates were several years old, and the state commission ordered a new proceeding to allow rates “to better reflect current conditions.” 328 Hearings are scheduled to begin in November 2002. 102. We recognize, as AT& T asserts here, that there may be factors that cause BellSouth’s costs to decline over time. 329 At the same time, there may be other factors that cause costs to increase over time. Indeed, the D. C. Circuit has recognized that modifying one factor in a cost model may well cause modification to other factors. 330 This is precisely why state commissions hold hearings to update rates based on consideration of all new information and relevant data brought before them. North Carolina is in the process of revisiting UNE rates. The North Carolina Commission has demonstrated its commitment to set UNE prices based on TELRIC principles. 331 It also recognizes that its work “is far from complete.” 332 AT& T may appropriately raise its arguments regarding more recent data and cost studies in these current proceedings. As we concluded previously, however, the mere pendency of a state proceeding where rates are reviewed in light of new information does not require the rejection of a section 271 application. 333 326 Verizon Vermont Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7636, para. 21. 327 Id. at 7637, para. 22. 328 Application of BellSouth Telecommuncations, Inc. to Provide In- Region InterLATA Service Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Proceeding to Determine Permanent Pricing for Unbundled Network Elements, North Carolina Commission Docket Nos. P- 55, Sub 1022; P- 100, Sub 133d, Order Ruling on WorldCom Petition at 7 (March 20, 2002). The Public Staff noted that BellSouth was willing to re- file cost support data based on updated models and inputs if ordered to do so. Id. at 5. Pursuant to the North Carolina Commission’s order, AT& T, BellSouth, and WorldCom on April 15, 2002, filed a joint motion to establish a hearing schedule for the new UNE proceeding. Proceeding to Determine Permanent Pricing for Unbundled Network Elements, North Carolina Commission Docket No. P- 100, Sub 133d, Order Establishing Schedule for New UNE Proceeding (April 19, 2002). 329 AT& T Lieberman Decl. at paras. 6- 9. 330 AT& T v. FCC, 220 F. 3d at 617. 331 See section IV. B. 1. a, supra. 332 See generally North Carolina Commission Comments. 333 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9066- 67, para. 97; Verizon Rhode Island Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 3317, para. 31 (citing Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4085- 86, para. 247, aff’d, AT& T Corp. v. FCC, 220 F. 3d at 617). 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 53 (iv) Deaveraging 103. WorldCom contends that UNE rates in South Carolina are not properly deaveraged and therefore violate the Commission’s rules and TELRIC principles. 334 South Carolina allegedly deaveraged UNE rates according to retail rate zones, not geographic cost differences. That is, end users in South Carolina are grouped based on similarities in what they pay in local retail rates, rather than what it costs to provide service to them. 335 Geographic cost differences between wire centers, according to WorldCom, do not determine the zone in which wire centers are placed. 336 As a result, some very high cost wire centers are included in zone one, and some very low cost wire centers are included in zones two and three. 337 The effect of this error, according to WorldCom, is that the gross margin in zone one, which should be the most profitable, is only $2.76. 338 We reject WorldCom’s claims and find that UNE deaveraging in South Carolina complies with the Local Competition Order and the Commission’s TELRIC rules. 104. The Commission’s regulations provide that “[ s] tate commissions shall establish different rates for elements in at least three defined geographic areas within the state to reflect geographic cost differences.” 339 The regulations also provide that, “[ t] o establish geographically deaveraged rates, state commissions may use existing density- related zone pricing plans . . . or other such cost- related zone plans established pursuant to state law.” 340 In the Local Competition Order, the Commission concluded that “the pricing standard for interconnection and unbundled elements prohibits deaveraging that is not cost based.” 341 The requirement is important because, as we noted in the CALLS SLC Cap Order, cost- based deaveraging “promotes competition and efficiency by allowing a LEC to compete for subscribers when it is the lowest cost service provider and by removing support flows to the LEC’s higher- cost customers.” 342 By contrast, non- cost- based deaveraging “may distort the operation of the 334 WorldCom Comments at 13. 335 Id. 336 Id. 337 Id. 338 Id.; see also WorldCom Frentrup Decl. at paras. 30- 31. 339 47 C. F. R. § 51.507( f). 340 47 C. F. R. § 51.507( f)( 1) (emphasis added). 341 Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15883, para. 766. 342 Cost Review Proceeding for Residential and Single- Line Business Subscriber Line Charge (SLC) Caps, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket Nos. 96- 262, 94- 1, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 10868, 10876- 77, para. 18 (rel. June 5, 2002) (CALLS SLC Cap Order), pet. for review filed, No. 02- 1261 (D. C. Cir. Aug. 16, 2002). 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 54 markets in high- cost areas because LECs must offer services in those areas at prices substantially lower than their costs of providing service.” 343 105. In its UNE Rate Order, the South Carolina Commission stated that “BellSouth proposed deaveraging loop- related UNEs into three geographic areas utilizing existing BellSouth rate groups based upon BellSouth’s General Subscriber Service Tariff.” 344 BellSouth calculated average monthly costs within each zone by weighting the wire- center level costs produced by the BSTLM by wire center line counts. 345 Under BellSouth’s approach, according to the South Carolina Commission, customers who are located in the same geographic area and who have similar local calling areas would be in the same deaveraged zone for UNE pricing. 346 Using existing rate groups as the basis for establishing the three cost- related rate zones is said to result in consistent prices for customers within the same geographic markets. 347 The South Carolina Commission noted, however, that unlike the prices for UNEs, “BellSouth’s rates for basic service were established in an inverse relationship to cost in order to ensure affordable local service for all urban and rural customers.” 348 As a result, the South Carolina Commission concluded, UNE deaveraging will result in rates that vary in the opposite direction of prices for BellSouth’s retail services. 349 106. On the record before us, we conclude that the South Carolina Commission deaveraged UNE prices according to a valid “cost- related zone plan established pursuant to state law.” 350 The only evidence WorldCom submits to the contrary is the general allegation that “some very high cost wire centers are included in zone 1, and some very low cost wire centers are included in zones 2 and 3.” 351 This allegation, even if true, is not persuasive: the mere inclusion of a few wire centers in zones with different overall cost characteristics does not show that the overall zone plan is not cost- based. Notably, WorldCom does not refute BellSouth’s evidence that, because BellSouth originally established retail rate zones in South Carolina according to underlying wire center costs, there is a direct correlation between South Carolina 343 Id. 344 South Carolina Commission UNE Rate Order at 7. 345 Id. 346 Id. 347 Id. According to the South Carolina Commission, defining the three geographic zones by rate groups also provides consistency between the structure of BellSouth’s retail services, resale, and UNE prices. Id. “The need for such consistency should be obvious, because CLECs use UNEs to compete with services offered at retail by BellSouth.” Id. 348 Id. 349 Id. 350 47 C. F. R. § 51.507( f)( 1). 351 WorldCom Comments at 13. 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 55 retail rate zones and wire center costs. 352 BellSouth’s evidence, we conclude, demonstrates that the South Carolina Commission deaveraged UNE rates according to a cost- related zone plan. 107. In addition, there is evidence in the record that adopting a UNE deaveraging methodology in South Carolina based strictly on wire center costs would have little if any effect on the resulting UNE rates. We note that the Alabama and North Carolina Commissions directed BellSouth to deaverage UNE rates strictly according to a wire center costs. 353 BellSouth persuasively demonstrates that applying the North Carolina UNE deaveraging methodology to South Carolina wire center costs results in UNE rates that are reasonably comparable to South Carolina’s existing UNE rates. 354 According to BellSouth’s analysis, if North Carolina’s strict wire center cost deaveraging method were used in South Carolina, UNE loop rates in South Carolina would increase in zones two and three by $1.74 and $5.49, respectively, and drop in zone one by only $0.18. 355 As a result, we find that there is a direct relationship between the costs of wire centers in South Carolina and the deaveraging methodology approved by the South Carolina Commission, which is based on retail rate zones. For these reasons, we conclude that South Carolina’s UNE deaveraging methodology is a valid state “cost- related zone plan” as required by 47 C. F. R. § 51.507( f)( 1). (v) Daily Usage File Rates 108. Background. Consistent with prior section 271 orders, a BOC must demonstrate that it provides competing carriers with complete, accurate, and timely reports on the service 352 BellSouth Application Reply App., Tab F, Reply Affidavit of John A. Ruscilli and Cynthia K. Cox (BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff.) at para. 28 (stating that “the deaveraging methodology applied in South Carolina utilized the wire center level costs for the wire centers that were included in each zone to calculate the average monthly rate for each zone”). BellSouth demonstrates that UNE zone one includes retail rate groups seven and six (average loop costs of $14.75 and $15.98, respectively); UNE zone two includes retail rate groups five and four (average loop costs of $21.45 and $21.25, respectively); and UNE zone three includes retail rate groups three, two, and one (average loop costs of $24.97, $27.40, and $33.80, respectively). See id. at para. 27, Table 1. 353 North Carolina Commission Recommended Order Concerning Geographic Deaveraging at 24, 42; North Carolina Commission Order Finalizing Deaveraged UNE Rates at 3. See also Alabama Commission UNE Rate Order at 67- 68 (concluding that a deaveraging methodology based on wire center costs “more closely meets the requirements of Rule 507( f) to use ‘cost related zones’ as well as the underlying principals [sic] of the [19] 96 Act”). 354 BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff. at para. 30 & Tables 2- 3. 355 Id. at Table 3. WorldCom does not dispute this analysis but contends that use of the Alabama Commission’s deaveraging approach would lower UNE loop rates in zone one in South Carolina by $0.89. WorldCom Reply Frentrup Decl. at para. 19. As WorldCom itself concedes, however, such an approach would also increase UNE loop rates in zone three by $4.03. Id. This evidence does not show that South Carolina’s deaveraging method is not “cost- related” within the meaning of 47 C. F. R. § 51.507( f)( 1). In addition, state commissions have considerable discretion in setting the pricing demarcations between UNE rate zones (e. g., whether the demarcation between zones one and two is 115% or 150% of average costs). These determinations may have a substantial effect on UNE rates, whether or not a state commission adopts a wire- center cost approach to deaveraging. Thus, that the use of the Alabama Commission’s approach would lower UNE rates in one zone but raise them in another is not dispositive here. 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 56 usage of their customers in substantially the same time and manner that a BOC provides such information to itself. 356 BellSouth offers three types of Daily Usage Files (DUF) in Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi: the Access Daily Usage File (ADUF); 357 the Optional Daily Usage File (ODUF); 358 and the Enhanced Optional Daily Usage File (EODUF). 359 109. Challenges to the DUF Rate. AT& T and WorldCom challenge the conclusions of the Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi commissions that BellSouth’s DUF rates comply with basic TELRIC principles. 360 Birch also raises a DUF- related issue in its reply. As a preliminary matter, we dismiss Birch’s argument that the Commission should require BellSouth to offer Birch SGAT DUF rates in its private interconnection agreement with BellSouth. 361 As Birch concedes, Commission rules do not require BellSouth to make SGAT rates available in an interconnection agreement. 362 Birch is not alleging any error with respect to the SGAT DUF rates. Indeed, Birch has not alleged any specific section 271 violation. Accordingly, we reject Birch’s arguments. 110. We also dismiss WorldCom’s attack on DUF rates in Alabama and South Carolina because WorldCom challenges rates that are not currently charged by BellSouth in those states. 363 We similarly dismiss AT& T’s attack on DUF rates in North Carolina because 356 See, e. g., BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9061- 62, para. 85. 357 ADUF provides the competitive LEC with records for billing interstate and intrastate access charges, whether the call was handled by BellSouth or an IXC. ADUF also provides records for billing reciprocal compensation charges to other local exchange carriers and IXCs for calls originating from and terminating to unbundled switch ports. ADUF includes records for both originating and terminating traffic. See BellSouth Application App. A, Vol. 5, Tab H, Affidavit of David P. Scollard (BellSouth Scollard Aff.) at paras. 11- 12; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9062, para. 85 n. 292. 358 ODUF contains information on billable transactions for resold lines, interim number portability accounts, and unbundled switch ports. For end users who are served by resold lines, interim number portability, or unbundled switch ports (including the UNE- platform), a competitive LEC can use ODUF to bill for usage events associated with calls placed by those end users (e. g., toll calls, operator assistance). BellSouth Scollard Aff. at para. 11; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9062, para. 85 n. 292. 359 EODUF is an enhancement to ODUF and includes usage records for local calls originating from a reseller’s flat- rated lines (BellSouth’s retail flat- rated local service offering purchased for resale). BellSouth Scollard Aff. at para. 11; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9062, para. 85 n. 292. 360 AT& T Comments at 30- 34; WorldCom Comments at 12- 13. 361 Birch Reply at 2- 4. 362 Id. at 4. 363 See Letter from Keith L. Seat, Senior Counsel – Federal Advocacy, WorldCom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 1, 2002) (WorldCom August 1 Ex Parte Letter) (acknowledging that the rates cited in the WorldCom Comments are not the current BellSouth SGAT rates in South Carolina and Alabama). 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 57 this challenge is based on rates that are no longer in effect. 364 We find that this modification to BellSouth’s application after it was filed did not substantially burden commenters as it was made before reply comments were filed. 365 Furthermore, no party has separately challenged the current North Carolina DUF rates. We address below AT& T’s arguments regarding the cost study underlying all of BellSouth’s DUF rates and WorldCom’s argument that BellSouth already recovers DUF- related costs through its shared and common cost factors. 111. AT& T attacks the cost study underlying the current DUF rates in Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi as not TELRIC- compliant. 366 This same cost study was also used as the basis for the DUF rates in Georgia. 367 AT& T alleges that DUF costs are inflated due to the following TELRIC errors in BellSouth’s DUF cost study: (1) the costs of certain messages are disproportionately allocated only to competitive LECs when they should also be shared by BellSouth; 368 (2) BellSouth significantly understates the number of competitive LEC ADUF and ODUF messages; 369 (3) the cost study uses inconsistent and inappropriate cost recovery periods; 370 (4) BellSouth uses improper accounting in classifying certain expenses; 371 and (5) the cost of magnetic tapes is improperly charged to customers that use only electronic feed. 372 364 See AT& T Comments at 31- 32. BellSouth filed new rates in North Carolina on July 22, 2002, that are in line with the DUF rates in the other BellSouth states. See Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed July 24, 2002) (BellSouth July 24 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth Corporation, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 5, 2002) (BellSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter). These rates were accepted by the North Carolina Commission on August 5, 2002. See BellSouth August 8 Ex Parte Letter (attaching order of the North Carolina Commission accepting the revised rates). 365 See SWBT Arkansas/ Missouri Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 20764, para. 93 (stating that a collocation rate modification to SWBT 271 application “did not substantially burden commenters as it was made before comments were filed”); see also BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9064, para. 89 (dismissing criticism of Louisiana DUF rates because “the only challenge was based on rates that existed before the most current rates were filed” and the old rates “are no longer relevant”). 366 AT& T Comments at 30- 34. 367 BellSouth Reply at 43; BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 41. 368 AT& T Comments at 32; AT& T Comments App., Tab F, Declaration of Steven E. Turner (AT& T Turner Decl.) at paras. 10, 26- 30. 369 Id. at paras. 15, 39- 48. 370 Id. at paras. 11, 31- 32. 371 Id. at paras. 13, 35- 36. 372 Id. at paras. 14, 37- 38. AT& T originally also argued that the cost study contains mathematical errors related to investments but has since withdrawn that argument. See id. at paras. 12, 33- 34; AT& T Reply Comments App., Tab D, Reply Declaration of Steven E. Turner (AT& T Turner Reply Decl.) at para. 1 n. 1. 57 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 58 112. We note at the outset that no commenter made these arguments during the state proceedings when DUF rates were set. 373 Although we do not require parties to raise all pricing issues at the state level before raising them in a section 271 proceeding, it is generally impractical for us to make the fact- specific findings AT& T requests concerning the cost study underlying the DUF rates. 374 In any event, AT& T has failed to demonstrate that any of the state commissions committed clear error. We discuss each of AT& T’s arguments in turn below. 113. AT& T first argues that BellSouth fails to include the appropriate number of messages in calculating DUF rates. 375 AT& T also argues that BellSouth disproportionately allocates a high number of labor hours to competitive LEC messages, and also allocates certain DUF processing costs solely to competitive LEC messages that should be allocated to all messages, including those of BellSouth. 376 AT& T contends that, consequently, BellSouth’s DUF study fails to account for the total demand for DUF, causing competitive LECs to pay inflated DUF costs. 377 BellSouth disputes this argument, asserting that its cost study accurately reflects the appropriate mix of message types based on the particular application or job. 378 BellSouth states that, for each job, it first calculates the total cost of the job and then divides that cost by the total demand. 379 It explains that, although BellSouth messages are not labeled as “DUF” in the cost study, the cost study nonetheless incorporates BellSouth demand by attributing certain processing jobs to both BellSouth and competitive LEC messages, while attributing others only to competitive LEC messages. 380 BellSouth further states that the cost of a DUF job in terms of both labor and computer resources is spread over the number of messages processed by that 373 AT& T claims that it did not have an opportunity to challenge BellSouth’s DUF rates in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina prior to this section 271 proceeding because the DUF rates proposed by BellSouth in those states are based on SGAT filings made by BellSouth “either after the conclusion of state rate proceedings or in the weeks prior to its Section 271 application.” AT& T Reply at 28 n. 28; see also AT& T August 23 Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter at 4- 5. We reject this assertion. AT& T challenges BellSouth’s DUF cost study from which the DUF rates are derived. The cost study underlying the DUF rates at issue here is the same cost study that was before each of the state commissions in each state UNE rate proceeding, except that the demand figures have been updated to reflect increased DUF demand, thus resulting in lower rates. Accordingly, the challenges AT& T raised here could in fact have been raised in state proceedings. BellSouth August 29 Ex Parte Letter. 374 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9045, para. 49; see also section IV. B. 1, supra. 375 AT& T Turner Decl. at paras. 10, 26- 30. 376 Id. 377 AT& T Comments at 32; AT& T Turner Decl. at paras. 10, 26- 30. 378 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 43. 379 Id. 380 Id. For example, BellSouth states that Jobs QA01 and MC01A01 include BellSouth demand, while Jobs MD03A and MD03B do not. BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 43 & Exh. DDC- 3. AT& T, however, does not provide any specific information regarding which, if any, of the particular jobs detailed in the cost study it believes are incorrectly attributed only to competitive LEC messages. 58 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 59 job. 381 BellSouth finally states that the amount of labor in terms of developmental hours, by job, was developed by the experts who would be programming and maintaining the computer systems associated with DUFs. 382 In the absence of specific and credible evidence to the contrary, we find that BellSouth’s allocation of labor costs and other DUF processing costs is reasonable. Moreover, AT& T could have raised its concerns with the five state commissions but never did so. Thus we lack the benefit of the states’ analyses of these contentions. Based on this record, we conclude that the state commissions did not commit clear error in adopting DUF rates incorporating these assumptions. 114. In a related argument, AT& T contends that the BellSouth cost study contains various errors related to DUF processing forecasts. 383 AT& T first contends that BellSouth has understated the quantity of ODUF messages in the cost study, thereby overstating the cost per message that competitive LECs must bear. 384 AT& T notes, for example, that while the cost study reflects two different numbers for ODUF messages processed in April 2001, BellSouth inappropriately uses the lower number as the starting point for the three year forecast. 385 BellSouth states that it correctly used the lower numbers because the higher numbers referenced by AT& T include messages generated by competitive LECs that do not order DUFs and are therefore not billed for such messages. 386 We agree that it would be inappropriate to use the higher numbers in the forecasts at issue if those additional messages are never billed to any party. 115. AT& T’s other DUF forecasting- related arguments relate to the assumptions BellSouth incorporates into the future projections of DUF messages and future DUF costs. AT& T argues that BellSouth failed to incorporate actual data in forecasting growth rates and assumes an unrealistic decline in UNE- platform competition in the BellSouth region, resulting in unrealistically low projected growth rates. 387 Finally, AT& T argues that BellSouth assumes an unrealistically high growth rate in DUF- related charges, inconsistent with actual growth rates 381 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 43. A worksheet to the cost study file contains the number of messages used in the cost study and the annual demands, by job. Id. at para. 44. Again, AT& T does not provide specific detail regarding which message volume or annual demand figures it believes are inappropriate. 382 Id. at para. 45. AT& T points to only one job to which it asserts BellSouth attributed disproportionately high labor costs based on the number of messages processed, but it offers no expert testimony or other evidence to demonstrate that this particular job necessarily requires fewer labor hours. AT& T Turner Decl. at para. 29. 383 AT& T Turner Decl. at paras. 39- 48. 384 Id. at paras. 40- 41. 385 Id. at para. 40. 386 See Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 14, 2002) (BellSouth August 14 Ex Parte Letter). 387 AT& T Turner Decl. at paras. 43- 46. 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 60 and also with BellSouth’s low projected growth rates of DUF messages. 388 In response to these last two arguments, BellSouth replies that the demand data used to develop the current DUF rates are consistent with the recent forecast used in Georgia and correspond to the timeframe for the cost studies. 389 Moreover, BellSouth emphasizes that the forecasts are based on the best available, most recent data. 390 We find that BellSouth has provided a reasonable explanation of its DUF- related processing forecasts. BellSouth’s forecast of incremental messages is based on a study of actual message growth during the period January 2000 to February 2001, and its projection of competitive LEC DUF- related charges is based on actual data from September 2000 through February 2001. 391 AT& T has not shown that these study periods are unreasonable or that they lead to a TELRIC error in the resulting forecasts. In the circumstances presented here, AT& T could have raised its concerns with the five state commissions but never did so. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the state commissions did not commit clear error in adopting DUF rates incorporating these forecast assumptions. 116. AT& T next argues that BellSouth uses inconsistent and inappropriate “cost recovery periods” for its DUF costs. 392 AT& T uses the term cost recovery period to refer to the future period for which BellSouth projects DUF investment and demand to develop a per unit investment. 393 We prefer to use the term "study period" to refer to this period to avoid confusing it with the period over which the investment is depreciated for purposes of developing a rate. BellSouth's ODUF per unit investment estimate reflects three years of investment and demand data. 394 Its ADUF per unit investment estimate reflects ten years of investment and demand data. 395 BellSouth depreciates on a straight- line basis the per unit investment derived from these data over a 60- month period, BellSouth's estimate of the life of the DUF assets, to derive a monthly rate. That is, BellSouth's monthly rate recovers one- sixtieth of the per unit investment. AT& T asserts that the proper study period is five years because this is the time period over which BellSouth amortizes these investments. 396 Although it may be preferable for BellSouth to use a study period that matches the period over which the investment is depreciated, AT& T has not demonstrated that BellSouth’s use of three- year and ten- year study periods causes competitive LECs to incur higher DUF charges than they would have had BellSouth adopted a 388 Id. at paras. 47- 48. 389 BellSouth Caldwell Reply at para. 46; see also BellSouth August 14 Ex Parte Letter. 390 See generally BellSouth August 14 Ex Parte letter. 391 See id. 392 AT& T Turner Decl. at paras. 11, 31- 32. 393 See id. at paras. 11, 31- 32. 394 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 47. 395 Id. 396 AT& T Turner Decl. at paras. 11, 31- 32. 60 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 61 five- year study period. In fact, the use of a ten- year study period for ADUF rate development clearly results in lower rates than would a five- year period. We cannot determine, on this record and within the time constraints of the 90- day statutory review period for section 271 applications, the degree to which those costs savings are offset by the shorter study period used to develop ODUF rates. In the circumstances presented here, AT& T could have raised its concerns with the five state commissions but never did so. Based on the record before us, we find that the state commissions did not commit clear error in adopting DUF rates incorporating these varying cost recovery periods. 117. Fourth, AT& T argues that BellSouth violates TELRIC principles by failing to capitalize all DUF system development costs. AT& T argues that, although BellSouth properly capitalized labor hours associated with DUF system development, it inappropriately expensed other associated costs. 397 BellSouth maintains that it has followed accepted accounting principles in expensing such costs. BellSouth explains that, under accepted accounting practices, it is appropriate to capitalize actual programming costs while expensing overhead or one- time costs associated with development of internal software. 398 We find that BellSouth’s explanation of its accounting methodology is reasonable and that there is insufficient evidence to show that the state commissions committed clear error in adopting DUF rates based upon this accounting methodology. 118. AT& T’s final argument is related to the format in which competitive LECs receive DUF messages. BellSouth offers competitive LECs a choice of receiving such messages either electronically for a per- message charge, or via magnetic tape, with billing on a per- tape basis. AT& T argues that BellSouth has included the costs of providing the magnetic tape feed in the general message processing costs, which results in all competitive LECs being forced to bear a portion of the magnetic tape charges. 399 BellSouth contends that AT& T inaccurately characterizes the costs at issue. BellSouth explains that these are not recurring charges for magnetic tape use, but actually one- time development costs associated with the initial production of a magnetic tape for system testing purposes. 400 BellSouth further explains that, in its cost 397 Id. at paras. 35- 36. 398 BellSouth states that this methodology is consistent with the Statement of Position (SOP) 98- 01, Accounting for the Costs of Computer Software Developed or Obtained for Internal Use, which has been accepted by the Commission. BellSouth Caldwell Reply at para. 51. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review of Accounting and Cost Allocation Requirements, CC Docket No. 98- 81, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 11396 (1999). AT& T does not dispute this assertion. AT& T does dispute, however, that SOP 98- 01 is applicable at all, arguing that paragraph 15 of SOP 98- 1 establishes that SOP 98- 1 does not apply to computer software that is used or marketed to third parties. See AT& T August 23 Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter at 5. AT& T asserts that BellSouth is marketing the DUF software development and processes to competitive LECs as an unbundled element and that the provisions of SOP 98- 1 therefore do not apply. Id. We disagree. BellSouth sells the DUF reports themselves and not DUF software to competitive LECs. Indeed, by its own terms, SOP 98- 01 applies to “software used by the vendor in the production of the product or providing the service” where “the customer does not acquire the software or the future right to use it.” SOP 98- 01 at para. 15. 399 AT& T Turner Decl. at paras. 37- 38. 400 BellSouth Caldwell Reply at para. 52. 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 62 study, all developmental costs are recovered over projected number of messages, including the cost of producing the initial tape. 401 Based on the record before us, we find that BellSouth’s explanation is reasonable and that there is insufficient evidence to show that the state commissions committed clear error in adopting DUF rates incorporating such charges. 119. WorldCom argues that ODUF and ADUF charges should be eliminated altogether because BellSouth already recovers DUF costs in the shared and common costs that BellSouth adds to the direct costs of other UNEs. 402 We rejected this identical argument in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. 403 The Mississippi Commission also rejected this contention, finding that “BellSouth’s cost filing in this proceeding outlines the adjustments BellSouth made to remove the directly identified costs. BellSouth has reduced its common and shared factor by the amount of expense that it included in the development of its daily usage file charges.” 404 BellSouth provides evidence that the company identified and removed DUF- related costs that are directly assigned in the cost studies from the development of shared and common factors in Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi. 405 Accordingly, we reject this argument, and find that there is insufficient evidence to show that the state commissions committed clear error in adopting separate charges for ODUFs and ADUFs. 120. Conclusion. Based on the foregoing, we find that the rates that BellSouth charges to provide DUFs to competitive LECs are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in compliance with checklist item 2. c. Non- Recurring Charges 121. OSS Charge. BellSouth imposes a non- recurring charge to recover the incremental costs that it incurs to develop, implement, and maintain the electronic interfaces to its OSS in order to provide competitive LECs with access to the OSS. 406 BellSouth states that these costs are related to “service order processing” and are imposed per Local Service Request (LSR). 407 As stated in BellSouth’s SGATs, these per- LSR OSS charges are $5.70 in Mississippi, $5.83 in Alabama, $5.92 in South Carolina, and $7.88 in Kentucky. 408 The OSS charge in North Carolina, which is not at issue here, is a single flat monthly fee of $305, regardless of the number 401 Id. 402 WorldCom Comments at 12; WorldCom Frentrup Decl. at paras. 24- 25. 403 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9065, para. 93. 404 See Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 44; see also Mississippi Commission Reply at 9. 405 See BellSouth Caldwell Reply at para. 42. 406 Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 27. 407 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 54. 408 Id. at para. 55. 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 63 of “orders” (i. e., loops) processed. 409 BellSouth also states that it offers competitive LECs a region- wide OSS rate of $3.50 per LSR in its standard interconnection agreement, which many competitive LECs, including ITC^ DeltaCom and Talk America, have agreed to pay instead of the OSS charges in BellSouth’s SGATs. 410 122. Whether a competitive LEC pays the $5.70-$ 7.88 OSS charges in BellSouth’s SGATs or the $3.50 OSS charge available in BellSouth’s region- wide interconnection agreement, BellSouth states that up to 25 loops may be included in a single LSR provided that the loops are for the same customer at the same location. 411 This has a substantial effect on the final per- loop OSS charge. For example, with respect to UNE- platform orders in Kentucky, the OSS charge for UNE migration can be as low as $0.41 per loop if a competitive LEC bundles 25 loops serving the same location. 412 123. WorldCom challenges the per- LSR OSS charges in BellSouth’s SGATs in Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Kentucky. 413 These charges, according to WorldCom, do not compare with those in other BellSouth states, such as Louisiana, where the charge is $2.98, or Georgia, where it is $0.19. 414 WorldCom claims that such differences in OSS charges among different in- region states cannot be justified according to state- specific demand because BellSouth’s OSS is regional. 415 WorldCom also contends that it is improper for 409 Id. at para. 54. BellSouth has recently submitted cost studies to the North Carolina Commission that would re-structure the OSS charge to be identical to that in the other four states – namely, on a per- LSR basis. Id. See also Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (Sept. 17, 2002) (BellSouth September 17 Ex Parte Letter). 410 BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff. at para. 44. 411 Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 10- 11 (Aug. 15, 2002) (BellSouth August 15 Ex Parte Letter); BellSouth September 17 Ex Parte Letter. 412 We calculate this figure by dividing $7.88 by 25 to get an OSS charge of $0.31 per loop. BellSouth then adds a $0.10 UNE- platform charge that is imposed on each loop, regardless of the number of loops provisioned. See BellSouth Application App. A, Vol. 4a, Tab G, Exh. JAR/ CKC- 1at 13, line P. 1 (Alabama); Vol. 4b, Tab G, Exh. JAR/ CKC- 2 at 10, line P. 1 (Kentucky); Vol. 4c, Tab G, Exh. JAR/ CKC- 3 at 13, line P. 1 (Mississippi); Vol. 4d, Tab G, Exh. JAR/ CKC- 4 at 14, line P. 1 (North Carolina); Vol. 4e, Tab G, Exh. JAR/ CKC- 5 at 15, line P. 1 (South Carolina); see generally BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 54; BellSouth September 17 Ex Parte Letter. 413 WorldCom Comments at 11. WorldCom does not challenge the OSS charge in North Carolina, which WorldCom estimates is $0.06. Id. WorldCom derives this figure by assuming that a competitive LEC places 5,000 orders per month in North Carolina. BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 54. BellSouth contends that there is no factual basis for this assumption. Id. We need not resolve this dispute because AT& T does not challenge the North Carolina OSS charge. 414 WorldCom Comments at 11. 415 Id. 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 64 BellSouth to recover any cost for OSS development because such costs are already recovered in the common cost factor. 416 124. WorldCom limits its attacks on the OSS charges to the two issues summarized above – namely, that the disputed OSS charges are higher than those in other BellSouth states and that, in any event, BellSouth recovers these costs twice. Significantly, WorldCom does not challenge the cost study establishing these OSS charges and does not otherwise contend that the disputed OSS charges do not comply with the Commission’s TELRIC pricing principles. 125. As an initial matter, BellSouth asserts that WorldCom improperly compares OSS charges among various BellSouth states. 417 BellSouth points out that the Commission has not previously found simple comparisons of non- recurring charges between states to be dispositive of TELRIC compliance. 418 BellSouth is correct. 419 BellSouth also shows that the OSS charges in Georgia and North Carolina are not comparable to those in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, or South Carolina. 420 In both Georgia and North Carolina, OSS costs are recovered on an entirely different basis – that is, according to a monthly flat fee. 421 In Georgia, this fee is $550 for the first 1,000 orders, and in North Carolina, as noted above, the charge is $305 for an unlimited number of orders. 422 In Louisiana, BellSouth filed nearly the same OSS rate ($ 11.74) as it did in Alabama and Kentucky ($ 11.66), Mississippi ($ 11.71), and South Carolina ($ 11.83). 423 126. BellSouth also explains that, although it filed the same regional OSS cost study with each state commission, the state commissions directed BellSouth to make numerous state-specific adjustments to the cost study. 424 For example, the Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina Commissions reduced BellSouth’s proposed rates by 50 percent, 425 resulting in similar rates in these states -- $5.84 (Alabama); $5.70 (Mississippi); and $5.92 (South Carolina). 426 In 416 Id. at 11- 12. 417 BellSouth Reply at 45- 46. 418 Id. at 45. 419 See Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12306, para. 70 n. 193 (stating that comparison of hot cut rates between states is not dispositive of TELRIC compliance). 420 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at paras. 54, 57. 421 Id. 422 Id.; see also BellSouth September 17 Ex Parte Letter. 423 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 55. 424 Id. 425 Id. at para. 56. 426 Id. 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 65 Kentucky, the commission did not order such an across- the- board rate reduction. 427 Instead, it reviewed individual work time estimates, made specific adjustments to the electronic service order charge (element N. 1.1.), and accepted BellSouth’s proposed electronic interface costs. 428 We find that BellSouth has demonstrated that its OSS charges are in fact based on a regional cost study, and it has provided a reasonable explanation of the variations among its OSS charges. 429 We conclude that this variation among states is not sufficient to demonstrate any TELRIC error, and, in any event, WorldCom does not claim that any of the state- specific OSS charge adjustments by the Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, or South Carolina Commissions violate the Commission’s TELRIC principles. 127. Finally, WorldCom alleges that BellSouth already recovers its OSS development costs in its shared and common costs. 430 Both the Kentucky and Mississippi Commissions considered and rejected this specific argument. 431 WorldCom does not provide any evidence in support of this broad allegation. BellSouth, on the other hand, explains that “the OSS costs included in the shared and common costs relate to legacy systems only, not the costs associated with developing, programming and maintaining the new ordering interfaces used by [competitive] LECs.” 432 Thus, BellSouth asserts that it incurs costs in providing simple access to OSS and that such costs “do not include the legacy OSS systems themselves, which are reflected in the shared and common costs.” 433 Without evidence of the alleged double recovery of OSS costs and in light of BellSouth’s explanation of the different OSS costs recovered in its shared and common costs, we conclude that BellSouth’s OSS charges in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina comply with the Commission’s TELRIC pricing principles. 427 Id. 428 Id. 429 Id. We find that any de minimis cost differences between Alabama and Kentucky on the one hand and Mississippi and South Carolina on the other do not demonstrate a violation of TELRIC principles. 430 WorldCom Frentrup Reply Decl. at para. 29. 431 See Kentucky Commission UNE Rate Order at 32 (rejecting WorldCom’s argument that OSS costs are included in BellSouth’s common costs and accepting BellSouth’s contention that the “OSS costs included in shared and common costs relate to legacy systems only”); Mississippi Commission UNE Rate Order at 27 (finding that WorldCom is “simply wrong” that OSS costs are in included in BellSouth’s common costs). 432 BellSouth Caldwell Reply Aff. at para. 59. 433 BellSouth Surrebuttal Testimony of D. Daonne Caldwell Before the Mississippi Public Service Commission, Docket No. 2000- UA- 999, at 32 (June 11, 2001) (emphasis added). That WorldCom has not provided sufficient evidence of double recovery of OSS costs in this instance should not, however, be construed as an endorsement or rejection of any particular method of recovering OSS costs. 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 66 2. Access to Operations Support Systems 128. We find, as did the state commissions, 434 that BellSouth provides nondiscriminatory access to its OSS and, thus, satisfies the requirements of checklist item 2. We find that the evidence presented in this record shows that BellSouth provides nondiscriminatory access to its OSS functions for pre- ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing. We base this determination on BellSouth’s actual performance in each of the states and, in certain instances, on its performance in Georgia. The Commission may evaluate BellSouth’s performance in an individual state for enforcement purposes pursuant to section 271( d)( 6). 435 129. The Commission has defined OSS as the various systems, databases, and personnel used by incumbent LECs to provide service to their customers, 436 and consistently has found that nondiscriminatory access to OSS is a prerequisite to the development of meaningful local competition. 437 We analyze whether BellSouth has met the nondiscrimination standard for each OSS function using the two- step approach outlined in prior orders. 438 Under the first inquiry, a BOC must demonstrate that it has developed sufficient electronic (for functions that the BOC accesses electronically) and manual interfaces to allow competing carriers equivalent access to all of the necessary OSS functions. 439 Under the second inquiry, we examine performance measurements and other evidence of commercial readiness to ascertain whether the BOC’s OSS is handling current demand and will be able to handle reasonably foreseeable future volumes. 440 The most probative evidence that OSS functions are operationally ready is actual 434 Alabama Commission Comments at 173; Kentucky Commission Comments at 30; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11; North Carolina Commission Comments at 163; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 435 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 6). 436 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3989- 90, para. 83; Application by BellSouth Corporation, et al., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Provide In- Region, InterLATA Service in South Carolina, CC Docket No. 97- 208, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 539, 585, para. 82 (BellSouth South Carolina Order); SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18396- 97, para. 92. 437 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3900, para. 83; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20653- 57, paras. 83- 90; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 547- 49, 585, paras. 14- 18, 82. 438 See, e. g., Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3991- 92, paras. 85- 86; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6284- 85, paras. 104- 05. 439 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3992, para. 87; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20616, para. 136 (stating that the Commission determines “whether the BOC has deployed the necessary systems and personnel to provide sufficient access to each of the necessary OSS functions and whether the BOC is adequately assisting competing carriers to understand how to implement and use all of the OSS functions available to them.”). For example, a BOC must provide competing carriers the specifications necessary to design their systems’ interfaces and business rules necessary to format orders, and demonstrate that systems are scalable to handle current and projected demand. Id. 440 We assess “whether the OSS functions that the BOC has deployed are operationally ready, as a practical matter.” See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3992, para. 88. 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 67 commercial usage in the state for which the BOC seeks section 271 authorization. 441 Absent sufficient and reliable data on commercial usage in a state, the Commission will consider the results of carrier- to- carrier testing, independent third- party testing, and internal testing in assessing the commercial readiness of a BOC’s OSS. Where, as here, the BOC proves that many of the OSS functions in the states for which it seeks section 271 authorization are the same as in a state for which we have already granted such authorization, we will also look to performance in the latter state as additional evidence with which to make our determination. 442 Finally, we focus our analysis in this Order on a handful of issues that are contested by commenting parties or in areas where performance has deteriorated since issuance of the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. a. Relevance of BellSouth’s Georgia OSS 130. We find that BellSouth, through the Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) report, provides evidence that its OSS in Georgia are substantially the same as the OSS in each of the five states. We shall consider BellSouth’s commercial OSS performance in Georgia and the Georgia third party test to support this application. Moreover, BellSouth’s showing enables us to rely, in most instances, on findings relating to BellSouth’s OSS from the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order in our analysis of BellSouth’s OSS in the five states. In addition, we can examine data reflecting BellSouth’s performance in Georgia where low volumes yield inconclusive or inconsistent information concerning BellSouth’s compliance with the competitive checklist. 443 This “anchor state” approach was developed in the SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order 444 and has been used frequently since then. 445 131. Consistent with our “anchor state” precedent, as articulated in the SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 446 BellSouth relies heavily in this application on evidence concerning its Georgia OSS. 447 We have held that companies may use evidence from an “anchor state” when the OSS are regional. 448 BellSouth asserts that its OSS in Georgia are substantially the same as the OSS in each of the states and, therefore, evidence concerning its OSS in Georgia is relevant 441 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6285, para. 105. 442 Id. 443 Id. at 6254- 55, paras. 36- 37, 6286- 87, paras. 106- 08. As noted above, the Commission may evaluate BellSouth’s performance in an individual state for enforcement purposes pursuant to section 271( d)( 6). 444 Id. 445 See, e. g., Verizon Rhode Island Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 3327- 28, paras. 59- 60; Verizon Vermont Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7647, para. 40; Verizon Maine Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 11682- 83, para. 36. 446 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6254- 55, paras. 36- 37, 6286- 87, paras. 106- 08. 447 Id. at 6286- 87, paras. 106- 07. 448 Id. 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 68 and should be considered in our evaluation of each state’s OSS. 449 To support its claim, BellSouth submits the PwC report. 450 132. PwC conducted an “attestation examination” of BellSouth’s assertion that: (1) the same pre- ordering and ordering OSS, processes and procedures are used to support competing LEC activity across BellSouth’s nine- state region, and that (2) there are no material differences in the functionality or performance of BellSouth’s two order entry systems: Direct Order Entry (DOE) and Service Order Negotiation System (SONGS). 451 PwC concluded that, in its opinion, BellSouth’s assertions were “fairly stated, in all material respects.” 452 In addition, as the Department of Justice expressly recognizes, the systems and processes serving the five states are largely the same as those at issue and approved in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order and therefore, notwithstanding the lower level of competition in the five states, finds OSS sufficient to support competitive entry. 453 133. We reject commenters’ claims that BellSouth’s OSS are not regional. 454 The record indicates that the PwC examination closely modeled the successful “Five State Regional OSS Attestation Examination” performed in the context of SWBT’s Kansas/ Oklahoma section 271 application. BellSouth has provided detailed information regarding the “sameness” of BellSouth’s systems in the five states, including their manual systems and the way in which BellSouth personnel do their jobs. 455 Finally, we note that, while commenters initially contended 449 BellSouth Application at 59- 61; BellSouth Application App. A, Vol. 6a, Tab I, Affidavit of William N. Stacy (BellSouth Stacy Aff.) at para. 61; BellSouth Reply at 22- 24; BellSouth Reply App., Vol 3a, Tab H, Reply Affidavit of William N. Stacy (BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff.) at paras. 158- 69; see also SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6286- 87, paras. 106- 07. 450 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 159. 451 In conducting its review, PwC examined the consistency of applications and technical configurations used to process pre- ordering and ordering transactions region- wide, and reviewed the consistency of documentation of systems and processes in BellSouth’s local carrier service center (LCSC). BellSouth Application at 65- 66; BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 66- 70 & Exh. OSS- 10 at para 7; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9072- 73, paras. 109- 10. 452 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9072, para. 109; BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 70. 453 Department of Justice Evaluation at 7. 454 See AT& T Comments at 18- 20; AT& T Reply at 18- 19; WorldCom Comments at 1- 2, 8- 10; WorldCom Comments App., Tab A, Declaration of Sherry Lichtenberg (WorldCom Lichtenberg Decl.) at paras. 27- 30; WorldCom Reply at 7- 8. AT& T, for example, states that BellSouth’s staggered single C implementation process made little sense if BellSouth’s OSS were truly regional. AT& T Reply at 19. 455 BellSouth Application at 60- 62; BellSouth Reply at 22- 23; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 161; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9073, para. 110. 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 69 that the Commission should rely upon the Tennessee Regulatory Authority’s determination that BellSouth’s OSS are not regional, 456 this determination has since been reversed. 457 134. We also disagree with commenters’ claims that BellSouth’s application should fail because a third party did not examine BellSouth’s OSS in each of the states. 458 In prior orders, the Commission has held that third party tests can provide critical information about the functionality and performance of a BOC’s OSS. 459 The Commission has not, however, stated that checklist compliance cannot be proven without a third party test of an applicant’s OSS. 460 Moreover, the PwC attestation leads us to conclude that the KPMG tests in Georgia and Florida also may yield information that is relevant and useful to our assessment of BellSouth’s OSS in these five states. In any event, we emphasize that our analysis of an applicant’s OSS rests on a wide range of evidence, of which evidence from third party tests is but one part. The need to rely on a third party test is reduced in this instance because BellSouth is relying on an OSS that this Commission recently found to be nondiscriminatory in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana 271 Order. 135. Finally, we reject Covad’s claim that the independent third- party test in Georgia was flawed because KPMG failed to test critical aspects of BellSouth’s OSS. 461 In the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, we found that the results of KPMG’s test in Georgia provide meaningful evidence that is relevant to our analysis of BellSouth’s OSS. 462 No commenters have presented sufficient evidence to cause us to reevaluate this conclusion. b. Pre- Ordering 136. To comply with its obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions, BOCs must provide competing carriers with access to pre- ordering functions such as street address validation; telephone number selection; service and feature availability; due date information; customer service record information; and loop qualification information. We 456 AT& T Comments at 19; AT& T Comments App., Tab G, Declaration of Jay M. Bradbury and Sharon E. Norris (AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl.) at paras. 138- 46; WorldCom Comments at 8. 457 See BellSouth Reply at 23. 458 See AT& T Comments at 18- 20; Covad Comments at 5- 7; WorldCom Comments at 8- 10; WorldCom Lichtenberg Decl. at 10- 11. AT& T also contends that BellSouth cannot rely on the PwC report. See AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 6- 7. 459 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6291, para. 118. 460 See id. 461 See Covad Comments at 3, 5- 7 (claiming that KPMG’s third party test failed to test: 1) electronic ordering of stand alone xDSL loops by any of three electronic gateways (TAG, LENS or EDI); 2) BellSouth’s ability to handle high volumes of manual orders for stand alone xDSL loops that cannot be handled manually; 3) electronic ordering of line sharing through the three gateways; and 4) electronic OSS for IDSL loops). 462 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9072, para. 108. 69 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 70 conclude that for each of the application states, BellSouth demonstrates that it provides competing carriers with nondiscriminatory access to pre- ordering functions. We find that BellSouth generally meets or exceeds the applicable benchmarks for the OSS pre- ordering metrics. As discussed above, we find that BellSouth’s pre- ordering functions are provided on a region- wide basis and therefore we rely on our previous approval of the same pre- ordering OSS systems and processes in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. 463 We also note that each of the state commissions in the instant application found that BellSouth’s pre- ordering functions comply with this checklist item. 464 137. AT& T claims that outages in BellSouth’s ordering interfaces interfere with its ability to obtain nondiscriminatory access to pre- ordering functions and that BellSouth’s performance metrics do not reflect the actual number of times that the ordering interfaces are unavailable to competitors. 465 AT& T also contends that BellSouth improperly includes the hours of test servers and back- up servers in its calculations for the interface availability measure. 466 We disagree with AT& T’s claims. 467 During the relevant period for this application, BellSouth generally met or exceed the applicable benchmarks for the OSS pre- ordering metrics. 468 463 See id. at 9069- 9073, paras. 103- 11, 9076- 87, 117- 34. 464 See Alabama Commission Comments at 149- 61; Kentucky Commission Comments at 19- 21; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11; North Carolina Commission Comments at 130- 33; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 465 AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 55- 56. As in Georgia and Louisiana, competing carriers may use one of two BellSouth pre- ordering interfaces: (1) the Telecommunications Access Gateway (TAG) which is an application- to- application interface; or (2) the Local Exchange Navigation System (LENS) which is a graphical user interface (GUI). See BellSouth Application at 77- 80; BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 171- 76. Competitive LECs may use these interfaces to submit orders for end users region- wide. BellSouth Application at 77; BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 12, 173- 74, 176, 191. See also BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9076, para. 117. Both interfaces are in active use by competitors and performance data submitted by BellSouth in its application demonstrate that both interfaces provide competitors with equivalent access to BellSouth’s pre- ordering functions. See BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 13. 466 AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 55- 56. 467 In a declaration attached to its comments, AT& T cites instances where BellSouth has not met the benchmark or parity standards during the relevant period. AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 76- 187. We fully address BellSouth’s performance with respect to these issues, infra. 468 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 296- 307. See D. 1.1 (% Interface Availability – CLEC); D. 1.2 (% Interface Availability – BST & CLEC); D. 1.3 (Average Response Interval – CLEC (LENS)); D. 1.3 (Average Response Interval – CLEC (TAG)). We note that these metrics provide regional data. In addition, the percent interface availability metrics record all system outages regardless of duration and is similar to the metric used by the other BOCs. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9077 n. 393. Furthermore, BellSouth has generally met the benchmark or provided parity for almost all submetrics from March through June. BellSouth was only out of parity region- wide in one month for the following metrics: D. 1.1.7 (% Interface Availability - CLEC, TAG); D. 1.1.8 (% Interface Availability – CLEC, PSIMS); D. 1.2.1 (% Interface Availability – BST & CLEC, ATLAS/ COFFI ); and for D. 1.4.2.1 (Average Response Interval – CLEC (TAG), RSAG, by ADDR). We therefore find these misses to be isolated and not indicative of a downward trend. 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 71 BellSouth states that, although it had included test servers in the interface availability measure from April 2001 to November 2001, it has corrected this problem and data and test server hours are no longer included in this measure. 469 Due to this correction, we find that this problem, as well as AT& T’s assertions, is now moot. Moreover, for purposes of determining BellSouth’s compliance with checklist item 2, we only consider data for the relevant period (March through June). We also note that the performance metrics and data submitted by BellSouth in its application have been approved by the state commissions. AT& T presents no evidence in its comments to support its allegations that these metrics continue to include back- up and test servers or that BellSouth is not accurately reporting its performance. Accordingly, we do not find that this performance warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 138. Birch contends that BellSouth’s placement of pending service orders (PSOs) on customer service records (CSRs) adversely impacts competitors using BellSouth’s pre- ordering functions. 470 Specifically, Birch states that PSOs create unnecessary provisioning delays because an order will be clarified back to a competitive LEC if a PSO is present on a CSR. 471 Birch also asserts that BellSouth’s OSS systematically inserts unnecessary PSOs into end- user CSRs at the beginning of BellSouth’s provisioning. 472 BellSouth explains, however, that its systems place a PSO on a CSR whenever a service request is entered into BellSouth’s ordering systems, including a conversion request from a competing LEC such as Birch. 473 In addition, although Birch suggests that BellSouth is intentionally adding false PSOs to end- user CSRs where that customer has chosen to switch to Birch, nothing in the record substantiates this claim. 474 Rather, BellSouth investigated the two examples which Birch concluded were unexplained and found that the PSOs were appropriately placed. 475 Given this evidence, we do not find that BellSouth fails to comply with this checklist item. 139. We also reject ITC^ DeltaCom’s claim that BellSouth does not provide equivalent access to information concerning PSOs on a CSR. 476 Consistent with our analysis in the 469 BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 49. BellSouth also states that there was no significant change in the measurement results due to this error. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 49 470 Birch Comments at 16- 20. 471 Id. at 16. 472 Id. at 16- 19. 473 BellSouth Reply at 26; BellSouth Reply App., Vol 1a, Tab A, Reply Affidavit of Ken L. Ainsworth (BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff.) at paras. 36- 37. 474 Although Birch cites several examples of PSOs appearing at the beginning of the provisioning process, there is no specific evidence indicating that these accounts were targeted by BellSouth retail marketers. See Birch Comments at 16- 20. 475 BellSouth also found that the PSOs were the result of a customer request or Birch acting as an agent for its customer. BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at paras. 36- 37. 476 ITC^ DeltaCom Comments at 1- 2. 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 72 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, BellSouth provides a PSO flag in the LENS interface to alert competitive LECs that a service order is pending. 477 BellSouth explains that PSO information is proprietary customer information, but competitive LECs have the ability to track the details of pending service orders for their own customers using BellSouth’s CSOTS. 478 Accordingly, we do not find that ITC^ DeltaCom’s claim warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. 140. Covad’s contention, that BellSouth plans to discontinue support for its current TAG pre- ordering interface prior to the introduction of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) support for pre- ordering functions and thereby impose additional and unnecessary costs on Covad, is premature and thus not relevant to our determination here. 479 Specifically, Covad asserts that unless the Commission requires BellSouth to maintain its existing TAG interface until its makes its EDI interface available for pre- ordering functions, competitive LECs seeking to use the EDI interface for pre- ordering will have to migrate from the TAG interface to an alternative interface only to migrate again to the EDI interface. 480 Covad’s claim appears to be inaccurate. Under BellSouth’s current plans, no competitive carrier would have to transition to an alternative interface prior to the availability of an EDI pre- ordering interface. 481 We therefore reject Covad’s claim and do not find that it warrants checklist noncompliance. 141. Access to Loop Qualification Information. We find, as did the state commissions, 482 that BellSouth provides competitive LECs with access to loop qualification information consistent with the requirements of the UNE Remand Order. 483 Specifically, we find 477 The Competitive LEC Service Order Tracking System (CSOTS) alerts competitive LECs to the presence of a PSO for one of their customers, but only allows the competitive LEC access to the actual details of the PSO if in fact the PSO was placed by the competitive LEC. See ITC^ DeltaCom Comments at 1- 2 n. 1; BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at paras. 38- 39; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 170; see also BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9077 n. 392. BellSouth also states that its legacy systems are common to both retail and wholesale competitive LEC services and need to be accessed by both BellSouth retail and wholesale representatives to handle issues dealing with an order already in progress. See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 7. 478 BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at para. 39. 479 Covad Comments at 17. The TAG gateway allows Covad to determine at the pre- ordering stage whether or not it can provide a customer with the DSL services that they want. Id. 480 Covad Comments at 18. 481 BellSouth explains that it will make the current version of TAG available until May 2003, and a later version of TAG (scheduled to be released in December 2002) available until December 2003. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 174. BellSouth plans to make EDI support for pre- ordering available in March 2003, before BellSouth discontinues support for the current version of the TAG interface. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 180- 81. 482 Alabama Commission Comments at 211; Kentucky Commission Comments at 21; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 132- 33; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 483 The Commission’s rules require BellSouth to provide competitors with access to all loop qualification information in its databases or internal records in the same time intervals that it is available to any BellSouth (continued….) 72 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 73 that BellSouth provides competitors with access to all of the same detailed information about the loop that is available to itself and in the same time frame as any of its personnel could obtain it. 484 142. Covad claims that inaccuracies in the loop qualification information in BellSouth’s Loop Facilities Assignment and Control System (LFACS) database discriminate against competitive LECs. 485 We reject this argument. The Commission has never required incumbent LECs to ensure the accuracy of their loop qualification databases. Instead, the Commission requires that, to the extent the incumbent LEC has compiled loop qualification information for itself, it is obligated to provide competitive LECs with nondiscriminatory access to the same information. 486 Because BellSouth complies with this requirement, we find that Covad’s claims regarding the alleged inaccuracy of BellSouth’s LFACS database, even if true, do not warrant a finding of noncompliance with checklist item 2. 487 143. We also reject Covad’s claim that BellSouth’s refusal to provide it with sufficient information to enable its technicians to locate demarcation points for the UCL- ND warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. 488 The record makes clear that BellSouth’s records typically do not set forth the precise location of the demarcation point for a given loop. 489 Instead, those records contain more general information that BellSouth’s technicians are able to access to help them locate a particular demarcation point. 490 BellSouth states that, upon request, it provides Covad with the same general information regarding the location of demarcation points that is (Continued from previous page) personnel, regardless of whether BellSouth personnel actually access that information. See UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3885- 86, paras. 427- 31. 484 See BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 241- 50; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 185- 90; see also Verizon Massachusetts Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9016- 17, para. 54. 485 Covad Comments at 23, 31- 32. 486 See UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3886, para. 429. 487 We note that BellSouth disputes Covad’s allegation that BellSouth’s LFACS database is highly inaccurate. See BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 185; Covad Comments at 31- 32. We find it unnecessary to resolve this dispute because, as BellSouth has shown, competitive LECs have nondiscriminatory access to the information in that database. 488 Covad Comments at 24- 26. Under the Commission’s rules, a “demarcation point” is “the point of demarcation and/ or interconnection between the communications facilities of a provider of wireline telecommunications, and terminal equipment, protective apparatus or wiring at a subscriber's premises.” 47 C. F. R. § 68. 3. In multi- tenant buildings, demarcation points may be located in telecommunications closets or equipment rooms where numerous loops terminate or in individual office suites or apartments. 47 C. F. R. § 68.105( b), (d). 489 BellSouth Application Reply App., Vol. 2, Tab F, Reply Affidavit of W. Keith Milner (BellSouth Milner Reply Aff.) at paras. 3- 4. 490 See id. at para. 3. 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 74 available to BellSouth’s own employees and in the same timeframe. 491 Covad thus has access to the information regarding demarcation point locations that is available to BellSouth in accordance with the UNE Remand Order. Therefore, we find that Covad’s claim does not raise any issue regarding checklist noncompliance. 492 c. Ordering 144. In this section, we address BellSouth’s ability to provide competing carriers with access to the OSS functions necessary for placing wholesale and resale orders. We find, as did the state commissions, 493 that BellSouth provides carriers in each of the five states with nondiscriminatory access to its ordering systems. In the following discussion, we address the OSS issues primarily in dispute in this application: order confirmation notices; reject notices; flow- through; order completion notices; and jeopardy notices. (i) Order Confirmation Notices 145. Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude, as did the state commissions, 494 that BellSouth generally provides timely order confirmation notices to competitive LECs in each of the five states. 495 BellSouth demonstrates that it generally meets or exceeds the relevant benchmark for each type of service in the months most relevant to this application. 496 During the 491 BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at para. 41; BellSouth Milner Reply Aff. at paras. 3- 4. BellSouth adds that it is currently conducting a region- wide trial under which it will provide Covad with demarcation point locations for all UCL- ND loops even if their provisioning does not otherwise require a dispatch. BellSouth Milner Reply Aff. at para. 6. 492 We note that Covad also claims that BellSouth’s practices with regard to demarcation point information violate BellSouth’s interconnection agreement with Covad. Covad Comments at 25. If Covad believes that BellSouth’s practices in this area violate these parties’ interconnection agreement, it is more appropriate for Covad to seek redress before the state commissions under section 252 of the Act rather than in this proceeding. 493 Alabama Commission Comments at 152- 61; Kentucky Commission Comments at 21- 27; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11; North Carolina Commission Comments at 133- 39; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 494 See Alabama Commission Comments at 159; Kentucky Commission Comments at 21- 27; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11- 12; North Carolina Commission Comments at 135- 36; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 495 BellSouth submits performance data showing firm order confirmation (FOC) Timeliness disaggregated by: (1) fully mechanized orders (i. e., orders that flow through); (2) partially mechanized orders that are submitted electronically but require some manual processing; and (3) manually submitted and processed orders. See BellSouth Varner Aff. at para. 170. 496 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.9 (FOC Timeliness – Mechanized); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1. 12 (FOC Timeliness – Partially Mechanized); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.13 (FOC Timeliness – Non- Mechanized); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 1.9 (FOC Timeliness – Mechanized); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 1.12 (FOC Timeliness – Partially Mechanized); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 1.13 (FOC Timeliness – Non- Mechanized). 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 75 relevant period, BellSouth met or exceeded the 95 percent within the three- hour standard for electronically submitted UNE- P orders in each state with few exceptions. 497 Similarly, between March and June, BellSouth, on average, met or exceeded the 85 percent within 10 hours standard for partially mechanized orders 498 and the 85 percent within 36 hours standard for non-mechanized orders on all product types with one exception. 499 For resale orders, BellSouth met or exceeded the relevant benchmarks for almost every relevant submetric. 500 Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 146. For the mechanized and partially mechanized firm order confirmation (FOC) timeliness other non- design category, BellSouth indicates that several submetrics fell out of parity when BellSouth switched from PMAP 2.6 to 4.0. 501 According to BellSouth, the primary reason for the failure to meet the benchmark for these submetrics is an erroneous timestamp, causing certain orders to appear to have taken too long to process. 502 BellSouth states that there is a defect in PMAP 4.0 for orders submitted via LENS that occurs when the FOC and completion notice both are issued at the same time. 503 Because directory listing orders are generally completed at about the same time the FOC is returned, this problem frequently occurs 497 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.9 (FOC Timeliness – Mechanized). Specifically, BellSouth’s mechanized FOC timeliness (other design) was below the benchmark in Alabama for one month during the relevant period. See Alabama B. 1.9.14 (FOC Timeliness – Mechanized, Other Design). We find this miss to be an exception to BellSouth’s performance and not indicative of a downward trend. 498 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1. 12 (FOC Timeliness – Partially Mechanized – 10 hours ). Specifically, BellSouth’s partially mechanized FOC timeliness for UNE- P orders was below the benchmark for one month in Alabama, one month in Kentucky, and one month in South Carolina. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ South Carolina B. 1.12.3 (FOC Timeliness – Partially Mechanized – 10 hours, Loop + Port Combinations). In addition, BellSouth’s partially mechanized FOC timeliness (other design) was below the benchmark for one month in Alabama. See Alabama B. 1.12.14 (FOC Timeliness – Partially Mechanized – 10 hours, Other Design). We find these misses to be isolated and not indicative of a downward trend. 499 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.13 (FOC Timeliness – Non-Mechanized). Specifically, BellSouth’s non- mechanized FOC timeliness (other design) was below the benchmark for one month in Alabama. See Alabama B. 1.13.14 (FOC Timeliness – Non- Mechanized, Other Design). BellSouth’s performance, however, was less than two percentage points below the benchmark. 500 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 1.9 (FOC Timeliness – Mechanized, Resale); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 1. 12 (FOC Timeliness – Partially Mechanized – 10 hours, Resale); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 1.13 (FOC Timeliness – Non- Mechanized, Resale). Generally, BellSouth achieved the relevant benchmark, with a few minor exceptions. Specifically, BellSouth’s partially mechanized FOC timeliness (residence) was below the benchmark for one month in Kentucky and one month in South Carolina. See Kentucky/ South Carolina A. 1.12.1 (FOC Timeliness – Partially Mechanized – 10 hours, Residence). BellSouth’s performance, however, with respect to these measures, was less than four percentage points below the benchmark. 501 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 159. 502 Id. at paras. 160- 162. 503 Id. at paras. 156- 61. 75 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 76 in the mechanized and partially mechanized FOC timeliness other non- design category, which is comprised almost entirely of directory listing LSRs. 504 When this error occurs, the timestamp for the FOC shown was at times erroneous and PMAP was fed this erroneous data to calculate FOC timeliness. 505 BellSouth has provided revised data for each of the states and generally meets the benchmark utilizing the correct timestamp. 506 Accordingly, based on BellSouth’s overall performance, we conclude that BellSouth currently provides order confirmation notices in a manner that provides competitive LECs a meaningful opportunity to compete. In addition, BellSouth corrected this problem with its 10.6 release on August 24, 2002. 507 We, therefore, are confident that this issue has been resolved. We also note, in accordance with section 271( d)( 6), that if BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorates, we may pursue appropriate enforcement action. 147. We also reject AT& T’s claim that BellSouth’s performance in providing competitive LECs with order status notices is inadequate because BellSouth has not provided them in a timely, accurate, and complete manner. 508 Specifically, AT& T claims that, on average, BellSouth takes eighteen hours to return a FOC or reject notice for electronically submitted LSRs that fall out for manual processing. 509 Because the record evidence of BellSouth’s performance data demonstrates that BellSouth is generally meeting the relevant benchmarks for this measure, and since AT& T has not explained how it determined this eighteen- hour 504 Id. at para. 162. 505 Id. at paras. 160- 61. 506 According to the revised data, BellSouth generally met the relevant benchmark. Specifically, BellSouth’s mechanized FOC timeliness (other non- design) performance was below the benchmark for one month in South Carolina. See generally South Carolina B. 1.9.15 (FOC Timeliness – Mechanized, Other Non- Design). In addition, BellSouth’s partially mechanized FOC timeliness (other non- design) performance data show that it was below the benchmark for one month in Alabama, two months in Kentucky, one month in Mississippi, and two months in South Carolina. See generally Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina B. 1.12.15 (FOC Timeliness – Partially Mechanized – 10 hours, Other Non- Design). Furthermore, BellSouth’s performance in this area generally appears to be improving. See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 163 & BellSouth Varner Aff. at Exh. PM- 28; BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 5- 6. 507 See Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 7 (filed Aug. 15, 2002) (BellSouth August 15 Non- pricing Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1 (filed Sept. 9, 2002) (BellSouth September 9 Ex Parte Letter). 508 See AT& T Comments at 16. 509 Id. at 16- 17. AT& T notes that while it takes 18 hours to return a FOC or rejection notice for a partially mechanized order, it only takes 15 minutes to return a FOC or rejection notice when the order is processed electronically. Thus, AT& T claims that these delays will result in the assignment of later due dates and provisioning delays for customers whose LSRs are processed manually. See AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 105. 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 77 timeframe, or its relevance to our analysis, we decline to make a finding of noncompliance based on these allegations. 148. US LEC states that BellSouth’s FOCs fail to meet the requested due date or customer desired due date. 510 Specifically, US LEC contends that it has encountered numerous instances of “blind FOCs” where the competing carrier receives an order confirmation but is later notified that facilities are not available. 511 BellSouth, however, explains that when it receives a complete and corrected LSR, it returns a FOC and checks the facilities databases to determine if the facilities are available to do the work. 512 Moreover, BellSouth claims that a “blind FOC” could be issued if the information competitive LEC or BellSouth information in the facilities database is wrong and is not detected until the due date. 513 Therefore, in the absence of further evidence indicating systemic discrimination or a significant anticompetitive effect, we decline to find that this assertion warrants a finding of noncompliance. (ii) Order Reject Notices and Order Rejections 149. We conclude, as did the state commissions, 514 that BellSouth provides competing carriers with order reject notices in a timely and nondiscriminatory manner. 515 Although we recognize BellSouth has failed to satisfy the benchmark standard for mechanically processed reject notices in each of the states for several submetrics, we find that BellSouth’s overall performance is nondiscriminatory. 516 According to BellSouth, these missed submetrics are 510 US LEC Comments at 17. 511 Id. at 17- 18. 512 See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 7. 513 See id. 514 See Alabama Commission Comments at 154- 59; Kentucky Commission Comments at 21- 27; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11- 12; North Carolina Commission Comments at 136- 37; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 515 BellSouth requests that the Commission not rely on the FOC & Reject Response Completeness (Multiple Responses) metric because BellSouth contends that it does not provide valuable information as to whether a particular reject or response was appropriate or necessary. See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 149- 50. We also note that the Commission has never relied on, nor do the state commissions, require this metric. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9089- 90, para. 140 n. 493. Consistent with our finding in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, we believe that the Reject Interval metric provides a more probative evaluation of BellSouth’s performance. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.4 - B. 1.8 (Reject Interval). 516 Although BellSouth failed to meet the 97% in one hour benchmark for mechanized UNE orders for several of the submetrics in each of the states, we note that BellSouth’s performance was generally within six percentage points of the benchmark and order volumes were low. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.4 - B. 1.8 (Reject Interval). There were no major deviations, and in some cases performance generally improved, during the relevant period. See generally Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.4 (Reject Interval – Mechanized); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 1.4 (Reject Interval – Mechanized, Resale). The most significant deviation was Alabama B. 1.4.15 (Reject Interval – (continued….) 77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 78 partially the result of the over- inclusion of certain LSR rejection notices, which were submitted when certain BellSouth legacy systems were out of service due to scheduled down time for OSS maintenance. 517 BellSouth claims, and we agree, that such LSRs should not be counted in the measurement. In June, BellSouth implemented a coding change in PMAP to ensure that scheduled OSS downtime was properly excluded, and BellSouth is not aware of any remaining problems. 518 AT& T also alleges that BellSouth, in calculating performance results for rejected mechanized LSRs, applies exclusions that are not documented in BellSouth’s SQM or the Raw Data User Manual. 519 BellSouth, however, notes that these LSRs are included in the Total Mechanized LSRs category in the Flow- Through Report. 520 Accordingly, we do not find that BellSouth’s performance warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, however, we may pursue appropriate enforcement action. 150. Second, BellSouth demonstrates that it provides reject notices in a nondiscriminatory manner for those orders that require partial or full manual processing. Specifically, BellSouth met the benchmark for partially mechanized orders with only minor exceptions. 521 Moreover, BellSouth consistently met or exceeded the benchmark for returning (Continued from previous page) Mechanized, Other Non- Design). However, as discussed below, BellSouth has explained that such deviations were due to the improper inclusion of certain LSR reject notices in the mechanized design and non- design reject intervals. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.4.14 (Reject Interval – Mechanized, Other Design); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.4.15 (Reject Interval – Mechanized, Other Non- Design); see also BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 155- 57. 517 See BellSouth Varner Aff. at Exh. PM- 2, paras. 39- 44; BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 155; Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1 (filed Aug. 20, 2002) (BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter). 518 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 155- 57. BellSouth has also explained that the fully mechanized reject interval was adversely affected when a FOC was followed by a manual clarification and the LSR erroneously appeared in both the fully mechanized FOC timeliness and reject interval measures. In this case, both a FOC and a separate reject are issued. See id. at para. 156. Because a service representative cannot claim the LSR after the FOC has been sent, the LSR is counted as fully mechanized and appears in both the FOC timeliness and reject interval metrics. Id. BellSouth also states that this problem overstates the time required for BellSouth’s fully mechanized reject notice and, as a result, understates BellSouth’s performance of the timeliness measure. BellSouth is currently working to develop a solution. See BellSouth August 15 Non- pricing Ex Parte Letter at 8. In addition, BellSouth states that there is also a LESOG application defect that affects the reject interval measure. Currently the indicator is not verified in the LESOG prior to the issuance of FOC. If the indicator is not populated on orders for additional lines, the order is manually clarified back to the competitive LEC. See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 157. 519 See AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 44- 45. 520 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 42; see also BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 5. 521 Although BellSouth failed to meet the 85% within 10 hours benchmark for UNE and resale orders, for several of the submetrics in each of the states, we note that BellSouth’s performance data show that it was generally close to the benchmark or order volumes were low. Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.7 (Reject Interval – Partially Mechanized); see also BellSouth Application at 82. Specifically, BellSouth’s partially (continued….) 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 79 manually processed rejects. 522 Accordingly, we find that BellSouth’s manual reject process can provide competing carriers prompt notice that an order has encountered a problem, and the opportunity to resolve it without considerable delay. (iii) Order Flow- Through Rate 151. We conclude, as did the state commissions, 523 that BellSouth’s OSS are capable of flowing through UNE orders in a manner that affords competing carriers a meaningful opportunity to compete. 524 We also conclude that BellSouth is capable of flowing through resale orders in substantially the same time and manner as it does for its own retail customers. 525 Consistent with our prior section 271 orders, we emphasize that we review flow- through rates as one of several factors to assess the BOC’s overall ability to provide access to its ordering functions in a nondiscriminatory manner. 526 Accordingly, where other evidence demonstrates that the BOC’s OSS are able to process competing carriers’ orders at reasonably foreseeable (Continued from previous page) mechanized reject interval (other non- design) was below the benchmark for one month in Alabama and one month in South Carolina. In Alabama, BellSouth’s performance was almost 13 percentage points below the benchmark during that month and its average performance was over 91% for this measure. In South Carolina, BellSouth’s performance was only 1.43 percentage points below the benchmark during that month and its average performance was over 93% for this measure. See generally Alabama/ South Carolina B. 1.7.3 (Reject Interval – Partially Mechanized – 10 hours, Loop + Port Combinations). BellSouth’s partially mechanized reject interval (other design) performance data shows that BellSouth missed the benchmark for two months in Alabama, one month in Kentucky, and two months in Mississippi. These missed metrics, however, all have order volumes of ten or less. See generally Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.7.14. BellSouth’s partially mechanized reject interval (other non- design) was below the benchmark for one month in Alabama and two months in North Carolina. These missed metrics, however, were within seven percentage points of the benchmark. See generally Alabama/ North Carolina B. 1.7.15. (Reject Interval – Partially Mechanized – 10 hours, Non- Design). In addition, BellSouth’s partially mechanized resale reject interval (business) performance data shows that it missed the benchmark in North Carolina in one month. This miss, however, was within four percentage points of the benchmark. See generally North Carolina A. 1.7.2 (Reject Interval – Partially Mechanized – 10 hours, Business). 522 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.8 (Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 1.8 (Reject Interval – Non- Mechanized). 523 See Alabama Commission Comments at 155- 61; Kentucky Commission Comments at 23; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11- 12; North Carolina Commission Comments at 137- 38; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 524 BellSouth’s commercial data show, on the average, achieved flow- through levels, in the region for UNEs, of 74.11%. See F. 1.2.5 (% Flow- Through Service Requests - Achieved, UNE). BellSouth’s performance data for the percent flow- through service requests metric demonstrated an average monthly 83.69% total flow- through for UNEs in its region. See F. 1.1.5 (% Flow- Through Service Requests, UNE). 525 See F. 1.1.3 (% Flow- Through Service Requests, Residence); F. 1.1.4 (% Flow- Through Service Requests, Business). 526 These factors include the BOC’s ability to: (1) accurately process manually handled orders; (2) timely return order confirmations and reject notices; and (3) the overall scalability of its systems and processes. BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9092- 93, para. 143. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4034- 35, paras. 161- 63; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18443- 44, para. 179. 79 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 80 commercial volumes, it is not necessary to focus our analysis solely on flow- through rates. 527 BellSouth demonstrates that it provides timely order confirmation and reject notices for all orders. The evidence in the record also demonstrates that BellSouth accurately processes both manual and mechanized orders. Further, BellSouth’s system is scalable to handle increased volumes. 152. We have previously stated that a BOC’s ability to flow- through orders at high rates is dependent, in part, on the performance of competing carriers to place orders electronically. 528 We find it particularly informative that several competing carriers are achieving much higher flow- through rates than other carriers. Specifically, data regarding UNE orders shows that the flow- through rates of the top five competitive LECs range from 77.06 percent to 94.64 percent for the first quarter of 2002. 529 In addition, flow- through rates for three of these competitive LECs range from 90.19 percent to 94.64 percent during the first quarter. 530 During the second quarter of 2002, data regarding UNE orders shows that the flow- through rates of the top five competitive LECs range from 75.50 percent to 95.10 percent. 531 The flow- through rates for three of these competitive LECs range from 85.80 percent to 95.10 percent during the second quarter. 532 This evidence indicates that BellSouth’s systems are capable of flowing through UNE orders in a manner that allows competitive carriers a meaningful opportunity to compete. In fact, BellSouth states that an analysis of the March Percent Flow- Through Service Requests (aggregate detail) report reveals that 246 users experienced flow- through rates in excess of 90 percent. 533 In June 2002, 277 users experienced flow- through rates in excess of 90 percent. 534 Because the record demonstrates that a number of competitive LECs experience high 527 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4034, para. 162 (stating that “[ f] low through rates . . . are not so much an end in themselves, but rather are a tool used to indicate a wide range of possible differences in a BOC’s OSS that may deny an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete.”). 528 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4038- 39, para. 166; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9093, para. 145. 529 See BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 284. 530 See id. 531 BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 532 Id. 533 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 285; BellSouth Application at 84. We note that BellSouth uses the term “user,” instead of competitive LEC, when referring to a horizontal line of data represented on the Flow- Through Report, because each line of data represents an Operating Company Number (OCN) and some competitive LECs have multiple OCNs. Thus, on a flow- through report, two or more users may represent a competitive LEC’s data. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at n. 41. In addition, 39 of these users electronically submitted in excess of 1,000 LSRs and 80 users submitted between 100 and 999 LSRs. See BellSouth Application at 84; BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 285. In May 2002, 39 users that submitted more than 1,000 LSRs experienced flow- through rates of 90% or higher. See BellSouth Reply at 20; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 151- 52. 534 In addition, 47 of these users submitted in excess of 1,000 LSRs and 85 users submitted between 100 and 999 LSRs. See BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 3. 80 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 81 flow- through rates, we conclude that it is inappropriate to attribute the wide range of flow-through results entirely to BellSouth. 535 As the Commission previously stated, a BOC is not accountable for orders that fail to flow through due to competing carrier- caused errors. 536 Our conclusion that BellSouth’s OSS are capable of achieving high flow- through level is further bolstered by KPMG’s Georgia testing. 537 153. We note that we have previously determined that BellSouth’s OSS are sufficiently scalable to handle reasonably foreseeable commercial volumes of orders in a nondiscriminatory manner. 538 Because BellSouth has demonstrated the ability to handle competitive LEC order volumes in a nondiscriminatory manner, even as order volumes increase, we are persuaded that BellSouth’s OSS are sufficiently scalable to process increases in competitive LEC order volumes in the foreseeable future. As a result, in this application, flow- through performance has less value as an indicator of deficiencies in OSS. 539 154. Although AT& T makes several claims regarding the manual nature of BellSouth’s OSS, 540 we find that AT& T’s concerns regarding BellSouth’s flow- through performance are addressed by the record evidence, cited above, demonstrating that BellSouth is capable of flowing through competitive LEC orders. 541 Additionally, we note that BellSouth has 535 Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 536 See Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20674, para. 111; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4039- 40, 4049, paras. 167, 181; Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9030- 31, para. 78. 537 The KPMG test evaluated the calculation of the flow- through percentages produced by BellSouth for competitive LEC activities for the months of September, October, and November 1999, and for the transactions of the test competitive LEC established by KPMG. The test utilized raw data to calculate flow- through and fallout statistics and compared the data used in those calculations to the data collected by KPMG. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9093, para. 145. 538 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9097, para. 152. 539 Consistent with our prior section 271 orders, we do not review flow- through measures as an end in and of itself, but as one of several factors that we review to assess the BOC’s overall ability to provide access to its ordering functions in a nondiscriminatory manner. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9092- 93, para. 143; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4034- 35, paras. 161- 63; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18443- 44, para. 179. 540 AT& T Comments at 16; AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 77- 81; AT& T Reply at 16- 17. Specifically, AT& T contends that BellSouth’s reliance on manual processing delays the processing of orders of competitive LEC customers and increases the risk of errors in provisioning. See AT& T Reply at 16- 17 541 BellSouth states that between June 2001 and June 2002, its residential resale, business resale, and UNE flow-through performance has improved, and that its UNE- P flow- through has remained steady, despite a sharp increase in ordering volumes. See BellSouth Reply at 19; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 112, 144- 49. Although the regional LNP flow- through performance dropped slightly in June 2002, BellSouth explains that that is not a result of a deterioration of BellSouth’s capabilities, but rather, stems from BellSouth’s compliance with a Florida Commission order, requiring BellSouth to perform a facilities check before the issuance of a FOC. BellSouth Reply at 19; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 114- 15. 81 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 82 continued to participate in the Flow- Through Task Force established by the Georgia Commission to ensure continued compliance with the benchmarks and to develop flow- through enhancements. 542 BellSouth asserts that of the 35 issues identified by the Task Force, 31 have previously been addressed and the remaining 4 were addressed in release 10.6 during the weekend of August 24- 25, 2002. 543 We also reject AT& T’s claim that BellSouth erroneously calculates flow- through, since, as we already determined in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, KPMG evaluated the calculation of the flow- through percentages produced by BellSouth for competitive LEC activities and found no such errors. 544 Moreover, we note that the Florida Commission recently ordered double SEEMS penalties if BellSouth does not meet its flow-through benchmarks. 545 AT& T, however, claims that the new penalties are inadequate and that the state commissions may not take the necessary actions to improve flow- through rates. 546 The alleged inadequacy of the Florida SEEMS penalties, however, is not decisional to our analysis of the current application. Accordingly, we do not find that AT& T’s claims warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 155. Finally, Covad expresses concerns regarding the manual nature of BellSouth’s OSS. 547 First, Covad contends that BellSouth improperly designs its systems so that orders fall out by design or cannot be ordered electronically. 548 Second, Covad asserts that a high portion of its orders submitted electronically are falling out to manual handling primarily due to BellSouth error. 549 We reject Covad’s arguments. Rather, we find, as we did in BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, that BellSouth properly designs its systems to minimize the number of orders that are processed manually. 550 Moreover, as of June 30, 2002, competitive LECs had only 636 UCL- ND in service region- wide. 551 Additionally, BellSouth states that it has completed 542 See BellSouth Reply at 20; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 153. 543 BellSouth Application at 85; BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 286- 87 & Exh. WNS- 49; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 153; BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 4; BellSouth September 9 Ex Parte Letter at 1. In addition, BellSouth’s June 2002 data reflects the fact that it has recently implemented a number of coding changes to enhance flow- through. BellSouth Reply at 20; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 15- 52. 544 KPMG evaluated the calculation of the flow- through in its Georgia test, utilized raw data to calculate flow-through and fall out statistics, and compared the data used in those calculators to the data collected by KPMG. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9093, para. 145. 545 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 138- 43; AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 4. 546 AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 4. 547 Covad Comments at 7- 17. 548 Id. at 9- 10 549 Id. at 10- 11. 550 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9095, para. 149. 551 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 214. LSRs for UCL- ND, according to BellSouth, represent only 0.34% of all manual LSRs submitted and 0. 02% of all LSRs submitted. See BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 4. 82 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 83 only nine orders for xDSL and only 525 orders for line sharing requiring loop conditioning for January though May region- wide. 552 Given the fact that the total number of these types of loops in each of the states is low, 553 and our finding in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order that a high percentage of loops can be ordered electronically, we cannot agree with Covad that BellSouth’s ordering systems deny carriers a meaningful opportunity to compete. 554 Although not decisional to our analysis, BellSouth acknowledges that it does not currently offer electronic ordering of ADSL- compatible or Line Sharing loops with conditioning. 555 BellSouth, however, implemented electronic ordering of UCL- ND on August 24, 2002, 556 and will implement full flow- through of UCL- ND on December 7, 2002. 557 (iv) Order Completion Notices 156. We conclude, as did the state commissions, 558 that BellSouth generally provides completion notices to competitive LECs in a nondiscriminatory manner. Based on the level of BellSouth’s performance in the most recent months’ performance data, we conclude that BellSouth provides completion notices in a manner that provides competitive LECs a meaningful opportunity to compete. 559 AT& T, however, alleges that 4,174 completion notices reflected in BellSouth’s March 2002 Average Completion Notice Interval (ACNI) raw data file were not included in BellSouth’s March 2002 Order Completion Interval (OCI) raw data files. 560 Although BellSouth was able to locate all of the orders identified by AT& T in the OCI raw data 552 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 215. 553 For example, as of June 30, 2002, there were a total of 605 UCL- ND loops in service region- wide, with 26 in Alabama, 18 in Kentucky, 214 in Mississippi, 80 in North Carolina, and zero in South Carolina. See BellSouth August 14 Ex Parte OSS and Loops Letter at 2- 3. 554 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9096, para. 150. In addition, BellSouth has participated in numerous collaborative sessions to discuss possible solutions to Covad’s requests. See BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 220- 21. 555 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 220. 556 BellSouth September 9 Ex Parte Letter at 1. 557 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 220 558 See Alabama Commission Comments at 153, Kentucky Commission Comments at 23- 24; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11- 12; North Carolina Commission Comment at 140- 41; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 559 There were only minor disparities in BellSouth’s performance. These disparities were generally between 0.12% and 0.32%. See North Carolina B. 2.21.3.1.2 (Average Completion Notice Interval – Mechanized, Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 Circuits/ Non- Dispatch); Alabama/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.21.3.1.4 (Average Completion Notice Interval – Mechanized, Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). Thus, these misses are not indicative of a persistent problem. See BellSouth Application at 87- 88; BellSouth Varner Aff. at Exhs. PM-2 – PM- 5, para. 53. 560 See AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at para. 39; AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 6. 83 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 84 file, BellSouth identified a defect that caused incomplete OCI raw data files to be downloaded from the PMAP website. BellSouth states, however, that this problem only occurred in March and had no effect on performance data. 561 Given this evidence, and recognizing that BellSouth met or exceeded parity with the relevant retail analogue with only minor disparities during the relevant period, we do not find that AT& T’s claims warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. Finally, we note that this defect has been corrected and BellSouth provided AT& T with a complete March 2002 OCI raw data file in July 2002. 562 Should we later find evidence to the contrary, however, we may pursue appropriate enforcement action. 157. AT& T also contends that the multiple fix dates which BellSouth has provided for the ACNI are confusing when orders are completed in one month, but the completion notice is issued in another. 563 BellSouth states that this AT& T concern refers to another enhancement from a Tennessee discovery request that BellSouth originally indicated would be implemented in July. 564 We do not address this issue because the Tennessee discovery request is not relevant to the five states under review in this application. Therefore, we do not find that these allegations warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. (v) Jeopardy Notices 158. We conclude, as did the state commissions, 565 that BellSouth provides jeopardy notices to competitive LECs on a nondiscriminatory basis. 566 Based on the level of BellSouth’s performance in the most recent months’ performance data, we conclude that BellSouth provides jeopardy notices in a manner that provides competitive LECs a meaningful opportunity to compete. 567 AT& T, however, alleges that BellSouth unilaterally excludes jeopardy notices from its reporting for those orders that fall into jeopardy status in one month but receive a notice in the 561 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 33. BellSouth explains that all orders were correct as stated and that all orders completed in March 2002 were included in the measurement. See BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 4. In addition, BellSouth states that specific service representatives within its Work Management Centers have been assigned to resolve any completion issues that required attention. See BellSouth Application at 88. 562 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 33 563 See AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at para. 43. 564 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 41. This change, however, has yet to be scheduled and BellSouth has amended its Tennessee discovery request accordingly. 565 See Alabama Commission Comments at 162; Kentucky Commission Comments at 23- 24; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11- 12; North Carolina Commission Comment at 138; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 566 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.8 (Average Jeopardy Notice Interval -Mechanized); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.9 (Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized). See also BellSouth Varner Aff. at Exh. PM- 2, para. 55 . 567 See BellSouth Application at 88- 89; BellSouth Varner Aff. at Exh. PM- 2, para. 55. 84 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 85 next month, causing inaccurate data. 568 BellSouth explains that in a very small number of cases, if a jeopardy notice is issued in a different month than the due date, the order cannot be counted in this measure. 569 BellSouth adds that the average jeopardy notice interval was not relied upon until March 2002, and that this issue was corrected with April 2002 data. 570 With its April 2002 data, under PMAP 4.0, BellSouth states that jeopardy notices associated with such orders are reflected in the data for the month in which the due date occurs. 571 Given this evidence, and recognizing that BellSouth met or exceeded parity with the relevant retail analogue for all relevant submetrics with data reported, we do not find that AT& T’s claims warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. Should we later find evidence to the contrary, however, we may pursue appropriate enforcement action. (vi) Service Order Accuracy 159. We find, as did the state commissions, 572 that BellSouth accurately processes manual and electronic orders. We reject AT& T’s claims concerning BellSouth’s ability to accurately process manual and electronic orders. 573 Although BellSouth failed to meet the benchmarks for several months during the relevant period, we do not find that this performance warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. 574 We find that these missed benchmarks are exceptions to BellSouth’s performance and not indicative of a downward trend. BellSouth also explains that it continues to dedicate additional resources in its local carrier service center (LCSC) to review live orders to ensure accuracy in the provisioning of competitive LEC orders. 568 See AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 57- 58. 569 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 50. 570 Id. 571 See BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 5. BellSouth explains, that prior to the implementation of PMAP 4.0, in April 2002, if an order went to jeopardy status in one month and had a due date in a subsequent month, PMAP did not have the beginning timestamp when it attempted to calculate the interval in the month of the due date. Id. As a result, the notice was not reflected in either month. BellSouth also notes that this situation occurred very infrequently. Id. 572 See Alabama Commission Comments at 163; Kentucky Commission Comments at 21; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11- 12; North Carolina Commission Comments at 133- 34; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 573 Specifically, AT& T contends that BellSouth’s reported service order accuracy rates have frequently missed the applicable benchmarks in recent months, particularly for resale orders. See AT& T Comments at 16. 574 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.34 (UNE Service Order Accuracy – Regional); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 2.25 (Resale Service Order Accuracy – Regional). Specifically, BellSouth’s regional UNE service order accuracy measures were 89.91% in April; 67.07% in May; and ranged from 69.33% to 90.9% in June. There were no misses in March. In addition, BellSouth’s regional resale service order accuracy measures ranged from 84.62% to 93.85% in March; 77.78% to 94.29% in April; 77. 78% to 92. 59% in May; and 76. 9% to 94. 4% in June. We find, nevertheless, that BellSouth’s performance is within the range of what we approved in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. See BellSouth Reply at 22; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 122. 85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 86 BellSouth has also developed corrective action plans for any service representatives that are not meeting their requirements. 575 Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 160. AT& T states that the service order accuracy data submitted by BellSouth in its July 23, 2002 ex parte letter are unreliable due to inconsistencies with BellSouth’s reported data. 576 According to BellSouth, however, AT& T quoted figures from the wrong MSS. 577 BellSouth also states that a reason for the difference between completed service orders as shown on the MSS and the population tabulated in the service order accuracy report is due to several large conversions in UNE- P in Georgia and Florida that were completed during this period. 578 Nevertheless, BellSouth maintains that the number of orders that BellSouth evaluated is more than sufficient to assess performance. 579 Additionally, BellSouth states that AT& T miscalculated the accuracy rate for the non- mechanized resale residence submetric, 580 without regard for the fact that the accuracy rate varies for each disaggregation. 581 Accordingly, given this evidence, we do not find that these allegations warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. (vii) Other Ordering Issues 161. DSL USOC. We reject claims that BellSouth has created a significant impediment to ordering UNE- P by placing erroneous DSL universal service order codes (USOCs) on the CSR in an effort to delay competitors’ orders. 582 Specifically, Birch argues that BellSouth “virtually crams” a customer’s CSR with the DSL USOC, and that BellSouth’s 575 BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 181. BellSouth notes that it inadvertently reversed the labels for the mechanized and non- mechanized data. Despite this error, BellSouth states that AT& T listed the correct data in its filing. See id. at para. 58; BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 5- 6. 576 AT& T Comments at 16; AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at paras. 97- 98; AT& T Reply at 17; AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 82- 87. For example, AT& T claims that the universe of completed service orders in the ex parte appears to be grossly understated. See AT& T Reply at 17. AT& T claims that the total number of completed service orders is inconsistent with BellSouth’s MSS report listing such orders for the same time frame. Id. 577 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 56. 578 See id. 579 Id. 580 See BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 6. 581 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 53. BellSouth explains that that the accuracy rate for this submetric is the average accuracy rate for the four product dissagregations that compose the submetric. See BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 6 582 Birch Comments at 4- 13, Attach. 1. 86 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 87 interim process 583 for removing DSL USOCs is inefficient and delays conversions. 584 KMC and NuVox claim that BellSouth requires that its USOC for DSL service be removed from an end user’s retail account prior to acceptance of a competitive LEC’s order. 585 In addition, commenters contend that BellSouth’s representation regarding the actual impact of the DSL USOC issue is flawed and that erroneous DSL USOCs are subtle ways for BellSouth to prevent competitors from ever providing local service on par with BellSouth. 586 162. Consistent with the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, we find that the DSL USOC issue affects a small amount of orders, and commenters have not submitted evidence of a systemic problem. 587 Indeed, BellSouth demonstrates that 0.17 percent of total UNE- P conversions for the month of May were affected by the DSL USOC. 588 Further, we note that some DSL USOC problems may be the result of delays in canceling old DSL accounts or installing new DSL accounts. 589 Moreover, there is no evidence in the record, beyond Birch’s 583 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9102 n. 571. This process provides a competitive LEC (after receiving notice of the USOC) the option to call a dedicated group at BellSouth’s LCSC to remove the DSL USOC if the end user is not receiving DSL. 584 In addition, Birch requests that BellSouth allocate resources to implement an effective process to remove DSL USOC that already exist on customer accounts, and immediately rectify the current process failures by taking emergency corrective action to implement a systemic fix prior to BellSouth’s Release 11.0 scheduled for December 7, 2002. Birch Comments at 5- 6. 585 KMC/ NuVox Comments at 20. 586 Birch Comments at 9; US LEC Reply at 4 (citing Birch Comments at 4- 13). 587 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9101, para. 158. 588 See BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. para. 22. In May 2002, 2,791 LSRs were auto- clarified for DSL service on the end- users line –which equates to just over 4% of the total orders auto- clarified and less than 2. 27% of UNE- P conversions. Id. BellSouth indicates that of the 2,791 DSL- clarified orders, only 204 were auto- clarified for DSL service on the end- user’s line when the end- user either did not have working high speed Internet access service, or was actively involved in adding or disconnecting the DSL service, which equates to 0.17% of total UNE- P conversions for the month of May 2002. Id. Similarly, we observed in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order that, in February 2002, 0.37% of all UNE- P conversions involved instances where the end- user was actively adding or disconnecting DSL service, or did not have working DSL. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9101- 02 n. 569. We are not persuaded by Birch’s argument that BellSouth’s percentages, which are based on auto- clarifications, do not accurately reflect the true universe of orders that are affected during conversion to a competitive LEC. See Letter from Rose Mulvany Henry, Director of Regulatory & Regulatory Counsel, Birch, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 2 (filed August 23, 2002) (Birch August 23 Ex Parte Letter). BellSouth indicates that the DSL USOC clarifications represent the number of migration requests BellSouth receives related to DSL on the migrating customer’s CSR. See BellSouth Application App. A, Vol 1A, Tab A, Affidavit of Ken L. Ainsworth (BellSouth Ainsworth Aff.) at para. 19. BellSouth states that Birch’s argument that BellSouth’s data does not include any DSL removal request by a competitive LEC prior to submission of a migration request is true, but BellSouth points out that competitive LECs can request removal of DSL prior to submission of a migration request or request removal of the DSL utilizing the interim process by acting on the end- users’ behalf. BellSouth states that the clarification data is representative of the working and non- working DSL USOCs that are posted on the CSR. Id. 589 See BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at paras. 14- 15. 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 88 mere assertion, to suggest that BellSouth intentionally causes this problem. 590 In fact, BellSouth has recognized the DSL USOC problem and is currently working with competitive LECs through an interim process it created in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana proceeding to quickly handle orders affected by this problem. Moreover, BellSouth notes that since it instituted this interim process, only 99 requests per month have been received among all five application states. 591 We therefore find that there is no evidence in the record that BellSouth acts in a discriminatory manner or denies competitors a reasonable opportunity to compete. Although not decisional to our evaluation, we also note that BellSouth will provide competitive LECs the ability to electronically request removal of DSL from UNE- P migration orders with its December 8, 2002 system release. 592 163. We also reject other claims by commenters that BellSouth has a policy of placing DSL on the customer’s primary telephone line or the billing telephone line of a hunt group and that this policy is discriminatory. 593 BellSouth states that it does not have a policy of placing DSL on the customer’s primary line or the billing line of a hunt group. 594 Rather, as we noted in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, BellSouth’s policy permits the end user to place DSL service on whichever line the customer requests. 595 We also note that Birch also requests that the Commission pursue enforcement action against BellSouth in Georgia and Louisiana for withholding relevant data from the Commission regarding the pervasiveness of the problem. 596 We believe that this issue is more appropriately raised in an enforcement proceeding under section 271( d)( 6) of the Act, rather than here. 597 590 Birch has submitted several customer- specific examples of customers who have had the USOC DSL placed on their accounts to illustrate the pervasiveness of the problem. BellSouth, however, explains that all of Birch’s examples, for which there was sufficient information to investigate, are scenarios where the DSL USOC was placed on the CSR as a result of an order from an ISP. BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at para. 15. Birch points out that for the vast majority of the examples, the orders were placed by an ISP, but it was BellSouth’s retail DSL service unit. Birch August 23 Ex Parte Letter at 2. We find, however, that there is no evidence on the record that BellSouth or its retail DSL service unit crams its customers’ accounts with the DSL USOC. 591 See BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at para. 26. 592 See id. at para. 20. 593 Birch Comments at 13; KMC/ NuVox Comments at 10, 17- 19. 594 See BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at para. 30. 595 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9101 n. 565; BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at para. 30. BellSouth states that if the telephone number provided by the customer qualifies for DSL, then the sales agent is instructed to place the DSL order on the line requested by the customer, and if the first choice does not currently qualify for DSL service the agent will usually recommend provisioning the DSL service on the customer’s fax line. BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at para. 30 596 Birch Comments at 5. 597 See 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 6); 47 U. S. C. § 208. 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 89 164. Finally, we reject claims by KMC and NuVox that BellSouth’s practice of refusing to provide DSL service on the same line over which an end user subscribes to a competitive LEC's voice service warrants a finding of noncompliance. As we stated in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, an incumbent LEC has no obligation, under our rules, to provide DSL service over the competitive LEC’s leased facilities. Moreover, a UNE- P carrier has the right to engage in line splitting on its loop. 598 As a result, a UNE- P carrier can compete with BellSouth’s combined voice and data offering on the same loop by providing the customer with line splitting voice and data service over the UNE- P loop in the same manner. 599 Accordingly, we cannot agree with KMC and NuVox that BellSouth’s policies are discriminatory and warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 165. Ordering for Line- Shared Loops. Covad claims that two specific defects in BellSouth’s ordering processes for line- shared loops allow BellSouth to achieve a greater level of flow- through mechanization than competitive LECs are able to achieve. 600 First, Covad asserts that BellSouth’s automated systems are unable to provide Covad with “pseudo circuit numbers” when it orders line- shared loops. 601 Covad states that it needs these numbers to identify the line- shared loops for which it is being charged and that BellSouth’s systems force it to use a manual work- around to obtain them. 602 Even assuming that competitive LECs ordered all of these line- shared loops manually, 603 a point on which neither Covad nor BellSouth was able to elucidate further in this proceeding, we do not have sufficient evidence in the record to 598 Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20912; Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 96- 98, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98- 147, Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96- 98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2109- 14, paras. 14- 26 (Line Sharing Reconsideration Order); see also SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18517- 18, para. 330. 599 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18517- 18, para. 330. 600 Covad Comments at 14- 15. 601 Id. at 14. “Pseudo circuit numbers” are numbers that BellSouth uses in its bills to identify the line- shared loops for which competitive LECs are being charged. Id. at 14. 602 Id. at 14- 15. This manual work- around requires that a competitive LEC stop the automated ordering process and manually extract the pseudo circuit number from a BellSouth database before manually completing and closing an order. Covad Comments at 14- 15. The record shows, however, that competitive LECs ordered from BellSouth only 165 line- shared loops in Alabama, 137 line- shared loops in Kentucky, 78 line- shared loops in North Carolina, and no line- shared loops in either Mississippi or South Carolina during the applicable four- month period. Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.1.7.3.1- B. 2.1.7.4.2 (Order Completion Interval, Line Sharing). 603 The record contains no data on either the number of line- shared loops that competitive LECs ordered manually during the applicable period or the number of line- shared loops that were ordered manually as a result of this “pseudo circuit number” problem. We note that BellSouth argues that Covad need interrupt the mechanized ordering process in order to obtain a “pseudo circuit number.” BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter at 2. Instead, according to BellSouth, Covad could complete an order for line- shared loop mechanically and, at a later date, use a manual process to obtain the “pseudo circuit number.” Id. BellSouth contends that this alternative work- around would take a competitive LEC service representative less than five minutes. Id. 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 90 determine whether the additional costs and delays that manually ordering these loops impose on competitive LECs would be competitively significant. 604 We therefore conclude that BellSouth’s inability to provide pseudo circuit numbers mechanically does not warrant a finding of noncompliance with checklist item 2. Although not a basis for our decision here, we note that BellSouth acknowledges that this inability is a defect and will correct this problem its OSS 11.0 release targeted for December 8, 2002 605 166. Covad also states that BellSouth creates two separate orders when it receives a line- shared loop order from a competitive LEC: one that goes to BellSouth’s billing department; and another that goes to the central office from which the line- shared loop will be provisioned. 606 Covad states that BellSouth generally completes the billing order in about 24 hours, but takes longer to complete the loop provisioning order. 607 Covad complains that it cannot modify the provisioning order to request changes, such as loop conditioning, once BellSouth completes the billing order. 608 Instead, Covad must cancel its initial order, wait for BellSouth to process that cancellation, and then submit a new order requesting conditioning. 609 Covad contends that this process is considerably more expensive and time- consuming than simply modifying the initial order and that BellSouth’s retail operations never encounter similar burdens under similar circumstances. 610 BellSouth acknowledges this defect, but claims that it rarely affects competitive LEC orders. Indeed, BellSouth states that this defect affects a competitive LEC only when each of the following occurs: (1) the bill and provisioning order due dates fall out of synchrony as a result of changes in the due dates; (2) the billing order erroneously completes before the provisioning work is completed; and (3) the loop makeup data contained in LFACS do not reflect loop conditions (such as excessive bridged taps or load coils) that are incompatible with line sharing and are discovered at the time of provisioning. We recognize the inconvenience that this may cause Covad, but find that Covad’s allegations do not indicate systemic problems with BellSouth’s ordering processes. Given the small number of orders affected at this time, we do not believe that the minor additional costs and delays that this problem imposes on competitive LECs are competitively significant. Although not a basis for our evaluation here, we note that BellSouth will implement a change scheduled for completion 604 We note that Covad has not attempted to quantify the additional costs or delays of ordering a line- shared loop manually, rather than mechanically. 605 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 225- 27; see also Letter from Praveen Goyal, Senior Counsel – Government & Regulatory Affairs, Covad, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 Att. A- 1A at 4 (filed July 23, 2002) (Covad July 23 Ex Parte Letter). 606 Covad Comments at 15. 607 Id. at 16. 608 Id. at 16- 17. 609 Id. 610 Id. 90 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 91 that will be included in BellSouth’s OSS 11.0 release targeted for December 8, 2002 to correct this problem. 611 167. Covad also contends that BellSouth begins billing Covad immediately upon completion of the billing order and that Covad should not have to pay for a line- shared loop until it is installed. 612 Such allegations concern us; however, in this case there is little supporting evidence to substantiate them. Even if true, moreover, the record shows that any early billing would cost Covad only about $0.02 per line- shared loop per day. 613 Because that amount may be too low to be competitively significant and because BellSouth offers to refund any excess charges to Covad, 614 we find that Covad’s allegation of premature billing does not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 168. Dial Around Compensation. We reject Ernest’s claim that BellSouth fails to provide nondiscriminatory access to its OSS. 615 Ernest claims that without FLEX ANI on a payphone line, a “long- distance” call cannot be identified as originating from a payphone and a payphone service provider cannot collect dial- around compensation for calls made from that line. 616 Ernest states that after examining its orders, it discovered that the payphone USOC that was ordered properly from BellSouth was being charged to a business line USOC by BellSouth’s OSS, which does not include FLEX ANI. 617 While we recognize the inconvenience that this may cause Ernest and its customers, BellSouth acknowledges this problem and states that it offered Ernest an interim manual solution to fully resolve this problem. 618 Despite an interim solution in place, BellSouth claims that Ernest continues to submit orders electronically, knowing that this will result in errors that will need to be corrected. 619 Given this evidence, we do not find that Ernest’s claim warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. Although not decisional to our analysis, we also note that BellSouth has committed to implement a permanent network solution to this problem on December 8, 2002. 620 Should this issue prove to be a systemic problem with 611 BellSouth Application Reply App., Vol 2, Tab G, Reply Affidavit of David P. Scollard (BellSouth Scollard Reply Aff.) at para. 16. Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 612 Covad Comments at 16. 613 See BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 15. 614 See id. at para. 15. 615 Ernest Comments at 4. 616 Id. at Affidavit of Steve Reynolds (Ernest Reynolds Aff.) at para. 4. 617 Ernest Reynolds Aff. at para. 7. 618 BellSouth Application Reply App., Vol. 2, Tab C, Reply Affidavit of Trent Lamar Clark (BellSouth Clark Reply Aff.) at para. 5; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 200. 619 BellSouth Clark Reply Aff. at para. 5 620 BellSouth Reply at 27; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 204. 91 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 92 BellSouth’s OSS, or should the scheduled December fix prove to cause carriers competitive harm, the Commission may take appropriate enforcement action. d. Provisioning 169. Based on the evidence in the record, we find, as did the state commissions, 621 that BellSouth provisions competitive LEC customers’ orders for UNE- platform and resale services “in substantially the same time and manner as it provisions orders for its own retail customers.” 622 Overall, BellSouth’s performance meets the parity standards in key metrics that measure provisioning for resale and UNE- platform in all five states from March to June. 623 170. Based on the results of BellSouth’s performance data, we find that BellSouth generally meets the parity standard with respect to provisioning timeliness and provisioning quality for both resale and UNE- P. 624 Although we note some exceptions with respect to BellSouth’s order completion interval metric, the disparities are isolated to a few submetrics with low volumes and are not competitively significant. 625 Similarly, BellSouth’s inability to meet the 621 See Alabama Commission Comments at 163; Kentucky Commission Comments at 21- 29; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11- 12; North Carolina Commission Comments at 139- 41; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 622 The systems, procedures and personnel used by BellSouth to offer access to provisioning timeliness and quality are the same in Georgia and Louisiana as in the five states contained in this application. BellSouth Application at 90; see also BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9108- 09, para. 166. 623 See generally BellSouth Varner Aff. at para. 182, Exhs. PM- 2 – PM- 6. 624 In all five states, BellSouth met or exceeded parity with the retail analogue for the resale order completion interval performance metric for all residential orders, which account for the vast majority of resale orders, and for the order completion interval for UNE- P. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 2.1.1.1.1 – A. 2.1.1.2.2 (Order Completion Interval, Residence); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.1.3.1.1 – B. 2.1.3.2.4 (Order Completion Interval, Loop + Port Combinations). 625 See North Carolina A. 2.1.2.1.1 (Order Completion Interval, Business/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). BellSouth explains that for two of the months in which it missed the parity standard, the difference between the BellSouth and competitive LEC intervals can be attributed to a handful of orders in each month with extended intervals. BellSouth Varner Aff. at para. 202, Exh. PM- 5; see also Varner Reply Aff. at para. 173. Each of those orders was either initially scheduled with an extended interval at the customer’s request or was changed based on a missed appointment caused by the end user customer and had to be rescheduled. Varner Reply Aff. at para. 173. BellSouth has also failed to meet the parity standard for metric B. 2.1.4.1.1. (Order Completion Interval, Combo Other/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch) for March through June in Kentucky, for March through June in North Carolina, and for April through June in South Carolina. Competitive LEC volumes – fewer than 20 orders in any given month in Kentucky, fewer than 15 in North Carolina, and fewer than 40 in South Carolina – are not substantial enough, however, to warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance in light of BellSouth’s overall performance. Furthermore, as we noted in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, BellSouth has reached an agreement with competitive LECs to create a separate disaggregated metric for EELs, which should facilitate the detection of any future poor performance. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9019, para. 166. Once this metric is established for EELs, we expect that BellSouth’s performance should improve. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9019, para. 166. Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we may pursue appropriate enforcement action. 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 93 parity standard for missed installation appointments for a few submetrics lacks competitive significance. 626 Moreover, BellSouth demonstrates that it has met an average of at least 99 percent of installation appointments, and the disparity between the retail and wholesale performance is extremely small. 627 As such, the competitive LECs’ ability to compete has not been hindered by BellSouth’s failure to meet these submetrics. Finally, BellSouth missed several submetrics for the metric measuring percent provisioning troubles within 30 days for both resale and UNE- platform. 628 However, the disparity between BellSouth retail and competitive LEC performance is small for those submetrics with high volumes. 629 Furthermore, BellSouth claims that “a significant number” of its trouble reports for specific submetrics were closed without a trouble being found. 630 If those reports were excluded from the performance results, BellSouth would have met the parity standard. 631 Nonetheless, we will monitor BellSouth’s performance in this area, and, should it deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 171. We reject WorldCom’s complaint that the Commission has not had enough time to properly evaluate BellSouth’s implementation of Single “C” ordering in each of the five 626 The exception to BellSouth’s generally timely installations is metric A. 2. 11. 1. 1. 2 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Residence/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch) for resale in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 230. BellSouth has also missed two UNE- platform metrics: B. 2.18.3.1.2 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Loop + Port Combination/< 10 Circuits/ Non- dispatch) and B. 2.18.3.1.4 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch In) in the five states. 627 BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 230. For those submetrics not at parity for more than one month, only one submetric has higher than a 0.5% average rate of missed appointments: B. 2.18.3.1.4 for North Carolina is 0. 56%. In addition, the disparity between the retail and wholesale performance is extremely small. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 192. 628 See Alabama/ Mississippi/ North Carolina A. 2.12.1.1.2 (% Provisioning Troubles Within 30 Days, Residence/< 10 Circuits/ Non- dispatch); Mississippi A. 2.12.4.1.2 (PBX/< 10 Circuits/ Non- dispatch); Mississippi A. 2.12.5.1.2 (% Provisioning Troubles Within 30 Days, Centrex/< 10 Circuits/ Non- dispatch); North Carolina B. 2.19.3.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles Within 30 Days, Loop + Port Combination/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch); Alabama/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.19.3.1.2 (% Provisioning Troubles Within 30 Days, Loop + Port Combination/< 10 Circuits/ Non- dispatch); North Carolina B. 2.19.3.1.3 (% Provisioning Troubles Within 30 Days, Loop + Port Combination/< 10 Circuits/ Switch- based); Alabama/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.19.3.1.4 (% Provisioning Troubles Within 30 Days, Loop + Port Combination/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch In). 629 See, e. g., Alabama/ Mississippi A. 2.12.1.1.2 and Mississippi B. 2.19.3.1.4 (less than 1% difference between BellSouth retail and wholesale performance); Alabama/ South Carolina/ North Carolina B. 2.19.3.1.2 and B. 2.19.3.1.4 (approximately or less than 1.5% difference between BellSouth retail and wholesale performance). 630 BellSouth Varner Aff. Exh. PM- 2 at paras. 58, 196 (Alabama); BellSouth Varner Aff. Exh. PM- 4 at paras. 58, 190 (Mississippi) (a “significant number” of the troubles reported were closed as “no trouble found”); BellSouth Varner Aff. Exh. PM- 5 at paras. 58, 206 (North Carolina) (more than 20% of the troubles reported were closed as “no trouble found”); BellSouth Varner Aff. Exh. PM- 6 at paras. 58, 188 (South Carolina). 631 Id. 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 94 states. 632 We do not rely on enhancements to BellSouth’s provisioning process, specifically the implementation of Single “C” ordering, in determining checklist compliance. We note, however, that BellSouth has now implemented Single “C” ordering in each of the states, 633 and we expect BellSouth to take the necessary steps to cure any problems associated with the implementation of Single “C” ordering. e. Maintenance and Repair 172. We find, as did the state commissions, that BellSouth provides nondiscriminatory access to its maintenance and repair OSS functions for resale and UNE- platform. 634 Moreover, commercial data during the relevant period show competing carriers have access to these functions “in substantially the same time and manner” 635 as BellSouth’s retail operations, and with an equivalent level of quality. 636 173. Although we note slightly higher trouble report rates in the Design, PBX and ISDN product categories for resale measures, 637 the percentage of troubles appears to be low in 632 WorldCom asserts that it has experienced line loss problems and that it is attempting to determine the extent of the problems and whether they are related to the Single “C” implementation. Lichtenberg Decl. at para. 24; WorldCom Reply at 7. 633 BellSouth Ainsworth Reply Aff. at para. 8; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 192. BellSouth implemented Single “C” ordering in Mississippi on March 23, 2002, in Alabama and South Carolina on July 21, 2002, and in North Carolina and Kentucky on August 3, 2002. Single “C” was previously implemented in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 192. 634 See Alabama Commission Comments at 165; Kentucky Commission Comments at 26; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11- 12; North Carolina Commission Comments at 142; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 635 First, customers of competitive LECs were out of service for less time than BellSouth customers. BellSouth provided competing carriers better than parity performance in the Percentage Out of Service metric, with a few de minimis exceptions, for both resale and UNE- platform. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 3.5 and B. 3.5 (% Out of Service More Than 24 Hours). Second, the performance data indicate that BellSouth provides better than parity service in meeting repair appointments. BellSouth provided better than parity performance across all product categories in resale and across UNE- P and other combination categories, with a few de minimis exceptions. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 3.1 and B. 3.1 (% Missed Repair Appointments). Finally, BellSouth performed repair work faster for competing carriers than it did for its own customers. BellSouth met or exceeded the parity standard as compared to the retail analog for the “Maintenance Average Duration” metric, except for a few de minimis exceptions. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 3.3; Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.3 (Maintenance Average Duration). 636 BellSouth provided better than parity performance for repair quality across all product categories in resale and across UNE- P and other combination categories, with a few de minimis exceptions. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 3.4 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.4 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days). 637 BellSouth was out of parity for at least three months for the following metrics: A. 3.2.3.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Design/ Dispatch) in Mississippi; A. 3.2.4.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, PBX/ Dispatch) in (continued….) 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 95 nearly every case. 638 Similarly, BellSouth’s failure to achieve parity for metric for “Combinations, Other/ Dispatch” in North Carolina for two months and in South Carolina for three months during the relevant period, 639 is not competitively significant. 640 Accordingly, BellSouth’s performance with regard to this metric does not warrant a finding of noncompliance. f. Billing 174. Like the state commissions, we find that BellSouth provides nondiscriminatory access to its billing functions. 641 BellSouth’s performance data demonstrate its ability, with a few exceptions, to provide competing carriers with billing usage information in substantially the same time and manner that BellSouth provides such information to itself, 642 and to provide wholesale bills in a manner that gives competing carriers a meaningful opportunity to compete. 643 For invoice accuracy – both resale and UNE bills – BellSouth did not meet the parity (Continued from previous page) Alabama, Kentucky and Mississippi; A. 3.2.4.2 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, PBX/ Non- dispatch) in Mississippi; and A. 3.2.6.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, ISDN/ Dispatch) in Alabama, North Carolina and South Carolina. BellSouth notes that it is providing more than 97% trouble- free lines in most cases, and that these submetrics are sensitive to small performance differences. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 182- 89. We agree with BellSouth that the difference of 1% to 2% between retail and wholesale performance was more a function of variations in volume rather than variations in treatment. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 183. However, should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 638 See, e. g., Alabama A. 3.2.4.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, PBX/ Dispatch) (0.94%); Alabama A. 3.2.6.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, ISDN/ Dispatch) (0.33%). 639 See North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.2.4.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Combo Other/ Dispatch). 640 In South Carolina, the average difference during the past four months was about 2%. See South Carolina B. 3.2.4.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, PBX/ Dispatch). In North Carolina, the average difference was about 1.5%. See North Carolina B. 3.2.4.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, PBX/ Dispatch). Furthermore, North Carolina’s misses were in March and April. BellSouth met the parity standard in May and June so it appears that its performance is on an upward trend. Id. 641 See Alabama Commission Comments at 166; Kentucky Commission Comments at 145; Mississippi Commission Comments at 11- 12; North Carolina Commission Comments at 145; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1- 3. 642 BellSouth provides timely, accurate, and complete usage data. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina F. 9. 2 (DUF Delivery Timeliness); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina F. 9.1 (DUF Delivery Accuracy); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina F. 9.3 (DUF Delivery Completeness); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina F. 9. 4 (Mean Time to Deliver Usage). 643 BellSouth generally provides accurate and complete carrier bills. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina A. 4.1 (Invoice Accuracy – Resale); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 4.1 (Invoice Accuracy – UNE). BellSouth also has generally met the parity standard for timely delivery of bills. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina A. 4.2 (Mean Time to Deliver Resale Invoices – CRIS); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina B. 4.2 (Mean Time to Deliver UNE Invoices – CRIS). 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 96 standard in a few months in Alabama and Mississippi. 644 However, BellSouth still achieved at least a 98 percent accuracy rate overall. 645 As a result, competitive LECs were not harmed by BellSouth’s failure to meet the parity standard for each of those metrics every month. In addition, BellSouth’s missing the parity standard for three of the past four months for UNE bill timeliness lacks competitive significance because those misses are primarily the result of a transition to a new, enhanced billing system. 646 Furthermore, the difference between retail and wholesale performance was approximately a day, 647 and BellSouth has demonstrated an upward trend in its performance. 648 Finally, although BellSouth has not consistently met the standards for charge completeness, 649 it has averaged more than 90 percent – the benchmark – during the March to June period for both UNE and interconnection recurring and non- recurring charge completeness, with only one exception. 650 644 During March through June 2002, BellSouth failed to meet the parity standard for resale invoice accuracy in Alabama for three months and Mississippi and South Carolina each for one month. See Alabama/ Mississippi/ South Carolina A. 4.1 (Invoice Accuracy – Resale). BellSouth also failed to meet the parity standard for UNE invoice accuracy for two months for both Alabama and Mississippi during the relevant period. See Alabama/ Mississippi B. 4.1 (Invoice Accuracy – UNE). 645 However, BellSouth still averaged nearly 99% resale invoice accuracy for competitive LECs in Mississippi and South Carolina. See Mississippi/ South Carolina A. 4.1 (Invoice Accuracy – Resale). BellSouth averaged more than 98% UNE invoice accuracy for competitive LECs in Mississippi and more than 99% for competitive LECs in Alabama – a higher average performance in Alabama during the past four months for BellSouth wholesale than for BellSouth retail. See Alabama/ Mississippi B. 4.1 (Invoice Accuracy – UNE). 646 Performance data show that BellSouth has not consistently met the parity standard for metric Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina B. 4.2. (Mean Time to Deliver UNE Invoices – CRIS). From March to June 2002, BellSouth missed the parity standard three times. BellSouth explains that these delays were associated with the initial implementation of a new enhanced billing system, Integrated Billing System (“ IBS”), and that those issues have been resolved. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 236; BellSouth Scollard Aff. at paras. 8- 10. 647 The gap in performance during the four- month period was only about a day, which is not a substantial period of time for this metric (an average of 4. 85 days for competitive LECs and 3. 71 days for BellSouth from March to June). 648 BellSouth’s performance has demonstrated an upward trend from March, when BellSouth delivered invoices in a mean time of 7.29 days, to June, when BellSouth met the parity standard and delivered invoices in a mean time of 3.46 days. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina B. 4.2 (Mean Time to Deliver UNE Invoices – CRIS). 649 See generally Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina F. 9.5 (Recurring Charge Completeness); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina/ North Carolina F. 9.6 (Non- Recurring Charge Completeness). 650 Id. The exception is South Carolina. However, March and April performance in South Carolina were both abnormally low. These two months are at least partially explained by the extremely low volumes for interconnection orders, and BellSouth met the standard for May and June. In addition, BellSouth has implemented or is in the process of implementing new procedures to eliminate or correct these errors. See BellSouth Varner Aff. Exh. PM- 6 at 30- 32. 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 97 175. Moreover, our findings that competing carriers have a meaningful opportunity to compete are supplemented by the results of the KPMG third- party audit in Georgia, which found BellSouth’s billing systems to be accurate and reliable. 651 However, we note that, should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 176. We reject competitive LECs’ contentions that BellSouth fails to provide nondiscriminatory access to its billing functions. AT& T and NewSouth assert that the bills that they have received from BellSouth contain numerous errors. 652 In response, BellSouth states that AT& T has disputed only about 1.5 percent of AT& T’s total CABS bills, 653 and that BellSouth’s billing to NewSouth has been accurate more than 95 percent of the time. 654 AT& T also claims that BellSouth fails to respond to AT& T’s complaints about alleged errors in billing in a timely fashion. 655 BellSouth notes that the parties’ interconnection agreement provides a 60- day period for BellSouth to respond. 656 In addition, BellSouth and AT& T meet monthly to discuss billing disputes and other issues. 657 Given the small percentage of disputed bills and the overall accuracy of BellSouth’s billing, we find that AT& T’s and NewSouth’s allegations do not indicate a systemic failure of BellSouth systems or processes; instead, they are indicative of the type of disputes over bills that arise in the normal course of business. Furthermore, there is no evidence demonstrating that BellSouth acts in a discriminatory manner or denies competitors a meaningful opportunity to compete. To the extent that billing disputes arise, carriers are able to address their disputes through the billing dispute resolution process outlined in their interconnection agreements 658 – and the record indicates that they are actively doing so. 659 651 See KPMG Georgia MTP Final Report at III- C- 1 through III- C- 12 (Summary of Tests BLG1 through BLG5) and at VI- A through VI- F (Billing Results and Analysis); BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9114- 15, para. 174. For a discussion of our reliance upon the Georgia third- party test, see section IV. B. 2. a, supra. 652 AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 109; Letter from John J. Heitmann, Counsel to NewSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 7 (filed Aug. 5, 2002) (NewSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter). AT& T claims that many of the problems arising six or more months ago remain unresolved. Id. at para. 110. For example, AT& T claims that BellSouth has billed AT& T several hundred thousand dollars for originating switching charges even when the traffic originates on AT& T’s switch; billed AT& T monthly for one- time charges associated with collocations; failed to bill AT& T for local minutes of use for a six-month period; sent AT& T bills on new accounts that erroneously list past due balances; and sent retail, instead of wholesale, bills to AT& T. AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 109. NewSouth has disputed $8.2 million in charges assessed by BellSouth during the past two years. Of the $8. 2 million disputed, $5 million worth of disputes have been resolved, with 66% resolved in NewSouth’s favor. NewSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter 653 BellSouth Scollard Reply Aff. at para. 3. The Carrier Access Billing System, or CABS, is used by BellSouth to bill for most UNE and interconnection services. BellSouth Scollard Aff. at para. 7. 654 BellSouth August 15 Non- pricing Ex Parte Letter at 5. 655 AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 110. 656 BellSouth Scollard Reply Aff. at para. 13. 657 Id. 658 Id. at para. 4. 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 98 177. NewSouth also states that BellSouth does not remove disputed amounts from amounts it considers to be past due. 660 As a result, NewSouth claims that it appears that NewSouth takes longer to pay bills than it actually does, resulting in BellSouth’s requests for further competitive LEC deposits. 661 BellSouth replies that its deposit requests are justified and allowed under its interconnection agreement with NewSouth. 662 Because we believe such individualized disputes are best addressed in proceedings outside of the section 271 requirements, 663 we do not find that NewSouth’s claims warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. g. Change Management and Technical Assistance 178. We conclude that BellSouth demonstrates that it meets the requirements of checklist item two with regard to change management and technical assistance to competing carriers. The record in this proceeding shows that BellSouth’s change management process, and its performance under this process, are comparable to or better than what we approved in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana 271 Order recently. 664 We find that, since the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, BellSouth has continued to improve the adequacy of its plan by broadening the scope of the CCP and by increasing the role of competitive LECs in the process. At the same time, we agree with the Department of Justice that many of the same problems with BellSouth’s adherence to its change management process that we noted in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order still exist. 665 As noted by the Department of Justice, however, BellSouth has made progress in the past few months toward improving its implementation of (Continued from previous page) 659 Id. at para. 13. 660 NewSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter at 7. 661 Id. 662 BellSouth August 15 Non- pricing Ex Parte Letter at 5. 663 For example, the Commission has suspended BellSouth’s Transmittal No. 657 to its interstate access tariff, FCC No. 1, to review similar issues. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Tariff FCC No. 1, Transmittal No. 657, Order, DA 02- 1886 (Pricing Policy Div., Wireline Competition Bur., rel. Aug. 2, 2002). 664 BellSouth uses the same change management process region- wide. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 41. Therefore, BellSouth’s Change Control Process (CCP) we examine here is the same plan we approved in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, with the exceptions noted herein. BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9118- 9122, paras. 180- 85. 665 Department of Justice Evaluation at 8. In the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, competitors raised various complaints alleging that BellSouth’s change management process did not afford an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete by providing sufficient access to the BOC’s OSS. Competitive LECs claimed, among other things, that BellSouth failed to implement corrections to software defects in a timely manner and that there were unnecessary defects because BellSouth’s software implementations were not sufficiently tested before release. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9129, para. 195. Although commenters’ allegations caused us concern, we nonetheless found that BellSouth adequately met the change management requirements of checklist item two. Id. 98 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 99 change requests. 666 Further, we recognize that change management is not an area that can be considerably improved overnight, and that time is required to demonstrate the results of process enhancements. 179. On that basis, we find here that BellSouth meets the change management requirements of checklist item two for Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. We recognize, however, that as a general matter, section 271 requirements are constantly evolving, so that what is sufficient for checklist compliance today may not be sufficient over time. 667 In light of the short period that has passed since the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, we find that the problems with BellSouth’s change management process identified by commenters do not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. We note that, in this case, BellSouth has made a number of improvements and future commitments to its change management process and performance that fall outside the period of our review of these applications. As we make clear below, we do not rely on BellSouth improvements since filing this application or its future commitments for our decision here. 668 However, while we find BellSouth’s performance to be adequate here, we believe it is essential for BellSouth to follow through on its commitment to improve its change management process and adherence. We note specifically, as we also did in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, that it is essential that BellSouth continue to work collaboratively with competitive LECs through the CCP on prioritization issues, provide competitive LECs with sufficient information to be able to make informed decisions regarding prioritization of proposed systems changes, and implement changes in a timely manner. 669 Accordingly, we direct the Enforcement Bureau’s Section 271 Compliance Team to monitor BellSouth’s entire change management process, and specifically its performance under that process. If we discover problems with the change control process that undermine BellSouth's ongoing compliance with this checklist item, we will not hesitate to take action pursuant to section 271( d)( 6). (i) Change Management Process 180. In its prior orders, the Commission has explained that it must review a BOC’s change management procedures to determine whether these procedures afford an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete by providing sufficient access to the BOC’s OSS. 670 In doing so, we first assess whether the plan is adequate by determining whether the evidence demonstrates that: (1) information relating to the change management process is clearly organized and readily accessible to competing carriers; (2) competing carriers had 666 Department of Justice Evaluation at 8. 667 See AT& T v. FCC, 220 F. 3d 607, 625 (D. C. Cir. 2000). 668 See, e. g., paras. 182, 187, 189, 191- 92, 195- 96, 199- 202. 669 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9128- 30, paras. 193- 95. 670 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3999- 4000, paras. 102- 03; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18403- 04, paras. 106- 08. 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 100 substantial input in the design and continued operation of the change management process; (3) the change management plan defines a procedure for the timely resolution of change management disputes; (4) the availability of a stable testing environment that mirrors production; and (5) the efficacy of the documentation the BOC makes available for the purpose of building an electronic gateway. 671 After determining whether the BOC’s change management plan is adequate, we evaluate whether the BOC has demonstrated a pattern of compliance with this plan. 672 (a) Adequacy of the Change Management Plan 181. Change Management Plan Organization. Based on our examination of the record, we find, on balance, that BellSouth’s CCP plan is adequate to provide competitive LECs access to BellSouth OSS. 673 BellSouth asserts that, since the filing of its Georgia/ Louisiana application in February 2002, it has worked with competitive LECs to improve the change management process that was approved by the Commission in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. 674 For example, prior to filing this application, BellSouth agreed to competitive LECs’ requests to expand the definition of “CLEC- affecting” changes to BellSouth’s systems, accepting the competitive LECs’ proposed definition verbatim, so that the CCP will apply to a broader array of possible changes. 675 Furthermore, the Department of Justice and WorldCom acknowledge BellSouth’s efforts to improve its change management plan. 676 671 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18404, para. 108. As we have noted previously, we are open to consideration of change management plans that differ from those already found to be compliant with the requirements of section 271. Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4004, para. 111; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18404, para. 109; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9117- 18, para. 179. 672 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3999, para. 101, 4004- 05, para. 112. 673 BellSouth’s Change Control Process is memorialized in a single document entitled, “Change Control Process.” BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85., Exh. WNS- 13, Change Control Process, Version 3.1 (May 29, 2002) (CCP). The Change Control Process document and other related forms are available on BellSouth’s website and are updated to reflect changes. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 85- 86. This document sets forth the process and procedures that govern the communication and management of changes to electronic interfaces and related manual processes that affect external users of BellSouth’s Electronic Interface Applications. See generally CCP at 16. 674 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 82. Among the recent improvements to the CCP are the inclusion of changes to the process only with the concurrence of the CCP participants or as directed by a state commission; the availability of appropriate BellSouth personnel to CCP participants; the expansion of the Monthly System Outage Report to include all outages; a longer notification period regarding the retirement of interface versions (from 120 to 180 days); and the expansion of the involvement of competitive LECs when BellSouth develops and introduces new interfaces. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 82, 161. 675 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 157; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 6. A “CLEC- affecting change” is any change that potentially may cause a [competitive] LEC to modify the way it operates in conducting wholesale business transactions with BellSouth. Modifications to the way [competitive] LECs operate in conducting wholesale business transactions with BellSouth include, but are not limited to: (1) changes to [competitive] LEC system code; (2) changes in [competitive] LEC employee training; (3) changes to [competitive] LEC business methods and procedures at the transaction, clarification, or escalation levels (4) changes to the work assignments of (continued….) 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 101 182. Despite these improvements, AT& T claims that BellSouth’s change management plan does not provide adequate information to competitive carriers. 677 AT& T claims that BellSouth denies competitive LECs information on how much capacity each pending request will consume, the changes in the releases that BellSouth has scheduled for implementation in the remainder of 2002, and the information necessary for competitive LECs to compare projected and actual release capacity. 678 In direct contradiction to AT& T’s claims, BellSouth argues that it has agreed to provide competitive LECs with additional information concerning future change requests and their capacity so that competitive LECs can prioritize change requests more efficiently. 679 We find that, overall, BellSouth’s change management plan is sufficient for checklist compliance. Specifically, we find that BellSouth is providing competitive LECs with sufficient information to be able to make informed decisions regarding prioritization of proposed systems changes. 680 In addition, BellSouth is providing more information to competitive LECs than at the time we approved the Georgia/ Louisiana application. 681 Moreover, although we do not rely upon these actions for our decision, state commissions continue to oversee improvements to BellSouth’s change management process. 682 Most notably, BellSouth and competitive LECs are working collaboratively to enhance BellSouth’s CCP under the auspices of (Continued from previous page) [competitive] LEC personnel. Internal BellSouth process changes (either software or procedural) unique to the [competitive] LEC wholesale environment are competitive LEC affecting.” BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 79). 676 Department of Justice Evaluation at 8; WorldCom Comments at 1. 677 AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 26. 678 Id. According to BellSouth, capacity is measured in “units.” Each unit represents 100 hours of programmer time. BellSouth routinely provides software programming information to competitive LECs in these units under CCP requirements. For example, BellSouth publishes projected and historical information on the number of units necessary to implement software changes. Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 6 (filed Aug. 16, 2002) (BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter). BellSouth has agreed to provide to the competitive LECs information on BellSouth’s legacy system releases via the CCP website, all BellSouth maintenance release information via the CCP Change Control Release Schedule, and is now posting all change requests to the Flagship Feature Release Schedule for competitive LEC’s use. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 7. In addition, BellSouth has provided the 2002 and 2003 capacity information to the competitive LECs, and will continue to provide capacity reports on a quarterly basis. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 25. BellSouth also publishes a quarterly tracking report, which summarizes the status of change requests. Id.; see also Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 2 (filed Aug. 30, 2002) (BellSouth August 30 Ex Parte Letter). 679 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 158- 59; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 7. 680 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9128, para. 193. 681 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 82, 89. 682 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 81; see also Alabama Commission Comments at 166- 70; Kentucky Commission Comments at 27- 29; Mississippi Commission Comments at 14- 16; North Carolina Commission Comments at 154- 57; South Carolina Commission Comments at 3. 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 102 the Georgia and Florida Commissions. 683 The change management process is designed, by nature, as an evolving one, 684 and we are confident that it is continuing to improve, as evidenced by the changes agreed to by BellSouth, CCP participants, and state commissions. 685 183. Competing Carrier Input. AT& T alleges that BellSouth does not allow competing carriers adequate input into the change management process. 686 Specifically, AT& T claims that BellSouth has complete control over the implementation of competitive LEC change requests. 687 As an initial matter, we find that the version of BellSouth’s CCP included with this application – Version 3.1, filed May 29, 2002 – was, like the earlier versions, developed as the result of a collaborative process between competitive LECs and BellSouth. 688 From April through June 2002, 29 meetings related to the CCP were held between BellSouth and competitive LECs. 689 Therefore, we believe the record indicates consistent BellSouth collaboration with competitive LECs. 184. To address concerns raised in the KPMG third- party test in Florida, BellSouth proposed the concept of a “50/ 50 plan” on February 12, 2002. 690 After the May 2, 2002 CCP meeting, BellSouth proceeded to implement the 50/ 50 plan. 691 The 50/ 50 plan, described in 683 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 81; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 24. During industry workshops in Georgia PSC Docket No. 7892- U, the competitive LECs requested, and the Georgia Commission agreed to, the establishment of a process by which further changes to the CCP could be addressed. This process has two phases: the first, which is nearly complete, involves the consideration of additional performance measures related to the CCP, while the second phase involves changes to the CCP itself. Id. The Georgia and Florida Commissions have ordered or are considering the implementation of metrics measuring change management performance. Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1- 2 (filed Aug. 9, 2002) (BellSouth August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter). 684 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18410, para. 117 (stating that the Commission does not expect any change management process to remain static.) 685 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9119- 20, para. 182. 686 AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at paras. 18- 20. 687 Id. at para. 19. 688 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 89; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 16. 689 Id. at para. 17. 690 See id. at para. 30; Consideration of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ’s Entry into InterLATA Services Pursuant to Section 271 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. 960786B- TL, and Petition of Competitive Carriers for Commission Action To Support Local Competition in BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ’s Service Territory, Docket No. 981834- TP, Order Requiring Implementation of End- to- End Process Flow, Draft Version 2.1, Order No. PSC- 02- 1034- FOF- TP at 7 (July 30, 2002) (Florida 50/ 50 Plan Order). The Florida Commission also stated that it intends to monitor BellSouth’s change management process during the next year. Id. at 7. 691 See AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 20; see also Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket (continued….) 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 103 detail in the proprietary End- to- End Process Flow, Version 2.1 document, is designed to allocate software release capacity between BellSouth and competitive LECs. 692 Generally speaking, competing carriers that wish to introduce a change to BellSouth’s OSS can submit a change request to the CCP. 693 After the BellSouth change control manager validates the change, 694 competitive LECs jointly prioritize change requests using information BellSouth provides about the approximate size of each change request feature and estimates of available capacity in future releases. 695 Under the process reviewed in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, BellSouth then internally reviews the prioritization and sequences change requests beginning with the top priority request. 696 Under the new 50/ 50 release plan, BellSouth will have its own releases and competitive LECs will jointly have their own releases. 697 The plan first requires implementation of all regulatory mandates, all needed industry standard updates and all scheduled repairs to fix defects. 698 After those changes are implemented, competitive LECs and BellSouth share equally (Continued from previous page) No. 02- 35 (filed May 14, 2002) (dividing releases according to BellSouth production and competitive LEC production) (BellSouth May 14 Ex Parte Letter). BellSouth began using the plan internally and to provide information to competitive LECs prior to the filing of this application. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 170, Exh. 37 at 7- 8. The Florida Commission ordered the adoption of the 50/ 50 plan on July 30, 2002, to address Exception 88 in the KPMG’s June 21, 2002 Draft Final Operations Support Systems Report. Florida 50/ 50 Plan Order at 7- 8. 692 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 29. 693 See BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 33). 694 BellSouth will validate the change request unless the change goes beyond BellSouth’s obligations under Commission orders, is not technically feasible, or requires BellSouth to make a substantial investment for a limited competing carrier benefit. See BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 33) (describing the process flow for request types 2- 5). We note that two new performance metrics will measure whether BellSouth performs this step within the 10- day interval (CM- 7) and will measure how many requests are denied by BellSouth for any of the reasons stated above (CM- 8). BellSouth August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2. 695 In preparation for the monthly meeting presentation, BellSouth has five to seven business days to prepare a preliminary assessment of the size and scope of the proposed change. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS-13 (CCP at 37- 39) (steps four and five of the process flow for request types 2- 5) and paras. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 61- 64) (detailing the prioritization process). We note that BellSouth recently has provided competitive LECs with available capacity and a release schedule for each release planned for 2003, which will provide competitive LECs an additional tool to more efficiently prioritize change requests. 696 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 39) (step seven of the process flow for request types 2- 5) and para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 64); Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1- 2 (filed Aug. 21, 2002) (BellSouth August 21 Ex Parte Letter). BellSouth adequately explains its internal processes to competing carriers through documentation and discussions at CCP meetings. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 86; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 8. Also, as noted above, competing carriers have an opportunity for input at release package meetings. 697 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 167; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 9. 698 BellSouth July 16 Ex Parte Letter at Att. 3, p. 6. The CCP is designed to accommodate six different categories of changes: Type 1 requests are for system outages; Type 2 requests are for changes mandated by regulatory authorities; Type 3 changes are for updating interfaces to an industry standard; Type 4 requests are (continued….) 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 104 the remaining release capacity for the year. 699 BellSouth schedules its change requests and shows competitive LECs the changes it had initiated and intended to implement. 700 Likewise, competitive LECs prioritize their change requests, and these are slotted for implementation in competitive LEC releases. 701 BellSouth and competitive LECs each have the right to prioritize the features in their releases. 702 185. We disagree with AT& T’s characterization of BellSouth’s 50/ 50 plan as “patently inadequate.” 703 AT& T claims that the 50/ 50 plan arbitrarily divides releases between competitive LECs and BellSouth, instead of prioritizing and implementing both BellSouth and competitive LEC change requests as needed. 704 Covad also claims that the current change control process is entirely within the control of BellSouth. 705 We find that BellSouth’s proposal allows competitive LECs at least the same level of control over the prioritization of their change requests than they had under previous versions of BellSouth’s prioritization process, including (Continued from previous page) BellSouth initiated changes; Type 5 requests are competitive LEC initiated changes; and Type 6 requests are to correct system defects. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 23- 25); BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 136- 38. The process for each type is well defined, including timeliness intervals, and an expedited procedure is also available for all Types 2 through 5 change requests. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 26- 60). 699 BellSouth July 16 Ex Parte Letter at Att. 3, p. 6. 700 Id. 701 Id. 702 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 167; see also BellSouth August 21 Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2. We note that WorldCom has alleged that BellSouth is not following its new processes to implement prioritized change requests. Letter from Keith L. Seat, Senior Counsel – Federal Advocacy, World Com, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1- 2 (filed Sept. 12, 2002) (WorldCom September 12 Ex Parte Letter). BellSouth proposed on August 30, 2002, that competitive LECs change their prioritization schedule. Id.; see also Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at Att. 1. (filed Sept. 4, 2002) (BellSouth September 4 Ex Parte Letter). However, because of our freeze frame rule, we decline to consider these allegations in this application. See Updated Filing Requirements for Bell Operating Company Applications Under Section 271 of the Communications Act, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 20948, 20950- 51 (2001) (271 Filing Requirements). 703 AT& T Comments at 9. AT& T also claims that BellSouth refuses to consider any change to the CCP that would alter its current, exclusive control over the prioritization, implementation, timing and sequencing of change requests. AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 18. We believe that BellSouth’s proposal establishes that this claim is inaccurate. Furthermore, as AT& T notes, disputes regarding the change management process are now being considered by the Georgia Commission. AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at paras. 22- 24. As the CCP calls for state commission resolution of disputes between the parties, the Georgia Commission’s consideration of outstanding issues demonstrates that the process is working in that respect. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 16, 24- 28. 704 AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 19; see also Florida 50/ 50 Plan Order at 6. 705 Covad Comments at 21. 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 105 the one approved in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. 706 We also reject AT& T’s assertion that BellSouth’s control over BellSouth releases and over the total amount of capacity available for all releases means that carriers do not have adequate input into the change management process. 707 We have only required BOCs to provide competitive LECs “opportunities for meaningful input” in the change management process, not to relinquish control over their systems or to provide unlimited resources to implement all change requests. 708 BellSouth’s reasonable limitations do not hinder the competitive LECs’ ability to provide sufficient input. Furthermore, BellSouth has recently expanded the definition of “CLEC- affecting” in a manner that will increase the amount of information BellSouth provides to competitive LECs regarding future releases. 709 Overall, we find that BellSouth’s plan will ensure that competitive LECs are informed about the effects of systems changes. As the Department of Justice notes, KPMG’s Draft Final Report states that the BellSouth proposals to increase competitive LEC participation in the prioritization of change requests would, if implemented, address the concerns identified in the exception. 710 We also take comfort in the fact that BellSouth appears to be continuing to improve its change management process under the auspices of the Georgia and Florida Commissions, 711 and we expect BellSouth to continue to collaborate with competitive LECs. 712 186. Dispute Resolution. As we found in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, we find that the BellSouth CCP “defines a procedure for the timely resolution of change management disputes.” 713 Since the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, BellSouth proposed that the escalation process begin and end at higher management levels than was provided for in 706 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9120- 21 & n. 689, para. 183. 707 Id. 708 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4001- 02, 4011- 12, paras. 106, 124; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18406, para. 111; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9128- 28, para. 194. 709 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 157. 710 Department of Justice Evaluation at 9; KPMG Draft Final Staff Report at RMI 14- 19. 711 In addition to Florida’s adoption of BellSouth’s 50/ 50 plan, we note that the Georgia Commission is also considering adoption of this plan. AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 23. As change management is a region-wide process, changes made by one state commission have the potential to affect the entire process. 712 We recognize that some discrete steps in the change management process may necessarily involve less collaboration than others. However, we note that effective change management processes require a good working relationship between BOCs and competing carriers and that efforts to develop more transparent processes enhance the usefulness of the process for competing carriers as well as BOCs. In fact, through a collaborative effort in the CCP actively monitored by the Georgia Commission, participants are negotiating improvements to the feature sizing and resource allocation elements of the CCP and are considering adding intervals for implementing feature requests. These steps could improve the transparency of software release decisions. We encourage BellSouth to continue to accommodate competitive LEC requests to improve the transparency and effectiveness of its CCP. 713 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18404, para. 108; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order at 9123, para. 186; BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 59- 63); see also BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 92- 97. 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 106 the CCP. 714 As a result, if necessary, disputes will now be escalated to BellSouth’s Network Vice President for Wholesale Operations. 715 187. Testing Environment. We find that BellSouth’s testing environments allow competing carriers the means to successfully adapt their systems to changes in BellSouth’s OSS. The same testing processes and systems are used to perform testing in the five states in this application as were reviewed and approved in Georgia and Louisiana, and no party raises an issue in this proceeding that causes us to change this determination. BellSouth’s “original” testing environment is used to allow competing carriers to shift from a manual process to an electronic interface, or when upgrading to a new industry standard. 716 BellSouth offers its more recently developed [Competitive LEC] Application Verification Environment (CAVE) test environment to test the ordering and pre- ordering functions of upgrades to the EDI, TAG, and LENS interfaces. 717 We are thus able to conclude, for the same reasons we did in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, that BellSouth’s testing processes are adequate. 188. AT& T argues that the number of defects contained in BellSouth’s latest software release indicates that BellSouth’s testing processes are either not adequate or not being properly followed. 718 Although we recognize that BellSouth has experienced a number of defects in its software releases, 719 commenters have not provided the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these defects are a result of a failure by BellSouth to follow its testing procedures. 720 Based on the evidence in the record, we also are not convinced that rejection is warranted based on AT& T’s allegation that the CAVE test scenarios do not completely mirror what individual carriers typically order in the production environment. 721 The Commission has never required 714 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 97. The escalation will begin with “Operations Assistant Vice President” and end with “Network – Vice President.” BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 8. CCP participants agreed unanimously to this change as part of ballot 13, which was distributed on July 15, 2002, and BellSouth updated the CCP web site on July 29, 2002. Id. Before the competitive LECs voted, the extra escalation step was optional, not mandatory, for competitive LECs. Id. 715 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 97. 716 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9123 n. 701; BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 99; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 94. 717 Id. BellSouth has expanded CAVE testing opportunities for competitive LECs, expanded and formalized pre-release communications with competitive LECs concerning defects and has proposed a formal process for deferring implementation of a release due to defects, including a competitive LEC “go/ no go” recommendation on release implementation. BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 6. 718 AT& T Comments at 11 (stating that “[ t] he Commission has already noted BellSouth’s failure to comply with its own testing procedures and its resultant inability to complete software releases without numerous defects.”). 719 For a discussion of BellSouth’s software quality, see section IV. B. 2. g.( b), infra. 720 Rather, most of the defects were the result of orders caught in the transition from Release 10.4 to Release 10.5. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 77. 721 AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 57. 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 107 that test scenarios and actual production orders be identical. 722 BellSouth’s CAVE testing scenarios are substantially similar to actual production orders. Moreover, BellSouth demonstrates that competitive carriers can acquire test orders different from those in the standard catalog to more closely match their production orders. 723 We also note that CAVE provides testing for a wide variety of competitive LEC order types. 724 Accordingly, we find these procedures give competing carriers a meaningful opportunity to compete. 189. Several developments give us additional comfort in this area. BellSouth states that it is in the process of expanding the number of test cases it uses during testing. 725 Further, BellSouth has recently implemented a pre- release testing status report identifying unresolved defects, 726 and is continuing to discuss improvements to the testing process on a collaborative basis with competitive carriers. 727 We encourage BellSouth to continue to accept and consider, before deciding to implement a new software release, any input from competitive LECs regarding software problems they discover during testing. 190. Documentation Adequacy. We find that BellSouth provides documentation sufficient to allow competing carriers to design their systems in a manner that will allow them to communicate with BellSouth’s relevant interfaces. 728 BellSouth uses the same documentation processes and systems in the five states in this application as we reviewed and approved in 722 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18421- 22, para. 138. 723 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 106. 724 AT& T claimed that when it tested BellSouth’s parsed CSR functionality in April 2002 (three months after the functionality was implanted in commercial production), it received error messages because that functionality had not been implemented in CAVE. AT& T Comments at 11. BellSouth explained that its initial test plan with AT& T did not include testing of the parsed CSR functionality. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 112. While AT& T’s testing was in progress, modifications were made to AT& T’s test plan to add parsed CSR testing. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 106. The parsed CSR functionality was operational in CAVE prior to implementation in the production environment. Id. 725 BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 5. 726 This report provides competitive LECs with information on defects/ issues in the release. BellSouth will update this report on a daily basis until production implementation of the release. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 11. BellSouth is also conducting weekly conference calls during pre- release CAVE testing to provide the opportunity for comment and the exchange of information related to the testing. Id. 727 BellSouth states that the CCP participants are discussing the establishment of a testing profile; the elimination of the requirement for a formal test agreement; implementation of regression testing; and the implementation of a more defined defect management process. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 11. BellSouth also has agreed to draft change requests to allow competitive LECs to test in CAVE using their own data and to allow competitive LECs to test multiple versions of CAVE. Id. Additionally, BellSouth has proposed to CCP participants that competitive LECs that have tested in CAVE participate in a “go/ no go” decision in which they would either recommend that a particular release go forward as scheduled, or that BellSouth defer implementation to a later date, depending upon the severity of the defects found during testing. Id. at para. 12. 728 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18411, para. 119. 107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 108 Georgia and Louisiana, and no party raises an issue in this proceeding that causes us to change this determination. 729 In particular, BellSouth demonstrates that it makes available sufficiently detailed interface design specifications to offer competing carriers a meaningful opportunity to compete. 730 BellSouth demonstrates compliance with its documentation responsibilities by showing satisfaction of the Georgia third- party test efforts to build an interface as well as demonstrating that competing carriers have a meaningful opportunity to compete. 731 Furthermore, numerous competitors are now using electronic interfaces for pre- ordering, ordering, and reporting troubles, 732 and the record does not indicate that BellSouth provides inadequate or discriminatory treatment to these competing carriers. Therefore, we find that BellSouth demonstrates that it provides efficient competitors a meaningful opportunity to compete by enabling them to understand how to implement and use all of the OSS functions available to them. (b) Adherence to the Change Management Process 191. Accepting Change Requests. BellSouth demonstrates that it validates change requests for acceptance into the process in a timely manner and in accordance with the 10- day interval specified by the CCP. From March through June 2002, BellSouth met this interval for 10 out of 13 requests. 733 We note that BellSouth has agreed to implement a new metric (CM- 7) that will measure BellSouth’s adherence to the 10- day CCP deadline. 734 In addition, BellSouth agreed to another metric (CM- 8) that measures how many change requests are denied by BellSouth for any of the reasons allowed under the CCP. 735 BellSouth has adopted both of these metrics – and their associated penalties – region- wide, including in the five states in this 729 See BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 125- 28 730 See id. at para. 126. 731 See id. at para. 125. 732 In BellSouth’s region in the period from January through March 2002, approximately 50 competing carriers used EDI, 20 used TAG, and 240 used LENS. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 15. Using these interfaces, competitive LECs are submitting more than 1. 5 million pre- ordering transactions monthly. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 13. 733 BellSouth August 30 Ex Parte Letter at 2. On the three occasions BellSouth did not meet the interval, BellSouth notes that it needed additional time to investigate the requests and informed the originating competitive LECs that additional time would be needed. BellSouth accepted one of the requests, proposed an alternative solution for another one of the requests, and rejected the third request that the competitive LEC subsequently cancelled. BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 6. 734 BellSouth August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2; see also Letter from Sean A. Lev, Counsel to BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1 (filed Aug. 15, 2002) (BellSouth August 15 Metrics Ex Parte Letter) (correcting attachment to August 9 CCP Ex Parte). 735 BellSouth must validate the change request unless BellSouth determines that the competitive LEC- initiated request cannot be accepted because of cost, industry direction or technical infeasibility. See BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 36) (describing the acceptance process for request types 2- 5). 108 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 109 application. 736 Although we cannot rely on these metrics for purposes of the instant application, we believe they will help to ensure that BellSouth continues to accept change requests in a timely manner. Also, we believe metric CM- 8 will improve the ability of interested parties and regulatory bodies, including the Commission, to monitor the reasons behind BellSouth’s rejection of competitive LEC change requests. 737 Although the metric will formally quantify the number of change requests accepted or rejected by BellSouth, it does not affect the underlying criteria that BellSouth must use to make that determination as outlined in the CCP. 192. Implementation of Prioritized Changes. Since we issued the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, BellSouth has made progress in providing information to the competitive LECs through the change management process. 738 For example, BellSouth has provided 2002 and 2003 capacity information to the competitive LECs and will continue to provide capacity information in the future. 739 BellSouth has issued the first quarter 2002 capacity use report using the format requested by the competitive LECs, and BellSouth provided information regarding the size of the flow- through features to competitive LECs on May 15, 2002. 740 In addition, BellSouth is publishing a quarterly tracking report summarizing the status of the change requests. 741 Finally, among other items, BellSouth and competitive LECs are working collaboratively to revise the testing environment section of the CCP. 742 Despite these improvements, however, competitive LECs continue to express concerns regarding BellSouth’s change management implementation, focusing primarily on two issues: the backlog of approved feature change requests awaiting implementation and the quality of BellSouth’s software releases (i. e., number of defects). 743 We consider each of these concerns in turn. 193. Timely Implementation of Change Requests. Competitive LECs argue that the backlog of change requests awaiting implementation demonstrates that BellSouth is not 736 BellSouth August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2; BellSouth August 15 Metrics Ex Parte Letter at 1 (correcting attachment to August 9 CCP Ex Parte); see also Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 22, 2000) (BellSouth August 22 Ex Parte Letter). Failure to meet these metrics will result in Tier II penalties. AT& T claims that these penalties are not sufficient to provide an incentive for BellSouth to meet the metric. AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 3. However, we note that we are not relying upon these metrics for approval of this application. 737 See BellSouth September 4 Ex Parte Letter at 1; cf. AT& T September 9 Ex Parte Letter at 1. 738 Department of Justice Evaluation at 9; BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 85- 86. 739 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 25; BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 7. 740 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 25. 741 Id.; see also BellSouth August 30 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 742 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 25, 119. 743 AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at paras. 31- 55; AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 1-4; WorldCom Lichtenberg Decl. at paras. 5- 17. 109 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 110 sufficiently adhering to its change management process. 744 While acknowledging that 63 feature change requests awaited implementation as of the date of this application’s filing, 745 BellSouth explains that it is implementing change requests as quickly as possible given the CCP’s lengthy timelines and the limitations of its OSS. As BellSouth explains, the maximum amount of capacity per year for change requests is limited by its OSS architecture. 746 194. We find, on balance, that BellSouth is implementing the most important competitive LEC- initiated change requests in a timely fashion. Notably, the backlog as it exists today is similar to the backlog as it existed at the time we adopted the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. 747 In addition, as BellSouth notes, it has implemented a large number of change requests, especially during the past six months, 748 including nine of the 15 top- ranked feature change requests made by competitive carriers. 749 We acknowledge that the Department of Justice expressed concern about whether BellSouth has committed sufficient resources to reduce the backlog of change requests in a timely manner. 750 However, the record indicates that BellSouth has devoted adequate resources to develop and implement change requests – approximately 250,000 hours of work per year to implement change requests, the equivalent of 744 AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at paras. 33- 44; see also Covad Comments at 21- 22 (regarding timeliness of defect corrections). 745 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 136. Change feature requests include Type 2 (changes mandated by regulatory authorities), Type 3 (industry standard), Type 4 (BellSouth- initiated), and Type 5 (competitive LEC- initiated changes). Not included in that figure are the 34 defect repairs that were accepted by the change management process, but were not yet implemented as of the filing of this application. Also this number includes only those change requests accepted by BellSouth for implementation; 18 competitive LEC- initiated requests were awaiting acceptance or rejection by BellSouth. Id. These numbers reflect a snapshot of the change requests as of June 3, 2002. See also BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 21, 48. 746 BellSouth explains that its use of a single OSS limits the number of simultaneous software releases that can be programmed at the same time. BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 3- 4. As BellSouth explains, software developers are often simultaneously testing one release, writing code for another and in the initial planning stages of a third release. Id. The releases build upon one another, and therefore, there is a limit to the number of releases that can be efficiently developed at the same time. Id. Although we do not rely upon this as a basis for our decision, we note that BellSouth has begun to deploy a new infrastructure that “will provide a more flexible, scalable architecture that will continue to improve BellSouth’s ability to respond to CLEC requests.” Id. at 4. Even without this effective cap on change requests, BellSouth notes that an assumption that all requests be implemented as quickly as possible could overwhelm its systems and require infinite BellSouth resources. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 66- 67 (“ There are hundreds of CLECs that could make . . . requests for new features. The CCP does not limit the number of CLECs that can participate in the CCP, nor does it limit the number of change requests that any CLEC may submit.”). 747 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9128, para. 194. 748 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 21. 749 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 160. BellSouth plans to implement all of the “top 15” requests by year- end. BellSouth Stacy Reply at para. 21. 750 Department of Justice Evaluation at 10. 110 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 111 $108 million in expenditures. 751 Moreover, we agree with BellSouth that some change requests will always be pending due to the long lead times inherent in the CCP. 752 195. Competitive carriers fear that the backlog of competitive LEC- initiated feature change requests will continue to grow, given the number of defects in BellSouth’s latest releases and that defects will typically be implemented before feature change requests. 753 We do not think this is a likely scenario. BellSouth has demonstrated that defects in software releases are not significantly contributing to the backlog because defect repairs use a relatively small amount of capacity. 754 Moreover, we believe BellSouth’s recent actions demonstrate that it is working efficiently within the constraints of the CCP and the limitations of its current systems. For these reasons, we find that the way BellSouth has implemented competitive LEC change requests does not deny an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete. 196. Notwithstanding our conclusion regarding the way BellSouth implements change requests, we are concerned by the length of time that some competitive LECs have been waiting for their change requests to be implemented. 755 BellSouth has itself acknowledged that it will not significantly reduce the backlog of feature change requests until the end of 2003 and that all currently accepted feature change requests will not be implemented until the third quarter of 2004. 756 Although we do not find the current level of backlogged change requests causes BellSouth to fail this checklist item, it is not a trend we wish to see continue. Accordingly, we expect BellSouth to follow through on its commitments to improve the efficiency of its change 751 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 47, 68. 752 BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 4- 5 (“ It is unreasonable to expect that there will ever come a time that the New, Pending and Candidate Request categories are empty – so long as CLECs continue to submit requests to the CCP, there will be requests in each category. The critical fact, however, is that requests are moving through the process and are being implemented in a timely fashion.”); see also BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 50. After a change request has been prioritized, the first release package meeting takes place 36 weeks before a production release. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 50. During the application process, BellSouth revised the definition of major and minor releases. Both are now referred to as “production releases.” BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 50 n. 13. 753 Twenty- five feature change requests were implemented from January through June 2, 2002. The rest of the change requests – 83, or more than 75% of the total changes implemented this year – were necessary to correct defects in BellSouth systems. AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 48. For the remainder of 2002, BellSouth has scheduled the implementation of 12 feature change requests. Id. 754 BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 6 (“ The amount of capacity used to correct the defects is a small fraction of the total capacity available. . . . In 2002, BellSouth used less than 8% of available capacity for defect correction.”). 755 AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at para. 44. Most of the feature change requests implemented in Release 10.5 were submitted between August 1999 and August 2000 – approximately two to three years prior to implementation. AT& T Bradbury/ Norris at para. 48. See also Department of Justice Evaluation at 8 (stating that “[ a] n important issue still remains, however, regarding whether BellSouth is committing sufficient resources overall to the process of upgrading the interfaces to its OSS used by the [competitive] LECs.”). 756 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 57. 111 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 112 management process. We note that there are significantly fewer BellSouth- initiated change requests than competitive LEC- initiated change requests. 757 As allowed by its 50/ 50 plan in the CCP, BellSouth could use some of its half of the release capacity to implement some of the more highly prioritized or older competitive LEC requests during the course of the next year. If BellSouth continues to evidence an inability to reduce its backlog of change requests, we will consider this issue in the context of a section 271( d)( 6) enforcement action. Therefore, we will monitor BellSouth’s performance, and we expect and encourage BellSouth to continue to devote adequate resources to this issue. 197. Although not of decisional weight, BellSouth has adopted region- wide a metric 758 that will measure the number of accepted competitive LEC- initiated change requests implemented within 60 weeks of competitive LEC prioritization. 759 Penalties, which will also apply region- wide, will be assessed if BellSouth fails to meet the 95 percent benchmark. 760 We believe this metric will provide an incentive for BellSouth to improve its performance in this area. 198. Quality of Software Releases. AT& T and WorldCom allege that the quality of BellSouth’s software releases has deteriorated since we approved BellSouth’s Georgia/ Louisiana application. 761 BellSouth argues that its performance has improved and that its most recent software release has fewer problems than earlier releases. 762 We find that the quality of BellSouth’s software releases has not impaired competitors’ access to BellSouth’s OSS. To the contrary, we find that the quality of BellSouth’s software releases has slightly improved, not deteriorated, since the release of the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order. 757 Of the 63 outstanding feature changes, 42 have been requested by competitive LECs while only nine have been requested by BellSouth. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 49. Of the remaining feature change requests, 27 are Type 2 (regulatory mandate) while one is a Type 3 (industry standard). Id. 758 BellSouth August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2; see also BellSouth August 15 Metrics Ex Parte Letter at 1 (correcting attachment to August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter). 759 When a feature change request is submitted by a competitive LEC, BellSouth has 10 days to accept or reject the request. BellSouth can reject competitive LEC change requests based on cost, industry direction and technical infeasibility. See BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 33). BellSouth must provide competitive LECs with a rationale for its decisions, and competitive LECs can appeal BellSouth’s decision, using either the escalation process or by filing a complaint with a regulatory body. If a change request is accepted, the request then is submitted to competitive LECs for prioritization, i. e., a competitive LEC ranking of how important the change request is, which determines how soon it will be implemented. 760 BellSouth August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2; see also BellSouth August 15 Metrics Ex Parte Letter at 1 (correcting attachment to August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter). Failure to meet these metrics will result in Tier II penalties. As noted above, AT& T claims that these penalties are not sufficient to provide an incentive for BellSouth to meet the metric. AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 3. However, we note that we are not relying upon these metrics for approval of this application. 761 WorldCom Comments at 2; AT& T Bradbury/ Norris Decl. at paras. 63- 68. 762 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 74; BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 5- 6. 112 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 113 199. Between the issuance of the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order and the filing of the instant application, BellSouth implemented only one software release – Release 10.5 on June 1- 2, 2002. 763 BellSouth identified approximately 35 post- production, competitive LEC- affecting defects during the 30 days following the release 764 – slightly more defects than identified in the releases examined in the Georgia/ Louisiana proceeding (Releases 10.2 and 10.3). 765 Competitive LECs allege that the number of defects is beyond the industry standard and demonstrates that BellSouth does not properly perform pre- release internal testing. 766 However, looking only at the number of defects in Release 10.5 does not tell the entire story. 767 First, when compared to the releases examined by the Commission in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, Release 10.5 had fewer problems than those releases when the complexity of the releases (defects per function point) is taken into account. 768 For example, Release 10.3 had 0.00708 defects per function point while Release 10.5 had 0.00467 defects per function point. 769 Second, we reject competitive LEC claims that they were significantly harmed by the defects. 770 Of the 35 defects in Release 763 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 144. Release 10.5 was implemented on June 1- 2, 2002, with two severity level 3 defects (formerly known as “medium- impact” defects). BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 73. 764 BellSouth also indicated that there were only 34 competitive LEC- affecting defects in Release 10. 5. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 74. BellSouth explained that a consultant, QP Management, analyzed the quality of Release 10.5 and found that one of the 35 defects attributed to Release 10.4 was actually attributable to Release 10.4. BellSouth August 21 Ex Parte Letter at 2. As a result, in analyzing the quality of Release 10. 5, QP Management used the figure of 34 competitive LEC- affecting defects, instead of 35. Id. 765 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 73. Release 10.5 was delayed two weeks while BellSouth corrected other defects that were identified in pre- production testing. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 144. 766 WorldCom Comments at 2 (“ Recent Verizon releases, for example, had almost no defects.”). 767 Releases 10.2 and 10.3 were examined in the Georgia/ Louisiana proceeding. BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9129, para. 195. Release 10.2 had 34 competitive LEC- affecting defects while Release 10.3 had 25 competitive LEC- affecting defects. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 75, Exh. WNS- 32 at App. A. 768 The software industry uses a metric called defect density to measure the quality of a software release. This metric compares the number of identified defects to the number of function points implemented in the release. A function point is an industry standard metric for defining the complexity of a given piece of software, based on the business functionality provided by the software. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 74. By this measure, Release 10.5 had 34 competitive LEC- affecting defects and 60 non- competitive LEC- affecting defects out of 20,108 function points for a ratio of 0.00467 defects per function point. By contrast, Release 10.3 had 39 competitive LEC- affecting defects with a ratio of 0.00708 defects per function point, and Release 10.4 had 54 competitive LEC-affecting defects with a ratio of 0.00682 defects per function point. In addition, BellSouth points out that Release 10.5 would meet the industry standard of “best in class.” BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 74. BellSouth has also indicated that there were 35 competitive LEC- affecting defects in Release 10. 5. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 80. 769 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 75, Exh. WNS- 32 at App. A. 770 WorldCom states that one of the defects in Release 10.5 temporarily led to the rejection of all orders requesting migration of a customer from one competitive LEC to another. WorldCom Comments at 3. Another defect led to rejection of all supplemental orders for customers whose addresses include a Building, Slip or Pier, and a third led to rejection of all orders submitted by competitive LECs using BellSouth’s TAG interface for version 7.6 or below. Id. 113 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 114 10.5, 30 of the defects each affected only a handful of the LSRs that were in progress during the transition from software version 10.4 to 10.5. 771 At most, only about 9,000 competitive LEC orders were affected by all the defects, a number equal to only 0.07 percent of total LSR volume. 772 As BellSouth demonstrates, it fixed, within the 10- day deadline established by the CCP, those five defects that affected a significant number of competitive LEC orders or had a significant effect on the competitive LECs’ ability to process orders. 773 Third, correcting those defects, as noted above, requires only minimal capacity and does not add to the current backlog of change features waiting to be implemented. 774 200. Finally, while we share the concern expressed by the Department of Justice and the competitive LECs regarding the number of defects in BellSouth’s releases, 775 we note that BellSouth has adopted practices to minimize defects in future releases. 776 In fact, although not a basis for our decision, 777 we recognize that Release 10.6, which was implemented August 24, 771 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 77. 772 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 146; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 78. 773 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 78. All “CLEC- affecting” high- impact defects must be corrected within 10 days. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 55). Defect CR0802, which caused some loop make- up inquiries and firm order requests submitted from LENS to fail unexpectedly, was corrected on June 5, 2002. Defect CR0804 produced an error code that was being set incorrectly for resale and UNE- P migration orders conversion and specified orders when the LSR competitive LEC OCN and the OCN on the CRIS record did not match. The defect was corrected on June 3, 2002. Defect CR0805, which caused some LSRs to be auto- clarified even though the LSRs contained the correct information, was corrected on June 5, 2002. Defect CR 0807, which caused supplemental orders placed on LSRs submitted before Release 10.5 to be routed to the wrong exception handling tool, was corrected on June 6, 2002. Because of defect CR0812, BellSouth’s OSS did not send a completion notice to the competitive LEC for certain types of orders. This situation occurred only on certain LSRs that existed before the implementation of 10. 5 but the actual service order completion was after the implementation. This only happened after an auto- clarification had been sent and only when the auto- clarification was produced from a certain module in BellSouth’s architecture. This problem was corrected on June 10, 2002. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 78. 774 BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 6 (“ The amount of capacity used to correct the defects is a small fraction of the total capacity available. . . . In 2002, BellSouth used less than 8% of available capacity for defect correction.”). 775 Department of Justice Evaluation at 12 (stating that “[ t] he Commission should carefully monitor BellSouth’s future releases.”). 776 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 81- 82. Although we do not rely upon these processes, BellSouth has identified a few changes it plans to make to decrease the number of defects. First, prior to the software release, it will stop taking new orders and let the orders already placed make their way through BellSouth’s systems. BellSouth August 16 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 6. That process should eliminate some defects caused by orders that are still working their way through BellSouth’s OSS and are caught in the transition. Id. Second, BellSouth is expanding the number of test cases it uses during testing to identify any problems prior to production implementation. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 82. 777 Because of our freeze frame rule, we decline to consider Release 10.6 in this Application. See 271 Filing Requirements at 20950- 51. 114 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 115 2002, during the 90- day statutory timeframe for this application, contains proportionately fewer defects than other recent releases. 778 We are encouraged by these developments. 201. Although not of decisional weight, BellSouth has added a new metric that will measure the intervals for defect repairs. 779 Under the new metric, high- impact defects must be corrected in 10 days, medium impact must be corrected in 30 days, and low impact defects must be corrected in 45 days. 780 BellSouth has adopted these metrics, and their associated penalties in the SEEM plan, throughout its nine- state region, including in the states that are the subject of this application. 781 We believe these metrics will provide an incentive for BellSouth to improve its performance in this area. In addition, we are encouraged that BellSouth is working with state regulators and competitive LECs to change its procedures to reduce the number of defects in its releases. As the Department of Justice notes, if additional resources are required to correct these problems, we expect BellSouth to provide them. 782 Accordingly, we will continue to monitor BellSouth’s performance and will take enforcement action, if necessary. 202. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by competitive LEC claims that BellSouth misclassifies its change requests to evade repair interval requirements. Competitive LECs claim that BellSouth has misclassified a number of defect change requests as “feature” change requests or as change requests based on a regulatory mandate. 783 In addition, competitive LECs claim that BellSouth is assigning defects to the wrong category, e. g. labeling a high- impact defect as a medium- impact defect, to take advantage of longer repair intervals. 784 We do not find the 778 In ex parte filings, AT& T and WorldCom claim that BellSouth’s Release 10.6 is “riddled” with defects. See AT& T September 9 Ex Parte Letter at 1; WorldCom September 12 Ex Parte Filing at 1- 2. However, BellSouth has identified only seven competitive LEC- affecting defects attributable to its Release 10. 6. Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 4 (filed Sept. 10, 2002) (BellSouth September 10 Ex Parte Letter). BellSouth also identified five other defects that were attributed to other releases, but discovered after Release 10.6 was implemented. Id. 779 BellSouth August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2; see also BellSouth August 15 Metrics Ex Parte Letter at 1 (correcting attachment to August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter). 780 The prior standard required “high impact” defects to be corrected in 10 business days, “medium impact” to be corrected within 90 business days, and “low impact” to be corrected with “best efforts” (although BellSouth had committed to a 120- day interval). BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 55). 781 BellSouth August 9 CCP Ex Parte Letter. As noted above, AT& T claims that these penalties are not sufficient to provide an incentive for BellSouth to meet the metric. AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 3. However, we note that we are not relying upon these metrics for approval of this application. 782 Department of Justice Evaluation at 12. 783 AT& T Comments at 12, 13; WorldCom Lichtenberg Decl. at para. 14. 784 WorldCom September 12 Ex Parte Letter at 3. As noted above, the prior standard required “high impact” defects to be corrected in 10 business days, “medium impact” to be corrected within 90 business days, and “low impact” to be corrected with “best efforts” (although BellSouth had committed to a 120- day interval). BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Exh. WNS- 13 (CCP at 55). 115 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 116 competitive LEC assertion that BellSouth is purposefully mischaracterizing change requests in order to avoid CCP requirements persuasive. Instead, it appears this problem is the result of a dispute between BellSouth and the competitive LECs regarding the definition of a defect. 785 The shorter intervals to repair change requests should decrease any incentive BellSouth may have to mislabel defects. 203. Notification Adequacy and Timeliness. We find that BellSouth has established a pattern of compliance with the intervals established in the Change Control Process for notification of a variety of system changes. 786 Commercial data reveal a pattern of BellSouth’s providing notice of system changes in a timely, complete, and accurate manner. 787 In addition, the Georgia KPMG test, demonstrates that BellSouth’s notification procedures are sufficient for checklist compliance. 788 Additionally, we find that BellSouth generally adheres to its notification schedule 789 and that the documentation for the most recent releases has been timely 785 The dispute has been submitted to the Georgia Commission for resolution. BellSouth explains that under the existing CCP, a competitive LEC- affecting defect is defined to include errors that are made when designing and subsequently coding the software and errors made because of an oversight in documenting the functionality that should be created. BellSouth argues that the latter reason is not truly a defect because developers do not have a “road map” that indicates how the software should behave or what changes should be made to correct the problem. BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at paras. 91- 92. To correct this type of defect, new business rules, user requirements, and system requirements must be developed. BellSouth argues that the development of this additional functionality is a new change request. Id. at para. 92. 786 The Commission’s prior section 271 orders recognize the importance of a BOC’s provision of timely, complete, and accurate notice of alterations to its systems and processes and, therefore, the Commission requires that a BOC have “established a pattern of compliance with the relevance notification and documentation intervals in its Change Agreement.” SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18415, para. 126. 787 BellSouth provides notice of software releases in a timely manner. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina F. 10.1 (% Software Release Notices Sent on Time); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina F. 10.2 (Average Software Release Notification Delay Days). Third- party testing also shows timely notice of software releases. KPMG MTP Final Report, Test CM- 1- 1- 5, at VIII- A- 20 (finding that the Change Control Process “has defined and reasonable intervals for considering and notifying customers about proposed changes”). See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina F. 10.3 (% Change Management Documentation Sent on Time); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina F. 10.5 (Average Documentation Release Delay Days); BellSouth Varner Aff. at Exhs. PM- 2, paras. 93- 98; PM- 3, paras. 93- 98; PM- 4, paras. 92- 97; PM- 5, paras. 92- 97; PM- 6, paras. 92- 97. 788 See KPMG MTP Final Report, Test CM- 1- 1- 6, at VIII- A- 21 (finding that “[ d] ocumentation regarding proposed changes is distributed on a timely basis”). See also section IV. B. 2. a, supra (discussing the regionality of BellSouth’s OSS). 789 In the SWBT Texas Order, the Commission found SWBT’s provision of documentation to be sufficiently timely despite its failure to strictly meet specified deadlines. SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18416, paras. 128- 29 & nn. 340, 343. 116 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 117 and complete. 790 Finally, we find that BellSouth consistently provides competing carriers notice of, and information about, access to its electronic interfaces. 791 204. While it appears that BellSouth is generally adhering to the notification intervals required by the CCP, commenters allege that BellSouth has failed to notify competitive LECs of some interface changes either at all, or has notified them significantly after a competitive “CLEC- affecting” change has been implemented. 792 We address specific allegations in this regard in turn. 205. First, we reject Birch’s request that the legacy systems of BellSouth’s directory publisher affiliate, BellSouth Advertising Publishing Company (BAPCO), be subject to the CCP. 793 Birch alleges that competitive LECs were not properly notified of a change to BAPCO’s systems to fix a partial directory listing deficiency, which resulted in telephone numbers of Birch’s end users being omitted from BAPCO’s telephone book. 794 However, the scope of the CCP only includes BellSouth gateways or interfaces with competitive LECs. 795 As we have noted in prior orders, changes that do not affect OSS interfaces are not necessarily required to be a part of the change management process. 796 Accordingly, we do not find that Birch’s claim warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. 206. Second, we are not persuaded that BellSouth’s failure to notify competitive LECs of its intention to reject competitive LEC orders that choose BellSouth Long Distance (BSLD) as the end user’s primary interexchange carrier (PIC) warrants a finding of noncompliance. 797 Specifically, WorldCom contends that BellSouth began rejecting orders listing BSLD as the PIC in May, but did not notify competitive LECs until June 14, 2002. 798 BellSouth acknowledges that it posted a carrier notification on June 14, 2002, advising competitive LECs that BellSouth 790 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 151. 791 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina F. 10.6 (% Interface Outage Notices Sent Within 15 Minutes). From March through June, BellSouth had a perfect record of providing notice to competitive LECs about interface outages. 792 WorldCom Lichtenberg Decl. at paras. 25- 36; Birch Comments at 20- 25; Birch August 23 Ex Parte Letter at 5- 6. 793 Birch Comments at 25. 794 Id. at 21. 795 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at para. 85, Ex. WNS- 13 (CCP at 17); see also BellSouth August 30 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (stating that “the BAPCO system change had no affect[ sic] on [CLEC] interfaces.”). 796 Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17451, para. 51 (accepting Verizon’s argument that “the changes to the BOS BDT billing systems are ‘back- office’ OSS changes that do not impact OSS interfaces”). 797 WorldCom Comments at 6- 7. 798 These orders were for end users in Georgia and Louisiana. However, this issue is relevant to this application because BellSouth’s CCP is regionwide. 117 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 118 would not accept orders for BSLD if the submitting carrier does not have an operational agreement with BSLD. 799 BellSouth explains, however, that the feature rejecting competitive LEC orders for BSLD was initiated in July 1997, and has existed in BellSouth’s systems since its implementation. 800 BellSouth therefore states that the June 14, 2002 announcement was a reminder to competitive LECs of its existing procedures. While we do not discount the potential inconvenience this may have caused competitive LECs, we do not find that this isolated instance indicates a systemic problem with BellSouth’s change management notification process that might warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 801 207. Commenters also contend that BellSouth did not provide competitive LECs with adequate prior written notice when it implemented PMAP 4.0. 802 We address this issue above in our discussion of the reliability of BellSouth’s data. 803 (ii) Training, Technical Assistance, and Help Desk Support 208. As we did in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, we find that BellSouth adequately assists competing carriers in their use of available OSS functions. 804 BellSouth demonstrates that it teaches a wide variety of training courses for competing carriers to assist in programming as well as ordering, pre- ordering, provisioning, and maintenance and repair. 805 Also, BellSouth provides several help desks to assist competing carriers in using OSS. 806 BellSouth demonstrates that its services centers are adequately staffed and able to handle spikes in their work loads. 807 The same organizations that we found performed these functions in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order also perform these functions for competing carriers operating in the five states. 808 Because the support organizations’ personnel are the same as those used by competing carriers in Georgia and Louisiana and because the record does not indicate the BellSouth organizations provide inadequate or discriminatory treatment to 799 Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 3 (filed Aug. 9, 2002) (BellSouth August 9 OSS Ex Parte Letter). 800 Id. 801 If evidence becomes available to the Commission sufficient to show that a systemic problem with BellSouth’s notification process, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 802 See, e. g., AT& T Bursh/ Norris Aff. at para. 16. 803 For a discussion of BellSouth’s data reliability, see section III, supra. 804 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4012, para. 126. 805 BellSouth Ainsworth Aff. at para. 42. 806 Id. at paras. 7- 38. 807 Id. 808 Id. at para. 5; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9132, para. 198. 118 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 119 competing carriers, we find that BellSouth demonstrates that it provides efficient competitors a meaningful opportunity to compete by enabling them to understand how to implement and use all of the OSS functions available to them. 3. UNE Combinations (UNE- P and EELs) 209. In order to satisfy section 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii), a BOC must demonstrate that it provides nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point and in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements. 809 In addition, a BOC must not separate already combined elements, except at the specific request of the competing carrier. 810 210. BellSouth has demonstrated that it has a legal obligation, under its Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions (SGAT) in each of the states, to provide access to combinations of network elements, including UNE- platform, a loop- switch port combination, and the enhanced extended loop (EEL), a combination of loop and transport facilities. Accordingly, BellSouth provides UNEs, including UNE combinations, in the five states in the same manner as the Commission approved in Georgia and Louisiana. 811 BellSouth also provides a variety of methods that allow competitive carriers to combine unbundled network elements. BellSouth demonstrates that competitive LECs can order UNE- P and EELs electronically, and that commercial experience proves this is done in a nondiscriminatory manner. 812 Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude, as did the state commissions, that BellSouth provides access to UNE combinations in compliance with Commission rules. 813 211. We reject NewSouth’s claims that BellSouth does not comply with the Commission’s requirements regarding EELs audits. 814 NewSouth alleges that BellSouth has not identified a reasonable concern regarding NewSouth’s compliance with EELs local usage restrictions. Based on this record, it does not appear that BellSouth’s EELs audit request 809 47 U. S. C. § 251( c)( 3); 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii). 810 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii); 47 C. F. R. § 51.313( b). 811 BellSouth Application at 40; BellSouth Application App. A, Vol. 3a, Tab F, Affidavit of W. Keith Milner (BellSouth Milner Aff.) at para. 63; see also BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9132- 33, para. 199. 812 BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 282- 84; BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at para. 145. As part of Release 10.5, BellSouth implemented the electronic ordering of EELs. Requests for EELs are then routed to the LCSC for manual handling. Competitive LECs also may still order EELs manually. BellSouth Stacy Aff. at paras. 280- 81. 813 BellSouth Milner Aff. at 91; BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at para. 6. 814 See New South August 5 Ex Parte Letter at 6 (claiming that “BellSouth insists upon harassing NewSouth and other competitors with audit requests that do not comply with the limitations on such audits established in [Commission] orders.”). 119 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 120 expressly violates a Commission rule. 815 Moreover, we note that there is a separate proceeding pending before the Commission on the appropriateness of EELs audits. 816 Accordingly, we decline to find that this issue warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. We further reject NewSouth’s contention that it has experienced “considerable delays” in the conversion of special access to EELs. 817 BellSouth notes that, for an order of at least 15 EELs conversions submitted at the same time, the target implementation interval is 37 days. 818 BellSouth claims that EELs conversions submitted via spreadsheets for all competitive LECs and for NewSouth specifically have averaged approximately 43 days during the past seven months. 819 While we find that this issue alone does not warrant a finding of noncompliance with checklist item 2, we emphasize that BellSouth must convert special access to EELs in a timely fashion, in accordance with current requirements. 820 212. US LEC argues that the disallowance of co- mingled traffic, early termination penalties, and surcharges are obstacles to its ability to convert special access circuits to EELs. 821 815 However, we emphasize that the Commission has found that incumbent LECs may conduct limited audits only to the extent reasonably necessary to determine a requesting carrier’s compliance with the local usage options. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96- 98, Supplemental Order Clarification, 15 FCC Rcd 9587, 9603 n. 86 (Supplemental Order Clarification) (“[ Certain incumbent LECs and competitive LECs] state that audits will not be routine practice, but will only be undertaken when the incumbent LEC has a concern that a requesting carrier has not met the criteria for providing a significant amount of local exchange service. . . . We agree that this should be the only time that an incumbent LEC should request an audit.”) 816 See Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on NuVox, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 96- 98, Public Notice, DA 02- 1302 (rel. June 4, 2002). These claims raise issues of interpretation under our rules that are more appropriately resolved in an enforcement proceeding rather than the limited timeframe of a section 271 application. 817 NewSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter at 7. 818 NewSouth submits a list of the circuits to be converted via spreadsheet. The spreadsheets are sent to BellSouth’s Local Service Manager, who verifies that the circuits qualify for EELs. This process takes seven days. Then BellSouth’s Local Carrier Service Center readies the spreadsheet for order issuance and submits the required service orders for processing. The resulting service orders are then verified for accuracy and any errors are corrected. This part of the process is scheduled to take 30 days. In total, BellSouth schedules a 37- day implementation process. BellSouth August 15 Non- pricing Ex Parte Letter at 4. 819 BellSouth August 15 Non- pricing Ex Parte Letter at 4; see also Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1 (filed Sept. 3, 2002) (BellSouth September 3 Ex Parte Letter). 820 In the Supplemental Order Clarification, the Commission found that the incumbent LEC should “immediately process” the conversion upon its receipt of a conversion request that indicates that the circuits involved meet one of the three thresholds for significant local usage. Supplemental Order Clarification, 15 FCC Rcd at 9603, para. 31. As the Commission noted in the Bell Atlantic New York Order, carriers that are experiencing delays in the provisioning of special access circuits ordered from incumbent LEC tariffs should address these issues to the Commission in the context of a section 208 complaint. Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4124, para. 341. 821 US LEC Comments at 9- 13. Specifically, US LEC alleges that the current rules regarding unbundled loops and loop- transport combinations (enhanced extended links or ‘EELs’) have impeded its ability to compete with (continued….) 120 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 121 As in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, we reject these claims. 822 We have found some of these practices acceptable while others, while not preferable from the competitive LEC perspective, do not expressly violate the Commission’s rules. Likewise, the Commission declines to reevaluate our earlier finding that checklist compliance does not encompass the provision of tariffed interstate access services. 823 V. OTHER CHECKLIST ITEMS A. Checklist Item 1 – Interconnection 213. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( i) requires the BOC to provide equal- in- quality interconnection on terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the requirements of sections 251 and 252. Based on our review of the record, we conclude, as did the state commissions, 824 that BellSouth complies with the requirements of this checklist item. In reaching this conclusion, we have examined BellSouth’s performance in providing collocation and interconnection trunks to competing carriers, as we have done in prior section 271 proceedings. We find that BellSouth’s performance generally satisfies the applicable benchmark or retail comparison standards for this checklist item. 825 214. NewSouth contends that BellSouth’s interconnection performance fails to comply with checklist item 1. 826 In particular, NewSouth states that over the last ten months, it has experienced seven significant interconnection outages with BellSouth, which in the aggregate (Continued from previous page) BellSouth. Id. at 9. US LEC also notes that it has experienced protracted negotiations, delayed conversion requests, and long provisioning intervals when requesting EELs. Id. US LEC, however, did not provide any specifics regarding those allegations so it is impossible for us to resolve them here. Furthermore, as the Commission has found in prior proceedings, the section 208 complaint process is the more appropriate forum to examine this type of carrier- specific allegation. See, e. g., Verizon Vermont Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7651, para. 46; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18366- 67, paras. 22- 27 and at 18541, para. 383; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6355, para. 230. 822 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9133- 34, para. 200 (“[ W] e reject comments by US LEC/ XO that the disallowance of co- mingled traffic, early termination penalties, and surcharges are obstacles to their ability to convert special access circuits to EELs.”); Supplemental Order Clarification, 15 FCC Rcd at 9598- 9604, paras. 21- 32; see also SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18468- 70, paras. 224- 28; Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17460- 61, paras. 73- 75. 823 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4123, para. 340. 824 See Alabama Commission Comments at 81; Kentucky Commission Comments at 15; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 44; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 825 We review the order completion interval, percent missed installation appointment, and trunk group performance metrics to determine compliance with checklist item 1. BellSouth met or exceeded the benchmark and parity standards for these metrics, with one minor exception. See Alabama C. 2.1 (Order Completion Interval, Local Interconnection Trunks) (out of parity in April in Alabama). 826 NewSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter. 121 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 122 lasted more than 63 hours, and resulted in more than 150,000 blocked calls. 827 In each instance, New South contends that its customers were unable to receive or complete local and/ or long distance calls. 828 NewSouth claims that the outages are due to improperly performed translation changes or upgrades by BellSouth without adequate notice of the specific date upon which they were scheduled to occur. 829 In order to prevent future outages, NewSouth has proposed, among other things, that BellSouth exchange documents relating to transition changes, notify NewSouth of all ongoing and planned projects which might impact NewSouth, provide a distribution schedule of translations and switch upgrade projects and identification of contacts for each, and a contractual commitment from BellSouth that NewSouth will be contacted every time translations are modified on its trunk groups, and an action plan that details the specific steps BellSouth is implementing in the LISC/ NISC to assure that errors are not repeated. 830 215. According to BellSouth, however, it has investigated the seven outages and determined that only three were specific to NewSouth, and could not find a record of a trouble report for the seventh outage occurring on January 7, 2002, in Mobile, Alabama. 831 BellSouth indicates that the six outages occurred over a ten- month period in four different states, and no systemic operational issues have been identified. 832 BellSouth also explains that during the time period covered by these six outages, it made thousands of translation changes in its switches and, for the overwhelming majority, the changes were accomplished without incident. 833 BellSouth states that for NewSouth alone, BellSouth has made translations changes for approximately 4,863 trunks during this time period. 834 216. We find that the record demonstrates that, overall, BellSouth provides interconnection to competing LECs at an acceptable quality. While we are concerned with the number and scope of network outages that NewSouth has experienced in such a short period of time, we do not believe that these warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. We find it significant that BellSouth has performed literally thousands of translations changes, during the same period, without any reported problems, and we observe that there is no evidence that the problem indicates a systemic flaw in BellSouth’s operations. Furthermore, as in prior section 827 NewSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter at 2. NewSouth indicates that the outages occurred in Mobile, Alabama, Charlotte, North Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky and Spartanburg, South Carolina. Id. NewSouth contends that the outages had an almost universal impact on NewSouth’s customer base in Charlotte, North Carolina, Mobile, Alabama, and Spartanburg, South Carolina. Id. 828 Id. 829 Id. 830 Id. at 4- 5. 831 See BellSouth August 15 Non- pricing Ex Parte Letter at 2. 832 Id. 833 Id. 834 Id. 122 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 123 271 applications, we rely on trunk blockage data to evaluate a BOC’s interconnection quality. We find that BellSouth’s performance data demonstrate that it provides interconnection that is equal- in- quality to the interconnection it provides in its own network. In particular, BellSouth met or exceeded the benchmark for trunk blockage in all five states for the relevant period. 835 Accordingly, in light of BellSouth’s overall trunk blockage performance and that the majority of its switch translations are accomplished without incident, we do not find that NewSouth’s claims warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 217. Collocation. We conclude that BellSouth provides legally binding terms and conditions for collocation in its interconnection agreements and SGATs. In reaching this conclusion, we note that BellSouth states that it permits the collocation of equipment as required in the Collocation Remand Order. 836 Furthermore, we find that BellSouth has met all of the applicable performance metrics for collocation for the relevant months in each of the states. 837 218. Other Issues. Supra claims that BellSouth has not provided competitive LECs with nondiscriminatory access to interconnection. 838 Supra contends that in seeking to implement its interconnection agreement with BellSouth, it has faced numerous problems and hurdles put in place by BellSouth. 839 As the Commission found in previous proceedings, given the time constraints, the section 271 process simply could not function if we were required to resolve every interpretive dispute between a BOC and each competitive LEC about the precise content of the BOC’s obligations to its competitors. 840 These claims are not indicative of BellSouth’s ability to provide interconnection. Rather, these claims are fact- specific disputes between independent competitive LECs and BellSouth regarding its statutory obligations. We find, therefore, that a complaint brought to a state commission or to this Commission pursuant to section 208 are more appropriate venues for such allegations to be examined, and we do not resolve them here. 219. Pricing of Interconnection. Commenters allege two distinct types of interconnection pricing violations. KMC and NuVox contend that BellSouth is charging tariffed access rates for interconnection trunks and facilities in violation of the Commission’s TELRIC 835 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina C. 5.1 (Trunk Group Performance – Aggregate). 836 BellSouth Application at 33. 837 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina E. 1 (Collocation). 838 See generally Supra Comments at 2- 6. 839 Id. at 2. 840 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9139, para. 209; Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17475, para. 101; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6355, para. 230; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18366- 67, paras. 22- 27. 123 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 124 pricing rules. NewSouth makes similar claims. 841 AT& T argues that BellSouth denies competitive LECs the ability to define the scope of their local calling areas and to exchange local traffic with BellSouth based on the competitive LEC’s definition, not BellSouth’s definition, of the local calling area. 842 After reviewing the record before us, we find no violation of checklist item 1. 220. KMC and NuVox’s joint comments state that “BellSouth historically has charged NuVox and other CLECs [tariffed] access rates [for interconnection trunks and facilities] . . . in violation of Section 252( d)( 2) of the Act and the Commission’s pricing rules set forth in the Local Competition Order.” 843 Since the filing of these comments, however, KMC and BellSouth “have reached agreement in principle on billing disputes associated with interconnection trunks and facilities, subject to the parties’ execution of a confidential settlement agreement incorporating those terms.” 844 221. NuVox and BellSouth also have “resolved their billing dispute relating to interconnection trunks and facilities for the term of their current interconnection agreement, subject to incorporation of the terms of settlement into a confidential settlement agreement.” 845 On September 9, 2002, prior to settling this billing dispute, NuVox conceded that, if BellSouth complied with their interconnection agreement, NuVox’s concerns “would certainly be addressed.” 846 As we noted above, the parties have settled their billing dispute, which arguably 841 KMC/ NuVox Comments at 5; NewSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter at 5. Although KMC and NuVox refer to “special access” rates throughout their comments, BellSouth treats these comments as if they refer to “switched dedicated access” rates. BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff. at para. 7. Neither KMC nor NuVox contends that BellSouth is incorrect. See also Letter from John J. Heitmann, Counsel to NuVox, to William Maher, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, et al. WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 2, 3, 6 (filed Aug. 29, 2002) (NuVox August 29 Ex Parte Letter) (discussing the imposition of “tariffed access” rates). 842 AT& T Comments at 26. 843 KMC/ NuVox Comments at 5. See also NuVox August 29 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Letter from John J. Heitmann, Counsel to NuVox, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1 (filed Sept. 9, 2002) (NuVox September 9 Ex Parte Letter). NewSouth makes a similar argument. See NewSouth August 5 Ex Parte Letter at 5 (“ BellSouth charges tariffed access charges (federal and state) for all or portions of interconnection trunks that NewSouth orders from BellSouth.”). It concedes, however, that its interconnection agreement with BellSouth provides for billing a percentage of interconnection trunks at tariffed rates. Id. NewSouth’s contentions, therefore, relate to whether BellSouth is billing NewSouth in accordance with the interconnection agreement. This is a contractual dispute that should be resolved in the first instance by state commissions. See Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17484, para. 118; Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12354, para. 159. 844 Letter from Jonathan Banks, General Attorney, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Sept. 14, 2002) (BellSouth September 14 Ex Parte Letter). 845 Id. See also Letter from John J. Heitmann, Counsel to NuVox, to William Maher, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1- 2 n. 1 (filed Sept. 16, 2002) (NuVox September 16 Ex Parte Letter). 846 NuVox September 9 Ex Parte Letter at 4. NuVox alleges that BellSouth has not abided by the terms of that agreement. Id. 124 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 125 resolves issues involving compliance with their interconnection agreement and therefore addresses NuVox’s concerns as stated on September 9. However, NuVox and BellSouth each expressly reserved its rights to challenge the other party’s legal or regulatory position concerning the appropriate charges for interconnection trunks and facilities. 847 Indeed, NuVox and BellSouth continue to disagree concerning the proper pricing of interconnection trunks. 848 Thus, we briefly address the parties’ underlying claims below. 222. The dispute between BellSouth and NuVox primarily concerns the billing for a one- way trunk group that runs from NuVox to BellSouth that can carry all types of traffic. 849 BellSouth uses factors to distinguish interstate from intrastate traffic, and to distinguish intrastate local traffic from intrastate intraLATA traffic carried on this trunk group. In particular, BellSouth requires NuVox (and other carriers) to report a Percent Interstate Usage (PIU) factor to identify the percentage of interstate traffic on interconnection trunks that deliver traffic to BellSouth. 850 The remaining traffic is deemed to be intrastate. 851 According to BellSouth, under the terms of the BellSouth- NuVox interconnection agreement, all non- transit local intrastate traffic is billed according to bill- and- keep, and the remaining traffic is billed according to the appropriate access tariff. 852 223. In order to distinguish the local intrastate traffic from other intrastate traffic, BellSouth requires NuVox (and other carriers) to report a Percent Local Facility (PLF). 853 BellSouth concedes that the interconnection agreement with NuVox does not contain the PLF reporting requirement. 854 By Carrier Notification Letter dated June 1, 2000, BellSouth informed competitive LECs that it would be imposing the PLF billing scheme. 855 BellSouth justifies the 847 BellSouth September 14 Ex Parte Letter; NuVox September 16 Ex Parte Letter. 848 See, e. g., Letter from John J. Heitmann, Counsel to NuVox, to William Maher, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, et al., WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 2 (filed Sept. 13, 2002) (NuVox September 13 Ex Parte Letter); NuVox September 16 Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2 n1. 849 Letter from Ernest Bush, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket 02- 150 at 1- 2 (filed Sept. 13, 2002) (BellSouth September 13 Ex Parte Letter). This trunk group is a switched dedicated trunk group. Id. There is also a two- way transit trunk group that runs between NuVox and BellSouth, and a BellSouth one- way trunk group that runs from BellSouth to NuVox and carries intraLATA and local traffic. Id. To the extent that NuVox’s arguments apply to BellSouth’s pricing of transit trunks, we note that the Commission has not had occasion to determine whether incumbent LECs have a duty to provide transit service under section 251( c)( 2), and we do not find clear Commission precedent or rules declaring such a duty. We therefore do not a violation of checklist item 1 in connection with BellSouth’s provision of transit trunks. 850 BellSouth September 13 Ex Parte Letter at 2; NuVox August 29 Ex Parte Letter Attach. A at 6 (defining PIU). 851 BellSouth September 13 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 852 Id. at 4. 853 Id. 854 Id. 855 Id. 125 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 126 imposition of the PLF by stating that, because the rates, terms, and conditions of the BellSouth-NuVox interconnection agreement apply only to local interconnection, “it is necessary to have an operational mechanism to separate the local and the access portion of the facilities.” 856 BellSouth adds that requiring the reporting of a PLF “represent[ s] the logical means by which the parties can implement the intent of the [a] greement, namely that the rates, terms and conditions of the [a] greement apply only to local interconnection.” 857 BellSouth uses the PLF to charge access charges for the portions of the interconnection trunks carrying interexchange traffic. According to BellSouth, its “longstanding policy on this issue has never been challenged in an arbitration (or a complaint proceeding) in any of BellSouth’s nine states.” 858 We note that this policy was not challenged in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana section 271 proceeding before this Commission. 224. NuVox focuses its argument on the application of the PLF to interconnection facilities. NuVox argues that, while BellSouth is entitled to charge access rates for certain types of traffic, BellSouth’s rates for the interconnection trunks that carry any traffic must be cost-based. 859 NuVox points out that sections 251( c)( 2) and 252( d)( 1) of the Act require incumbent LECs, such as BellSouth, to provide cost- based interconnection trunks and facilities “for the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange access.” 860 225. NuVox and BellSouth differ markedly in how the Commission’s interpretations of sections 251( c)( 2) and 252( d)( 1) apply to their relationship. 861 NuVox argues that the only type of carrier not entitled to cost- based interconnection is one that is exclusively an IXC requesting interconnection only for the purpose of originating or terminating its interexchange traffic. 862 NuVox states that it provides both telephone exchange service and exchange access service over the one- way trunk and is thus “clearly entitled to cost- based interconnection under the Act and the Commission’s rules.” 863 In making this argument, Nuvox relies on the Commission’s statement in the Local Competition Order “that an IXC that requests interconnection solely for the purpose of originating or terminating its interexchange traffic, not for the provision of telephone exchange service and exchange access to others, on an incumbent 856 Id. 857 Id. at 5. 858 Id. at 8. 859 NuVox September 9 Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2. 860 47 U. S. C. §§ 251( c)( 2), 252( d)( 1). This requirement is incorporated in checklist item 1. See id. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( i). 861 See, e. g., NuVox September 16 Ex Parte Letter at 5- 6. 862 NuVox August 29 Ex Parte Letter at 11. 863 KMC/ NuVox Comments at 7. 126 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 127 LEC’s network is not entitled to receive interconnection pursuant to section 251( c)( 2).” 864 NuVox contends that it provides both telephone exchange and exchange access services to its end users and that it therefore is not requesting interconnection “solely for the purpose of originating and terminating its interexchange traffic” when it delivers to BellSouth local and toll traffic originated by NuVox’s end user customers. 865 226. BellSouth, however, contends that the Act and Commission rules authorize its practice of pricing interconnection trunks according to the traffic that is carried on them. It argues that it is entitled to impose access charges for the portion of interconnection facilities that carries non- local traffic. 866 BellSouth relies on language in the Local Competition Order that preserves the distinction between interconnection under section 251( c)( 2) and access charges. 867 In particular, the Local Competition Order states that “access charges are not affected by our rules implementing section 251( c)( 2),” 868 and also notes that “access charges are not implicated by the Commission’s decisions regarding whether parties who seek to interconnect solely for the purpose of originating or terminating interexchange traffic on the incumbent’s network are entitled to obtain interconnection pursuant to section 252( c)( 2).” 869 BellSouth notes that this distinction was upheld in Competitive Telecommunications Ass’n v. FCC, where the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated that “LECs will continue to provide exchange access to IXCs for long- distance service, and continue to receive payment, under the pre- Act regulations and rates.” 870 227. The issue presented by NuVox and BellSouth is whether access charges may be imposed for interconnection facilities to the extent that they are used to carry interexchange traffic, including interexchange traffic originated by end users to whom a competitive LEC also provides telephone exchange service. The Commission has never squarely addressed this issue, and no party has sought arbitration of the issue with BellSouth. 871 In accordance with prior section 271 orders, “new interpretive disputes concerning the precise content of an incumbent LEC’s obligations to its competitors, disputes that our rules have not yet addressed and that do 864 Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15598, para. 191 (original emphasis). 865 KMC/ NuVox Comments at 6- 7; NuVox August 29 Ex Parte Letter at 5, 11- 12. See also NuVox September 16 Ex Parte Letter at 5. 866 BellSouth September 13 Ex Parte Letter at 5- 7. 867 See id. at 5- 6. 868 See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15590, para. 176. 869 Id. at 15598, para. 191 n. 398. 870 BellSouth September 13 Ex Parte Letter at 6 (quoting Competitive Telecommunications Ass’n v. FCC, 117 F. 3d 1068, 1073 (8 th Cir. 1997) (CompTel)). In the CompTel case, IXCs had argued that LEC- provided interstate access services fell within the scope of “interconnection” under section 251( c)( 2) and that, therefore, access charges should be governed by the cost- based standard of section 252( d)( 1). See CompTel, 117 F. 3d at 1071. 871 BellSouth September 13 Ex Parte Letter at 8. 127 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 128 not involve per se violations of the Act or our rules, are not appropriately dealt with in the context of a section 271 proceeding.” 872 We therefore decline to find a violation of checklist item 1 based on the existence of this interpretive dispute between BellSouth and NuVox. Of course, in the event that the Commission issues a ruling on the matters raised by the dispute between BellSouth and NuVox, then BellSouth must comply with the ruling or be subject to enforcement action by the Commission. 228. AT& T also alleges that BellSouth does not comply with checklist item 1. BellSouth allegedly denies AT& T and other competitive LECs “the practical ability, currently enjoyed by BellSouth, to define the scope of their local calling areas and to exchange local traffic with BellSouth based on the CLEC’s definition, rather than BellSouth’s definition, of the local calling area.” 873 BellSouth implements this practice “by insisting that AT& T and other CLECs compensate BellSouth at switched access rates for any intraLATA calls that originate or terminate outside the local calling area as BellSouth has defined it.” 874 AT& T alleges that BellSouth refuses to accept the higher PLF that results from AT& T’s offer of LATA- wide local calling. 875 As a result, although AT& T provides local service to customers on a LATA- wide basis, “AT& T is being forced to compensate BellSouth at switched access rather than reciprocal compensation rates for that portion of the traffic that originates or terminates outside the BellSouth- defined calling area.” 876 229. As a regulatory matter, telecommunications traffic subject to reciprocal compensation under section 251( b)( 5) excludes, inter alia, “traffic that is interstate or intrastate exchange access.” 877 In the Local Competition Order, the Commission concluded that state commissions have the authority to determine whether calls passing between LECs should be subject to access charges or reciprocal compensation for those areas where LECs’ service areas do not overlap. 878 Accordingly, we reject AT& T’s request that we modify any state 872 Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17470, para. 92; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9075, para. 114; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18366, para. 24; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6246, para. 19. 873 AT& T Comments at 26; see also AT& T August 23 Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter at 8- 9 (“ Nowhere [in BellSouth’s Reply] does [BellSouth] deny that it is free to define the scope of its own local calling areas, or that it has taken advantage of this freedom by offering extended- area service plans to customers throughout its region.”). 874 Id. at 28. 875 Id. 876 Id. 877 47 C. F. R. § 51.701( b)( 1). 878 Local Competition Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16013, para. 1035. 128 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 129 commission’s distinction between those calls subject to access charges and those subject to reciprocal compensation. 879 230. In any event, as AT& T itself recognizes, the interconnection agreement between AT& T and BellSouth expressly covers the LATA- wide calling issue. 880 Indeed, AT& T’s principal complaint is that “BellSouth refuses to perform according to the terms in its interconnection agreements.” 881 Interpretive disputes concerning interconnection agreements are for the state commissions to decide in the first instance, and this Commission will not normally preempt a state commission’s decisionmaking process. 882 231. For the foregoing reasons, we reject commenters’ allegations of error and find that BellSouth complies with checklist item 1. B. Checklist Item 4 - Unbundled Local Loops 232. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( iv) of the Act requires that a BOC provide “[ l] ocal loop transmission from the central office to the customer’s premises, unbundled from local switching or other services.” 883 Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude, as did the state commissions, 884 that BellSouth demonstrates that it provides unbundled local loops in accordance 879 AT& T Comments at 28. AT& T also asserts that “nothing in the Virginia Arbitration Order established that ILECs may deny CLECs equal flexibility to define their local calling areas.” AT& T August 23 Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter at 9 (citing In the Matter of Petition of WorldCom, Inc. Pursuant to Section 252( e)( 5) of the Communications Act for Preemption of the Jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission Regarding Interconnection Disputes with Verizon Virginia Inc., and for Expedited Arbitration, CC Docket Nos. 00- 218, 00- 249, and 00- 251, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 02- 1731 (rel. July 15, 2002) (Virginia Arbitration Order). Consistent with the Local Competition Order, however, the definition of a local calling area is the prerogative of a state commission. Local Competition Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16013, para. 1035. 880 AT& T Comments App., Ex. A, Declaration of Denise Berger (AT& T Berger Decl.) at paras. 9- 11. 881 Id. at para. 15 (emphasis added). AT& T states that this is not an interconnection agreement dispute because of BellSouth’s belief that “CLEC[ s] do not have a right to LATA- wide calling.” AT& T August 23 Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter at 10 (citation omitted). We believe that a more accurate characterization of the issue is whether state commissions have the authority to define the local calling area as they see fit. See Local Competition Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16013, para. 1035. 882 Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17484, para. 118; Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12354, para. 159. 883 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( iv). The Commission has defined the loop as a transmission facility between a distribution frame, or its equivalent, in an incumbent LEC central office, and the demarcation point at the customer premises. Dark fiber and loop conditioning equipment are among the features, functions, and capabilities of the loop. UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3772- 73, paras. 166- 67 n. 301. For a discussion of the requirements of checklist item 4, see Appendix H at paras. 48- 52, infra. 884 See Alabama Commission Comments at 211; Kentucky Commission Comments at 31, 41; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 206; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 129 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 130 with the requirements of section 271 and our rules. As in past section 271 orders, our conclusion is based on our review of BellSouth’s performance for all loop types, including voice grade loops, xDSL- capable loops, high capacity loops, and digital loops, as well as our review of BellSouth’s hot cut, line- sharing, and line splitting processes. We note that, as of June 30, 2002, BellSouth states that it had provisioned 15,913 loops in Alabama, 3,841 loops in Kentucky, 6,258 loops in Mississippi, 51,229 loops in North Carolina, and 14,901 loops in South Carolina. 885 233. Consistent with our prior section 271 orders, we do not address aspects of BellSouth’s loop performance where our review of the record satisfies us that BellSouth’s performance complies with the parity and benchmark measures established in the relevant states. 886 Instead, we focus our discussion on those areas where the record indicates discrepancies between BellSouth’s performance for its competitors and BellSouth’s performance for its own retail operations. As in past section 271 proceedings in the course of our review, we look for patterns of systemic performance disparities that have resulted in competitive harm or that otherwise have denied new entrants a meaningful opportunity to compete. 887 Where BellSouth’s competitive LEC volumes in a particular state are too small to provide a meaningful assessment of BellSouth’s loop- provisioning capabilities, we look to BellSouth’s recent performance in Georgia to help us determine whether BellSouth meets this checklist item. 888 234. Hot Cut Activity. Like the state commissions, 889 we find that BellSouth is providing voice grade loops through hot cuts in each state in accordance with the requirements of checklist item 4. 890 BellSouth provides hot cuts in each of the states within reasonable time intervals, 891 at an acceptable level of quality, with minimal service disruption, and with a minimum number of troubles following installation. 892 885 See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 3. 886 See, e. g., BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9144, para. 219; Verizon Connecticut Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 14151- 52, para. 9. 887 See, e. g., Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9055- 56, para. 122. 888 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6254, paras. 36- 37 (determining that recent data regarding SWBT’s performance in Texas provides a reliable indicator of SWBT’s performance in Kansas and Oklahoma). 889889 See Alabama Commission Comments at 204; Kentucky Commission Comments at 32; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 197; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 890 A hot cut is the process of converting a customer from one network, usually a UNE- platform served by an incumbent LEC's switch, to a UNE- loop served by another carrier's switch. The “cut” is said to be “hot” because telephone service on the specific customer's loop is interrupted for a brief period of time during the conversion process. Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3953, 4104, para. 291 n. 925. 891 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.12.1- B. 2.12.2 (Coordinated Customer Conversions); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.13.1- B. 2.13.4 (% Hot Cuts> 15 (continued….) 130 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 131 235. Voice Grade Loops. We find, as did the state commissions, 893 that BellSouth provisions voice grade loops to competitors in a nondiscriminatory manner. BellSouth met the benchmark and parity standards for installation timeliness, 894 installation quality, 895 and maintenance and repair timeliness and quality with regard to voice grade loops in each of the states in each relevant month, with minor exceptions. 896 These exceptions are relatively slight and are not competitively significant to competitive LECs. 897 We therefore find that these exceptions do not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. (Continued from previous page) Minutes Early); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.14.1- B. 2.14.4 (Hot Cut Timeliness); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.15.1- B. 2.15.4 (% Hot Cuts> 15 Minutes Late); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.16.1- B. 2.16.2 (Average Recovery Time – CCC). But see KMC Comments at 10 (alleging that BellSouth’s hot cut coordination is substandard). 892 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.17.1.1- B. 2.17.2.2 (% Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days – Hot Cuts). We note that, while BellSouth failed to meet one of these benchmarks during June in South Carolina, it exceeded that benchmark on average during March through June in South Carolina. See South Carolina B. 2.17.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days, Hot Cuts, UNE Loop Design/ Dispatch). We therefore find that the disparity in June does not rise to the level of checklist noncompliance. We also note that although BellSouth’s volumes were low for certain hot cut measures in the applicable states, BellSouth’s hot cut performance in Georgia raises no issues regarding checklist compliance. See Georgia B. 2.12.1- B. 2.17.2.2 (Hot Cut Provisioning). 893 See Alabama Commission Comments at 211; Kentucky Commission Comments at 31, 41; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 190; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 894 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 1.9.8.- B. 1.9.13, B. 1.12.8- B. 1.1.12.13, B. 1.13.8- B. 1.13.13 (FOC Timeliness, 2 Wire Analog Loops); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.1.8.1.1- B. 2.1.13.2.4 (Order Completion Interval, 2 Wire Analog Loops); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.18.8.1.1- B. 2.18.13.2.4 (% Missed Installation Appointments, 2 Wire Analog Loops). 895 See Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.19.8.1.1- B. 2.19.13.2.4 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, 2 Wire Analog Loops); Alabama B. 2.19.8.1.2- B. 2.19.13.2.4 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, 2 Wire Analog Loops); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi B. 3.2.8.1- B. 3.2.9.2 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, 2 Wire Analog Loops). 896 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.1.8.1- B. 3.1.9.2 (% Missed Repair Appointments, 2 Wire Analog Loops); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.3.8.1- B. 3.3.9.2 (Maintenance Average Duration, 2 Wire Analog Loops); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.3.8.1- B. 3.3.9.2 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, 2 Wire Analog Loops). 897 See Alabama B. 3.1.8.1 (Missed Repair Appointments, 2 Wire Analog Loops, Design/ Dispatch) (out of parity in June with a 11.54% trouble report rate for competitive LECs and a 6.79% trouble report rate for BellSouth’s retail operations, but a 4.50% overall trouble report rate for competitive LECs and a 6.30% overall trouble report rate for BellSouth’s retail operations during March through June); South Carolina B. 3.2.9.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, 2 Wire Analog Loops, Non- Design/ Dispatch) (out of parity in two months with a 4.38% trouble report rate during March and a 7.05% trouble report rate during April for competitive LECs and a 1.60% trouble report rate during March and a 1.82% trouble report rate during April for BellSouth’s retail operations, but a 4.13% overall trouble report rate for competitive LECs and a 1.83% overall trouble report rate for BellSouth’s retail operations (continued….) 131 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 132 236. xDSL- Capable Loops. We find, as did the state commissions, 898 that BellSouth demonstrates that it provides stand- alone xDSL- capable loops in accordance with checklist item 4. BellSouth’s performance with respect to the percentage of provisioning troubles within 30 days, a metric that measures installation quality, appears to be out of parity in Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina for recent months. 899 We find, however, that this performance does not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance in view of the low number of installation troubles reported in each of the five states. We recognize, as we have in prior section 271 orders, that a small handful of observations can cause seemingly large variations in the performance measures. 900 Moreover, given BellSouth’s parity of performance with respect to this metric in Georgia for the relevant period, we find that BellSouth provisions xDSL loops in a nondiscriminatory manner in all five states. 901 Next, we note that BellSouth’s (Continued from previous page) from March through June); Georgia B. 1.12.12 (FOC Timeliness, Partially Mechanized, 2 Wire Analog Loops with LNP, Design) (under benchmark requiring that BellSouth provide firm order confirmations within 10 hours at least 85% of the time, out of parity in May with an 83.41% score and June with a 78.71% score, but 86.13% overall average during March through June); Georgia B. 2.1.13.1.4 (Order Completion Interval, 2 Wire Analog Loops with LNP/ Non- Design/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch) (out of parity from March through June with average intervals of 4.90 days for competitive LECs and 1. 56 days for BellSouth’s retail operations; competitive LEC volume of 54 orders represents only about 5.15% of total voice grade loops that competitive LECs ordered for Georgia during the same period). We consider these data for Georgia because BellSouth volumes under these metrics were low in certain of the applicable states. See, e. g., Kentucky B. 1.12.12 (FOC Timeliness, Partially Mechanized, 2 Wire Analog Loops with LNP, Design); Kentucky B. 2.1.13.1.4 (Order Completion Interval, 2 Wire Analog Loops with LNP/ Non-Design/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). 898 See Alabama Commission Comments at 211; Kentucky Commission Comments at 31, 41; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 192; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 899 Specifically, BellSouth’s performance data show that it was out of parity in Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina in April, and missed parity in North Carolina in May and South Carolina in March. In Mississippi, BellSouth’s performance data show that competitive LECs experience an average of 7.01% trouble reports within 30 days after installation of an xDSL loop, compared to an average of 3.14% for BellSouth retail operations from March through June. In North Carolina, competitive LECs experience an average of 8.15%, compared to an average of 3.09% for BellSouth retail. See Mississippi/ North Carolina B. 2.19.5.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, ADSL, HDSL and UCL< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). We note that BellSouth’s performance data is based on low volumes in Kentucky and South Carolina. Further, there are no volumes reported for BellSouth retail operations in Kentucky in March, May, and June. In Kentucky, competitive LECs experience an average of 5.26% provisioning trouble reports within 30 days, compared to an average of 0.00%, while in South Carolina competitors experience an average of 13.04% trouble reports within 30 days, compared to an average of 3.05% for BellSouth retail operations. See Kentucky/ South Carolina B. 2.19.5.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, ADSL, HDSL and UCL< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). 900 See Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8988, para. 93 n. 296. BellSouth’s installation quality performance data show that competitive LECs volumes were, on average, 44 in Alabama, 10 in Kentucky, 39 in Mississippi, 58 in North Carolina, and 6 in South Carolina during the relevant period. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.19.5.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, ADSL, HDSL and UCL< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). 901 In Georgia, BellSouth’s performance data show that it achieved parity for this metric for all months during the relevant period. See Georgia B. 2.19.5.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, ADSL, HDSL and UCL< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). 132 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 133 order processing timeliness performance was slightly out of parity in Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina on a few occasions. 902 We find that these performance discrepancies are slight, episodic, and do not appear to be competitively significant. 237. Covad alleges that its own data show that BellSouth’s UCL- ND order completion interval, 903 installation quality, 904 and maintenance average duration 905 performance demonstrates discriminatory treatment. 906 BellSouth, however, contends that its performance with respect to this type of loop has been excellent and that it installs UCL- ND loops in a timely manner. 907 We find that Covad- specific data is outweighed by evidence of BellSouth’s overall performance. As in prior section 271 orders, performance data relative to competitive LECs on an aggregate basis is the most persuasive evidence of whether a BOC meets the checklist requirements. 908 BellSouth’s performance data demonstrate that BellSouth met or exceeded the parity standard for the order completion interval. 909 In addition, BellSouth’s maintenance and repair performance, which measures the timeliness and quality of the maintenance and repair functions, 902 BellSouth met the vast majority of its order processing timeliness benchmarks. In Kentucky, BellSouth missed the benchmark (95% within 3 hours) for mechanized orders in March. However, competitive LECs experience an average of 97.20% within 3 hours for the relevant period. See Kentucky B. 1.9.5 (FOC Timeliness, Mechanized, ADSL, HDSL and UCL). For partially mechanized orders in Mississippi and North Carolina, BellSouth missed the benchmark (85% within 10 hours) in March and May, respectively. In Mississippi, competitive LECs experience an average of 90.60% within 10 hours, and in North Carolina competitive LECs experience an average of 88.57% within 10 hours. See Mississippi/ North Carolina B. 1.12.5 (FOC Timeliness, Partially Mechanized, ADSL, HDSL and UCL). 903 Covad contends that for orders of this loop requiring dispatch, BellSouth completed orders for its own customers one day faster than Covad’s orders in North Carolina, two days faster in Alabama, and five days faster in Kentucky. Covad Comments at 27. 904 Covad maintains that BellSouth failed to properly provision 38 of 50 UCL- ND orders in Florida in January 2002. Covad Comments at 24. 905 Specifically, Covad states that in Alabama for UCL- ND loops not requiring dispatch, BellSouth fixed problems for its own customers in 8.10 hours, while taking 24 hours to get Covad’s customers back to service. Covad Comments at 29- 30. 906 See generally Covad Comments at 22- 31. In fact, Covad contends that BellSouth’s provisioning problems with the UCL- ND loop have been so bad that Covad was forced to stop ordering the loop entirely in every state in the BellSouth region except Florida. Id. at 23. 907 BellSouth Reply Comments at 55; BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 117, 120. Concerning Covad’s claim that BellSouth provides retail customers faster repair services on average than it provides for Covad’s UCL- ND orders, BellSouth states that Covad fails to note the differences in sample size and the effect even a single “miss” can have on the reported performance for the competitive LEC product. Id. 908 See, e. g., BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9148, para. 226. 909 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2. 2. 2 (Order Completion Interval within 7 Days, ADSL, HDSL and UCL/ Loop without Conditioning< 6 Circuits/ Dispatch). 133 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 134 has shown parity during the relevant period. 910 Moreover, as discussed above, we find that BellSouth provisions xDSL- capable loops of a quality sufficient to afford competitors a meaningful opportunity to compete. Thus, although Covad claims that its data show discriminatory performance, allegedly anomalous results for a single carrier in this instance do not qualify as a pattern of systemic performance disparities that result in competitive harm. 911 238. UNE ISDN Loops. Like the state commissions, 912 we find that BellSouth provides ISDN loops to competitors in a nondiscriminatory manner. BellSouth’s performance under the order completion interval and the percentage missed installation appointment submetrics shows that BellSouth has been timely in the provisioning of ISDN loops. 913 Further, BellSouth’s performance data demonstrate that it generally met the parity standard for the percentage of provisioning troubles within 30 days (dispatch) of installation metric. 914 239. BellSouth’s data, however, reveal some performance issues with respect to the maintenance and repair of ISDN loops. Specifically, while BellSouth met or exceeded the parity standard for metrics measuring the percentage of missed repairs, maintenance average duration, 910 BellSouth met or exceeded parity with respect to the percentage of missed repair appointments, customer trouble report rate, and maintenance average duration metrics in each of the states during the relevant period. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.1.5.1- B. 3.1.5.2 (% Missed Repair Appointments, ADSL, HDSL and UCL/ Dispatch and Non- Dispatch); B. 3.2.5.1- B. 3.2.5.2 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, ADSL, HDSL and UCL/ Dispatch and Non- Dispatch); B. 3.3.5.1- B. 3.3.5.2 (Maintenance Average Duration, ADSL, HDSL and UCL/ Dispatch and Non- Dispatch). BellSouth met the standard for repeat troubles within 30 days, with two minor exceptions. See South Carolina B. 3.4.5.2 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, ADSL, HDSL and UCL/ Non- Dispatch). BellSouth missed this metric in April and June. 911 If evidence becomes available to the Commission in the future sufficient to show systemic performance disparities, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 912 See Alabama Commission Comments at 211; Kentucky Commission Comments at 31, 41; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 192; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 913 BellSouth met the benchmark for installation timeliness and missed installation appointments for each month in all five states during the relevant period. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.1.6.3.1 (Order Completion Interval, UNE ISDN< 6 Circuits/ Dispatch); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.18.6.1.1 (% Missed Installation Appointments, UNE ISDN< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). 914 BellSouth’s performance data show that it provides an installation quality sufficient to afford competitors a meaningful opportunity to compete. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.19.6.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, UNE ISDN< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). However, BellSouth missed one month in Kentucky and two months in North Carolina. In Kentucky, competitive LECs experienced an average of 8.00% provisioning troubles within 30 days of installation, compared to 6.79% for BellSouth retail operations. See Kentucky B. 2.19.6.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, UNE ISDN< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). In North Carolina, competitors experienced an average of 8. 22% compared to 5. 82% for BellSouth retail for the same period. See North Carolina B. 2.19.6.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, UNE ISDN< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch. We find, however, that BellSouth’s overall performance for this metric show that BellSouth provides competitors with sufficient installation quality. 134 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 135 and the percentage of repeat troubles with few minor exceptions, 915 BellSouth was out of parity with the customer trouble report rate for several months in each of the five states. 916 We do not find, however, that these performance discrepancies are competitively significant. Further, we note that no commenter has commented on BellSouth’s ISDN loop performance with respect to this metric. Accordingly, in light of BellSouth’s competitive carrier ISDN loop record overall, we do not find that BellSouth’s performance demonstrates that it fails to meet the requirements of checklist item 4. 240. Digital Loops. We find, as did the state commissions, 917 that BellSouth’s performance with respect to digital loops complies with checklist item 4. BellSouth’s performance in this area generally met the parity standards established by the state commissions for installation timeliness. 918 We recognize, however, that BellSouth’s performance in North 915 Specifically, BellSouth’s missed repair appointment performance (dispatch) was out of parity for two months in North Carolina and one month in South Carolina during the relevant period. See North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.1.6.1 (% Missed Repair Appointments, UNE ISDN/ Dispatch). In North Carolina, competitive carriers experienced an average of 1.19% missed repair appointments compared to 1.03% for BellSouth retail operations from March through June. In South Carolina, competitors experienced an average of 7.14% compared to 3.09% for BellSouth retail for the same period. Id. In Alabama, BellSouth was only out of parity in May for non- dispatch loops. See Alabama B. 3.1.6.2 (% Missed Repair Appointments, UNE ISDN/ Non- Dispatch). BellSouth’s maintenance average duration (dispatch) was only out of parity for one month in South Carolina. See South Carolina B. 3.3.6.1 (Maintenance Average Duration, UNE ISDN/ Dispatch). BellSouth performance data show that it was out of parity for one month in Alabama and South Carolina for maintenance average duration (non- dispatch). In North Carolina, BellSouth missed parity for two months, and competitive carriers experience an average of 2.75% misses compared to an average of 1.73% for BellSouth’s retail operations for the relevant period. See Alabama/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.3.6.2 (Maintenance Average Duration, UNE ISDN/ Non- Dispatch). BellSouth was also slightly out of parity for the percentage of repeat troubles within 30 days metric. However, BellSouth’s performance data for this metric show that BellSouth was out of parity for one month in Alabama (dispatch), and one month in Mississippi and North Carolina (non- dispatch). See Alabama B. 3.4.6.1 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, UNE ISDN/ Dispatch); Mississippi/ North Carolina B. 3.4.6.2 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, UNE ISDN/ Non- Dispatch). Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 916 Specifically, BellSouth’s customer trouble report rate (dispatch) was out of parity for one month in South Carolina, two months in Alabama and Kentucky, three months in Mississippi, and four months in North Carolina. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.2.6.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, UNE ISDN/ Dispatch). In Mississippi, competitive carriers experienced an average of 1.33% dispatch trouble reports compared to an average of 0.61% for BellSouth retail operations for the relevant period. In North Carolina, competitors experienced an average of 1.18% dispatch trouble reports compared to an average of 0.64% for BellSouth retail. See Mississippi/ North Carolina B. 3.2.6.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, UNE ISDN/ Dispatch). BellSouth’s customer trouble report rate (non- dispatch) performance data show that BellSouth was in parity for all months reported. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 3.2.6.2 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, UNE ISDN/ Non- Dispatch). 917 See Alabama Commission Comments at 211; Kentucky Commission Comments at 31, 41; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 192; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 918 See Kentucky/ Mississippi/ South Carolina B. 2.1.18.1.1 (Order Competition Interval, Digital Loops< DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch); Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.1.18.1.2- B. 2.1.18.2.2 (Order (continued….) 135 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 136 Carolina with respect to an installation timeliness measure – the order completion interval metric (dispatch) – was out of parity for March through June. 919 The record shows, however, that no facilities were available for a disproportionate percentage of the competitive LEC orders reflected in this metric and that completing these orders required BellSouth to dispatch technicians to provision new loops. 920 We find that BellSouth reasonably assigned these orders longer intervals than it assigned to orders that did not involve the dispatch of technicians. Because the retail orders reflected in this metric typically did not involve the dispatch of technicians, we also find that the disparity in BellSouth’s performance under this metric does not raise an issue of checklist noncompliance. 921 In addition, the data for the other installation timeliness metric – percent missed installation appointments – show that BellSouth missed no installation appointments for competitive LECs during the relevant period in North Carolina. 922 In these circumstances, we conclude that BellSouth’s performance under this order completion interval metric has not denied competitive LECs a meaningful opportunity to compete in North Carolina. 241. We reject KMC’s argument that BellSouth’s provisioning and maintenance and repair performance for digital loops preclude a finding of checklist compliance. 923 BellSouth’s installation quality measure for digital loops – the percentage of provisioning troubles within 30 days – was out of parity for certain months in Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. 924 The record shows, however, that BellSouth has implemented several initiatives to (Continued from previous page) Competition Interval, Other Digital Loops< DS1); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.18.18.1- B. 2.18.18.2.2 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Digital Loops< DS1/< 10 Circuits). 919 See North Carolina B. 2.1.18.1.1 (Order Competition Interval, Digital Loops< DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch) (monthly averages ranging from 8. 72 days to 9. 69 days for competitive LECs and from 3. 74 days to 5. 51 days for BellSouth’s retail operations). 920 BellSouth August 14 Ex Parte Letter at 3; BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 224. 921 BellSouth August 14 Ex Parte Letter at 3. 922 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 224; North Carolina B. 2.18.18.1.1 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Digital Loops< DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch) (no missed installation appointments for competitive LECs from March through June, versus an overall 3.70 % missed installation appointment rate for BellSouth’s retail operations during the same period). 923 KMC Comments at 15- 16. 924 See Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.19.18.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops< DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). Specifically, BellSouth was below parity for this metric for May in Kentucky (11.76% of installations for competitive LECs having troubles within 30 days, versus 1.25% for BellSouth’s retail operations); for April in Mississippi (8.97% of installations for competitive LECs having troubles within 30 days, versus 3.29% for BellSouth’s retail operations); for March through May in North Carolina (6.25%, 10.12%, and 10.14% of installations for competitive LECs having troubles within 30 days, versus 3.58%, 2.21%, and 3.52% for BellSouth’s retail operations); and for March and April in South Carolina (15.63% and 9.43% of installations for competitive LECs having troubles within 30 days, versus 3.24% and 3.71% for BellSouth’s retail operations). Id. 136 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 137 reduce provisioning troubles. 925 These initiatives include working with competitive LECs to rectify any issues and concerns prior to completing a service order. 926 In addition, at the competitive LEC’s request, BellSouth will engage in cooperative testing to ensure that the loop being provisioned meets the relevant technical criteria. 927 Given this evidence, and recognizing BellSouth’s generally acceptable performance for other categories of loops, we find that BellSouth’s performance under this installation quality metric does not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 242. Similarly, although BellSouth’s maintenance and repair performance for digital loops was generally in parity during the applicable period, 928 one measure of that performance – the customer trouble report rate – was out of parity for the applicable states throughout much of the relevant period. 929 Because the overall trouble report rate for digital loops that BellSouth provided competitive LECs was low during the relevant period, 930 we find that these disparities lack competitive significance. 931 BellSouth also was out of parity with regard to another measure of maintenance and repair quality – maintenance average duration – during certain months in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. 932 However, BellSouth’s overall 925 See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 4. 926 BellSouth Ainsworth Aff. at para. 139. 927 Id. 928 See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 9, 11- 14, 21, 23- 27, 29- 32 (discussing % Missed Repair Appointments, Maintenance Average Duration, and % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops). We note that while BellSouth has provided disaggregated maintenance and repair data for digital loops, no metrics have been established for these data. 929 See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 15, 17- 20 (discussing Customer Trouble Report Rate, Digital Loops< DS1/ Dispatch) (out of parity in applicable states throughout relevant period); id. (discussing Customer Trouble Report Rate, Digital Loops< DS1/ Non- Dispatch) (out of parity in Alabama during April and May, in Mississippi during June, in North Carolina during March through May, and in South Carolina during March). 930 During that period, the average trouble report rate for digital loops provided competitive LECs was 1.12% in Alabama, 1.27% in Kentucky, 1.54% in Mississippi, 1.64% in North Carolina, and 1.63% in South Carolina. See BellSouth August 14 Ex Parte Letter at 15, 17- 20 (discussing Customer Trouble Report Rate, Digital Loops< DS1). 931 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9150, para. 230. 932 See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 27, 29- 32 (discussing Maintenance Average Duration, Digital Loops< DS1/ Non- Dispatch). Specifically, in Alabama, BellSouth’s performance for this measure was out of parity in April with an average duration of 5.01 hours for competitive LECs and 2.28 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations, and in May with an average duration of 7.03 hours for competitive LECs and 2.55 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations. In Mississippi, BellSouth’s performance was out of parity in June with an average duration of 5.63 hours for competitive LECs and 2.50 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations. In North Carolina, BellSouth’s performance was out of parity in June with an average duration of 4.29 hours for competitive LECs and 2.29 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations. In South Carolina, BellSouth’s performance was out of parity in March with an average duration of 4.87 hours for competitive LECs and 1.99 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations, and in June with an average duration of 3.92 hours for competitive LECs and 1.88 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations. Id. 137 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 138 performance for this measure during the applicable period for competitive LECs was comparable to its performance for its own retail operations. 933 We therefore find that the disparities in maintenance average duration also lack competitive significance. Moreover, contrary to KMC’s assertion, BellSouth was consistently in parity, with very few repeat troubles, with regard to its measure for repeat troubles within 30 days of maintenance or repair of digital loops. 934 243. High Capacity Loops. We find, as did the state commissions, 935 that BellSouth’s performance with respect to high capacity loops complies with checklist item 4. We reach this conclusion despite the fact that BellSouth’s performance with respect to certain performance metrics – including the percentage of missed installation appointments for high capacity loops and the percentage of troubles found within 30 days following installation of a high capacity loop – is out of parity for several recent months. 936 As we discuss below, however, this performance does not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. As the Commission has stated in the past, isolated cases of performance disparity, especially when the margin of disparity is small, generally will not result in a finding of checklist noncompliance. 937 244. First, we recognize that BellSouth’s performance with respect to an installation timeliness measure – the missed installation appointments metric – was out of parity for most of the months in Alabama. 938 The record shows, however, that BellSouth missed few installation 933 During the relevant period, BellSouth’s maintenance intervals for digital loops averaged 4.76 hours for competitive LECs and 4.25 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations in Alabama, 4.52 hours for competitive LECs and 3.78 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations in Kentucky, 4.83 hours for competitive LECs and 4.09 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations in Mississippi, 3.71 hours for competitive LECs and 3.83 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations in North Carolina, and 5.14 hours for competitive LECs and 3.39 hours for BellSouth’s retail operations in South Carolina. See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 27, 29- 32 (discussing Maintenance Average Duration, Digital Loops< DS1). 934 See KMC Comments at 16. Specifically, the record shows that during the relevant period, competitive LECs reported only 77 repeat troubles for digital loops in the applicable states. BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 21, 23- 26 (discussing % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops< DS1). 935 See Alabama Commission Comments at 211; Kentucky Commission Comments at 31, 41; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 206; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 936 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.19.19.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.18.19.1.1 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). Notes 941 and 944, infra, provide the relevant data regarding BellSouth’s performance under these metrics. 937 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9144, para. 619; Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9055- 56, para. 22; Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17468- 69, para. 90 (finding that even “poor” performance with regard to high capacity loops did not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance for all loop types where high capacity loops represented only a small percentage of all loops ordered by competitors in a state). Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 938 See Alabama B. 2.18.19.1.1 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). BellSouth’s data for Alabama show that, from March through June, BellSouth missed 4.62% of its installation appointments for its retail high capacity loop operations and 9.51% of its installation appointments for competitive (continued….) 138 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 139 appointments for either wholesale or retail high capacity loops in Alabama during the applicable period. 939 Therefore, a very small increase in the number of missed installation appointments for competitive LEC customers can cause BellSouth to fail to achieve parity for this metric in a given month. 940 BellSouth’s data show that it missed a total of 29 high capacity loop appointments for competitive LECs during the relevant period and that 14 fewer missed installation appointments would have allowed BellSouth to achieve parity with respect to this metric throughout that period. 941 Moreover, we note that BellSouth’s performance reflected by an installation timeliness metric – the order completion interval metric for high capacity loops – satisfies the benchmark for all months. 942 Given this evidence, we do not find that lack of parity on this missed installation appointments metric warrants a finding that BellSouth fails to meet checklist item 4 in Alabama. 943 245. Next, in each applicable state, the percentage of troubles reported within 30 days following installation was statistically out of parity during much of the relevant period. 944 The (Continued from previous page) LECs’ high capacity loop operations. Id. We note that BellSouth was out of parity for this metric for May in Kentucky and North Carolina. Kentucky/ North Carolina B. 2.1.19.1.1 (Order Completion Interval, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). BellSouth, however, failed to keep only three high capacity loop appointments for May in Kentucky and only one high capacity loop appointment for May in North Carolina. These isolated disparities in performance do not undercut BellSouth’s otherwise acceptable level of performance and, thus, do not require a finding of checklist noncompliance. See, e. g., Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9055- 56, para. 122. 939 BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 226; Alabama B. 2.18.19.1.1 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). 940 BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 226. 941 BellSouth’s data show that of its high capacity loop appointments for competitive LECs in Alabama, it missed a total of eight in March, nine in April, six in May, and six in June. While BellSouth achieved parity for this metric in Alabama during March, four fewer missed appointments during April, five fewer missed appointments during May, and five fewer missed appointments during June would have enabled BellSouth to achieve parity for this metric in Alabama during each relevant month. See Alabama B. 2.18.19.1.1 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch. 942 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.1.19.1.1 (Order Completion Interval, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch); see also BellSouth August 15 Non- pricing Ex Parte Letter at 9- 10 (arguing that the need to construct or rearrange facilities serving particular end users caused many of the missed installation appointments for high capacity loops); BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 226 (stating that BellSouth missed six high capacity loop appointments in March and seven high capacity loop appointments in April because it failed to add needed facilities at a single location prior to the scheduled installation dates). 943 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6344, para. 213. 944 Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.19.19.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). In Alabama, competing carriers experienced an average of 12.26% trouble reports within 30 days after installation of a high capacity digital loop, compared to an average of 2.98% for BellSouth retail operations from March through June. See Alabama B. 2.19.19.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). Kentucky performance data show that competitive carriers experienced an average of 7.38% trouble reports, compared to an average of 2.28% for BellSouth retail operations for the same period. See Kentucky B. 2.19.19.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 (continued….) 139 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 140 record makes clear, however, that many of the troubles competitive LECs reported during that period were closed without any trouble being found. 945 Adjusting BellSouth’s reported performance data to eliminate these trouble reports would improve the reported results significantly. 946 In addition, BellSouth has implemented an ongoing program to ensure installation quality for high capacity loops throughout its region. 947 This program has allowed BellSouth to identify and, in some instances, eliminate the problems that cause installation problems with high capacity loops. 948 As with digital loops, this program includes an opportunity for the competitive LEC to engage in cooperative testing with BellSouth to ensure that a high capacity loop meets relevant technical criteria prior to its being handed off to the competitive LEC. 949 BellSouth indicates, however, that, even with cooperative testing, some problems arise cannot be detected until the customer premises equipment is connected to the loop, which typically does not happen until several days after BellSouth hands it off to the competitive LEC. 950 Given this evidence, and recognizing BellSouth’s generally acceptable performance for other categories of loops, we find that BellSouth’s performance is in compliance with checklist item 4. 246. We reject KMC’s contentions that BellSouth’s provisioning and maintenance and repair performance for high capacity loops precludes a finding of checklist compliance. 951 Given (Continued from previous page) Days, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). In Mississippi, the comparable figures were 16.44% for competitive LECs and 5. 92% for BellSouth. See Mississippi B. 2.19.19.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). In North Carolina, they were 12. 79% for competitive LECs and 5.00% for BellSouth. See North Carolina B. 2.19.19.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). In South Carolina, they were 12. 18% for competitive LECs and 4. 15% for BellSouth. South Carolina B. 2.19.19.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops> DS1/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). We note that in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, the Commission considered performance data showing averages for trouble reports within 30 days of 7.87% for competitive LECs and 1.76% for BellSouth’s retail operations in Georgia, and 6. 93% for competitive LECs and 1. 00% for BellSouth retail operations in Louisiana. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9152 n. 907. 945 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 219. 946 See id. 947 BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 4; BellSouth Ainsworth Aff. at para. 139; BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 217; see also BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9152- 53, para. 233. This program also addressed digital loops. See para. 241, supra. 948 BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 4; BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 216- 18. For instance, to help assure that its technicians test high capacity loops before reporting that installations are complete, BellSouth now requires that the technicians post the test results. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 216. 949 BellSouth Ainsworth Aff. at para. 139; BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 4. 950 See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 215 (stating that the customer premises equipment adds loop length and resistance to the circuit that may push it beyond viable limits). 951 KMC Comments at 15- 16. KMC also asserts that facilities- based carriers like KMC will have no meaningful opportunity to compete unless the Commission forces BellSouth to improve its high capacity loop performance by denying this application. KMC Comments at 8- 9. 140 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 141 BellSouth’s generally acceptable performance with regard to other types of loops, and BellSouth’s continuing efforts to ensure installation quality for high capacity loops, we cannot conclude that BellSouth’s performance with regard to high capacity loops denies competitive LECs a reasonable opportunity to compete. 952 Contrary to KMC’s assertion, 953 repeat troubles are not a major problem with respect to high capacity loops. During the relevant four- month period, competitive LECs reported only 283 repeat troubles for high capacity loops, a reporting rate generally in parity with the retail analogue. 954 Moreover, BellSouth generally maintained parity performance under the missed repair appointment and the mean time to repair measures during the relevant period. 955 Although one measure of BellSouth’s maintenance and repair performance for high capacity loops – the customer trouble report rate – was out of parity for the applicable states throughout much of the relevant period, 956 the overall trouble report rate for high capacity loops that BellSouth provided competitive LECs was low during the relevant period. 957 We therefore find that these disparities lack competitive significance, 958 and that BellSouth’s maintenance and repair performance for high capacity loops warrants a finding of checklist compliance. 247. We also reject KMC’s argument that BellSouth’s performance for the percentage of jeopardy notices for mechanized high capacity loops, which is significantly out of parity throughout the four- month period, 959 demonstrates that BellSouth assigns high capacity loops in a 952 See Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17468- 69, para. 90. 953 See KMC Comments at 16. 954 BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 21, 23- 26 (discussing % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Digital Loops> DS1) (parity during the applicable months except with regard to high capacity loop troubles requiring dispatch in Mississippi in April, and high capacity loop troubles not requiring dispatch in South Carolina in April and Mississippi in May). 955 See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 9, 11- 14 (discussing Missed Repair Appointments, Digital Loops> DS1) (parity throughout the applicable states for the relevant period except with regard to high capacity loop maintenance requiring dispatch in North Carolina in May); id. at 27- 33 (discussing Maintenance Average Duration, Digital Loops> DS1) (parity throughout the applicable states for the relevant period except with regard to high capacity loop maintenance requiring dispatch in North Carolina in May). 956 See BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter at 15, 17- 20 (discussing Customer Trouble Report Rate, Digital Loops> DS1/ Dispatch) (out of parity in applicable states throughout relevant period); id. (discussing Customer Trouble Report Rate, Digital Loops> DS1/ Non- Dispatch) (out of parity in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina throughout relevant period and in Kentucky from April through June). 957 During that period, the average trouble report rate for high capacity loops was 3.19% in Alabama, 4.04% in Kentucky, 7.82% in Mississippi, 3.84% in North Carolina, and 4.22% in South Carolina. See id. (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Digital Loops> DS1). 958 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9150, para. 230. 959 Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina Metric B. 2.5.19 (% Jeopardies, Digital Loops> DS1, Mechanized). BellSouth’s monthly performance data for this metric range from 3.93% to 35.87% during the four- month period; for competitive LECs, the percentages range from 60. 87% to 93. 22%. 141 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 142 discriminatory manner. 960 This difference in the jeopardy rates simply reflects differences between the types and locations of facilities reflected in this metric. Because virtually all of the high capacity loops ordered by competitive LECs terminate at an end user’s premises, it is likely that a temporary facilities shortage would place a competitive LEC’s order in jeopardy. 961 In contrast, a significant percentage of the high capacity circuits included in the retail analogue for this metric carry traffic between BellSouth central offices, where temporary facility shortages are significantly less likely. 962 We therefore give this performance data minimal weight with respect to whether BellSouth’s loop assignment practices are nondiscriminatory. 963 248. Line Sharing. We find, as did the state commissions, 964 that BellSouth offers nondiscriminatory access to the high frequency portion of the loop in each applicable state. 965 We note that competitive LECs in Mississippi and South Carolina have not yet ordered any line-sharing arrangements from BellSouth. 966 Because order volumes for line- shared loops are low in each of the states, we look to BellSouth’s line- sharing performance in Georgia to inform our analysis. 967 We further note that no party has alleged that BellSouth’s line- sharing offerings in 960 KMC Comments at 11. We note that KMC makes no claim that BellSouth provides jeopardy notices for high capacity loops in a discriminatory manner. See id. 961 BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 127. 962 Id. 963 We note that BellSouth’s systems and procedures are designed to ensure that high capacity loops are assigned on a nondiscriminatory basis. BellSouth Milner Reply Aff. at para. 10. Specifically, BellSouth shows that it uses a mechanized system, LFACS, to assign high capacity loops, among other facilities, on a “first come, first served” basis to its wholesale and retail customers. If LFACS cannot find a suitable facility, the service order is referred to BellSouth’s Address and Facilities Inventory Group (AFIG) or its Service Advocate Center (SAC). These groups assign high capacity loops and other facilities in the order in which BellSouth originally received the service orders. Id. We also note that BellSouth’s data make clear that it provides jeopardy notices to competitive LECs significantly in advance of scheduled installation dates. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina B. 2.8.19 (Average Jeopardy Notice Interval, Digital Loops> DS1, Mechanized) (showing compliance with benchmark requiring that jeopardy notices be provided at least 48 hours prior to scheduled installation). We therefore reject KMC’s argument that competitive LECs do not receive adequate notice that the change in service providers will not take place as scheduled. KMC Comments at 14. 964 See Alabama Commission Comments at 211; Kentucky Commission Comments at 32- 33; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 200; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 965 As discussed in note 61, supra, the D. C. Circuit recently stated that “the Line Sharing Order must be vacated and remanded.” USTA v. FCC, 290 F. 3d 415, 429. The court also stated that it “grant[ ed] the petitions for review[] and remand[ ed] the Line Sharing Order . . . to the Commission for further consideration in accordance with the principles outlined.” Id. at 430. We are addressing the line sharing rules as part of our Triennial Review Proceeding. See Triennial Review Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 22805, paras. 53- 54. 966 BellSouth Milner Aff. at para. 114. 967 See para. 233, supra. 142 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 143 Mississippi and South Carolina fail to provide nondiscriminatory access to the high frequency portion of the loop. 249. BellSouth has generally met the benchmark and parity standards for installation timeliness, 968 installation quality, 969 and maintenance and repair quality for line sharing in the other relevant states. 970 Because BellSouth’s performance data show that it installs line- sharing arrangements in accordance with the standards approved by the state commissions, 971 we reject Covad’s reliance on BellSouth’s alleged failure to provision line- sharing arrangements within the time frame specified in its interconnection agreement with Covad. 972 Given that BellSouth’s 968 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina B. 1.9.7- B. 1.13.7 (Firm Order Confirmation, Line Sharing); Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina B. 2.1.7.3.1- B. 2.7.5.2 (Order Completion Interval, Line Sharing); see also Georgia B. 2.1.7.3.1- B. 2.1.7.5.2 (Order Completion Interval, Line Sharing); Georgia B. 2.1.7.3.1- B. 2.1.7.5.2 (Order Completion Interval, Line Sharing); Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina/ Georgia B. 2.18.7.1.1- B. 2.18.7.2.2 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Line Sharing). 969 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina/ Georgia B. 2.19.7.1.2- B. 2.19.7.2.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days, Line Sharing); Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina/ Georgia B. 3.2.7.1- B. 3.2.7.2 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Line Sharing). 970 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina/ Georgia B. 3.1.7.1- B. 3.1.7.2 (% Missed Repair Appointments, Line Sharing); Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina/ Georgia B. 3.3.7.1- B. 3.3.7.2 (Maintenance Average Duration, Line Sharing); Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina/ Georgia B. 3.4.7.1- B. 3.4.7.2 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Line Sharing). While Covad complains that BellSouth took longer to perform line- sharing maintenance for competitive LECs than for its own retail operations, BellSouth’s performance under the metrics for maintenance average duration is generally in parity, with very low volumes, in Alabama, Kentucky, and North Carolina from March through June. Covad Comments at 29- 30; see Alabama B. 3.3.7.1- B. 3.3.7.2 (Maintenance Average Duration, Line Sharing) (parity in all four months for both dispatch and non- dispatch); Kentucky B. 3.3.7.1- B. 3.3.7.2 (Maintenance Average Duration, Line Sharing) (parity in all four months for both dispatch and in three months for non- dispatch); North Carolina B. 3.3.7.1- B. 3.3.7.2 (Maintenance Average Duration, Line Sharing) (parity in all four months for both dispatch and non- dispatch). 971 See Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina B. 2.1.7.3.1- B. 2.1.7.3.2 (Order Completion Interval, Line Sharing/< 6 Circuits). We note that BellSouth’s order completion interval performance was out of parity during June in Alabama, Kentucky, and North Carolina, and during much of the relevant period in Georgia. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina B. 2.1.7.3.2 (Order Completion Interval, Line Sharing/< 6 Circuits/ Non-Dispatch) (average June intervals of 4. 00 for competitive LECs and 2. 43 days for BellSouth’s retail operations in Alabama, 3. 85 days for competitive LECs and 2. 46 days for BellSouth’s retail operations in Kentucky, and 3. 63 days for competitive LECs and 2. 39 days for BellSouth’s retail operations in North Carolina); Georgia B. 2. 1. 7. 3. 1-B. 2.1.7.5.2 (Order Completion Interval, Line Sharing) (average monthly intervals ranging from 3.88 days to 5.96 days for competitive LECs and 2. 39 days to 4. 07 days for BellSouth’s retail operations). The data indicate, however, that, on average during the applicable period, BellSouth’s order completion intervals were 0.49 days shorter in Alabama, 0.46 days longer in Kentucky, 0.15 days shorter in North Carolina, and 0.66 days longer in Georgia for competitive LECs than for BellSouth’s retail operations. Alabama/ Kentucky/ North Carolina/ Georgia B. 2.1.7.3.1- B. 2.1.7.3.2 (Order Completion Interval, Line Sharing/< 6 Circuits). We find these differences to be competitively insignificant. 972 See Covad Comments at 22- 23, 27 (asserting that BellSouth’s failure to provision line- sharing arrangements within the three- day time frame specified in the interconnection agreement adversely affects Covad’s ability to serve its customers with the speed and efficiency they expect). 143 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 144 line- sharing provisioning intervals for its retail customers and competitive LECs are comparable, and recognizing BellSouth’s timeliness performance during the relevant period in Georgia, we find that BellSouth’s installation performance does not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 973 We do not, however, exclude the possibility that Covad might prevail in the event it chose to pursue this as a dispute under its agreement with BellSouth. 250. We also reject Covad’s claim that BellSouth’s line- sharing provisioning and maintenance and repair performance precludes a grant of long distance authority. 974 Although BellSouth’s performance with regard to certain measures – customer trouble reports within 30 days of installation and repeat trouble reports within 30 days of maintenance or repair – is out of parity in certain months, 975 we find these disparities in reported performance do not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. First, as BellSouth argues, certain disparities reflect only a few trouble reports. 976 Second, because only a small percentage of the line- sharing arrangements provided by BellSouth resulted in initial trouble reports, the total volume of repeat troubles is too 973 We note that Covad provides no data regarding the provisioning intervals for the line- shared loops it obtains from BellSouth. See Covad Comments at 27 (alleging line- sharing provisioning intervals of 3.88 days in Alabama, 4.07 days in Kentucky, and 3.78 days in North Carolina). In any event, this proceeding is not the proper forum for redressing any interconnection agreement violations by BellSouth. Covad may seek enforcement of its interconnection agreement by the state commissions. 974 Covad Comments at 27- 29. 975 Alabama B. 2.19.7.1.2 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 days, Line Sharing/< 10 Circuits/ Non- Dispatch) (out of parity during three months with an average trouble rate of 8.43% for competitive LECs and 1.95% for BellSouth’s retail operations); North Carolina B. 2.19.7.1.2 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 days, Line Sharing/< 10 Circuits/ Non- Dispatch) (out of parity throughout relevant period with an average trouble rate of 20. 62% for competitive LECs and 2. 38% for BellSouth’s retail operations); Georgia B. 2. 19. 7. 1. 1- B. 2. 19. 7. 1. 2 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 days, Line Sharing/< 10 Circuits) (out of parity throughout relevant period with trouble rates ranging from 11.30% to 39.42% for competitive LECs and from 2.06% to 5.27% for BellSouth); North Carolina B. 3.4.7.2 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Line Sharing/ Non- Dispatch) (out of parity in April and June with overall repeat trouble rates of 36.00% for competitive LECs and 22.19% for BellSouth’s retail operations during March through June); Georgia B. 3.4.7.1 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Line Sharing/ Dispatch) (out of parity in March, May, and June with overall repeat trouble rates of 47.22% for competitive LECs and 26.94% for BellSouth’s retail operations during March through June); Georgia B. 3.4.7.2 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Line Sharing/ Non- Dispatch) (out of parity in June with overall repeat trouble rates of 29.91% for competitive LECs and 26.04% for BellSouth’s retail operations during March through June). 976 BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 121 (citing confidential data); id. at para. 227; Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Sept. 6, 2002) (BellSouth September 6 Ex Parte Letter); Alabama B. 2.19.7.1.1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 days, Line Sharing/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch) (out of parity during March and April with monthly volumes of seven for competitive LECs); North Carolina B. 2. 19. 7. 1. 1 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 days, Line Sharing/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch) (out of parity during March with volume of five for competitive LECs); Kentucky B. 2.19.7.1.2 (% Provisioning Troubles within 30 days, Line Sharing/< 10 Circuits/ Non- Dispatch) (out of parity during April, May, and June with respective monthly volumes of three, four, and three for competitive LECs). 144 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 145 small to yield statistically significant results. 977 BellSouth generally performed at or above parity with regard to line- sharing maintenance, as measured by its trouble report rate for line- sharing arrangements, during the relevant period. 978 In these circumstances, we conclude that BellSouth’s customer trouble report and repeat trouble report rates for line sharing do not support a finding of checklist noncompliance. 251. Line Splitting. We find that BellSouth also provides nondiscriminatory access to line splitting in accordance with our rules. 979 BellSouth states that it facilitates line splitting by cross connecting an unbundled loop to a competitive LEC’s collocation space. Moreover, BellSouth implemented permanent OSS for line splitting on January 5, 2002, and competitive LECs have raised no complaints about this process. 980 977 Kentucky B. 3.2.7.2 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Line Sharing/ Dispatch) (out of parity in May with two repeat troubles); North Carolina B. 3.4.7.2 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Line Sharing/ Non- Dispatch) (out of parity in April with four repeat troubles and in June with three repeat troubles); Georgia B. 3.4.7.1 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Line Sharing/ Dispatch) (out of parity in four months with repeat trouble counts ranging from three to 16). 978 See, e. g., Alabama B. 3.2.7.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Line Sharing/ Dispatch) (overall trouble report rates of 20. 00% for competitive LECs and 50. 57% for BellSouth for dispatch orders); Alabama B. 3. 2. 7. 2 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Line Sharing/ Non- Dispatch) (overall trouble report rates of 3.70% for competitive LECs and 3.49% for BellSouth for non- dispatch orders); Kentucky B. 3.2.7.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Line Sharing/ Dispatch) (overall trouble report rates of 0.32% for competitive LECs and 1.24% for BellSouth for dispatch orders); Kentucky B. 3.2.7.2 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Line Sharing/ Non- Dispatch) (overall trouble report rates of 1.41% for competitive LECs and 2.03% for BellSouth for non- dispatch orders); North Carolina B. 3.2.7.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Line Sharing/ Dispatch) (overall trouble report rates of 0.18% for competitive LECs and 0.81% for BellSouth for dispatch orders); North Carolina B. 3.2.7.2 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Line Sharing/ Non- Dispatch) (overall trouble report rates of 1.32% for competitive LECs and 1.61% for BellSouth for non- dispatch orders); Georgia B. 3.2.7.1 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Line Sharing/ Dispatch) (overall trouble report rates of 0. 78% for competitive LECs and 1. 17% for BellSouth for dispatch orders); Georgia B. 3. 2. 7. 2 (Customer Trouble Report Rate, Line Sharing/ Non- Dispatch) (overall trouble report rates of 2.58% for competitive LECs and 2.85% for BellSouth for non- dispatch orders). 979 See Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2111, para. 20 n. 36. 980 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9157, para. 243. 145 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 146 C. Checklist Item 5 – Unbundled Transport 252. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( v) of the competitive checklist requires a BOC to provide “[ l] ocal transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.” 981 Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude, as did the state commissions, 982 that BellSouth complies with the requirements of checklist item 5. 983 253. The Commission has previously relied on the missed installation appointment rate to determine whether a BOC is provisioning transport to its competitors in a nondiscriminatory manner. 984 Despite the low transport order volume for competitive LECs in each of the five states, BellSouth’s performance data show that it missed installation appointments for provisioning transport at a lower rate for its competitors than for its own retail customers during the relevant period. 985 Given this evidence, and recognizing BellSouth’s parity performance in Georgia, we conclude that BellSouth’s provisioning of transport to competitive LECs is nondiscriminatory. 986 254. We note that US LEC alleges that the current rules regarding loop- transport combinations, EELs, have impeded US LEC’s ability to compete with BellSouth in violation of checklist item 5. 987 New South also claims that BellSouth does not comply with the Commission’s orders regarding EELs audits and contends that it has experienced delays in the conversion of special access circuits to EELs. 988 We address these claims in our discussion of checklist item 2, above. 989 981 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( v). 982 Alabama Commission Comments at 213- 15; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; Kentucky Commission Comments at 33; North Carolina Commission Comments at 209; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 983 BellSouth Application at 117- 18; BellSouth Milner Aff. at paras. 137- 45. 984 See, e. g., BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9158, para. 246; Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9106- 07, para. 210. 985 See B. 2.18.2.1.1 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). We note that, during the months with reported competitive LEC data, BellSouth achieved parity in Alabama (June), Kentucky (April, May, and June), Mississippi (April, May, and June), and North Carolina (March, April, May, and June). See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina B. 2.18.2.1.1 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). 986 Because order volumes for transport were nonexistent or low in the five states during the relevant period, we look to Georgia data to inform our analysis. See Georgia B. 2.18.2.1.1 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 Circuits/ Dispatch). 987 US LEC Comments at 7- 19; US LEC Reply at 4- 5. 988 New South August 5 Ex Parte Letter at 6. 989 See section IV. B. 3, supra. 146 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 147 D. Checklist Item 8 – White Pages Directory Listings 255. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( viii) of the competitive checklist requires a BOC to provide “[ w] hite page directory listings for customers of the other carrier’s telephone exchange service.” 990 Based on the record in this proceeding, we conclude, as did the state commissions, 991 that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of checklist item 8. 992 256. We note that Birch alleges that competitive LECs were not properly notified of a change to BAPCO’s systems to fix a partial directory listing deficiency, which resulted in telephone numbers of Birch’s end users being omitted from BAPCO’s telephone book. 993 This issue is addressed in the change management discussion in checklist item 2, above. 994 E. Checklist Item 10 – Databases and Associated Signaling 257. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( x) of the competitive checklist requires a BOC to provide “nondiscriminatory access to databases and associated signaling necessary for call routing and completion.” 995 Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of checklist item 10. 258. US LEC contends that BellSouth’s Signaling System 7 (SS7) tariff revisions in Mississippi and North Carolina are discriminatory. US LEC alleges, for example, that these tariff revisions impose per- message charges on every call regardless of whether the call 990 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( viii). Section 251( b)( 3) of the 1996 Act obligates all LECs to permit competitive providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service to have nondiscriminatory access to directory listings. 47 U. S. C. § 251( b)( 3). 991 Alabama Commission Comments at 228; Kentucky Commission Comments at 35; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 227; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 992 BellSouth states that it offers white page listings to competitive LECs at no extra charge, integrates their listings with the listings for BellSouth’s own retail customers, publishes the entries in the same font and character size, uses the same procedures to process listings, and provides the same accuracy and reliability. BellSouth Application at 122; BellSouth Milner Aff. at para. 205 & Exh. WKN- 14. 993 Birch Comments at 20- 25. We also note that AT& T questions the reliability of BellSouth’s percent update accuracy metric, which measures whether BellSouth accurately updates its directory listing database, because BellSouth, contrary to its own business rules, excludes “Directory Listing only” service orders from the samples drawn. AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 51- 52; see also Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina F. 13.2 (% Update Accuracy). In response, BellSouth states that these orders have always been excluded based on its understanding of the Commission’s requirements implementing the SQM. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 47. BellSouth further adds that it advised AT& T that it would include the less complex orders in the measure, which may slightly improve the accuracy. Id. Thus, we do not find that AT& T’s reliability claim rises to the level of checklist noncompliance. 994 See section IV. B. 2. g, supra. 995 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( x). 147 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 148 originates on BellSouth’s network or on a competitive LEC’s network. 996 We reject US LEC’s claims, as did the state commissions. 997 259. BellSouth asserts, and we agree, that the issues raised by US LEC pertain to the manner in which competitive LECs obtain service under intrastate access tariffs and are not relevant to the question of whether BellSouth provides nondiscriminatory access to databases and signaling for compliance with checklist item 10. 998 BellSouth also states that “[ r] ates, terms[,] and conditions for a CLEC’s use of BellSouth’s CCS7 service in relation to local calls is governed by the CLEC’s (e. g., US LEC) approved interconnection agreement with BellSouth.” 999 Because US LEC limits its allegations to purported tariff revisions and makes no allegations concerning discriminatory SS7 charges in any interconnection agreement with BellSouth, we do not find that US LEC’s allegations, even if true, state a violation of checklist item 10. 1000 US LEC’s specific concerns regarding the intrastate access tariffs revisions are more appropriately addressed by the state commissions using established procedures to challenge and review tariff filings. 1001 260. BellSouth provides persuasive evidence that it provides access to its signaling networks in a nondiscriminatory manner. 1002 We therefore find that BellSouth complies with checklist item 10. F. Checklist Item 11 – Number Portability 261. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( xi) of the Act requires a BOC to comply with the number portability regulations adopted by the Commission pursuant to section 251. 1003 Section 251( b)( 2) 996 US LEC Comments at 3- 4. 997 Alabama Commission Comments at 231; Kentucky Commission Comments at 37; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 233; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 998 BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff. at para. 45; see also BellSouth Reply at 35 & n. 8 (citing Bell Atlantic New York Order 15 FCC Rcd at 4126, para. 340 (“ We do not believe that checklist compliance is intended to encompass the provision of tariffed interstate access services simply because these services use some of the same physical facilities as a checklist item.”)). 999 BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff. at para. 45. 1000 US LEC Comments at 2- 7. As long as BellSouth offers signaling pursuant to a state- approved interconnection agreement, section 252( i) of the Act makes such terms and conditions available to all requesting carriers, thus satisfying BellSouth’s obligation pursuant to checklist item 10. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18390, para. 78 & n. 175. Whether signaling is also available under a BellSouth tariff is not relevant to checklist compliance. 1001 BellSouth notes that the Mississippi Commission approved the intrastate access tariff revisions while the tariff filings in North Carolina are pending review by the North Carolina Commission. BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff. at para. 46. 1002 BellSouth Milner Aff. at paras. 217- 22. 1003 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xi). 148 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 149 requires all LECs “to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.” 1004 Based on the evidence in the record, we find, as did the state commissions, 1005 that BellSouth complies with the requirements of checklist item 11. 262. US LEC raises issues concerning BellSouth’s compliance with its number portability obligations, none of which demonstrates that BellSouth fails to comply with the requirements of checklist item 11. For example, US LEC states that when a customer ports fewer than all of its lines from BellSouth, BellSouth will continue to bill that customer for the lines it has ported from BellSouth, thus causing the customer to be double billed for those lines. 1006 US LEC claims that this problem occurs most frequently when a customer retains BellSouth’s alarm monitoring service. 1007 BellSouth explains that it has worked with state collaboratives to investigate and resolve any double billing problem attributable to BellSouth. 1008 While we do not discount the potential inconvenience that competitive LECs and customers experience as a result of BellSouth’s erroneous billing, we find that BellSouth has demonstrated that it has put sufficient processes in place to address double billing disputes. Moreover, we agree with the Alabama and North Carolina Commissions that evidence of duplicate billing does not rise to the level of noncompliance. 1009 Further, although not decisional to our analysis, BellSouth states that it now has the capability to convert a customer from BellSouth to a competitive LEC using a single service order which minimizes the risk that the order to discontinue billing the end user will be delayed, and the customer mistakenly billed by BellSouth after the customer has migrated to a competitive LEC. 1010 Accordingly, we do not find that this claim warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 263. We also reject US LEC’s claim that BellSouth fails checklist item 11 because BellSouth frequently ports telephone numbers prior to the facility change due date, an error that often results in competitive LEC customers losing telephone service. 1011 As a result, US LEC must wait until BellSouth achieves its facility due date before entering the LSR. 1012 According to 1004 47 U. S. C. § 251( b)( 2). 1005 Alabama Commission Comments at 238; Kentucky Commission Comments at 38; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 240; South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 1006 US LEC Comments at 20. 1007 Id. 1008 BellSouth Scollard Aff. at para. 24. 1009 Alabama Commission Comments at 231- 39; North Carolina Commission Comments at 233- 40. 1010 BellSouth Scollard Aff. at para. 24. All of the states in the BellSouth region have the new Single “C” ordering process which should minimize the risk of double billing. Id. 1011 US LEC Comments at 21. 1012 Id. 149 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 150 US LEC, the facility might sit idle for some period of time unused by the customer and paid for by US LEC. 1013 US LEC also contends that, in a number of instances, despite timely notification that a customer has postponed its loop cutover request, BellSouth will disconnect the line prematurely, resulting in a loss of service. 1014 BellSouth, however, states that for the vast majority of its orders, the Local Number Portability (LNP) Gateway System automatically issues a trigger order with a zero due date, which does not require manual intervention, and meets or exceeds any national standards for number portability. 1015 For instance, BellSouth states that 92 percent of all LNP gateway orders were processed mechanically in June 2002. 1016 BellSouth also adds that the LNP Gateway System will directly transmit the remaining complex LSR orders, which require manual intervention, to specific BellSouth representatives for the issuance of the trigger order. 1017 Given BellSouth’s evidence of its compliance and the relatively small number of occurrences cited by BellSouth, we conclude that US LEC’s allegations, even if true, do not indicate a systemic failure in BellSouth’s provision of number portability and, therefore, do not undermine our overall finding of BellSouth’s compliance with checklist item 11. 1018 Should BellSouth’s performance in this area deteriorate, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 264. Finally, US LEC challenges BellSouth’s practice of requiring US LEC to pay new hourly surcharges for any coordinated LNP cuts that occur between 5: 00 PM and 8: 00 AM, 1019 a practice that is said not to appear on any interconnection agreement and that US LEC deems unlawful. 1020 BellSouth explains that the charges to which US LEC refers are for Project Management Coordination service for “after hours cuts,” or provisioning of LNP cuts outside the normal 8: 00 AM to 5: 00 PM workday. 1021 The charges cover the labor costs that BellSouth 1013 Id. 1014 Id. at 20- 21. 1015 BellSouth Milner Reply Aff. at para. 20. 1016 BellSouth August 14 OSS and Loops Ex Parte Letter. 1017 BellSouth Milner Reply Aff. at para. 20. For complex orders, the LNP gateway transmits the LSR to BellSouth’s Local Carrier Service Center to issue the trigger order. Id. 1018 AT& T also raises several data reliability issues with respect to LNP orders, none of which rise to the level of checklist noncompliance. AT& T Bursh/ Norris Decl. at paras. 26- 38, 42, 46; AT& T Bursh/ Norris Reply Decl. at paras. 10- 22; AT& T August 23 OSS and Data Integrity Ex Parte Letter at 6. BellSouth acknowledges, for instance, 665 of the issued service orders in the March 2002 LNP LSR flow- through report should have been classified as “fully mechanized” instead of “partially mechanized” in the March LNP FOC timeliness raw data. BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 34- 35. BellSouth, however, notes that steps have been taken to remedy this and other LNP processing errors and each of AT& T’s issues has either been resolved or the required fix is scheduled. Id. at 35- 37, 43- 45; BellSouth August 30 Ex Parte Letter at 4. Given that BellSouth has responded to AT& T’s claims, implemented changes, and no other commenter raised the same issues, we find that BellSouth complies with this checklist item. 1019 US LEC Comments at 21. 1020 Id. at 22. 1021 BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at para. 42. 150 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 151 incurs in holding employees (or calling out employees) beyond normal business hours in order to provide dedicated project management to a competitive LEC during the term of the cut. 1022 BellSouth points out that, contrary to US LEC’s claims, these charges are in fact covered by the interconnection agreement. 1023 Attachment 6, Section 1.2 of a US LEC interconnection agreement states that “[ a] ll other US LEC requests for provisioning and installation services are considered outside of the normal hours of operation and may be performed subject to the application of extra- ordinary billing charges.” 1024 US LEC does not refute BellSouth’s response. Thus, to the extent US LEC deems such charges unlawful, it may seek relief from the state commissions, which are charged with interpreting interconnection agreements in the first instance. 265. BellSouth also states that, because of the “confusing nature” of the Carrier Notification concerning recovery of after hours LNP charges, 1025 it is currently waiving the project management charges. 1026 BellSouth states that it “has not charged any carrier, and will not charge for any after hours coordination performed this far.” 1027 Until BellSouth completes its re- evaluation of these charges, BellSouth states that it will continue to waive its right to recover these charges but will continue to perform after hours coordinated LNP conversions.” 1028 If and when BellSouth lifts the waiver and begins imposing the disputed charges, US LEC and any other affected carriers may bring any challenges before the relevant state commissions. 266. For the foregoing reasons, we reject US LEC’s claims that BellSouth does not comply with the Commission’s number portability requirements. We therefore conclude that BellSouth satisfies checklist item 11. G. Checklist Item 12 – Local Dialing Parity 267. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( xii) requires “[ n] ondiscriminatory access to such services or information as are necessary to allow the requesting carrier to implement local dialing parity in accordance with the requirements of section 251( b)( 3).” 1029 Based on the evidence in the record, 1022 Id. 1023 Id. 1024 Id. 1025 Id. (stating that, by Carrier Notification dated January 16, 2002, BellSouth described its intent to begin recovery of these costs on a trial basis). 1026 Id. at para. 43. 1027 Id. 1028 Id. 1029 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xii). 151 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 152 we find, as did the state commissions, 1030 that BellSouth satisfies the requirements of checklist item 12. 268. We reject WorldCom’s claim that BellSouth’s misrouting of intraLATA calls as local calls in Florida and Georgia rise to a level of checklist noncompliance in the instant application. WorldCom claims that BellSouth’s explanation that the misrouting of calls in Georgia was due to a calling scope issue unique to Georgia (an explanation accepted by the Commission in the Georgia/ Louisiana proceeding) 1031 is inconsistent with its explanation that the identical problem in Florida is caused by switch translation errors. 1032 BellSouth, however, denies that it violates this checklist item, and reiterates the explanation it gave to this Commission in the Georgia/ Louisiana proceeding. 1033 269. We find WorldCom’s assertions unpersuasive. BellSouth’s alleged misrouting of intraLATA calls in Florida is not relevant to a determination of whether BellSouth meets checklist item 12 in Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina. 1034 For purposes of the instant application, we consider only whether BellSouth meets the requirements of section 271 in the five states. 1035 Moreover, no other commenter has challenged BellSouth’s provision of local dialing parity in the five states, and the state commissions concluded that BellSouth meets this checklist item. We also believe that any concerns regarding the Georgia UNE- P calling scope issue are best resolved through the section 252 negotiation and arbitration process or through the section 208 complaint process. Accordingly, we do not find that WorldCom’s claim warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance. Although not decisional 1030 Alabama Commission Comments at 239; Kentucky Commission Comments at 39; Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Comments at 243; South Carolina Comments at 1. 1031 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9170- 72, para. 269. In the Georgia/ Louisiana proceeding, BellSouth demonstrated that this problem was not a systemic switch problem. Id. at 9171 & n. 1057. BellSouth explained that WorldCom’s complaint arose because, in Georgia, there is a slight geographic difference between flat- rate local calling areas and measured- rate local calling areas. Id. at 9171, para. 269. Additionally, BellSouth stated that because UNE- P is a measured- rate service, BellSouth measures UNE- P switching based on the slightly larger measured- rate local calling area. Id. We accepted BellSouth’s calling scope explanation because we found that the dispute had a limited commercial impact and no other competitive LEC raised this issue. Id. at 9172, para. 269. 1032 WorldCom Comments at 5- 6; WorldCom Reply at 7. 1033 BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply at para. 82. 1034 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18528, para. 351; Bell Atlantic New York Order 15 FCC Rcd at 4151, paras. 398- 99 (noting that rule violations in other states are not relevant to a determination of whether Bell Atlantic meets its section 271 obligations in New York). 1035 WorldCom also contends that BellSouth’s OSS is inadequate because, even though BellSouth plans to fix the Georgia calling scope issue with its 10.6 Release on August 24, 2002, BellSouth is requiring WorldCom for the first time to amend its interconnection agreement to take advantage of the change. WorldCom Reply at 1- 2; WorldCom September 12 Ex Parte Letter. We believe that this issue should be appropriately decided by the state commissions in the first instance. 152 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 153 to our analysis, we note that BellSouth addressed this calling scope issue in its Release 10.6 on August 24- 25, 2002. 1036 H. Remaining Checklist Items (3, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14) 270. In addition to showing that it is in compliance with the requirements discussed above, an applicant under section 271 must demonstrate that it complies with checklist item 3 (access to poles, ducts, and conduits), 1037 item 6 (unbundled local switching), 1038 item 7 (911/ E911 access and directory assistance/ operator services), 1039 item 9 (numbering administration), 1040 item 13 (reciprocal compensation), 1041 and item 14 (resale). 1042 Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that BellSouth demonstrates that it is in compliance with checklist items 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14 in the five states. 1043 No parties objected to BellSouth’s 1036 Parties contend, and BellSouth acknowledges, that Georgia UNE- P orders were rejected soon after the implementation of Release 10.6. BellSouth September 10 Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2; see also AT& T September 9 Ex Parte Letter at 1; WorldCom September 12 Ex Parte Letter at 1- 3. BellSouth explains, however, that the rejections were caused by the competitive LECs and any problems associated with the processing of these orders would be corrected. BellSouth also states that AT& T’s UNE- P orders for Georgia were rejected because AT& T failed to update its interconnection agreement to include the new UNE- P calling scope USOCs, AT& T did not populate the “LSR line class of service field,” and incorrectly added primary interLATA carrier changes in this field which was prohibited by Release 10.6. BellSouth September 10 Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2. 1037 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( iii). 1038 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( vi). 1039 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii). 1040 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ix). 1041 47 U. S. C § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiii). 1042 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiv). In each of the five states, BellSouth generally met the parity standards for installation timeliness and missed installation appointments. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 2.1.1.1.1- A. 2.1.6.2.2 (Order Completion Interval, Resale); Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 2.11.1.1.1- A. 2.11.6.2.2 (% Missed Installation Appointments, Resale). Additionally, as compared to BellSouth retail in the five states, competitors generally experienced a lower average of % trouble reports within 30 days after installation of a resale line. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 2.12.1.1.1- A. 2.12.6.2.2 (% Provisioning Trouble within 30 Days, Resale). Moreover, BellSouth generally missed fewer repair appointments for competitors. See Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 3.1.1.1- A. 3.1.6.2 (Missed Repair Appointments, Resale). Finally, BellSouth’s repeat trouble rates are generally in parity for most months in the five states. Alabama/ Kentucky/ Mississippi/ North Carolina/ South Carolina A. 3.4.1.1- A. 3.4.6.2 (% Repeat Troubles within 30 Days, Resale). For a discussion of BellSouth’s resale performance, see section IV. B. 2, supra. 1043 See BellSouth Application at 100- 01 (checklist item 3), 118- 20 (checklist item 6), 120- 22 (checklist item 7), 123- 24 (checklist item 9), 132- 33 (checklist item 13), 134- 36 (checklist item 14). 153 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 154 compliance with these checklist items. We also note that the state commissions concluded that BellSouth complies with the requirements of each of these checklist items. 1044 VI. SECTION 272 COMPLIANCE 271. Section 271( d)( 3)( B) provides that the Commission shall not approve a BOC’s application to provide interLATA services unless the BOC demonstrates that the “requested authorization will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of section 272.” 1045 Based on the record, we conclude that BellSouth has demonstrated that it will comply with the requirements of section 272. 1046 BellSouth provides evidence that it maintains the same structural separation and nondiscrimination safeguards in Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi as it does in Georgia and Louisiana, states in which BellSouth has already received section 271 authority. 1047 272. We reject AT& T’s argument that BellSouth has violated section 272 through its interstate and intrastate switched access (SWA) tariffs. 1048 Section 272 prohibits a BOC from discriminating in favor of its section 272 long distance affiliate and requires that a BOC charge itself or its affiliate no less than the amount charged to any unaffiliated IXC for access to its telephone exchange service. 1049 A BOC “must make volume and term discounts available on a non- discriminatory basis to all unaffiliated interexchange carriers.” 1050 Growth discounts violate this mandate because they offer reduced prices based on growth in interexchange traffic, and they therefore create “an artificial advantage for BOC long distance affiliates with no subscribers, relative to existing IXCs and other new entrants.” 1051 1044 Alabama Commission Comments at 174 (checklist item 3), 216 (checklist item 6), 227 (checklist item 7), 229 (checklist item 9), 243 (checklist item 13), 247 (checklist item 14); Kentucky Commission Comments at 31 (checklist item 3), 34 (checklist item 6), 35 (checklist item 7), 36 (checklist item 9), 40 (checklist item 13), 41 (checklist item 14); Mississippi Commission Comments at 3; North Carolina Commission Comments at 167 (checklist item 3), 218 (checklist item 6), 224 (checklist item 7), 229 (checklist item 9), 245 (checklist item 13), 251 (checklist item 14); South Carolina Commission Comments at 1. 1045 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( B). 1046 See BellSouth Application App. A, Tab B, Affidavit of Pavan Bhalla (BellSouth Bhalla Aff.) at paras. 6- 16; BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at paras. 225- 322. 1047 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9177, para. 279; BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at paras. 225- 322. 1048 AT& T Comments at 45- 51. 1049 47 U. S. C. § 272( c)( 1), (e)( 3). 1050 Implementation of the Non- Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 96- 149, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905, 22028- 92, para. 257 (1996). 1051 Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96- 262, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14294, para. 134 (1999). 154 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 155 273. AT& T contends that BellSouth’s FCC Tariff No. 1 (FCC SWA Tariff) 1052 and intrastate SWA tariffs in Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi 1053 contain discriminatory discounts that favor BellSouth’s long- distance affiliate, BellSouth Long Distance, by offering reduced prices based on growth in volume. 1054 274. BellSouth contends that there is no section 272 violation because BellSouth Long Distance is not eligible to take service under the tariffs at issue. 1055 We agree. 1056 The FCC SWA Tariff contains language expressly limiting the availability of the tariff only to customers that meet certain minimum usage requirements associated with SWA service. 1057 The FCC SWA Tariff also mandates that customers must subscribe within 30 days of the tariff’s effective date. 1058 The intrastate SWA tariffs at issue contain similar limiting language. 1059 BellSouth 1052 BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BSTI), Transmittal No. 637, F. C. C. Tariff No. 1, Section 26, SWA Contract Tariff No. 2002- 01 (effective May 18, 2002). 1053 See Letter from Patrick H. Merrick, Director – Regulatory Affairs, AT& T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 02- 35 [sic] (filed July 22, 2002) (attaching respective SWA tariffs for (1) Kentucky - BSTI Kentucky Access Service Tariff (AST), E26.1 BellSouth SWA Contract Tariff KY2002- 01 (effective June 28, 2002); (2) Mississippi - BSTI Mississippi AST, E26.1 BellSouth SWA Contract Tariff MS2002- 01 (effective June 14, 2002); (3) South Carolina - BSTI South Carolina AST, E26.1 BellSouth SWA Contract Tariff SC2002- 01 (effective June 26, 2002); and (4) Alabama - BSTI Alabama AST, E26.1 BellSouth SWA Contract Tariff AL2002- 01 (effective June 17, 2002)). In an August 13, 2002, order, the North Carolina Commission disapproved BellSouth’s SWA tariff “as not being in the public interest at this time” and encouraged BellSouth to consider instead “volume- based discounts for access services that are not biased against high- volume IXCs.” See Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 20, 2002) (BellSouth August 20 Ex Parte Letter) (attaching In the Matter of Tariff Filing by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. to Establish Contract Rates for Switched Access Rate Elements, Order Disapproving Proposed Tariff at 4- 5, North Carolina Public Utilities Commission Docket Nos. P- 55, Sub 1365, and P- 55, Sub 1366 (Aug. 13, 2002)). 1054 AT& T Comments at 45- 51. 1055 BellSouth Reply at 56; BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff. at paras. 75- 76. 1056 Because we find that BellSouth Long Distance is not eligible for service under those tariffs, we need not reach the question whether those tariffs do in fact offer illegal growth discounts. 1057 FCC SWA Tariff at 26.1.5( B) (reflecting a minimum usage requirement of 3,385,697,632 minutes in year one and increasing in subsequent years). AT& T contends that BellSouth Long Distance somehow can take advantage of the tariff because the tariff is “based on the individual customer’s usage during the 18 months prior, and that usage becomes the baseline against which future growth (and size of the discounts) is measured.” AT& T August 23 Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter at 2. This challenge is contradicted by the plain language of the SWA tariffs, which provides that volume discounts are not applicable to any usage levels outside of the usage ranges, including the minimum usage amounts. 1058 FCC SWA Tariff at Introduction (“ In order to take advantage of the volume and term discount plan in BellSouth SWA Contract Tariff No. 2002- 01, customers must subscribe to the tariff within 30 days of the tariff’s effective date.”). 1059 See, e. g., BellSouth Kentucky SWA Contract Tariff at E. 26.1.5. B. (reflecting a minimum usage requirement of 103,254,229 minutes in year one and increasing in subsequent years). See also id. at E26.1.1. D (“ A customer (continued….) 155 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 156 Long Distance did not meet these minimum usage requirements and did not subscribe within 30 days of the tariffs’ effective dates. 1060 BellSouth Long Distance is therefore ineligible for any of these tariffs. Accordingly, we find that these BellSouth tariff offerings do not result in a section 272 violation. 1061 We add, however, that if BellSouth Long Distance were eligible to obtain service under these or similar tariffs, we could then address allegations that such tariffs offer illegal growth discounts in violation of section 272. VII. PUBLIC INTEREST 275. Apart from determining whether a BOC satisfies the competitive checklist and will comply with section 272, Congress directed the Commission to assess whether the requested authorization would be consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 1062 At the same time, section 271( d)( 4) of the Act states in full that “[ t] he Commission may not, by rule or otherwise, limit or extend the terms used in the competitive checklist set forth in subsection (c)( 2)( B).” 1063 Accordingly, although the Commission must make a separate determination that approval of a section 271 application is “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity,” it may neither limit nor extend the terms of the competitive checklist of section 271( c)( 2)( B). The Commission views the public interest requirement as an opportunity to review the circumstances presented by the application to ensure that no other relevant factors exist that would frustrate the congressional intent that markets be open, as required by the competitive checklist, and that entry will serve the public interest as Congress expected. (Continued from previous page) that is similarly situated may subscribe within a period of thirty (30) days following the effective date of the BellSouth SWA Contract Tariff No. KY2002- 01.”). 1060 See Letters from Sean Lev, Counsel to BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 12 and 13, 2002) (BellSouth August 12/ 13 Lev Ex Parte Letter). We note that BellSouth originally emphasized that it was ineligible for the tariffs based on language limiting eligibility to customers that have been a BellSouth SWA customer for the previous 18 months. BellSouth Reply at 56; BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Reply Aff. at para. 76. See also FCC SWA Tariff at 26.1.2( B) (“ To subscribe to BellSouth SWA Contract Tariff No. 2002- 01, the customer must have been a BellSouth SWA customer for the previous 18- months.”). The intrastate SWA tariffs at issue contain similar limiting language. See, e. g., BellSouth Kentucky SWA Contract Tariff at E. 26.1.2. B. (“ To subscribe to BellSouth SWA Contract Tariff No. KY2002- 01, the customer must have been a BellSouth SWA customer for the previous 18- months.”). BellSouth now states, however, that BellSouth Long Distance has in fact been a BellSouth SWA for the previous 18 months. See BellSouth August 12/ 13 Lev Ex Parte Letter. 1061 Although our review in this instance is limited solely to section 271 compliance, AT& T’s allegations, if true, may be addressed through other avenues. For example, AT& T may pursue an action pursuant to sections 201, 202, or 208 of the Act, see 47 U. S. C. §§ 201, 202, 208, or through appropriate state proceedings. AT& T also argues that “there is no impediment” to BellSouth “entering into the same arrangement” with BellSouth Long Distance sometime in the future. AT& T August 23 Pricing and Growth Tariff Ex Parte Letter at 3. We reject AT& T’s contention that we should find a violation based on a hypothetical future contract with BellSouth Long Distance. 1062 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( C); Appendix D at paras. 70- 71. 1063 Id. § 271( d)( 4). 156 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 157 276. We conclude that approval of this application is consistent with the public interest. From our extensive review of the competitive checklist, which embodies the critical elements of market entry under the Act, we find that barriers to competitive entry in the local exchange markets have been removed and the local exchange markets in each state today are open to competition. We further find that the record confirms our view, as noted in prior section 271 orders, that BOC entry into the long distance market will benefit consumers and competition if the relevant local exchange market is open to competition consistent with the competitive checklist. 1064 277. We disagree with commenters that low levels of facilities- based residential competition in these five states indicate that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to grant this application. 1065 The Commission consistently has declined to adopt a market share or other, similar test for BOC entry into long distance. 1066 Given an affirmative showing that the competitive checklist has been satisfied, low customer volumes in any one particular mode of entry or in general do not necessarily undermine that showing. Indeed, the Department of Justice concluded that opportunities for facilities- based carriers to serve business customers are available in these states and that, despite lower levels of residential competition, as the systems and processes serving these five states are largely the same as those approved in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, BellSouth supports opportunities for competitive LECs to serve residential customers via facilities and to serve both business and residential customers via other modes of entry. 1067 As the Commission has said in previous section 271 orders, factors beyond the control of the BOC, such as individual competitive LEC entry strategies, might explain a low residential customer base. 1068 A. Dangers of Premature Entry 278. We reject US LEC’s claim that BellSouth’s entry into the long distance market is premature and will cause the competitive LEC industry to shrink because BellSouth will be able to offer bundled long distance and local service. 1069 As discussed above, the record confirms that BOC entry into the long distance market will benefit consumers and competition if the relevant local exchange market is open to competition consistent with the competitive checklist. 1070 We believe that the bundling of both local and long distance services is one of the goals of section 1064 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18558- 89, para. 419. 1065 See, e. g., AT& T Comments at 54- 56; US LEC Comments at 29- 30; SouthEast Telephone Comments at 1- 3. 1066 See, e. g., Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20748, para. 391; see also Sprint v. FCC, 274 F. 3d at 553- 54 (“ The statute imposes no volume requirements for satisfaction of [section 271( c)( 1)( A].”). 1067 Department of Justice Evaluation at 7; see also BellSouth Reply at 68. 1068 See, e. g., Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17487, para. 126. 1069 US LEC Comments at 30- 31. 1070 See, e. g., SWBT Texas Order 15 FCC Rcd at 18558- 59, para. 419. 157 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 158 271, and if the checklist is otherwise met, it would be very difficult for us to deny an otherwise unobjectionable application on the basis that the BOCs will market these services. For the same reason, we disagree with AT& T’s assertion that the public interest test cannot be satisfied simply by presuming that the benefits of long- distance entry will outweigh competitive harms from premature authorization, and that if competitive LECs cannot profitably offer residential service to customers, they cannot and will not effectively compete in local markets, regardless of whether the incumbent LEC has long- distance authorization. 1071 Entry into the long distance market is not premature as long as local markets have been opened to competition pursuant to section 271. B. Price Squeeze Analysis 279. Background. WorldCom contends that BellSouth’s excessive UNE rates contribute to a price squeeze that severely limits residential competition in all five states. 1072 AT& T contends that BellSouth’s UNE rates preclude UNE platform- based entry in North Carolina. 1073 Before analyzing these contentions, we begin with a discussion of a pending remand on the issue of how allegations of a price squeeze should be considered under the public interest standard of section 271( d)( 3)( C). In the Commission’s SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, the subject of Sprint v. FCC, 1074 the Commission declined to consider allegations that approving a section 271 application would not be in the public interest because competitors are unable to make a profit in the residential market using the UNE- platform. 1075 The Commission concluded that the Act requires us to consider whether rates are cost- based, not whether market entry is profitable. 1076 The Commission also stated that, if it were to focus on profitability, it would have to consider a state’s retail rates, 1077 which are generally outside its jurisdictional authority. Appellants asserted that their inability to make a profit in the residential market showed that granting the BOC’s section 271 application was not in the public interest. 1078 The court concluded that the Commission’s rejection of the appellants’ profitability argument was not responsive to the appellants’ public interest argument. 1079 The court did not, however, vacate the 1071 AT& T Comments at 52. We also address AT& T's claims concerning the purported difficulty of market entry in the “price squeeze” section below. 1072 WorldCom Comments at 19. 1073 AT& T Comments at 59. 1074 Sprint v. FCC, 274 F. 3d 549 1075 SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6269, para. 65, 6280- 81, para. 92. 1076 Id. at 6280- 81, para. 92. 1077 Id. 1078 Sprint v. FCC, 274 F. 3d at 553. 1079 Id. at 554. 158 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 159 order. Instead, it remanded the Commission’s rejection of the price squeeze issue for reconsideration. 1080 280. The Commission intends to issue an order addressing the questions posed in Sprint v. FCC about how we should consider allegations of a price squeeze that are raised in section 271 proceedings. Because we have not yet addressed the issues remanded by the court, however, we consider the specific allegations presented by the parties in this case. WorldCom asserts that a price squeeze analysis is relevant in each of the five states 1081 and that “[ i] t is contrary to the public interest . . . to permit BellSouth into the long distance market as long as a price squeeze exists for a majority of consumers.” 1082 AT& T argues that the analysis is relevant, at least for the state of North Carolina. It argues that, even if BellSouth’s rates are TELRIC-compliant, if the rates fall at the high end of the TELRIC range and “foreclose UNE purchasers from economically providing residential competition,” then they violate section 271’s public interest requirement as well as checklist item 2. 1083 We conclude that neither WorldCom nor AT& T has established the existence of a price squeeze because they have not shown that “the UNE pricing [at issue] doom[ s] competitors to failure.” 1084 281. We note at the outset that the factual information necessary to conduct a price squeeze analysis is highly complex. Courts have recognized the particular difficulty of conducting a price squeeze inquiry in a regulated industry. 1085 Such difficulty is exemplified by the competing analyses proffered by AT& T, WorldCom, and BellSouth in this case. The key elements -- input costs, revenues, and internal costs -- depend on numerous variables, only some of which are reflected in the analyses. BellSouth, AT& T, and WorldCom assume different input costs and different revenues in each pricing zone within each state. We note that WorldCom’s analysis reflects only one mode of entry, UNE- platform, while AT& T indicates that its calculation optimizes other possible entry strategies such as resale. 1086 282. A comparison of BellSouth’s, AT& T’s, and WorldCom’s assumptions demonstrates a wide range of estimates as to the potential costs incurred by and revenue opportunities available to a new entrant. BellSouth’s gross margin estimates are significantly higher than those of WorldCom and AT& T. For example, BellSouth’s statewide gross margin estimates range from approximately $9-$ 13 higher than WorldCom’s estimates in the five states, 1080 Id. at 556. 1081 WorldCom Comments at 19- 20. 1082 WorldCom Reply at 11. 1083 AT& T Comments at 42. In addition to violating the public interest requirement, AT& T contends that BellSouth’s UNE rates in North Carolina are discriminatory in violation of checklist item 2. See discussion below. 1084 Sprint v. FCC, 274 F. 3d at 554 (emphasis in original). 1085 Concord Massachusetts v. Boston Edison Co., 915 F. 2d 17 (1 st Cir. 1990). 1086 See AT& T Comments at 41. 159 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 160 and BellSouth’s statewide gross margin estimate for North Carolina is higher than AT& T’s estimate. 1087 Most of the differences in these analyses stem from the fact that BellSouth projects revenues based on a premium features package used by the high- end customers that competitive carriers now typically serve, whereas WorldCom and AT& T project the revenues of a competing carrier based on features used by BellSouth’s average customer. 1088 Parties also make different assumptions about minutes of use, the amortization of non- recurring charges, access charges, DUF rates, resale revenues, interLATA and intraLATA tolls, and subscriber line charges. 1089 None of the carriers considers revenue from services other than traditional voice services, even though the UNE- platform provides competitive carriers the ability to offer additional services not offered by the incumbent. The parties also do not consider the revenues from federal universal service funds 1090 or revenues from business lines. 1091 1087 Compare BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at para. 115, Table 1; para. 144, Table 2; para. 167, Table 3; para. 187, Table 4; and para. 213, Table 5 with WorldCom Comments at Exh. 1 and AT& T Reply Comments App. Tab B, Reply Declaration of Michael Lieberman (AT& T Lieberman Reply Decl.) at Proprietary Exh. A. 1088 Compare BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at para. 115, Table 1; para. 144, Table 2; para. 167, Table 3; para. 187, Table 4; and para. 213, Table 5 with WorldCom Comments at Exh. 1 and AT& T Lieberman Reply Decl. at Proprietary Exh. A. See also BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at para. 91; AT& T Lieberman Decl. at para. 23 and AT& T Lieberman Reply Decl. at para. 6; and WorldCom Reply at 11. 1089 Compare BellSouth Ruscilli/ Cox Aff. at para. 115, Table 1; para. 144, Table 2; para. 167, Table 3; para. 187, Table 4; and para. 213, Table 5 with WorldCom Comments at Exh. 1 and AT& T Lieberman Reply Decl. at Proprietary Exh. A. 1090 In the third quarter of 2002, federal universal service funds will be available for all of the states at issue except North Carolina. See Universal Service Administrative Company, “Federal Universal Service Support Mechanisms Fund Size Projections for the Third Quarter 2002” (May 2, 2002), filed pursuant to 47 Section 54.709( a)( 3). In the fourth quarter of 2002, federal universal funds will be available in all five states. See Universal Service Administrative Company, “Federal Universal Service Support Mechanisms Fund Size Projections for the Fourth Quarter 2002” (Aug. 2, 2002), filed pursuant to 47 Section 54.709( a)( 3). In Alabama, interstate access (CALLS) support of $0.68 per month will be available for each residential and single line business line in zone two; $4.91 will be available for each residential and single line business in zone three; and $3.84 will be available for multi- line business lines in zone three. Id. at Appendix HC10. In addition, approximately $2,217,000 will be available from the Incremental Forward- Looking High Cost mechanism (High Cost Fund), ranging from no support in some wire centers to $34 per line per month in other wire centers and as high as $168.87 per line per month in one wire center. The average will be approximately $1. 10 per line per month for every line in the study area. Id. at Appendix HC11. In Kentucky, CALLS support of $2.05 per month will be available for each residential and single line business line in zone three and $1. 11 will be available for multi- line business lines in zone three. Id. at Appendix HC10. In addition, approximately $178,000 per month will be available from the High Cost Fund, ranging from no support in some wire centers to as high as $2.08 in others. The average will be $0.14 per line per month for every line in the study area. Id. at Appendix HC11. In Mississippi, CALLS support of $0.52 per month will be available for each residential and single business line in zone three; $4.78 will be available for each residential and single line business in zone four; and $4.13 is available for each multi- line business line in zone four. Id. at Appendix HC10. In addition, approximately $8,442,000 per month will be available from the High Cost Fund, ranging from no support in some wire centers to as high as $77 in others. The average will be $6.22 per line for every line in the study area. Id. at Appendix HC11. In North Carolina, CALLS support of $0.58 per month will be available for each residential and single line business in zone two; $2.85 will be available for each residential and single line business in zone three; and $1. 82 will be available for multi- line business lines in zone three. Id. at (continued….) 160 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 161 283. Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina. WorldCom asserts that the statewide gross margin is not sufficient in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina for a competitive carrier to cover the cost of leasing the elements and its internal costs. 1092 WorldCom asserts that the statewide gross margins -- $4.03 in Alabama, $3.28 in Kentucky, negative $0.79 in Mississippi, and $0.02 in South Carolina 1093 -- are not enough to cover its internal costs, which exceed $10 per month. 1094 Even using WorldCom’s analysis, WorldCom is unable to demonstrate the existence of a price squeeze that would justify a denial of a section 271 application. 284. We note, as we did in the Verizon Vermont Order and the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, that it is appropriate to look beyond the low statewide gross margins and consider the margins that are available in individual zones. 1095 In the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, for example, we found that, although the statewide margin for Louisiana was only $2.63, the margin available in 67 percent of the state was $8.12. 1096 Similarly, using WorldCom’s analysis, we find that the margins in zone one (and, where appropriate, zone two) in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina are significantly higher than the statewide gross margins in these states. According to WorldCom’s analysis, in Alabama, the gross margin in zone one (60 percent of the state) is $9.09; in Kentucky, the gross margin in zone one (43 percent of the state) is $11.57 and the gross margin in zone two (22 percent of the state) is $6.84; in Mississippi, the gross margin in zone one (26 percent of the state) is $10.60 and the gross margin in zone two (also 26 percent of the state) is $5.97; 1097 and in South Carolina, the gross margin in zone one (69 percent of the state) is $2.76. We find the gross margins in Alabama, Kentucky, and Mississippi are comparable to the gross margins in (Continued from previous page) Appendix HC10. In North Carolina, no high costs funds will be available. Id. at Appendix HC11. In South Carolina, CALLS support of $0.82 per month will be available for each residential and single line business line in zone two; $1.89 will be available for each residential and single line business line in zone three; and $0.63 will be available for multi- line business lines in zone three. Id. at Appendix HC10. In South Carolina, no high cost funds will be available. Id. at Appendix HC11. 1091 See SWBT Missouri/ Arkansas Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 20651, para. 66. 1092 WorldCom Comments at 19. WorldCom makes the same arguments with respect to North Carolina, which we discuss below. 1093 WorldCom Comments at 19 & Exh. 1. 1094 Id. at 19- 20. WorldCom states that its internal costs include “customer service costs, costs associated with customers who don’t pay their bills, billing and collections, overhead, marketing costs, and other operational costs.” Id. 1095 As we discuss further below, we find it significant that the statewide gross margins “reflect inclusion of negative margins from rural areas” and are low as a result of an “intentional state policy to keep retail rates affordable.” BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9179- 80, para. 286. 1096 Id. 1097 We also note that, as discussed above, the inclusion of federal universal service support revenues in Mississippi might result in a gross margin in zone three and zone four high enough to induce competitors to enter. 161 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 162 Louisiana, where we did not find a price squeeze. While we do not find that South Carolina’s gross margins are comparable to Louisiana’s, we do find it significant that WorldCom is currently competing in each of these states, including South Carolina. 1098 Furthermore, we note that the residential competition rates in each of these four states – ranging from 4.0 to 5.5 percent 1099 -- are higher than those of seven states at the time their section 271 applications were filed. 1100 285. In light of these comparisons and WorldCom’s competitive entry in each of these states, we find it significant that WorldCom did not address any of the factors that we identified in past orders as relevant to a price squeeze analysis. WorldCom did not analyze how using a mix of UNEs and resale to provide service would affect a price squeeze analysis. Nor did it provide an analysis to demonstrate the internal costs of an efficient competitor. It did not analyze other revenues that may be available to competitors, such as toll revenues and revenues available from federal universal service funds 1101 and business lines. 1102 Accordingly, as we found in previous orders, 1103 the evidence submitted here is an inadequate basis to determine that a price squeeze exists in the residential markets in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina. 286. North Carolina. AT& T asserts that it has conducted a margin analysis that shows that competitive entry in the residential market is not feasible in North Carolina because the statewide gross margin is insufficient, even when considering revenues from intraLATA and interLATA toll calls and the effect of a resale entry strategy. 1104 WorldCom, which does not consider these factors, asserts the statewide gross margin in North Carolina is $1.83. 1105 For all the reasons that we found that WorldCom did not prove a price squeeze in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina, we find WorldCom does not prove a price squeeze in North 1098 WorldCom Comments at 19. 1099 According to the Department of Justice’s evaluation, residential competition in Alabama is 4. 0%; in Kentucky, 4.0%; in Mississippi, 5.5%; and in South Carolina, 4.6%. Department of Justice Evaluation at 6. 1100 See Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed July 31, 2002) (BellSouth July 31 Ex Parte Letter) (providing citations showing residential competition in states at the time section 271 applications were filed: Connecticut was 0.1%; Vermont, 0.28%; Maine, 0.55%; New Jersey, 1.32%; New York, 2.99%; Missouri, 3.56%; and Louisiana, 3.92%). We granted each of these section 271 applications. 1101 SWBT Missouri/ Arkansas Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 20751, para. 66. 1102 Id. 1103 Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12362, para. 175; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9181, para. 290; Verizon Vermont Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7665, para. 73; SWBT Missouri/ Arkansas Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 20751, para. 66. 1104 AT& T Lieberman Reply Decl. at Proprietary Exh. A. 1105 WorldCom Comments at 19 & Exh. 1 162 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 163 Carolina, and we will not consider its analysis further. Even using AT& T’s analysis, moreover, AT& T is unable to demonstrate the existence of a price squeeze that would justify a denial of a section 271 application. 287. Under AT& T’s analysis the gross margin in zone one (72 percent of the state) is not substantially higher than the statewide gross margin. 1106 We find it significant that WorldCom is currently competing in North Carolina. 1107 Furthermore, we note that the residential competition rate in North Carolina is 3.6 percent, higher than that of six states at the time that their 271 applications were filed. 1108 288. Although AT& T, unlike WorldCom, purports to consider some of the factors that we identified in our Verizon Vermont Order and other orders as relevant to a price squeeze analysis (such as the effect of including a resale entry strategy; the internal costs of an efficient competitor; and other revenues that may be available to competitors, such as toll revenues and federal universal service funds revenues), we still find AT& T’s analysis lacking. First, we find that AT& T provides us with insufficient information to make a judgment about its internal costs or the relationship between its internal costs and those of an “efficient competitor.” AT& T purports to provide a breakdown of the internal costs that an efficient new entrant would have to recover when entering local markets in North Carolina. 1109 AT& T provides confidential line items for local customer care, uncollectible expenses, billing and collections, marketing and sales costs, and other general and administrative costs. 1110 AT& T does not provide “cost or other data,” as set forth in our Verizon Vermont Order, to verify these figures. Nor does it adequately explain why these figures represent those of an “efficient competitor.” We also note that, while AT& T claims to analyze the universal service funds available to a competitor in North Carolina, it did not include these funds in its analysis. 1111 Nor did it consider potential revenues from business lines. 289. In addition, AT& T does not convincingly analyze the modes of entry that are available to competitors in North Carolina. AT& T does provide estimates of the revenue that a competitor could gain from resale in North Carolina, 1112 but it did not provide an analysis of 1106 AT& T Lieberman Reply Decl. at Proprietary Exh. A. 1107 WorldCom Comments at 19. 1108 See BellSouth July 24 Ex Parte Letter at Attach. 1 (providing citations showing that residential competition is higher in North Carolina than it was in Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, New Jersey, Missouri, and New York when section 271 applications were filed for those states). We granted each of these section 271 applications. 1109 AT& T Comments App., Exh. B, Declaration of Stephen Bickley (AT& T Bickley Decl.) at paras. 4- 11. 1110 Id. 1111 An ETC can receive CALLS support of $0.58 per month for each residential and single line business line in zone two and $2. 85 in zone three and $1. 82 for multi- line business lines in zone three. 1112 AT& T Lieberman Reply Decl. at para. 9, Table III. Revenues are $3.93 statewide; $3.98 in zone one; $3.82 in zone two; and $3.74 in zone three. 163 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 164 different entry strategies. AT& T claims, for example, that UNE platform- based local entry is “never the more optimal competitive entry solution” in North Carolina. 1113 But, as BellSouth points out, WorldCom states in its comments that it is already offering UNE platform- based service in North Carolina. 1114 The Department of Justice finds in its analysis that 0.5 percent of residential lines (8431 lines) are served by UNE- platform in North Carolina. 1115 With respect to facilities- based entry, AT& T claims that a UNE- loop strategy, in which a competitive carrier leases BellSouth’s loops but provides its own switching, is “wholly uneconomic” 1116 because BellSouth’s manual “hot cut” process is “plagued by ordering problems” and has “unacceptable levels of service outages.” 1117 We find elsewhere in this order that BellSouth provides hot cuts in North Carolina “within reasonable time intervals, at an acceptable level of quality, with minimal service disruption, and with a minimum number of troubles following installation.” 1118 The Department of Justice finds in its analysis that 1.1 percent of residential lines (18,548 lines) are provided through facilities- based competition. 1119 290. Finally, AT& T is incorrect when it states that “[ i] t is . . . not relevant that ‘intentional state policy’ may have caused wholesale rates to exceed retail rates.” 1120 In weighing any price squeeze allegation, we must consider whether the price squeeze is the result of a state commission policy to keep rates affordable in high- cost areas. As we stated in the Verizon Vermont Order, it is possible that a lack of profitability in entering the residential market may be the result of subsidized local residential rates in one or more zones, and not the fact that UNE rates are at an inappropriate point in the TELRIC range. 1121 We note that state commissions have jurisdiction over retail as well as wholesale prices. 1122 It may be that, until states rebalance residential and business rates, or make high cost subsidies explicit and portable, the UNE-platform may not provide a viable means of entry for certain areas in some states. That fact, however, needs to be weighed against competing public policy interests, such as ensuring 1113 AT& T Lieberman Decl. at para. 29. 1114 BellSouth Reply at 58 (citing WorldCom Comments at 19). 1115 Department of Justice Evaluation at 6. 1116 AT& T Comments at 65. 1117 AT& T Reply at 32 (quoting KMC Telecom/ Nuvox Comments at 13- 14 and 15- 16). 1118 See section V. B, supra. 1119 Department of Justice Evaluation at 6. 1120 AT& T Comments at 62. 1121 Verizon Vermont Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7663- 64, paras. 68- 69. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit noted this argument as a potential basis for declining to find a price squeeze. The Court did not address this argument because the Commission did not rely on it in the underlying SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd 6237 (2001). Sprint v. FCC, 274 F. 3d at 555. 1122 For this reason, we think these issues are best presented to the state commission in the first instance. 164 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 165 availability and affordability of local telephone services in rural areas and the benefit to consumers from the BOC’s entry into the interLATA market. Given the complex and competing public policy interests at stake, we do not think that we can conclude that the existence of subsidies in rural areas in itself is a circumstance that requires a finding that the public interest requirement has not been satisfied. 291. Checklist Item Two. AT& T separately contends that the evidence that it provides of a price squeeze also establishes that BellSouth’s North Carolina UNE rates are discriminatory in violation of checklist item two. 1123 As discussed above, we conclude that AT& T has not established the existence of a price squeeze in the residential market. AT& T submits no separate price squeeze analysis in support of this claim. Accordingly, consistent with prior section 271 orders, we need not decide whether the existence of a price squeeze in the residential market would constitute a separate violation of checklist item two. 1124 292. For the reasons stated above, we reject AT& T’s and WorldCom’s allegations of a price squeeze and conclude that there is no evidence in the record that warrants disapproval of this application based on such contentions, whether couched as discrimination in violation of checklist item two, or under the public interest standard. C. Assurance of Future Compliance 293. We find that the existing SEEM Plans currently in place for these states provide assurance that these local markets will remain open after BellSouth receives section 271 authorization. 1125 According to BellSouth, these plans use the same statistical methodology, use the same transaction- based remedy- calculation method, provide for remedy payments both to individual competitive LECs and to the relevant state regulatory bodies, set a meaningful and substantial cap on BellSouth’s financial liability, and provide for annual audits, performance reviews, and a dispute resolution procedure. 1126 The Alabama and Kentucky SEEM plans are precisely the same as the Georgia SEEM plan already reviewed and approved by this Commission. 1127 The SEEM plans in each of the other states are substantially identical, although each includes certain minor state- specific modifications. 1128 We therefore approve of these plans and accord them the same probative value as we did the Georgia plan. Because these plans are modeled after the Georgia SEEM plan that we approved in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana 1123 AT& T Comments at 41- 43. 1124 Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12361- 62, para. 174; BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana 17 FCC Rcd at 9181, para. 289; Verizon Vermont Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7665, para. 72. 1125 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20748- 50, paras. 393- 98. 1126 BellSouth Reply at 65. See also BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 212- 13. 1127 See BellSouth Application at 141; see also BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 214- 15. 1128 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 216- 19. 165 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 166 Order, 1129 we need not discuss them in detail here but refer to our finding in that Order. 1130 We find that each of the five plans provides sufficient incentives to foster post- entry compliance. 294. AT& T argues that, as performance remedy plans rely on performance data to trigger performance- remedies payments, the unreliability of BellSouth’s performance data fatally compromises the efficacy of all of the performance remedy plans that are the subject of this application. 1131 AT& T further asserts that the performance plans that BellSouth refers to in its applications are either interim plans (Alabama) or have not been finalized (North Carolina) and thus the Commission cannot assess whether these plans meet its criteria for an effective plan. 1132 We reject AT& T’s arguments. With respect to its first argument, we note that we have found BellSouth’s performance data to be reliable. 1133 In addition, as we stated above, the performance plans that BellSouth has already implemented or plans to implement in these states are essentially the same as the plan implemented in the Georgia, which we have already analyzed and approved. With respect to AT& T’s second argument, we find that the fact that the plans in Alabama and North Carolina are interim plans has no bearing whatsoever on their validity. They are subject in any case to final approval by the appropriate state commissions and, as we stated in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, the performance plans adopted by each state commission do not represent the only means of ensuring that BellSouth continues to provide nondiscriminatory service to competing carriers. 1134 In addition to the financial penalties imposed by these plans, BellSouth faces other consequences if it fails to sustain a high level of service to competing carriers, including federal enforcement action pursuant to section 271( d)( 6), 1135 liquidated damages under dozens of interconnection agreements, and remedies associated with antitrust and other legal actions. 1136 295. In addition, WorldCom argues that, because the South Carolina Commission has designated BellSouth’s performance plan as voluntary, liquidated damages under the plan may be unenforceable by the South Carolina Commission under state law and are only recoverable through civil litigation. 1137 The South Carolina Commission states that WorldCom’s contention that it lacks jurisdiction is incorrect and nothing reduces the South Carolina Commission’s 1129 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9181- 83, paras. 291- 93. 1130 Id. 1131 AT& T Comments at 66. 1132 Id. at 66- 69. 1133 We discuss the reliability of BellSouth's performance data in section III, above. 1134 BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9186, para. 300. 1135 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 6). 1136 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18561- 62, para. 424. 1137 WorldCom Comments at 20- 21. 166 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 167 jurisdiction to enforce the plan. 1138 We note that, even if WorldCom’s contention was valid, a point we do not address here, the South Carolina Commission has ordered BellSouth to incorporate the performance plan in its SGAT, and allowed each competitive LEC to amend its interconnection plan with BellSouth to incorporate the performance plan. 1139 Therefore, in the event that the South Carolina Commission failed to enforce these agreements, a competitive LEC may be able to seek relief pursuant to section 252( e). 1140 This is in addition to other remedies that are available to the competitive LECs, as stated above. D. Marketing Tactics 296. We also reject commenters’ allegations that BellSouth’s application is not in the public interest because of marketing tactics employed by BellSouth. 1141 Some commenters allege that BellSouth has engaged in inappropriate winback 1142 or retention marketing. 1143 In the CPNI Order, 1144 we concluded that winback campaigns are consistent with section 222( c)( 1) of the Telecommunications Act and are thus not anticompetitive, and that retention marketing campaigns may be permissible assuming they do not violate the provisions of section 222( b) of the Act, which prohibits a carrier from using carrier proprietary information (CPI) to retain soon-to- be former customers when the carrier gains notice of a customer’s imminent cancellation of service through the provision of carrier- to- carrier service. 1145 We find, as we did in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, that in the absence of a formal complaint to the Commission that BellSouth has failed to comply with the provisions of section 222( b), these allegations should be 1138 South Carolina Commission Reply at 2. 1139 Id. 1140 47 U. S. C. § 252( e). 1141 See Birch Comments at 4, 10, 13 and 25- 26 (discussing “winbacks” and “Customer Rewards”.). 1142 See, e. g., US LEC Comments at 36- 37; Birch Comments at 10. Winback marketing refers to situations where a customer has switched to and is receiving service from another provider, whereas retention marketing refers to a carrier’s attempts to keep an existing customer before that customer has switched to another carrier. 1143 Id. 1144 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information; CC Docket No. 96- 115; Implementation Of The Non- Accounting Safeguards Of Sections 271 And 272 Of The Communications Act Of 1934, As Amended, CC Docket No. 96- 149, Order On Reconsideration and Petitions for Forbearance, 14 FCC Rcd 14409, 14445, para. 67 (1999) (CPNI Order). See also Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information; Implementation of the Non- Accounting Safeguards of Section 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, 2000 Biennial Review – Review of Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumer’s Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket Nos. 96- 115, 96- 149, 00- 257, Third Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 02- 214 (rel. July 25, 2002) (CPNI Third Report and Order). 1145 CPNI Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14449, para. 77; see also CPNI Third Report and Order at para. 131. 167 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 168 referred to the appropriate state commission for disposition. 1146 The North Carolina Commission ordered BellSouth to abstain from any marketing activities directed to a customer for seven days after the customer switches to another local telephone company. 1147 The South Carolina Commission issued a Winback Order prohibiting BellSouth from engaging in any winback activities for ten calendar days from the date that service has been provided to a customer by a competitive LEC. 1148 For consistency throughout its region, BellSouth has adopted as its standard policy that it will not engage in any winback activities for ten calendar days from the date that service has been provided to a customer by a competitive LEC. 1149 E. Other Issues 297. US LEC states that in the BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, the Commission changed its policy and virtually tied approval to checklist compliance. 1150 Specifically, the order states that “although the Commission must make a separate determination that approval of a section 271 application is ‘consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, ’ it may neither limit nor extend the terms of the competitive checklist of section 271( c)( 2)( B).” 1151 This standard, however, is part of the statute and, moreover, has been followed by the Commission in all of its section 271 orders. Thus, there is no basis for US LEC’s argument that the public interest standard has been weakened. 1152 298. WorldCom claims that on June 14, 2002, BellSouth announced a policy that it will only provide long distance service for BellSouth local customers and not competitive LEC local customers, 1153 and that it is contrary to the public interest to allow BellSouth to obtain long 1146 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9187- 88, para. 303. 1147 North Carolina Utilities Commission, Docket No. P- 55, Sub 1022 (May 23, 2002) at 1, para. 1. 1148 South Carolina Public Service Commission, Docket No. 2000- 378- C- Order No. 2001- 1036 (Oct. 29, 2001) at 13, para. 9. See also South Carolina Public Service Commission, Docket No. 2000- 378- C- Order No. 2002- 2 (Jan. 9, 2002) at unnumbered 2, para. 2, (clarifying the earlier order by stating that: “the prohibition on the sharing of information among BellSouth divisions found in Order No. 2001- 1036 should begin a the time that BellSouth comes into possession of information from the CLEC which would suggest that a specific customer is considering a proposal from the CLEC.”) 1149 BellSouth August 15 Non- pricing Ex Parte Letter. 1150 US LEC Comments at 25. 1151 Id. 1152 Although we find that US LEC's allegations are vague and unsupported, we disagree that BellSouth’s ability to raise prices for special access is prima facie evidence of a lack of local competition. Id. at 29- 30. We do not consider a BOC's simple pricing of special access, by itself, to be dispositive of the presence or absence of local competition. In any event, the analysis in a section 271 application focuses on checklist compliance, and we conclude herein that BellSouth's application satisfies all checklist requirements. We therefore reject US LEC's contentions. 1153 WorldCom Comments at 6. 168 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 169 distance authorization while this policy exists. 1154 BellSouth states that, while competitive LEC’s end users may request long distance from BSLD, the competitive LEC must have an operational agreement with BSLD in order for the request to be fulfilled, and that most competitive LECs cannot or do not make available to long distance carriers the broad range of services needed by BSLD that would enable BSLD to provide service. 1155 BellSouth indicates that while it is working to provide service to competitive LECs, it must continue to restrict service until the appropriate integrative services are made available. 1156 While we recognize the inconvenience this may have caused competitive LECs, absent further evidence on the record, we do not find that BellSouth’s current policy violates the public interest standard of section 271. 1157 299. Finally, we note that BellSouth disclosed an incident of premature mail solicitations offering long distance service in the five states plus Florida and Tennessee. 1158 According to BellSouth, approximately 130,000 of its customers in these states inadvertently received such a solicitation from BellSouth that was meant to be sent only to customers in Georgia and Louisiana. 1159 BellSouth noted that the mailings contained a notice in fine print, that the advertised service was available only in Georgia and Louisiana. 1160 In response to BellSouth’s disclosure, AT& T filed a motion requesting the Commission to deny this application on the grounds that BellSouth has not met the public interest standard of section 271( d)( 3)( c) and issue a "standstill order" directing BellSouth to immediately cease and desist from advertising long distance service in states where it does not have long distance authority. 1161 AT& T further 1154 Id. at 7. 1155 BellSouth Application Reply App., Vol. 2, Tab D, Reply Affidavit of Mary M. Dennis (BellSouth Dennis Reply Aff.) at 1- 3. 1156 Id. at 4. 1157 If evidence becomes available to the Commission in the future sufficient to show BellSouth’s actions are in violation of the Act or a Commission Rule, we will pursue appropriate enforcement action. 1158 See Letter from Kathleen B. Levitz, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 (filed Aug. 8, 2002) (BellSouth August 8 Ex Parte Letter). See also BellSouth Corporation’s Response to Motion of AT& T Corp. for Emergency Relief, WC Docket No. 02- 150, at 1- 2 (filed Aug. 23, 2002). 1159 Id. According to BellSouth, 113,000 packages were sent to Florida, 3,300 were sent to customers in Tennessee, 3,500 packages were sent to Alabama, 800 to Kentucky, 600 to Mississippi, 6,200 were sent to North Carolina, and 1,700 were sent to South Carolina. See Letter from Jonathan B. Banks, General Attorney, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 3 (filed Aug. 14, 2002) (BellSouth August 14 Banks Ex Parte Letter). 1160 BellSouth August 8 Ex Parte Letter at 1. See also Letter from Jonathan B. Banks, General Attorney, BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02- 150 at 1 (filed Aug. 23, 2002) (BellSouth August 23 Banks Ex Parte Letter). 1161 Motion of AT& T Corp. for Emergency Relief, WC Docket No. 02- 150, at 6- 7 (filed Aug. 14, 2002) (AT& T Emergency Motion). AT& T alleged that BellSouth’s marketing conduct violated sections 271( a) and 272( g)( 2) of the Act, 47 U. S. C. §§ 271( a), 272( g)( 2). 169 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 170 requested the Commission to direct BellSouth to submit a sworn statement by August 26, 2002 detailing the scope of the mailings, the number of customer inquiries received as a result, how these inquiries were handled by customer service representatives, what remedial steps have been taken to correct this incident, and what steps have been taken to prevent future violations, along with any related documentation. 1162 300. Upon learning of the mailings, BellSouth notified the Commission and began taking corrective action, including mailing letters to affected customers to inform them that the direct mailings and bill inserts had been sent erroneously and that BellSouth was not yet authorized to provide long distance service. 1163 BellSouth also began developing additional internal safeguards to prevent incidents of this nature from occurring in the future. 1164 BellSouth contends that, even if a customer were to call to request long distance service in these five states, its customer service representatives have been trained to respond that BellSouth is not authorized to provide such service. 1165 Additionally, BellSouth claims - and AT& T has not disputed - that, if a customer service representative were to submit an order to provide BellSouth long distance service in the five states prior to Commission approval of this application, any long distance calls placed by the customer would be blocked and would not go through because the long distance affiliate's switching equipment has not been modified to allow such calls to be completed. 1166 301. We recognize that potential violations of federal telecommunications law could be relevant to the section 271 inquiry. 1167 In view of the facts presented here, however, because the allegations do not relate to the openness of the local telecommunications markets to competition, we reject AT& T's argument that we should deny or delay this application under the public interest standard. 1168 As a result, we take no position on the validity of AT& T's sections 1162 Id. at 7. 1163 BellSouth August 14 Banks Ex Parte Letter at 4. 1164 Id. See also BellSouth August 23 Banks Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2. BellSouth says that it has retrained personnel in its advertising group, instituted an additional check on all promotional mailings concerning BellSouth long distance services, designated a corporate officer to be specifically responsible for the proper execution of all promotional mailings for long distance, and will include a statement in all future mailings setting out the states where BellSouth has been approved (or not approved) by the Commission to provide long distance service. Id. 1165 Id. at 1. 1166 Id. 1167 See Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20749- 50, para. 397 (“ Because the success of the market opening provisions of the 1996 Act depend, to a large extent, on the cooperation of incumbent LECs, including the BOCs, with new entrants and good faith compliance by such LECs with their statutory obligations, evidence that a BOC has engaged in a pattern of discriminatory conduct or disobeying federal and state telecommunications regulations would tend to undermine our confidence that the BOC's local market is, or will remain, open to competition once the BOC has received interLATA authority.”). 1168 See, e. g., Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4126- 27, para. 340; Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9107, para. 211; Verizon New Jersey Order at para. 190. 170 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 171 271( a) and 272( g) claims here. 1169 Regardless of what enforcement action we may take in the future, BOCs should not market long distance service in an in- region state prior to receiving section 271 approval from the Commission for that particular state, and should implement controls to prevent such marketing from taking place. We remind BellSouth and all BOCs to exercise caution in this regard. VIII. SECTION 271( d)( 6) ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY 302. Section 271( d)( 6) of the Act requires BellSouth to continue to satisfy the “conditions required for . . . approval” of its section 271 application after the Commission approves its application. 1170 Thus, the Commission has a responsibility not only to ensure that BellSouth is in compliance with section 271 today, but also that it remains in compliance in the future. As the Commission has already described the post- approval enforcement framework and its section 271( d)( 6) enforcement powers in detail in prior orders, it is unnecessary to do so again here. 1171 303. Working with each of the state commissions, we intend to closely monitor BellSouth’s post- approval compliance to ensure that BellSouth does not “cease[] to meet any of the conditions required for [section 271] approval.” 1172 We stand ready to exercise our various statutory enforcement powers quickly and decisively in appropriate circumstances to ensure that the local market remains open in each of the states. 304. Consistent with prior section 271 orders, we require BellSouth to report to the Commission all Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina Monthly State Summary (MSS) reports and the MSS Charts, beginning with the first full month after the effective date of this Order, and for each month thereafter for one year, unless extended by the Commission. These results and reports will allow us to review BellSouth’s performance on an ongoing basis to ensure continued compliance with the statutory requirements. We are confident that cooperative state and federal oversight and enforcement can address any backsliding that may arise with respect to BellSouth’s entry into Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. 1169 See AT& T Emergency Motion at 1, 4- 5. 1170 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 6). 1171 See, e. g., SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6382- 84, paras. 283- 85; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18567- 68, paras. 434- 36; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4174, paras. 446- 53; see also Appendix H. 1172 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 6)( A). 171 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 172 IX. CONCLUSION 305. For the reasons discussed above, we grant BellSouth’s application for authorization under section 271 of the Act to provide in- region, interLATA services in the states of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. X. ORDERING CLAUSES 306. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4( i), 4( j), and 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 154( j) and 271, BellSouth’s application to provide in- region, interLATA service in the states of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, filed on June 20, 2002, IS GRANTED. 307. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AT& T’s motion for emergency relief, filed on August 14, 2002, IS DENIED. 308. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE September 27, 2002. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 172 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Appendix A Commenters in WC Docket No. 02- 150 Comments Abbreviation Alabama Public Service Commission Alabama Commission Alliance for Public Technology APT AT& T Corp. AT& T Birch Telecom of the South, Inc. Birch Communications Workers of America CWA Covad Communications Company Covad Ernest Communications, Inc. Ernest ITC^ Deltacom Kentucky Public Service Commission Kentucky Commission KMC Telecom and NuVox, Inc. KMC/ NuVox North Carolina Utilities Commission North Carolina Commission Mississippi Public Service Commission Mississippi Commission Public Service Commission of South Carolina South Carolina Commission Southeast Telephone Supra Technologies Supra US LEC Corp. US LEC WorldCom Inc. WorldCom Reply Commenters Replies Abbreviation Alabama Public Service Commission Alabama Commission AT& T Corp. AT& T BellSouth Corp. BellSouth Birch Telecom of the South, Inc. Birch Mississippi Public Service Commission Mississippi Commission NewSouth Communications, Corp. NewSouth South Carolina Public Service Commission South Carolina Commission US LEC Corp. US LEC WorldCom, Inc. WorldCom 173 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Appendix B Alabama Performance Metrics Except where noted, the data included here is taken from the Alabama Monthly State Summary (MSS) Reports provided by BellSouth, calculated according to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement (SQM) business rules. This table is provided as a reference tool for the convenience of the reader. No conclusions are to be drawn from the raw data contained in this table. Our analysis is based on the totality of the circumstances, such that we may use non- metric evidence, and may rely more heavily on some metrics more than others, in making our determination. The inclusion of these particular metrics in this table does not necessarily mean that we relied on all of these metrics, or that other metrics may not also be important in our analysis. Some metrics that we have relied on in the past and may rely on for a future application were not included here because there was no data provided for them (usually either because there was no activity, or because the metrics are still under development). Metrics with no retail analog provided are usually compared with a benchmark. Note that for some metrics during the period provided there may be changes in the metric definition, or changes in the retail analog applied, making it difficult to compare data Note: All data was calculated using BellSouth's data platform PMAP 4.0. The March data in this appendix were not taken from the MSS reports, which for that month were calculated using PMAP 2.6, but instead were calculated using PMAP 4.0 by BellSouth. This data also conforms to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement business rules that govern the regular MSS reports. 174 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name RESALE A. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours Ordering Billing A. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy A. 1.2 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices – CRIS A. 1.3 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS A. 1.4 O- 8 Reject Interval – Mech. Ordering A. 1.7 O- 8 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. – 10 hours B. 1.1 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 1.8 O- 8 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. B. 1.2 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 1.9 O- 9 FOC Timeliness – Mech. B. 1.3 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. A. 1.12 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours B. 1.4 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval – Mech. A. 1.13 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. B. 1.7 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. - 10 hours A. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mech. B. 1.8 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. A. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mech. B. 1.9 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness – Mech. A. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mech. B. 1.12 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours Provisioning B. 1.13 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. A. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval B. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Mech. A. 2.4 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Mech. B. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Partially Mech. A. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. B. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Non- Mech. A. 2.7 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. Provisioning A. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval A. 2.9 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. B. 2.2 P- 4 Order Completion Interval within X days - xDSL A. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. B. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies – Mech. A. 2.11 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments B. 2.6 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. A. 2.12 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. A. 2.14 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. B. 2.9 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. A. 2.15 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. A. 2.25 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy B. 2.11 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. Maintenance and Repair B. 2.12 P- 7 Coordinated Customers Conversions A. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments B. 2.13 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early A. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate B. 2.14 P- 7A Hot Cut Timeliness A. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.15 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late A. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.16 P- 7B Average Recovery Time – CCC PERFORMANCE METRIC CATEGORIES Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 B- 2 175 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name B. 2.17 P- 7C % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts C. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.18 P- 3/ P- 12 % Missed Installation Appointments C. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.19 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days C. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours B. 2.21 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. Billing B. 2.22 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. C. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy B. 2.34 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy C. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS Maintenance and Repair Trunk Blocking B. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments C. 5.1 TGP- 1 Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate B. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS B. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration Pre- Ordering B. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days D. 1.1 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - CLEC B. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours D. 1.2 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC Billing D. 1.3 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) B. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy D. 1.4 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) B. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS Maintenance and Repair LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS D. 2.1 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST Ordering D. 2.2 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - CLEC C. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests D. 2.3 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC C. 1.2 O- 8 Reject Interval D. 2.4 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds C. 1.3 O- 9 FOC Timeliness D. 2.5 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds C. 1.4 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness D. 2.6 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds Provisioning COLLOCATION C. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval Collocation C. 2.2 P- 1 Held Orders E. 1.1 C- 1 Average Response Time C. 2.3 P- 2 % Jeopardies E. 1.2 C- 2 Average Arrangement Time C. 2.5 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments E. 1.3 C- 3 % Due Dates Missed C. 2.6 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days GENERAL C. 2.7 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval Flow Through C. 2.8 P- 10 Total Service Order Cycle Time F. 1.1 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests C. 2.10 P- 6 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours F. 1.2 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved C. 2.11 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy F. 1.3 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP Maintenance and Repair Pre- Ordering C. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments F. 2.1 PO- 1 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) C. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate F. 2.2 PO- 2 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) B- 3 176 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Ordering Database Updates F. 4.1 O- 12 Average Speed of Answer F. 13.1 D- 1 Average Database Update Interval Maintenance Center F. 13.2 D- 2 % Update Accuracy F. 5.1 M& R- 6 Average Answer Time F. 13.3 D- 3 % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date Operator Services (Toll) Network Outage Notification F. 6.1 OS- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 14.1 M& R- 7 Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages F. 6.2 OS- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Directory Assistance F. 7.1 DA- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 7.2 DA- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Billing F. 9.1 B- 3 Usage Data Delivery Accuracy F. 9.2 B- 5 Usage Data Delivery Timeliness F. 9.3 B- 4 Usage Data Delivery Completeness F. 9.4 B- 6 Mean Time to Deliver Usage F. 9.5 B- 7 Recurring Charge Completeness F. 9.6 B- 8 Non- Recurring Charge Completeness Change Management F. 10.1 CM- 1 % Software Release Notices Sent On Time F. 10.2 CM- 2 Average Software Release Notice Delay Days F. 10.3 CM- 3A % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time F. 10.4 CM- 3B % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc. ) Sent On Time F. 10.5 CM- 4 Average Documentation Release Delay Days F. 10.6 CM- 5 % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes New Business Requests F. 11.1 BFR- 1 % New Business Requests Processed in 30 Bus. Days F. 11.2 BFR- 2A % Quotes Provided within X Business Days Ordering F. 12.1 O- 1 Acknowledgement Message Timeliness F. 12.2 O- 2 Acknowledgement Message Completeness B- 4 177 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes RESALE - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.1.1 Residence/ AL (%) 8.67% 6.92% 6.71% 7.50% A. 1.1.2 Business/ AL (%) 20.54% 28.42% 26.09% 28.24% A. 1.1.4 PBX/ AL (%) 0.00% 50.00% 1,2 A. 1.1.6 ISDN/ AL (%) 0.00% 1 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.2.1 Residence/ AL (%) 17.58% 17.03% 21.84% 29.48% A. 1.2.2 Business/ AL (%) 43.92% 40.63% 58.33% 49.41% A. 1.2.4 PBX/ AL (%) 66.67% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.2.6 ISDN/ AL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 1,3 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.3.1 Residence/ AL (%) 41.28% 34.67% 31.47% 39.05% A. 1.3.2 Business/ AL (%) 54.07% 57.32% 59.90% 60.11% A. 1.3.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ AL(%) 30.88% 34.92% 20.00% 29.41% A. 1.3.4 PBX/ AL (%) 54.55% 28.57% 33.33% 70.00% 2 A. 1.3.5 Centrex/ AL (%) 0.00% 75.00% 42.86% 56.25% 1,2 A. 1.3.6 ISDN/ AL (%) 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 38.46% 1,2,3 Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.4.1 Residence/ AL (%) 95.72% 95.61% 94.43% 98.13% A. 1.4.2 Business/ AL (%) 100.00% 88.46% 97.92% 95.83% A. 1.4.4 PBX/ AL (%) 0.00% 2 Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] A. 1.7.1 Residence/ AL (%) 95.74% 94.98% 85.96% 94.22% A. 1.7.2 Business/ AL (%) 91.76% 98.46% 97.03% 98.85% A. 1.7.4 PBX/ AL (%) 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 A. 1.7.6 ISDN/ AL (%) 0.00% 2 Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.8.1 Residence/ AL (%) 95.65% 100.00% 98.00% 100.00% A. 1.8.2 Business/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.27% A. 1.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ AL(%) 95.45% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 A. 1.8.4 PBX/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 A. 1.8.5 Centrex/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B- 5 178 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data A. 1.8.6 ISDN/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.9.1 Residence/ AL (%) 99.85% 99.66% 99.22% 99.84% A. 1.9.2 Business/ AL (%) 99.29% 100.00% 99.12% 100.00% A. 1.9.4 PBX/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] A. 1.12.1 Residence/ AL (%) 92.43% 94.12% 86.76% 90.11% A. 1.12.2 Business/ AL (%) 93.91% 91.75% 86.73% 94.50% A. 1.12.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ AL(%) A. 1.12.4 PBX/ AL(%) 100.00% 50.00% 0.00% 1,2,4 A. 1.12.6 ISDN/ AL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 1,3 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.13.1 Residence/ AL (%) 98.51% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.13.2 Business/ AL (%) 98.31% 98.28% 100.00% 98.48% A. 1.13.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.13.4 PBX/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.13.5 Centrex/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 A. 1.13.6 ISDN/ AL (%) 100.00% 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.14.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ AL (%) 100.00% 99.67% 98.41% 100.00% A. 1.14.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ AL (%) 99.36% 99.65% 99.32% 99.99% A. 1.14.2.1 Business/ EDI/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 88.37% 100.00% A. 1.14.2.2 Business/ TAG/ AL (%) 95.14% 97.73% 86.52% 100.00% A. 1.14.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 A. 1.14.6.2 ISDN/ TAG/ AL (%) 0.00% 1 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.15.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ AL (%) 100.00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 A. 1.15.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ AL (%) 99.04% 98.64% 99.87% 99.89% A. 1.15.2.1 Business/ EDI/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 94.92% 100.00% A. 1.15.2.2 Business/ TAG/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.15.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.15.6.2 ISDN/ TAG/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] B- 6 179 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data A. 1.16.1 Residence/ AL(%) 95.41% 98.00% 97.20% 98.10% A. 1.16.2 Business/ AL (%) 97.78% 97.45% 94.55% 96.63% A. 1.16.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ AL(%) 94.12% 100.00% 95.00% 100.00% A. 1.16.4 PBX/ AL (%) 100.00% 85.71% 83.33% 100.00% 2 A. 1.16.5 Centrex/ AL (%) 100.00% 75.00% 90.48% 87.50% 1,2 A. 1.16.6 ISDN/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 92.31% 1,2,3 RESALE - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] A. 2.1.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 4.51 3.82 4.65 4.24 4.58 3.83 4.38 3.72 A. 2.1.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 0.75 0.63 0.77 0.57 0.77 0.53 0.79 0.54 A. 2.1.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 3.92 3.00 4.57 3.50 4.30 3.00 3.45 4.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 2.35 4.09 2.85 1.80 3.30 3.84 4.74 3.04 A. 2.1.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 1.29 2.47 1.34 1.02 1.31 0.85 1.31 0.64 A. 2.1.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 6.39 13.65 9.10 2.00 6.83 6.00 3,4 A. 2.1.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 4.00 1.00 2.44 2.58 0.33 0.33 0.89 1,2,3 A. 2.1.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( days) 27.63 8.00 19.26 1.67 17.08 8.50 16.31 13.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 4.23 3.00 8.70 5.23 7.68 4.00 12.43 4.57 3,4 A. 2.1.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 13.53 34.17 13.85 13.19 A. 2.1.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 2.44 1.78 3.25 5.04 1.47 0.56 3.15 4.05 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.83 1.44 0.33 1,4 A. 2.1.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 1.38 1.18 1.63 3.08 1.54 7.00 4 A. 2.1.5.2.1 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 10.89 13.40 21.32 26.02 A. 2.1.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 25.33 12.00 16.21 8.50 27.81 13.00 22.88 13.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 3.41 3.76 2.89 3.86 5.00 4 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.4.1 Residence/ AL (%) 0.39% 0.63% 0.39% 0.40% 0.31% 0.32% 0.31% 0.31% A. 2.4.2 Business/ AL (%) 1.11% 0.41% 1.65% 2.12% 1.66% 1.08% 1.37% 0.50% A. 2.4.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ AL(%) 10.76% 12.18% 0.00% 12.79% 13.40% 2 A. 2.4.4 PBX/ AL (%) 3.70% 0.00% 5.06% 0.00% 2.90% 7.25% 50.00% 1,2,4 A. 2.4.5 Centrex/ AL (%) 3.27% 2.13% 2.85% 1.64% 0.00% 4 A. 2.4.6 ISDN/ AL (%) 5.54% 4.91% 6.08% 10.06% % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B- 7 180 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data A. 2.5.1 Residence/ AL(%) 1.52% 2.66% 0.41% 0.46% A. 2.5.2 Business/ AL (%) 2.78% 0.00% 1.37% 0.00% A. 2.5.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ AL(%) 27.27% 12.50% 18.18% 5.88% A. 2.5.4 PBX/ AL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 2.5.5 Centrex/ AL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,4 A. 2.5.6 ISDN/ AL (%) 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.7.1 Residence/ AL (hours) 108.54 111.52 115.06 113.42 A. 2.7.2 Business/ AL (hours) 134.77 124.88 48.05 49.25 1,2,3,4 A. 2.7.4 PBX/ AL (hours) 173.20 4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.8.1 Residence/ AL (hours) 103.76 174.82 136.15 149.83 1,2,3,4 A. 2.8.2 Business/ AL (hours) 243.97 520.22 1,3 A. 2.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ AL( hours) 463.34 156.96 269.60 304.42 1,2,3,4 A. 2.8.4 PBX/ AL (hours) A. 2.8.6 ISDN/ AL( hours) 184.37 1 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.9.1 Residence/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 2.9.2 Business/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.9.4 PBX/ AL (%) 100.00% 4 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.10.1 Residence/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.10.2 Business/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 A. 2.10.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.10.4 PBX/ AL (%) A. 2.10.6 ISDN/ AL(%) 100.00% 1 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] A. 2.11.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 7.20% 3.21% 6.71% 4.88% 6.95% 3.65% 6.49% 3.85% A. 2.11.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.09% 0.12% 0.01% 0.07% 0.02% 0.06% 0.01% 0.06% A. 2.11.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 14.29% 0.00% 8.00% 50.00% 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.64% 14.10% 2.23% 2.08% 2.72% 1.85% 4.51% 0.00% A. 2.11.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.15% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.03% 0.49% 0.06% 0.94% A. 2.11.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 6.67% 2.78% 10.64% 0.00% 2.33% 0.00% 3,4 B- 8 181 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data A. 2.11.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 2.11.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 4.04% 22.22% 4.39% 0.00% 2.88% 0.00% 4.66% 14.29% 1,2,4 A. 2.11.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 A. 2.11.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% A. 2.11.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.72% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,4 A. 2.11.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 6.51% 1.62% 0.00% 2.99% 2.10% 2 A. 2.11.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 1 A. 2.11.5.2.1 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 13.33% 3 A. 2.11.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.75% 1,3 A. 2.11.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 8.67% 16.67% 7.87% 0.00% 5.06% 100.00% 4.23% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1.35% 0.00% 2.37% 3.33% 0.00% 1,2,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] A. 2.12.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 10.48% 8.87% 10.78% 8.73% 10.37% 10.77% 10.82% 11.36% A. 2.12.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 2.81% 5.27% 2.98% 3.48% 2.65% 3.14% 2.51% 2.52% A. 2.12.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 16.67% 23.81% 0.00% 8.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.12.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 10.63% 4.48% 10.49% 7.69% 11.26% 4.17% 10.78% 11.11% A. 2.12.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 5.48% 6.67% 4.87% 3.88% 5.25% 6.41% 6.68% 4.85% A. 2.12.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 15.79% 23.33% 25.00% 23.40% 0.00% 4 A. 2.12.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.12.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 7.04% 24.00% 7.50% 33.33% 6.06% 0.00% 7.28% 7.69% 2,3 A. 2.12.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 2.70% 0.00% 1.57% 8.33% 4.12% 0.00% 3.14% 0.00% 1,4 A. 2.12.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 25.00% 50.00% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 1 A. 2.12.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 3.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2 A. 2.12.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 5.42% 4.44% 4.86% 0.00% 5.43% 3 A. 2.12.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 4.65% 0.00% 4.95% 0.00% 8.02% 2.99% 0.00% 1,2 A. 2.12.5.2.1 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 35.71% 0.00% 11.11% 20.00% 19.05% 0.00% 1,4 A. 2.12.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 16.67% 17.65% 0.00% 12.50% 12.90% 0.00% 2,4 A. 2.12.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 4.14% 6.94% 0.00% 6.02% 0.00% 3.37% 100.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.12.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.58% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.14.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 1.04 0.22 0.77 0.23 1.10 0.22 1.10 0.13 B- 9 182 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data A. 2.14.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 0.51 0.53 0.50 0.53 0.55 0.59 0.58 0.60 A. 2.14.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.65 0.02 0.72 0.02 1,2,3,4 A. 2.14.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 1.40 1.77 2.05 0.22 1.76 2.06 2.44 0.22 A. 2.14.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 1.51 2.57 2.09 0.47 2.43 0.51 1.26 0.53 A. 2.14.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 2.17 1.90 1.81 0.02 3.93 3 A. 2.14.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.47 0.58 0.51 0.42 53.72 0.53 1,2 A. 2.14.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 250.65 162.12 0.02 142.14 144.96 2 A. 2.14.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 9.67 15.06 0.41 9.79 15.32 0.34 2,4 A. 2.14.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.45 0.47 0.58 0.41 0.46 1 A. 2.14.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 3.81 0.75 4.52 3.62 0.43 4 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.15.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 14.09 13.79 12.97 14.60 A. 2.15.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 5.56 5.99 10.43 6.56 A. 2.15.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.02 2 A. 2.15.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 46.61 17.56 31.27 26.66 A. 2.15.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 12.32 13.65 12.93 11.19 A. 2.15.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 14.90 4 A. 2.15.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 14.00 19.90 2,3 A. 2.15.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 37.74 111.74 98.95 511.30 1,2,4 A. 2.15.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 29.82 62.85 85.27 23.61 3 A. 2.15.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) A. 2.15.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 12.38 18.69 21.73 24.29 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 14.00 4 A. 2.15.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.02 2 A. 2.15.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 14.00 14.00 13.19 1,4 A. 2.15.5.2.1 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.02 3 A. 2.15.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 14.00 0.30 1,3 A. 2.15.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 28.10 82.86 92.12 16.43 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 40.37 15.17 14.00 1,2,4 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] A. 2.25.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 92.14% 96.55% 90.77% 98.86% A. 2.25.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 95.38% 94.29% 98.82% 98.56% B- 10 183 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data A. 2.25.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 100.00% 88.24% 100.00% 100.00% 4 A. 2.25.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 91.33% 95.76% 88.82% 94.44% A. 2.25.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 93.85% 97.93% 96.11% 97.22% A. 2.25.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 100.00% 77.78% 77.78% 76.92% 2 A. 2.25.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 84.62% 97.56% 92.59% 91.89% A. 2.25.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 81.08% 91.43% 80.49% 96.47% A. 2.25.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 91.84% 94.78% 91.43% 91.36% A. 2.25.3.2.1 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.25.3.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 100.00% 90.00% 92.31% 88.89% 1,4 RESALE - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] A. 3.1.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 5.49% 2.28% 5.25% 1.96% 5.94% 2.56% 6.13% 1.73% A. 3.1.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.02% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% 1.14% 0.60% 1.44% 0.53% A. 3.1.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 8.60% 6.94% 8.06% 2.04% 10.91% 12.90% 11.09% 19.05% A. 3.1.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 3.68% 0.00% 2.53% 3.23% 3.09% 18.18% 3.23% 0.00% A. 3.1.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.91% 0.00% 1.41% 0.00% 1.34% 0.00% 0.86% 0.00% A. 3.1.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.55% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.51% 3.57% 1 A. 3.1.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 8.33% 33.33% 9.84% 0.00% 6.45% 0.00% 13.64% 91.67% 1,2 A. 3.1.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.41% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 3.85% 0.00% 1.64% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.1.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 14.73% 0.00% 21.51% 0.00% 17.87% 0.00% 15.96% 0.00% A. 3.1.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 7.00% 0.00% 3.83% 0.00% 6.49% 0.00% 2.88% 0.00% 1,3 A. 3.1.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 6.12% 0.00% 5.17% 0.00% 12.99% 0.00% 3.51% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.1.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.47% 0.00% 0.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 1,2,3,4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] A. 3.2.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.81% 1.93% 1.92% 1.86% 2.12% 2.03% 2.01% 2.03% A. 3.2.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.04% 0.48% 0.98% 0.42% 1.18% 0.48% 1.21% 0.55% A. 3.2.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.07% 1.08% 1.17% 0.74% 1.23% 0.98% 1.14% 1.34% A. 3.2.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.61% 0.54% 0.57% 0.47% 0.68% 0.35% 0.70% 0.65% A. 3.2.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.85% 0.91% 0.85% 1.48% 1.02% 1.59% 0.90% 0.93% A. 3.2.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.07% 0.33% 1.26% 0.52% 1.19% 0.82% 1.21% 1.37% A. 3.2.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.12% 0.32% 0.10% 0.20% 0.11% 2.12% 0.12% 1.22% A. 3.2.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.12% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.09% 0.00% 0.11% 0.30% B- 11 184 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data A. 3.2.5.1 Centrex/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.29% 0.00% 0.35% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% A. 3.2.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.26% 0.30% 0.26% 0.00% 0.31% 0.37% 0.29% 0.00% A. 3.2.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.03% 0.27% 0.04% 0.00% 0.05% 0.58% 0.04% 0.34% A. 3.2.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.09% 0.41% 0.08% 0.12% 0.10% 0.12% 0.08% 0.34% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] A. 3.3.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 21.66 17.04 22.67 16.03 26.14 18.86 25.01 20.63 A. 3.3.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 8.82 4.67 8.77 4.27 11.07 5.75 10.65 6.12 A. 3.3.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 12.58 14.22 11.64 8.78 12.77 10.69 12.04 17.65 A. 3.3.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 4.29 2.08 3.76 2.84 4.20 4.00 3.92 7.27 A. 3.3.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 5.40 3.76 5.16 4.65 5.12 4.02 5.11 4.76 A. 3.3.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 2.29 0.91 2.03 2.28 2.22 2.67 2.33 2.56 1 A. 3.3.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 8.61 10.08 12.83 0.84 8.22 9.22 8.17 49.92 1,2 A. 3.3.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 4.03 0.00 3.69 0.50 5.80 0.00 4.79 3.96 2,4 A. 3.3.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 14.78 0.00 12.27 0.00 13.25 0.00 12.21 0.00 A. 3.3.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 3.36 9.13 2.63 0.00 4.57 5.00 3.71 0.00 1,3 A. 3.3.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 7.76 2.14 8.58 0.00 10.65 4.44 8.61 2.89 1,3,4 A. 3.3.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 3.41 1.68 3.16 0.40 2.91 9.13 2.46 11.48 1,2,3,4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] A. 3.4.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 16.35% 10.62% 18.02% 11.04% 17.84% 9.40% 18.04% 11.08% A. 3.4.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 14.41% 11.11% 15.47% 13.04% 15.85% 9.04% 16.49% 13.83% A. 3.4.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 14.40% 12.50% 12.49% 10.20% 14.16% 6.45% 12.18% 9.52% A. 3.4.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 12.01% 11.11% 11.46% 19.35% 12.77% 0.00% 12.97% 12.20% A. 3.4.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 22.53% 26.32% 21.34% 25.81% 20.54% 9.09% 22.72% 15.79% A. 3.4.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 18.98% 42.86% 15.09% 9.09% 13.92% 23.53% 15.54% 10.71% 1 A. 3.4.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 11.11% 0.00% 11.48% 0.00% 4.84% 14.29% 3.03% 0.00% 1,2 A. 3.4.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 7.04% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00% 5.77% 0.00% 4.92% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.4.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 16.10% 0.00% 15.41% 0.00% 13.17% 0.00% 13.03% 0.00% A. 3.4.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 15.95% 0.00% 14.56% 0.00% 13.96% 0.00% 11.51% 0.00% 1,3 A. 3.4.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 6.12% 50.00% 25.86% 0.00% 23.38% 20.00% 5.26% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.4.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 11.76% 66.67% 12.61% 100.00% 5.11% 0.00% 10.43% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] A. 3.5.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 26.38% 18.45% 29.00% 20.39% 34.86% 27.96% 35.12% 33.93% A. 3.5.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 15.91% 1.89% 18.15% 5.41% 21.82% 12.79% 19.89% 10.75% B- 12 185 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data A. 3.5.2.1 Business/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 10.10% 9.76% 9.91% 0.00% 9.53% 4.88% 12.80% 20.00% A. 3.5.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 4.92% 0.00% 3.71% 0.00% 5.82% 0.00% 3.40% 0.00% A. 3.5.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.91% 0.00% 1.41% 0.00% 1.34% 0.00% 0.86% 0.00% A. 3.5.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.55% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.51% 3.57% 1 A. 3.5.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 8.06% 50.00% 10.20% 0.00% 3.77% 0.00% 6.67% 100.00% 1,2,4 A. 3.5.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.67% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1.85% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.5.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 13.58% 0.00% 10.29% 0.00% 8.84% 0.00% 17.68% 0.00% A. 3.5.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.69% 0.00% 1.74% 0.00% 6.51% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 1,3 A. 3.5.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 6.25% 0.00% 5.17% 0.00% 12.99% 0.00% 3.51% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.5.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.48% 0.00% 0.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 1,2,3,4 RESALE - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] A. 4.1 AL (%) 99.13% 99.80% 99.33% 99.23% 98.94% 98.70% 98.33% 97.31% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] A. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 3.56 3.86 3.27 3.47 3.16 3.82 3.37 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.1.1 Switch Ports/ AL (%) B. 1.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 17.22% 19.22% 28.28% 17.65% B. 1.1.4 Combo Other/ AL (%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.1.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 17.65% 22.22% 28.28% 11.02% B. 1.1.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 0.00% 25.00% 33.33% 19.44% 1,2,3 B. 1.1.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 15.58% 24.00% 20.34% 22.73% B. 1.1.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 38.51% 35.48% 44.44% 43.24% B. 1.1.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 87.50% 40.00% 75.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.1.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 19.30% 20.75% 11.11% 20.45% B. 1.1.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 29.53% 27.19% 30.49% 28.36% B. 1.1.17 LNP Standalone/ AL (%) 7.14% 8.77% 5.52% 7.09% % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.2.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 31.19% 37.91% 37.28% 35.56% B. 1.2.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 1 B. 1.2.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 13.04% 10.17% 16.25% 20.00% 4 B. 1.2.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 41.18% 40.00% 60.00% 12.50% 4 B- 13 186 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 1.2.8 2W Analog Loop Design/ AL(%) 27.45% 12.50% 31.03% 42.86% B. 1.2.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 32.69% 20.83% 80.00% 34.29% B. 1.2.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 45.10% 36.59% 15.87% 14.29% B. 1.2.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 33.41% 23.94% 20.19% 25.71% B. 1.2.17 LNP Standalone/ AL (%) 16.95% 17.21% 15.16% 16.76% % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.3.1 Switch Ports/ AL (%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.3.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ AL(%) 50.00% 33.33% 2,4 B. 1.3.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 51.06% 41.97% 51.87% 51.30% B. 1.3.4 Combo Other/ AL (%) 0.00% 3 B. 1.3.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 34.78% 28.00% 36.36% 20.00% B. 1.3.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 50.00% 50.00% 20.00% 50.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.3.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 28.57% 25.00% 0.00% 33.33% 1,2,3 B. 1.3.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 35.71% 21.05% 26.92% 32.81% B. 1.3.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ AL(%) 45.83% 43.40% 41.46% B. 1.3.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 44.44% 0.00% 66.67% 1,2,4 B. 1.3.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 2 B. 1.3.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 41.03% 35.00% 56.10% 30.43% B. 1.3.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 45.59% 38.24% 30.12% 31.51% B. 1.3.16 INP Standalone/ AL (%) 41.67% 50.00% 35.71% 58.82% B. 1.3.17 LNP Standalone/ AL (%) 23.81% 28.07% 23.88% 24.55% Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.4.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 96.42% 94.82% 96.29% 94.31% B. 1.4.4 Combo Other/ AL (%) 50.00% 1 B. 1.4.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 96.43% 100.00% B. 1.4.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.4.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 66.67% 85.00% 71.43% 54.55% B. 1.4.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 85.48% 90.91% 96.43% 93.75% B. 1.4.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.4.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 63.64% 100.00% 60.00% 66.67% 4 B. 1.4.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 76.69% 75.23% 73.67% 61.90% B. 1.4.17 LNP Standalone/ AL (%) 97.50% 97.78% 100.00% 88.64% Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] B- 14 187 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 1.7.3 Loop + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 97.66% 97.30% 72.46% 96.96% B. 1.7.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 100.00% 2 B. 1.7.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 88.89% 100.00% 84.62% 50.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.7.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 66.67% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.7.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 78.57% 50.00% 66.67% 83.33% 2,3,4 B. 1.7.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 94.12% 80.00% 81.82% 83.33% 2 B. 1.7.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 92.00% 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 4 B. 1.7.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 79.43% 92.08% 98.11% 93.53% B. 1.7.17 LNP Standalone/ AL (%) 94.37% 100.00% 87.50% 87.50% Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.8.1 Switch Ports/ AL (%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.8.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 97.98% 100.00% 99.22% 99.29% B. 1.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.8.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.8.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.8.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.8.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 75.00% 100.00% 1,4 B. 1.8.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 2 B. 1.8.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.8.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 100.00% 99.00% 98.78% 100.00% B. 1.8.16 INP Standalone/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.8.17 LNP Standalone/ AL (%) 100.00% 99.17% 100.00% 100.00% FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 99.22% 99.08% 98.91% 97.58% B. 1.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 95.60% 98.84% 95.59% 99.04% B. 1.9.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.9.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 98.51% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 95.24% 96.88% 95.24% B. 1.9.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.9.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 95.74% 100.00% 95.31% 91.43% B. 1.9.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 95.16% 95.07% 96.13% 92.53% B- 15 188 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 1.9.17 LNP Standalone/ AL(%) 99.81% 98.50% 90.60% 93.13% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] B. 1.12.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 91.37% 89.79% 79.92% 90.50% B. 1.12.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 100.00% 90.91% 92.31% 1 B. 1.12.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 95.16% 98.04% 94.37% 100.00% 4 B. 1.12.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 100.00% 80.00% 83.33% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.12.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 97.62% 92.31% 91.67% 88.89% 4 B. 1.12.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 82.86% 82.35% 100.00% 100.00% 3 B. 1.12.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 96.30% 80.77% 93.88% 91.43% B. 1.12.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 70.12% 91.25% 95.05% 91.88% B. 1.12.17 LNP Standalone/ AL (%) 95.65% 96.88% 87.93% 93.56% FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.13.1 Switch Ports/ AL (%) B. 1.13.2 Local Interoffice Transport/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.13.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 97.65% 98.89% 96.46% 99.20% B. 1.13.4 Combo Other/ AL (%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.13.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.13.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.13.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.13.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 B. 1.13.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 95.83% 100.00% 100.00% 83.33% B. 1.13.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 100.00% 96.82% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.16 INP Standalone/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.13.17 LNP Standalone/ AL (%) 100.00% 99.64% 100.00% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.14.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ AL(%) 99.68% 100.00% 96.12% 99.92% B. 1.14.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ AL(%) 99.24% 98.23% 97.97% 99.89% B. 1.14.4.1 Combo Other/ EDI/ AL (%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.14.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ AL(%) 95.96% 97.98% 97.80% 98.99% B. 1.14.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ AL(%) 85.00% 77.78% 100.00% 100.00% 3 B. 1.14.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B- 16 189 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 1.14.6.2 ISDN Loop (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ AL(%) 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.14.7.1 Line Sharin g/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.44% B. 1.14.7.2 Line Sharin g/ TAG/ AL(%) 94.74% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.14.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.67% 100.00% B. 1.14.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 90.00% 100.00% 2 B. 1.14.12.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.14.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ AL(%) 100.00% 60.00% 87.50% 1,2,4 B. 1.14.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 83.33% 100.00% B. 1.14.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ AL(%) 100.00% 93.33% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.14.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 95.65% 100.00% 2 B. 1.14.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ AL(%) 99.16% 97.85% 98.16% 99.53% B. 1.14.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 98.31% 100.00% 1 B. 1.14.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ AL (%) 99.64% 100.00% 97.77% 95.61% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.15.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 99.71% 97.77% 99.46% B. 1.15.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ AL(%) 99.76% 99.46% 99.72% 99.61% B. 1.15.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ AL(%) 0.00% 83.33% 100.00% 1 B. 1.15.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ AL(%) 20.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.15.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 95.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.6.2 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.7.1 Line Sharin g/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.15.7.2 Line Sharin g/ TAG/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.15.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.15.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ AL(%) 100.00% 92.31% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.12.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.15.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 92.45% 100.00% B. 1.15.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ AL(%) 100.00% 94.44% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ AL(%) 88.33% 88.68% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ AL(%) 97.77% 98.28% 99.58% 99.79% B. 1.15.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ AL (%) 100.00% 99.76% 100.00% 99.57% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] B- 17 190 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 1.16.1 Switch Ports/ AL(%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.16.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.16.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 97.87% 96.89% 94.61% 95.17% B. 1.16.4 Combo Other/ AL (%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.16.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 100.00% 96.00% 95.45% 100.00% B. 1.16.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.16.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.16.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 98.25% 98.72% 100.00% B. 1.16.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 96.23% 100.00% B. 1.16.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.16.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 2 B. 1.16.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.16.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 98.77% 98.47% 95.75% 99.16% B. 1.16.16 INP Standalone/ AL (%) 95.83% 94.44% 64.29% 100.00% B. 1.16.17 LNP Standalone/ AL (%) 98.10% 98.82% 95.16% 98.92% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] B. 2.1.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 14.87 15.51 14.07 16.47 30.00 4 B. 2.1.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 3.63 3.57 4.05 2.94 4.27 3.01 4.57 2.85 B. 2.1.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 0.77 0.56 0.80 0.55 0.80 0.57 0.82 0.57 B. 2.1.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ AL (days) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 B. 2.1.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (days) 1.53 1.11 1.51 1.09 1.49 1.14 1.53 1.22 B. 2.1.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 6.20 2.00 10.36 4.63 10.85 2.00 9.31 6.90 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 3.90 1.67 4.73 4.57 0.33 4 B. 2.1.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ AL (days) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 4 B- 18 191 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 2.1.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (days) 6.05 2.31 5.78 5.39 B. 2.1.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 4.95 12.75 4.92 12.00 5.11 10.67 5.51 1,2,3 B. 2.1.6.3.1 UNE ISDN/< 6 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 16.95 9.89 12.80 10.60 12.85 9.73 12.65 11.21 B. 2.1.7.3.1 Line Sharin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( days) 11.21 5.29 4.94 5.25 4.87 4.00 3.57 3.33 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.7.3.2 Line Sharin g/< 6 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( days) 3.68 3.72 3.82 3.72 3.74 3.82 2.43 4.00 B. 2.1.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 3.63 4.18 4.05 4.42 4.27 4.00 4.57 4.07 B. 2.1.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 6.20 6.00 10.36 10.85 9.31 1 B. 2.1.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( days) 3.63 4.86 4.05 5.10 4.27 5.00 4.57 6.00 1,3,4 B. 2.1.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( days) 27.80 19.64 19.83 18.12 B. 2.1.15.1.1 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( days) 3.63 6.00 4.05 6.00 4.27 6.25 4.57 1,2,3 B. 2.1.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 0.77 0.80 0.80 0.82 B. 2.1.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( days) 0.77 0.33 0.79 0.33 0.79 0.33 0.82 1,2,3 B. 2.1.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 0.77 0.53 0.79 0.55 0.79 0.54 0.82 0.63 B. 2.1.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( days) 4.00 0.67 2.44 0.33 0.33 6.00 0.89 0.33 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( days) 11.95 6.84 7.39 6.97 7.45 6.58 5.76 7.29 B. 2.1.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( days) 28.98 5.88 18.52 7.48 37.05 6.33 25.92 6.03 Order Completion Interval within X days [P- 4] B. 2.2.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop w/ o Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( days) 4.44 4.37 3.81 4.42 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.5.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 0.45% 0.60% 0.48% 0.29% 0.41% 0.28% 0.39% 0.16% B. 2.5.4 Combo Other/ AL (%) 5.86% 6.81% 0.00% 6.49% 7.27% 2 B- 19 192 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 2.5.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 10.69% 15.48% 7.92% 7.27% 3.03% B. 2.5.6 UNE ISDN/ AL (%) 8.33% 18.52% 3.86% 10.34% 4.02% 22.22% 6.47% 17.65% B. 2.5.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 10.69% 0.00% 15.48% 0.00% 7.92% 0.00% 7.27% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.5.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 0.45% 7.14% 0.48% 0.00% 0.41% 5.88% 0.39% 0.00% 4 B. 2.5.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 0.45% 5.26% 0.48% 0.00% 0.41% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 3 B. 2.5.14 Other Desi gn/ AL(%) 11.33% 12.07% 12.85% 14.34% B. 2.5.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 0.45% 0.48% 0.41% 0.39% B. 2.5.16 INP (Standalone)/ AL(%) 0.44% 0.00% 0.48% 0.39% 0.38% 1 B. 2.5.17 LNP (Standalone)/ AL(%) 0.44% 0.00% 0.48% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.38% 0.00% B. 2.5.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ AL(%) 10.60% 18.52% 14.52% 10.34% 8.14% 22.22% 8.07% 10.45% B. 2.5.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ AL(%) 7.76% 75.86% 9.09% 77.78% 11.58% 82.80% 16.40% 80.95% % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.6.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ AL(%) 0.00% 4 B. 2.6.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 0.00% 2.48% 2.85% 1.40% B. 2.6.4 Combo Other/ AL (%) 42.86% 33.33% 50.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.6.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 0.00% 2.00% 6.12% 0.00% B. 2.6.6 UNE ISDN/ AL (%) 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.6.7 Line Sharin g/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 5.88% 7.14% 15.38% 4.17% B. 2.6.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.6.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3 B. 2.6.16 INP (Standalone)/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 B. 2.6.17 LNP (Standalone)/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ AL(%) 0.00% 3.92% 5.88% 0.00% B. 2.6.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ AL(%) 68.75% 71.43% 45.45% 71.43% 2,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL( hours) 115.43 153.61 165.18 189.51 4 B. 2.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL( hours) 169.75 4 B. 2.8.6 UNE ISDN/ AL (hours) 258.78 244.26 275.48 287.84 1,2,3,4 B. 2.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL( hours) 114.65 104.43 1,3 B. 2.8.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL( hours) 124.75 1 B. 2.8.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ AL( hours) 258.78 244.26 275.48 268.16 1,2,3,4 B. 2.8.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ AL( hours) 225.76 206.99 176.29 182.79 B- 20 193 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL( hours) 391.68 170.65 241.12 2,3,4 B. 2.9.4 Combo Other/ AL (hours) 333.46 352.50 328.31 328.50 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL( hours) 160.47 142.32 2,3 B. 2.9.6 UNE ISDN/ AL (hours) 112.43 2 B. 2.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL( hours) 135.95 88.50 664.37 2,3,4 B. 2.9.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ AL( hours) 136.45 142.32 2,3 B. 2.9.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ AL( hours) 196.20 221.98 227.65 166.46 2,3,4 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.10.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 94.74% 100.00% 4 B. 2.10.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 100.00% 4 B. 2.10.6 UNE ISDN/ AL (%) 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.10.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 2.10.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 1 B. 2.10.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ AL(%) 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 83.33% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.10.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.11.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ AL(%) 100.00% 85.71% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.11.4 Combo Other/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 2.11.6 UNE ISDN/ AL (%) 100.00% 2 B. 2.11.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.11.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 2.11.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 Coordinated Customers Conversions [P- 7] B. 2.12.2 Loo ps with LNP/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early [P- 7A] B. 2.13.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1 B. 2.13.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,4 Hot Cut Timeliness [P- 7A] B. 2.14.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1 B. 2.14.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late [P- 7A] B- 21 194 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 2.15.2 Time- Specific SL2/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1 B. 2.15.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts [P- 7C] B. 2.17.1.1 UNE Loo p Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 4 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] B. 2.18.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.25% 0.00% 0.77% 0.84% 0.00% 4 B. 2.18.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 4.94% 4.84% 4.88% 3.08% 5.50% 3.13% 5.92% 5.82% B. 2.18.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.10% 0.19% 0.02% 0.11% 0.02% 0.06% 0.02% 0.22% B. 2.18.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ AL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.18.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (%) 0.24% 0.39% 0.04% 0.25% 0.04% 0.09% 0.04% 0.39% B. 2.18.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 8.33% 0.00% 4.48% 11.11% 7.53% 0.00% 2.56% 14.29% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 0.00% 1.43% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.18.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ AL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B. 2.18.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (%) 0.00% 3.13% 0.00% 0.00% 1.72% 3 B. 2.18.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 4.94% 16.67% 4.91% 0.00% 5.39% 0.00% 5.84% 1,2,3 B. 2.18.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 21.81% 1.92% 9.87% 0.00% 10.49% 0.00% 12.54% 2.04% B. 2.18.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 15.85% 3.03% 14.66% 0.00% 9.68% 2.50% 10.96% 2.94% B. 2.18.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 21.81% 14.29% 9.87% 25.00% 10.49% 0.00% 12.54% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.7.1.2 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% B. 2.18.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 4.94% 0.00% 4.88% 2.38% 5.50% 0.00% 5.92% 0.00% B. 2.18.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 8.33% 0.00% 4.48% 7.53% 2.56% 1 B- 22 195 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 2.18.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 4.94% 0.00% 4.88% 0.00% 5.50% 0.00% 5.92% 0.00% 3 B. 2.18.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 5.00% 5.43% 3.41% 4.61% B. 2.18.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 4.94% 0.00% 4.88% 0.00% 5.50% 16.67% 5.92% 1,3 B. 2.18.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.10% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% B. 2.18.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.10% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 1,2,3 B. 2.18.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.10% 0.12% 0.02% 0.13% 0.02% 1.72% 0.01% 0.00% B. 2.18.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 20.19% 2.41% 9.69% 0.00% 9.73% 1.15% 11.65% 2.41% B. 2.18.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 7.45% 10.53% 7.88% 16.07% 0.88% 6.25% 0.69% 7.79% % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] B. 2.19.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 10.40% 11.66% 10.54% 9.68% 10.54% 11.08% 10.67% 9.40% B. 2.19.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 2.92% 4.99% 3.06% 4.34% 2.77% 4.23% 2.67% 3.22% B. 2.19.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ AL (%) 3.09% 5.28% 3.18% 3.32% 2.99% 3.54% 2.75% 2.93% B. 2.19.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (%) 2.68% 4.70% 2.89% 5.47% 2.48% 5.09% 2.57% 3.38% B. 2.19.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 18.46% 0.00% 21.67% 25.00% 17.91% 22.22% 17.20% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 10.45% 100.00% 9.38% 8.70% 6.35% 0.00% 1,4 B. 2.19.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ AL (%) 16.00% 8.70% 7.14% 8.33% B. 2.19.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (%) 7.14% 100.00% 9.76% 9.38% 5.88% 0.00% 1,4 B. 2.19.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 10.26% 25.00% 10.39% 16.67% 10.32% 0.00% 10.46% 25.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 2.64% 7.14% 3.86% 1.92% 3.95% 1.96% 4.88% 2.13% B- 23 196 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 2.19.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 9.43% 11.11% 4.88% 3.03% 8.62% 13.79% 6.45% 7.50% B. 2.19.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 2.64% 28.57% 3.86% 28.57% 3.95% 0.00% 4.88% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.7.1.2 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 2.23% 2.38% 1.37% 6.78% 2.09% 14.71% 2.11% 12.90% B. 2.19.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 10.40% 12.24% 10.54% 4.17% 10.54% 4.76% 10.67% 0.00% B. 2.19.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 18.46% 21.67% 0.00% 17.91% 17.20% 2 B. 2.19.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 10.40% 0.00% 10.54% 0.00% 10.54% 4.76% 10.67% 33.33% 4 B. 2.19.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 7.13% 7.64% 6.26% 6.45% B. 2.19.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 10.40% 40.00% 10.54% 20.00% 10.54% 20.00% 10.67% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.19.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 2.92% 0.00% 3.06% 0.00% 2.76% 0.00% 2.67% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 2.92% 0.00% 3.06% 0.00% 2.76% 0.00% 2.67% 0.00% B. 2.19.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 3.56% 7.41% 4.19% 2.41% 4.40% 6.25% 5.20% 4.60% B. 2.19.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.30% 13.41% 8.07% 11.84% 2.42% 10.71% 0.00% 12.50% Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.21.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 1.29 0.16 1.51 0.17 1.40 0.77 1.45 0.26 B. 2.21.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.59 0.63 0.69 0.63 0.67 B. 2.21.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ AL (hours) 0.56 0.53 0.61 0.56 0.67 0.61 0.66 0.61 B. 2.21.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (hours) 0.56 0.64 0.52 0.62 0.57 0.73 0.59 0.71 B. 2.21.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 1.47 0.02 1.00 0.02 2.94 0.02 4.04 0.02 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.46 0.49 3.98 0.47 B. 2.21.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (hours) 0.47 0.48 0.53 0.45 B- 24 197 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 2.21.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 12.73 9.50 88.13 9.80 10.51 2 B. 2.21.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 3.57 4.54 3.48 2.83 2.47 B. 2.21.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 56.01 21.50 58.64 5.85 40.17 9.60 41.67 20.82 B. 2.21.7.1.2 Line Sharing/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 0.57 0.47 0.46 0.55 0.70 0.48 0.67 0.32 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 1.29 3.63 1.51 18.03 1.40 7.48 1.45 15.63 4 B. 2.21.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 1.47 0.08 1.00 2.94 4.04 1 B. 2.21.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 1.29 25.74 1.51 42.31 1.40 1.75 1.45 1.55 3 B. 2.21.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.55 0.28 0.57 0.62 0.62 1 B. 2.21.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.55 0.46 0.57 0.46 0.62 0.49 0.62 0.51 B. 2.21.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.47 0.02 0.51 43.08 0.50 0.53 0.57 1,3,4 B. 2.21.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 13.85 21.50 23.84 5.85 12.54 9.60 13.82 11.64 B. 2.21.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 231.29 29.88 143.05 37.69 425.46 31.46 207.00 40.29 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.22.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 19.74 4 B. 2.22.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 17.59 9.60 13.13 13.52 B. 2.22.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 5.69 5.59 2.69 6.28 B. 2.22.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ AL (hours) 4.26 4.72 2.04 6.03 B. 2.22.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (hours) 8.38 10.32 5.53 7.43 B- 25 198 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 2.22.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 36.90 0.02 15.57 1,2,3 B. 2.22.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 24.45 14.00 3,4 B. 2.22.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ AL (hours) 14.00 4 B. 2.22.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ AL (hours) 24.45 3 B. 2.22.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 100.33 82.69 44.31 1,2,3 B. 2.22.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 10.11 13.99 10.10 20.29 B. 2.22.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 47.61 15.17 18.00 17.07 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 0.65 0.02 0.02 0.02 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.7.1.2 Line Sharing/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 0.50 0.53 0.48 0.49 B. 2.22.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 49.67 48.34 39.20 29.86 B. 2.22.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 38.91 14.25 17.50 1,2,4 B. 2.22.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) B. 2.22.15.1.1 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 42.15 30.21 23.36 1,3 B. 2.22.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) B. 2.22.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.72 34.45 2,3 B. 2.22.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 2.75 1.71 0.94 0.94 B. 2.22.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.64 0.27 0.46 0.65 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 11.65 14.02 10.58 20.10 B. 2.22.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 52.94 66.01 63.40 38.02 2,4 B- 26 199 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] B. 2.34.1.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 100.00% 67.07% 69.33% B. 2.34.1.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 100.00% 90.91% 3 B. 2.34.2.1.1 Loo ps Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 98.18% 95.65% 96.00% 96.33% B. 2.34.2.1.2 Loops Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 99.09% 98.18% 100.00% 98.02% B. 2.34.2.2.1 Loo ps Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 97.75% 89.81% 97.90% 97.73% B. 2.34.2.2.2 Loops Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 97.20% 97.98% 98.73% 97.53% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] B. 3.1.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B. 3.1.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 B. 3.1.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 5.95% 3.14% 5.77% 4.00% 6.63% 6.24% 6.79% 8.88% B. 3.1.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.43% 2.56% 1.32% 5.71% 1.45% 3.28% 1.65% 2.77% B. 3.1.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 5.87% 0.00% 5.70% 0.00% 6.52% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 5.87% 0.00% 5.70% 0.00% 6.52% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 50.51% 0.00% 49.87% 0.00% 51.90% 0.00% 49.79% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.1.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 3.75% 0.00% 3.51% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 3.16% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.1.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 9.68% 10.00% 7.50% 0.00% 18.52% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2,4 B. 3.1.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 2.20% 0.00% 1.61% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.1.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 50.51% 0.00% 49.87% 100.00% 51.90% 0.00% 49.79% 0.00% 2,3 B. 3.1.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 3.75% 0.00% 3.51% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 3.16% 50.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 5.95% 1.69% 5.77% 2.35% 6.63% 2.25% 6.79% 11.54% B. 3.1.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 5.95% 0.00% 5.77% 0.00% 6.63% 0.00% 6.79% 0.00% B. 3.1.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 5.82% 0.00% 5.57% 0.00% 6.49% 0.00% 6.65% 0.00% B. 3.1.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.32% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% 1.36% 0.00% 1.22% 0.00% B- 27 200 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 3.1.10.1 Other Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 2.78% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 1.58% 0.00% B. 3.1.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.65% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 0.51% 0.00% 0.62% 0.00% B. 3.1.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 5.95% 0.00% 5.77% 33.33% 6.63% 50.00% 6.79% 0.00% 2,3 B. 3.1.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.43% 0.00% 1.32% 100.00% 1.45% 0.00% 1.65% 0.00% 2,3 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] B. 3.2.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.90% 0.00% 1.91% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 1.99% 1.75% B. 3.2.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.38% 0.00% 1.37% 0.00% 1.53% 1.82% 1.62% 0.00% B. 3.2.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.57% 1.13% 1.68% 1.31% 1.83% 1.26% 1.74% 1.40% B. 3.2.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.91% 0.38% 0.86% 0.43% 1.02% 0.40% 1.06% 0.45% B. 3.2.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.35% 2.06% 1.44% 6.50% 1.58% 2.40% 1.49% 4.10% B. 3.2.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.35% 3.09% 1.44% 4.07% 1.58% 1.60% 1.49% 4.10% B. 3.2.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.87% 0.32% 1.11% 0.39% 1.27% 0.70% 1.26% 0.38% B. 3.2.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.18% 0.00% 2.08% 0.13% 2.22% 0.06% 2.45% 0.54% B. 3.2.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.39% 1.03% 0.51% 0.72% 0.70% 1.19% 0.53% 0.68% B. 3.2.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 1.15% 0.41% 0.79% 0.92% 0.87% 1.09% 0.86% 0.19% B. 3.2.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.87% 0.00% 1.11% 0.18% 1.27% 0.52% 1.26% 0.00% B. 3.2.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.18% 1.11% 2.08% 0.71% 2.22% 0.35% 2.45% 0.34% B. 3.2.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.57% 0.48% 1.68% 0.69% 1.83% 0.74% 1.74% 0.66% B. 3.2.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.57% 0.16% 1.68% 0.13% 1.83% 0.16% 1.74% 0.10% B. 3.2.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.67% 0.00% 1.78% 0.00% 1.96% 0.00% 1.85% 0.00% B. 3.2.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.86% 0.00% 0.82% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.98% 0.00% B. 3.2.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.20% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.2.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.27% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.2.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 1.57% 0.00% 1.68% 0.20% 1.83% 0.13% 1.74% 0.00% B. 3.2.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.91% 0.00% 0.86% 0.07% 1.02% 0.07% 1.06% 0.00% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] B. 3.3.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 3.60 0.00 3.47 0.00 3.81 0.00 3.68 6.07 4 B. 3.3.2.2 Local Interoffice Transport/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 1.65 0.00 1.44 0.00 1.61 0.40 1.62 0.00 3 B. 3.3.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 20.54 10.46 21.25 10.62 24.51 11.23 23.46 14.44 B- 28 201 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 3.3.3.2 Loop + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 8.22 4.00 8.10 4.88 10.19 5.26 9.80 4.01 B. 3.3.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 20.19 4.04 20.91 3.76 24.05 6.57 23.06 5.97 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 20.19 1.47 20.91 1.60 24.05 4.78 23.06 2.50 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 48.03 2.77 41.83 3.07 51.68 3.54 97.86 6.83 1,2,4 B. 3.3.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 4.11 0.00 3.56 0.14 1.97 1.13 3.12 2.03 2,3,4 B. 3.3.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL( hours) 10.27 6.20 10.62 4.62 12.95 5.61 10.11 3.58 2,4 B. 3.3.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 3.74 5.75 3.54 6.10 3.29 7.57 2.84 1.53 1,2,4 B. 3.3.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 48.03 0.00 41.83 70.00 51.68 13.33 97.86 0.00 2,3 B. 3.3.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 4.11 11.28 3.56 12.00 1.97 9.00 3.12 28.00 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 20.54 5.82 21.25 5.50 24.51 4.72 23.46 8.40 B. 3.3.8.2 2W Analog Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 20.54 1.15 21.25 2.64 24.51 3.03 23.46 2.73 B. 3.3.9.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 20.61 0.00 21.35 0.00 24.63 0.00 23.58 0.00 B. 3.3.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 8.88 0.00 8.65 0.00 10.92 0.00 10.56 0.00 B. 3.3.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 5.81 0.00 5.81 0.00 5.68 0.00 5.61 0.00 B. 3.3.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 2.51 0.00 2.28 0.00 2.55 0.00 2.53 0.00 B. 3.3.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 20.54 0.00 21.25 13.00 24.51 41.50 23.46 0.00 2,3 B. 3.3.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ AL( hours) 8.22 0.00 8.10 24.00 10.19 5.00 9.80 0.00 2,3 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] B. 3.4.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 27.06% 0.00% 24.12% 0.00% 19.27% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4 B. 3.4.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.13% 0.00% 24.32% 0.00% 16.35% 0.00% 20.27% 0.00% 3 B. 3.4.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.12% 14.12% 17.34% 17.67% 17.38% 12.01% 17.34% 10.06% B. 3.4.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 14.16% 14.10% 14.96% 18.57% 15.49% 11.31% 16.03% 15.08% B. 3.4.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 16.23% 0.00% 17.42% 12.50% 17.43% 0.00% 17.39% 20.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 16.23% 33.33% 17.42% 20.00% 17.43% 0.00% 17.39% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.16% 0.00% 23.80% 0.00% 24.26% 0.00% 23.05% 40.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.4.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.00% 0.00% 23.78% 0.00% 24.76% 0.00% 26.48% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.4.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 9.68% 0.00% 22.50% 28.57% 25.93% 0.00% 5.00% 28.57% 2,4 B- 29 202 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 3.4.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 15.38% 0.00% 12.90% 11.11% 7.46% 18.18% 10.77% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.4.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.16% 0.00% 23.80% 0.00% 24.26% 66.67% 23.05% 0.00% 2,3 B. 3.4.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.00% 16.67% 23.78% 0.00% 24.76% 0.00% 26.48% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.12% 10.17% 17.34% 3.53% 17.38% 2.25% 17.34% 3.85% B. 3.4.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.12% 5.00% 17.34% 12.50% 17.38% 5.26% 17.34% 0.00% B. 3.4.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.12% 0.00% 17.36% 0.00% 17.42% 0.00% 17.37% 0.00% B. 3.4.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 14.17% 0.00% 15.38% 0.00% 15.84% 0.00% 15.29% 0.00% B. 3.4.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 20.61% 0.00% 21.13% 0.00% 19.77% 0.00% 19.57% 0.00% B. 3.4.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 17.12% 0.00% 14.86% 0.00% 12.10% 0.00% 14.23% 0.00% B. 3.4.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 16.12% 0.00% 17.34% 33.33% 17.38% 50.00% 17.34% 0.00% 2,3 B. 3.4.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 14.16% 0.00% 14.96% 0.00% 15.49% 0.00% 16.03% 0.00% 2,3 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] B. 3.5.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B. 3.5.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 B. 3.5.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 24.54% 6.77% 26.66% 7.32% 32.08% 9.73% 32.70% 16.02% B. 3.5.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 14.41% 1.94% 15.86% 5.51% 19.40% 7.30% 17.41% 4.80% B. 3.5.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 23.73% 0.00% 25.83% 0.00% 30.99% 0.00% 31.66% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 23.73% 0.00% 25.83% 0.00% 30.99% 0.00% 31.66% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 50.51% 0.00% 49.87% 0.00% 51.90% 0.00% 49.79% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.5.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 3.75% 0.00% 3.51% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 3.16% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.5.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 9.68% 10.00% 7.50% 0.00% 18.52% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2,4 B. 3.5.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 2.22% 0.00% 1.61% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.5.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 50.51% 0.00% 49.87% 0.00% 51.90% 0.00% 49.79% 0.00% B. 3.5.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 3.75% 0.00% 3.51% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 3.16% 0.00% B. 3.5.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 24.54% 1.69% 26.66% 2.35% 32.08% 2.25% 32.70% 11.54% B. 3.5.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 24.54% 0.00% 26.66% 0.00% 32.08% 0.00% 32.70% 0.00% B. 3.5.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 24.65% 0.00% 26.84% 0.00% 32.27% 0.00% 32.85% 0.00% B. 3.5.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 14.66% 0.00% 16.27% 0.00% 19.74% 0.00% 17.74% 0.00% B. 3.5.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 2.78% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 1.58% 0.00% B. 3.5.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.65% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 0.51% 0.00% 0.62% 0.00% B. 3.5.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ AL(%) 24.54% 0.00% 26.66% 0.00% 32.08% 50.00% 32.70% 0.00% 2,3 B- 30 203 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data B. 3.5.11.2 Other Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 14.41% 0.00% 15.86% 0.00% 19.40% 0.00% 17.41% 0.00% 2,3 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] B. 4.1 AL (%) 99.13% 98.43% 99.33% 99.66% 98.94% 98.44% 98.33% 99.99% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] B. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 7.29 3.86 4.97 3.47 3.78 3.82 3.46 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests [O- 7] C. 1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (%) 50.00% 34.15% 76.92% 45.83% Reject Interval [O- 8] C. 1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (%) 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC Timeliness [O- 9] C. 1.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (%) 97.06% 100.00% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness [O- 11] C. 1.4 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (%) 92.31% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] C. 2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (days) 42.37 25.74 20.21 26.08 21.85 16.06 19.11 21.33 3,4 Held Orders [P- 1] C. 2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (days) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Jeopardies [P- 2] C. 2.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval [P- 2] % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] C. 2.5 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] C. 2.6 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (%) 1.45% 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Average Completion Notice Interval [P- 5] C. 2.7 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (hours) 173.25 63.31 247.83 6.31 137.95 0.12 123.66 19.65 3,4 Total Service Order Cycle Time [P- 10] C. 2.8 Local Interconnection Trunks/ AL (days) 26.79 22.58 17.51 22.91 2,3,4 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours [P- 6] C. 2.10.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 B- 31 204 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data C. 2.10.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 3 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] C. 2.11.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 C. 2.11.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] C. 3.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] C. 3.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.02% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 0.04% 0.01% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] C. 3.3.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dispatch/ AL( hours) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. 3.3.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dis patch/ AL( hours) 0.75 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.31 10.52 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] C. 3.4.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.4.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] C. 3.5.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.5.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B- 32 205 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] C. 4.1 AL (%) 99.13% 99.97% 99.33% 95.88% 98.94% 95.42% 98.33% 97.11% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS [B- 2] C. 4.2 Re gion( calendar days) 4.84 4.54 3.94 3.89 4.96 4.92 4.54 4.29 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - TRUNK BLOCKING Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate [TGP- 1] C. 5.1 AL 0 0 0 0 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - PRE- ORDERING % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.71% 100.00% 99.64% 100.00% D. 1.1.2 HAL/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.3 LENS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.98% 99.85% 99.76% D. 1.1.4 LEO MAINFRAME/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.5 LEO UNIX/ Re gion(%) D. 1.1.6 LESOG/ Region(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.7 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 99.99% 99.86% D. 1.1.8 PSIMS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.2.1 ATLAS/ COFFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.2 BOCRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 1.2.3 DSAP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.98% D. 1.2.4 RSAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.5 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.6 SONGS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.86% D. 1.2.7 DOE/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.26% D. 1.2.8 LNP Gatewa y/ Region(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 99.49% D. 1.2.9 COG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.48% D. 1.2.10 DOM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.11 SOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.1- new ATLAS/ Region (%) 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.2- new COFFI/ Region (%) 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] B- 33 206 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data D. 1.3.1.1 RSAG, by TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 0.91 1782.46 1.11 2.87 1.20 2.88 1.02 D. 1.3.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 0.91 2.95 1.11 2.94 1.20 2.91 1.02 D. 1.3.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 0.91 1204.18 1.02 2.99 1.10 3.03 0.93 D. 1.3.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 0.91 4.86 1.02 4.77 1.10 4.76 0.93 D. 1.3.3.1 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 0.88 2.95 0.88 2.95 0.88 3.01 0.80 D. 1.3.3.2 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 0.88 2.61 0.88 2.60 0.88 2.61 0.80 D. 1.3.4.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 0.53 2.70 0.57 2.71 0.53 2.71 0.52 D. 1.3.4.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 0.53 2.58 0.57 2.57 0.53 2.57 0.52 D. 1.3.5.1 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.08 212.02 1.25 3.21 2.12 3.24 1.14 D. 1.3.5.2 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.08 2.91 1.25 2.87 2.12 2.95 1.14 D. 1.3.6.1 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.63 4.40 0.67 4.60 0.63 4.35 0.64 D. 1.3.6.2 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.63 3.92 0.67 7.28 0.63 3.73 0.64 D. 1.3.7.1 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.03 4.40 0.04 4.60 0.04 4.35 0.04 D. 1.3.7.2 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.03 3.92 0.04 7.28 0.04 3.73 0.04 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.4.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 1.10 1782.46 1.31 2.87 1.60 2.88 1.52 D. 1.4.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 1.10 2.95 1.31 2.94 1.60 2.91 1.52 D. 1.4.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 1.62 1204.18 1.85 2.99 3.05 3.03 2.34 D. 1.4.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 1.62 4.86 1.85 4.77 3.05 4.76 2.34 D. 1.4.4.1 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.4.2 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.5.1 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 1.35 2.95 1.56 2.95 1.86 3.01 1.89 D. 1.4.5.2 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 1.35 2.61 1.56 2.60 1.86 2.61 1.89 D. 1.4.6.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 1.58 2.70 1.71 2.71 1.74 2.71 1.83 D. 1.4.6.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 1.58 2.58 1.71 2.57 1.74 2.57 1.83 D. 1.4.7.1 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.75 212.02 2.15 3.21 2.51 3.24 2.85 D. 1.4.7.2 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.75 2.91 2.15 2.87 2.51 2.95 2.85 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.2.1 CLEC TAFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.2.2 ECTA/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 100.00% 99.86% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.3.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% B- 34 207 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data D. 2.3.2 LMOS HOST/ Region(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% 100.00% D. 2.3.3 LNP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% D. 2.3.4 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.5 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.6 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.92% D. 2.3.7 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.4.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 94.91% 94.17% 94.75% 94.83% 95.12% 94.99% 94.95% 94.66% D. 2.4.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 3.07% 3.22% 3.14% 4.03% 3.16% 4.59% 2.58% 3.67% D. 2.4.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 4.30% 2.41% 4.07% 2.41% 4.03% 3.36% 4.47% 7.51% D. 2.4.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.67% 99.69% 99.63% 99.59% 99.60% 99.60% 99.61% 99.58% D. 2.4.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 78.95% 70.39% 76.71% 65.38% 78.49% 66.19% 79.21% 66.24% D. 2.4.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.78% 99.37% 99.31% 99.09% 99.68% 99.19% 99.65% 98.81% D. 2.4.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.4.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 23.94% 13.59% 27.25% 20.73% 31.23% 24.50% 33.15% 21.43% D. 2.4.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.4.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.84% 99.91% 99.83% 99.90% 99.85% 99.88% 99.81% 99.86% D. 2.4.11 NIW/ Region(%) 82.97% 81.81% 84.38% 83.15% 84.01% 83.00% 82.83% 81.89% Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.5.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 98.99% 99.34% 98.97% 99.34% 99.05% 99.46% 99.02% 99.39% D. 2.5.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 78.81% 86.16% 78.96% 87.92% 79.20% 85.30% 77.66% 82.58% D. 2.5.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 77.94% 92.02% 77.45% 91.98% 76.65% 88.18% 71.08% 41.67% D. 2.5.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.81% 99.86% 99.79% 99.82% 99.79% 99.84% 99.80% 99.85% D. 2.5.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 90.95% 83.33% 89.31% 80.59% 90.04% 80.25% 90.59% 80.53% D. 2.5.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.93% 99.87% 99.54% 99.72% 99.81% 99.63% 99.83% 99.52% D. 2.5.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.5.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 96.89% 96.12% 97.38% 95.12% 97.81% 97.35% 98.41% 95.83% D. 2.5.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.5.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.98% 99.98% 100.00% 99.98% 100.00% D. 2.5.11 NIW/ Region(%) 99.17% 98.96% 99.49% 99.33% 99.39% 99.21% 99.42% 99.25% Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.6.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 1.01% 0.66% 1.03% 0.66% 0.95% 0.54% 0.98% 0.61% D. 2.6.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 21.19% 13.84% 21.04% 12.08% 20.80% 14.70% 22.34% 17.42% B- 35 208 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data D. 2.6.3 DLR/ Region(%) 22.06% 7.98% 22.55% 8.02% 23.35% 11.82% 28.92% 58.33% D. 2.6.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 0.19% 0.14% 0.21% 0.18% 0.21% 0.16% 0.20% 0.15% D. 2.6.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 9.05% 16.67% 10.69% 19.41% 9.96% 19.75% 9.41% 19.47% D. 2.6.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 0.07% 0.13% 0.46% 0.28% 0.19% 0.37% 0.17% 0.48% D. 2.6.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 71.65% 66.84% 71.68% 73.56% 71.96% 68.31% 71.90% 70.36% D. 2.6.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 3.11% 3.88% 2.62% 4.88% 2.19% 2.65% 1.59% 4.17% D. 2.6.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 84.22% 80.52% 84.97% 79.57% 86.18% 80.39% 87.29% 78.27% D. 2.6.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% D. 2.6.11 NIW/ Region(%) 0.83% 1.04% 0.51% 0.67% 0.61% 0.79% 0.58% 0.75% COLLOCATION - COLLOCATION Average Response Time [C- 1] E. 1.1.1 Virtual/ AL (calendar days) E. 1.1.3 Physical Caged/ AL( business days) 4 5 1,2 E. 1.1.4 Ph ysical Cageless/ AL( business days) 19 9 17 17 1,2,3,4 Average Arrangement Time [C- 2] E. 1.2.4 Ph ysical Caged- Ordinary/ AL( business days) 17 14 1,2 E. 1.2.6 Ph ysical Cageless- Ordinary/ AL( calendar days) 15 13 2,4 % Due Dates Missed [C- 3] E. 1.3.2 Ph ysical/ AL(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,4 GENERAL - FLOW THROUGH % Flow Through Service Requests [O- 3] F. 1.1.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 86.49% 87.39% 86.74% 88.58% F. 1.1.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 73.55% 71.89% 69.54% 73.74% F. 1.1.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 83.88% 84.78% 82.57% 83.84% % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved [O- 3] F. 1.2.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 79.16% 80.53% 79.88% 81.68% F. 1.2.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 50.63% 51.15% 51.58% 53.42% F. 1.2.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 72.17% 74.87% 74.12% 77.27% % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP [O- 3] B- 36 209 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data F. 1.3.1 Summary/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% F. 1.3.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% GENERAL - PRE- ORDERING Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) [PO- 2] F. 2.2 Loo ps/ AL(%) 97.58% 99.47% 99.44% 84.17% GENERAL - ORDERING Average Speed of Answer [O- 12] F. 4.1 Re gion( seconds) 141.64 30.33 137.90 28.63 194.86 35.16 259.48 58.19 GENERAL - MAINTENANCE CENTER Average Answer Time [M& R- 6] F. 5.1 Re gion( seconds) 43.10 26.35 41.00 23.60 64.68 25.99 52.80 28.04 GENERAL - OPERATOR SERVICES (TOLL) Average Speed to Answer [OS- 1] F. 6.1 AL (seconds) 6.08 5.86 6.00 5.53 % Answered in 10 seconds [OS- 2] F. 6.2 AL (%) 76.40% 77.20% 76.80% 78.80% GENERAL - DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE Average Speed to Answer [DA- 1] F. 7.1 AL (seconds) 4.26 4.80 5.06 4.54 % Answered in 10 seconds [DA- 2] F. 7.2 AL (%) 87.10% 84.60% 83.50% 86.10% GENERAL - BILLING Usage Data Delivery Accuracy [B- 3] F. 9.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.75% 100.00% 95.22% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Usage Data Delivery Timeliness [B- 5] F. 9.2 Re gion(%) 98.37% 93.14% 75.41% 94.80% 94.93% 97.64% 99.33% 99.38% Usage Data Delivery Completeness [B- 4] F. 9.3 Re gion(%) 99.38% 99.89% 99.77% 99.54% 97.21% 99.95% 99.92% 99.91% Mean Time to Deliver Usage [B- 6] F. 9.4 Re gion( days) 3.49 3.05 6.85 3.29 4.34 2.52 3.24 2.43 Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 7] F. 9.5.1 Resale/ AL (%) 80.46% 98.00% 76.52% 52.07% 85.17% 97.71% 85.80% 97.94% F. 9.5.2 UNE/ AL (%) 98.85% 99.43% 98.83% 99.64% B- 37 210 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data F. 9.5.3 Interconnection/ AL(%) 99.94% 98.90% 97.40% 99.64% Non- Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 8] F. 9.6.1 Resale/ AL (%) 97.06% 96.71% 83.65% 97.61% 88.06% 98.38% 89.07% 98.02% F. 9.6.2 UNE/ AL (%) 99.24% 99.39% 98.91% 98.57% F. 9.6.3 Interconnection/ AL (%) 96.03% 98.65% 93.53% 95.66% GENERAL - CHANGE MANAGEMENT % Software Release Notices Sent On Time [CM- 1] F. 10.1 AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time [CM- 3A] F. 10.3 AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc.) Sent On Time [CM- 3B] F. 10.4 AL (%) 77.78% 2 Average Documentation Release Delay Days [CM- 4] F. 10.5 AL (average) % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes [CM- 5] F. 10.6 AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% GENERAL - NEW BUSINESS REQUESTS % New Business Requests Processed within 30 Business Days [BFR- 1] F. 11.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 % Quotes Provided within X Business Days [BFR- 2A] F. 11.2.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 F. 11.2.3 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 GENERAL - ORDERING Acknowledgement Message Timeliness [O- 1] F. 12.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.97% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% F. 12.1.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Acknowledgement Message Completeness [O- 2] F. 12.2.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.62% F. 12.2.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% GENERAL - DATABASE UPDATES Average Database Update Interval [D- 1] F. 13.1.1 LIDB/ AL (hours) 0.52 0.52 0.60 0.60 0.46 0.46 0.49 0.49 F. 13.1.2 Director y Listings/ AL( hours) 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 B- 38 211 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 June March May April Alabama Performance Metric Data F. 13.1.3 Directory Assistance/ AL( hours) 4.52 4.52 4.90 4.90 4.72 4.71 6.51 6.46 % Update Accuracy [D- 2] F. 13.2.1 LIDB/ AL (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 93.48% F. 13.2.2 Director y Listings/ AL(%) 99.38% 99.03% 99.79% 99.35% F. 13.2.3 Director y Assistance/ AL(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.87% 99.19% % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date [D- 3] F. 13.3 Re gion(%) 96.77% 100.00% 100.00% 98.41% GENERAL - NETWORK OUTAGE NOTIFICATION Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages [M& R- 7] F. 14.1 Region( minutes) 739 218 0 0 154 123 791 602 1,3,4 Abbreviations: blank cell = no data available Notes: 1 = Sample Size under 10 in March 2 = Sample Size under 10 in April 2 = Sample Size under 10 in May 4 = Sample Size under 10 in June B- 39 212 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Appendix C Kentucky Performance Metrics Except where noted, the data included here is taken from the Kentucky Monthly State Summary (MSS) Reports provided by BellSouth, calculated according to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement (SQM) business rules. This table is provided as a reference tool for the convenience of the reader. No conclusions are to be drawn from the raw data contained in this table. Our analysis is based on the totality of the circumstances, such that we may use non- metric evidence, and may rely more heavily on some metrics more than others, in making our determination. The inclusion of these particular metrics in this table does not necessarily mean that we relied on all of these metrics, or that other metrics may not also be important in our analysis. Some metrics that we have relied on in the past and may rely on for a future application were not included here because there was no data provided for them (usually either because there was no activity, or because the metrics are still under development). Metrics with no retail analog provided are usually compared with a benchmark. Note that for some metrics during the period provided there may be changes in the metric definition, or changes in the retail analog applied, making it difficult to compare data Note: All data was calculated using BellSouth's data platform PMAP 4.0. The March data in this appendix were not taken from the MSS reports, which for that month were calculated using PMAP 2.6, but instead were calculated using PMAP 4.0 by BellSouth. This data also conforms to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement business rules that govern the regular MSS reports. 213 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name RESALE A. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours Ordering Billing A. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy A. 1.2 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices – CRIS A. 1.3 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS A. 1.4 O- 8 Reject Interval – Mech. Ordering A. 1.7 O- 8 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. – 10 hours B. 1.1 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 1.8 O- 8 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. B. 1.2 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 1.9 O- 9 FOC Timeliness – Mech. B. 1.3 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. A. 1.12 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours B. 1.4 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval – Mech. A. 1.13 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. B. 1.7 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. - 10 hours A. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mech. B. 1.8 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. A. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mech. B. 1.9 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness – Mech. A. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mech. B. 1.12 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours Provisioning B. 1.13 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. A. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval B. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Mech. A. 2.4 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Mech. B. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Partially Mech. A. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. B. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Non- Mech. A. 2.7 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. Provisioning A. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval A. 2.9 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. B. 2.2 P- 4 Order Completion Interval within X days - xDSL A. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. B. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies – Mech. A. 2.11 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments B. 2.6 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. A. 2.12 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. A. 2.14 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. B. 2.9 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. A. 2.15 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. A. 2.25 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy B. 2.11 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. Maintenance and Repair B. 2.12 P- 7 Coordinated Customers Conversions A. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments B. 2.13 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early A. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate B. 2.14 P- 7A Hot Cut Timeliness A. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.15 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late A. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.16 P- 7B Average Recovery Time – CCC PERFORMANCE METRIC CATEGORIES Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 C- 2 214 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name B. 2.17 P- 7C % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts C. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.18 P- 3/ P- 12 % Missed Installation Appointments C. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.19 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days C. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours B. 2.21 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. Billing B. 2.22 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. C. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy B. 2.34 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy C. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS Maintenance and Repair Trunk Blocking B. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments C. 5.1 TGP- 1 Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate B. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS B. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration Pre- Ordering B. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days D. 1.1 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - CLEC B. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours D. 1.2 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC Billing D. 1.3 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) B. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy D. 1.4 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) B. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS Maintenance and Repair LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS D. 2.1 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST Ordering D. 2.2 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - CLEC C. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests D. 2.3 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC C. 1.2 O- 8 Reject Interval D. 2.4 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds C. 1.3 O- 9 FOC Timeliness D. 2.5 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds C. 1.4 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness D. 2.6 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds Provisioning COLLOCATION C. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval Collocation C. 2.2 P- 1 Held Orders E. 1.1 C- 1 Average Response Time C. 2.3 P- 2 % Jeopardies E. 1.2 C- 2 Average Arrangement Time C. 2.5 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments E. 1.3 C- 3 % Due Dates Missed C. 2.6 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days GENERAL C. 2.7 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval Flow Through C. 2.8 P- 10 Total Service Order Cycle Time F. 1.1 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests C. 2.10 P- 6 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours F. 1.2 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved C. 2.11 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy F. 1.3 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP Maintenance and Repair Pre- Ordering C. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments F. 2.1 PO- 1 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) C. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate F. 2.2 PO- 2 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) C- 3 215 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Ordering Database Updates F. 4.1 O- 12 Average Speed of Answer F. 13.1 D- 1 Average Database Update Interval Maintenance Center F. 13.2 D- 2 % Update Accuracy F. 5.1 M& R- 6 Average Answer Time F. 13.3 D- 3 % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date Operator Services (Toll) Network Outage Notification F. 6.1 OS- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 14.1 M& R- 7 Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages F. 6.2 OS- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Directory Assistance F. 7.1 DA- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 7.2 DA- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Billing F. 9.1 B- 3 Usage Data Delivery Accuracy F. 9.2 B- 5 Usage Data Delivery Timeliness F. 9.3 B- 4 Usage Data Delivery Completeness F. 9.4 B- 6 Mean Time to Deliver Usage F. 9.5 B- 7 Recurring Charge Completeness F. 9.6 B- 8 Non- Recurring Charge Completeness Change Management F. 10.1 CM- 1 % Software Release Notices Sent On Time F. 10.2 CM- 2 Average Software Release Notice Delay Days F. 10.3 CM- 3A % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time F. 10.4 CM- 3B % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc. ) Sent On Time F. 10.5 CM- 4 Average Documentation Release Delay Days F. 10.6 CM- 5 % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes New Business Requests F. 11.1 BFR- 1 % New Business Requests Processed in 30 Bus. Days F. 11.2 BFR- 2A % Quotes Provided within X Business Days Ordering F. 12.1 O- 1 Acknowledgement Message Timeliness F. 12.2 O- 2 Acknowledgement Message Completeness C- 4 216 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes RESALE - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.1.1 Residence/ KY (%) 8.83% 8.46% 9.57% 7.83% A. 1.1.2 Business/ KY (%) 16.75% 23.48% 25.76% 19.48% A. 1.1.4 PBX/ KY (%) 100.00% 1 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.2.1 Residence/ KY (%) 23.05% 19.74% 25.67% 33.78% A. 1.2.2 Business/ KY (%) 50.32% 38.26% 58.82% 36.89% A. 1.2.4 PBX/ KY (%) 50.00% 4 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.3.1 Residence/ KY (%) 43.14% 43.52% 43.36% 41.35% A. 1.3.2 Business/ KY (%) 58.56% 40.57% 50.00% 47.54% A. 1.3.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ KY(%) 37.36% 37.50% 52.63% 34.38% 2 A. 1.3.4 PBX/ KY (%) 50.00% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 3,4 A. 1.3.5 Centrex/ KY (%) 100.00% 33.33% 16.67% 50.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.3.6 ISDN/ KY (%) 18.18% 35.71% 0.00% 20.00% 3,4 Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.4.1 Residence/ KY (%) 93.50% 98.25% 97.38% 97.06% A. 1.4.2 Business/ KY (%) 93.94% 94.83% 93.22% 96.67% A. 1.4.4 PBX/ KY (%) 0.00% 1 Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] A. 1.7.1 Residence/ KY (%) 91.32% 95.03% 91.25% 95.61% A. 1.7.2 Business/ KY (%) 97.59% 87.93% 97.06% 94.74% A. 1.7.4 PBX/ KY (%) 100.00% 4 Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.8.1 Residence/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.8.2 Business/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ KY(%) 97.30% 100.00% 100.00% 91.67% 2 A. 1.8.4 PBX/ KY (%) 88.89% 75.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 A. 1.8.5 Centrex/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.8.6 ISDN/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.9.1 Residence/ KY (%) 99.42% 99.56% 99.00% 99.12% Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June C- 5 217 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 1.9.2 Business/ KY(%) 99.28% 100.00% 98.77% 100.00% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] A. 1.12.1 Residence/ KY (%) 93.24% 90.29% 84.68% 85.52% A. 1.12.2 Business/ KY (%) 97.62% 95.60% 92.94% 100.00% A. 1.12.4 PBX/ KY (%) FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.13.1 Residence/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 98.25% 100.00% A. 1.13.2 Business/ KY (%) 100.00% 97.83% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.13.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 A. 1.13.4 PBX/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 A. 1.13.5 Centrex/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 A. 1.13.6 ISDN/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.14.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ KY (%) 100.00% 98.81% 93.24% 100.00% A. 1.14.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ KY (%) 99.78% 99.71% 99.13% 99.77% A. 1.14.2.1 Business/ EDI/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 A. 1.14.2.2 Business/ TAG/ KY (%) 85.28% 97.95% 94.98% 100.00% A. 1.14.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ KY (%) 100.00% 1 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.15.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ KY (%) 100.00% 93.75% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 A. 1.15.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ KY (%) 99.31% 99.11% 99.50% 99.59% A. 1.15.2.1 Business/ EDI/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 2 A. 1.15.2.2 Business/ TAG/ KY (%) 99.36% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.15.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ KY (%) 50.00% 4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.16.1 Residence/ KY (%) 93.14% 97.22% 95.58% 98.50% A. 1.16.2 Business/ KY (%) 99.10% 94.34% 92.65% 91.80% A. 1.16.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ KY(%) 94.51% 87.50% 78.95% 93.75% 2 A. 1.16.4 PBX/ KY (%) 100.00% 91.67% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 A. 1.16.5 Centrex/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 83.33% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.16.6 ISDN/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 RESALE - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] C- 6 218 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.1.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 5.58 4.89 5.81 4.83 6.31 5.50 6.21 6.00 A. 2.1.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 0.90 0.65 0.89 0.59 0.89 0.62 0.89 0.60 A. 2.1.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 4.88 5.00 3.00 5.83 5.38 2 A. 2.1.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 2.40 2.77 3.26 2.53 3.75 3.75 5.45 3.40 A. 2.1.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 1.28 0.92 1.22 0.76 1.65 0.99 1.18 0.76 A. 2.1.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 9.19 19.00 7.54 10.82 15.00 1 A. 2.1.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 23.73 2.38 21.79 6.67 19.77 3.00 18.76 9.33 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 4.15 3.49 2.55 3.88 6.92 3.75 6.57 2.00 3,4 A. 2.1.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 4.73 24.35 7.00 14.73 17.15 2 A. 2.1.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 2.66 2.30 2.27 2.33 3.53 2.67 1.59 2.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 0.96 1.24 3.00 4.80 1.33 2.00 2,4 A. 2.1.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 7.08 5.99 1.00 6.16 6.47 2 A. 2.1.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 4.02 3.18 1.22 7.68 32.00 2.01 1.17 2,3,4 A. 2.1.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 18.92 13.06 14.60 16.49 15.63 6.00 2,4 A. 2.1.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 4.20 2.49 1.61 2.12 7.67 3.64 1.67 2,3,4 A. 2.1.6.2.1 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 12.00 4 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.4.1 Residence/ KY (%) 0.58% 0.66% 0.51% 0.60% 0.43% 0.40% 0.39% 0.35% A. 2.4.2 Business/ KY (%) 1.38% 1.56% 1.66% 0.00% 2.06% 2.69% 1.46% 0.67% A. 2.4.4 PBX/ KY (%) 3.08% 2.74% 0.00% 3.57% 2.08% 2 A. 2.4.5 Centrex/ KY (%) 4.98% 4.07% 0.00% 5.51% 1.37% 0.00% 2,4 A. 2.4.6 ISDN/ KY (%) 10.53% 8.33% 0.00% 8.23% 0.00% 2.64% 0.00% 2,3,4 % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.5.1 Residence/ KY (%) 1.77% 3.26% 0.00% 0.68% A. 2.5.2 Business/ KY (%) 1.56% 1.08% 0.00% 0.00% A. 2.5.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 3 A. 2.5.4 PBX/ KY (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.5.5 Centrex/ KY (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.5.6 ISDN/ KY (%) 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.7.1 Residence/ KY (hours) 272.93 136.01 151.35 165.48 A. 2.7.2 Business/ KY (hours) 243.88 150.95 148.92 1,3,4 C- 7 219 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.8.1 Residence/ KY (hours) 286.92 48.84 1,2 A. 2.8.2 Business/ KY (hours) 40.18 33.15 1,2 A. 2.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ KY( hours) 288.09 4 A. 2.8.6 ISDN/ KY (hours) 496.22 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.9.1 Residence/ KY (%) 97.30% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 2.9.2 Business/ KY (%) 100.00% 80.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.10.1 Residence/ KY (%) 100.00% 50.00% 1,2 A. 2.10.2 Business/ KY (%) 0.00% 0.00% 1,2 A. 2.10.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ KY(%) 100.00% 4 A. 2.10.6 ISDN/ KY (%) 100.00% 2 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] A. 2.11.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 7.61% 4.95% 7.31% 5.74% 15.04% 9.91% 13.82% 11.36% A. 2.11.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.06% 0.08% 0.03% 0.04% 0.03% 0.06% 0.03% 0.02% A. 2.11.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 13.33% 1,2 A. 2.11.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.30% 4.48% 1.42% 2.33% 3.48% 11.11% 6.92% 2.38% A. 2.11.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.28% 0.00% 0.03% 0.34% 0.02% 0.00% 0.07% 0.65% A. 2.11.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 8.89% 50.00% 3.39% 2.94% 6.25% 1 A. 2.11.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 A. 2.11.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 2.49% 0.00% 3.83% 0.00% 5.42% 0.00% 6.08% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.11.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 A. 2.11.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 11.76% 0.00% 2 A. 2.11.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 0.00% 3.85% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,4 A. 2.11.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 1.67% 0.00% 2.70% 3.39% 2 A. 2.11.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.11.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 A. 2.11.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.90% 0.81% 0.00% 2.50% 5.97% 0.00% 2,4 A. 2.11.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.52% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.6.2.1 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 4 C- 8 220 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] A. 2.12.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 10.76% 7.69% 9.65% 9.71% 11.76% 7.38% 11.36% 7.76% A. 2.12.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 3.13% 6.21% 3.39% 4.58% 3.26% 3.39% 3.24% 3.41% A. 2.12.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 25.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 2,3 A. 2.12.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 8.98% 14.29% 9.41% 19.70% 9.82% 4.65% 12.26% 3.17% A. 2.12.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 4.63% 5.29% 5.75% 1.05% 5.53% 4.79% 6.67% 4.43% A. 2.12.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 9.09% 13.33% 50.00% 15.25% 8.82% 2 A. 2.12.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 A. 2.12.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 4.84% 9.09% 4.59% 0.00% 6.05% 0.00% 3.80% 25.00% 3,4 A. 2.12.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.24% 0.00% 0.00% 1.54% 2.01% 4.35% 2.86% 0.00% 1,4 A. 2.12.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 23.08% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 A. 2.12.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 3 A. 2.12.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 8.08% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 16.22% 3 A. 2.12.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 6.62% 5.10% 5.94% 0.00% 7.24% 0.00% 3,4 A. 2.12.5.2.1 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 12.50% 7.14% 20.00% A. 2.12.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 30.77% 22.73% 0.00% 4 A. 2.12.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 6.92% 6.33% 2.44% 0.00% 6.25% 3 A. 2.12.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.14.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 4.13 0.15 2.94 0.60 2.30 0.02 1.86 0.02 A. 2.14.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.63 0.31 0.48 0.32 0.44 0.33 0.51 0.33 A. 2.14.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 1.81 0.94 3.12 0.25 1.91 0.94 2.00 0.02 A. 2.14.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 1.06 0.25 1.48 0.29 1.43 0.30 0.88 0.29 A. 2.14.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.64 0.02 1.30 5.17 0.02 1 A. 2.14.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 2.80 7.79 0.02 5.93 2.35 2 A. 2.14.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.58 1.19 0.20 6.85 0.43 1.87 0.15 2,3,4 A. 2.14.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 12.27 11.08 0.02 7.72 0.28 10.09 0.30 2,3,4 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.15.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 13.67 21.23 11.52 21.19 A. 2.15.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 7.87 8.15 3.30 8.17 A. 2.15.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 15.23 0.02 1,2 C- 9 221 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.15.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 12.56 18.00 20.42 21.05 A. 2.15.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 9.78 11.53 14.23 16.13 A. 2.15.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 15.73 1 A. 2.15.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.15 1 A. 2.15.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 29.67 81.51 31.74 39.59 2,3,4 A. 2.15.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 80.83 51.84 138.75 19.52 3,4 A. 2.15.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 81.77 2 A. 2.15.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 39.38 35.81 20.54 14.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 13.93 0.18 2,4 A. 2.15.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 23.93 2 A. 2.15.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 14.48 22.38 15.32 2,3,4 A. 2.15.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 14.00 3 A. 2.15.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 68.13 166.57 2,4 A. 2.15.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 12.79 25.78 26.00 39.88 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.6.2.1 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 426.23 4 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] A. 2.25.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 92.14% 96.55% 90.77% 98.86% A. 2.25.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 95.38% 94.29% 98.82% 98.56% A. 2.25.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 100.00% 88.24% 100.00% 100.00% 4 A. 2.25.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 91.33% 95.76% 88.82% 94.44% A. 2.25.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 93.85% 97.93% 96.11% 97.22% A. 2.25.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 100.00% 77.78% 77.78% 76.92% 2 A. 2.25.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 84.62% 97.56% 92.59% 91.89% A. 2.25.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 81.08% 91.43% 80.49% 96.47% A. 2.25.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 91.84% 94.78% 91.43% 91.36% A. 2.25.3.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.25.3.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% 90.00% 92.31% 88.89% 1,4 RESALE - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] A. 3.1.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 9.05% 5.00% 8.60% 4.39% 15.82% 8.98% 14.43% 9.49% C- 10 222 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 3.1.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.39% 0.00% 1.31% 1.01% 2.41% 2.25% 2.11% 2.91% A. 3.1.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 7.99% 12.86% 6.62% 6.49% 14.99% 5.88% 16.21% 17.44% A. 3.1.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 2.14% 0.00% 1.09% 0.00% 1.94% 0.00% 2.98% 0.00% A. 3.1.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 2.16% 0.00% 1.70% 0.00% 1.83% 0.00% 2.50% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.1.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.37% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.52% 6.25% 0.31% 0.00% 2 A. 3.1.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 14.46% 0.00% 4.44% 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 7.06% 8.33% 3 A. 3.1.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.92% 0.00% 3.08% 0.00% 1.37% 0.00% 2.33% 0.00% 3 A. 3.1.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 9.04% 33.33% 5.93% 50.00% 27.91% 0.00% 19.18% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 3.1.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 4.94% 0.00% 3.95% 0.00% 5.78% 0.00% 11.90% 0.00% A. 3.1.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.08% 0.00% 2,3 A. 3.1.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.49% 0.00% 1.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] A. 3.2.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 2.09% 2.19% 2.33% 1.88% 2.63% 2.81% 2.50% 2.62% A. 3.2.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.96% 0.48% 0.90% 0.37% 1.06% 0.43% 1.06% 0.51% A. 3.2.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.14% 0.94% 1.19% 1.09% 1.37% 1.24% 1.33% 1.29% A. 3.2.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.43% 0.40% 0.53% 0.30% 0.53% 0.18% 0.53% 0.30% A. 3.2.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.41% 0.87% 1.40% 0.87% 1.49% 0.86% 1.93% 0.24% A. 3.2.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.85% 1.24% 1.64% 0.37% 1.96% 1.98% 2.25% 1.96% A. 3.2.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.21% 0.00% 0.23% 2.41% 0.19% 1.54% 0.22% 2.28% A. 3.2.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.13% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00% 0.19% 0.58% 0.11% 0.00% A. 3.2.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.34% 0.69% 0.24% 0.52% 0.46% 0.34% 0.39% 0.00% A. 3.2.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.15% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 0.22% 0.00% A. 3.2.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.05% 0.00% 0.06% 0.51% 0.03% 0.35% 0.06% 0.00% A. 3.2.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.09% 0.63% 0.08% 0.00% 0.08% 0.52% 0.08% 0.16% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] A. 3.3.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 23.04 18.62 22.21 17.13 32.47 27.17 33.11 26.73 A. 3.3.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 8.96 5.79 7.37 3.43 12.01 11.71 13.00 5.12 A. 3.3.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 9.46 12.56 9.81 9.17 13.52 11.66 13.21 13.12 A. 3.3.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 2.65 3.44 2.53 1.81 3.57 2.00 3.64 3.40 A. 3.3.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 4.73 2.56 4.52 2.95 5.59 4.96 5.00 1.21 1,2,3,4 A. 3.3.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 2.25 3.11 2.30 1.52 2.32 3.04 2.50 0.74 2 A. 3.3.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 11.03 0.00 7.91 14.83 7.90 6.92 7.60 23.94 3 A. 3.3.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 3.92 0.00 4.36 0.00 3.69 9.18 5.04 0.00 3 A. 3.3.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 12.58 22.75 12.60 14.50 14.95 6.00 14.17 0.00 1,2,3 C- 11 223 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 3.3.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 4.23 0.00 6.14 0.00 6.75 0.00 5.64 0.00 A. 3.3.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 4.74 0.00 5.58 3.17 6.48 7.74 6.49 0.00 2,3 A. 3.3.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 2.37 4.78 2.86 0.00 2.64 3.13 4.92 0.55 1,3,4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] A. 3.4.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 17.15% 12.33% 18.83% 12.97% 20.30% 13.99% 20.14% 15.18% A. 3.4.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 14.79% 12.21% 15.85% 9.09% 16.93% 10.11% 15.67% 14.56% A. 3.4.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 14.12% 12.86% 14.49% 10.39% 13.92% 11.76% 15.95% 10.47% A. 3.4.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 14.08% 10.00% 11.80% 4.76% 14.31% 16.67% 9.51% 5.00% A. 3.4.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 17.03% 28.57% 23.54% 28.57% 17.39% 0.00% 26.96% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.4.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 13.03% 10.00% 18.22% 0.00% 16.46% 6.25% 18.47% 6.25% 2 A. 3.4.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 8.43% 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% 13.33% 25.00% 9.41% 25.00% 3 A. 3.4.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 3.85% 0.00% 9.23% 0.00% 4.11% 0.00% 9.30% 0.00% 3 A. 3.4.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 11.70% 33.33% 10.37% 0.00% 11.63% 0.00% 10.96% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 3.4.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 6.17% 0.00% 11.84% 0.00% 7.51% 0.00% 15.08% 0.00% A. 3.4.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 13.16% 0.00% 16.28% 0.00% 16.67% 50.00% 16.67% 0.00% 2,3 A. 3.4.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 8.96% 0.00% 14.06% 0.00% 19.70% 33.33% 8.06% 0.00% 1,3,4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] A. 3.5.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 14.08% 8.66% 14.22% 9.02% 26.76% 17.76% 16.96% 10.42% A. 3.5.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 6.18% 5.17% 5.32% 2.44% 10.49% 7.69% 7.58% 5.17% A. 3.5.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 3.12% 2.08% 4.21% 2.27% 8.39% 4.00% 7.38% 8.77% A. 3.5.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.06% 0.00% 1.47% 0.00% 2.76% 0.00% 2.57% 0.00% 3,4 A. 3.5.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 2.16% 0.00% 1.70% 0.00% 1.83% 0.00% 2.50% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.5.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.37% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.52% 6.25% 0.31% 0.00% 2 A. 3.5.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 6.06% 0.00% 3.61% 0.00% 3.08% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 3.5.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 2.27% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 2.13% 0.00% 2.50% 0.00% 3 A. 3.5.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 5.10% 0.00% 6.10% 0.00% 9.66% 0.00% 13.49% 0.00% 1,3 A. 3.5.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 4.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.19% 0.00% 6.25% 0.00% A. 3.5.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.08% 0.00% 2,3 A. 3.5.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.49% 0.00% 1.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 RESALE - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] A. 4.1 KY (%) 99.18% 99.79% 98.68% 99.59% 98.67% 99.68% 98.38% 99.18% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] C- 12 224 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 4.2 Region( business days) 3.68 3.56 3.86 3.27 3.47 3.16 3.82 3.37 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.1.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 23.64% 20.18% 23.00% 22.38% B. 1.1.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 50.00% 4 B. 1.1.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 33.33% 17.50% 5.56% 16.88% B. 1.1.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 36.36% 1,2 B. 1.1.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 15.71% 25.45% 29.41% 17.39% B. 1.1.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 16.00% 10.42% 33.33% 55.81% B. 1.1.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 27.27% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.1.14 Other Desi gn/ KY(%) 61.29% 20.34% 37.50% 25.00% B. 1.1.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 18.70% 9.40% 8.76% 16.97% B. 1.1.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 4.07% 5.32% 4.16% 4.17% % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.2.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 26.57% 32.36% 42.27% 35.24% B. 1.2.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.2.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 10.00% 12.50% 10.00% B. 1.2.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 57.14% 63.16% 11.11% 58.82% 1,3 B. 1.2.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 45.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.2.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 75.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.2.14 Other Desi gn/ KY(%) 31.25% 38.24% 38.10% 15.38% B. 1.2.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 44.62% 20.00% 19.85% 16.97% B. 1.2.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 15.94% 12.88% 11.29% 8.27% % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.3.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ KY(%) 50.00% 20.00% 0.00% 1,3 B. 1.3.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 51.71% 43.24% 54.07% 44.33% B. 1.3.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 66.67% 25.00% 43.33% 1,3 B. 1.3.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.3.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 0.00% 50.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.3.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 13.33% 40.00% 27.27% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.3.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.3.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 42.86% 50.00% 75.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.3.14 Other Desi gn/ KY(%) 38.78% 27.59% 27.08% 27.27% C- 13 225 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.3.15 Other Non- Design/ KY(%) 29.63% 32.08% 36.26% 42.11% B. 1.3.16 INP Standalone/ KY (%) 75.00% 40.00% 0.00% 50.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.3.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 27.27% 37.19% 27.03% 27.12% Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.4.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 93.58% 92.55% 93.37% 95.71% B. 1.4.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 0.00% 4 B. 1.4.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.4.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.4.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 81.82% 42.86% 100.00% 87.50% 4 B. 1.4.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 62.50% 100.00% 46.15% 66.67% 1,2 B. 1.4.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 33.33% 50.00% 1,2 B. 1.4.14 Other Desi gn/ KY(%) 94.74% 66.67% 85.71% 54.55% B. 1.4.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 96.65% 94.37% 84.33% 79.33% B. 1.4.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 100.00% 98.55% 95.16% 100.00% Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] B. 1.7.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 94.37% 98.42% 60.86% 96.55% B. 1.7.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 0.00% 2 B. 1.7.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.7.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.7.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 88.89% 66.67% 1,3 B. 1.7.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.7.14 Other Desi gn/ KY(%) 86.67% 100.00% 62.50% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.7.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 93.10% 95.24% 98.08% 92.98% B. 1.7.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 84.93% 91.06% 92.86% 92.86% Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.8.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 98.17% 98.44% 97.89% 97.73% B. 1.8.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 B. 1.8.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.8.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) B. 1.8.9 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 C- 14 226 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.8.14 Other Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.8.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.8.16 INP Standalone/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.8.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 99.27% 98.95% 99.29% 97.46% B. 1.9.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 0.00% 4 B. 1.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 92.59% 100.00% 96.55% 98.15% B. 1.9.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.9.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.44% B. 1.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.9.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.9.14 Other Desi gn/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.9.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 96.36% 95.27% 97.84% 97.95% B. 1.9.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 99.91% 100.00% 96.18% 93.71% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] B. 1.12.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 92.80% 94.01% 78.91% 89.59% B. 1.12.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.12.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 96.30% 96.15% 100.00% B. 1.12.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.12.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.12.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 66.67% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.12.14 Other Desi gn/ KY(%) 97.14% 100.00% 93.75% 100.00% B. 1.12.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 63.77% 68.57% 93.23% 92.28% B. 1.12.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 66.74% 71.43% 89.03% 91.88% FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.13.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.13.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 100.00% 96.88% 96.34% 97.83% B. 1.13.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.13.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.13.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.13.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.13.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 C- 15 227 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.13.9 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.13.14 Other Desi gn/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.13.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.63% B. 1.13.16 INP Standalone/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.13.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 98.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.14.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ KY(%) 98.46% 99.86% 96.91% 99.77% B. 1.14.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ KY(%) 98.52% 98.45% 98.18% 99.84% B. 1.14.4.2 Combo Other/ TAG/ KY (%) 50.00% 4 B. 1.14.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ KY(%) 87.50% 100.00% 80.65% 95.56% B. 1.14.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ KY(%) 78.95% 100.00% 100.00% 75.00% 2,3 B. 1.14.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ KY(%) 0.00% 100.00% 1 B. 1.14.6.2 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.14.7.1 Line Sharin g/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.14.7.2 Line Sharin g/ TAG/ KY(%) 94.74% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.14.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.14.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.14.9.2 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ TAG/ KY(%) 63.64% 100.00% 75.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.14.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 95.65% 92.31% 100.00% B. 1.14.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 95.35% 100.00% B. 1.14.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 99.86% 99.39% 98.34% B. 1.14.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ KY(%) 76.27% 93.88% 90.48% 90.00% B. 1.14.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ KY (%) 100.00% 99.92% 98.99% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.15.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 99.76% 98.64% 99.63% B. 1.15.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ KY(%) 99.49% 99.07% 99.78% 99.92% B. 1.15.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.15.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ KY(%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.15.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 B. 1.15.6.2 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.7.1 Line Sharin g/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.15.7.2 Line Sharin g/ TAG/ KY(%) 100.00% 83.33% 100.00% 66.67% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.15.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.15.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 C- 16 228 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.15.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ TAG/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.15.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.15.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 88.70% 99.37% B. 1.15.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ KY(%) 97.37% 96.55% 96.88% 85.71% B. 1.15.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ KY (%) 98.91% 97.60% 100.00% 99.38% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.16.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ KY(%) 100.00% 90.00% 62.50% 1,3 B. 1.16.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 97.56% 96.62% 98.84% 92.78% B. 1.16.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.16.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.16.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.16.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 93.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.16.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.16.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 100.00% 62.50% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.16.14 Other Desi gn/ KY(%) 97.96% 100.00% 97.92% 90.91% B. 1.16.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 98.77% 99.06% 97.80% 99.25% B. 1.16.16 INP Standalone/ KY (%) 75.00% 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.16.17 LNP Standalone/ KY (%) 96.97% 99.17% 99.10% 98.31% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] B. 2.1.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 16.89 18.92 14.00 17.57 17.00 16.18 19.00 2,3,4 B. 2.1.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 3.96 2.74 4.70 2.95 5.29 3.53 6.03 3.11 B. 2.1.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 0.92 0.60 0.91 0.60 0.94 0.63 0.91 0.68 B. 2.1.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ KY (days) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 B. 2.1.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ KY (days) 1.57 1.25 1.56 1.14 1.55 1.18 1.49 1.21 B. 2.1.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 9.60 2.00 7.87 9.19 1.00 10.02 1.67 1,3,4 B. 2.1.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 5.06 10.91 5.68 11.21 6.26 11.44 7.09 13.92 C- 17 229 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.1.6.3.1 UNE ISDN/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 13.26 8.64 11.41 8.56 11.83 8.63 13.39 8.46 2 B. 2.1.7.3.1 Line Sharin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 3.92 3.00 4.38 4.20 4.02 5.00 3.04 4.00 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.7.3.2 Line Sharin g/< 6 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( days) 3.75 3.83 4.05 3.61 3.93 2.46 3.85 B. 2.1.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 3.96 4.70 5.29 3.00 6.03 5.50 3,4 B. 2.1.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( days) 3.97 4.00 4.69 3.60 5.27 6.03 3.60 1,2,4 B. 2.1.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 3.96 6.33 4.70 10.33 5.29 6.00 6.03 1,2,3 B. 2.1.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 0.92 0.91 0.94 0.91 B. 2.1.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( days) 0.92 0.91 0.33 0.93 2.00 0.91 2,3 B. 2.1.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 0.92 0.83 0.91 0.77 0.93 0.85 0.91 0.87 B. 2.1.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( days) 0.33 1.67 0.33 7.00 4 B. 2.1.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 14.78 6.65 17.82 7.07 13.31 7.70 16.13 6.25 B. 2.1.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 25.51 6.13 15.76 5.27 14.02 5.60 14.85 6.06 Order Completion Interval within X days [P- 4] B. 2.2.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop w/ o Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 4.33 4.40 4.00 4.33 2,3 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.5.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 0.65% 0.19% 0.60% 0.23% 0.55% 0.07% 0.47% 0.06% B. 2.5.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 7.49% 8.02% 8.90% 8.85% B. 2.5.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B. 2.5.6 UNE ISDN/ KY (%) 10.14% 0.00% 7.87% 33.33% 5.88% 11.76% 8.96% 11.11% 1,2,4 B. 2.5.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 9.78% 0.00% 8.85% 0.00% 6.74% 4.60% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.5.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 0.65% 0.60% 0.55% 0.00% 0.47% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.5.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ KY(%) 1.19% 0.00% 1.11% 0.00% 0.98% 0.00% 0.86% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.5.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 0.65% 0.60% 0.55% 0.47% B. 2.5.17 LNP (Standalone)/ KY(%) 0.65% 0.00% 0.59% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.47% 0.00% B. 2.5.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ KY(%) 7.07% 0.00% 5.83% 33.33% 7.66% 11.76% 6.95% 5.88% 1,2 C- 18 230 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.5.19 Digital Loop >= DS1/ KY(%) 17.89% 61.54% 24.14% 81.58% 35.87% 78.57% 5.54% 60.87% % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.6.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ KY(%) 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.6.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 2.78% 1.63% 0.38% 0.51% B. 2.6.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 69.23% 57.89% 73.91% 61.54% B. 2.6.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.6.6 UNE ISDN/ KY (%) 0.00% 100.00% 1,4 B. 2.6.7 Line Sharin g/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ KY(%) 0.00% 4 B. 2.6.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 B. 2.6.16 INP (Standalone)/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 B. 2.6.17 LNP (Standalone)/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 2,3,4 B. 2.6.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ KY(%) 42.86% 100.00% 25.00% 40.00% 1,2,3,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY( hours) 180.47 118.31 155.55 103.39 1,2,3,4 B. 2.8.4 Combo Other/ KY (hours) B. 2.8.6 UNE ISDN/ KY( hours) 336.61 350.93 342.68 2,3,4 B. 2.8.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ KY( hours) 336.61 350.93 342.68 2,3,4 B. 2.8.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ KY( hours) 223.64 194.23 189.63 190.94 1 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.9.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ KY( hours) 544.28 2 B. 2.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY( hours) 200.51 80.07 352.13 40.13 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.4 Combo Other/ KY (hours) 325.60 331.47 312.10 375.09 1,4 B. 2.9.6 UNE ISDN/ KY (hours) 304.20 4 B. 2.9.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ KY( hours) 304.20 4 B. 2.9.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ KY( hours) 251.81 125.65 272.73 1,3,4 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.10.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.10.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) B. 2.10.6 UNE ISDN/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.10.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.10.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 C- 19 231 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.11.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ KY(%) 100.00% 2 B. 2.11.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.4 Combo Other/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 B. 2.11.6 UNE ISDN/ KY (%) 100.00% 4 B. 2.11.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ KY(%) 100.00% 4 B. 2.11.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts [P- 7C] B. 2.17.1.1 UNE Loo p Design/ Dispatch/ KY(%) % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] B. 2.18.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.95% 8.91% 0.00% 2.54% 0.00% 2.61% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.18.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 4.57% 3.65% 4.79% 7.09% 10.49% 6.67% 12.09% 7.75% B. 2.18.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.07% 0.53% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 0.04% 0.03% 0.08% B. 2.18.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ KY (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.18.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ KY (%) 0.13% 1.24% 0.06% 0.00% 0.05% 0.07% 0.07% 0.13% B. 2.18.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 5.48% 0.00% 2.11% 0.00% 8.62% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 B. 2.18.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ KY (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 B. 2.18.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 4.44% 7.69% 4.71% 10.53% 10.15% 4.55% 11.61% 7.69% B. 2.18.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 B. 2.18.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.92% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% 4.88% 0.00% 4.88% 0.00% 2 B. 2.18.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 5.42% 0.00% 5.24% 14.29% 7.62% 0.00% 9.86% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.7.1.2 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.78 0.39% 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% C- 20 232 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.18.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 4.57% 4.79% 10.49% 0.00% 12.09% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.18.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 4.60% 0.00% 4.83% 0.00% 10.61% 0.00% 12.24% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 4.57% 0.00% 4.79% 0.00% 10.49% 0.00% 12.09% 1,2,3 B. 2.18.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.07% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% B. 2.18.16.1.1 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 4.60% 4.83% 10.61% 100.00% 12.24% 3 B. 2.18.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.07% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 2,3 B. 2.18.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.07% 0.31% 0.03% 0.06% 0.03% 0.54% 0.03% 0.13% B. 2.18.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,4 B. 2.18.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 2.44% 0.00% 1.88% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00% 12.17% 0.00% B. 2.18.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.85% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% 1.50% 8.57% 8.20% 3.70% % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] B. 2.19.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 8.74% 7.89% 10.34% 0.00% 7.97% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.19.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 9.95% 11.61% 9.48% 8.15% 10.89% 10.24% 11.77% 16.00% B. 2.19.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 3.20% 3.90% 3.50% 3.38% 3.36% 3.41% 3.40% 3.61% B. 2.19.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ KY (%) 3.05% 3.16% 3.46% 3.02% 3.35% 3.68% 3.20% 3.36% B. 2.19.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ KY (%) 3.35% 4.93% 3.54% 3.84% 3.38% 3.18% 3.59% 3.84% B. 2.19.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 11.76% 50.00% 10.96% 0.00% 10.53% 0.00% 10.34% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 2.63% 19.23% 0.00% 15.15% 3 B. 2.19.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ KY (%) 0.00% 11.11% 16.67% 0.00% C- 21 233 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.19.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ KY (%) 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 15.63% 3 B. 2.19.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 9.68% 7.69% 9.24% 7.69% 10.57% 21.05% 11.28% 13.64% B. 2.19.4.1.4 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ KY(%) 9.68% 9.24% 10.57% 11.28% B. 2.19.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.19.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 7.89% 10.00% 9.17% 0.00% 2.41% 22.22% 7.32% 5.88% 3 B. 2.19.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 8.54% 0.00% 4.14% 0.00% 4.27% 14.29% 4.86% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.7.1.2 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 8.19% 0.00% 1.49% 5.88% 4.11% 17.39% 2.25% 10.34% 1 B. 2.19.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 9.95% 9.48% 10.89% 11.77% 0.00% 4 B. 2.19.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 9.97% 0.00% 9.54% 0.00% 10.95% 0.00% 11.71% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 9.95% 9.48% 10.89% 11.77% B. 2.19.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 5.59% 4.89% 5.17% 4.05% B. 2.19.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 9.95% 0.00% 9.48% 16.67% 10.89% 66.67% 11.77% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.20% 3.50% 3.36% 3.40% B. 2.19.16.1.1 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 9.97% 9.54% 10.95% 11.71% 0.00% 4 B. 2.19.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.20% 3.50% 3.36% 0.00% 3.40% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.19.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.20% 0.00% 3.50% 0.00% 3.36% 0.00% 3.40% 0.00% B. 2.19.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2 B. 2.19.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 6.58% 4.76% 6.10% 7.14% 1.25% 11.76% 6.67% 4.55% B. 2.19.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.19% 0.00% 2.56% 9.52% 2.25% 5.13% 1.50% 14.29% Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.21.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 3.03 0.22 3.01 0.24 2.27 0.19 1.89 0.08 B. 2.21.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.65 0.34 0.52 0.36 0.50 0.38 0.53 0.38 C- 22 234 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.21.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ KY (hours) 0.80 0.32 0.64 0.34 0.61 0.35 0.66 0.36 B. 2.21.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ KY (hours) 0.51 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.39 B. 2.21.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.49 49.28 0.82 0.02 3.25 0.02 0.36 0.02 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.02 0.57 4 B. 2.21.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 26.45 0.93 47.73 0.59 44.65 13.67 38.49 0.44 1,2 B. 2.21.7.1.2 Line Sharing/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 0.35 0.76 0.17 0.34 0.43 0.53 2,4 B. 2.21.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 3.03 3.01 2.27 117.95 1.89 12.36 3,4 B. 2.21.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 3.02 0.02 3.01 3.12 2.15 3.81 1.89 0.02 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.65 0.26 0.52 0.26 0.49 0.28 0.53 0.27 B. 2.21.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.42 0.32 0.13 B. 2.21.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 41.56 0.93 224.62 0.59 96.72 13.67 177.90 0.49 1,2 B. 2.21.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 284.45 12.21 145.82 56.76 124.46 23.03 95.60 25.84 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.22.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 14.70 15.90 27.26 2,3,4 B. 2.22.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 12.14 12.16 24.53 11.19 B. 2.22.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 8.71 8.51 6.51 9.26 B. 2.22.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ KY (hours) 7.81 2.49 1.31 8.53 B. 2.22.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ KY (hours) 9.76 19.83 17.70 11.39 C- 23 235 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.22.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) B. 2.22.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 38.00 2 B. 2.22.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ KY (hours) 38.00 2 B. 2.22.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 61.62 77.74 60.32 47.99 B. 2.22.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 9.09 10.32 8.67 7.61 2,3,4 B. 2.22.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 27.29 19.32 1,4 B. 2.22.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 0.02 0.27 0.02 0.02 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.7.1.2 Line Sharing/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 0.54 1.53 0.72 0.28 B. 2.22.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 111.05 4 B. 2.22.15.1.1 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 19.28 35.87 16.48 1,2,3 B. 2.22.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) B. 2.22.16.1.1 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 14.00 3 B. 2.22.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 14.00 81.68 2,3 B. 2.22.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 5.60 3.39 2.56 1.75 B. 2.22.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.20 0.28 1,4 B. 2.22.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 13.88 10.32 8.67 8.91 2,3,4 B. 2.22.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 33.75 55.33 25.19 45.05 1,2,3,4 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] B. 2.34.1.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% 67.07% 69.33% C- 24 236 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.34.1.2.1 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% 90.91% 3 B. 2.34.2.1.1 Loo ps Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 98.18% 95.65% 96.00% 96.33% B. 2.34.2.1.2 Loops Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 99.09% 98.18% 100.00% 98.02% B. 2.34.2.2.1 Loo ps Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 97.75% 89.81% 97.90% 97.73% B. 2.34.2.2.2 Loops Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 97.20% 97.98% 98.73% 97.53% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] B. 3.1.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.33% 0.00% B. 3.1.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 3.1.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 8.95% 5.11% 8.37% 4.62% 15.85% 12.14% 14.68% 10.96% B. 3.1.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.49% 1.52% 1.30% 0.00% 2.41% 1.97% 2.31% 1.19% B. 3.1.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 8.79% 0.00% 8.22% 0.00% 15.56% 0.00% 14.34% 0.00% 1,2 B. 3.1.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 8.79% 0.00% 8.22% 0.00% 15.56% 0.00% 14.34% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 50.00% 0.00% 40.21% 0.00% 51.40% 0.00% 52.22% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.90% 0.00% 3.93% 0.00% 3.39% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.1.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 3.85% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 3.03% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.1.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 2.08% 0.00% 2.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 50.00% 0.00% 40.21% 0.00% 51.40% 0.00% 52.22% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 3.1.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.90% 25.00% 3.93% 0.00% 3.39% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 8.95% 0.00% 8.37% 0.00% 15.85% 0.00% 14.68% 0.00% 2 B. 3.1.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 8.95% 0.00% 8.37% 0.00% 15.85% 0.00% 14.68% 0.00% 1,3 B. 3.1.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 8.86% 0.00% 8.36% 0.00% 15.72% 0.00% 14.59% 0.00% B. 3.1.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.51% 0.00% 1.18% 0.00% 2.42% 0.00% 2.18% 0.00% B. 3.1.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 2.51% 0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 2.75% 0.00% B. 3.1.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.60% 0.00% 1.16% 0.00% 0.58% 0.00% 0.53% 0.00% B. 3.1.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 8.95% 0.00% 8.37% 0.00% 15.85% 0.00% 14.68% 0.00% 2 B. 3.1.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.49% 0.00% 1.30% 0.00% 2.41% 0.00% 2.31% 0.00% 1 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] C- 25 237 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.2.2.1 Local Interoffice Transport/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.57% 0.00% 1.88% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 1.73% 0.00% B. 3.2.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.19% 0.00% 1.42% 0.00% 1.16% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% B. 3.2.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.80% 1.06% 1.98% 1.20% 2.25% 1.55% 2.13% 1.50% B. 3.2.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.81% 0.45% 0.78% 0.40% 0.91% 0.43% 0.90% 0.43% B. 3.2.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.59% 1.55% 1.74% 3.47% 1.96% 8.72% 1.88% 6.04% B. 3.2.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.59% 0.78% 1.74% 1.39% 1.96% 2.91% 1.88% 2.75% B. 3.2.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.91% 0.26% 1.18% 0.80% 1.52% 0.54% 1.43% 0.54% B. 3.2.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.37% 0.00% 2.20% 0.27% 2.17% 0.27% 2.92% 0.54% B. 3.2.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.66% 1.80% 0.67% 1.13% 0.41% 0.94% 0.86% 1.35% B. 3.2.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 1.21% 0.36% 1.05% 0.19% 1.03% 0.19% 0.68% 0.19% B. 3.2.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.91% 0.23% 1.18% 0.00% 1.52% 0.65% 1.43% 0.63% B. 3.2.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.37% 0.92% 2.20% 1.12% 2.17% 1.74% 2.92% 1.68% B. 3.2.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.80% 0.64% 1.98% 0.35% 2.25% 0.62% 2.13% 0.44% B. 3.2.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.80% 0.23% 1.98% 0.51% 2.25% 0.17% 2.13% 0.83% B. 3.2.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.90% 0.00% 2.10% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 2.26% 0.00% B. 3.2.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.77% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.87% 0.00% 0.88% 0.00% B. 3.2.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.28% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.36% 0.00% B. 3.2.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.36% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.36% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% B. 3.2.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.80% 0.00% 1.98% 1.80% 2.25% 0.00% 2.13% 0.00% B. 3.2.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.81% 0.86% 0.78% 0.00% 0.91% 0.00% 0.90% 0.00% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] B. 3.3.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 4.48 0.00 4.27 0.00 4.69 0.00 4.76 0.00 B. 3.3.2.2 Local Interoffice Transport/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 1.66 0.00 1.42 0.00 1.72 0.00 2.21 0.00 B. 3.3.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 21.36 11.82 20.79 10.76 30.19 15.29 30.68 17.16 B. 3.3.3.2 Loop + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 8.30 5.03 6.75 3.49 11.01 4.15 11.92 4.97 B. 3.3.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 20.96 1.39 20.42 3.56 29.69 4.37 29.97 5.70 1,2 B. 3.3.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 20.96 0.60 20.42 1.83 29.69 0.78 29.97 1.19 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 44.37 2.40 36.69 4.71 46.14 4.33 44.50 3.68 1,2,3,4 C- 26 238 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.3.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 2.82 0.00 3.85 9.22 3.14 0.28 2.05 1.88 2,3,4 B. 3.3.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 5.19 3.61 5.61 8.16 5.87 5.68 6.65 4.52 2,3,4 B. 3.3.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 2.33 2.55 3.11 1.12 2.03 7.38 1.84 1.90 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 44.37 1.57 36.69 0.00 46.14 41.67 44.50 49.33 1,3,4 B. 3.3.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 2.82 25.95 3.85 2.20 3.14 11.50 2.05 11.38 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 21.36 2.96 20.79 4.03 30.19 5.65 30.68 5.45 2 B. 3.3.8.2 2W Analog Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 21.36 0.84 20.79 2.06 30.19 2.65 30.68 3.61 1,3 B. 3.3.9.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 21.44 0.00 20.83 0.00 30.36 0.00 30.80 0.00 B. 3.3.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 8.91 0.00 7.10 0.00 11.75 0.00 12.66 0.00 B. 3.3.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 5.25 0.00 4.75 0.00 5.71 0.00 5.31 0.00 B. 3.3.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 2.47 0.00 2.60 0.00 2.43 0.00 2.88 0.00 B. 3.3.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 21.36 0.00 20.79 2.50 30.19 0.00 30.68 0.00 2 B. 3.3.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY( hours) 8.30 1.32 6.75 0.00 11.01 0.00 11.92 0.00 1 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] B. 3.4.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 18.05% 0.00% 19.38% 0.00% 23.65% 0.00% 25.33% 0.00% B. 3.4.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 12.87% 0.00% 22.31% 0.00% 19.00% 0.00% 18.18% 0.00% B. 3.4.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 16.74% 12.14% 18.29% 10.26% 19.50% 13.59% 19.58% 17.29% B. 3.4.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 14.63% 13.64% 15.30% 11.54% 16.47% 13.16% 14.99% 17.26% B. 3.4.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 16.71% 0.00% 18.34% 20.00% 19.45% 40.00% 19.71% 45.45% 1,2 B. 3.4.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 16.71% 0.00% 18.34% 0.00% 19.45% 40.00% 19.71% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 17.96% 0.00% 22.73% 0.00% 24.43% 0.00% 27.42% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 19.48% 0.00% 26.59% 0.00% 26.20% 0.00% 30.14% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.4.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 11.54% 10.00% 15.38% 16.67% 12.50% 0.00% 18.18% 14.29% 2,3,4 B. 3.4.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 8.33% 0.00% 21.95% 0.00% 22.50% 0.00% 11.54% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 17.96% 0.00% 22.73% 0.00% 24.43% 66.67% 27.42% 66.67% 1,3,4 B. 3.4.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 19.48% 0.00% 26.59% 40.00% 26.20% 50.00% 30.14% 25.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 16.74% 11.76% 18.29% 22.22% 19.50% 0.00% 19.58% 10.00% 2 B. 3.4.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 16.74% 0.00% 18.29% 15.38% 19.50% 25.00% 19.58% 0.00% 1,3 B. 3.4.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 16.76% 0.00% 18.34% 0.00% 19.58% 0.00% 19.64% 0.00% C- 27 239 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.4.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 14.90% 0.00% 15.57% 0.00% 16.97% 0.00% 15.26% 0.00% B. 3.4.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 15.64% 0.00% 20.22% 0.00% 17.05% 0.00% 24.20% 0.00% B. 3.4.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 12.07% 0.00% 17.02% 0.00% 15.87% 0.00% 17.37% 0.00% B. 3.4.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 16.74% 0.00% 18.29% 0.00% 19.50% 0.00% 19.58% 0.00% 2 B. 3.4.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 14.63% 0.00% 15.30% 0.00% 16.47% 0.00% 14.99% 0.00% 1 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] B. 3.5.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.33% 0.00% B. 3.5.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 3.5.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 12.83% 5.94% 13.20% 4.65% 24.76% 13.12% 15.94% 8.40% B. 3.5.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 5.59% 0.00% 4.62% 0.00% 9.43% 1.49% 6.86% 2.25% B. 3.5.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 12.42% 0.00% 12.78% 0.00% 24.05% 0.00% 15.38% 0.00% 1,2 B. 3.5.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 12.42% 0.00% 12.78% 0.00% 24.05% 0.00% 15.38% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 50.00% 0.00% 40.21% 0.00% 51.40% 0.00% 52.22% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.90% 0.00% 3.93% 0.00% 3.39% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.5.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 3.03% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.5.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 2.08% 0.00% 2.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 50.00% 0.00% 40.21% 0.00% 51.40% 0.00% 52.22% 0.00% B. 3.5.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.90% 0.00% 3.93% 0.00% 3.39% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 4 B. 3.5.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 12.83% 0.00% 13.20% 0.00% 24.76% 0.00% 15.94% 0.00% 2 B. 3.5.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 12.83% 0.00% 13.20% 0.00% 24.76% 0.00% 15.94% 0.00% 1,3 B. 3.5.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 12.89% 0.00% 13.24% 0.00% 24.88% 0.00% 15.95% 0.00% B. 3.5.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 5.59% 0.00% 4.72% 0.00% 9.54% 0.00% 6.76% 0.00% B. 3.5.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 2.51% 0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 2.75% 0.00% B. 3.5.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.60% 0.00% 1.16% 0.00% 0.58% 0.00% 0.53% 0.00% B. 3.5.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ KY(%) 12.83% 0.00% 13.20% 0.00% 24.76% 0.00% 15.94% 0.00% 2 B. 3.5.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 5.59% 0.00% 4.62% 0.00% 9.43% 0.00% 6.86% 0.00% 1 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] B. 4.1 KY (%) 99.18% 99.97% 98.68% 99.96% 98.67% 99.65% 98.38% 99.95% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] C- 28 240 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 4.2 Region( business days) 3.68 7.29 3.86 4.97 3.47 3.78 3.82 3.46 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests [O- 7] C. 1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (%) 69.57% 50.00% 75.86% 74.29% Reject Interval [O- 8] C. 1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (%) 100.00% 91.30% 100.00% 100.00% FOC Timeliness [O- 9] C. 1.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness [O- 11] C. 1.4 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] C. 2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (days) 17.82 19.00 20.64 13.89 20.56 20.83 25.53 16.77 1,2 Held Orders [P- 1] C. 2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (days) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Jeopardies [P- 2] C. 2.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] C. 2.5 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] C. 2.6 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (%) 0.00% 0.27% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Average Completion Notice Interval [P- 5] C. 2.7 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (hours) 141.24 0.07 183.44 10.97 348.48 11.78 283.57 16.49 1 Total Service Order Cycle Time [P- 10] C. 2.8 Local Interconnection Trunks/ KY (days) 14.83 15.67 22.16 17.34 1,2,3 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours [P- 6] 0.00% C. 2.10.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2 C. 2.10.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] 100.00% C. 2.11.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 C- 29 241 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June C. 2.11.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 C. 2.11.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] C. 3.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] C. 3.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.12% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.05% 0.01% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] C. 3.3.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. 3.3.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dis patch/ KY( hours) 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.08 3.35 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] C. 3.4.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.4.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] C. 3.5.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.5.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] C. 4.1 KY (%) 99.18% 99.74% 98.68% 98.86% 98.67% 97.71% 98.38% 99.74% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS [B- 2] C. 4.2 Re gion( calendar days) 4.84 4.54 3.94 3.89 4.96 4.92 4.54 4.29 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - TRUNK BLOCKING C- 30 242 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate [TGP- 1] C. 5.1 KY 0 0 0 0 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - PRE- ORDERING % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.71% 100.00% 99.64% 100.00% D. 1.1.2 HAL/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.3 LENS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.98% 99.85% 99.76% D. 1.1.4 LEO MAINFRAME/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.6 LESOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.7 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 99.99% 99.86% D. 1.1.8 PSIMS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.2.1 ATLAS/ COFFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.2 BOCRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 1.2.3 DSAP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.98% D. 1.2.4 RSAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.5 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.6 SONGS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.86% D. 1.2.7 DOE/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.26% D. 1.2.8 LNP Gatewa y/ Region(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 99.49% D. 1.2.9 COG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.48% D. 1.2.10 DOM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.11 SOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.1- new ATLAS/ Re gion (%) 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.2- new COFFI/ Re gion (%) 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.3.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 0.91 1782.46 1.11 2.87 1.20 2.88 1.02 D. 1.3.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 0.91 2.95 1.11 2.94 1.20 2.91 1.02 D. 1.3.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 0.91 1204.18 1.02 2.99 1.10 3.03 0.93 D. 1.3.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 0.91 4.86 1.02 4.77 1.10 4.76 0.93 D. 1.3.3.1 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 0.88 2.95 0.88 2.95 0.88 3.01 0.80 D. 1.3.3.2 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 0.88 2.61 0.88 2.60 0.88 2.61 0.80 D. 1.3.4.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 0.53 2.70 0.57 2.71 0.53 2.71 0.52 C- 31 243 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 1.3.4.2 DSAP/ Region( seconds) 2.58 0.53 2.58 0.57 2.57 0.53 2.57 0.52 D. 1.3.5.1 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.08 212.02 1.25 3.21 2.12 3.24 1.14 D. 1.3.5.2 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.08 2.91 1.25 2.87 2.12 2.95 1.14 D. 1.3.6.1 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.63 4.40 0.67 4.60 0.63 4.35 0.64 D. 1.3.6.2 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.63 3.92 0.67 7.28 0.63 3.73 0.64 D. 1.3.7.1 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.03 4.40 0.04 4.60 0.04 4.35 0.04 D. 1.3.7.2 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.03 3.92 0.04 7.28 0.04 3.73 0.04 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.4.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 1.10 1782.46 1.31 2.87 1.60 2.88 1.52 D. 1.4.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 1.10 2.95 1.31 2.94 1.60 2.91 1.52 D. 1.4.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 1.62 1204.18 1.85 2.99 3.05 3.03 2.34 D. 1.4.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 1.62 4.86 1.85 4.77 3.05 4.76 2.34 D. 1.4.4.1 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.4.2 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.5.1 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 1.35 2.95 1.56 2.95 1.86 3.01 1.89 D. 1.4.5.2 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 1.35 2.61 1.56 2.60 1.86 2.61 1.89 D. 1.4.6.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 1.58 2.70 1.71 2.71 1.74 2.71 1.83 D. 1.4.6.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 1.58 2.58 1.71 2.57 1.74 2.57 1.83 D. 1.4.7.1 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.75 212.02 2.15 3.21 2.51 3.24 2.85 D. 1.4.7.2 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.75 2.91 2.15 2.87 2.51 2.95 2.85 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.2.1 CLEC TAFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.2.2 ECTA/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 100.00% 99.86% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.3.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 2.3.2 LMOS HOST/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% 100.00% D. 2.3.3 LNP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% D. 2.3.4 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.5 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.6 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.92% D. 2.3.7 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds [OSS- 4] C- 32 244 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 2.4.1 CRIS/ Region(%) 94.91% 94.17% 94.75% 94.83% 95.12% 94.99% 94.95% 94.66% D. 2.4.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 3.07% 3.22% 3.14% 4.03% 3.16% 4.59% 2.58% 3.67% D. 2.4.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 4.30% 2.41% 4.07% 2.41% 4.03% 3.36% 4.47% 7.51% D. 2.4.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.67% 99.69% 99.63% 99.59% 99.60% 99.60% 99.61% 99.58% D. 2.4.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 78.95% 70.39% 76.71% 65.38% 78.49% 66.19% 79.21% 66.24% D. 2.4.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.78% 99.37% 99.31% 99.09% 99.68% 99.19% 99.65% 98.81% D. 2.4.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.4.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 23.94% 13.59% 27.25% 20.73% 31.23% 24.50% 33.15% 21.43% D. 2.4.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.4.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.84% 99.91% 99.83% 99.90% 99.85% 99.88% 99.81% 99.86% D. 2.4.11 NIW/ Region(%) 82.97% 81.81% 84.38% 83.15% 84.01% 83.00% 82.83% 81.89% Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.5.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 98.99% 99.34% 98.97% 99.34% 99.05% 99.46% 99.02% 99.39% D. 2.5.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 78.81% 86.16% 78.96% 87.92% 79.20% 85.30% 77.66% 82.58% D. 2.5.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 77.94% 92.02% 77.45% 91.98% 76.65% 88.18% 71.08% 41.67% D. 2.5.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.81% 99.86% 99.79% 99.82% 99.79% 99.84% 99.80% 99.85% D. 2.5.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 90.95% 83.33% 89.31% 80.59% 90.04% 80.25% 90.59% 80.53% D. 2.5.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.93% 99.87% 99.54% 99.72% 99.81% 99.63% 99.83% 99.52% D. 2.5.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.5.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 96.89% 96.12% 97.38% 95.12% 97.81% 97.35% 98.41% 95.83% D. 2.5.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.5.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.98% 99.98% 100.00% 99.98% 100.00% D. 2.5.11 NIW/ Region(%) 99.17% 98.96% 99.49% 99.33% 99.39% 99.21% 99.42% 99.25% Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.6.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 1.01% 0.66% 1.03% 0.66% 0.95% 0.54% 0.98% 0.61% D. 2.6.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 21.19% 13.84% 21.04% 12.08% 20.80% 14.70% 22.34% 17.42% D. 2.6.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 22.06% 7.98% 22.55% 8.02% 23.35% 11.82% 28.92% 58.33% D. 2.6.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 0.19% 0.14% 0.21% 0.18% 0.21% 0.16% 0.20% 0.15% D. 2.6.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 9.05% 16.67% 10.69% 19.41% 9.96% 19.75% 9.41% 19.47% D. 2.6.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 0.07% 0.13% 0.46% 0.28% 0.19% 0.37% 0.17% 0.48% D. 2.6.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 71.65% 66.84% 71.68% 73.56% 71.96% 68.31% 71.90% 70.36% D. 2.6.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 3.11% 3.88% 2.62% 4.88% 2.19% 2.65% 1.59% 4.17% D. 2.6.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 84.22% 80.52% 84.97% 79.57% 86.18% 80.39% 87.29% 78.27% D. 2.6.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% C- 33 245 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 2.6.11 NIW/ Region(%) 0.83% 1.04% 0.51% 0.67% 0.61% 0.79% 0.58% 0.75% COLLOCATION - COLLOCATION Average Response Time [C- 1] E. 1.1.2 Ph ysical Caged/ KY( calendar days) 2 8 3,4 E. 1.1.3 Ph ysical Cageless/ KY( calendar days) 9 14 1,3 Average Arrangement Time [C- 2] E. 1.2.3 Ph ysical Caged/ KY( calendar days) 61 33 1,4 E. 1.2.4 Ph ysical Cageless/ KY( calendar days) 58 4 % Due Dates Missed [C- 3] E. 1.3.2 Ph ysical/ KY(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1,4 GENERAL - FLOW THROUGH % Flow Through Service Requests [O- 3] F. 1.1.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 86.49% 87.39% 86.74% 88.58% F. 1.1.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 73.55% 71.89% 69.54% 73.74% F. 1.1.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 83.88% 84.78% 82.57% 83.84% % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved [O- 3] F. 1.2.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 79.16% 80.53% 79.88% 81.68% F. 1.2.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 50.63% 51.15% 51.58% 53.42% F. 1.2.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 72.17% 74.87% 74.12% 77.27% % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP [O- 3] F. 1.3.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% F. 1.3.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% GENERAL - PRE- ORDERING Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) [PO- 1] F. 2.1 Loo ps/ KY(%) 55.56% 0.00% 50.00% 1,3,4 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) [PO- 2] F. 2.2 Loo ps/ KY(%) 99.08% 99.52% 100.00% 75.88% GENERAL - ORDERING Average Speed of Answer [O- 12] C- 34 246 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June F. 4.1 Region( seconds) 141.64 30.33 137.90 28.63 194.86 35.16 259.48 58.19 GENERAL - MAINTENANCE CENTER Average Answer Time [M& R- 6] F. 5.1 Re gion( seconds) 43.10 26.35 41.00 23.60 64.68 25.99 52.80 28.04 GENERAL - OPERATOR SERVICES (TOLL) Average Speed to Answer [OS- 1] F. 6.1 KY (seconds) 6.08 5.86 6.00 5.53 % Answered in 10 seconds [OS- 2] F. 6.2 KY (%) 76.40% 77.20% 76.80% 78.80% GENERAL - DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE Average Speed to Answer [DA- 1] F. 7.1 KY (seconds) 4.26 4.80 5.06 4.54 % Answered in 12 seconds [DA- 2] F. 7.2 KY (%) 90.90% 88.80% 87.90% 90.10% GENERAL - BILLING Usage Data Delivery Accuracy [B- 3] F. 9.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.75% 100.00% 95.22% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Usage Data Delivery Timeliness [B- 5] F. 9.2 Re gion(%) 98.37% 93.14% 75.41% 94.80% 94.93% 97.64% 99.33% 99.38% Usage Data Delivery Completeness [B- 4] F. 9.3 Re gion(%) 99.38% 99.89% 99.77% 99.54% 97.21% 99.95% 99.92% 99.91% Mean Time to Deliver Usage [B- 6] F. 9.4 Re gion( days) 3.49 3.05 6.85 3.29 4.34 2.52 3.24 2.43 Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 7] F. 9.5.1 Resale/ KY (%) 86.40% 98.75% 85.43% 79.30% 87.84% 79.72% 87.09% 99.14% F. 9.5.2 UNE/ KY (%) 99.53% 99.69% 98.48% 99.76% F. 9.5.3 Interconnection/ KY (%) 89.30% 99.89% 99.19% 94.48% Non- Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 8] F. 9.6.1 Resale/ KY (%) 94.78% 96.65% 85.02% 98.85% 87.21% 98.11% 82.23% 98.60% F. 9.6.2 UNE/ KY (%) 99.06% 99.14% 98.75% 98.65% F. 9.6.3 Interconnection/ KY (%) 99.06% 99.26% 98.64% 96.71% GENERAL - CHANGE MANAGEMENT % Software Release Notices Sent On Time [CM- 1] C- 35 247 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June F. 10.1 KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time [CM- 3A] F. 10.3 KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc.) Sent On Time [CM- 3B] F. 10.4 KY (%) 77.78% 2 Average Documentation Release Delay Days [CM- 4] F. 10.5 KY (average) % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes [CM- 5] F. 10.6 KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% GENERAL - NEW BUSINESS REQUESTS % New Business Requests Processed within 30 Business Days [BFR- 1] F. 11.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 % Quotes Provided within X Business Days [BFR- 2A] F. 11.2.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 F. 11.2.3 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 GENERAL - ORDERING Acknowledgement Message Timeliness [O- 1] F. 12.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.97% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% F. 12.1.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Acknowledgement Message Completeness [O- 2] F. 12.2.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.62% F. 12.2.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% GENERAL - DATABASE UPDATES Average Database Update Interval [D- 1] F. 13.1.1 LIDB/ KY (hours) 0.30 0.30 0.36 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 F. 13.1.2 Director y Listings/ KY( hours) 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 F. 13.1.3 Director y Assistance/ KY( hours) 4.30 4.30 4.62 4.62 4.35 4.35 6.30 6.30 % Update Accuracy [D- 2] F. 13.2.1 LIDB/ KY (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 93.48% F. 13.2.2 Director y Listings/ KY(%) 99.38% 99.03% 99.79% 99.35% F. 13.2.3 Director y Assistance/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.87% 99.19% % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date [D- 3] F. 13.3 Re gion(%) 96.77% 100.00% 100.00% 98.41% C- 36 248 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Kentucky Performance Metric Data March April May June GENERAL - NETWORK OUTAGE NOTIFICATION Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages [M& R- 7] F. 14.1 Region( minutes) 739 218 0 0 154 123 791 602 1,3,4 Abbreviations: blank cell = no data available Notes: 1 = Sample Size under 10 in March 2 = Sample Size under 10 in April 2 = Sample Size under 10 in May 4 = Sample Size under 10 in June C- 37 249 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Appendix D Mississippi Performance Metrics Except where noted, the data included here is taken from the Mississippi Monthly State Summary (MSS) Reports provided by BellSouth, calculated according to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement (SQM) business rules. This table is provided as a reference tool for the convenience of the reader. No conclusions are to be drawn from the raw data contained in this table. Our analysis is based on the totality of the circumstances, such that we may use non- metric evidence, and may rely more heavily on some metrics more than others, in making our determination. The inclusion of these particular metrics in this table does not necessarily mean that we relied on all of these metrics, or that other metrics may not also be important in our analysis. Some metrics that we have relied on in the past and may rely on for a future application were not included here because there was no data provided for them (usually either because there was no activity, or because the metrics are still under development). Metrics with no retail analog provided are usually compared with a benchmark. Note that for some metrics during the period provided there may be changes in the metric definition, or changes in the retail analog applied, making it difficult to compare data Note: All data was calculated using BellSouth's data platform PMAP 4.0. The March data in this appendix were not taken from the MSS reports, which for that month were calculated using PMAP 2.6, but instead were calculated using PMAP 4.0 by BellSouth. This data also conforms to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement business rules that govern the regular MSS reports. 250 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name RESALE A. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours Ordering Billing A. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy A. 1.2 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices – CRIS A. 1.3 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS A. 1.4 O- 8 Reject Interval – Mech. Ordering A. 1.7 O- 8 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. – 10 hours B. 1.1 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 1.8 O- 8 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. B. 1.2 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 1.9 O- 9 FOC Timeliness – Mech. B. 1.3 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. A. 1.12 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours B. 1.4 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval – Mech. A. 1.13 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. B. 1.7 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. - 10 hours A. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mech. B. 1.8 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. A. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mech. B. 1.9 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness – Mech. A. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mech. B. 1.12 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours Provisioning B. 1.13 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. A. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval B. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Mech. A. 2.4 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Mech. B. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Partially Mech. A. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. B. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Non- Mech. A. 2.7 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. Provisioning A. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval A. 2.9 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. B. 2.2 P- 4 Order Completion Interval within X days - xDSL A. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. B. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies – Mech. A. 2.11 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments B. 2.6 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. A. 2.12 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. A. 2.14 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. B. 2.9 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. A. 2.15 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. A. 2.25 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy B. 2.11 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. Maintenance and Repair B. 2.12 P- 7 Coordinated Customers Conversions A. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments B. 2.13 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early A. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate B. 2.14 P- 7A Hot Cut Timeliness A. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.15 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late A. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.16 P- 7B Average Recovery Time – CCC PERFORMANCE METRIC CATEGORIES Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 D- 2 251 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name B. 2.17 P- 7C % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts C. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.18 P- 3/ P- 12 % Missed Installation Appointments C. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.19 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days C. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours B. 2.21 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. Billing B. 2.22 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. C. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy B. 2.34 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy C. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS Maintenance and Repair Trunk Blocking B. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments C. 5.1 TGP- 1 Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate B. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS B. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration Pre- Ordering B. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days D. 1.1 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - CLEC B. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours D. 1.2 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC Billing D. 1.3 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) B. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy D. 1.4 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) B. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS Maintenance and Repair LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS D. 2.1 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST Ordering D. 2.2 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - CLEC C. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests D. 2.3 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC C. 1.2 O- 8 Reject Interval D. 2.4 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds C. 1.3 O- 9 FOC Timeliness D. 2.5 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds C. 1.4 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness D. 2.6 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds Provisioning COLLOCATION C. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval Collocation C. 2.2 P- 1 Held Orders E. 1.1 C- 1 Average Response Time C. 2.3 P- 2 % Jeopardies E. 1.2 C- 2 Average Arrangement Time C. 2.5 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments E. 1.3 C- 3 % Due Dates Missed C. 2.6 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days GENERAL C. 2.7 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval Flow Through C. 2.8 P- 10 Total Service Order Cycle Time F. 1.1 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests C. 2.10 P- 6 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours F. 1.2 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved C. 2.11 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy F. 1.3 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP Maintenance and Repair Pre- Ordering C. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments F. 2.1 PO- 1 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) C. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate F. 2.2 PO- 2 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) D- 3 252 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Ordering Database Updates F. 4.1 O- 12 Average Speed of Answer F. 13.1 D- 1 Average Database Update Interval Maintenance Center F. 13.2 D- 2 % Update Accuracy F. 5.1 M& R- 6 Average Answer Time F. 13.3 D- 3 % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date Operator Services (Toll) Network Outage Notification F. 6.1 OS- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 14.1 M& R- 7 Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages F. 6.2 OS- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Directory Assistance F. 7.1 DA- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 7.2 DA- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Billing F. 9.1 B- 3 Usage Data Delivery Accuracy F. 9.2 B- 5 Usage Data Delivery Timeliness F. 9.3 B- 4 Usage Data Delivery Completeness F. 9.4 B- 6 Mean Time to Deliver Usage F. 9.5 B- 7 Recurring Charge Completeness F. 9.6 B- 8 Non- Recurring Charge Completeness Change Management F. 10.1 CM- 1 % Software Release Notices Sent On Time F. 10.2 CM- 2 Average Software Release Notice Delay Days F. 10.3 CM- 3A % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time F. 10.4 CM- 3B % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc. ) Sent On Time F. 10.5 CM- 4 Average Documentation Release Delay Days F. 10.6 CM- 5 % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes New Business Requests F. 11.1 BFR- 1 % New Business Requests Processed in 30 Bus. Days F. 11.2 BFR- 2A % Quotes Provided within X Business Days Ordering F. 12.1 O- 1 Acknowledgement Message Timeliness F. 12.2 O- 2 Acknowledgement Message Completeness D- 4 253 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes RESALE - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.1.1 Residence/ MS (%) 8.43% 8.90% 7.35% 8.77% A. 1.1.2 Business/ MS (%) 20.15% 22.94% 25.32% 25.98% % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.2.1 Residence/ MS (%) 21.76% 18.55% 30.08% 33.01% A. 1.2.2 Business/ MS (%) 26.80% 37.93% 36.59% 30.00% A. 1.2.4 PBX/ MS (%) 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 66.67% 1,2,3,4 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.3.1 Residence/ MS (%) 40.00% 42.25% 57.61% 53.49% A. 1.3.2 Business/ MS (%) 40.00% 36.44% 57.28% 50.62% A. 1.3.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ MS(%) 35.71% 11.85% 10.74% 38.41% A. 1.3.4 PBX/ MS (%) 63.64% 35.71% 25.00% 40.00% 3 A. 1.3.5 Centrex/ MS (%) 47.06% 34.04% A. 1.3.6 ISDN/ MS (%) 50.00% 40.00% 33.33% 33.33% 1,4 Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.4.1 Residence/ MS (%) 89.96% 96.98% 95.58% 97.68% A. 1.4.2 Business/ MS (%) 96.30% 92.45% 98.31% 96.97% Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] A. 1.7.1 Residence/ MS (%) 94.08% 91.89% 94.07% 96.63% A. 1.7.2 Business/ MS (%) 91.04% 97.73% 97.40% 98.33% A. 1.7.4 PBX/ MS (%) 0.00% 75.00% 2,4 Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.8.1 Residence/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 98.15% 97.92% A. 1.8.2 Business/ MS (%) 100.00% 97.67% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ MS(%) 100.00% 92.00% 100.00% 98.28% A. 1.8.4 PBX/ MS (%) 85.71% 60.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 A. 1.8.5 Centrex/ MS (%) 100.00% 94.44% 3 A. 1.8.6 ISDN/ MS (%) 100.00% 83.33% 75.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.9.1 Residence/ MS (%) 99.60% 99.45% 99.09% 99.69% A. 1.9.2 Business/ MS (%) 99.52% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June D- 5 254 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 1.12.1 Residence/ MS(%) 92.93% 93.14% 88.96% 90.73% A. 1.12.2 Business/ MS (%) 93.68% 97.92% 96.75% 96.10% A. 1.12.4 PBX/ MS (%) 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 25.00% 1,2,3,4 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.13.1 Residence/ MS (%) 100.00% 97.67% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.13.2 Business/ MS (%) 100.00% 98.08% 100.00% 96.97% A. 1.13.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ MS(%) 100.00% 99.39% 97.66% 97.47% A. 1.13.4 PBX/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.13.5 Centrex/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 3 A. 1.13.6 ISDN/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.14.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ MS (%) 99.51% 99.36% 98.50% 100.00% A. 1.14.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ MS (%) 99.36% 99.46% 99.15% 99.98% A. 1.14.2.1 Business/ EDI/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 82.35% 100.00% A. 1.14.2.2 Business/ TAG/ MS (%) 98.00% 91.36% 93.52% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.15.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ MS (%) 100.00% 91.43% 88.89% 100.00% 3 A. 1.15.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ MS (%) 99.84% 99.78% 99.94% 100.00% A. 1.15.2.1 Business/ EDI/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 A. 1.15.2.2 Business/ TAG/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.15.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.16.1 Residence/ MS (%) 95.38% 100.00% 98.91% 98.84% A. 1.16.2 Business/ MS (%) 97.00% 96.61% 98.06% 91.36% A. 1.16.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ MS(%) 90.00% 89.10% 93.96% 90.73% A. 1.16.4 PBX/ MS (%) 95.45% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 A. 1.16.5 Centrex/ MS (%) 88.24% 93.62% A. 1.16.6 ISDN/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 RESALE - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] A. 2.1.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 6.29 5.61 6.26 5.42 5.64 4.91 5.31 4.68 A. 2.1.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 0.74 0.63 0.79 0.55 0.77 0.54 0.76 0.56 A. 2.1.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 5.80 5.38 5.00 4.58 4.00 7.45 2,3 D- 6 255 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.1.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( days) 2.59 2.68 3.10 2.65 3.67 2.64 4.54 2.81 A. 2.1.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 1.12 0.68 1.35 0.77 1.32 0.95 1.08 0.64 A. 2.1.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 9.33 1.00 14.48 9.00 11.00 6.21 1,2 A. 2.1.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( days) 24.58 9.00 19.56 1.92 22.40 8.00 21.15 8.75 1,3,4 A. 2.1.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 6.11 2.76 10.26 3.19 4.90 2.87 7.58 3.48 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.96 3.54 1.66 2.00 4.50 2.63 1.83 1.48 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.4.2.2 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 0.53 2.00 1.76 0.33 1.98 6.00 3.44 1,2,3 A. 2.1.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.29 3.00 5.42 5.76 4.87 1 A. 2.1.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 1.32 0.33 1.45 2.50 1.38 2.00 1.05 2.37 1,2,3 A. 2.1.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 1.21 3.61 1.89 0.67 A. 2.1.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 19.41 22.17 22.77 12.00 13.61 12.00 3,4 A. 2.1.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 3.93 10.00 13.16 1.67 10.26 3.86 2.40 1,2,4 A. 2.1.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.63 7.48 7.25 11.37 3.00 4 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.4.1 Residence/ MS (%) 0.68% 1.22% 0.71% 1.11% 0.63% 0.77% 0.55% 0.74% A. 2.4.2 Business/ MS (%) 1.59% 1.18% 2.26% 0.89% 2.44% 1.19% 1.91% 0.40% A. 2.4.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ MS(%) 13.41% 20.06% 0.00% 12.94% 13.05% 0.00% 4 A. 2.4.4 PBX/ MS (%) 3.31% 0.00% 4.08% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.4.5 Centrex/ MS (%) 2.66% 1.44% 0.00% 2.02% 1.18% 0.00% 2,4 A. 2.4.6 ISDN/ MS (%) 6.85% 8.60% 0.00% 9.87% 3.78% 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.5.1 Residence/ MS (%) 0.00% 1.77% 0.00% 2.61% A. 2.5.2 Business/ MS (%) 2.13% 1.23% 0.00% 0.00% A. 2.5.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ MS(%) 20.83% 19.23% 38.38% 33.33% A. 2.5.4 PBX/ MS (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 A. 2.5.5 Centrex/ MS (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 A. 2.5.6 ISDN/ MS (%) 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.7.1 Residence/ MS (hours) 170.14 151.68 134.80 138.60 A. 2.7.2 Business/ MS (hours) 103.89 156.53 162.19 1,2,3 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.8.1 Residence/ MS (hours) 93.17 132.55 2,4 D- 7 256 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.8.2 Business/ MS( hours) 51.63 63.95 1,2 A. 2.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ MS( hours) 427.19 409.26 765.60 683.37 1,2 A. 2.8.6 ISDN/ MS (hours) 39.63 3 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.9.1 Residence/ MS (%) 98.81% 98.82% 100.00% 100.00% A. 2.9.2 Business/ MS (%) 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.10.1 Residence/ MS (%) 100.00% 33.33% 2,4 A. 2.10.2 Business/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 A. 2.10.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 A. 2.10.6 ISDN/ MS (%) 0.00% 3 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] A. 2.11.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 6.01% 2.08% 8.53% 2.90% 8.21% 3.85% 7.77% 3.85% A. 2.11.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.02% 0.01% 0.10% 0.14% 0.01% 0.16% 0.01% 0.10% A. 2.11.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 16.67% 2,3 A. 2.11.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.98% 4.71% 2.25% 1.89% 2.83% 5.17% 4.89% 0.00% A. 2.11.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.39% 0.04% 0.39% 0.08% 0.00% A. 2.11.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 12.00% 0.00% 3.23% 0.00% 7.41% 0.00% 5.56% 1,2,3 A. 2.11.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.91% 0.00% 2.97% 0.00% 2.02% 0.00% 2.88% 0.00% A. 2.11.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 1.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% A. 2.11.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 3.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.82% 0.00% A. 2.11.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 2.11.5.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 3.10% 0.00% 3.28% 2.44% 6.34% 1 A. 2.11.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 2.11.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% A. 2.11.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.32% 2.80% 5.30% 0.00% 1.10% 0.00% 3,4 A. 2.11.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.11.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] A. 2.12.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 10.62% 6.34% 10.91% 7.39% 10.69% 6.56% 11.51% 7.48% A. 2.12.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 3.06% 4.98% 3.28% 3.98% 2.72% 3.12% 2.68% 2.75% D- 8 257 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.12.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.12.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 9.40% 11.48% 10.14% 7.41% 9.97% 5.66% 11.39% 12.07% A. 2.12.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 5.13% 3.54% 4.97% 4.49% 5.45% 3.53% 5.69% 6.56% A. 2.12.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 11.76% 0.00% 12.00% 0.00% 6.45% 0.00% 14.81% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 8.04% 4.84% 6.78% 33.33% 9.65% 6.45% 9.57% 8.70% A. 2.12.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.60% 12.50% 3.70% 28.57% 2.87% 0.00% 2.60% 4.17% 2 A. 2.12.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 2.78% 0.00% 3.26% 12.50% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 10.00% 1,2 A. 2.12.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.12.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.62% 100.00% 6.04% 33.33% 3.62% 0.00% 4.76% 33.33% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 13.33% 50.00% 22.22% 24.24% 17.07% 1 A. 2.12.6.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 1.90% 0.00% 4.61% 4.20% 5.30% 33.33% 1,4 A. 2.12.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.52% 8.33% 1.12% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 0.51% 0.00% 3,4 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.14.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 1.38 0.17 1.51 0.09 1.14 0.19 1.21 0.19 A. 2.14.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.66 0.35 0.40 0.36 0.41 0.39 0.46 0.41 A. 2.14.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.02 1.29 0.02 1.01 0.02 0.02 2,3 A. 2.14.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 1.62 1.42 2.38 0.02 2.39 0.89 1.93 0.29 A. 2.14.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 1.43 0.28 2.26 0.38 1.97 0.33 2.82 0.39 A. 2.14.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 1.53 0.02 3.15 0.02 6.05 0.02 0.04 1,2,3 A. 2.14.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 215.77 163.78 0.48 119.06 115.09 A. 2.14.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( hours) 22.95 275.05 23.65 0.02 3.75 41.22 1,2 A. 2.14.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 49.81 0.16 11.49 0.02 7.80 0.11 2.30 0.14 1,2,3,4 A. 2.14.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.57 1.77 0.45 1.53 0.81 0.27 2,4 A. 2.14.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 5.32 207.78 0.02 89.13 14.44 2 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.15.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 18.55 11.01 20.13 18.57 A. 2.15.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 6.84 7.35 2.86 7.15 A. 2.15.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 26.39 13.32 24.85 23.92 1 A. 2.15.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 10.87 7.94 9.51 9.17 D- 9 258 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.15.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 68.34 81.91 131.25 161.25 A. 2.15.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 45.19 30.75 42.55 40.06 A. 2.15.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 26.96 24.27 23.36 9.05 1,3,4 A. 2.15.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 38.00 0.38 4.74 1,2,3 A. 2.15.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 16.75 1 A. 2.15.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 22.00 0.47 9.42 10.45 1,2,3 A. 2.15.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 37.38 A. 2.15.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 37.17 64.92 3,4 A. 2.15.6.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 29.26 33.62 42.82 18.50 2,3,4 A. 2.15.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 14.00 4 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] A. 2.25.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 92.14% 96.55% 90.77% 98.86% A. 2.25.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 95.38% 94.29% 98.82% 98.56% A. 2.25.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 100.00% 88.24% 100.00% 100.00% 4 A. 2.25.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 91.33% 95.76% 88.82% 94.44% A. 2.25.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 93.85% 97.93% 96.11% 97.22% A. 2.25.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 100.00% 77.78% 77.78% 76.92% 2 A. 2.25.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 84.62% 97.56% 92.59% 91.89% A. 2.25.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 81.08% 91.43% 80.49% 96.47% A. 2.25.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 91.84% 94.78% 91.43% 91.36% A. 2.25.3.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.25.3.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 100.00% 90.00% 92.31% 88.89% 1,4 RESALE - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] A. 3.1.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.45% 0.96% 4.51% 1.07% 5.27% 1.29% 5.46% 2.41% A. 3.1.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.80% 0.00% 1.00% 1.40% 0.93% 0.64% 0.85% 0.00% A. 3.1.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.13% 1.67% 5.26% 4.63% 6.46% 1.47% 5.06% 2.78% A. 3.1.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.38% 0.00% 1.03% 0.00% 1.14% 0.00% 1.58% 0.00% D- 10 259 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 3.1.3.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 0.58% 0.00% 0.78% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 1.16% 0.00% A. 3.1.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.19% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 3.57% 0.18% 0.00% A. 3.1.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 0.00% 3.39% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.1.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 10.71% 0.00% 2.33% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 3.1.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 5.18% 0.00% 4.15% 0.00% 7.04% 0.00% 5.59% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.1.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.98% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1.92% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.1.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 2.33% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 2.56% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.1.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] A. 3.2.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 2.39% 2.09% 2.63% 2.14% 2.71% 2.35% 2.76% 2.44% A. 3.2.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.20% 0.43% 1.21% 0.36% 1.24% 0.47% 1.27% 0.50% A. 3.2.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.25% 1.27% 1.38% 1.15% 1.45% 1.47% 1.38% 1.21% A. 3.2.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.65% 0.35% 0.75% 0.30% 0.71% 0.38% 0.66% 0.33% A. 3.2.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 1.45% 2.70% 1.47% 2.87% 1.64% 3.53% 1.75% 3.42% A. 3.2.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 1.51% 1.40% 1.51% 1.21% 1.68% 1.32% 1.60% 1.66% A. 3.2.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.12% 0.48% 0.09% 1.56% 0.14% 1.37% 0.08% 0.31% A. 3.2.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.13% 0.63% 0.10% 0.78% 0.10% 0.31% 0.06% 0.00% A. 3.2.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.51% 0.12% 0.54% 0.24% 0.47% 0.50% 0.45% 1.07% A. 3.2.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.28% 0.00% 0.35% 0.49% 0.42% 0.00% 0.36% 0.84% A. 3.2.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.03% 0.05% 0.05% 0.13% 0.04% 0.18% 0.04% 0.04% A. 3.2.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.06% 0.14% 0.09% 0.04% 0.05% 0.04% 0.07% 0.18% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] A. 3.3.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 21.00 16.16 21.95 18.39 23.97 19.90 25.53 22.86 A. 3.3.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 8.26 3.52 9.23 5.09 10.44 4.38 11.03 8.04 A. 3.3.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 8.76 7.89 8.99 9.88 10.68 9.52 9.71 9.46 A. 3.3.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 3.78 3.04 3.26 3.21 3.20 1.20 3.59 3.28 A. 3.3.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 4.77 4.49 5.05 4.94 5.17 4.77 5.45 4.48 A. 3.3.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( hours) 2.37 2.17 1.97 2.54 1.95 4.42 2.10 2.08 A. 3.3.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 6.53 13.52 6.60 5.12 6.03 11.69 7.11 11.91 1,3,4 A. 3.3.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 13.16 0.00 6.59 3.62 6.00 1.93 3.45 0.00 1,2,3 A. 3.3.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 10.35 21.10 9.72 12.50 8.69 7.50 9.62 5.78 1,2,3,4 A. 3.3.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 1.89 0.00 3.87 0.25 2.94 0.00 2.47 1.29 2,4 A. 3.3.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 4.97 4.20 6.69 3.58 5.76 4.06 6.49 3.02 1,2,3,4 D- 11 260 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 3.3.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( hours) 5.79 0.56 1.67 0.93 2.66 1.28 6.25 0.65 1,2,3,4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] A. 3.4.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 17.53% 9.80% 19.99% 11.10% 18.29% 11.73% 20.00% 12.42% A. 3.4.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 14.91% 12.07% 16.52% 16.08% 15.71% 16.67% 17.43% 11.11% A. 3.4.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 12.02% 19.17% 12.93% 14.81% 13.33% 8.82% 15.17% 12.04% A. 3.4.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 13.08% 15.15% 12.00% 7.14% 14.24% 11.43% 15.27% 17.24% A. 3.4.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 18.99% 39.29% 19.96% 35.59% 19.82% 17.33% 27.32% 24.32% A. 3.4.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 19.74% 31.03% 20.57% 20.00% 17.29% 32.14% 18.66% 22.22% A. 3.4.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 7.69% 0.00% 12.82% 30.00% 16.95% 55.56% 3.13% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.4.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 5.36% 0.00% 13.95% 0.00% 2.56% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 3.4.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 12.26% 0.00% 11.92% 50.00% 11.73% 0.00% 13.35% 22.22% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.4.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 8.82% 0.00% 11.55% 0.00% 12.33% 0.00% 13.41% 42.86% 2,4 A. 3.4.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 9.30% 0.00% 19.44% 25.00% 25.64% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.4.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 9.26% 33.33% 12.00% 0.00% 13.33% 0.00% 12.70% 25.00% 1,2,3,4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] A. 3.5.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 29.13% 22.68% 29.98% 25.44% 32.73% 31.62% 35.67% 38.14% A. 3.5.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 14.96% 3.85% 15.60% 2.74% 20.04% 8.75% 22.57% 10.23% A. 3.5.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.56% 0.00% 4.15% 4.05% 5.75% 9.38% 5.39% 4.55% A. 3.5.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.51% 0.00% 1.48% 0.00% 1.92% 0.00% 1.90% 0.00% A. 3.5.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.58% 0.00% 0.78% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 1.16% 0.00% A. 3.5.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.19% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 3.57% 0.18% 0.00% A. 3.5.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.5.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 11.32% 0.00% 2.44% 0.00% 6.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 A. 3.5.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 5.77% 0.00% 4.78% 0.00% 5.53% 0.00% 6.88% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 3.5.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.33% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.5.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 2.56% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.5.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.64% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 RESALE - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] A. 4.1 MS (%) 98.86% 99.34% 99.03% 98.29% 98.60% 99.61% 98.67% 99.78% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] A. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 3.56 3.86 3.27 3.47 3.16 3.82 3.37 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - ORDERING D- 12 261 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.1.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 11.27% 10.47% 10.90% 13.35% B. 1.1.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 13.33% 25.40% 24.53% 15.52% B. 1.1.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 66.67% 50.00% 40.00% 16.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.1.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 35.71% 69.23% 25.00% 50.00% B. 1.1.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 0.00% 2 B. 1.1.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 2 B. 1.1.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 9.00% 16.67% 12.07% 21.88% B. 1.1.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 20.00% 11.67% 12.70% 15.87% B. 1.1.17 LNP Standalone/ MS (%) 7.69% 6.82% 12.26% 18.06% % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.2.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 33.16% 29.54% 33.05% 28.96% B. 1.2.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.2.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 33.33% 28.57% 5.26% 25.00% 4 B. 1.2.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 21.43% 0.00% 25.00% 75.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.2.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 9.09% 16.67% 40.00% 1 B. 1.2.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.2.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 35.71% 50.00% 35.71% 37.50% 2,4 B. 1.2.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 24.44% 32.35% 36.67% 38.71% B. 1.2.17 LNP Standalone/ MS (%) 12.00% 13.79% 21.51% 8.18% % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.3.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ MS(%) 0.00% 55.56% 14.29% 16.67% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.3.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 43.88% 41.57% 44.63% 51.71% B. 1.3.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 10.00% 19.05% 23.81% 0.00% 4 B. 1.3.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 60.00% 50.00% 0.00% 71.43% 2,3,4 B. 1.3.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 30.77% 38.89% 60.00% 37.93% 3 B. 1.3.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 51.85% 52.38% 33.33% 1 B. 1.3.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 71.43% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.3.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 75.00% 0.00% 64.29% 0.00% 2,4 B. 1.3.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ MS(%) 44.19% 34.69% 39.62% 31.03% B. 1.3.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 37.84% 50.00% 37.78% 48.39% B. 1.3.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 42.70% 27.55% 22.03% 20.75% B. 1.3.16 INP Standalone/ MS (%) 33.33% 60.00% 57.14% 42.86% 1,2,3,4 D- 13 262 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.3.17 LNP Standalone/ MS(%) 31.17% 26.60% 26.98% 32.29% Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.4.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 90.44% 93.00% 91.70% 95.17% B. 1.4.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 B. 1.4.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.4.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 94.44% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.4.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.4.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 2 B. 1.4.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 77.78% 92.86% 100.00% 85.71% 1,3,4 B. 1.4.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 70.59% 100.00% 62.50% 60.00% 2,3 B. 1.4.17 LNP Standalone/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] B. 1.7.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 97.01% 97.40% 85.69% 96.73% B. 1.7.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 77.78% 100.00% 50.00% 80.00% 3,4 B. 1.7.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 83.33% 1,3,4 B. 1.7.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 66.67% 2,3,4 B. 1.7.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 100.00% 75.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.7.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 66.67% 2,3,4 B. 1.7.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 90.91% 90.91% 90.91% 91.67% B. 1.7.17 LNP Standalone/ MS (%) 25.00% 66.67% 95.00% 66.67% 1 Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.8.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 100.00% 94.59% 100.00% 96.52% B. 1.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.8.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 88.89% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.8.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.8.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.8.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.8.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.8.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 94.74% 100.00% B. 1.8.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 97.44% 96.30% 100.00% 95.45% B. 1.8.16 INP Standalone/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 D- 14 263 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.8.17 LNP Standalone/ MS(%) 100.00% 96.00% 100.00% 96.88% FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 99.41% 97.79% 96.52% 99.19% B. 1.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 100.00% 97.87% 97.37% 95.74% B. 1.9.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 90.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.9.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.9.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.92% 100.00% B. 1.9.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 52.11% 58.00% 46.94% 51.85% B. 1.9.17 LNP Standalone/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] B. 1.12.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 94.65% 94.65% 88.27% 94.13% B. 1.12.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 57.14% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.12.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 89.58% 100.00% 83.78% 100.00% 4 B. 1.12.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 90.91% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.12.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 86.67% 100.00% 1 B. 1.12.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 B. 1.12.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 100.00% 85.71% 88.89% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.12.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 25.00% 26.92% 52.63% 61.11% B. 1.12.17 LNP Standalone/ MS (%) 95.45% 92.11% 90.91% 94.23% FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.13.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.13.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 100.00% 93.48% 100.00% 97.89% B. 1.13.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.13.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.13.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 B. 1.13.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.13.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.13.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.13.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.16 INP Standalone/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 D- 15 264 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.13.17 LNP Standalone/ MS(%) 100.00% 98.46% 100.00% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.14.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ MS(%) 100.00% 99.89% 97.27% 100.00% B. 1.14.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ MS(%) 99.62% 98.99% 99.39% 99.96% B. 1.14.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ MS(%) 97.78% 98.41% 96.08% 96.00% B. 1.14.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 75.00% 3,4 B. 1.14.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 40.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.14.6.2 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 2 B. 1.14.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ MS(%) B. 1.14.8.2 2W Analog Loop Design/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.14.9.2 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 B. 1.14.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 2 B. 1.14.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ MS(%) 98.95% 100.00% 96.23% 100.00% B. 1.14.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 91.67% 80.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.14.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ MS(%) 100.00% 87.50% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.14.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ MS(%) 90.59% 84.75% 89.09% 91.11% B. 1.14.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.14% 100.00% B. 1.14.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ MS (%) 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.15.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ MS(%) 100.00% 99.77% 96.18% 99.81% B. 1.15.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ MS(%) 99.40% 99.27% 99.85% 99.85% B. 1.15.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ MS(%) 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.15.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ MS(%) B. 1.15.6.1 ISDN Loop (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.37% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.6.2 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ MS(%) 95.65% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ MS(%) B. 1.15.8.2 2W Analog Loop Design/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.15.9.2 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 B. 1.15.12.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ EDI/ MS(%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.15.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.15.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.15.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.15.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.15.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ MS(%) 86.67% 88.24% 93.10% 96.30% D- 16 265 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.15.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.16.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.16.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 96.94% 95.51% 89.26% 94.15% B. 1.16.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.16.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.16.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 96.15% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 B. 1.16.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 80.95% 100.00% 1 B. 1.16.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ MS(%) 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.16.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 66.67% 2,4 B. 1.16.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.16.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.78% 100.00% B. 1.16.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 97.19% 100.00% 94.92% 98.11% B. 1.16.16 INP Standalone/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 71.43% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.16.17 LNP Standalone/ MS (%) 100.00% 98.94% 96.83% 97.92% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] B. 2.1.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 12.07 14.43 30.00 18.33 20.00 17.15 20.00 2,3,4 B. 2.1.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.85 5.00 5.10 3.97 5.01 3.92 5.12 3.85 B. 2.1.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 0.77 0.55 0.82 0.53 0.80 0.51 0.78 0.51 B. 2.1.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ MS (days) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 B. 2.1.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (days) 1.54 1.24 1.56 1.25 1.49 1.33 1.43 1.25 B. 2.1.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 8.81 1.17 11.51 1.00 9.48 8.62 1,2 B. 2.1.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 2.07 3.89 1.11 2.18 2.00 3.39 2,3 B. 2.1.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ MS (days) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 2 D- 17 266 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.1.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (days) 3.80 5.58 1.50 3.46 2.00 6.20 2,3 B. 2.1.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 5.69 5.75 11.20 5.79 10.83 5.65 10.00 2,3,4 B. 2.1.6.3.1 UNE ISDN/< 6 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 13.74 10.69 10.58 10.31 14.66 10.73 15.60 11.13 B. 2.1.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.85 5.56 5.10 4.80 5.01 4.00 5.12 6.25 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.85 3.80 5.11 5.25 4.99 4.14 5.14 6.00 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.85 5.10 5.01 5.12 3.00 4 B. 2.1.11.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.85 5.11 6.00 4.99 5.14 2 B. 2.1.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.85 6.00 5.10 5.00 5.01 7.00 5.12 5.50 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 4.85 4.86 5.11 6.14 4.99 4.51 5.14 5.00 2,4 B. 2.1.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( days) 8.29 3.00 10.58 8.86 6.76 1 B. 2.1.15.1.1 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( days) 4.85 5.74 5.10 5.78 5.01 5.46 5.12 5.55 B. 2.1.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 0.77 0.82 9.00 0.80 0.78 2 B. 2.1.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( days) 0.76 0.81 0.79 0.83 0.77 3 B. 2.1.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 0.76 0.45 0.81 0.47 0.79 0.59 0.77 0.61 B. 2.1.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( days) 1.53 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.83 3 B. 2.1.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( days) 9.17 7.44 7.16 6.74 7.61 7.17 5.60 6.72 B. 2.1.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( days) 23.39 5.69 24.99 5.75 24.94 5.95 12.94 5.69 Order Completion Interval within X days [P- 4] D- 18 267 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.2.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop with Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( days) 7.00 4 B. 2.2.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop w/ o Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( days) 4.43 4.54 5.19 4.37 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.5.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 0.75% 0.64% 0.81% 0.53% 0.76% 0.49% 0.65% 0.29% B. 2.5.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 14.97% 8.71% 2.61% 10.17% 0.00% B. 2.5.6 UNE ISDN/ MS (%) 8.11% 43.48% 6.86% 36.84% 12.75% 42.86% 7.00% 47.37% B. 2.5.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 0.75% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 0.76% 0.00% 0.65% 50.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.5.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 1.71% 16.67% 1.78% 20.00% 1.62% 26.67% 1.41% 36.36% B. 2.5.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 0.75% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 0.76% 0.65% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.5.14 Other Desi gn/ MS(%) 14.09% 20.57% 14.58% 12.36% B. 2.5.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 0.75% 0.81% 0.76% 0.65% B. 2.5.16 INP (Standalone)/ MS(%) 0.75% 0.81% 0.75% 0.65% B. 2.5.17 LNP (Standalone)/ MS(%) 0.75% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.65% 0.00% B. 2.5.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ MS(%) 14.57% 43.48% 10.46% 36.84% 5.18% 42.86% 9.71% 21.43% B. 2.5.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ MS(%) 11.37% 91.03% 12.32% 86.96% 12.96% 93.22% 6.90% 86.96% % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.6.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.6.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 1.45% 2.89% 1.76% 0.91% B. 2.6.4 Combo Other/ MS (%) 40.00% 42.86% 50.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.6.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 4.17% 2.50% 7.89% 20.00% B. 2.6.6 UNE ISDN/ MS (%) 20.00% 1 B. 2.6.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.6.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.6.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 4 B. 2.6.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.6.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 100.00% 60.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.6.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ MS(%) 4.55% 5.56% 0.00% 10.00% B. 2.6.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 9.09% 18.92% 11.11% 12.00% B. 2.6.16 INP (Standalone)/ MS(%) 0.00% 3 B. 2.6.17 LNP (Standalone)/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ MS(%) 5.66% 2.50% 7.89% 20.00% B. 2.6.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ MS(%) 90.00% 41.67% 15.38% 30.00% D- 19 268 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS( hours) 183.35 155.33 137.28 132.68 B. 2.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS( hours) B. 2.8.6 UNE ISDN/ MS( hours) 334.05 320.36 357.13 343.01 2,3,4 B. 2.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS( hours) 436.07 4 B. 2.8.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS( hours) 31.00 108.74 134.47 93.05 1,2,3,4 B. 2.8.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ MS( hours) 334.05 320.36 357.13 343.01 2,3,4 B. 2.8.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ MS( hours) 178.34 203.30 184.67 170.05 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS( hours) 280.97 145.64 56.10 97.88 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.4 Combo Other/ MS (hours) 299.53 341.14 339.71 2,3,4 B. 2.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS( hours) 135.85 111.77 215.84 143.51 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.6 UNE ISDN/ MS (hours) 326.52 1 B. 2.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS( hours) 206.20 1 B. 2.9.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS( hours) 39.45 3 B. 2.9.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS( hours) 25.03 164.20 3,4 B. 2.9.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ MS( hours) 111.72 136.15 63.68 1,2,4 B. 2.9.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS( hours) 99.76 126.47 156.76 87.70 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ MS( hours) 231.18 111.77 215.84 143.51 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ MS( hours) 170.58 212.12 171.76 179.97 1,2,3,4 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.10.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 96.00% B. 2.10.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) B. 2.10.6 UNE ISDN/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.10.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 4 B. 2.10.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.10.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.10.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.11.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ MS(%) 100.00% 75.00% 50.00% 66.67% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.4 Combo Other/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.11.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 50.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.6 UNE ISDN/ MS (%) 100.00% 1 D- 20 269 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.11.8 2W Analog Loop Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 1 B. 2.11.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 3 B. 2.11.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ MS(%) 0.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 2.11.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.11.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ MS(%) 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 40.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 50.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 Coordinated Customers Conversions [P- 7] B. 2.12.2 Loo ps with LNP/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 50.00% 100.00% 2,3 % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early [P- 7A] B. 2.13.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.13.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Hot Cut Timeliness [P- 7A] B. 2.14.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 2.14.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late [P- 7A] B. 2.15.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.15.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts [P- 7C] B. 2.17.1.1 UNE Loo p Design/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] B. 2.18.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.18.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.50% 1.72% 6.28% 2.28% 6.47% 3.02% 7.09% 4.35% B. 2.18.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.02% 0.03% 0.09% 0.21% 0.01% 0.04% 0.02% 0.04% B. 2.18.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ MS (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.18.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (%) 0.05% 0.09% 0.22% 0.59% 0.03% 0.11% 0.04% 0.11% B. 2.18.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 9.30% 0.00% 6.15% 0.00% 7.84% 10.26% 1,2 D- 21 270 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.18.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 B. 2.18.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ MS (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 B. 2.18.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 B. 2.18.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.43% 6.16% 0.00% 6.34% 0.00% 6.94% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.18.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 3.06% 0.00% 4.91% 0.00% 3.97% 0.00% 5.91% 0.00% B. 2.18.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 3.92% 3.45% 2.27% 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% 3.45% 11.11% B. 2.18.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 4.50% 0.00% 6.28% 0.00% 6.47% 0.00% 7.09% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.18.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 4.52% 0.00% 6.34% 0.00% 6.52% 0.00% 7.13% 13.33% B. 2.18.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.50% 6.28% 6.47% 7.09% 0.00% 4 B. 2.18.11.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.52% 0.00% 6.34% 0.00% 6.52% 7.13% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.18.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.50% 0.00% 6.28% 0.00% 6.47% 0.00% 7.09% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.52% 0.00% 6.34% 0.00% 6.52% 0.00% 7.13% 0.00% B. 2.18.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 8.57% 0.00% 7.27% 7.14% 10.00% 1 B. 2.18.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 4.50% 0.00% 6.28% 0.00% 6.47% 0.00% 7.09% 0.00% B. 2.18.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.02% 0.09% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% 2 B. 2.18.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.02% 0.09% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 3 B. 2.18.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.02% 0.00% 0.09% 0.49% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% B. 2.18.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.18.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 3.39% 1.28% 4.72% 0.00% 3.98% 0.00% 5.80% 3.92% D- 22 271 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.18.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 3.94% 1.05% 4.07% 0.00% 5.36% 2.78% 2.47% 0.00% % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] B. 2.19.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 8.06% 0.00% 12.80% 11.79% 0.00% 7.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.19.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 10.04% 8.04% 10.62% 9.65% 10.40% 10.26% 11.48% 10.16% B. 2.19.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 3.11% 2.65% 3.36% 2.66% 2.83% 2.10% 2.82% 1.97% B. 2.19.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ MS (%) 3.44% 2.05% 3.63% 1.79% 3.27% 1.39% 3.10% 1.55% B. 2.19.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (%) 2.61% 3.61% 2.93% 4.76% 2.21% 3.38% 2.43% 2.57% B. 2.19.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 11.76% 50.00% 11.63% 25.00% 9.23% 0.00% 15.69% 1,2,3 B. 2.19.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 7.55% 11.48% 15.79% 0.00% 11.43% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.19.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ MS (%) 10.53% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 3 B. 2.19.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (%) 5.88% 12.90% 23.08% 0.00% 11.63% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.19.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 9.89% 10.43% 10.32% 20.00% 11.36% 14.29% 3,4 B. 2.19.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 3.18% 3.13% 2.12% 10.20% 3.03% 5.13% 4.96% 8.11% B. 2.19.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.96% 0.00% 3.92% 6.90% 6.82% 4.76% 2.78% 0.00% B. 2.19.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 10.04% 0.00% 10.62% 13.33% 10.40% 11.11% 11.48% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.19.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 10.19% 0.00% 10.62% 0.00% 10.44% 0.00% 11.47% 0.00% B. 2.19.11.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 10.19% 10.62% 0.00% 10.44% 0.00% 11.47% 2,3 B. 2.19.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 10.04% 0.00% 10.62% 14.29% 10.40% 0.00% 11.48% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 10.19% 6.67% 10.62% 0.00% 10.44% 0.00% 11.47% 0.00% D- 23 272 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.19.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 10.53% 8.57% 0.00% 7.27% 11.90% 2 B. 2.19.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 6.64% 100.00% 6.21% 8.45% 8.52% 1 B. 2.19.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 10.04% 0.00% 10.62% 9.09% 10.40% 8.33% 11.48% 11.11% B. 2.19.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 3.11% 3.36% 2.83% 0.00% 2.82% 3 B. 2.19.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 3.15% 0.00% 3.36% 2.83% 2.81% 0.00% 1,4 B. 2.19.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 3.15% 0.00% 3.36% 0.00% 2.83% 0.00% 2.81% 0.00% B. 2.19.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.19.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 3.99% 2.17% 3.29% 8.97% 4.08% 5.00% 5.01% 5.77% B. 2.19.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 4.69% 13.95% 6.30% 17.89% 6.50% 17.07% 6.25% 15.28% B. 2.19.19.1.2 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.98% 1.73% 0.85% 0.65% Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.21.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 1.49 0.45 1.83 0.33 1.59 0.36 1.41 0.29 B. 2.21.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.69 0.35 0.48 0.34 0.49 0.33 0.60 0.36 B. 2.21.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ MS (hours) 0.48 0.34 0.54 0.32 0.56 0.34 0.61 0.37 B. 2.21.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (hours) 1.04 0.37 0.41 0.37 0.39 0.32 0.59 0.34 B. 2.21.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 3.44 0.02 3.40 3.92 0.03 1 B. 2.21.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.29 1.27 0.31 0.38 2.07 2 B. 2.21.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ MS (hours) 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.35 1.19 2 B. 2.21.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (hours) 0.30 1.74 0.32 0.39 2.84 2 D- 24 273 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.21.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 6.29 5.00 3.78 1.63 5.82 B. 2.21.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 55.61 29.74 60.05 1.87 26.91 9.42 38.53 3.77 B. 2.21.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 1.49 26.62 1.83 0.12 1.59 0.29 1.41 27.55 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 1.47 0.02 1.82 0.74 1.53 0.02 1.37 0.02 B. 2.21.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 1.49 14.88 1.83 60.14 1.59 1.41 0.02 1,2,4 B. 2.21.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.69 0.32 0.47 0.28 0.48 0.29 0.60 0.37 B. 2.21.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 42.32 29.74 29.36 1.87 16.32 9.42 11.73 4.92 B. 2.21.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 218.93 20.00 390.28 13.61 200.76 18.28 121.39 50.31 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.22.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 21.07 36.80 19.34 2,3,4 B. 2.22.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 12.71 9.13 19.89 15.23 B. 2.22.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 6.27 4.52 3.54 8.20 B. 2.22.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ MS (hours) 2.87 2.30 1.15 8.18 B. 2.22.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (hours) 12.60 12.88 12.26 8.37 B. 2.22.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.02 22.58 1,2 B. 2.22.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 20.75 3 B. 2.22.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ MS (hours) 20.75 3 B. 2.22.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 24.37 44.48 49.22 2,3,4 D- 25 274 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.22.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 19.87 9.53 15.99 12.59 B. 2.22.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 27.17 229.17 1,2 B. 2.22.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 55.33 41.07 390.11 17.69 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 36.18 10.32 29.68 22.83 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 38.77 4 B. 2.22.11.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 15.42 44.87 20.73 1,2,4 B. 2.22.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 52.87 19.98 45.51 1,3,4 B. 2.22.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 23.64 18.23 23.61 20.19 B. 2.22.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 37.32 1 B. 2.22.15.1.1 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 24.04 18.39 17.94 19.74 B. 2.22.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.53 2 B. 2.22.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 18.92 3 B. 2.22.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 3.83 4.03 7.00 4.45 B. 2.22.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.40 0.29 0.27 2,3,4 B. 2.22.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 20.55 15.47 15.99 12.59 B. 2.22.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 39.73 33.50 45.78 35.40 4 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] B. 2.34.1.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D- 26 275 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.34.1.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 100.00% 67.07% 69.33% B. 2.34.1.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 100.00% 90.91% 3 B. 2.34.2.1.1 Loo ps Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 98.18% 95.65% 96.00% 96.33% B. 2.34.2.1.2 Loops Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 99.09% 98.18% 100.00% 98.02% B. 2.34.2.2.1 Loo ps Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 97.75% 89.81% 97.90% 97.73% B. 2.34.2.2.2 Loops Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 97.20% 97.98% 98.73% 97.53% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] B. 3.1.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 3.1.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B. 3.1.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 4.42% 1.77% 4.60% 1.83% 5.44% 1.71% 5.41% 1.79% B. 3.1.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.91% 0.97% 0.99% 0.40% 0.97% 0.00% 0.95% 0.36% B. 3.1.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.33% 0.00% 4.52% 0.00% 5.32% 0.00% 5.32% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.1.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 4.33% 0.00% 4.52% 0.00% 5.32% 0.00% 5.32% 0.00% 2,4 B. 3.1.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 44.44% 0.00% 42.98% 0.00% 40.22% 0.00% 44.34% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.1.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.23% 0.00% 5.62% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 2.73% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26% 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% 1,2 B. 3.1.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 4.42% 0.00% 4.60% 0.00% 5.44% 0.00% 5.41% 3.03% B. 3.1.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 4.42% 0.00% 4.60% 0.00% 5.44% 0.00% 5.41% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 4.36% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 5.40% 0.00% 5.37% 0.00% 2,4 B. 3.1.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.76% 0.00% 0.90% 0.00% 0.94% 0.00% 0.89% 0.00% B. 3.1.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.52% 0.00% 0.68% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% B. 3.1.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.78% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% B. 3.1.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 4.42% 25.00% 4.60% 0.00% 5.44% 0.00% 5.41% 50.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.91% 0.00% 0.99% 0.00% 0.97% 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 1 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] D- 27 276 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.2.2.1 Local Interoffice Transport/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.53% 0.00% 2.35% 0.00% 3.05% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% B. 3.2.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 1.35% 0.00% 1.55% 0.00% 1.48% 0.00% 1.25% 2.94% B. 3.2.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.02% 1.37% 2.23% 1.46% 2.30% 1.46% 2.32% 1.55% B. 3.2.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 1.02% 0.38% 1.05% 0.45% 1.07% 0.36% 1.08% 0.48% B. 3.2.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.77% 0.00% 1.95% 10.00% 2.01% 9.09% 2.03% 2.56% B. 3.2.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.77% 0.00% 1.95% 3.33% 2.01% 0.00% 2.03% 5.13% B. 3.2.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 1.07% 1.36% 1.32% 1.00% 1.37% 0.64% 1.53% 0.34% B. 3.2.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 1.33% 0.11% 2.32% 0.22% 2.33% 0.32% 2.41% 0.57% B. 3.2.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.50% 1.18% 0.70% 0.50% 0.64% 1.80% 0.61% 1.83% B. 3.2.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 1.19% 0.17% 1.17% 0.17% 0.84% 0.66% 1.12% 1.00% B. 3.2.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.02% 0.66% 2.23% 0.76% 2.30% 0.58% 2.32% 1.01% B. 3.2.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.02% 0.27% 2.23% 0.06% 2.30% 0.09% 2.32% 0.06% B. 3.2.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.15% 0.00% 2.38% 0.48% 2.46% 0.00% 2.48% 0.33% B. 3.2.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.98% 0.00% 1.03% 0.00% 1.06% 0.00% 1.07% 0.00% B. 3.2.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.28% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.2.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.32% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.2.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.02% 3.74% 2.23% 7.69% 2.30% 3.41% 2.32% 4.35% B. 3.2.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 1.02% 0.93% 1.05% 0.00% 1.07% 0.00% 1.08% 0.00% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] B. 3.3.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 3.72 0.00 4.07 0.00 4.06 0.00 4.01 0.00 B. 3.3.2.2 Local Interoffice Transport/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( hours) 2.00 0.00 2.80 0.00 1.74 0.00 1.97 2.85 4 B. 3.3.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 19.44 14.32 20.31 13.00 22.24 12.75 23.62 15.19 B. 3.3.3.2 Loop + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( hours) 7.66 3.96 8.35 3.53 9.38 4.72 10.02 5.07 B. 3.3.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 19.10 0.00 19.98 5.17 21.85 4.15 23.19 6.35 2,3,4 B. 3.3.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 19.10 0.00 19.98 1.23 21.85 0.00 23.19 5.23 2,4 B. 3.3.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 50.88 5.49 35.89 4.61 32.65 4.20 32.38 4.45 2,3,4 B. 3.3.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 3.73 3.35 5.40 4.66 2.93 1.16 1.72 4.47 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS( hours) 4.98 6.26 5.46 5.95 6.69 5.27 7.35 6.27 1,2 D- 28 277 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.3.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( hours) 6.11 1.47 1.82 1.33 3.03 1.55 5.17 6.61 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 19.44 4.87 20.31 3.52 22.24 5.44 23.62 6.99 B. 3.3.8.2 2W Analog Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( hours) 19.44 2.36 20.31 3.23 22.24 1.42 23.62 5.71 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.9.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 19.57 0.00 20.46 2.00 22.42 0.00 23.79 4.00 2,4 B. 3.3.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 8.19 0.00 8.79 0.00 10.03 0.00 10.70 0.00 B. 3.3.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 4.84 0.00 5.09 0.00 5.21 0.00 5.50 0.00 B. 3.3.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( hours) 2.95 0.00 2.25 0.00 2.20 0.00 2.50 0.00 B. 3.3.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 19.44 7.78 20.31 13.71 22.24 11.00 23.62 24.75 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS( hours) 7.66 2.73 8.35 0.00 9.38 0.00 10.02 0.00 1 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] B. 3.4.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 28.17% 0.00% 22.73% 0.00% 28.32% 0.00% 25.48% 0.00% B. 3.4.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 27.63% 0.00% 18.39% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 15.07% 0.00% 4 B. 3.4.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 16.81% 12.11% 19.07% 13.81% 17.64% 10.85% 19.39% 14.53% B. 3.4.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 14.59% 16.02% 15.84% 13.20% 15.44% 11.88% 17.09% 12.36% B. 3.4.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 16.83% 0.00% 19.07% 33.33% 17.68% 0.00% 19.56% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.4.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 16.83% 0.00% 19.07% 0.00% 17.68% 0.00% 19.56% 50.00% 2,4 B. 3.4.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 11.67% 0.00% 20.66% 11.11% 24.72% 0.00% 26.91% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.4.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 16.52% 0.00% 23.89% 0.00% 23.04% 0.00% 29.63% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 10.53% 27.27% 27.78% 27.27% 1,2 B. 3.4.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 13.89% 0.00% 17.14% 0.00% 8.00% 25.00% 6.06% 33.33% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 16.81% 13.64% 19.07% 4.00% 17.64% 5.26% 19.39% 6.06% B. 3.4.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 16.81% 0.00% 19.07% 0.00% 17.64% 33.33% 19.39% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 16.88% 0.00% 19.16% 0.00% 17.70% 0.00% 19.44% 0.00% 2,4 B. 3.4.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 14.51% 0.00% 16.11% 0.00% 15.58% 0.00% 17.35% 0.00% B. 3.4.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 17.71% 0.00% 18.85% 0.00% 19.45% 0.00% 26.55% 0.00% B. 3.4.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 17.70% 0.00% 19.16% 0.00% 16.57% 0.00% 17.70% 0.00% B. 3.4.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 16.81% 25.00% 19.07% 14.29% 17.64% 0.00% 19.39% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 14.59% 0.00% 15.84% 0.00% 15.44% 0.00% 17.09% 0.00% 1 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] D- 29 278 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.5.2.1 Local Interoffice Transport/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 3.5.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B. 3.5.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 26.22% 18.44% 26.92% 12.12% 29.58% 13.65% 32.31% 19.16% B. 3.5.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 13.13% 3.06% 13.16% 2.24% 17.00% 6.73% 19.19% 4.57% B. 3.5.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 25.30% 0.00% 26.06% 0.00% 28.56% 0.00% 31.21% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.5.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 25.30% 0.00% 26.06% 0.00% 28.56% 0.00% 31.21% 0.00% 2,4 B. 3.5.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 44.44% 0.00% 42.98% 0.00% 40.22% 0.00% 44.34% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.5.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 2.23% 0.00% 5.62% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 2.73% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26% 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% 1,2 B. 3.5.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 26.22% 0.00% 26.92% 0.00% 29.58% 0.00% 32.31% 3.03% B. 3.5.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 26.22% 0.00% 26.92% 0.00% 29.58% 0.00% 32.31% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 26.51% 0.00% 27.20% 0.00% 29.84% 0.00% 32.59% 0.00% 2,4 B. 3.5.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 13.25% 0.00% 13.48% 0.00% 17.58% 0.00% 19.90% 0.00% B. 3.5.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.52% 0.00% 0.68% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% B. 3.5.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.78% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% B. 3.5.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 26.22% 0.00% 26.92% 0.00% 29.58% 0.00% 32.31% 25.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 13.13% 0.00% 13.16% 0.00% 17.00% 0.00% 19.19% 0.00% 1 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] B. 4.1 MS (%) 98.86% 96.50% 99.03% 95.07% 98.60% 99.85% 98.67% 100.00% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] B. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 7.29 3.86 4.97 3.47 3.78 3.82 3.46 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests [O- 7] C. 1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (%) 40.00% 50.00% 72.73% 75.00% Reject Interval [O- 8] C. 1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 FOC Timeliness [O- 9] C. 1.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness [O- 11] D- 30 279 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June C. 1.4 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] C. 2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (days) 23.12 6.00 28.63 23.00 25.31 6.00 32.87 12.50 1,2,3,4 Held Orders [P- 1] C. 2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (days) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Jeopardies [P- 2] C. 2.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] C. 2.5 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] C. 2.6 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Average Completion Notice Interval [P- 5] C. 2.7 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (hours) 24.64 18.24 133.06 2.34 109.90 0.02 36.77 8.57 1,2,3,4 Total Service Order Cycle Time [P- 10] C. 2.8 Local Interconnection Trunks/ MS (days) 8.47 24.13 7.30 14.02 1,2,3,4 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours [P- 6] C. 2.10.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] C. 2.11.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 C. 2.11.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] C. 3.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] D- 31 280 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June C. 3.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.03% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] C. 3.3.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dispatch/ MS( hours) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. 3.3.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dis patch/ MS( hours) 0.46 0.00 0.22 0.00 3.52 0.00 2.03 0.00 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] C. 3.4.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.4.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] C. 3.5.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.5.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] C. 4.1 MS (%) 98.86% 98.47% 99.03% 99.48% 98.60% 99.82% 98.67% 99.87% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS [B- 2] C. 4.2 Re gion( calendar days) 4.84 4.54 3.94 3.89 4.96 4.92 4.54 4.29 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - TRUNK BLOCKING Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate [TGP- 1] C. 5.1 MS 0 0 0 0 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - PRE- ORDERING % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.71% 100.00% 99.64% 100.00% D. 1.1.2 HAL/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.3 LENS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.98% 99.85% 99.76% D. 1.1.4 LEO MAINFRAME/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.6 LESOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.7 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 99.99% 99.86% D. 1.1.8 PSIMS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D- 32 281 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.2.1 ATLAS/ COFFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.2 BOCRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 1.2.3 DSAP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.98% D. 1.2.4 RSAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.5 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.6 SONGS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.86% D. 1.2.7 DOE/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.26% D. 1.2.8 LNP Gatewa y/ Region(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 99.49% D. 1.2.9 COG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.48% D. 1.2.10 DOM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.11 SOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.1- new ATLAS/ Re gion (%) 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.2- new COFFI/ Re gion (%) 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.3.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 0.91 1782.46 1.11 2.87 1.20 2.88 1.02 D. 1.3.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 0.91 2.95 1.11 2.94 1.20 2.91 1.02 D. 1.3.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 0.91 1204.18 1.02 2.99 1.10 3.03 0.93 D. 1.3.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 0.91 4.86 1.02 4.77 1.10 4.76 0.93 D. 1.3.3.1 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 0.88 2.95 0.88 2.95 0.88 3.01 0.80 D. 1.3.3.2 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 0.88 2.61 0.88 2.60 0.88 2.61 0.80 D. 1.3.4.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 0.53 2.70 0.57 2.71 0.53 2.71 0.52 D. 1.3.4.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 0.53 2.58 0.57 2.57 0.53 2.57 0.52 D. 1.3.5.1 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.08 212.02 1.25 3.21 2.12 3.24 1.14 D. 1.3.5.2 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.08 2.91 1.25 2.87 2.12 2.95 1.14 D. 1.3.6.1 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.63 4.40 0.67 4.60 0.63 4.35 0.64 D. 1.3.6.2 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.63 3.92 0.67 7.28 0.63 3.73 0.64 D. 1.3.7.1 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.03 4.40 0.04 4.60 0.04 4.35 0.04 D. 1.3.7.2 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.03 3.92 0.04 7.28 0.04 3.73 0.04 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.4.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 1.10 1782.46 1.31 2.87 1.60 2.88 1.52 D. 1.4.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 1.10 2.95 1.31 2.94 1.60 2.91 1.52 D. 1.4.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 1.62 1204.18 1.85 2.99 3.05 3.03 2.34 D- 33 282 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 1.4.2.2 RSAG, by ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 1.62 4.86 1.85 4.77 3.05 4.76 2.34 D. 1.4.4.1 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.4.2 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.5.1 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 1.35 2.95 1.56 2.95 1.86 3.01 1.89 D. 1.4.5.2 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 1.35 2.61 1.56 2.60 1.86 2.61 1.89 D. 1.4.6.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 1.58 2.70 1.71 2.71 1.74 2.71 1.83 D. 1.4.6.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 1.58 2.58 1.71 2.57 1.74 2.57 1.83 D. 1.4.7.1 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.75 212.02 2.15 3.21 2.51 3.24 2.85 D. 1.4.7.2 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.75 2.91 2.15 2.87 2.51 2.95 2.85 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.2.1 CLEC TAFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.2.2 ECTA/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 100.00% 99.86% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.3.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 2.3.2 LMOS HOST/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% 100.00% D. 2.3.3 LNP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% D. 2.3.4 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.5 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.6 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.92% D. 2.3.7 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.4.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 94.91% 94.17% 94.75% 94.83% 95.12% 94.99% 94.95% 94.66% D. 2.4.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 3.07% 3.22% 3.14% 4.03% 3.16% 4.59% 2.58% 3.67% D. 2.4.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 4.30% 2.41% 4.07% 2.41% 4.03% 3.36% 4.47% 7.51% D. 2.4.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.67% 99.69% 99.63% 99.59% 99.60% 99.60% 99.61% 99.58% D. 2.4.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 78.95% 70.39% 76.71% 65.38% 78.49% 66.19% 79.21% 66.24% D. 2.4.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.78% 99.37% 99.31% 99.09% 99.68% 99.19% 99.65% 98.81% D. 2.4.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.4.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 23.94% 13.59% 27.25% 20.73% 31.23% 24.50% 33.15% 21.43% D. 2.4.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.4.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.84% 99.91% 99.83% 99.90% 99.85% 99.88% 99.81% 99.86% D. 2.4.11 NIW/ Region(%) 82.97% 81.81% 84.38% 83.15% 84.01% 83.00% 82.83% 81.89% D- 34 283 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.5.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 98.99% 99.34% 98.97% 99.34% 99.05% 99.46% 99.02% 99.39% D. 2.5.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 78.81% 86.16% 78.96% 87.92% 79.20% 85.30% 77.66% 82.58% D. 2.5.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 77.94% 92.02% 77.45% 91.98% 76.65% 88.18% 71.08% 41.67% D. 2.5.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.81% 99.86% 99.79% 99.82% 99.79% 99.84% 99.80% 99.85% D. 2.5.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 90.95% 83.33% 89.31% 80.59% 90.04% 80.25% 90.59% 80.53% D. 2.5.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.93% 99.87% 99.54% 99.72% 99.81% 99.63% 99.83% 99.52% D. 2.5.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.5.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 96.89% 96.12% 97.38% 95.12% 97.81% 97.35% 98.41% 95.83% D. 2.5.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.5.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.98% 99.98% 100.00% 99.98% 100.00% D. 2.5.11 NIW/ Region(%) 99.17% 98.96% 99.49% 99.33% 99.39% 99.21% 99.42% 99.25% Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.6.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 1.01% 0.66% 1.03% 0.66% 0.95% 0.54% 0.98% 0.61% D. 2.6.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 21.19% 13.84% 21.04% 12.08% 20.80% 14.70% 22.34% 17.42% D. 2.6.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 22.06% 7.98% 22.55% 8.02% 23.35% 11.82% 28.92% 58.33% D. 2.6.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 0.19% 0.14% 0.21% 0.18% 0.21% 0.16% 0.20% 0.15% D. 2.6.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 9.05% 16.67% 10.69% 19.41% 9.96% 19.75% 9.41% 19.47% D. 2.6.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 0.07% 0.13% 0.46% 0.28% 0.19% 0.37% 0.17% 0.48% D. 2.6.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 71.65% 66.84% 71.68% 73.56% 71.96% 68.31% 71.90% 70.36% D. 2.6.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 3.11% 3.88% 2.62% 4.88% 2.19% 2.65% 1.59% 4.17% D. 2.6.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 84.22% 80.52% 84.97% 79.57% 86.18% 80.39% 87.29% 78.27% D. 2.6.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% D. 2.6.11 NIW/ Region(%) 0.83% 1.04% 0.51% 0.67% 0.61% 0.79% 0.58% 0.75% COLLOCATION - COLLOCATION Average Response Time [C- 1] E. 1.1.3 Ph ysical Cageless/ MS( calendar days) 4 3 1,2 Average Arrangement Time [C- 2] E. 1.2.1 Virtual- Ordinar y/ MS( calendar days) E. 1.2.3 Physical Caged/ MS( calendar days) 82 2 E. 1.2.4 Ph ysical Cageless/ MS( calendar days) 50 55 58 58 1,2,3,4 % Due Dates Missed [C- 3] E. 1.3.1 Virtual/ MS (%) D- 35 284 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June E. 1.3.2 Physical/ MS(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 GENERAL - FLOW THROUGH % Flow Through Service Requests [O- 3] F. 1.1.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 86.49% 87.39% 86.74% 88.58% F. 1.1.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 73.55% 71.89% 69.54% 73.74% F. 1.1.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 83.88% 84.78% 82.57% 83.84% % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved [O- 3] F. 1.2.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 79.16% 80.53% 79.88% 81.68% F. 1.2.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 50.63% 51.15% 51.58% 53.42% F. 1.2.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 72.17% 74.87% 74.12% 77.27% % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP [O- 3] F. 1.3.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% F. 1.3.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% GENERAL - PRE- ORDERING Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) [PO- 1] F. 2.1 Loo ps/ MS(%) 10.00% Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) [PO- 2] F. 2.2 Loo ps/ MS(%) 99.23% 99.50% 99.90% 79.62% GENERAL - ORDERING Average Speed of Answer [O- 12] F. 4.1 Re gion( seconds) 141.64 30.33 137.90 28.63 194.86 35.16 259.48 58.19 GENERAL - MAINTENANCE CENTER Average Answer Time [M& R- 6] F. 5.1 Re gion( seconds) 43.10 26.35 41.00 23.60 64.68 25.99 52.80 28.04 GENERAL - OPERATOR SERVICES (TOLL) Average Speed to Answer [OS- 1] F. 6.1 MS (seconds) 6.08 5.86 6.00 5.53 % Answered in 10 seconds [OS- 2] F. 6.2 MS (%) 76.40% 77.20% 76.80% 78.80% D- 36 285 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June GENERAL - DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE Average Speed to Answer [DA- 1] F. 7.1 MS (seconds) 4.26 4.80 5.06 4.54 % Answered in 12 seconds [DA- 2] F. 7.2 MS (%) 90.90% 88.80% 87.90% 90.10% GENERAL - BILLING Usage Data Delivery Accuracy [B- 3] F. 9.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.75% 100.00% 95.22% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Usage Data Delivery Timeliness [B- 5] F. 9.2 Re gion(%) 98.37% 93.14% 75.41% 94.80% 94.93% 97.64% 99.33% 99.38% Usage Data Delivery Completeness [B- 4] F. 9.3 Re gion(%) 99.38% 99.89% 99.77% 99.54% 97.21% 99.95% 99.92% 99.91% Mean Time to Deliver Usage [B- 6] F. 9.4 Re gion( days) 3.49 3.05 6.85 3.29 4.34 2.52 3.24 2.43 Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 7] F. 9.5.1 Resale/ MS (%) 81.34% 98.45% 83.16% 47.87% 86.18% 94.89% 89.04% 99.47% F. 9.5.2 UNE/ MS (%) 99.43% 97.88% 98.66% 97.45% F. 9.5.3 Interconnection/ MS (%) 93.57% 100.00% 99.96% 88.52% Non- Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 8] F. 9.6.1 Resale/ MS (%) 93.31% 95.16% 73.62% 88.16% 86.41% 98.04% 86.28% 98.65% F. 9.6.2 UNE/ MS (%) 98.99% 98.45% 96.68% 97.94% F. 9.6.3 Interconnection/ MS (%) 70.18% 98.16% 96.24% 96.49% GENERAL - CHANGE MANAGEMENT % Software Release Notices Sent On Time [CM- 1] F. 10.1 MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time [CM- 3A] F. 10.3 MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc.) Sent On Time [CM- 3B] F. 10.4 MS (%) 77.78% 2 Average Documentation Release Delay Days [CM- 4] F. 10.5 MS (average) % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes [CM- 5] F. 10.6 MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D- 37 286 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June GENERAL - NEW BUSINESS REQUESTS % New Business Requests Processed within 30 Business Days [BFR- 1] F. 11.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 % Quotes Provided within X Business Days [BFR- 2A] F. 11.2.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 F. 11.2.3 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 GENERAL - ORDERING Acknowledgement Message Timeliness [O- 1] F. 12.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.97% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% F. 12.1.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Acknowledgement Message Completeness [O- 2] F. 12.2.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.62% F. 12.2.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% GENERAL - DATABASE UPDATES Average Database Update Interval [D- 1] F. 13.1.1 LIDB/ MS (hours) 1.12 1.12 0.44 0.44 0.35 0.35 1.10 1.10 F. 13.1.2 Director y Listings/ MS( hours) 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 F. 13.1.3 Director y Assistance/ MS( hours) 3.47 3.46 3.92 3.92 3.59 3.58 5.48 5.38 % Update Accuracy [D- 2] F. 13.2.1 LIDB/ MS (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 93.48% F. 13.2.2 Director y Listings/ MS(%) 99.38% 99.03% 99.79% 99.35% F. 13.2.3 Director y Assistance/ MS(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.87% 99.19% % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date [D- 3] F. 13.3 Re gion(%) 96.77% 100.00% 100.00% 98.41% GENERAL - NETWORK OUTAGE NOTIFICATION Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages [M& R- 7] F. 14.1 Region( minutes) 739 218 0 0 154 123 791 602 1,3,4 Abbreviations: blank cell = no data available Notes: D- 38 287 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Mississippi Performance Metric Data March April May June 1 = Sample Size under 10 in March 2 = Sample Size under 10 in April 2 = Sample Size under 10 in May 4 = Sample Size under 10 in June D- 39 288 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Appendix E North Carolina Performance Metrics Except where noted, the data included here is taken from the North Carolina Monthly State Summary (MSS) Reports provided by BellSouth, calculated according to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement (SQM) business rules. This table is provided as a reference tool for the convenience of the reader. No conclusions are to be drawn from the raw data contained in this table. Our analysis is based on the totality of the circumstances, such that we may use non- metric evidence, and may rely more heavily on some metrics more than others, in making our determination. The inclusion of these particular metrics in this table does not necessarily mean that we relied on all of these metrics, or that other metrics may not also be important in our analysis. Some metrics that we have relied on in the past and may rely on for a future application were not included here because there was no data provided for them (usually either because there was no activity, or because the metrics are still under development). Metrics with no retail analog provided are usually compared with a benchmark. Note that for some metrics during the period provided there may be changes in the metric definition, or changes in the retail analog applied, making it difficult to compare data Note: All data was calculated using BellSouth's data platform PMAP 4.0. The March data in this appendix were not taken from the MSS reports, which for that month were calculated using PMAP 2.6, but instead were calculated using PMAP 4.0 by BellSouth. This data also conforms to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement business rules that govern the regular MSS reports. 289 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name RESALE A. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours Ordering Billing A. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy A. 1.2 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices – CRIS A. 1.3 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS A. 1.4 O- 8 Reject Interval – Mech. Ordering A. 1.7 O- 8 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. – 10 hours B. 1.1 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 1.8 O- 8 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. B. 1.2 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 1.9 O- 9 FOC Timeliness – Mech. B. 1.3 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. A. 1.12 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours B. 1.4 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval – Mech. A. 1.13 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. B. 1.7 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. - 10 hours A. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mech. B. 1.8 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. A. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mech. B. 1.9 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness – Mech. A. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mech. B. 1.12 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours Provisioning B. 1.13 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. A. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval B. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Mech. A. 2.4 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Mech. B. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Partially Mech. A. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. B. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Non- Mech. A. 2.7 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. Provisioning A. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval A. 2.9 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. B. 2.2 P- 4 Order Completion Interval within X days - xDSL A. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. B. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies – Mech. A. 2.11 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments B. 2.6 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. A. 2.12 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. A. 2.14 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. B. 2.9 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. A. 2.15 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. A. 2.25 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy B. 2.11 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. Maintenance and Repair B. 2.12 P- 7 Coordinated Customers Conversions A. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments B. 2.13 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early A. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate B. 2.14 P- 7A Hot Cut Timeliness A. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.15 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late A. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.16 P- 7B Average Recovery Time – CCC PERFORMANCE METRIC CATEGORIES Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 E- 2 290 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name B. 2.17 P- 7C % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts C. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.18 P- 3/ P- 12 % Missed Installation Appointments C. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.19 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days C. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours B. 2.21 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. Billing B. 2.22 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. C. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy B. 2.34 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy C. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS Maintenance and Repair Trunk Blocking B. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments C. 5.1 TGP- 1 Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate B. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS B. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration Pre- Ordering B. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days D. 1.1 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - CLEC B. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours D. 1.2 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC Billing D. 1.3 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) B. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy D. 1.4 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) B. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS Maintenance and Repair LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS D. 2.1 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST Ordering D. 2.2 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - CLEC C. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests D. 2.3 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC C. 1.2 O- 8 Reject Interval D. 2.4 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds C. 1.3 O- 9 FOC Timeliness D. 2.5 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds C. 1.4 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness D. 2.6 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds Provisioning COLLOCATION C. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval Collocation C. 2.2 P- 1 Held Orders E. 1.1 C- 1 Average Response Time C. 2.3 P- 2 % Jeopardies E. 1.2 C- 2 Average Arrangement Time C. 2.5 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments E. 1.3 C- 3 % Due Dates Missed C. 2.6 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days GENERAL C. 2.7 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval Flow Through C. 2.8 P- 10 Total Service Order Cycle Time F. 1.1 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests C. 2.10 P- 6 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours F. 1.2 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved C. 2.11 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy F. 1.3 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP Maintenance and Repair Pre- Ordering C. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments F. 2.1 PO- 1 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) C. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate F. 2.2 PO- 2 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) E- 3 291 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Ordering Database Updates F. 4.1 O- 12 Average Speed of Answer F. 13.1 D- 1 Average Database Update Interval Maintenance Center F. 13.2 D- 2 % Update Accuracy F. 5.1 M& R- 6 Average Answer Time F. 13.3 D- 3 % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date Operator Services (Toll) Network Outage Notification F. 6.1 OS- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 14.1 M& R- 7 Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages F. 6.2 OS- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Directory Assistance F. 7.1 DA- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 7.2 DA- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Billing F. 9.1 B- 3 Usage Data Delivery Accuracy F. 9.2 B- 5 Usage Data Delivery Timeliness F. 9.3 B- 4 Usage Data Delivery Completeness F. 9.4 B- 6 Mean Time to Deliver Usage F. 9.5 B- 7 Recurring Charge Completeness F. 9.6 B- 8 Non- Recurring Charge Completeness Change Management F. 10.1 CM- 1 % Software Release Notices Sent On Time F. 10.2 CM- 2 Average Software Release Notice Delay Days F. 10.3 CM- 3A % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time F. 10.4 CM- 3B % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc. ) Sent On Time F. 10.5 CM- 4 Average Documentation Release Delay Days F. 10.6 CM- 5 % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes New Business Requests F. 11.1 BFR- 1 % New Business Requests Processed in 30 Bus. Days F. 11.2 BFR- 2A % Quotes Provided within X Business Days Ordering F. 12.1 O- 1 Acknowledgement Message Timeliness F. 12.2 O- 2 Acknowledgement Message Completeness E- 4 292 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes RESALE - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.1.1 Residence/ NC (%) 8.64% 7.68% 7.32% 7.86% A. 1.1.2 Business/ NC (%) 24.61% 23.81% 21.85% 24.35% A. 1.1.4 PBX/ NC (%) 0.00% 100.00% 1,4 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.2.1 Residence/ NC (%) 18.67% 15.55% 22.57% 26.86% A. 1.2.2 Business/ NC (%) 41.78% 54.72% 39.86% 50.26% A. 1.2.4 PBX/ NC (%) 50.00% 0.00% 62.50% 1,2,4 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.3.1 Residence/ NC (%) 50.50% 51.35% 47.57% 46.84% A. 1.3.2 Business/ NC (%) 50.65% 52.09% 54.71% 55.85% A. 1.3.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ NC(%) 22.22% 25.00% 27.45% 40.00% A. 1.3.4 PBX/ NC (%) 23.53% 52.63% 37.50% 60.00% 3 A. 1.3.5 Centrex/ NC (%) 100.00% 62.50% 53.57% 60.71% 1,2 A. 1.3.6 ISDN/ NC (%) 26.09% 18.18% 12.50% 41.18% 3 Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.4.1 Residence/ NC (%) 92.67% 93.74% 93.96% 95.07% A. 1.4.2 Business/ NC (%) 89.47% 90.63% 85.07% 89.55% A. 1.4.4 PBX/ NC (%) 0.00% 4 Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] A. 1.7.1 Residence/ NC (%) 88.58% 93.33% 88.79% 93.90% A. 1.7.2 Business/ NC (%) 97.78% 98.28% 81.97% 95.00% A. 1.7.4 PBX/ NC (%) 0.00% 60.00% 1,4 Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.8.1 Residence/ NC (%) 98.08% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.8.2 Business/ NC (%) 100.00% 98.21% 98.95% 99.09% A. 1.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 86.67% 100.00% A. 1.8.4 PBX/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 A. 1.8.5 Centrex/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 88.24% 1,2 A. 1.8.6 ISDN/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.9.1 Residence/ NC (%) 99.84% 99.71% 99.70% 99.95% Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June E- 5 293 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 1.9.2 Business/ NC(%) 100.00% 99.67% 100.00% 99.04% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] A. 1.12.1 Residence/ NC (%) 90.32% 90.98% 86.07% 89.82% A. 1.12.2 Business/ NC (%) 93.33% 94.16% 92.38% 95.69% A. 1.12.4 PBX/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 1,2,4 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.13.1 Residence/ NC (%) 98.25% 94.29% 100.00% 95.24% A. 1.13.2 Business/ NC (%) 100.00% 97.09% 98.44% 98.73% A. 1.13.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ NC(%) 95.83% 100.00% 97.06% 100.00% A. 1.13.4 PBX/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 87.50% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.13.5 Centrex/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 A. 1.13.6 ISDN/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.14.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ NC (%) 99.33% 99.12% 95.63% 100.00% A. 1.14.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ NC (%) 99.63% 99.72% 99.37% 100.00% A. 1.14.2.1 Business/ EDI/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 84.62% 100.00% 1,4 A. 1.14.2.2 Business/ TAG/ NC (%) 95.53% 97.68% 96.54% 100.00% A. 1.14.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ NC (%) 0.00% 100.00% 1,4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.15.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ NC (%) 99.08% 98.62% 93.85% 100.00% A. 1.15.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ NC (%) 99.62% 99.58% 99.94% 99.85% A. 1.15.2.1 Business/ EDI/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.15.2.2 Business/ TAG/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.15.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.16.1 Residence/ NC (%) 98.02% 94.59% 96.76% 97.47% A. 1.16.2 Business/ NC (%) 95.45% 97.21% 92.94% 94.68% A. 1.16.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ NC(%) 91.11% 97.22% 92.16% 97.14% A. 1.16.4 PBX/ NC (%) 82.35% 100.00% 87.50% 95.00% 3 A. 1.16.5 Centrex/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 96.43% 100.00% 1,2 A. 1.16.6 ISDN/ NC (%) 73.91% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 RESALE - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] E- 6 294 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.1.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 5.22 4.74 5.29 4.64 5.36 4.72 5.45 4.93 A. 2.1.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 0.85 0.63 0.85 0.58 0.86 0.60 0.87 0.56 A. 2.1.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 5.74 4.00 4.88 5.00 5.13 5.09 1,2 A. 2.1.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 2.58 4.70 3.28 5.01 3.82 7.54 5.49 4.45 A. 2.1.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 1.18 1.51 1.28 0.77 1.29 0.72 1.04 0.84 A. 2.1.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 14.93 12.00 12.46 2.50 9.48 15.90 1,2 A. 2.1.2.2.2 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 1.88 2.67 0.75 1.00 1.23 3 A. 2.1.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 20.30 10.27 22.59 12.33 20.08 12.00 18.58 7.46 4 A. 2.1.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 17.19 9.00 16.63 3.00 10.37 4.00 11.76 12.00 2,3,4 A. 2.1.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 14.85 6.00 16.14 17.68 2.00 23.76 2.00 1,3,4 A. 2.1.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 3.17 1.44 3.03 2.95 4.85 0.33 5.16 0.93 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 2.33 2.43 3.71 1.38 A. 2.1.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 9.47 2.33 2.00 8.02 1.67 5.67 2,3 A. 2.1.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 2.58 2.33 2.84 0.67 3.69 2.50 1.33 1.58 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 29.21 20.76 10.50 22.05 12.00 18.11 2,3 A. 2.1.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 1.83 2.50 9.64 3.71 2.92 2.90 1.89 1,2,4 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.4.1 Residence/ NC (%) 0.38% 0.55% 0.33% 0.32% 0.31% 0.18% 0.30% 0.15% A. 2.4.2 Business/ NC (%) 1.44% 1.24% 1.82% 0.49% 1.99% 0.60% 1.45% 0.00% A. 2.4.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ NC(%) 9.36% 12.38% 11.98% 10.26% 0.00% 4 A. 2.4.4 PBX/ NC (%) 3.33% 0.00% 8.70% 0.00% 8.50% 0.00% 5.34% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 2.4.5 Centrex/ NC (%) 2.41% 0.00% 1.45% 0.00% 2.51% 3.49% 1,2 A. 2.4.6 ISDN/ NC (%) 3.87% 13.29% 0.00% 11.26% 0.00% 7.66% 0.00% 2,3,4 % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.5.1 Residence/ NC (%) 0.94% 0.00% 1.32% 0.72% A. 2.5.2 Business/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.72% 0.00% 0.00% A. 2.5.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ NC(%) 15.69% 14.29% 15.63% 20.00% 4 A. 2.5.4 PBX/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.5.5 Centrex/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 1,2,4 A. 2.5.6 ISDN/ NC (%) 0.00% 11.11% 20.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.7.1 Residence/ NC (hours) 131.83 138.85 139.17 142.37 E- 7 295 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.7.2 Business/ NC( hours) 168.37 151.82 148.60 1,2,3 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.8.1 Residence/ NC (hours) 151.22 32.08 131.33 1,3,4 A. 2.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ NC( hours) 306.33 301.05 207.89 588.08 1,2,3,4 A. 2.8.5 Centrex/ NC (hours) 83.85 3 A. 2.8.6 ISDN/ NC (hours) 420.23 322.28 2,3 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.9.1 Residence/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 2.9.2 Business/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.10.1 Residence/ NC (%) 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.10.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.10.5 Centrex/ NC (%) 100.00% 3 A. 2.10.6 ISDN/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] A. 2.11.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 3.70% 0.15% 3.34% 0.21% 3.26% 0.62% 3.66% 1.40% A. 2.11.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.15% 0.21% 0.03% 0.09% 0.02% 0.16% 0.02% 0.07% A. 2.11.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 4.65% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 5.41% 6.45% 0.00% 1,2,4 A. 2.11.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.14% 0.00% 1.24% 3.91% 1.93% 0.00% 3.37% 0.81% A. 2.11.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 0.06% 0.37% 0.05% 0.31% A. 2.11.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.69% 0.00% 1.37% 0.00% 4.48% 4.17% 1,2 A. 2.11.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3 A. 2.11.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 5.95% 0.00% 5.06% 0.00% 5.48% 25.00% 4.68% 0.00% A. 2.11.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.47% 33.33% 2,3,4 A. 2.11.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 3.64% 0.00% 2.44% 3.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.11.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 0.00% 1,3 A. 2.11.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.11.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.39% 0.53% 0.00% 1.37% 0.00% 1.62% 2,3 A. 2.11.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.66% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 A. 2.11.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.82% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 E- 8 296 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.11.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.75% 0.00% 0.51% 0.00% 0.47% 0.00% 1.23% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] A. 2.12.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 9.52% 7.09% 9.89% 6.24% 9.75% 5.31% 10.81% 9.48% A. 2.12.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.37% 5.57% 2.50% 4.10% 2.25% 3.23% 2.40% 3.42% A. 2.12.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 3.23% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 19.44% 0.00% 2.70% 1,2,3 A. 2.12.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 9.84% 6.78% 9.51% 7.91% 9.64% 8.59% 10.44% 8.33% A. 2.12.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 5.55% 3.57% 6.21% 4.51% 5.39% 3.56% 6.71% 5.17% A. 2.12.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 21.43% 0.00% 15.25% 0.00% 24.66% 0.00% 19.40% 1,2,3 A. 2.12.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 A. 2.12.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 5.98% 14.29% 6.75% 5.00% 5.88% 14.81% 7.59% 0.00% 1 A. 2.12.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.21% 16.67% 5.73% 0.00% 5.38% 0.00% 5.52% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.12.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 15.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.88% 3.45% 0.00% 1,2,4 A. 2.12.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 5.48% 0.00% 2.44% 0.00% 5.38% 0.00% 4.04% 0.00% 1,2,4 A. 2.12.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 11.76% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,4 A. 2.12.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 5.85% 3.24% 2.35% 0.00% 5.47% 25.00% 3,4 A. 2.12.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 3.78% 0.00% 8.60% 11.11% 5.70% 0.00% 6.29% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 7.84% 0.00% 6.67% 10.26% 0.00% 3.97% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.12.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 6.96% 5.33% 0.00% 4.89% 33.33% 1.79% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.12.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.79% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.42% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.14.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 1.79 0.11 1.29 0.45 1.60 0.07 1.24 0.05 A. 2.14.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.73 0.78 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.83 0.73 0.84 A. 2.14.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 3.22 0.02 6.50 0.02 2.03 0.02 0.02 1,2,4 A. 2.14.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 1.09 0.63 2.16 0.04 1.73 0.14 2.50 0.30 A. 2.14.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 2.07 0.55 3.55 0.60 2.13 0.70 1.74 0.70 A. 2.14.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 2.26 0.02 4.76 0.02 0.40 0.57 1,2 A. 2.14.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.82 7.26 0.71 0.53 A. 2.14.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 266.02 300.86 258.22 253.35 0.02 4 A. 2.14.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 215.77 127.09 99.62 0.02 199.85 2.43 3,4 E- 9 297 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.14.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 25.52 0.43 19.63 0.39 35.97 0.02 27.58 0.14 1,2,3,4 A. 2.14.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.79 10.90 3.40 0.47 6.92 0.93 3,4 A. 2.14.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 5.07 0.47 3.86 0.02 3.70 3.90 1,2 A. 2.14.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 552.33 220.62 250.61 164.11 0.02 4 A. 2.14.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 2.45 118.35 0.02 8.49 2.31 0.02 2,4 A. 2.14.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.61 0.63 0.69 0.02 0.78 3 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) A. 2.15.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 14.06 10.99 10.11 16.69 A. 2.15.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 4.05 6.86 4.84 4.93 A. 2.15.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 34.65 25.62 24.65 22.64 A. 2.15.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 10.99 14.28 14.17 11.96 A. 2.15.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.38 14.00 1,3 A. 2.15.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 115.36 206.30 214.22 329.96 4 A. 2.15.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 141.40 34.03 27.32 300.85 2,3,4 A. 2.15.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 32.23 21.07 1,3 A. 2.15.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 10.19 23.62 3.75 13.11 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.40 0.58 1,3 A. 2.15.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 21.65 23.60 2,3 A. 2.15.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 14.32 14.05 14.00 22.97 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.67 14.00 2,3 A. 2.15.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 155.38 126.06 174.73 1,2,3 A. 2.15.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 20.38 42.91 20.78 101.56 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.02 20.83 2,3 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] A. 2.25.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 92.14% 96.55% 90.77% 98.86% A. 2.25.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 95.38% 94.29% 98.82% 98.56% A. 2.25.1.2.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% 88.24% 100.00% 100.00% 4 A. 2.25.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 91.33% 95.76% 88.82% 94.44% A. 2.25.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 93.85% 97.93% 96.11% 97.22% A. 2.25.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 100.00% 77.78% 77.78% 76.92% 2 A. 2.25.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 84.62% 97.56% 92.59% 91.89% E- 10 298 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.25.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 81.08% 91.43% 80.49% 96.47% A. 2.25.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 91.84% 94.78% 91.43% 91.36% A. 2.25.3.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.25.3.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 100.00% 90.00% 92.31% 88.89% 1,4 RESALE - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] A. 3.1.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 3.97% 0.74% 3.99% 0.51% 3.60% 0.50% 3.74% 0.48% A. 3.1.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.61% 0.00% 0.77% 0.00% 0.51% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% A. 3.1.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 4.14% 1.25% 5.69% 0.59% 5.27% 1.28% 5.73% 13.53% A. 3.1.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.97% 0.00% 2.15% 2.56% 1.71% 1.52% 1.27% 0.00% A. 3.1.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 4.00% 0.29% 2.78% 1.43% 0.00% A. 3.1.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.49% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% A. 3.1.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 6.94% 0.00% 4.32% 0.00% 4.40% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 3.1.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 6.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.63% 0.00% 1.18% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 3.1.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 8.14% 0.00% 10.47% 0.00% 9.07% 0.00% 9.68% 0.00% 3,4 A. 3.1.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.70% 0.00% 2.10% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1.33% 0.00% 2,3 A. 3.1.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.02% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.1.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] A. 3.2.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.73% 1.61% 1.95% 1.43% 2.05% 1.83% 2.17% 1.91% A. 3.2.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.87% 0.40% 0.87% 0.32% 0.89% 0.38% 0.94% 0.44% A. 3.2.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.02% 0.95% 1.22% 1.06% 1.22% 1.07% 1.25% 1.29% A. 3.2.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.60% 0.33% 0.59% 0.24% 0.66% 0.45% 0.66% 0.45% A. 3.2.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.70% 0.99% 0.82% 1.73% 0.90% 2.48% 0.99% 0.98% A. 3.2.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.29% 0.85% 1.37% 1.93% 1.59% 1.17% 1.49% 1.26% A. 3.2.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.18% 1.08% 0.20% 0.46% 0.20% 0.46% 0.21% 6.32% A. 3.2.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.20% 0.00% 0.18% 0.31% 0.21% 0.31% 0.22% 0.16% A. 3.2.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.44% 0.98% 0.47% 0.00% 0.49% 0.65% 0.35% 0.74% A. 3.2.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.36% 0.00% 0.34% 0.31% 0.31% 0.65% 0.27% 0.00% A. 3.2.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.05% 0.51% 0.07% 0.35% 0.05% 0.21% 0.06% 0.11% A. 3.2.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.11% 0.51% 0.11% 0.23% 0.10% 0.11% 0.12% 0.11% E- 11 299 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] A. 3.3.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 15.66 10.06 17.15 11.69 17.46 11.11 19.31 11.93 A. 3.3.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 5.05 3.01 5.81 2.80 6.25 2.78 7.26 2.44 A. 3.3.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 11.37 10.71 11.76 8.87 11.36 8.76 11.89 9.51 A. 3.3.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 3.05 3.97 4.09 3.21 3.34 1.67 3.01 2.53 A. 3.3.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 4.25 3.21 5.13 5.52 4.37 4.33 5.17 3.78 A. 3.3.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 2.24 2.16 2.30 2.00 2.12 3.00 2.27 2.48 A. 3.3.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 13.28 11.12 9.88 2.88 10.82 4.50 8.52 6.23 1,2,3 A. 3.3.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 4.63 0.00 2.69 2.28 4.85 2.93 2.63 1.00 2,3,4 A. 3.3.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 12.36 3.97 14.48 0.00 13.08 12.33 14.48 38.83 3,4 A. 3.3.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 3.03 0.00 3.54 2.67 3.52 2.00 3.13 0.00 2,3 A. 3.3.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 3.76 3.22 4.94 2.35 4.19 2.80 5.99 4.88 1,2,3,4 A. 3.3.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 1.77 2.00 2.15 2.48 1.42 0.35 1.96 0.32 1,2,3,4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] A. 3.4.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 14.77% 7.58% 16.67% 7.97% 15.50% 9.53% 15.65% 11.74% A. 3.4.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 13.19% 14.29% 14.33% 16.54% 13.68% 12.80% 14.58% 14.79% A. 3.4.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 11.25% 6.25% 12.63% 5.33% 13.52% 14.74% 14.11% 11.76% A. 3.4.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 10.77% 3.64% 12.68% 7.69% 11.56% 15.15% 14.10% 6.78% A. 3.4.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 16.49% 21.43% 21.00% 20.00% 20.71% 33.33% 24.48% 14.29% A. 3.4.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 15.67% 0.00% 17.88% 7.14% 16.81% 29.41% 16.90% 11.11% A. 3.4.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 9.03% 28.57% 13.58% 33.33% 15.72% 0.00% 16.36% 47.50% 1,2,3 A. 3.4.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 8.70% 0.00% 10.07% 50.00% 7.23% 0.00% 15.38% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 3.4.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 12.67% 0.00% 13.41% 0.00% 10.43% 0.00% 13.44% 16.67% 3,4 A. 3.4.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 11.91% 0.00% 14.67% 0.00% 10.15% 16.67% 15.40% 0.00% 2,3 A. 3.4.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 8.79% 33.33% 14.53% 0.00% 17.24% 0.00% 15.15% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.4.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 11.24% 33.33% 9.09% 0.00% 13.22% 0.00% 17.09% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] A. 3.5.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 5.30% 2.53% 6.91% 2.00% 7.03% 2.97% 9.84% 3.49% A. 3.5.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.04% 0.00% 2.01% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 4.53% 4.11% A. 3.5.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 4.50% 1.77% 5.91% 0.83% 5.33% 3.48% 5.24% 3.17% A. 3.5.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.66% 0.00% 2.97% 0.00% 1.67% 0.00% 1.66% 0.00% A. 3.5.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 4.00% 0.29% 2.78% 1.43% 0.00% A. 3.5.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.49% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% E- 12 300 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 3.5.4.1 PBX/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 9.52% 0.00% 4.69% 0.00% 2.42% 0.00% 3.20% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 3.5.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 7.46% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 A. 3.5.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 8.40% 0.00% 9.12% 0.00% 11.36% 0.00% 12.03% 50.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.5.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.55% 0.00% 1.68% 0.00% 0.74% 0.00% 1.61% 0.00% 2,3 A. 3.5.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.04% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.5.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 RESALE - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] A. 4.1 NC(%) 98.45% 99.56% 98.22% 99.91% 98.73% 99.47% 98.73% 99.91% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] A. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 3.56 3.86 3.27 3.47 3.16 3.82 3.37 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.1.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 19.81% 15.17% 14.21% 13.37% B. 1.1.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 20.00% B. 1.1.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 42.66% 28.26% 17.83% 18.90% B. 1.1.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 41.67% 30.00% 7.69% 32.14% B. 1.1.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 20.59% 33.33% 37.04% 44.83% B. 1.1.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 25.35% 22.89% 25.57% 15.92% B. 1.1.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 2.78% 6.15% 0.00% 0.00% 3 B. 1.1.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 23.53% 51.85% 19.61% 55.56% B. 1.1.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 7.48% 11.79% 8.97% 14.13% B. 1.1.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 21.05% 6.91% 9.81% 10.78% B. 1.1.16 INP Standalone/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 1,2 B. 1.1.17 LNP Standalone/ NC (%) 12.69% 11.97% 9.40% 12.32% % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.2.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 25.43% 22.20% 29.36% 34.05% B. 1.2.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 0.00% 4 B. 1.2.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 0.00% 5.56% 6.67% 0.00% 4 B. 1.2.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 5.26% 8.40% 10.11% 7.14% B. 1.2.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 53.06% 40.43% 41.30% 25.00% B. 1.2.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 26.18% 24.53% 25.37% 15.29% B. 1.2.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 50.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 E- 13 301 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.2.12 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 24.50% 26.24% 29.15% 28.20% B. 1.2.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) 33.33% 4 B. 1.2.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 19.85% 17.69% 25.66% 13.76% B. 1.2.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 25.93% 38.54% 27.48% 48.10% B. 1.2.16 INP Standalone/ NC (%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.2.17 LNP Standalone/ NC (%) 36.26% 27.80% 36.45% 34.90% % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.3.1 Switch Ports/ NC (%) 0.00% 3 B. 1.3.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ NC(%) 61.11% 26.67% 16.67% 3 B. 1.3.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 61.25% 38.67% 52.45% 45.95% B. 1.3.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 0.00% 35.71% 3 B. 1.3.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 33.85% 25.64% 28.13% 11.11% B. 1.3.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 22.88% 25.61% 19.51% 19.57% B. 1.3.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 23.81% 27.27% 36.36% 44.44% 4 B. 1.3.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 23.64% 26.52% 30.58% 26.85% B. 1.3.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 25.00% 47.93% 41.09% 44.78% 1 B. 1.3.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ NC(%) 26.67% 33.33% 0.00% 18.18% 3 B. 1.3.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ NC(%) 0.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.3.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 34.34% 27.10% 32.35% 41.29% B. 1.3.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) 33.33% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.3.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 33.67% 30.97% 35.82% 32.26% B. 1.3.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 27.08% 29.81% 34.33% 34.61% B. 1.3.16 INP Standalone/ NC (%) 50.00% 55.56% 39.13% 38.10% B. 1.3.17 LNP Standalone/ NC (%) 35.45% 32.25% 34.92% 30.28% Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.4.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 95.85% 97.81% 92.56% 93.73% B. 1.4.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 50.00% 4 B. 1.4.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 98.92% 100.00% 97.62% 97.92% B. 1.4.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 66.67% 66.67% 100.00% 90.00% 2,3 B. 1.4.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 42.86% 80.00% 80.00% 61.54% 1 B. 1.4.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 90.00% 82.76% 86.18% 77.66% B. 1.4.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.4.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 100.00% B. 1.4.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 81.25% 69.23% 47.62% 71.43% E- 14 302 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.4.15 Other Non- Design/ NC(%) 93.75% 78.95% 67.74% 75.61% B. 1.4.17 LNP Standalone/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 94.44% Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] B. 1.7.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 94.95% 97.59% 95.96% 96.36% B. 1.7.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 0.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.7.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 100.00% 70.00% 81.82% 100.00% 1,4 B. 1.7.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 88.46% 90.00% 78.95% 100.00% 4 B. 1.7.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 79.22% 82.05% 88.24% 63.33% B. 1.7.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.7.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 98.75% 94.83% 87.88% 85.71% B. 1.7.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) 0.00% 100.00% 1,4 B. 1.7.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 100.00% 86.96% 89.66% 93.33% B. 1.7.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 95.45% 100.00% 78.95% 80.85% B. 1.7.16 INP Standalone/ NC (%) 66.67% 1 B. 1.7.17 LNP Standalone/ NC (%) 73.44% 84.13% 77.63% 85.92% Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.8.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 98.83% 98.31% 99.12% 97.67% B. 1.8.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 100.00% 4 B. 1.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.8.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.8.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 96.43% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.8.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 98.31% 100.00% 100.00% 1 B. 1.8.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ NC(%) 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.8.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ NC(%) 60.00% 3 B. 1.8.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 97.62% 98.21% 100.00% B. 1.8.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.8.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.8.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 100.00% 99.48% 99.23% 100.00% B. 1.8.16 INP Standalone/ NC (%) 83.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.8.17 LNP Standalone/ NC (%) 98.52% 97.50% 98.18% 98.98% FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] E- 15 303 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.9.3 Loop + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 99.33% 96.70% 97.49% 98.02% B. 1.9.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 83.33% 4 B. 1.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 98.00% 97.24% 96.70% 100.00% B. 1.9.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 95.24% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 B. 1.9.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 94.12% B. 1.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 99.67% 98.59% 97.99% B. 1.9.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 B. 1.9.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 94.87% 100.00% 97.22% 100.00% B. 1.9.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 98.04% 98.11% B. 1.9.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 69.89% 50.46% 47.86% 41.18% B. 1.9.16 INP Standalone/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.9.17 LNP Standalone/ NC (%) 100.00% 99.03% 100.00% 96.64% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] B. 1.12.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 93.11% 91.56% 87.96% 91.93% B. 1.12.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 100.00% 4 B. 1.12.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 88.89% 91.67% 84.62% 100.00% 1,4 B. 1.12.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 94.51% 94.23% 91.86% 94.44% B. 1.12.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 83.33% 100.00% 100.00% 80.95% B. 1.12.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 91.28% 95.31% 93.46% 95.71% B. 1.12.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.12.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 96.14% 94.77% 91.70% 91.75% B. 1.12.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) 0.00% 4 B. 1.12.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 87.72% 91.96% 90.43% 91.00% B. 1.12.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 68.75% 63.41% 81.93% 66.00% B. 1.12.16 INP Standalone/ NC (%) B. 1.12.17 LNP Standalone/ NC(%) 86.11% 87.82% 88.15% 83.74% FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.13.1 Switch Ports/ NC (%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.13.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.13.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 98.85% 100.00% 98.81% 100.00% B. 1.13.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.13.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 91.67% B. 1.13.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 96.40% B. 1.13.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 E- 16 304 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.13.8 2W Analog Loop Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 99.44% 99.40% 100.00% B. 1.13.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 98.36% 100.00% 100.00% 1 B. 1.13.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.13.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 97.35% 98.78% 100.00% 98.94% B. 1.13.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.13.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 99.23% 100.00% 100.00% 99.24% B. 1.13.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 99.39% 99.26% 99.37% 98.47% B. 1.13.16 INP Standalone/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 B. 1.13.17 LNP Standalone/ NC (%) 100.00% 98.94% 100.00% 99.53% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.14.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ NC(%) 98.64% 100.00% 91.28% 93.49% B. 1.14.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ NC(%) 99.23% 98.56% 98.43% 99.91% B. 1.14.4.2 Combo Other/ TAG/ NC (%) 80.00% B. 1.14.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ NC(%) 97.56% 96.61% 98.05% 95.28% B. 1.14.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ NC(%) 73.68% 90.00% 84.00% 80.31% B. 1.14.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 0.00% 90.91% 1,3 B. 1.14.6.2 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ NC(%) 97.14% 90.00% 58.33% 100.00% B. 1.14.7.1 Line Sharin g/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.14.7.2 Line Sharin g/ TAG/ NC(%) 90.91% 80.00% 87.50% 100.00% 3 B. 1.14.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ NC(%) 98.83% 99.37% 96.92% 98.12% B. 1.14.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ NC(%) 100.00% 96.77% 94.51% 100.00% B. 1.14.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 96.55% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.14.9.2 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ TAG/ NC(%) 91.67% 100.00% 75.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.14.12.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 96.30% 88.00% 92.59% B. 1.14.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.14.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ NC(%) 99.35% 100.00% 93.12% 98.53% B. 1.14.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ NC(%) 98.33% 97.67% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.14.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 87.50% 100.00% B. 1.14.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ NC(%) 77.66% 80.89% 77.90% 80.51% B. 1.14.16.1 INP Standalone/ EDI/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.14.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ NC (%) 98.35% 100.00% 96.30% 97.64% B. 1.14.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.15.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.96% E- 17 305 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.15.3.2 Loop + Port Combinations/ TAG/ NC(%) 99.06% 98.79% 99.20% 100.00% B. 1.15.4.2 Combo Other/ TAG/ NC (%) 50.00% 4 B. 1.15.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ NC(%) 54.55% 60.00% 70.00% B. 1.15.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ NC(%) 28.57% 100.00% 100.00% 50.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.15.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 90.48% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.6.2 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.7.1 Line Sharin g/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 92.86% 100.00% B. 1.15.7.2 Line Sharin g/ TAG/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 92.77% 100.00% B. 1.15.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ NC(%) 97.26% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.15.9.2 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ TAG/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.15.12.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ EDI/ NC(%) 99.64% 99.51% 100.00% 99.60% B. 1.15.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.13.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ EDI/ NC(%) B. 1.15.13.2 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ TAG/ NC(%) 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 89.71% 100.00% B. 1.15.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ NC(%) 100.00% 97.73% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 92.50% 100.00% B. 1.15.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ NC(%) 94.44% 93.06% 83.52% 94.92% B. 1.15.16.1 INP Standalone/ EDI/ NC (%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.15.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.16.1 Switch Ports/ NC (%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.16.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ NC(%) 100.00% 93.33% 100.00% 3 B. 1.16.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 92.25% 97.33% 94.61% 94.05% B. 1.16.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 100.00% 92.86% 3 B. 1.16.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 99.23% 97.44% 96.88% 100.00% B. 1.16.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ NC(%) 99.26% 98.78% 97.56% 97.83% B. 1.16.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.16.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 94.55% 97.73% 96.28% 100.00% B. 1.16.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 87.50% 99.17% 89.92% 97.76% 1 B. 1.16.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 91.67% 40.00% 100.00% 3 E- 18 306 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.16.11 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ NC(%) 0.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.16.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 94.44% 98.71% 96.47% 97.42% B. 1.16.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) 66.67% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.16.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 98.99% 96.77% 98.51% 99.46% B. 1.16.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 97.77% 96.06% 96.47% 99.23% B. 1.16.16 INP Standalone/ NC (%) 87.50% 100.00% 82.61% 85.71% B. 1.16.17 LNP Standalone/ NC (%) 97.09% 96.48% 94.58% 96.21% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] B. 2.1.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 14.91 11.00 19.32 16.00 15.98 14.25 16.70 1,2,3 B. 2.1.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 3.95 2.78 4.00 3.06 4.82 3.05 5.47 3.11 B. 2.1.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 0.88 0.60 0.88 0.55 0.89 0.57 0.89 0.64 B. 2.1.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ NC (days) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 B. 2.1.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (days) 1.49 1.09 1.47 1.10 1.49 1.15 1.47 1.22 B. 2.1.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 13.99 2.00 10.42 4.00 9.00 10.33 2.00 1,2,4 B. 2.1.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 3.21 3.89 7.17 1.87 0.33 4 B. 2.1.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ NC (days) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 4 B. 2.1.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 5.02 12.07 4.97 10.67 5.79 10.70 6.51 11.31 B. 2.1.6.3.1 UNE ISDN/< 6 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 14.50 10.40 15.30 9.99 14.31 10.38 19.27 11.06 B. 2.1.7.3.1 Line Sharin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 4.06 4.75 4.19 4.60 3.90 5.00 2.53 3.00 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.7.3.2 Line Sharin g/< 6 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( days) 3.56 3.47 3.81 3.75 3.54 3.71 2.39 3.63 B. 2.1.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 3.95 4.66 4.00 4.63 4.82 4.84 5.47 4.69 B. 2.1.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 13.99 7.00 10.42 9.00 10.33 13.00 1,4 E- 19 307 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.1.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 3.82 4.00 4.25 3.00 4.67 5.00 5.46 3.50 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 3.95 7.00 4.00 5.00 4.82 5.00 5.47 6.33 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 3.95 5.63 4.00 5.36 4.82 5.54 5.47 5.25 B. 2.1.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 13.99 7.00 10.42 6.00 9.00 7.00 10.33 5.50 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( days) 3.82 4.25 4.67 5.46 B. 2.1.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 21.99 21.77 27.00 20.48 18.65 2 B. 2.1.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 3.95 5.70 4.00 5.09 4.82 5.88 5.47 5.86 4 B. 2.1.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 B. 2.1.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( days) 0.87 0.87 0.33 0.88 0.88 2 B. 2.1.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 3.82 0.33 4.25 0.33 4.67 0.33 5.46 0.33 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 0.87 0.49 0.87 0.66 0.88 0.57 0.88 0.53 B. 2.1.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 11.29 10.23 2.00 8.28 11.81 2 B. 2.1.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( days) 1.78 0.33 2.67 0.42 0.70 0.67 1.23 0.33 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 5.51 8.72 5.45 8.83 5.21 9.42 3.74 9.69 B. 2.1.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 39.96 6.09 27.98 5.83 27.92 5.64 18.81 5.90 B. 2.1.19.2.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 207.53 4.00 5.00 4 Order Completion Interval within X days [P- 4] B. 2.2.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop with Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) B. 2.2.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop w/ o Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( days) 4.72 4.36 4.67 4.74 E- 20 308 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.5.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 0.48% 0.22% 0.45% 0.34% 0.43% 0.12% 0.40% 0.12% B. 2.5.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 6.13% 100.00% 6.14% 6.91% 100.00% 7.28% 25.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.5.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 13.86% 8.69% 7.48% 7.20% 5.26% B. 2.5.6 UNE ISDN/ NC (%) 7.41% 38.64% 16.28% 24.14% 13.48% 18.18% 7.42% 25.00% B. 2.5.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 13.86% 8.69% 0.00% 7.48% 7.20% 0.00% 2,4 B. 2.5.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 0.48% 14.84% 0.45% 6.20% 0.43% 12.95% 0.40% 7.69% B. 2.5.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) 0.87% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 0.77% 0.00% 0.71% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.5.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 0.48% 6.58% 0.45% 0.98% 0.43% 6.10% 0.40% 5.37% B. 2.5.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) 0.87% 0.81% 0.77% 0.71% B. 2.5.14 Other Desi gn/ NC(%) 10.68% 14.91% 13.70% 11.60% B. 2.5.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 0.48% 0.45% 0.43% 0.40% B. 2.5.16 INP (Standalone)/ NC(%) 0.47% 0.44% 0.42% 0.38% B. 2.5.17 LNP (Standalone)/ NC(%) 0.47% 0.00% 0.44% 0.00% 0.42% 0.00% 0.38% 0.00% B. 2.5.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ NC(%) 13.14% 38.64% 9.22% 24.14% 8.43% 18.18% 7.53% 18.00% B. 2.5.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ NC(%) 3.93% 68.66% 13.91% 64.38% 12.92% 79.55% 14.38% 66.67% % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.6.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.6.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 0.70% 1.61% 2.16% 2.08% B. 2.6.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 52.63% 20.00% 45.45% 41.18% B. 2.6.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 1.94% 6.25% 5.00% 11.11% B. 2.6.6 UNE ISDN/ NC (%) 20.20% 24.62% 10.91% 9.38% B. 2.6.7 Line Sharin g/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 2.27% 4.71% 6.00% 3.95% B. 2.6.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.6.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 2.33% 5.32% 3.33% 1.47% B. 2.6.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) B. 2.6.14 Other Design/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 2,4 B. 2.6.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% B. 2.6.16 INP (Standalone)/ NC(%) 0.00% 2 B. 2.6.17 LNP (Standalone)/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ NC(%) 11.11% 16.81% 7.53% 9.88% B. 2.6.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ NC(%) 28.17% 32.50% 25.71% 30.30% E- 21 309 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC( hours) 114.82 220.96 100.65 153.36 1,3,4 B. 2.8.4 Combo Other/ NC (hours) 339.10 145.90 343.07 1,3,4 B. 2.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC( hours) 103.57 4 B. 2.8.6 UNE ISDN/ NC (hours) 347.84 304.91 294.31 318.57 2,3,4 B. 2.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC( hours) 198.13 200.36 172.06 265.38 2,4 B. 2.8.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC( hours) B. 2.8.12 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC( hours) 183.81 173.43 167.55 149.55 2,3,4 B. 2.8.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC( hours) B. 2.8.14 Other Design/ NC( hours) B. 2.8.18 Digital Loop < DS1/ NC( hours) 347.84 304.91 294.31 294.68 2,3,4 B. 2.8.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ NC( hours) 197.61 227.84 211.06 247.14 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.9.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ NC( hours) 562.57 3 B. 2.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC( hours) 178.97 207.80 71.35 93.61 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.4 Combo Other/ NC (hours) 308.61 295.28 313.49 530.82 2,3,4 B. 2.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC( hours) 165.00 200.79 174.74 140.94 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.6 UNE ISDN/ NC (hours) 332.95 303.55 321.50 331.66 3,4 B. 2.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC( hours) 131.97 124.89 138.37 121.85 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC( hours) 179.27 269.68 114.99 180.38 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC( hours) 104.67 4 B. 2.9.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ NC( hours) 315.27 285.42 297.05 283.98 3,4 B. 2.9.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ NC( hours) 192.66 181.88 182.42 177.55 3 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.10.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.10.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.10.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 100.00% 4 B. 2.10.6 UNE ISDN/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.10.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 2.10.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ NC(%) B. 2.10.12 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.10.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ NC(%) B. 2.10.14 Other Design/ NC(%) E- 22 310 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.10.18 Digital Loop < DS1/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.10.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.11.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ NC(%) 100.00% 3 B. 2.11.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.4 Combo Other/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.11.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.6 UNE ISDN/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 2.11.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ NC(%) 100.00% 4 B. 2.11.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 2.11.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 Coordinated Customers Conversions [P- 7] B. 2.12.2 Loo ps with LNP/ NC(%) 100.00% 98.91% 99.72% 99.17% % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early [P- 7A] B. 2.13.1 Time- S pecific SL1/ NC(%) B. 2.13.2 Time- Specific SL2/ NC(%) 0.00% 1.14% 0.00% 1.43% B. 2.13.3 Non- Time Specific SL1/ NC(%) B. 2.13.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Hot Cut Timeliness [P- 7A] B. 2.14.1 Time- S pecific SL1/ NC(%) B. 2.14.2 Time- Specific SL2/ NC(%) 99.18% 96.59% 100.00% 98.57% B. 2.14.3 Non- Time Specific SL1/ NC(%) B. 2.14.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late [P- 7A] B. 2.15.1 Time- S pecific SL1/ NC(%) B. 2.15.2 Time- Specific SL2/ NC(%) 0.82% 2.27% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.15.3 Non- Time Specific SL1/ NC(%) B. 2.15.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Average Recovery Time - CCC [P- 7B] B. 2.16.2 Loo ps with LNP/ NC( minutes) 116.57 113.46 52.00 362.30 1,2,3,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts [P- 7C] E- 23 311 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.17.1.1 UNE Loop Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.95% 0.52% 2.25% 1.80% B. 2.17.1.2 UNE Loo p Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 4 B. 2.17.2.1 UNE Loo p Non- Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% B. 2.17.2.2 UNE Loo p Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] B. 2.18.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.26% 0.00% 0.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.45% 1.34% 2.13% 0.99% 2.69% 1.29% 3.48% 3.02% B. 2.18.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.14% 0.45% 0.03% 0.18% 0.02% 0.47% 0.03% 0.06% B. 2.18.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.18.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (%) 0.29% 0.97% 0.07% 0.43% 0.04% 1.08% 0.05% 0.11% B. 2.18.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 4.88% 0.00% 3.55% 0.00% 4.41% 0.00% 3.15% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.18.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B. 2.18.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.18.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.57% 0.00% 2.25% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 3.52% 0.00% B. 2.18.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 3.77% 0.00% 5.23% 0.00% 2.54% 0.00% 3.16% 0.00% B. 2.18.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.57% 0.00% 1.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.89% 0.00% B. 2.18.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.77% 20.00% 5.23% 0.00% 2.54% 0.00% 3.16% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.7.1.2 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.18.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.45% 0.00% 2.13% 0.00% 2.69% 0.00% 3.48% 0.60% B. 2.18.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 4.88% 0.00% 3.55% 0.00% 4.41% 0.00% 3.15% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 E- 24 312 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.18.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.49% 0.00% 2.36% 0.00% 2.74% 0.00% 3.59% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.9.1.4 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (%) 0.28% 0.00% 0.07% 0.04% 0.05% 1 B. 2.18.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.45% 0.00% 2.13% 0.00% 2.69% 0.00% 3.48% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.45% 0.00% 2.13% 0.00% 2.69% 0.00% 3.48% 0.00% B. 2.18.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 4.88% 0.00% 3.55% 0.00% 4.41% 0.00% 3.15% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.49% 2.36% 2.74% 3.59% B. 2.18.13.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ NC(%) 0.28% 0.07% 0.04% 0.05% B. 2.18.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.94% 4.59% 4.81% 5.06% B. 2.18.13.2.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.18.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 4.73% 4.56% 0.00% 4.42% 4.02% 0.00% 2,4 B. 2.18.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.45% 0.00% 2.13% 0.00% 2.69% 0.00% 3.48% 0.00% B. 2.18.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.14% 0.03% 0.02% 0.03% B. 2.18.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.14% 0.03% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 2 B. 2.18.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.49% 0.00% 2.36% 0.00% 2.74% 0.00% 3.59% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.14% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.02% 0.84% 0.02% 0.00% B. 2.18.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.94% 4.59% 0.00% 4.81% 5.06% 2 B. 2.18.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.18.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.96% 0.00% 5.04% 0.00% 2.48% 0.00% 3.16% 0.00% B. 2.18.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.85% 0.82% 0.00% B. 2.18.19.2.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 E- 25 313 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] B. 2.19.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 8.80% 9.46% 0.00% 8.08% 0.00% 8.21% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.19.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 9.49% 15.49% 9.52% 13.84% 8.87% 17.33% 10.47% 11.21% B. 2.19.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 2.52% 3.86% 2.67% 3.69% 2.39% 3.65% 2.60% 4.32% B. 2.19.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ NC (%) 2.43% 3.42% 2.52% 3.28% 2.29% 3.19% 2.33% 3.68% B. 2.19.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (%) 2.62% 4.42% 2.83% 4.15% 2.49% 4.28% 2.86% 5.17% B. 2.19.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 14.85% 50.00% 12.20% 33.33% 21.99% 20.00% 13.97% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 6.64% 3.42% 0.00% 5.19% 3.72% 0.00% 2,4 B. 2.19.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (%) 6.15% 4.30% 0.00% 6.56% 1.32% 0.00% 2,4 B. 2.19.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 9.34% 0.00% 9.32% 22.73% 8.70% 0.00% 10.24% 0.00% B. 2.19.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 3.13% 6.98% 1.81% 10.68% 3.38% 8.33% 4.23% 2.56% B. 2.19.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 8.13% 5.94% 5.51% 10.14% 5.63% 11.00% 2.91% 4.95% B. 2.19.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.13% 75.00% 1.81% 40.00% 3.38% 16.67% 4.23% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.7.1.2 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.11% 25.00% 1.24% 17.39% 2.28% 11.11% 4.01% 31.58% B. 2.19.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 9.49% 6.10% 9.52% 9.13% 8.87% 10.23% 10.47% 6.61% B. 2.19.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 14.85% 50.00% 12.20% 0.00% 21.99% 0.00% 13.97% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 9.66% 0.00% 9.71% 0.00% 9.70% 0.00% 10.67% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.9.1.4 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (%) 2.61% 2.81% 0.00% 2.48% 2.85% 2 B. 2.19.9.2.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 13.70% 8.82% 22.94% 13.46% E- 26 314 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.19.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 9.49% 0.00% 9.52% 0.00% 8.87% 0.00% 10.47% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 9.49% 4.23% 9.52% 3.60% 8.87% 7.58% 10.47% 5.86% B. 2.19.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 14.85% 33.33% 12.20% 0.00% 21.99% 40.00% 13.97% 25.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 9.66% 5.88% 9.71% 9.70% 10.67% B. 2.19.13.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ NC(%) 2.61% 0.00% 2.81% 2.48% 2.85% B. 2.19.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 13.70% 0.00% 8.82% 22.94% 13.46% 1 B. 2.19.13.2.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 B. 2.19.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 6.50% 5.73% 5.57% 0.00% 6.34% 3 B. 2.19.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 9.49% 15.00% 9.52% 12.50% 8.87% 14.29% 10.47% 16.67% B. 2.19.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.52% 2.66% 2.38% 0.00% 2.59% 3 B. 2.19.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 9.66% 0.00% 9.71% 0.00% 9.70% 0.00% 10.67% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.52% 0.00% 2.66% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 2.59% 0.00% B. 2.19.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 13.70% 8.82% 22.94% 0.00% 13.46% 3 B. 2.19.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 2,4 B. 2.19.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.58% 6.25% 2.21% 10.12% 3.52% 10.14% 4.32% 3.62% B. 2.19.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.30% 13.43% 7.59% 11.03% 6.25% 8.33% 2.21% 18.80% Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.21.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 1.76 0.13 2.79 0.04 1.67 0.05 1.67 0.06 B. 2.21.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.79 0.82 0.82 0.90 0.76 0.85 0.80 1.03 B. 2.21.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ NC (hours) 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.90 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.91 E- 27 315 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.21.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (hours) 0.79 0.84 0.83 0.90 0.71 0.89 0.79 1.11 B. 2.21.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 2.26 0.02 4.47 0.02 1.94 0.02 1.94 0.02 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.69 4.70 1.62 4.07 0.42 4 B. 2.21.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (hours) 0.71 4.70 0.67 2.95 0.42 4 B. 2.21.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 17.29 67.82 15.69 15.25 0.02 18.08 38.84 1,3,4 B. 2.21.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 20.63 26.21 28.48 12.55 12.25 B. 2.21.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 121.15 21.69 105.35 9.38 134.72 6.22 165.10 26.47 B. 2.21.7.1.2 Line Sharing/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 0.92 1.71 0.55 1.18 1.76 0.67 2,4 B. 2.21.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 1.76 23.70 2.79 10.84 1.67 9.45 1.67 18.46 B. 2.21.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 2.26 0.02 4.47 3.57 1.94 0.02 1.94 19.73 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 1.46 0.02 1.70 0.02 1.65 0.02 1.55 0.02 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.9.1.4 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (hours) 0.78 0.02 0.82 0.71 0.78 1 B. 2.21.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 1.76 16.42 2.79 15.24 1.67 12.87 1.67 13.35 B. 2.21.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 2.26 4.47 10.92 1.94 0.03 1.94 0.02 2,3,4 B. 2.21.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 1.46 1.70 1.65 1.55 B. 2.21.13.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ NC( hours) 0.78 0.82 0.71 0.78 B. 2.21.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 2.67 5.34 0.99 0.35 B. 2.21.13.2.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ NC( hours) 0.85 2.61 0.77 0.55 E- 28 316 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.21.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 1.46 1.70 0.05 1.65 0.02 1.55 2,3 B. 2.21.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.79 0.59 0.82 1.12 0.75 0.63 0.79 0.67 B. 2.21.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 2.67 5.34 0.02 0.99 0.35 2 B. 2.21.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.83 0.40 7.26 0.52 0.73 0.63 0.53 1,2,3 B. 2.21.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 29.67 21.69 35.47 9.38 36.38 6.22 26.67 21.19 B. 2.21.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 839.29 34.10 368.83 66.27 331.99 52.15 183.42 54.56 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.22.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 18.22 50.38 16.88 41.81 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 19.06 17.97 13.22 14.13 B. 2.22.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 4.53 15.00 4.35 6.48 B. 2.22.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ NC (hours) 3.45 12.49 3.36 6.89 B. 2.22.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (hours) 6.57 20.07 7.91 5.09 B. 2.22.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.02 0.02 14.40 1,2,4 B. 2.22.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 14.00 38.00 15.07 1,3,4 B. 2.22.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ NC (hours) 14.00 4 B. 2.22.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ NC (hours) 14.00 38.00 15.60 1,3,4 B. 2.22.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 89.06 58.23 95.29 90.00 B. 2.22.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 34.40 35.91 13.48 17.00 E- 29 317 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.22.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 52.60 55.80 56.71 30.47 B. 2.22.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 3.36 0.02 0.02 0.03 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.7.1.2 Line Sharing/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 1.26 0.57 0.48 0.63 B. 2.22.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 46.78 45.09 29.36 42.62 B. 2.22.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 80.93 1 B. 2.22.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 35.10 30.77 24.16 36.06 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 56.47 32.50 25.69 40.10 B. 2.22.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 80.97 48.72 22.83 18.57 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) B. 2.22.14.1.1 Other Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 21.47 15.87 2,4 B. 2.22.15.1.1 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 31.13 25.33 19.91 31.72 B. 2.22.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) B. 2.22.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 18.27 2 B. 2.22.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 9.66 0.02 0.02 1,3,4 B. 2.22.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 3.29 2.49 5.42 2.66 B. 2.22.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.62 0.61 0.59 0.51 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 43.43 47.60 39.04 27.69 B. 2.22.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 85.79 52.79 54.70 56.39 E- 30 318 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.22.19.2.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 35.72 4 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] B. 2.34.1.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 100.00% 67.07% 69.33% B. 2.34.1.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 100.00% 90.91% 3 B. 2.34.2.1.1 Loo ps Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 98.18% 95.65% 96.00% 96.33% B. 2.34.2.1.2 Loops Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 99.09% 98.18% 100.00% 98.02% B. 2.34.2.2.1 Loo ps Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 97.75% 89.81% 97.90% 97.73% B. 2.34.2.2.2 Loops Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 97.20% 97.98% 98.73% 97.53% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] B. 3.1.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B. 3.1.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.1.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 4.10% 0.00% 4.39% 0.45% 3.96% 0.71% 4.12% 0.61% B. 3.1.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.80% 0.00% 1.03% 1.08% 0.78% 0.00% 1.23% 1.07% B. 3.1.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 4.03% 0.00% 4.31% 0.00% 3.89% 0.00% 4.06% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 3.1.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 4.03% 0.00% 4.31% 0.00% 3.89% 0.00% 4.06% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 48.06% 0.00% 51.94% 0.00% 53.33% 0.00% 48.72% 7.14% B. 3.1.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.35% 0.00% 2.60% 0.00% 3.70% 0.00% 1.32% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.1.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 3.13% 1.27% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 2.50% 0.00% B. 3.1.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.87% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 3.1.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 48.06% 0.00% 51.94% 0.00% 53.33% 0.00% 48.72% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.35% 0.00% 2.60% 0.00% 3.70% 0.00% 1.32% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 4.10% 0.58% 4.39% 0.42% 3.96% 0.00% 4.12% 0.00% B. 3.1.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 4.10% 0.00% 4.39% 0.00% 3.96% 0.00% 4.12% 0.00% B. 3.1.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.96% 0.00% 4.20% 0.00% 3.80% 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 4 E- 31 319 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.1.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.48% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.65% 0.00% 1.11% 0.00% 1,2 B. 3.1.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.83% 0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 1.41% 0.00% 1 B. 3.1.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.38% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% B. 3.1.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 4.10% 0.00% 4.39% 0.00% 3.96% 0.00% 4.12% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.80% 0.00% 1.03% 0.00% 0.78% 0.00% 1.23% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] B. 3.2.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.32% 0.00% 1.70% 0.00% 1.61% 0.00% 1.90% 0.65% B. 3.2.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.53% 2.03% 1.34% 0.66% 1.86% 0.00% 1.78% 1.31% B. 3.2.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.46% 1.05% 1.65% 1.20% 1.73% 1.51% 1.81% 1.34% B. 3.2.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.76% 0.39% 0.76% 0.34% 0.78% 0.40% 0.82% 0.46% B. 3.2.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.25% 2.77% 1.42% 5.19% 1.48% 1.52% 1.55% 2.46% B. 3.2.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.25% 2.08% 1.42% 1.95% 1.48% 1.82% 1.55% 0.27% B. 3.2.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.64% 0.58% 0.79% 0.77% 0.83% 0.75% 0.97% 0.88% B. 3.2.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.33% 0.53% 1.70% 0.22% 1.67% 0.40% 2.24% 0.19% B. 3.2.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.60% 0.89% 0.70% 1.60% 0.56% 1.04% 0.71% 1.19% B. 3.2.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 1.12% 0.73% 1.01% 0.70% 1.04% 0.76% 1.14% 0.56% B. 3.2.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.64% 0.22% 0.79% 0.22% 0.83% 0.22% 0.97% 0.21% B. 3.2.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.33% 1.56% 1.70% 1.51% 1.67% 1.52% 2.24% 0.85% B. 3.2.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.46% 0.83% 1.65% 1.15% 1.73% 0.84% 1.81% 0.83% B. 3.2.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.46% 0.24% 1.65% 0.27% 1.73% 0.30% 1.81% 0.29% B. 3.2.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.58% 1.29% 1.79% 0.00% 1.87% 0.00% 1.98% 1.64% B. 3.2.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.69% 0.13% 0.71% 0.46% 0.74% 0.00% 0.79% 0.00% B. 3.2.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.16% 14.29% 0.19% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.2.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.30% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 0.34% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.2.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.46% 0.39% 1.65% 0.41% 1.73% 1.62% 1.81% 0.32% B. 3.2.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.76% 0.19% 0.76% 0.20% 0.78% 1.30% 0.82% 0.65% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] B. 3.3.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 3.43 0.00 3.63 0.00 3.81 0.00 4.11 4.55 4 B. 3.3.2.2 Local Interoffice Transport/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 2.09 1.20 1.92 8.38 1.48 0.00 1.77 1.50 1,2,4 B. 3.3.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 15.02 10.44 16.33 10.80 16.54 9.47 18.25 10.29 E- 32 320 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.3.3.2 Loop + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 4.68 2.90 5.47 4.13 5.70 2.64 6.48 3.25 B. 3.3.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 14.80 4.72 16.09 4.31 16.28 2.60 17.96 4.87 1,3,4 B. 3.3.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 14.80 0.71 16.09 1.48 16.28 0.73 17.96 0.33 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 63.82 5.87 45.57 4.72 51.23 4.16 48.99 5.29 B. 3.3.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 3.48 2.61 2.77 2.58 4.25 1.20 1.81 6.15 2,3,4 B. 3.3.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 4.11 4.38 5.29 4.03 4.35 4.40 6.56 3.76 B. 3.3.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 1.76 2.56 2.10 1.89 1.20 2.81 1.87 4.01 B. 3.3.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 63.82 4.37 45.57 51.00 51.23 21.00 48.99 72.00 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 3.48 2.54 2.77 1.71 4.25 7.86 1.81 7.50 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 15.02 4.31 16.33 4.27 16.54 3.74 18.25 3.79 B. 3.3.8.2 2W Analog Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 15.02 1.84 16.33 1.94 16.54 2.64 18.25 2.78 B. 3.3.9.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 15.06 3.30 16.37 0.00 16.63 0.00 18.33 8.33 4 B. 3.3.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 5.03 0.55 5.84 20.00 6.22 0.00 6.96 0.00 1,2 B. 3.3.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 4.38 2.28 5.08 0.00 4.30 0.00 5.17 0.00 1 B. 3.3.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 2.27 0.00 2.30 0.00 2.17 0.00 2.29 0.00 B. 3.3.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC( hours) 15.02 19.04 16.33 4.50 16.54 17.00 18.25 28.00 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ NC( hours) 4.68 2.67 5.47 2.00 5.70 1.75 6.48 11.00 1,2,3,4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] B. 3.4.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 21.58% 0.00% 22.45% 0.00% 20.51% 0.00% 24.46% 0.00% 4 B. 3.4.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 13.07% 0.00% 16.78% 0.00% 17.43% 0.00% 21.20% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.4.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 14.24% 10.93% 16.02% 12.42% 15.12% 11.52% 15.43% 13.19% B. 3.4.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 12.72% 10.84% 14.13% 21.08% 13.23% 11.66% 14.55% 18.15% B. 3.4.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 14.25% 12.50% 16.10% 12.50% 15.22% 0.00% 15.59% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 3.4.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 14.25% 0.00% 16.10% 0.00% 15.22% 0.00% 15.59% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 16.67% 0.00% 18.53% 7.14% 23.73% 15.38% 25.88% 21.43% B. 3.4.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 17.14% 20.00% 23.50% 0.00% 19.77% 14.29% 25.62% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.4.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 10.14% 9.38% 16.46% 8.77% 17.46% 21.62% 12.50% 11.90% E- 33 321 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.4.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 12.40% 3.85% 9.57% 28.00% 16.24% 7.41% 22.05% 10.00% B. 3.4.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 16.67% 0.00% 18.53% 0.00% 23.73% 0.00% 25.88% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 17.14% 0.00% 23.50% 57.14% 19.77% 28.57% 25.62% 75.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 14.24% 10.50% 16.02% 6.68% 15.12% 5.41% 15.43% 12.03% B. 3.4.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 14.24% 8.00% 16.02% 7.89% 15.12% 8.87% 15.43% 8.13% B. 3.4.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 14.26% 20.00% 16.08% 0.00% 15.22% 0.00% 15.44% 0.00% 4 B. 3.4.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 12.82% 0.00% 14.15% 0.00% 13.52% 0.00% 14.25% 0.00% 1,2 B. 3.4.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 14.72% 0.00% 19.46% 0.00% 19.95% 0.00% 22.63% 0.00% 1 B. 3.4.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 15.13% 0.00% 15.69% 0.00% 15.48% 0.00% 16.69% 0.00% B. 3.4.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 14.24% 50.00% 16.02% 0.00% 15.12% 40.00% 15.43% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 12.72% 0.00% 14.13% 0.00% 13.23% 50.00% 14.55% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] B. 3.5.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 B. 3.5.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.5.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 5.29% 1.65% 6.84% 1.77% 6.91% 2.12% 9.33% 2.57% B. 3.5.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.12% 1.02% 2.16% 1.11% 2.42% 0.00% 3.91% 0.71% B. 3.5.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 5.15% 0.00% 6.65% 0.00% 6.71% 0.00% 9.08% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 3.5.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 5.15% 0.00% 6.65% 0.00% 6.71% 0.00% 9.08% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 48.06% 0.00% 51.94% 0.00% 53.33% 0.00% 48.72% 7.14% B. 3.5.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.35% 0.00% 2.60% 0.00% 3.70% 0.00% 1.32% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.5.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 3.13% 1.27% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 2.53% 0.00% B. 3.5.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 3.5.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 48.06% 0.00% 51.94% 0.00% 53.33% 0.00% 48.72% 0.00% B. 3.5.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 3.35% 0.00% 2.60% 0.00% 3.70% 0.00% 1.32% 0.00% B. 3.5.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 5.29% 0.58% 6.84% 0.42% 6.91% 0.00% 9.33% 0.00% B. 3.5.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 5.29% 0.00% 6.84% 0.00% 6.91% 0.00% 9.33% 0.00% B. 3.5.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 5.20% 0.00% 6.78% 0.00% 6.82% 0.00% 9.30% 0.00% 4 B. 3.5.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 1.95% 0.00% 2.19% 0.00% 2.51% 0.00% 4.05% 0.00% B. 3.5.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.83% 0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 1.41% 0.00% 1 B. 3.5.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.38% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% B. 3.5.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ NC(%) 5.29% 0.00% 6.84% 0.00% 6.91% 20.00% 9.33% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 E- 34 322 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.5.11.2 Other Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 2.12% 0.00% 2.16% 0.00% 2.42% 0.00% 3.91% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] B. 4.1 NC(%) 98.45% 99.38% 98.22% 99.97% 98.73% 99.88% 98.73% 99.99% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] B. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 7.29 3.86 4.97 3.47 3.78 3.82 3.46 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests [O- 7] C. 1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (%) 50.88% 51.02% 75.86% 41.27% Reject Interval [O- 8] C. 1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (%) 96.55% 100.00% 86.36% 100.00% FOC Timeliness [O- 9] C. 1.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness [O- 11] C. 1.4 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (%) 97.56% 100.00% 100.00% LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] C. 2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (days) 27.38 17.35 40.32 15.83 25.54 18.09 17.92 13.33 4 Held Orders [P- 1] C. 2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (days) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Jeopardies [P- 2] C. 2.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] C. 2.5 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (%) 1.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 2.82% 0.00% % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] C. 2.6 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.87% 0.00% 0.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Average Completion Notice Interval [P- 5] C. 2.7 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (hours) 268.75 38.43 775.79 31.34 317.25 18.31 264.34 32.96 4 Total Service Order Cycle Time [P- 10] C. 2.8 Local Interconnection Trunks/ NC (days) 23.35 18.83 18.90 14.54 4 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours [P- 6] C. 2.10.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] E- 35 323 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June C. 2.11.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 C. 2.11.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] C. 3.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] C. 3.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.01% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] C. 3.3.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. 3.3.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dis patch/ NC( hours) 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.71 1.80 0.16 2.83 3,4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] C. 3.4.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.4.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.85% 0.00% 1.49% 0.00% 3,4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] C. 3.5.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.5.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] C. 4.1 NC(%) 98.45% 98.78% 98.22% 99.70% 98.73% 99.06% 98.73% 98.25% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS [B- 2] E- 36 324 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June C. 4.2 Region( calendar days) 4.84 4.54 3.94 3.89 4.96 4.92 4.54 4.29 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - TRUNK BLOCKING Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate [TGP- 1] C. 5.1 NC 0 0 0 0 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - PRE- ORDERING % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.71% 100.00% 99.64% 100.00% D. 1.1.2 HAL/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.3 LENS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.98% 99.85% 99.76% D. 1.1.4 LEO MAINFRAME/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.6 LESOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.7 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 99.99% 99.86% D. 1.1.8 PSIMS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.2.1 ATLAS/ COFFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.2 BOCRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 1.2.3 DSAP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.98% D. 1.2.4 RSAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.5 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.6 SONGS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.86% D. 1.2.7 DOE/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.26% D. 1.2.8 LNP Gatewa y/ Region(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 99.49% D. 1.2.9 COG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.48% D. 1.2.10 DOM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.11 SOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.1- new ATLAS/ Re gion (%) 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.2- new COFFI/ Re gion (%) 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.3.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 0.91 1782.46 1.11 2.87 1.20 2.88 1.02 D. 1.3.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 0.91 2.95 1.11 2.94 1.20 2.91 1.02 D. 1.3.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 0.91 1204.18 1.02 2.99 1.10 3.03 0.93 D. 1.3.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 0.91 4.86 1.02 4.77 1.10 4.76 0.93 D. 1.3.3.1 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 0.88 2.95 0.88 2.95 0.88 3.01 0.80 E- 37 325 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 1.3.3.2 ATLAS/ Region( seconds) 2.61 0.88 2.61 0.88 2.60 0.88 2.61 0.80 D. 1.3.4.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 0.53 2.70 0.57 2.71 0.53 2.71 0.52 D. 1.3.4.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 0.53 2.58 0.57 2.57 0.53 2.57 0.52 D. 1.3.5.1 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.08 212.02 1.25 3.21 2.12 3.24 1.14 D. 1.3.5.2 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.08 2.91 1.25 2.87 2.12 2.95 1.14 D. 1.3.6.1 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.63 4.40 0.67 4.60 0.63 4.35 0.64 D. 1.3.6.2 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.63 3.92 0.67 7.28 0.63 3.73 0.64 D. 1.3.7.1 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.03 4.40 0.04 4.60 0.04 4.35 0.04 D. 1.3.7.2 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.03 3.92 0.04 7.28 0.04 3.73 0.04 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.4.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 1.10 1782.46 1.31 2.87 1.60 2.88 1.52 D. 1.4.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 1.10 2.95 1.31 2.94 1.60 2.91 1.52 D. 1.4.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 1.62 1204.18 1.85 2.99 3.05 3.03 2.34 D. 1.4.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 1.62 4.86 1.85 4.77 3.05 4.76 2.34 D. 1.4.4.1 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.4.2 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.5.1 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 1.35 2.95 1.56 2.95 1.86 3.01 1.89 D. 1.4.5.2 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 1.35 2.61 1.56 2.60 1.86 2.61 1.89 D. 1.4.6.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 1.58 2.70 1.71 2.71 1.74 2.71 1.83 D. 1.4.6.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 1.58 2.58 1.71 2.57 1.74 2.57 1.83 D. 1.4.7.1 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.75 212.02 2.15 3.21 2.51 3.24 2.85 D. 1.4.7.2 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.75 2.91 2.15 2.87 2.51 2.95 2.85 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.2.1 CLEC TAFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.2.2 ECTA/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 100.00% 99.86% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.3.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 2.3.2 LMOS HOST/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% 100.00% D. 2.3.3 LNP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% D. 2.3.4 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.5 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.6 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.92% E- 38 326 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 2.3.7 SOCS/ Region(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.4.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 94.91% 94.17% 94.75% 94.83% 95.12% 94.99% 94.95% 94.66% D. 2.4.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 3.07% 3.22% 3.14% 4.03% 3.16% 4.59% 2.58% 3.67% D. 2.4.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 4.30% 2.41% 4.07% 2.41% 4.03% 3.36% 4.47% 7.51% D. 2.4.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.67% 99.69% 99.63% 99.59% 99.60% 99.60% 99.61% 99.58% D. 2.4.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 78.95% 70.39% 76.71% 65.38% 78.49% 66.19% 79.21% 66.24% D. 2.4.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.78% 99.37% 99.31% 99.09% 99.68% 99.19% 99.65% 98.81% D. 2.4.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.4.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 23.94% 13.59% 27.25% 20.73% 31.23% 24.50% 33.15% 21.43% D. 2.4.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.4.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.84% 99.91% 99.83% 99.90% 99.85% 99.88% 99.81% 99.86% D. 2.4.11 NIW/ Region(%) 82.97% 81.81% 84.38% 83.15% 84.01% 83.00% 82.83% 81.89% Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.5.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 98.99% 99.34% 98.97% 99.34% 99.05% 99.46% 99.02% 99.39% D. 2.5.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 78.81% 86.16% 78.96% 87.92% 79.20% 85.30% 77.66% 82.58% D. 2.5.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 77.94% 92.02% 77.45% 91.98% 76.65% 88.18% 71.08% 41.67% D. 2.5.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.81% 99.86% 99.79% 99.82% 99.79% 99.84% 99.80% 99.85% D. 2.5.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 90.95% 83.33% 89.31% 80.59% 90.04% 80.25% 90.59% 80.53% D. 2.5.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.93% 99.87% 99.54% 99.72% 99.81% 99.63% 99.83% 99.52% D. 2.5.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.5.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 96.89% 96.12% 97.38% 95.12% 97.81% 97.35% 98.41% 95.83% D. 2.5.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.5.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.98% 99.98% 100.00% 99.98% 100.00% D. 2.5.11 NIW/ Region(%) 99.17% 98.96% 99.49% 99.33% 99.39% 99.21% 99.42% 99.25% Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.6.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 1.01% 0.66% 1.03% 0.66% 0.95% 0.54% 0.98% 0.61% D. 2.6.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 21.19% 13.84% 21.04% 12.08% 20.80% 14.70% 22.34% 17.42% D. 2.6.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 22.06% 7.98% 22.55% 8.02% 23.35% 11.82% 28.92% 58.33% D. 2.6.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 0.19% 0.14% 0.21% 0.18% 0.21% 0.16% 0.20% 0.15% D. 2.6.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 9.05% 16.67% 10.69% 19.41% 9.96% 19.75% 9.41% 19.47% D. 2.6.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 0.07% 0.13% 0.46% 0.28% 0.19% 0.37% 0.17% 0.48% D. 2.6.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 71.65% 66.84% 71.68% 73.56% 71.96% 68.31% 71.90% 70.36% E- 39 327 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 2.6.8 OSPCM/ Region(%) 3.11% 3.88% 2.62% 4.88% 2.19% 2.65% 1.59% 4.17% D. 2.6.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 84.22% 80.52% 84.97% 79.57% 86.18% 80.39% 87.29% 78.27% D. 2.6.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% D. 2.6.11 NIW/ Region(%) 0.83% 1.04% 0.51% 0.67% 0.61% 0.79% 0.58% 0.75% COLLOCATION - COLLOCATION Average Response Time [C- 1] E. 1.1.1 Virtual/ NC (calendar days) 6 4 0 1,2,4 E. 1.1.3 Ph ysical Caged/ NC( business days) 5 4 3 81,3,4 E. 1.1.4 Ph ysical Cageless/ NC( business days) 3 3 7 31,2,3 Average Arrangement Time [C- 2] E. 1.2.1 Virtual- Ordinar y/ NC( calendar days) 48 34 3,4 E. 1.2.4 Ph ysical Caged- Ordinary/ NC( business days) 27 40 51 34 1,4 E. 1.2.6 Ph ysical Cageless- Ordinary/ NC( business days) 32 65 58 16 1 % Due Dates Missed [C- 3] E. 1.3.1 Virtual/ NC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 E. 1.3.2 Ph ysical/ NC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% GENERAL - FLOW THROUGH % Flow Through Service Requests [O- 3] F. 1.1.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 86.49% 87.39% 86.74% 88.58% F. 1.1.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 73.55% 71.89% 69.54% 73.74% F. 1.1.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 83.88% 84.78% 82.57% 83.84% % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved [O- 3] F. 1.2.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 79.16% 80.53% 79.88% 81.68% F. 1.2.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 50.63% 51.15% 51.58% 53.42% F. 1.2.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 72.17% 74.87% 74.12% 77.27% % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP [O- 3] F. 1.3.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% F. 1.3.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% GENERAL - PRE- ORDERING E- 40 328 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) [PO- 1] F. 2.1 Loo ps/ NC(%) 73.33% 33.33% 33.33% 54.55% 2,3 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) [PO- 2] F. 2.2 Loo ps/ NC(%) 98.41% 96.32% 99.48% 77.44% GENERAL - ORDERING Average Speed of Answer [O- 12] F. 4.1 Re gion( seconds) 141.64 30.33 137.90 28.63 194.86 35.16 259.48 58.19 GENERAL - MAINTENANCE CENTER Average Answer Time [M& R- 6] F. 5.1 Re gion( seconds) 43.10 26.35 41.00 23.60 64.68 25.99 52.80 28.04 GENERAL - OPERATOR SERVICES (TOLL) Average Speed to Answer [OS- 1] F. 6.1 NC( seconds) 2.50 2.31 2.24 2.44 % Answered in 10 seconds [OS- 2] F. 6.2 NC(%) 92.30% 93.20% 93.70% 92.80% GENERAL - DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE Average Speed to Answer [DA- 1] F. 7.1 NC( seconds) 3.32 3.57 3.12 2.97 % Answered in 10 seconds [DA- 2] F. 7.2 NC(%) 91.80% 90.30% 92.70% 93.70% GENERAL - BILLING Usage Data Delivery Accuracy [B- 3] F. 9.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.75% 100.00% 95.22% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Usage Data Delivery Timeliness [B- 5] F. 9.2 Re gion(%) 98.37% 93.14% 75.41% 94.80% 94.93% 97.64% 99.33% 99.38% Usage Data Delivery Completeness [B- 4] F. 9.3 Re gion(%) 99.38% 99.89% 99.77% 99.54% 97.21% 99.95% 99.92% 99.91% Mean Time to Deliver Usage [B- 6] F. 9.4 Re gion( days) 3.49 3.05 6.85 3.29 4.34 2.52 3.24 2.43 Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 7] F. 9.5.1 Resale/ NC (%) 73.98% 99.28% 86.47% 78.71% 72.01% 95.98% 82.09% 99.04% F. 9.5.2 UNE/ NC (%) 96.85% 97.39% 98.66% 98.88% F. 9.5.3 Interconnection/ NC (%) 94.49% 95.62% 99.96% 98.68% E- 41 329 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June Non- Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 8] F. 9.6.1 Resale/ NC (%) 90.24% 88.34% 83.78% 98.19% 85.83% 97.29% 84.41% 98.92% F. 9.6.2 UNE/ NC (%) 97.26% 98.82% 99.01% 98.64% F. 9.6.3 Interconnection/ NC (%) 84.30% 87.76% 98.63% 97.97% GENERAL - CHANGE MANAGEMENT % Software Release Notices Sent On Time [CM- 1] F. 10.1 NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time [CM- 3A] F. 10.3 NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc.) Sent On Time [CM- 3B] F. 10.4 NC(%) 77.78% 2 Average Documentation Release Delay Days [CM- 4] F. 10.5 NC( average) % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes [CM- 5] F. 10.6 NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% GENERAL - NEW BUSINESS REQUESTS % New Business Requests Processed within 30 Business Days [BFR- 1] F. 11.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 % Quotes Provided within X Business Days [BFR- 2A] F. 11.2.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 F. 11.2.3 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 GENERAL - ORDERING Acknowledgement Message Timeliness [O- 1] F. 12.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.97% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% F. 12.1.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Acknowledgement Message Completeness [O- 2] F. 12.2.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.62% F. 12.2.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% GENERAL - DATABASE UPDATES Average Database Update Interval [D- 1] F. 13.1.1 LIDB/ NC (hours) 0.55 0.55 1.49 1.49 0.53 0.51 0.52 0.52 F. 13.1.2 Director y Listings/ NC( hours) 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 F. 13.1.3 Director y Assistance/ NC( hours) 4.49 4.48 4.80 4.80 4.60 4.60 6.48 6.48 E- 42 330 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 North Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June % Update Accuracy [D- 2] F. 13.2.1 LIDB/ NC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 93.48% F. 13.2.2 Director y Listings/ NC(%) 99.38% 99.03% 99.79% 99.35% F. 13.2.3 Director y Assistance/ NC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.87% 99.19% % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date [D- 3] F. 13.3 Re gion(%) 96.77% 100.00% 100.00% 98.41% GENERAL - NETWORK OUTAGE NOTIFICATION Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages [M& R- 7] F. 14.1 Region( minutes) 739 218 0 0 154 123 791 602 1,3,4 Abbreviations: blank cell = no data available Notes: 1 = Sample Size under 10 in March 2 = Sample Size under 10 in April 2 = Sample Size under 10 in May 4 = Sample Size under 10 in June E- 43 331 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Appendix F South Carolina Performance Metrics Except where noted, the data included here is taken from the South Carolina Monthly State Summary (MSS) Reports provided by BellSouth, calculated according to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement (SQM) business rules. This table is provided as a reference tool for the convenience of the reader. No conclusions are to be drawn from the raw data contained in this table. Our analysis is based on the totality of the circumstances, such that we may use non- metric evidence, and may rely more heavily on some metrics more than others, in making our determination. The inclusion of these particular metrics in this table does not necessarily mean that we relied on all of these metrics, or that other metrics may not also be important in our analysis. Some metrics that we have relied on in the past and may rely on for a future application were not included here because there was no data provided for them (usually either because there was no activity, or because the metrics are still under development). Metrics with no retail analog provided are usually compared with a benchmark. Note that for some metrics during the period provided there may be changes in the metric definition, or changes in the retail analog applied, making it difficult to compare data Note: All data was calculated using BellSouth's data platform PMAP 4.0. The March data in this appendix were not taken from the MSS reports, which for that month were calculated using PMAP 2.6, but instead were calculated using PMAP 4.0 by BellSouth. This data also conforms to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement business rules that govern the regular MSS reports. 332 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name RESALE A. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours Ordering Billing A. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy A. 1.2 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices – CRIS A. 1.3 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS A. 1.4 O- 8 Reject Interval – Mech. Ordering A. 1.7 O- 8 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. – 10 hours B. 1.1 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 1.8 O- 8 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. B. 1.2 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 1.9 O- 9 FOC Timeliness – Mech. B. 1.3 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. A. 1.12 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours B. 1.4 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval – Mech. A. 1.13 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. B. 1.7 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. - 10 hours A. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mech. B. 1.8 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. A. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mech. B. 1.9 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness – Mech. A. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mech. B. 1.12 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours Provisioning B. 1.13 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. A. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval B. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Mech. A. 2.4 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Mech. B. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Partially Mech. A. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. B. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Non- Mech. A. 2.7 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. Provisioning A. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval A. 2.9 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. B. 2.2 P- 4 Order Completion Interval within X days - xDSL A. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. B. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies – Mech. A. 2.11 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments B. 2.6 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. A. 2.12 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. A. 2.14 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. B. 2.9 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. A. 2.15 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. A. 2.25 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy B. 2.11 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. Maintenance and Repair B. 2.12 P- 7 Coordinated Customers Conversions A. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments B. 2.13 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early A. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate B. 2.14 P- 7A Hot Cut Timeliness A. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.15 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late A. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.16 P- 7B Average Recovery Time – CCC PERFORMANCE METRIC CATEGORIES Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 F- 2 333 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name B. 2.17 P- 7C % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts C. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.18 P- 3/ P- 12 % Missed Installation Appointments C. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.19 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days C. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours B. 2.21 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. Billing B. 2.22 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. C. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy B. 2.34 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy C. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS Maintenance and Repair Trunk Blocking B. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments C. 5.1 TGP- 1 Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate B. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS B. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration Pre- Ordering B. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days D. 1.1 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - CLEC B. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours D. 1.2 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC Billing D. 1.3 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) B. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy D. 1.4 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) B. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS Maintenance and Repair LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS D. 2.1 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST Ordering D. 2.2 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - CLEC C. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests D. 2.3 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC C. 1.2 O- 8 Reject Interval D. 2.4 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds C. 1.3 O- 9 FOC Timeliness D. 2.5 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds C. 1.4 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness D. 2.6 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds Provisioning COLLOCATION C. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval Collocation C. 2.2 P- 1 Held Orders E. 1.1 C- 1 Average Response Time C. 2.3 P- 2 % Jeopardies E. 1.2 C- 2 Average Arrangement Time C. 2.5 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments E. 1.3 C- 3 % Due Dates Missed C. 2.6 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days GENERAL C. 2.7 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval Flow Through C. 2.8 P- 10 Total Service Order Cycle Time F. 1.1 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests C. 2.10 P- 6 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours F. 1.2 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved C. 2.11 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy F. 1.3 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP Maintenance and Repair Pre- Ordering C. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments F. 2.1 PO- 1 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) C. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate F. 2.2 PO- 2 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) F- 3 334 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Ordering Database Updates F. 4.1 O- 12 Average Speed of Answer F. 13.1 D- 1 Average Database Update Interval Maintenance Center F. 13.2 D- 2 % Update Accuracy F. 5.1 M& R- 6 Average Answer Time F. 13.3 D- 3 % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date Operator Services (Toll) Network Outage Notification F. 6.1 OS- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 14.1 M& R- 7 Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages F. 6.2 OS- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Directory Assistance F. 7.1 DA- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 7.2 DA- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Billing F. 9.1 B- 3 Usage Data Delivery Accuracy F. 9.2 B- 5 Usage Data Delivery Timeliness F. 9.3 B- 4 Usage Data Delivery Completeness F. 9.4 B- 6 Mean Time to Deliver Usage F. 9.5 B- 7 Recurring Charge Completeness F. 9.6 B- 8 Non- Recurring Charge Completeness Change Management F. 10.1 CM- 1 % Software Release Notices Sent On Time F. 10.2 CM- 2 Average Software Release Notice Delay Days F. 10.3 CM- 3A % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time F. 10.4 CM- 3B % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc. ) Sent On Time F. 10.5 CM- 4 Average Documentation Release Delay Days F. 10.6 CM- 5 % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes New Business Requests F. 11.1 BFR- 1 % New Business Requests Processed in 30 Bus. Days F. 11.2 BFR- 2A % Quotes Provided within X Business Days Ordering F. 12.1 O- 1 Acknowledgement Message Timeliness F. 12.2 O- 2 Acknowledgement Message Completeness F- 4 335 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes RESALE - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.1.1 Residence/ SC (%) 8.77% 7.25% 8.31% 7.40% A. 1.1.2 Business/ SC (%) 22.28% 22.22% 16.44% 27.47% % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.2.1 Residence/ SC (%) 13.84% 16.77% 20.04% 27.06% A. 1.2.2 Business/ SC (%) 35.76% 49.40% 37.36% 46.46% A. 1.2.4 PBX/ SC (%) 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 A. 1.2.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 100.00% 1 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.3.1 Residence/ SC (%) 41.12% 41.53% 40.00% 44.92% A. 1.3.2 Business/ SC (%) 57.29% 43.59% 42.11% 49.12% A. 1.3.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ SC(%) 42.50% 47.06% 25.00% 36.84% A. 1.3.4 PBX/ SC (%) 28.57% 42.86% 38.46% 33.33% 1,2,4 A. 1.3.5 Centrex/ SC (%) 62.50% 80.00% 50.00% 40.00% 1,2,4 A. 1.3.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 28.57% 27.78% 0.00% 62.50% 1,3,4 Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.4.1 Residence/ SC (%) 96.14% 96.24% 95.99% 97.02% A. 1.4.2 Business/ SC (%) 86.67% 97.83% 91.89% 92.19% Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] A. 1.7.1 Residence/ SC (%) 92.58% 90.77% 85.53% 93.35% A. 1.7.2 Business/ SC (%) 89.83% 90.36% 86.76% 93.75% A. 1.7.4 PBX/ SC (%) 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 A. 1.7.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 0.00% 1 Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.8.1 Residence/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 96.83% 100.00% A. 1.8.2 Business/ SC (%) 98.18% 96.08% 96.15% 100.00% A. 1.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ SC(%) 94.74% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 A. 1.8.4 PBX/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.8.5 Centrex/ SC (%) 80.00% 100.00% 85.71% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.8.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.9.1 Residence/ SC (%) 99.45% 99.52% 98.73% 99.31% Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June F- 5 336 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 1.9.2 Business/ SC(%) 100.00% 99.34% 99.38% 99.43% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] A. 1.12.1 Residence/ SC (%) 89.91% 88.30% 82.91% 85.81% A. 1.12.2 Business/ SC (%) 96.58% 91.95% 92.37% 94.33% A. 1.12.4 PBX/ SC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 A. 1.12.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 0.00% 2 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.13.1 Residence/ SC (%) 100.00% 98.39% 100.00% 97.01% A. 1.13.2 Business/ SC (%) 100.00% 98.28% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.13.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ SC(%) 87.50% 100.00% 76.92% 100.00% 4 A. 1.13.4 PBX/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.13.5 Centrex/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 83.33% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.13.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 100.00% 85.71% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.14.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ SC (%) 99.46% 99.00% 96.09% 99.59% A. 1.14.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ SC (%) 99.65% 99.72% 99.25% 99.91% A. 1.14.2.1 Business/ EDI/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 A. 1.14.2.2 Business/ TAG/ SC (%) 95.19% 94.97% 88.79% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.15.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ SC (%) 97.87% 96.40% 95.37% 100.00% A. 1.15.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ SC (%) 99.71% 99.33% 99.95% 99.91% A. 1.15.2.1 Business/ EDI/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.15.2.2 Business/ TAG/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.43% 100.00% A. 1.15.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 A. 1.15.6.2 ISDN/ TAG/ SC (%) 100.00% 1 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.16.1 Residence/ SC (%) 96.26% 94.07% 95.33% 95.76% A. 1.16.2 Business/ SC (%) 94.79% 97.44% 92.98% 91.23% A. 1.16.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ SC(%) 87.50% 94.12% 80.00% 100.00% A. 1.16.4 PBX/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 92.31% 100.00% 1,2,4 A. 1.16.5 Centrex/ SC (%) 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 A. 1.16.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 71.43% 100.00% 83.33% 100.00% 1,3,4 RESALE - PROVISIONING F- 6 337 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June Order Completion Interval [P- 4] A. 2.1.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 5.06 5.24 5.13 5.27 5.17 5.12 5.36 5.30 A. 2.1.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 0.86 0.61 0.88 0.55 0.87 0.56 0.87 0.58 A. 2.1.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 4.94 5.64 7.00 5.33 4.57 2 A. 2.1.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 2.59 3.70 3.16 6.50 3.67 3.79 5.82 5.20 A. 2.1.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 1.05 0.70 1.21 1.16 1.20 0.93 1.07 1.25 A. 2.1.2.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 8.07 16.07 21.00 12.31 18.92 2 A. 2.1.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( days) 19.70 10.33 22.86 8.67 19.63 10.14 20.00 1,2,3 A. 2.1.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 12.68 12.00 9.64 4.00 10.07 6.00 10.42 4.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 12.61 28.52 6.23 13.47 A. 2.1.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 3.26 1.50 3.65 0.67 3.14 3.78 4.13 1.78 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 0.83 2.00 1.13 1.14 6.06 1 A. 2.1.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 4.52 2.00 7.26 9.16 3.00 7.87 1,3 A. 2.1.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 2.29 1.64 3.00 1.72 2.17 1.35 2.00 2,3,4 A. 2.1.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 1.73 3.47 3.00 1.00 0.88 3 A. 2.1.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 67.98 19.20 12.00 16.26 18.72 0.33 2,4 A. 2.1.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 3.67 1.50 1.45 1.75 11.16 0.33 3.98 0.33 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 2.29 2.65 3.00 2.20 4.67 2 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.4.1 Residence/ SC (%) 0.42% 0.34% 0.42% 0.24% 0.34% 0.25% 0.33% 0.07% A. 2.4.2 Business/ SC (%) 1.55% 0.00% 1.67% 0.49% 1.86% 1.22% 1.47% 0.74% A. 2.4.4 PBX/ SC (%) 2.50% 0.00% 6.56% 0.00% 7.53% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,4 A. 2.4.5 Centrex/ SC (%) 0.76% 2.39% 2.43% 0.00% 3.34% 3 A. 2.4.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 9.35% 0.00% 7.82% 0.00% 11.81% 0.00% 10.98% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.5.1 Residence/ SC (%) 0.00% 0.66% 0.62% 0.47% A. 2.5.2 Business/ SC (%) 1.28% 0.89% 0.00% 0.00% A. 2.5.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ SC(%) 36.84% 23.08% 0.00% 0.00% 4 A. 2.5.4 PBX/ SC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.5.5 Centrex/ SC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,4 A. 2.5.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] F- 7 338 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.7.1 Residence/ SC( hours) 137.03 142.70 143.68 166.30 4 A. 2.7.2 Business/ SC (hours) 142.45 146.69 149.68 2,3,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.8.1 Residence/ SC (hours) 126.92 61.85 168.48 2,3,4 A. 2.8.2 Business/ SC (hours) 132.45 367.53 1,2 A. 2.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ SC( hours) 466.35 345.48 1,2 A. 2.8.6 ISDN/ SC (hours) 324.12 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.9.1 Residence/ SC (%) 96.88% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 A. 2.9.2 Business/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.10.1 Residence/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.10.2 Business/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 A. 2.10.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 A. 2.10.6 ISDN/ SC (%) 100.00% 2 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] A. 2.11.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 6.16% 0.47% 6.45% 0.60% 7.66% 0.23% 8.66% 1.64% A. 2.11.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.11% 0.18% 0.01% 0.06% 0.01% 0.12% 0.01% 0.05% A. 2.11.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 5.00% 23.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 A. 2.11.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.12% 1.75% 2.22% 2.70% 3.38% 0.81% 4.74% 1.87% A. 2.11.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.01% 0.47% 0.10% 0.41% 0.05% 0.42% 0.04% 0.00% A. 2.11.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.56% 5.26% 0.00% 11.11% 3.57% 2 A. 2.11.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 4.86% 0.00% 4.68% 20.00% 4.95% 0.00% 6.20% 3 A. 2.11.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 3.09% 25.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.88% 0.00% 1.83% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 8.11% 3.45% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 10.00% 2,3 A. 2.11.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 2.11.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 7.62% 0.00% 4.41% 1.34% 0.00% 3.23% 1,3 A. 2.11.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.11.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 A. 2.11.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.23% 2.76% 0.00% 5.11% 1.40% 0.00% 2,4 F- 8 339 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.11.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] A. 2.12.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 10.43% 7.68% 10.11% 8.12% 11.60% 8.43% 11.45% 5.99% A. 2.12.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.80% 4.08% 2.66% 2.86% 2.74% 2.59% 2.67% 2.69% A. 2.12.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 18.18% 0.00% 15.00% 7.69% 0.00% 44.44% 1,3 A. 2.12.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 8.37% 7.02% 9.34% 6.14% 10.83% 5.41% 11.68% 4.07% A. 2.12.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 4.74% 5.26% 5.32% 5.21% 5.58% 9.05% 5.99% 4.64% A. 2.12.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 37.50% 12.82% 26.32% 50.00% 33.33% 3 A. 2.12.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 3.64% 12.50% 5.38% 6.67% 7.36% 0.00% 5.72% 0.00% 1,4 A. 2.12.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 4.27% 0.00% 6.19% 0.00% 4.48% 0.00% 6.19% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 12.50% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.12.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.08% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 42.86% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 9.59% 5.24% 0.00% 11.89% 12.05% 0.00% 2,4 A. 2.12.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 6.66% 0.00% 3.25% 7.21% 33.33% 4.76% 11.11% 1,3,4 A. 2.12.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 8.33% 0.00% 17.07% 0.00% 18.31% 0.00% 10.53% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 4.82% 0.00% 6.13% 5.52% 0.00% 7.30% 1,3 A. 2.12.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.38% 0.00% 1.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.42% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.27% 3 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.14.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 1.01 0.08 1.10 0.10 0.73 0.13 1.19 0.17 A. 2.14.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 0.50 0.52 0.51 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.51 0.55 A. 2.14.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 0.30 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.09 2 A. 2.14.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 1.33 0.45 2.14 0.03 2.63 0.55 2.56 0.53 A. 2.14.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 2.19 0.42 3.64 0.44 3.02 0.45 1.58 0.53 A. 2.14.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 22.82 0.02 20.34 0.14 1.56 5.47 0.02 1,2,4 A. 2.14.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 3.06 2.81 1.94 0.35 2.35 3 A. 2.14.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 1555.78 219.63 126.22 185.26 0.02 4 A. 2.14.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 27.20 0.25 5.68 0.02 38.21 0.02 16.48 1,2,3 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.15.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 15.56 15.19 19.39 17.56 F- 9 340 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.15.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( hours) 7.28 11.85 9.08 7.68 A. 2.15.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 26.30 26.20 31.27 29.22 A. 2.15.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 10.93 15.75 10.41 7.89 A. 2.15.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 28.82 2 A. 2.15.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 85.47 155.32 60.96 3 A. 2.15.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 118.85 58.22 15.71 135.97 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 103.27 20.52 2,3 A. 2.15.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 14.00 22.68 14.66 1,3,4 A. 2.15.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 14.00 72.93 14.00 1,2,3 A. 2.15.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 15.90 41.23 1,3 A. 2.15.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 9.34 19.20 9.52 2,3,4 A. 2.15.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 7.12 7.01 14.00 1,2,3 A. 2.15.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 106.65 2 A. 2.15.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 16.00 23.20 13.42 0.02 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 7.92 2 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] A. 2.25.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 92.14% 96.55% 90.77% 98.86% A. 2.25.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 95.38% 94.29% 98.82% 98.56% A. 2.25.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 100.00% 88.24% 100.00% 100.00% 4 A. 2.25.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 91.33% 95.76% 88.82% 94.44% A. 2.25.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 93.85% 97.93% 96.11% 97.22% A. 2.25.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 100.00% 77.78% 77.78% 76.92% 2 A. 2.25.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 84.62% 97.56% 92.59% 91.89% A. 2.25.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 81.08% 91.43% 80.49% 96.47% A. 2.25.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 91.84% 94.78% 91.43% 91.36% A. 2.25.3.2.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.25.3.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 100.00% 90.00% 92.31% 88.89% 1,4 RESALE - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] F- 10 341 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 3.1.1.1 Residence/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.49% 0.57% 4.48% 0.00% 5.95% 0.00% 6.40% 0.45% A. 3.1.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.62% 0.00% 1.00% 0.91% 0.67% 0.00% 1.23% 0.62% A. 3.1.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 6.51% 1.45% 7.99% 0.00% 8.79% 2.70% 10.06% 0.00% A. 3.1.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.79% 3.03% 1.68% 0.00% 1.50% 0.00% 1.43% 0.00% A. 3.1.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.09% 0.00% 0.49% 16.67% 0.77% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% 1,2 A. 3.1.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 0.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.1.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 6.25% 0.00% 4.88% 0.00% 6.31% 0.00% 5.33% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.1.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 6.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% 1,3 A. 3.1.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 8.65% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 11.51% 0.00% 11.55% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.1.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.34% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% 1.90% 0.00% 1.36% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.1.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.22% 0.00% 4.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.64% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.1.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.92% 0.00% 3,4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] A. 3.2.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.72% 1.42% 1.97% 1.37% 2.12% 1.75% 2.08% 1.76% A. 3.2.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.92% 0.36% 0.88% 0.23% 1.02% 0.36% 0.99% 0.42% A. 3.2.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.14% 1.02% 1.22% 1.18% 1.37% 1.22% 1.30% 1.74% A. 3.2.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.54% 0.49% 0.55% 0.38% 0.60% 0.30% 0.63% 0.47% A. 3.2.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.30% 0.98% 1.45% 0.86% 1.88% 2.08% 1.56% 1.81% A. 3.2.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.84% 1.12% 1.78% 0.71% 2.22% 0.89% 2.19% 1.36% A. 3.2.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.11% 0.92% 0.19% 1.74% 0.26% 0.36% 0.18% 0.36% A. 3.2.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.18% 0.39% 0.15% 0.00% 0.23% 0.18% 0.19% 0.00% A. 3.2.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.45% 5.85% 0.53% 0.27% 0.57% 1.15% 0.49% 0.66% A. 3.2.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.46% 1.78% 0.52% 0.53% 0.45% 0.00% 0.45% 0.11% A. 3.2.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.04% 0.24% 0.06% 0.00% 0.06% 0.23% 0.06% 0.35% A. 3.2.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.09% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.11% 0.23% 0.11% 0.12% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] A. 3.3.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 18.59 14.52 20.08 14.54 23.10 17.17 24.09 16.43 A. 3.3.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 6.35 3.97 6.56 4.56 8.14 3.17 8.29 6.48 A. 3.3.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 11.90 9.19 12.75 10.48 13.43 10.58 14.87 14.39 A. 3.3.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 3.40 4.13 3.56 1.64 3.65 6.22 3.76 10.41 A. 3.3.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 4.90 3.64 5.04 7.26 5.06 2.65 5.40 3.44 1,2 A. 3.3.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( hours) 1.96 1.76 2.39 1.54 2.24 2.27 1.84 2.59 1,2,3,4 A. 3.3.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 9.57 10.53 7.21 18.36 10.50 16.00 14.87 8.83 1,3,4 A. 3.3.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 4.96 5.39 2.45 0.00 2.20 5.88 3.11 0.00 1,3 F- 11 342 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 3.3.5.1 Centrex/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 12.26 8.75 16.75 4.33 15.08 15.64 17.97 18.50 2,4 A. 3.3.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 2.32 5.16 2.55 2.00 3.08 0.00 2.62 1.00 2,4 A. 3.3.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 5.20 5.71 6.53 0.00 5.03 2.43 6.19 3.58 1,3,4 A. 3.3.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 1.92 0.00 1.74 0.00 2.09 1.70 1.61 16.55 3,4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] A. 3.4.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 16.27% 10.57% 15.79% 7.80% 16.60% 8.97% 16.41% 11.14% A. 3.4.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 14.57% 12.85% 14.39% 6.36% 14.70% 9.93% 14.65% 8.02% A. 3.4.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 13.19% 2.90% 12.85% 7.79% 13.77% 9.46% 14.90% 17.00% A. 3.4.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 11.21% 21.21% 12.23% 12.00% 12.74% 5.56% 13.08% 25.93% A. 3.4.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 17.49% 0.00% 20.25% 16.67% 18.08% 7.14% 21.63% 25.00% 1,2 A. 3.4.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 17.53% 0.00% 14.23% 0.00% 17.37% 16.67% 20.03% 22.22% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.4.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 4.17% 28.57% 4.88% 9.09% 18.92% 0.00% 13.33% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.4.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 9.09% 0.00% 9.38% 0.00% 20.79% 0.00% 8.43% 0.00% 1,3 A. 3.4.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 12.16% 33.33% 14.12% 0.00% 18.55% 9.09% 13.51% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.4.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 11.76% 4.76% 14.88% 83.33% 12.20% 0.00% 7.05% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.4.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 13.33% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 17.74% 50.00% 18.03% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.4.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 16.84% 0.00% 14.68% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 11.93% 0.00% 3,4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] A. 3.5.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 16.62% 7.88% 16.96% 8.68% 22.51% 12.07% 23.40% 12.52% A. 3.5.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 6.97% 3.66% 7.47% 6.38% 8.94% 1.61% 10.61% 5.26% A. 3.5.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 7.16% 0.00% 7.93% 2.08% 7.42% 7.14% 10.08% 5.00% A. 3.5.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.08% 0.00% 3.09% 0.00% 2.75% 0.00% 2.93% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.5.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.09% 0.00% 0.49% 16.67% 0.77% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% 1,2 A. 3.5.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 0.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.5.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1.54% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.5.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 1,3 A. 3.5.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 5.12% 2.08% 15.90% 0.00% 11.78% 0.00% 14.80% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 3.5.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.74% 0.00% 2.35% 0.00% 1.80% 0.00% 0.65% 0.00% 2,4 A. 3.5.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.22% 0.00% 4.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.64% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 3.5.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.97% 0.00% 3,4 RESALE - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] A. 4.1 SC (%) 98.49% 99.46% 98.65% 99.83% 98.76% 99.85% 98.73% 98.18% F- 12 343 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] A. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 3.56 3.86 3.27 3.47 3.16 3.82 3.37 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.1.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 20.13% 15.28% 18.12% 12.92% B. 1.1.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.1.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ SC(%) 0.00% 4 B. 1.1.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 88.64% 90.00% 100.00% 89.66% B. 1.1.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1,2 B. 1.1.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 75.00% 83.33% 57.14% 50.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.1.14 Other Desi gn/ SC(%) 85.71% 84.38% 79.41% 80.00% B. 1.1.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 25.16% 30.10% 30.71% 26.79% B. 1.1.17 LNP Standalone/ SC (%) 4.74% 4.15% 6.91% 7.82% % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.2.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 32.86% 40.06% 35.14% 31.06% B. 1.2.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 0.00% 1 B. 1.2.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ SC(%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.2.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 71.43% 100.00% 100.00% 95.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.2.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ SC(%) 66.67% 3 B. 1.2.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 36.00% 28.57% 39.58% 51.43% B. 1.2.14 Other Desi gn/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.2.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 26.57% 15.20% 26.80% 23.03% B. 1.2.17 LNP Standalone/ SC (%) 25.90% 26.45% 26.97% 22.22% % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.3.1 Switch Ports/ SC (%) B. 1.3.3 Loop + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 56.49% 48.67% 53.15% 51.49% B. 1.3.4 Combo Other/ SC (%) 27.27% 27.78% B. 1.3.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 23.08% 42.86% 25.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.3.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ SC(%) 29.63% 30.30% 11.36% 19.44% B. 1.3.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 20.59% 20.59% 30.36% 24.42% B. 1.3.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ SC(%) 0.00% 24.00% 31.25% 39.29% 1 B. 1.3.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 4 B. 1.3.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 F- 13 344 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.3.14 Other Design/ SC(%) 23.15% 24.03% 20.90% 18.03% B. 1.3.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 28.85% 34.90% 33.92% 32.14% B. 1.3.16 INP Standalone/ SC (%) 25.00% 20.00% 33.33% 15.38% 3 B. 1.3.17 LNP Standalone/ SC (%) 22.61% 28.21% 27.01% 22.75% Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.4.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 93.87% 91.71% 94.61% 91.62% B. 1.4.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.4.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 94.87% 100.00% 100.00% 92.31% B. 1.4.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.4.14 Other Desi gn/ SC(%) 100.00% 96.30% 81.48% 75.00% 4 B. 1.4.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 73.42% 80.46% 67.83% 68.27% B. 1.4.17 LNP Standalone/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 95.65% Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] B. 1.7.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 96.54% 97.42% 83.57% 96.30% B. 1.7.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ SC(%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.7.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 89.47% 1,2,3 B. 1.7.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.7.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 94.74% 77.78% B. 1.7.14 Other Desi gn/ SC(%) 94.12% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.7.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 84.21% 100.00% 80.77% 97.14% B. 1.7.17 LNP Standalone/ SC (%) 83.78% 87.80% 82.69% 82.22% Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 100.00% 98.18% 98.33% 97.22% B. 1.8.4 Combo Other/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 3 B. 1.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.8.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.8.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.8.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 4 B. 1.8.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.8.14 Other Desi gn/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 95.65% B. 1.8.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 100.00% 98.41% 99.39% 99.45% B. 1.8.16 INP Standalone/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 F- 14 345 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.8.17 LNP Standalone/ SC(%) 100.00% 97.47% 93.55% 100.00% FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 99.16% 98.53% 98.39% 97.27% B. 1.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.9.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ SC(%) 100.00% 4 B. 1.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.9.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.9.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.9.14 Other Desi gn/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 1.9.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 84.98% 88.59% 91.83% 87.46% B. 1.9.17 LNP Standalone/ SC (%) 99.55% 97.23% 94.83% 87.50% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] B. 1.12.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 92.33% 92.77% 84.72% 89.35% B. 1.12.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.12.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ SC(%) B. 1.12.8 2W Analog Loop Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.12.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.12.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 96.55% 94.74% B. 1.12.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 73.27% 93.50% 77.02% 90.91% B. 1.12.17 LNP Standalone/ SC (%) 91.26% 94.74% 89.31% 87.25% FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.13.1 Switch Ports/ SC (%) B. 1.13.3 Loop + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 95.16% 98.39% B. 1.13.4 Combo Other/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.13.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 B. 1.13.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.13.14 Other Desi gn/ SC(%) 100.00% 98.88% 98.56% 100.00% B. 1.13.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.30% 99.46% B. 1.13.16 INP Standalone/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.13.17 LNP Standalone/ SC (%) 98.91% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% F- 15 346 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.14.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ SC(%) 99.35% 100.00% 95.46% 100.00% B. 1.14.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ SC(%) 99.29% 98.53% 98.90% 99.89% B. 1.14.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ SC(%) 63.64% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.14.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 4 B. 1.14.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.14.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.14.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.14.12.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 83.33% 1,3,4 B. 1.14.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ SC(%) B. 1.14.14.1 Other Design/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.14.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ SC(%) 100.00% 77.78% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.14.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 86.36% 100.00% 1 B. 1.14.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ SC(%) 97.37% 97.04% 96.82% 98.85% B. 1.14.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ SC (%) 100.00% 96.39% 98.55% 100.00% B. 1.14.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.15.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.81% 98.74% B. 1.15.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ SC(%) 99.90% 99.07% 99.74% 92.63% B. 1.15.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.15.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.15.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.15.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.15.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 3 B. 1.15.12.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.15.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.15.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.15.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ SC(%) 90.91% 100.00% 93.33% 100.00% 2 B. 1.15.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ SC(%) 96.97% 98.15% 98.32% 97.16% B. 1.15.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.24% 100.00% B. 1.15.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] F- 16 347 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.16.1 Switch Ports/ SC(%) B. 1.16.3 Loop + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 93.13% 98.23% 99.10% 95.52% B. 1.16.4 Combo Other/ SC (%) 95.45% 100.00% B. 1.16.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.16.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ SC(%) 100.00% 96.97% 95.45% 100.00% B. 1.16.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 80.36% 98.84% B. 1.16.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 98.21% 1 B. 1.16.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 4 B. 1.16.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.16.14 Other Desi gn/ SC(%) 97.22% 97.67% 96.61% 99.18% B. 1.16.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 97.31% 95.84% 93.00% 99.43% B. 1.16.16 INP Standalone/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 88.89% 100.00% 3 B. 1.16.17 LNP Standalone/ SC (%) 98.85% 98.21% 94.31% 99.47% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] B. 2.1.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 3.94 3.20 4.38 4.01 4.69 3.11 5.54 3.70 B. 2.1.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 0.89 0.58 0.90 0.56 0.89 0.60 0.89 0.58 B. 2.1.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ SC (days) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 B. 2.1.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ SC (days) 1.46 1.17 1.45 1.15 1.43 1.08 1.41 1.12 B. 2.1.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 7.88 11.53 12.51 7.00 17.32 3 B. 2.1.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 1.83 3.18 2.44 2.00 1.97 3 B. 2.1.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ SC (days) 3.83 5.16 2.84 2.00 4.08 3 B. 2.1.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 5.58 12.00 5.49 11.65 5.70 11.91 6.80 12.24 B. 2.1.6.3.1 UNE ISDN/< 6 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 15.82 9.95 16.70 10.58 15.37 9.63 16.83 10.03 B. 2.1.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 3.94 5.00 4.38 5.05 4.69 5.25 5.54 5.16 F- 17 348 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.1.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( days) 3.94 5.19 4.38 5.89 4.69 5.74 5.54 5.08 B. 2.1.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( days) 28.47 23.03 30.00 19.11 19.00 19.76 2,3 B. 2.1.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.89 B. 2.1.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( days) 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.89 B. 2.1.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( days) 3.94 0.33 4.32 1.17 4.61 0.89 5.49 0.33 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( days) 0.87 0.52 0.90 0.57 0.88 0.56 0.89 0.59 B. 2.1.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( days) 7.07 12.24 10.41 15.68 B. 2.1.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( days) 2.92 0.56 2.92 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( days) 8.57 9.60 8.62 10.33 8.66 9.27 6.61 10.03 B. 2.1.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( days) 88.57 6.48 26.15 6.52 21.05 6.79 20.59 6.06 Order Completion Interval within X days [P- 4] B. 2.2.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop with Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( days) 5.00 3 B. 2.2.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop w/ o Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( days) 5.00 4.00 5.00 1,2,3 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.5.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 0.51% 0.31% 0.52% 0.70% 0.46% 0.22% 0.44% 0.12% B. 2.5.4 Combo Other/ SC (%) 6.96% 7.57% 7.40% 7.80% B. 2.5.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 9.91% 11.81% 8.19% 15.14% B. 2.5.6 UNE ISDN/ SC (%) 12.66% 0.00% 7.32% 0.00% 16.05% 7.75% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.5.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 0.51% 21.43% 0.52% 12.90% 0.46% 17.14% 0.44% 13.73% B. 2.5.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 0.51% 30.77% 0.52% 22.22% 0.46% 11.63% 0.44% 9.68% B. 2.5.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ SC(%) 0.51% 0.52% 0.46% 0.44% B. 2.5.16 INP (Standalone)/ SC(%) 0.51% 0.51% 0.44% 0.43% B. 2.5.17 LNP (Standalone)/ SC(%) 0.51% 0.00% 0.51% 0.00% 0.44% 0.00% 0.43% 0.00% B. 2.5.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ SC(%) 11.84% 0.00% 12.37% 0.00% 10.36% 15.83% 100.00% 1,2,4 F- 18 349 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.5.19 Digital Loop >= DS1/ SC(%) 12.57% 79.67% 16.77% 79.78% 12.17% 73.45% 17.48% 67.24% % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.6.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 0.76% 1.44% 0.77% 1.60% B. 2.6.4 Combo Other/ SC (%) 78.26% 68.75% 66.67% 60.47% B. 2.6.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 1,2,3 B. 2.6.6 UNE ISDN/ SC (%) 34.78% 33.33% 23.08% 12.50% B. 2.6.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 18.18% 18.18% 50.00% 5.88% 3 B. 2.6.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 B. 2.6.14 Other Desi gn/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 B. 2.6.17 LNP (Standalone)/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ SC(%) 32.69% 31.25% 21.88% 12.50% B. 2.6.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ SC(%) 47.83% 53.33% 43.33% 38.46% Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC( hours) 131.39 294.43 128.95 201.43 1,3,4 B. 2.8.6 UNE ISDN/ SC (hours) 362.28 4 B. 2.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC( hours) 155.01 166.37 246.50 185.75 1,2,3,4 B. 2.8.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC( hours) 187.31 231.88 181.83 241.63 2,3,4 B. 2.8.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ SC( hours) 362.28 4 B. 2.8.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ SC( hours) 192.27 229.75 210.87 198.18 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC( hours) 0.70 431.23 522.77 1,2,4 B. 2.9.4 Combo Other/ SC (hours) 328.28 341.45 329.92 348.29 B. 2.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC( hours) 255.68 418.60 1,3 B. 2.9.6 UNE ISDN/ SC (hours) 324.51 303.78 277.06 323.08 3,4 B. 2.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC( hours) 166.56 143.33 591.63 274.88 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ SC( hours) 319.22 303.78 297.28 323.08 3,4 B. 2.9.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ SC( hours) 203.77 170.96 200.89 256.24 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.10.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.10.6 UNE ISDN/ SC (%) 100.00% 4 B. 2.10.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.10.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.10.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ SC(%) 100.00% 4 F- 19 350 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.10.19 Digital Loop >= DS1/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.11.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ SC(%) 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.11.4 Combo Other/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.11.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 2.11.6 UNE ISDN/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 2.11.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 2.11.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ SC(%) 90.91% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Coordinated Customers Conversions [P- 7] B. 2.12.2 Loo ps with LNP/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 95.45% 100.00% % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early [P- 7A] B. 2.13.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ SC(%) 0.00% 1 B. 2.13.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Hot Cut Timeliness [P- 7A] B. 2.14.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ SC(%) 100.00% 1 B. 2.14.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late [P- 7A] B. 2.15.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ SC(%) 0.00% 1 B. 2.15.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Average Recovery Time - CCC [P- 7B] B. 2.16.2 Loo ps with LNP/ SC( minutes) 145.88 175.00 43.00 2,3,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts [P- 7C] B. 2.17.1.1 UNE Loo p Design/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.54% 2.74% 3.60% 6.82% % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] B. 2.18.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 4.54% 0.52% 4.86% 0.58% 6.13% 1.17% 7.62% 1.97% B. 2.18.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.14% 0.16% 0.02% 0.04% 0.01% 0.06% 0.01% 0.02% B. 2.18.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ SC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.18.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ SC (%) 0.27% 0.37% 0.03% 0.09% 0.02% 0.11% 0.02% 0.05% F- 20 351 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.18.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 5.56% 0.00% 9.62% 4.76% 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.18.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 B. 2.18.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ SC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 B. 2.18.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 4.53% 0.00% 4.83% 0.00% 6.07% 0.00% 7.44% 4.35% B. 2.18.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.46% 0.00% 1.84% 0.00% 3.02% 0.00% 3.07% 1,2,3 B. 2.18.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.56% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 8.43% 0.00% 2.53% 0.00% B. 2.18.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.54% 0.00% 4.86% 0.00% 6.13% 0.00% 7.62% 0.00% B. 2.18.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.54% 2.56% 4.86% 0.00% 6.13% 0.00% 7.62% 0.00% B. 2.18.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 5.56% 9.62% 4.76% 4.00% B. 2.18.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.33% 4.30% 0.00% 5.08% 0.00% 5.41% 2,3 B. 2.18.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.14% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% B. 2.18.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.11% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% B. 2.18.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.49% 0.00% 4.87% 0.00% 6.23% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.11% 0.24% 0.02% 0.23% 0.01% 0.40% 0.01% 0.00% B. 2.18.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 3.39% 12.50% 7.41% 2.70% B. 2.18.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 2.65% 0.00% 2.54% 0.00% 3.55% 0.00% 3.77% 0.00% B. 2.18.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.83% 0.00% 1.19% 0.99% 3.75% 0.00% 1.19% 1.18% % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] B. 2.19.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 7.17% 6.07% 10.15% 7.98% B. 2.19.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 9.54% 11.28% 9.70% 11.98% 11.30% 14.04% 11.51% 18.13% F- 21 352 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.19.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.91% 3.82% 2.78% 3.88% 2.89% 3.61% 2.84% 3.55% B. 2.19.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ SC (%) 2.73% 3.31% 2.70% 2.92% 2.84% 3.79% 2.62% 3.14% B. 2.19.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ SC (%) 3.09% 4.28% 2.85% 5.14% 2.93% 3.39% 3.03% 3.91% B. 2.19.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 32.00% 0.00% 15.28% 0.00% 21.15% 28.57% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.19.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 3.70% 14.04% 0.00% 13.40% 0.00% 8.89% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.19.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ SC (%) 3.57% 8.00% 0.00% 12.07% 0.00% 6.58% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.19.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 8.98% 20.00% 9.45% 4.17% 11.07% 6.06% 11.16% 6.45% 1 B. 2.19.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 2.90% 33.33% 2.92% 14.29% 3.20% 0.00% 3.14% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 11.24% 11.54% 8.97% 8.70% 9.20% 3.23% 7.23% 3.33% B. 2.19.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 9.54% 5.13% 9.70% 12.50% 11.30% 11.90% 11.51% 16.67% B. 2.19.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 32.00% 15.28% 21.15% 28.57% B. 2.19.11.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 9.54% 9.79% 11.31% 11.52% B. 2.19.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 9.54% 8.11% 9.70% 17.95% 11.30% 8.11% 11.51% 4.65% B. 2.19.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 32.00% 0.00% 15.28% 21.15% 28.57% 1 B. 2.19.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 3.97% 5.63% 6.99% 25.00% 5.96% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.19.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 2.91% 2.78% 2.89% 2.84% B. 2.19.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 2.90% 0.00% 2.78% 2.87% 2.83% 1 B. 2.19.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 9.54% 0.00% 9.79% 0.00% 11.31% 0.00% 11.52% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 2.90% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 2.87% 0.00% 2.83% 0.00% F- 22 353 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.19.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 31.43% 0.00% 13.56% 18.75% 37.04% 1 B. 2.19.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.19.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 3.24% 15.63% 3.71% 9.43% 4.15% 2.94% 4.68% 2.70% B. 2.19.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 2.30% 9.32% 5.83% 15.03% 4.76% 15.84% 5.00% 8.97% Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.21.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 1.16 0.48 1.67 0.17 1.38 0.08 1.85 0.46 B. 2.21.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 0.61 0.56 0.65 0.60 0.69 0.61 0.60 0.62 B. 2.21.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ SC (hours) 0.70 0.53 0.77 0.58 0.79 0.59 0.71 0.59 B. 2.21.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ SC (hours) 0.54 0.60 0.54 0.62 0.61 0.62 0.50 0.66 B. 2.21.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 9.46 0.04 3.01 2.73 0.07 9.13 1,3 B. 2.21.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 26.11 14.57 13.69 17.60 B. 2.21.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 75.35 0.02 160.93 0.02 80.14 113.95 19.22 1,2,4 B. 2.21.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 1.16 23.18 1.67 13.65 1.38 6.06 1.85 27.79 B. 2.21.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 1.16 51.32 1.67 70.52 1.38 57.81 1.85 65.41 B. 2.21.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 9.46 3.01 2.73 9.13 B. 2.21.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 1.14 1.49 0.02 1.36 0.02 1.52 0.02 2,3,4 B. 2.21.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 0.58 0.41 0.64 0.42 0.68 0.42 0.59 0.39 B. 2.21.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 1.90 2.20 3.13 0.62 B. 2.21.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 0.40 0.33 0.30 0.23 0.42 0.27 0.35 0.32 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 32.66 0.02 36.30 0.02 32.48 28.34 19.22 1,2,4 F- 23 354 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.21.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 2093.19 43.17 298.17 62.35 264.35 28.91 258.56 34.45 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.22.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 9.04 23.91 11.16 13.24 B. 2.22.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 3.44 3.81 3.11 4.32 B. 2.22.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ SC (hours) 2.51 3.60 2.39 2.84 B. 2.22.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ SC (hours) 6.10 4.46 5.08 8.70 B. 2.22.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 0.02 18.90 3,4 B. 2.22.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 14.00 0.02 7.01 1,2,3 B. 2.22.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ SC (hours) 14.00 0.02 7.01 1,2,3 B. 2.22.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 65.15 64.80 71.59 74.38 B. 2.22.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 39.29 50.45 15.10 1,2,3 B. 2.22.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 41.28 34.19 32.32 33.85 B. 2.22.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 62.43 39.61 55.93 25.78 3 B. 2.22.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 18.32 154.48 27.78 1,2,3 B. 2.22.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 22.10 17.77 2,3 B. 2.22.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) B. 2.22.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) B. 2.22.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 16.80 35.35 15.03 28.80 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 4.93 5.93 4.51 2.93 F- 24 355 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.22.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 5.87 0.48 4.87 1,2,3 B. 2.22.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 41.01 35.76 29.07 33.85 B. 2.22.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 50.79 55.51 63.66 54.16 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] B. 2.34.1.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 100.00% 67.07% 69.33% B. 2.34.1.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 100.00% 90.91% 3 B. 2.34.2.1.1 Loo ps Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 98.18% 95.65% 96.00% 96.33% B. 2.34.2.1.2 Loops Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 99.09% 98.18% 100.00% 98.02% B. 2.34.2.2.1 Loo ps Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 97.75% 89.81% 97.90% 97.73% B. 2.34.2.2.2 Loops Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 97.20% 97.98% 98.73% 97.53% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] B. 3.1.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.00% B. 3.1.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% B. 3.1.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.84% 0.81% 5.08% 0.60% 6.41% 0.35% 6.94% 0.49% B. 3.1.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.83% 1.84% 1.10% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% 1.26% 0.00% B. 3.1.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 4.77% 0.00% 4.98% 0.00% 6.28% 0.00% 6.82% 0.00% 1,2 B. 3.1.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 4.77% 0.00% 4.98% 0.00% 6.28% 0.00% 6.82% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 46.58% 0.00% 57.14% 0.00% 45.42% 0.00% 55.91% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.11% 0.00% 3.66% 0.00% 3.57% 0.00% 1.86% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.1.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 3.03% 28.57% 6.38% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 1 B. 3.1.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.30% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.1.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.84% 0.00% 5.08% 0.00% 6.41% 0.00% 6.94% 0.00% B. 3.1.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.84% 0.00% 5.08% 0.00% 6.41% 0.00% 6.94% 0.00% F- 25 356 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.1.9.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.72% 0.00% 4.89% 0.00% 6.27% 0.00% 6.82% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 3.1.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.64% 0.00% 0.97% 0.00% 0.72% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% B. 3.1.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.14% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 1.13% 0.00% 1.35% 0.00% 3 B. 3.1.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 0.27% 0.00% 3 B. 3.1.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.84% 0.00% 5.08% 0.00% 6.41% 0.00% 6.94% 0.00% B. 3.1.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.83% 0.00% 1.10% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% 1.26% 0.00% Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] B. 3.2.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.55% 0.00% 1.54% 0.00% 1.92% 0.00% 1.95% 0.00% 4 B. 3.2.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.25% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% 1.44% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 4 B. 3.2.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.51% 1.36% 1.72% 1.33% 1.86% 1.46% 1.82% 1.47% B. 3.2.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.81% 0.45% 0.79% 0.25% 0.90% 0.33% 0.88% 0.44% B. 3.2.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.31% 1.29% 1.49% 4.74% 1.62% 3.85% 1.57% 3.69% B. 3.2.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.31% 1.94% 1.49% 1.58% 1.62% 0.77% 1.57% 1.42% B. 3.2.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.78% 1.13% 1.04% 0.75% 1.24% 0.75% 1.23% 0.56% B. 3.2.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.06% 0.57% 1.96% 0.19% 1.77% 0.00% 2.11% 0.28% B. 3.2.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.53% 0.78% 0.75% 1.19% 0.74% 1.18% 0.59% 1.39% B. 3.2.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 1.12% 1.33% 1.31% 0.54% 1.30% 0.32% 1.26% 0.43% B. 3.2.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.51% 0.77% 1.72% 1.04% 1.86% 0.76% 1.82% 0.71% B. 3.2.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.51% 0.28% 1.72% 0.17% 1.86% 0.23% 1.82% 0.23% B. 3.2.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.60% 4.38% 1.82% 7.05% 1.97% 3.18% 1.93% 1.91% B. 3.2.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.74% 0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 0.85% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% B. 3.2.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.18% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.25% 3.13% 0.21% 0.00% B. 3.2.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.28% 0.00% 0.27% 0.00% 0.31% 3.13% 0.31% 0.00% B. 3.2.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.51% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 1.86% 0.00% 1.82% 0.00% B. 3.2.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.81% 0.00% 0.79% 0.00% 0.90% 0.00% 0.88% 0.00% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] B. 3.3.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 4.34 0.00 3.70 0.00 4.13 0.00 4.68 0.00 B. 3.3.2.2 Local Interoffice Transport/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( hours) 1.63 0.00 1.52 0.00 1.77 0.00 1.55 0.00 B. 3.3.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 17.59 9.70 19.09 10.90 21.70 12.28 22.85 12.93 F- 26 357 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.3.3.2 Loop + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( hours) 5.88 3.94 6.03 2.86 7.44 2.28 7.53 4.94 B. 3.3.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 17.33 4.93 18.80 5.78 21.30 3.54 22.49 4.10 1,2 B. 3.3.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 17.33 1.04 18.80 1.09 21.30 0.42 22.49 2.12 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 48.33 2.30 47.74 5.54 36.21 6.06 45.27 4.52 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 5.85 3.03 3.37 6.43 2.86 0.00 1.58 11.80 1,2,4 B. 3.3.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 5.66 10.32 7.58 5.99 5.00 5.65 7.04 3.55 1 B. 3.3.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 1.93 5.33 1.72 3.63 2.15 2.42 1.61 1.95 2,3,4 B. 3.3.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 17.59 4.11 19.09 4.00 21.70 3.55 22.85 4.65 B. 3.3.8.2 2W Analog Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( hours) 17.59 2.92 19.09 3.16 21.70 1.78 22.85 4.01 B. 3.3.9.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 17.65 10.11 19.13 7.18 21.84 31.80 22.94 35.00 1,3,4 B. 3.3.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dis patch/ SC( hours) 6.32 0.00 6.52 0.00 8.09 0.00 8.23 0.00 B. 3.3.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 5.02 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.19 3.43 5.53 0.00 3 B. 3.3.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( hours) 2.10 0.00 2.32 0.00 2.25 0.68 1.88 0.00 3 B. 3.3.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC( hours) 17.59 0.00 19.09 0.00 21.70 0.00 22.85 0.00 B. 3.3.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( hours) 5.88 0.00 6.03 0.00 7.44 0.00 7.53 0.00 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] B. 3.4.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 23.79% 0.00% 24.67% 0.00% 17.44% 0.00% 27.62% 0.00% B. 3.4.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 20.88% 0.00% 16.76% 0.00% 17.62% 0.00% 18.39% 0.00% B. 3.4.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.78% 13.62% 15.37% 9.00% 16.31% 10.18% 16.18% 13.38% B. 3.4.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 14.07% 16.56% 14.16% 11.83% 14.47% 8.59% 14.20% 16.30% B. 3.4.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 15.79% 0.00% 15.47% 33.33% 16.33% 30.00% 16.27% 23.08% 1,2 B. 3.4.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 15.79% 66.67% 15.47% 0.00% 16.33% 0.00% 16.27% 20.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 16.15% 0.00% 23.81% 0.00% 25.08% 0.00% 25.24% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.98% 0.00% 25.17% 100.00% 25.95% 0.00% 26.82% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.4.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 9.09% 0.00% 23.40% 27.27% 19.57% 18.18% 8.33% 7.69% 1 B. 3.4.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 15.71% 16.67% 13.41% 0.00% 16.05% 0.00% 7.79% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.4.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.78% 16.05% 15.37% 2.73% 16.31% 20.25% 16.18% 11.27% B. 3.4.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.78% 13.33% 15.37% 5.56% 16.31% 0.00% 16.18% 8.70% F- 27 358 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.4.9.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.81% 0.00% 15.40% 0.00% 16.22% 0.00% 16.19% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 3.4.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 14.51% 0.00% 14.15% 0.00% 14.79% 0.00% 14.73% 0.00% B. 3.4.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 16.21% 0.00% 20.36% 0.00% 17.20% 100.00% 20.46% 0.00% 3 B. 3.4.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 16.72% 0.00% 13.73% 0.00% 16.49% 0.00% 18.22% 0.00% 3 B. 3.4.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.78% 0.00% 15.37% 0.00% 16.31% 0.00% 16.18% 0.00% B. 3.4.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 14.07% 0.00% 14.16% 0.00% 14.47% 0.00% 14.20% 0.00% Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] B. 3.5.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.00% B. 3.5.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% B. 3.5.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.28% 2.73% 15.92% 3.86% 20.58% 6.07% 21.82% 4.27% B. 3.5.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 6.14% 0.00% 6.64% 0.00% 7.86% 1.45% 9.16% 1.05% B. 3.5.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 14.84% 0.00% 15.46% 0.00% 19.90% 0.00% 21.20% 0.00% 1,2 B. 3.5.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 14.84% 0.00% 15.46% 0.00% 19.90% 0.00% 21.20% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 46.58% 0.00% 57.14% 0.00% 45.42% 0.00% 55.91% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 4.11% 0.00% 3.66% 0.00% 3.57% 0.00% 1.86% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.5.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 3.03% 28.57% 6.38% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 1 B. 3.5.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.41% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 3.5.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.28% 0.00% 15.92% 0.00% 20.58% 0.00% 21.82% 0.00% B. 3.5.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.28% 0.00% 15.92% 0.00% 20.58% 0.00% 21.82% 0.00% B. 3.5.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.46% 0.00% 15.95% 0.00% 20.76% 0.00% 21.90% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 3.5.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 6.36% 0.00% 6.86% 0.00% 8.18% 0.00% 9.55% 0.00% B. 3.5.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 1.14% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 1.13% 0.00% 1.35% 0.00% 3 B. 3.5.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 0.27% 0.00% 3 B. 3.5.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ SC(%) 15.28% 0.00% 15.92% 0.00% 20.58% 0.00% 21.82% 0.00% B. 3.5.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 6.14% 0.00% 6.64% 0.00% 7.86% 0.00% 9.16% 0.00% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] B. 4.1 SC (%) 98.49% 99.55% 98.65% 99.84% 98.76% 99.71% 98.73% 99.99% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] B. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 7.29 3.86 4.97 3.47 3.78 3.82 3.46 F- 28 359 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests [O- 7] C. 1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (%) 40.00% 78.57% 50.00% 52.83% Reject Interval [O- 8] C. 1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 75.00% 96.43% 1,3 FOC Timeliness [O- 9] C. 1.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 FOC & Reject Response Completeness [O- 11] C. 1.4 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] C. 2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (days) 21.04 19.43 17.94 13.90 26.22 12.64 18.90 13.00 1,4 Held Orders [P- 1] C. 2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (days) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Jeopardies [P- 2] C. 2.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,4 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] C. 2.5 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00% 1,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] C. 2.6 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Average Completion Notice Interval [P- 5] C. 2.7 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (hours) 117.68 0.02 242.38 7.95 254.09 35.91 154.30 0.02 1,4 Total Service Order Cycle Time [P- 10] C. 2.8 Local Interconnection Trunks/ SC (days) 21.08 15.78 13.85 14.18 1,4 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours [P- 6] C. 2.10.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,4 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] C. 2.11.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 F- 29 360 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June C. 2.11.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] C. 3.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 C. 3.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] C. 3.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] C. 3.3.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ SC( hours) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 4 C. 3.3.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ SC( hours) 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.84 0.00 0.93 0.00 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] C. 3.4.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 C. 3.4.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] C. 3.5.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 C. 3.5.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] C. 4.1 SC (%) 98.49% 99.92% 98.65% 87.50% 98.76% 96.66% 98.73% 90.10% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS [B- 2] C. 4.2 Re gion( calendar days) 4.84 4.54 3.94 3.89 4.96 4.92 4.54 4.29 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - TRUNK BLOCKING Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate [TGP- 1] C. 5.1 SC 0 0 0 0 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - PRE- ORDERING % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 2] F- 30 361 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 1.1.1 EDI/ Region(%) 99.71% 100.00% 99.64% 100.00% D. 1.1.2 HAL/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.3 LENS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.98% 99.85% 99.76% D. 1.1.4 LEO MAINFRAME/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.6 LESOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.7 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 99.99% 99.86% D. 1.1.8 PSIMS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.2.1 ATLAS/ COFFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.2 BOCRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 1.2.3 DSAP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.98% D. 1.2.4 RSAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.5 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.6 SONGS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.86% D. 1.2.7 DOE/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.26% D. 1.2.8 LNP Gatewa y/ Region(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 99.49% D. 1.2.9 COG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.48% D. 1.2.10 DOM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.11 SOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.1- new ATLAS/ Re gion (%) 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.2- new COFFI/ Re gion (%) 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.3.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 0.91 1782.46 1.11 2.87 1.20 2.88 1.02 D. 1.3.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 0.91 2.95 1.11 2.94 1.20 2.91 1.02 D. 1.3.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 0.91 1204.18 1.02 2.99 1.10 3.03 0.93 D. 1.3.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 0.91 4.86 1.02 4.77 1.10 4.76 0.93 D. 1.3.3.1 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 0.88 2.95 0.88 2.95 0.88 3.01 0.80 D. 1.3.3.2 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 0.88 2.61 0.88 2.60 0.88 2.61 0.80 D. 1.3.4.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 0.53 2.70 0.57 2.71 0.53 2.71 0.52 D. 1.3.4.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 0.53 2.58 0.57 2.57 0.53 2.57 0.52 D. 1.3.5.1 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.08 212.02 1.25 3.21 2.12 3.24 1.14 D. 1.3.5.2 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.08 2.91 1.25 2.87 2.12 2.95 1.14 D. 1.3.6.1 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.63 4.40 0.67 4.60 0.63 4.35 0.64 D. 1.3.6.2 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.63 3.92 0.67 7.28 0.63 3.73 0.64 F- 31 362 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 1.3.7.1 PSIMS/ ORB/ Region( seconds) 4.46 0.03 4.40 0.04 4.60 0.04 4.35 0.04 D. 1.3.7.2 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.03 3.92 0.04 7.28 0.04 3.73 0.04 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.4.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 1.10 1782.46 1.31 2.87 1.60 2.88 1.52 D. 1.4.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 1.10 2.95 1.31 2.94 1.60 2.91 1.52 D. 1.4.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 1.62 1204.18 1.85 2.99 3.05 3.03 2.34 D. 1.4.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 1.62 4.86 1.85 4.77 3.05 4.76 2.34 D. 1.4.4.1 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.4.2 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.5.1 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 1.35 2.95 1.56 2.95 1.86 3.01 1.89 D. 1.4.5.2 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 1.35 2.61 1.56 2.60 1.86 2.61 1.89 D. 1.4.6.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 1.58 2.70 1.71 2.71 1.74 2.71 1.83 D. 1.4.6.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 1.58 2.58 1.71 2.57 1.74 2.57 1.83 D. 1.4.7.1 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.75 212.02 2.15 3.21 2.51 3.24 2.85 D. 1.4.7.2 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.75 2.91 2.15 2.87 2.51 2.95 2.85 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.2.1 CLEC TAFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.2.2 ECTA/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 100.00% 99.86% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.3.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 2.3.2 LMOS HOST/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% 100.00% D. 2.3.3 LNP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% D. 2.3.4 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.5 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.6 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.92% D. 2.3.7 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.4.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 94.91% 94.17% 94.75% 94.83% 95.12% 94.99% 94.95% 94.66% D. 2.4.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 3.07% 3.22% 3.14% 4.03% 3.16% 4.59% 2.58% 3.67% D. 2.4.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 4.30% 2.41% 4.07% 2.41% 4.03% 3.36% 4.47% 7.51% D. 2.4.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.67% 99.69% 99.63% 99.59% 99.60% 99.60% 99.61% 99.58% D. 2.4.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 78.95% 70.39% 76.71% 65.38% 78.49% 66.19% 79.21% 66.24% F- 32 363 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 2.4.6 LNP/ Region(%) 99.78% 99.37% 99.31% 99.09% 99.68% 99.19% 99.65% 98.81% D. 2.4.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.4.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 23.94% 13.59% 27.25% 20.73% 31.23% 24.50% 33.15% 21.43% D. 2.4.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.4.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.84% 99.91% 99.83% 99.90% 99.85% 99.88% 99.81% 99.86% D. 2.4.11 NIW/ Region(%) 82.97% 81.81% 84.38% 83.15% 84.01% 83.00% 82.83% 81.89% Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.5.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 98.99% 99.34% 98.97% 99.34% 99.05% 99.46% 99.02% 99.39% D. 2.5.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 78.81% 86.16% 78.96% 87.92% 79.20% 85.30% 77.66% 82.58% D. 2.5.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 77.94% 92.02% 77.45% 91.98% 76.65% 88.18% 71.08% 41.67% D. 2.5.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.81% 99.86% 99.79% 99.82% 99.79% 99.84% 99.80% 99.85% D. 2.5.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 90.95% 83.33% 89.31% 80.59% 90.04% 80.25% 90.59% 80.53% D. 2.5.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.93% 99.87% 99.54% 99.72% 99.81% 99.63% 99.83% 99.52% D. 2.5.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.5.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 96.89% 96.12% 97.38% 95.12% 97.81% 97.35% 98.41% 95.83% D. 2.5.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.5.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.98% 99.98% 100.00% 99.98% 100.00% D. 2.5.11 NIW/ Region(%) 99.17% 98.96% 99.49% 99.33% 99.39% 99.21% 99.42% 99.25% Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.6.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 1.01% 0.66% 1.03% 0.66% 0.95% 0.54% 0.98% 0.61% D. 2.6.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 21.19% 13.84% 21.04% 12.08% 20.80% 14.70% 22.34% 17.42% D. 2.6.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 22.06% 7.98% 22.55% 8.02% 23.35% 11.82% 28.92% 58.33% D. 2.6.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 0.19% 0.14% 0.21% 0.18% 0.21% 0.16% 0.20% 0.15% D. 2.6.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 9.05% 16.67% 10.69% 19.41% 9.96% 19.75% 9.41% 19.47% D. 2.6.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 0.07% 0.13% 0.46% 0.28% 0.19% 0.37% 0.17% 0.48% D. 2.6.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 71.65% 66.84% 71.68% 73.56% 71.96% 68.31% 71.90% 70.36% D. 2.6.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 3.11% 3.88% 2.62% 4.88% 2.19% 2.65% 1.59% 4.17% D. 2.6.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 84.22% 80.52% 84.97% 79.57% 86.18% 80.39% 87.29% 78.27% D. 2.6.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% D. 2.6.11 NIW/ Region(%) 0.83% 1.04% 0.51% 0.67% 0.61% 0.79% 0.58% 0.75% COLLOCATION - COLLOCATION Average Response Time [C- 1] E. 1.1.2 Ph ysical Caged/ SC( calendar days) 9 4 10 4 1,2,3,4 F- 33 364 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June E. 1.1.3 Physical Cageless/ SC( calendar days) 7 15 18 1,2,3 Average Arrangement Time [C- 2] E. 1.2.1 Virtual- Ordinar y/ SC( calendar days) E. 1.2.3 Physical Caged- Ordinary/ SC( calendar days) 34 15 52 41 1,2,3,4 E. 1.2.4 Ph ysical Cageless- Ordinary/ SC( calendar days) 1 15 55 1,3,4 % Due Dates Missed [C- 3] E. 1.3.1 Virtual/ SC (%) E. 1.3.2 Physical/ SC(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 GENERAL - FLOW THROUGH % Flow Through Service Requests [O- 3] F. 1.1.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 86.49% 87.39% 86.74% 88.58% F. 1.1.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 73.55% 71.89% 69.54% 73.74% F. 1.1.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 83.88% 84.78% 82.57% 83.84% % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved [O- 3] F. 1.2.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 79.16% 80.53% 79.88% 81.68% F. 1.2.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 50.63% 51.15% 51.58% 53.42% F. 1.2.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 72.17% 74.87% 74.12% 77.27% % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP [O- 3] F. 1.3.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% F. 1.3.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% GENERAL - PRE- ORDERING Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) [PO- 1] F. 2.1 Loo ps/ SC(%) 41.67% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) [PO- 2] F. 2.2 Loo ps/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 GENERAL - ORDERING Average Speed of Answer [O- 12] F. 4.1 Re gion( seconds) 141.64 30.33 137.90 28.63 194.86 35.16 259.48 58.19 GENERAL - MAINTENANCE CENTER F- 34 365 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June Average Answer Time [M& R- 6] F. 5.1 Re gion( seconds) 43.10 26.35 41.00 23.60 64.68 25.99 52.80 28.04 GENERAL - OPERATOR SERVICES (TOLL) Average Speed to Answer [OS- 1] F. 6.1 SC (seconds) 2.50 2.31 2.24 2.44 % Answered in 10 seconds [OS- 2] F. 6.2 SC (%) 92.30% 93.20% 93.70% 92.80% GENERAL - DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE Average Speed to Answer [DA- 1] F. 7.1 SC (seconds) 7.31 7.74 6.88 6.68 % Answered in 12 seconds [DA- 2] F. 7.2 SC (%) 78.00% 76.30% 80.00% 80.80% GENERAL - BILLING Usage Data Delivery Accuracy [B- 3] F. 9.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.75% 100.00% 95.22% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Usage Data Delivery Timeliness [B- 5] F. 9.2 Re gion(%) 98.37% 93.14% 75.41% 94.80% 94.93% 97.64% 99.33% 99.38% Usage Data Delivery Completeness [B- 4] F. 9.3 Re gion(%) 99.38% 99.89% 99.77% 99.54% 97.21% 99.95% 99.92% 99.91% Mean Time to Deliver Usage [B- 6] F. 9.4 Re gion( days) 3.49 3.05 6.85 3.29 4.34 2.52 3.24 2.43 Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 7] F. 9.5.1 Resale/ SC (%) 68.35% 98.17% 77.68% 98.03% 83.68% 99.30% 81.33% 99.03% F. 9.5.2 UNE/ SC (%) 99.22% 99.24% 99.47% 98.94% F. 9.5.3 Interconnection/ SC (%) 71.82% 38.65% 99.94% 100.00% Non- Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 8] F. 9.6.1 Resale/ SC (%) 77.66% 93.86% 78.80% 98.70% 80.89% 98.42% 76.68% 98.73% F. 9.6.2 UNE/ SC (%) 97.19% 99.17% 98.93% 99.00% F. 9.6.3 Interconnection/ SC (%) 75.47% 98.70% 96.47% 98.52% GENERAL - CHANGE MANAGEMENT % Software Release Notices Sent On Time [CM- 1] F. 10.1 SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time [CM- 3A] F- 35 366 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June F. 10.3 SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc.) Sent On Time [CM- 3B] F. 10.4 SC (%) 77.78% 2 Average Documentation Release Delay Days [CM- 4] F. 10.5 SC (average) % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes [CM- 5] F. 10.6 SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% GENERAL - NEW BUSINESS REQUESTS % New Business Requests Processed within 30 Business Days [BFR- 1] F. 11.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 % Quotes Provided within X Business Days [BFR- 2A] F. 11.2.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 F. 11.2.3 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 GENERAL - ORDERING Acknowledgement Message Timeliness [O- 1] F. 12.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.97% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% F. 12.1.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Acknowledgement Message Completeness [O- 2] F. 12.2.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.62% F. 12.2.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% GENERAL - DATABASE UPDATES Average Database Update Interval [D- 1] F. 13.1.1 LIDB/ SC (hours) 0.48 0.48 0.51 0.51 0.41 0.41 1.40 1.40 F. 13.1.2 Director y Listings/ SC( hours) 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 F. 13.1.3 Director y Assistance/ SC( hours) 3.77 3.77 4.32 4.32 3.80 3.80 5.83 5.83 % Update Accuracy [D- 2] F. 13.2.1 LIDB/ SC (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 93.48% F. 13.2.2 Director y Listings/ SC(%) 99.38% 99.03% 99.79% 99.35% F. 13.2.3 Director y Assistance/ SC(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.87% 99.19% % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date [D- 3] F. 13.3 Re gion(%) 96.77% 100.00% 100.00% 98.41% GENERAL - NETWORK OUTAGE NOTIFICATION Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages [M& R- 7] F- 36 367 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 South Carolina Performance Metric Data March April May June F. 14.1 Region( minutes) 739 218 0 0 154 123 791 602 1,3,4 Abbreviations: blank cell = no data available Notes: 1 = Sample Size under 10 in March 2 = Sample Size under 10 in April 2 = Sample Size under 10 in May 4 = Sample Size under 10 in June F- 37 368 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Appendix G Georgia Performance Metrics Except where noted, the data included here is taken from the Georgia Monthly State Summary (MSS) Reports provided by BellSouth, calculated according to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement (SQM) business rules. This table is provided as a reference tool for the convenience of the reader. No conclusions are to be drawn from the raw data contained in this table. Our analysis is based on the totality of the circumstances, such that we may use non- metric evidence, and may rely more heavily on some metrics more than others, in making our determination. The inclusion of these particular metrics in this table does not necessarily mean that we relied o n all of these metrics, or that other metrics may not also be important in our analysis. Some metrics that we have relied on in the past and may rely on for a future application were not included here because there was no data provided for them (usually either because there was no activity, or because the metrics are still under development). Metrics with no retail analog provided are usually compared with a benchmark. Note that for some metrics during the period provided there may be changes in the metric definition, or changes in the retail analog applied, making it difficult to compare data Note: All data was calculated using BellSouth's data platform PMAP 4.0. The March data in this appendix were not taken from the MSS reports, which for that month were calculated using PMAP 2.6, but instead were calculated using PMAP 4.0 by BellSouth. This data also conforms to the Georgia Service Quality Measurement business rules that govern the regular MSS reports. 369 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name RESALE A. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours Ordering Billing A. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy A. 1.2 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices – CRIS A. 1.3 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS A. 1.4 O- 8 Reject Interval – Mech. Ordering A. 1.7 O- 8 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. – 10 hours B. 1.1 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests – Mech. A. 1.8 O- 8 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. B. 1.2 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mech. A. 1.9 O- 9 FOC Timeliness – Mech. B. 1.3 O- 7/ O- 13 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mech. A. 1.12 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours B. 1.4 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval – Mech. A. 1.13 O- 9 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. B. 1.7 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Partially Mech. - 10 hours A. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mech. B. 1.8 O- 8/ O- 14 Reject Interval - Non- Mech. A. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mech. B. 1.9 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness – Mech. A. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mech. B. 1.12 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Partially Mech. - 10 hours Provisioning B. 1.13 O- 9/ O- 15 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mech. A. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval B. 1.14 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Mech. A. 2.4 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Mech. B. 1.15 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Partially Mech. A. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. B. 1.16 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness – Non- Mech. A. 2.7 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. Provisioning A. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval A. 2.9 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. B. 2.2 P- 4 Order Completion Interval within X days - xDSL A. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. B. 2.5 P- 2 % Jeopardies – Mech. A. 2.11 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments B. 2.6 P- 2 % Jeopardies - Non- Mech. A. 2.12 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.8 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mech. A. 2.14 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. B. 2.9 P- 2 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mech. A. 2.15 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. B. 2.10 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mech. A. 2.25 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy B. 2.11 P- 2 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mech. Maintenance and Repair B. 2.12 P- 7 Coordinated Customers Conversions A. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments B. 2.13 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early A. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate B. 2.14 P- 7A Hot Cut Timeliness A. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.15 P- 7A % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late A. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.16 P- 7B Average Recovery Time – CCC PERFORMANCE METRIC CATEGORIES Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 G- 2 370 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name B. 2.17 P- 7C % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts C. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration B. 2.18 P- 3/ P- 12 % Missed Installation Appointments C. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days B. 2.19 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days C. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours B. 2.21 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mech. Billing B. 2.22 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mech. C. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy B. 2.34 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy C. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS Maintenance and Repair Trunk Blocking B. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments C. 5.1 TGP- 1 Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate B. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS B. 3.3 M& R- 3 Maintenance Average Duration Pre- Ordering B. 3.4 M& R- 4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days D. 1.1 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - CLEC B. 3.5 M& R- 5 Out of Service > 24 hours D. 1.2 OSS- 2 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC Billing D. 1.3 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) B. 4.1 B- 1 Invoice Accuracy D. 1.4 OSS- 1 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) B. 4.2 B- 2 Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS Maintenance and Repair LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS D. 2.1 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST Ordering D. 2.2 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - CLEC C. 1.1 O- 7 % Rejected Service Requests D. 2.3 OSS- 3 % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC C. 1.2 O- 8 Reject Interval D. 2.4 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds C. 1.3 O- 9 FOC Timeliness D. 2.5 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds C. 1.4 O- 11 FOC & Reject Response Completeness D. 2.6 OSS- 4 Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds Provisioning COLLOCATION C. 2.1 P- 4 Order Completion Interval Collocation C. 2.2 P- 1 Held Orders E. 1.1 C- 1 Average Response Time C. 2.3 P- 2 % Jeopardies E. 1.2 C- 2 Average Arrangement Time C. 2.5 P- 3 % Missed Installation Appointments E. 1.3 C- 3 % Due Dates Missed C. 2.6 P- 9 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days GENERAL C. 2.7 P- 5 Average Completion Notice Interval Flow Through C. 2.8 P- 10 Total Service Order Cycle Time F. 1.1 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests C. 2.10 P- 6 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours F. 1.2 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved C. 2.11 P- 11 Service Order Accuracy F. 1.3 O- 3 % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP Maintenance and Repair Pre- Ordering C. 3.1 M& R- 1 Missed Repair Appointments F. 2.1 PO- 1 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) C. 3.2 M& R- 2 Customer Trouble Report Rate F. 2.2 PO- 2 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) G- 3 371 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Metric No. SQM No. Metric Name Ordering Database Updates F. 4.1 O- 12 Average Speed of Answer F. 13.1 D- 1 Average Database Update Interval Maintenance Center F. 13.2 D- 2 % Update Accuracy F. 5.1 M& R- 6 Average Answer Time F. 13.3 D- 3 % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date Operator Services (Toll) Network Outage Notification F. 6.1 OS- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 14.1 M& R- 7 Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages F. 6.2 OS- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Directory Assistance F. 7.1 DA- 1 Average Speed to Answer F. 7.2 DA- 2 % Answered in 10 seconds Billing F. 9.1 B- 3 Usage Data Delivery Accuracy F. 9.2 B- 5 Usage Data Delivery Timeliness F. 9.3 B- 4 Usage Data Delivery Completeness F. 9.4 B- 6 Mean Time to Deliver Usage F. 9.5 B- 7 Recurring Charge Completeness F. 9.6 B- 8 Non- Recurring Charge Completeness Change Management F. 10.1 CM- 1 % Software Release Notices Sent On Time F. 10.2 CM- 2 Average Software Release Notice Delay Days F. 10.3 CM- 3A % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time F. 10.4 CM- 3B % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc. ) Sent On Time F. 10.5 CM- 4 Average Documentation Release Delay Days F. 10.6 CM- 5 % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes New Business Requests F. 11.1 BFR- 1 % New Business Requests Processed in 30 Bus. Days F. 11.2 BFR- 2A % Quotes Provided within X Business Days Ordering F. 12.1 O- 1 Acknowledgement Message Timeliness F. 12.2 O- 2 Acknowledgement Message Completeness G- 4 372 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes RESALE - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.1.1 Residence/ GA (%) 10.92% 10.20% 12.39% 9.81% A. 1.1.2 Business/ GA (%) 13.01% 18.81% 17.69% 24.45% A. 1.1.4 PBX/ GA (%) % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.2.1 Residence/ GA (%) 18.94% 21.47% 26.03% 35.71% A. 1.2.2 Business/ GA (%) 54.48% 52.56% 58.24% 60.25% A. 1.2.4 PBX/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 50.00% 60.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.2.6 ISDN/ GA (%) 0.00% 1 % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] A. 1.3.1 Residence/ GA (%) 40.72% 33.81% 44.88% 52.82% A. 1.3.2 Business/ GA (%) 51.77% 50.69% 62.57% 60.16% A. 1.3.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ GA(%) 38.37% 31.25% 26.81% 32.06% A. 1.3.4 PBX/ GA (%) 52.73% 30.30% 44.83% 53.85% A. 1.3.5 Centrex/ GA (%) 42.86% 75.00% 51.65% 48.94% 2 A. 1.3.6 ISDN/ GA (%) 33.33% 15.79% 45.45% 27.27% Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.4.1 Residence/ GA (%) 95.68% 97.27% 96.67% 97.06% A. 1.4.2 Business/ GA (%) 95.89% 91.58% 95.06% 93.41% Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] A. 1.7.1 Residence/ GA (%) 90.36% 91.75% 87.76% 94.12% A. 1.7.2 Business/ GA (%) 96.54% 95.72% 95.03% 99.33% A. 1.7.4 PBX/ GA (%) 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 33.33% 1,2,3,4 Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] A. 1.8.1 Residence/ GA (%) 100.00% 98.78% 99.16% 96.81% A. 1.8.2 Business/ GA (%) 99.33% 99.55% 99.08% 98.75% A. 1.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ GA(%) 98.61% 95.24% 94.59% 100.00% A. 1.8.4 PBX/ GA (%) 100.00% 90.00% 76.92% 92.86% A. 1.8.5 Centrex/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 94.00% 88.46% 1,2 A. 1.8.6 ISDN/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 90.91% 100.00% 1,2,4 FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.9.1 Residence/ GA (%) 99.63% 99.81% 99.56% 99.47% Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June G- 5 373 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 1.9.2 Business/ GA(%) 99.78% 99.26% 99.73% 99.64% A. 1.9.4 PBX/ GA (%) FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] A. 1.12.1 Residence/ GA (%) 89.81% 88.52% 82.64% 85.54% A. 1.12.2 Business/ GA (%) 88.56% 91.48% 88.36% 92.17% A. 1.12.4 PBX/ GA (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 1.12.6 ISDN/ GA (%) 0.00% 1 FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] A. 1.13.1 Residence/ GA (%) 100.00% 99.65% 99.63% 98.09% A. 1.13.2 Business/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.16% 100.00% A. 1.13.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ GA(%) 98.85% 94.67% 96.59% 100.00% A. 1.13.4 PBX/ GA (%) 84.21% 88.24% 88.24% 90.91% A. 1.13.5 Centrex/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 A. 1.13.6 ISDN/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.14.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ GA (%) 100.00% 96.10% 96.84% 100.00% A. 1.14.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ GA (%) 99.48% 99.59% 99.10% 99.92% A. 1.14.2.1 Business/ EDI/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.14.2.2 Business/ TAG/ GA (%) 94.12% 97.34% 96.72% 99.69% A. 1.14.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ GA (%) FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.15.1.1 Residence/ EDI/ GA (%) 100.00% 98.29% 97.20% 99.06% A. 1.15.1.2 Residence/ TAG/ GA (%) 99.72% 99.77% 99.87% 99.78% A. 1.15.2.1 Business/ EDI/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.15.2.2 Business/ TAG/ GA (%) 99.50% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% A. 1.15.4.2 PBX/ TAG/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 1.15.6.2 ISDN/ TAG/ GA (%) 100.00% 1 FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] A. 1.16.1 Residence/ GA (%) 97.60% 96.91% 97.44% 95.55% A. 1.16.2 Business/ GA (%) 95.04% 98.62% 96.71% 96.48% A. 1.16.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ GA(%) 93.60% 96.09% 86.23% 98.47% A. 1.16.4 PBX/ GA (%) 90.91% 96.97% 96.55% 96.15% A. 1.16.5 Centrex/ GA (%) 92.86% 100.00% 87.91% 93.62% 2 G- 6 374 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 1.16.6 ISDN/ GA(%) 100.00% 94.74% 100.00% 90.91% RESALE - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] A. 2.1.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 5.39 5.12 5.79 5.17 6.06 5.14 6.02 5.27 A. 2.1.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 0.81 0.64 0.77 0.57 0.78 0.62 0.78 0.54 A. 2.1.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 5.21 6.00 5.16 6.00 5.85 4.00 5.78 6.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.2.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( days) 2.26 4.31 2.78 6.54 3.44 7.60 6.12 5.03 A. 2.1.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 1.20 0.78 1.37 1.09 1.22 1.03 1.22 0.85 A. 2.1.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 9.91 12.10 12.88 12.00 11.61 7.00 3,4 A. 2.1.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 0.50 6.00 3.79 2.17 2.79 0.33 0.44 1,2,3 A. 2.1.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( days) 28.35 11.40 25.45 12.31 19.99 14.33 21.68 7.58 3 A. 2.1.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 10.43 4.53 12.87 3.36 11.11 3.80 11.60 4.33 4 A. 2.1.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 7.85 4.44 12.83 13.00 12.12 3.00 9.47 5.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 2.46 6.40 3.25 2.32 2.71 1.92 5.04 2.58 4 A. 2.1.4.2.1 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 9.33 4.00 10.67 23.11 5.00 5.00 2,3 A. 2.1.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 1.95 0.67 2.32 0.33 1.17 2.27 1,2 A. 2.1.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 6.16 6.00 7.08 2.80 20.00 7.00 9.14 3.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 1.16 1.90 2.08 1.15 2.17 1.11 1.71 2.28 A. 2.1.5.2.1 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 14.57 6.00 12.85 2.00 16.15 13.63 1,2 A. 2.1.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 3.52 2.67 5.30 3.47 5.40 2.44 3.23 3.44 1,2,3,4 A. 2.1.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 20.32 19.57 7.00 18.90 9.40 19.87 11.29 2,3,4 A. 2.1.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 4.46 4.67 3.61 4.56 3.67 4.74 1.20 6.00 2,3,4 A. 2.1.6.2.1 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 69.75 42.00 9.00 11.67 19.37 2 A. 2.1.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 3.88 5.63 2.00 2.80 3.89 7.34 2,3 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.4.1 Residence/ GA (%) 0.58% 0.59% 0.55% 0.52% 0.47% 0.34% 0.40% 0.22% A. 2.4.2 Business/ GA (%) 1.25% 0.52% 1.40% 0.62% 1.39% 0.68% 1.11% 0.25% A. 2.4.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ GA(%) 12.36% 0.00% 13.74% 0.00% 11.49% 14.47% 1,2 A. 2.4.4 PBX/ GA (%) 2.69% 0.00% 3.08% 0.00% 5.51% 0.00% 6.03% 0.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.4.5 Centrex/ GA (%) 0.77% 0.00% 2.62% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 4.20% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.4.6 ISDN/ GA (%) 6.99% 8.31% 0.00% 7.33% 0.00% 0.97% 0.00% 2,3,4 % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] G- 7 375 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.5.1 Residence/ GA(%) 0.35% 0.37% 0.15% 0.65% A. 2.5.2 Business/ GA (%) 1.27% 0.00% 0.26% 0.56% A. 2.5.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ GA(%) 7.00% 7.50% 4.17% 8.70% A. 2.5.4 PBX/ GA (%) 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 0.00% 4 A. 2.5.5 Centrex/ GA (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% A. 2.5.6 ISDN/ GA (%) 2.94% 3.70% 3.13% 20.00% Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.7.1 Residence/ GA (hours) 148.48 155.55 155.68 169.23 A. 2.7.2 Business/ GA (hours) 66.42 100.07 110.65 145.05 1,2,3,4 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.8.1 Residence/ GA (hours) 90.20 37.88 168.83 108.91 1,2,3,4 A. 2.8.2 Business/ GA (hours) 85.08 158.52 149.22 1,3,4 A. 2.8.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ GA( hours) 422.17 294.36 160.26 315.74 1,2,3 A. 2.8.4 PBX/ GA (hours) 230.75 2 A. 2.8.6 ISDN/ GA (hours) 326.73 294.85 464.08 303.12 1,2,3,4 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.9.1 Residence/ GA (%) 100.00% 98.72% 100.00% 100.00% A. 2.9.2 Business/ GA (%) 66.67% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] A. 2.10.1 Residence/ GA (%) 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.10.2 Business/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 A. 2.10.3 Desi gn (Specials)/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 91.67% 1,2,3 A. 2.10.4 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 100.00% 2 A. 2.10.6 ISDN/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] A. 2.11.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 5.36% 4.68% 5.01% 3.40% 5.66% 4.29% 6.45% 3.44% A. 2.11.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.01% 0.13% 0.01% 0.15% 0.17% 0.43% 0.06% 0.12% A. 2.11.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.59% 0.00% 5.33% 0.00% 4.69% 0.00% 6.56% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.31% 3.45% 1.27% 3.94% 1.77% 1.43% 4.10% 2.50% A. 2.11.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.02% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.09% 0.26% 0.06% 0.66% A. 2.11.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 5.71% 7.26% 6.77% 0.00% 3.73% 0.00% 3,4 A. 2.11.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 G- 8 376 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.11.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.99% 7.41% 3.82% 15.38% 4.32% 12.50% 4.75% 7.89% 3 A. 2.11.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 4.40% 2.04% 1.79% 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% A. 2.11.3.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 A. 2.11.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 8.82% 25.00% 9.43% 0.00% 3.57% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 2.44% 42.11% 3.53% 0.00% 2.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 A. 2.11.4.2.1 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 A. 2.11.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 4.61% 0.00% 3.92% 0.00% 2.28% 50.00% 3.15% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.03% 0.00% 0.16% 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% A. 2.11.5.2.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 5.13% 0.00% 5.93% 0.00% 3.66% 5.71% 1,2 A. 2.11.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 6.17% 0.00% 3.69% 0.00% 3.61% 0.00% 3.61% 11.11% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.11.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.28% 0.00% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 4 A. 2.11.6.2.1 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 A. 2.11.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3 % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] A. 2.12.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 11.91% 9.78% 11.47% 9.13% 11.91% 10.73% 12.67% 13.11% A. 2.12.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.91% 6.10% 4.04% 4.63% 3.97% 4.14% 3.88% 4.58% A. 2.12.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 16.95% 0.00% 6.35% 50.00% 10.67% 0.00% 9.38% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 12.06% 12.84% 11.43% 6.21% 12.03% 7.87% 14.03% 6.19% A. 2.12.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 6.08% 4.78% 6.50% 5.10% 7.32% 5.58% 8.75% 5.49% A. 2.12.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 22.58% 20.71% 19.35% 27.07% 50.00% 4 A. 2.12.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 15.79% 30.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.12.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 5.34% 12.00% 6.59% 12.96% 7.79% 19.23% 5.89% 0.00% 4 A. 2.12.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 5.97% 0.00% 3.77% 8.16% 3.23% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00% A. 2.12.3.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 A. 2.12.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 17.39% 0.00% 1.47% 0.00% 1.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 7.83% 0.00% 8.54% 0.00% 1.18% 4.00% 3.57% 0.00% A. 2.12.4.2.1 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 20.00% 0.00% 3,4 G- 9 377 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.12.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 4.35% 0.00% 6.90% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 9.54% 50.00% 10.60% 33.33% 12.27% 25.00% 7.96% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.93% 18.18% 1.76% 0.00% 8.05% 18.18% 5.13% 4.17% A. 2.12.5.2.1 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 19.30% 21.79% 100.00% 22.03% 0.00% 23.17% 2,3 A. 2.12.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 16.09% 21.74% 40.00% 20.31% 20.00% 16.58% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 2.12.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 8.41% 0.00% 7.52% 0.00% 8.12% 0.00% 11.95% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 2.12.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.00% 5.56% 2.09% 0.00% 2.20% 0.00% 0.79% 0.00% A. 2.12.6.2.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ KY( hours) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3 A. 2.12.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.90% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 1,3,4 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.14.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.70 0.07 3.26 0.62 1.30 0.73 2.17 0.09 A. 2.14.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 0.88 0.71 0.78 0.75 0.86 0.77 1.02 0.79 A. 2.14.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 0.33 0.02 0.06 0.02 3.75 0.02 1.14 0.14 1,2,3,4 A. 2.14.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 1.59 0.21 2.31 0.79 2.22 0.23 3.43 0.12 A. 2.14.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 1.98 0.69 2.27 1.22 3.32 1.37 2.35 1.00 A. 2.14.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 3.07 8.52 3.25 0.02 7.30 0.08 3,4 A. 2.14.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 329.71 2.57 304.31 41.83 205.54 222.78 1,2 A. 2.14.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 27.50 23.06 0.66 8.98 14.54 2 A. 2.14.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 86.96 77.79 110.17 39.97 715.20 4 A. 2.14.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 24.63 58.60 55.08 0.62 37.40 47.96 15.97 0.02 1,3,4 A. 2.14.4.2.1 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 105.05 0.03 0.02 71.29 191.50 2 A. 2.14.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 20.22 24.66 0.47 0.66 1.42 2 A. 2.14.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 13.20 0.02 8.33 0.03 13.34 7.00 1,2 A. 2.14.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 1.42 0.44 2.17 0.45 2.01 0.36 7.35 0.19 1,2,3,4 A. 2.14.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 19.50 26.17 0.82 16.52 0.43 2.41 2,3 A. 2.14.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 3.62 9.23 20.60 0.42 43.66 3 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] A. 2.15.1.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ KY(%) 15.02 14.17 13.59 15.15 A. 2.15.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 8.82 6.89 9.16 7.93 A. 2.15.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 18.73 4 G- 10 378 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.15.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 26.63 33.33 31.51 23.16 A. 2.15.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 8.81 9.18 17.20 12.91 A. 2.15.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 0.02 3 A. 2.15.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 14.00 14.00 0.02 1,2,3 A. 2.15.3.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 150.54 174.98 322.06 121.19 3 A. 2.15.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 29.59 21.87 51.65 75.40 A. 2.15.3.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 15.63 2 A. 2.15.4.1.1 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 36.55 28.97 67.28 62.58 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.4.1.2 PBX/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 55.66 21.50 29.70 21.03 4 A. 2.15.4.2.1 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 48.21 10.94 2,3 A. 2.15.4.2.2 PBX/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 22.15 0.63 15.38 22.38 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.5.1.1 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 18.18 20.08 20.42 16.15 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.5.1.2 Centrex/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 17.01 21.86 12.00 24.89 A. 2.15.5.2.1 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 14.17 35.48 1,2 A. 2.15.5.2.2 Centrex/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 14.00 18.80 21.27 14.00 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.6.1.1 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 40.36 27.66 49.44 50.16 1,2,3,4 A. 2.15.6.1.2 ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 6.25 68.37 40.09 65.14 4 A. 2.15.6.2.1 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 8.87 2 A. 2.15.6.2.2 ISDN/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 9.42 14.00 18.68 2,3 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] A. 2.25.1.1.1 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 92.14% 96.55% 90.77% 98.86% A. 2.25.1.1.2 Residence/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 95.38% 94.29% 98.82% 98.56% A. 2.25.1.2.1 Residence/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 100.00% 88.24% 100.00% 100.00% 4 A. 2.25.2.1.1 Business/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 91.33% 95.76% 88.82% 94.44% A. 2.25.2.1.2 Business/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 93.85% 97.93% 96.11% 97.22% A. 2.25.2.2.1 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 100.00% 77.78% 77.78% 76.92% 2 A. 2.25.2.2.2 Business/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 84.62% 97.56% 92.59% 91.89% A. 2.25.3.1.1 Desi gn (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 81.08% 91.43% 80.49% 96.47% A. 2.25.3.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 91.84% 94.78% 91.43% 91.36% A. 2.25.3.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 G- 11 379 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 2.25.3.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 100.00% 90.00% 92.31% 88.89% 1,4 RESALE - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] A. 3.1.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 8.79% 1.43% 7.45% 1.65% 6.78% 2.33% 6.44% 2.02% A. 3.1.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.86% 0.60% 0.90% 0.60% 1.20% 1.43% 1.05% 0.21% A. 3.1.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 6.06% 2.70% 5.99% 3.23% 6.28% 3.83% 7.69% 8.33% A. 3.1.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 2.22% 4.50% 2.02% 0.00% 4.68% 0.76% 2.94% 1.25% A. 3.1.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.61% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00% 1.03% 1.18% 0.77% 0.00% A. 3.1.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.04% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% A. 3.1.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 6.69% 0.00% 2.54% 8.33% 2.65% 0.00% 11.93% 0.00% 3 A. 3.1.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 2.12% 0.00% 0.44% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 0.19% 5.56% A. 3.1.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 7.98% 13.33% 6.51% 16.13% 6.86% 0.00% 8.32% 0.00% A. 3.1.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.71% 0.00% 4.08% 7.69% 6.11% 0.00% 3.10% 0.00% 4 A. 3.1.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 10.68% 0.00% 13.28% 50.00% 8.17% 0.00% 14.03% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.1.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.69% 0.00% 2.43% 0.00% 1.71% 0.00% 1.96% 0.00% 2,3,4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] A. 3.2.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 2.02% 2.12% 2.25% 2.13% 2.42% 2.53% 2.43% 2.52% A. 3.2.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.30% 0.65% 1.28% 0.67% 1.40% 0.80% 1.35% 0.81% A. 3.2.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.19% 1.30% 1.27% 1.19% 1.35% 1.36% 1.35% 1.28% A. 3.2.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.74% 0.65% 0.77% 0.68% 0.94% 0.97% 0.77% 0.66% A. 3.2.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.26% 1.42% 1.35% 2.06% 1.43% 1.71% 1.48% 1.41% A. 3.2.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.97% 1.42% 2.09% 1.48% 2.19% 1.06% 2.06% 1.41% A. 3.2.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.18% 0.96% 0.17% 0.50% 0.17% 0.20% 0.14% 0.75% A. 3.2.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.26% 0.73% 0.29% 0.42% 0.38% 0.79% 0.34% 0.97% A. 3.2.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.45% 0.64% 0.54% 1.40% 0.54% 0.84% 0.51% 1.37% A. 3.2.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.29% 1.07% 0.34% 0.59% 0.38% 0.52% 0.34% 0.16% A. 3.2.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.13% 0.40% 0.13% 0.13% 0.12% 0.20% 0.13% 0.31% A. 3.2.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.22% 0.00% 0.19% 0.44% 0.24% 0.20% 0.21% 0.31% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] A. 3.3.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 24.69 11.20 26.34 11.62 22.36 11.91 22.43 12.25 A. 3.3.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 5.78 3.46 6.10 2.82 6.78 3.67 7.11 3.32 A. 3.3.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 11.11 10.00 11.06 10.66 11.45 9.63 11.79 11.32 G- 12 380 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 3.3.2.2 Business/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 3.61 4.26 3.55 2.68 4.82 3.90 4.66 1.63 A. 3.3.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 7.09 2.84 4.34 3.92 6.33 3.59 4.90 4.78 A. 3.3.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 1.85 1.88 2.52 1.85 1.81 2.00 2.24 1.50 A. 3.3.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 8.48 6.28 6.87 9.15 6.01 2.32 8.98 8.16 3 A. 3.3.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.99 6.86 2.08 5.18 1.91 6.40 2.15 13.76 A. 3.3.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 12.82 14.57 12.53 11.65 12.36 5.81 12.40 6.04 A. 3.3.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 4.94 1.27 3.96 3.92 5.88 4.10 4.78 0.67 4 A. 3.3.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 15.65 7.61 15.49 45.28 12.68 9.58 14.12 6.67 1,2,3,4 A. 3.3.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 3.17 0.00 2.97 4.70 3.59 2.57 3.03 2.60 2,3,4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] A. 3.4.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 17.55% 11.33% 18.23% 11.61% 18.40% 11.83% 18.14% 11.86% A. 3.4.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 14.73% 12.88% 15.47% 15.32% 14.70% 16.16% 15.04% 10.74% A. 3.4.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 14.26% 12.61% 14.77% 15.05% 15.05% 12.02% 14.06% 16.67% A. 3.4.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 13.27% 11.71% 14.32% 15.09% 13.86% 10.69% 12.85% 11.25% A. 3.4.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 22.15% 22.22% 23.82% 26.21% 21.63% 16.47% 25.12% 22.22% A. 3.4.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 19.08% 16.67% 18.35% 17.57% 19.02% 18.87% 20.91% 15.28% A. 3.4.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 12.04% 20.00% 12.32% 8.33% 12.12% 25.00% 11.01% 28.57% 3 A. 3.4.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 11.79% 15.79% 9.85% 20.00% 12.04% 25.00% 14.61% 11.11% A. 3.4.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 12.32% 26.67% 14.11% 29.03% 12.92% 12.50% 13.85% 7.69% A. 3.4.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 12.24% 20.00% 13.44% 30.77% 12.76% 0.00% 14.27% 33.33% 4 A. 3.4.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 21.88% 20.00% 20.80% 0.00% 16.90% 33.33% 20.26% 50.00% 1,2,3,4 A. 3.4.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 15.18% 0.00% 19.30% 0.00% 14.00% 33.33% 17.65% 0.00% 2,3,4 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] A. 3.5.1.1 Residence/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 25.22% 6.96% 27.14% 8.75% 26.60% 9.40% 27.78% 8.86% A. 3.5.1.2 Residence/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 8.12% 2.07% 9.53% 1.05% 10.79% 2.62% 11.19% 0.99% A. 3.5.2.1 Business/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 8.30% 5.63% 8.18% 8.03% 9.35% 6.45% 9.48% 5.05% A. 3.5.2.2 Business/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 2.48% 6.67% 2.20% 0.00% 5.25% 1.64% 4.20% 0.00% A. 3.5.3.1 Desi gn (Specials)/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.61% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00% 1.03% 1.18% 0.77% 0.00% A. 3.5.3.2 Desi gn (Specials)/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.04% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% A. 3.5.4.1 PBX/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.43% 0.00% 2.61% 9.09% 3.57% 0.00% 5.98% 0.00% 3 A. 3.5.4.2 PBX/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 2.22% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2 A. 3.5.5.1 Centrex/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 12.19% 0.00% 9.23% 4.17% 11.95% 0.00% 10.23% 0.00% 1 A. 3.5.5.2 Centrex/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.73% 0.00% 2.51% 0.00% 2.74% 0.00% 1.78% 0.00% 2,3,4 A. 3.5.6.1 ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 14.08% 20.00% 16.71% 50.00% 11.49% 0.00% 17.80% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 G- 13 381 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June A. 3.5.6.2 ISDN/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.50% 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 1.55% 0.00% 1.39% 0.00% 2,3,4 RESALE - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] A. 4.1 GA (%) 98.28% 99.61% 98.50% 99.36% 98.72% 99.80% 98.05% 99.35% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] A. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 3.56 3.86 3.27 3.47 3.16 3.82 3.37 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests - Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.1.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 11.66% 13.23% 20.33% 15.22% B. 1.1.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 20.00% B. 1.1.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 35.56% 46.29% 42.41% 26.56% B. 1.1.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 17.65% 8.14% 16.30% 6.34% B. 1.1.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 25.00% 25.04% 22.27% 25.44% B. 1.1.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 29.82% 37.16% 34.74% 23.51% B. 1.1.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 6.15% 11.48% 9.86% 6.01% B. 1.1.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 63.64% 58.33% 46.38% 52.17% B. 1.1.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 90.91% 100.00% 60.00% 87.50% 2,4 B. 1.1.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 30.37% 11.90% 28.25% 22.16% B. 1.1.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 26.38% 30.18% 26.03% 22.74% B. 1.1.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 10.35% 8.65% 7.22% 9.04% % Rejected Service Requests - Partially Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.2.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 30.42% 30.48% 41.71% 23.43% B. 1.2.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 0.00% 4 B. 1.2.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 2.90% 10.53% 10.45% 0.00% B. 1.2.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 12.73% 8.15% 8.76% 0.00% B. 1.2.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 51.98% 43.59% 34.67% 48.18% B. 1.2.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 22.32% 24.56% 29.89% 20.66% B. 1.2.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 25.00% 27.85% 14.71% 17.39% B. 1.2.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 31.03% 29.47% 33.03% 24.37% B. 1.2.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 16.15% 26.21% 23.85% 21.30% B. 1.2.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 31.11% 30.93% 25.12% 26.20% B. 1.2.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 17.46% 14.42% 15.41% 13.82% B. 1.2.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 20.84% 24.72% 22.96% 20.96% G- 14 382 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June % Rejected Service Requests - Non- Mechanized [O- 7] B. 1.3.1 Switch Ports/ GA (%) 0.00% 75.00% 66.67% 1,2,3 B. 1.3.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ GA(%) 63.33% 28.57% 66.67% 41.67% 2,3 B. 1.3.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 45.33% 45.14% 45.97% 53.56% B. 1.3.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 22.14% 35.71% 45.16% 39.13% B. 1.3.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 28.36% 28.26% 42.08% 20.25% B. 1.3.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 21.24% 21.74% 29.41% 31.37% B. 1.3.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 22.36% 28.71% 32.94% 38.98% B. 1.3.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 24.64% 42.86% 46.49% 52.73% B. 1.3.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 13.71% 22.96% 21.38% 23.32% B. 1.3.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ GA(%) 33.33% 75.00% 3,4 B. 1.3.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ GA(%) 50.00% 2 B. 1.3.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 66.67% 45.00% 68.18% 57.14% B. 1.3.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 19.44% 39.29% 53.33% 42.11% B. 1.3.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 29.00% 29.81% 30.30% 27.78% B. 1.3.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 29.06% 30.65% 26.86% 33.74% B. 1.3.16 INP Standalone/ GA (%) 24.24% 41.67% 26.09% 40.00% B. 1.3.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 23.65% 26.86% 26.62% 34.02% Reject Interval - Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.4.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 92.70% 94.39% 94.64% 94.47% B. 1.4.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 50.00% 4 B. 1.4.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 99.65% 99.72% 98.23% 100.00% B. 1.4.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 39.29% 42.86% 73.33% 77.78% 4 B. 1.4.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 29.81% 40.49% 43.86% 56.18% B. 1.4.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 86.44% 85.37% 87.84% 89.66% B. 1.4.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 55.56% 50.00% 57.14% 60.00% 1 B. 1.4.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 92.86% 100.00% 96.88% 91.67% 2 B. 1.4.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.71% 2,3,4 B. 1.4.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 95.24% 75.00% 70.77% 75.68% B. 1.4.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 53.50% 56.60% 51.11% 43.31% B. 1.4.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 100.00% 97.49% 94.84% 96.77% Reject Interval - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 8] B. 1.7.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 95.69% 95.68% 86.55% 96.98% G- 15 383 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.7.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 100.00% 75.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.7.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 95.16% 100.00% 81.25% 50.00% 4 B. 1.7.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 74.77% 89.53% 83.93% 89.66% B. 1.7.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 94.00% 100.00% 78.18% 87.50% B. 1.7.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 82.14% 95.45% 100.00% 90.63% B. 1.7.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 89.19% 82.46% 83.05% 77.78% B. 1.7.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 97.56% 86.84% 80.77% 95.83% B. 1.7.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 93.94% 90.32% 90.74% 90.00% B. 1.7.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 78.60% 91.49% 93.55% 93.43% B. 1.7.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 87.87% 92.24% 93.01% 93.09% Reject Interval - Non- Mechanized [O- 8] B. 1.8.1 Switch Ports/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.8.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 98.35% 99.48% 95.66% 97.99% B. 1.8.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.18% B. 1.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 100.00% 95.00% 98.70% 97.14% B. 1.8.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 97.62% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.8.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 96.67% B. 1.8.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.94% B. 1.8.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.8.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 2 B. 1.8.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.8.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.8.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 99.44% 100.00% 98.59% 100.00% B. 1.8.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 99.30% 99.81% 99.49% 99.31% B. 1.8.16 INP Standalone/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 B. 1.8.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 100.00% 98.67% 98.40% 100.00% FOC Timeliness - Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 99.41% 99.55% 98.96% 98.82% B. 1.9.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 42.86% B. 1.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 94.84% 92.12% 90.84% 98.08% B. 1.9.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 95.87% 96.08% 91.30% 96.92% B. 1.9.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 97.80% 98.82% 96.97% 98.19% G- 16 384 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.9.8 2W Analog Loop Design/ GA(%) 99.26% 100.00% 100.00% 98.94% B. 1.9.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.64% 99.44% B. 1.9.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 96.77% 100.00% 1,2 B. 1.9.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,3,4 B. 1.9.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 98.95% 100.00% 98.70% 96.03% B. 1.9.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 97.18% 97.40% 96.84% 96.87% B. 1.9.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 98.48% 99.76% 98.79% 97.23% FOC Timeliness - Partially Mechanized - 10 hours [O- 9] B. 1.12.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 93.45% 93.46% 90.53% 95.80% B. 1.12.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 50.00% 4 B. 1.12.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 78.95% 80.00% 94.23% 66.67% 4 B. 1.12.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 97.05% 99.16% 91.32% 85.00% B. 1.12.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 89.08% 90.00% 93.58% 93.94% B. 1.12.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 97.22% 98.60% 82.09% 90.53% B. 1.12.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 80.43% 82.61% 90.00% 92.47% B. 1.12.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 92.41% 92.13% 83.41% 78.71% B. 1.12.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 92.81% 96.23% 92.86% 89.41% B. 1.12.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 91.18% 89.55% 92.50% 92.41% B. 1.12.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 72.50% 88.16% 94.53% 95.47% B. 1.12.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 93.74% 97.34% 92.99% 93.81% FOC Timeliness - Non- Mechanized [O- 9] B. 1.13.1 Switch Ports/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.13.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 1.13.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 98.66% 98.96% 97.63% 97.74% B. 1.13.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.13.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.69% B. 1.13.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.13.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ GA(%) B. 1.13.12 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.13.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 90.00% 100.00% G- 17 385 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.13.14 Other Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 99.76% 98.70% 99.33% B. 1.13.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 99.90% 99.58% 99.76% 98.72% B. 1.13.16 INP Standalone/ GA (%) 95.00% 100.00% 100.00% 94.12% B. 1.13.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 100.00% 99.83% 99.58% 99.55% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.14.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ GA(%) 98.60% 98.89% 96.57% 99.55% B. 1.14.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ GA(%) 99.40% 98.92% 98.51% 99.97% B. 1.14.4.1 Combo Other/ EDI/ GA (%) 90.00% B. 1.14.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ GA(%) 75.38% 98.48% 95.26% 97.64% B. 1.14.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ GA(%) 79.31% 89.88% 87.06% 84.43% B. 1.14.6.1 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 92.59% B. 1.14.6.2 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ GA(%) 95.10% 96.13% 91.46% 99.13% B. 1.14.7.1 Line Sharin g/ EDI/ GA(%) 99.78% 99.55% 96.31% 100.00% B. 1.14.7.2 Line Sharin g/ TAG/ GA(%) 95.71% 99.30% 93.55% 100.00% B. 1.14.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ GA(%) 97.19% 95.79% 91.09% 97.86% B. 1.14.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.14.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ EDI/ GA(%) 100.00% 94.74% 100.00% 2 B. 1.14.9.2 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ TAG/ GA(%) 95.38% 95.04% 98.37% 99.26% B. 1.14.12.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ EDI/ GA(%) 100.00% 91.67% 90.91% 100.00% B. 1.14.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 B. 1.14.13.2 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ TAG/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 1.14.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ GA(%) 100.00% 99.22% 93.26% 95.00% B. 1.14.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ GA(%) 100.00% 94.87% 100.00% 97.87% B. 1.14.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ GA(%) 97.90% 99.39% 96.96% 98.37% B. 1.14.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ GA(%) 98.12% 95.60% 96.83% 98.02% B. 1.14.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ GA (%) 98.54% 99.77% 99.48% 99.91% B. 1.14.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ GA (%) 100.00% 99.41% 95.93% 99.57% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Partially Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.15.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ EDI/ GA(%) 96.60% 96.23% 96.08% 98.74% B. 1.15.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ TAG/ GA(%) 99.63% 99.58% 99.83% 99.83% B. 1.15.4.1 Combo Other/ EDI/ GA (%) 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ EDI/ GA(%) 20.59% 67.39% 83.67% 66.67% 4 B. 1.15.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ TAG/ GA(%) 40.00% 70.00% 66.67% 50.00% 4 G- 18 386 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.15.6.1 ISDN Loop (UDN, UDC)/ EDI/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 93.10% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.6.2 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ TAG/ GA(%) 99.48% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.7.1 Line Sharin g/ EDI/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 96.05% 100.00% B. 1.15.7.2 Line Sharin g/ TAG/ GA(%) 98.15% 98.85% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ EDI/ GA(%) 98.94% 99.63% 93.04% 99.69% B. 1.15.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ TAG/ GA(%) 100.00% 91.67% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 1.15.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ EDI/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 B. 1.15.9.2 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ TAG/ GA(%) 100.00% 98.70% 100.00% 99.44% B. 1.15.12.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ EDI/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.12.2 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ TAG/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.15.13.1 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ EDI/ GA(%) 100.00% 1 B. 1.15.13.2 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ TAG/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.07% B. 1.15.14.1 Other Desi gn/ EDI/ GA(%) 98.41% 100.00% 95.83% 99.38% B. 1.15.14.2 Other Desi gn/ TAG/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.15.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ EDI/ GA(%) 99.38% 94.79% 96.99% 99.71% B. 1.15.15.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ TAG/ GA(%) 97.41% 98.05% 99.13% 99.79% B. 1.15.17.1 LNP Standalone/ EDI/ GA (%) 98.49% 99.76% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.15.17.2 LNP Standalone/ TAG/ GA (%) 99.48% 100.00% 99.50% 98.87% FOC & Reject Response Completeness - Non- Mechanized [O- 11] B. 1.16.1 Switch Ports/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 1.16.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 B. 1.16.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 94.82% 96.21% 94.59% 96.44% B. 1.16.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 97.14% 88.10% 98.92% 98.55% B. 1.16.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 97.09% 100.00% 97.81% 96.32% B. 1.16.6 ISDN Loo p (UDN, UDC)/ GA(%) 98.45% 98.55% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.16.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 100.00% 99.01% 97.65% 98.31% B. 1.16.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 94.20% 96.83% 96.49% 100.00% B. 1.16.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 93.33% 91.51% 90.43% 95.85% B. 1.16.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ GA(%) 66.67% 100.00% 3,4 B. 1.16.11 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ GA(%) 50.00% 2 B. 1.16.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 91.67% 95.00% 95.45% 100.00% B. 1.16.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 97.22% 96.43% 100.00% 100.00% B. 1.16.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 98.85% 97.80% 96.13% 97.47% G- 19 387 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 1.16.15 Other Non- Design/ GA(%) 96.11% 96.34% 96.65% 98.94% B. 1.16.16 INP Standalone/ GA (%) 84.85% 89.58% 73.91% 88.57% B. 1.16.17 LNP Standalone/ GA (%) 96.40% 98.20% 94.26% 99.26% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] B. 2.1.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 37.42 15.50 28.09 17.00 17.78 30.00 17.22 38.00 1,3,4 B. 2.1.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 3.79 4.24 4.28 4.53 5.47 4.81 6.26 4.98 B. 2.1.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 0.84 0.71 0.81 0.71 0.82 0.70 0.84 0.79 B. 2.1.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ GA (days) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 B. 2.1.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (days) 1.54 1.26 1.59 1.38 1.57 1.29 1.51 1.41 B. 2.1.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 10.23 6.86 11.03 5.18 12.42 5.42 10.91 21.33 1,4 B. 2.1.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 3.25 3.00 4.72 2.76 6.25 3.43 2.75 1,3,4 B. 2.1.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (days) 4.77 3.00 5.71 3.11 6.25 5.65 2.75 1,3,4 B. 2.1.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 4.87 12.23 5.12 12.74 6.12 11.82 7.26 11.89 B. 2.1.6.3.1 UNE ISDN/< 6 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 14.39 11.31 12.59 11.07 12.88 11.62 14.05 11.52 B. 2.1.6.4.1 UNE ISDN/ 6- 13 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 12.00 12.00 18.00 1 B. 2.1.7.3.1 Line Sharin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( days) 3.97 5.96 3.99 5.07 4.07 5.42 2.78 4.55 B. 2.1.7.3.2 Line Sharin g/< 6 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( days) 3.58 3.88 3.78 4.15 3.65 3.84 2.39 3.81 B. 2.1.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 3.79 5.00 4.28 5.47 5.47 5.06 6.26 5.02 B. 2.1.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 10.23 6.00 11.03 7.00 12.42 10.91 5.00 1,2,4 B. 2.1.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 3.69 3.42 4.17 3.75 4.80 3.28 6.05 3.65 B. 2.1.9.1.4 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (days) 1.55 1.57 1.50 1.55 1.00 1.53 4.00 2,3,4 G- 20 388 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.1.9.2.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 8.53 6.00 9.60 6.00 10.68 6.00 9.88 4.00 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.11.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA( days) 1.55 1.57 1.55 1.53 B. 2.1.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 3.79 4.94 4.28 5.09 5.47 5.35 6.26 6.00 B. 2.1.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 10.23 11.03 6.00 12.42 12.00 10.91 6.00 2,3,4 B. 2.1.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 3.69 5.41 4.17 5.17 4.80 4.90 6.05 5.21 B. 2.1.13.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA( days) 1.55 4.50 1.57 5.11 1.55 5.00 1.53 5.13 2 B. 2.1.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( days) 8.53 7.67 9.60 7.00 10.68 7.80 9.88 8.00 1,2,3,4 B. 2.1.13.2.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA( days) 1.00 3.88 5.67 6.00 1.25 3 B. 2.1.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( days) 28.13 28.00 25.82 30.00 20.77 22.17 1,2 B. 2.1.15.1.1 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( days) 3.79 6.00 4.28 6.00 5.47 6.00 6.26 1,2,3 B. 2.1.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( days) 0.84 0.33 0.81 0.33 0.82 0.84 10.00 1,2,4 B. 2.1.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( days) 0.83 0.80 0.81 1.00 0.82 0.33 3,4 B. 2.1.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( days) 3.69 0.33 4.17 4.80 0.56 6.05 0.33 1,3,4 B. 2.1.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 0.83 0.68 0.80 0.79 0.81 0.74 0.82 0.75 B. 2.1.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( days) 0.50 0.33 1.75 0.61 2.62 0.47 0.44 0.33 1,3,4 B. 2.1.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( days) 5.03 8.66 4.85 8.21 5.02 8.88 3.79 8.05 B. 2.1.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( days) 26.81 6.27 28.27 5.93 25.90 6.01 25.27 6.33 Order Completion Interval within X days [P- 4] G- 21 389 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.2.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop with Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( days) 16.00 13.00 15.50 1,2,3 B. 2.2.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL) Loop w/ o Conditionin g/< 6 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( days) 5.01 4.74 4.73 4.98 % Jeopardies - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.5.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 0.66% 0.16% 0.66% 0.16% 0.59% 0.14% 0.50% 0.11% B. 2.5.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 5.74% 6.03% 6.21% 7.62% 100.00% 4 B. 2.5.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 16.20% 17.68% 12.37% 10.10% 0.00% B. 2.5.6 UNE ISDN/ GA (%) 8.76% 28.95% 7.90% 24.22% 10.43% 23.81% 11.15% 17.50% B. 2.5.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 16.20% 0.00% 17.68% 0.00% 12.37% 0.00% 10.10% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.5.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 0.66% 12.41% 0.66% 7.14% 0.59% 9.04% 0.50% 7.96% B. 2.5.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 1.29% 7.95% 1.33% 8.59% 1.16% 10.29% 0.97% 6.78% B. 2.5.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ GA(%) 0.66% 0.66% 0.59% 0.50% B. 2.5.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 0.66% 3.17% 0.66% 3.64% 0.59% 3.27% 0.50% 2.94% B. 2.5.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 1.29% 5.93% 1.33% 2.38% 1.16% 4.49% 0.97% 3.70% B. 2.5.14 Other Desi gn/ GA(%) 12.51% 14.68% 12.20% 13.91% B. 2.5.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 0.66% 0.66% 0.59% 0.50% 0.00% 4 B. 2.5.16 INP (Standalone)/ GA(%) 0.65% 0.63% 0.56% 0.48% B. 2.5.17 LNP (Standalone)/ GA(%) 0.65% 0.00% 0.63% 0.00% 0.56% 0.00% 0.48% 0.00% B. 2.5.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ GA(%) 15.69% 28.95% 17.05% 24.22% 12.52% 23.81% 10.53% 9.81% B. 2.5.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ GA(%) 8.55% 63.01% 11.76% 69.11% 8.21% 72.19% 0.78% 64.33% % Jeopardies - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.6.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.6.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 2.11% 2.41% 1.67% 1.74% B. 2.6.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 43.43% 41.27% 40.00% 37.16% B. 2.6.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 4.15% 3.85% 4.00% 1.14% B. 2.6.6 UNE ISDN/ GA (%) 12.00% 19.23% 9.09% 30.77% B. 2.6.7 Line Sharin g/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 8.70% 12.50% 5.00% 0.00% 2 B. 2.6.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 0.00% 4.88% 2.33% 5.26% B. 2.6.10 2W Analo g Loop w/ INP Design/ GA(%) B. 2.6.11 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/ GA(%) 0.00% 4 B. 2.6.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.6.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 0.00% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 4 G- 22 390 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.6.14 Other Design/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1,2 B. 2.6.15 Other Non- Desi gn/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3 B. 2.6.16 INP (Standalone)/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.6.17 LNP (Standalone)/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.6.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ GA(%) 5.26% 5.48% 3.02% 5.75% B. 2.6.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ GA(%) 37.72% 37.01% 38.55% 46.15% Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.8.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA( hours) 168.96 187.34 208.03 218.01 B. 2.8.4 Combo Other/ GA (hours) 338.02 4 B. 2.8.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA( hours) B. 2.8.6 UNE ISDN/ GA( hours) 326.52 339.47 326.01 346.69 B. 2.8.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA( hours) 176.21 208.03 135.74 192.65 4 B. 2.8.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA( hours) 154.25 118.23 179.09 181.93 4 B. 2.8.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA( hours) 247.68 173.85 153.74 228.25 1,2,3,4 B. 2.8.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA( hours) 153.30 159.48 226.60 145.22 1,2,3,4 B. 2.8.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ GA( hours) 326.52 339.47 326.01 346.69 B. 2.8.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ GA( hours) 194.00 192.20 190.20 186.75 Average Jeopardy Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.9.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA( hours) 163.27 157.89 211.97 147.04 B. 2.9.4 Combo Other/ GA (hours) 320.84 333.11 328.43 328.61 B. 2.9.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA( hours) 223.24 352.47 196.11 135.12 1,2,3,4 B. 2.9.6 UNE ISDN/ GA (hours) 323.34 316.84 326.98 289.35 2,3,4 B. 2.9.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA( hours) 115.67 75.78 135.27 1,2,3 B. 2.9.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA( hours) 175.23 158.63 62.67 2,3,4 B. 2.9.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA( hours) B. 2.9.18 Digital Loop < DS1/ GA( hours) 286.37 328.72 316.13 258.50 2,3,4 B. 2.9.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ GA( hours) 175.56 195.67 188.22 255.22 % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.10.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 98.67% 100.00% B. 2.10.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 100.00% 4 B. 2.10.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) B. 2.10.6 UNE ISDN/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.10.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 88.89% 4 G- 23 391 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.10.9 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 B. 2.10.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.10.13 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.10.18 Di gital Loop < DS1/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.10.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Jeopardy Notice >= 48 hours - Non- Mechanized [P- 2] B. 2.11.3 Loo p + Port Combinations/ GA(%) 100.00% 92.86% 100.00% 90.91% B. 2.11.4 Combo Other/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.33% 98.92% B. 2.11.5 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 87.50% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.11.6 UNE ISDN/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.11.8 2W Analo g Loop Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3 B. 2.11.9 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.11.12 2W Analo g Loop w/ LNP Design/ GA(%) B. 2.11.18 Digital Loop < DS1/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.11.19 Di gital Loop >= DS1/ GA(%) 100.00% 98.21% 100.00% 100.00% Coordinated Customers Conversions [P- 7] B. 2.12.1 Loo ps with INP/ GA(%) B. 2.12.2 Loops with LNP/ GA(%) 99.88% 99.15% 99.87% 99.64% % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Early [P- 7A] B. 2.13.1 Time- S pecific SL1/ GA(%) 1.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.13.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ GA(%) 2.08% 0.00% 3.85% 8.33% B. 2.13.3 Non- Time Specific SL1/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,4 B. 2.13.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Hot Cut Timeliness [P- 7A] B. 2.14.1 Time- S pecific SL1/ GA(%) 98.26% 97.80% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.14.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ GA(%) 97.92% 92.31% 96.15% 91.67% B. 2.14.3 Non- Time Specific SL1/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,4 B. 2.14.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Hot Cuts > 15 minutes Late [P- 7A] B. 2.15.1 Time- S pecific SL1/ GA(%) 0.00% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.15.2 Time- S pecific SL2/ GA(%) 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.15.3 Non- Time Specific SL1/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,4 B. 2.15.4 Non- Time Specific SL2/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% G- 24 392 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June Average Recovery Time - CCC [P- 7B] B. 2.16.2 Loo ps with LNP/ GA( minutes) 119.87 129.63 114.22 255.34 1,2,3,4 % Provisioning Troubles within 7 Days - Hot Cuts [P- 7C] B. 2.17.1.1 UNE Loo p Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 2.86% 1.30% 1.91% 4.27% B. 2.17.2.1 UNE Loo p Non- Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 2.46% 0.68% 2.33% 0.34% B. 2.17.2.2 UNE Loo p Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.96% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] B. 2.18.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.68% 0.00% 0.68% 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 1.22% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.18.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.40% 3.54% 3.17% 2.70% 3.91% 2.85% 5.77% 2.75% B. 2.18.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.01% 0.05% 0.01% 0.06% 0.17% 0.08% 0.06% 0.06% B. 2.18.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ GA (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B. 2.18.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (%) 0.03% 0.07% 0.04% 0.08% 0.38% 0.09% 0.12% 0.07% B. 2.18.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 4.58% 27.27% 5.66% 13.33% 5.28% 6.25% 4.85% 16.67% 4 B. 2.18.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 1.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.18.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (%) 0.00% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 2.18.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.44% 0.58% 3.21% 1.08% 3.92% 0.00% 5.70% 1.10% B. 2.18.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 4.01% 0.45% 3.51% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 5.20% 0.00% B. 2.18.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 8.00% 2.31% 3.25% 0.00% 5.35% 1.11% 4.58% 2.13% B. 2.18.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 4.01% 4.81% 3.51% 5.49% 4.17% 2.99% 5.20% 10.00% B. 2.18.7.1.2 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.98% B. 2.18.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.40% 0.63% 3.17% 0.00% 3.91% 0.55% 5.77% 2.34% B. 2.18.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 4.58% 0.00% 5.66% 0.00% 5.28% 0.00% 4.85% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 G- 25 393 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.18.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.36% 1.17% 3.16% 0.00% 3.97% 0.00% 5.90% 0.00% B. 2.18.9.1.4 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (%) 0.02% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.9.2.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 4.43% 0.00% 6.53% 0.00% 6.09% 0.00% 4.62% 25.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.40% 3.17% 3.91% 5.77% B. 2.18.11.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.36% 3.16% 3.97% 5.90% 0.00% 4 B. 2.18.11.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA(%) 0.02% 0.03% 0.39% 0.13% B. 2.18.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.40% 0.00% 3.17% 0.00% 3.91% 0.00% 5.77% 0.00% B. 2.18.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 4.58% 0.00% 5.66% 0.00% 5.28% 0.00% 4.85% 25.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.36% 0.00% 3.16% 0.00% 3.97% 0.00% 5.90% 0.00% B. 2.18.13.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA(%) 0.02% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% B. 2.18.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 4.43% 0.00% 6.53% 0.00% 6.09% 0.00% 4.62% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.13.2.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA(%) 0.00% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 B. 2.18.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 4.36% 0.00% 4.12% 0.00% 4.01% 4.62% 1,2 B. 2.18.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.40% 0.00% 3.17% 0.00% 3.91% 0.00% 5.77% 1,2,3 B. 2.18.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.17% 0.06% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.18.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.01% 0.01% 0.17% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 3,4 B. 2.18.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.36% 0.00% 3.16% 0.00% 3.97% 0.00% 5.90% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.18.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.01% 0.06% 0.01% 0.07% 0.17% 0.34% 0.06% 0.06% B. 2.18.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 4.43% 6.53% 6.09% 0.00% 4.62% 3 G- 26 394 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.18.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 15.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 B. 2.18.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 4.21% 1.42% 3.53% 0.00% 4.23% 0.57% 5.30% 0.99% B. 2.18.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.49% 0.51% 4.39% 1.08% 4.58% 2.56% 2.07% 0.96% % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] B. 2.19.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 6.82% 0.00% 6.68% 50.00% 8.31% 0.00% 8.35% 0.00% 1,2,4 B. 2.19.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 11.92% 12.58% 11.43% 12.25% 11.97% 11.17% 13.09% 10.04% B. 2.19.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 3.93% 2.71% 4.13% 2.59% 4.16% 2.58% 4.22% 2.62% B. 2.19.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ GA (%) 4.20% 3.49% 4.46% 3.33% 4.67% 3.25% 4.47% 3.07% B. 2.19.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (%) 3.62% 2.50% 3.72% 2.38% 3.45% 2.43% 3.89% 2.53% B. 2.19.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 20.00% 27.27% 17.61% 0.00% 18.24% 13.33% 21.83% 18.75% B. 2.19.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 4.76% 7.69% 9.95% 50.00% 10.92% 5.46% 20.00% 2,4 B. 2.19.3.2.3 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ GA (%) 17.07% 13.24% 16.67% 14.77% B. 2.19.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (%) 3.26% 7.69% 8.27% 50.00% 9.57% 3.98% 20.00% 2,4 B. 2.19.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 11.67% 17.39% 11.21% 14.70% 11.80% 13.21% 12.80% 12.14% B. 2.19.4.1.4 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA(%) 11.67% 11.21% 11.80% 12.80% B. 2.19.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 5.09% 4.12% 3.97% 4.05% 5.27% 5.16% 4.77% 5.43% B. 2.19.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 10.37% 5.85% 10.12% 5.09% 10.06% 10.06% 17.30% 6.11% B. 2.19.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 5.09% 27.06% 3.97% 39.42% 5.27% 35.16% 4.77% 28.36% B. 2.19.7.1.2 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 2.56% 19.40% 2.06% 11.30% 3.51% 13.11% 4.13% 16.15% B. 2.19.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 11.92% 5.00% 11.43% 8.23% 11.97% 8.28% 13.09% 9.29% B. 2.19.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 20.00% 0.00% 17.61% 0.00% 18.24% 0.00% 21.83% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 G- 27 395 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.19.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 11.98% 5.75% 11.45% 7.02% 11.97% 10.18% 13.26% 8.09% B. 2.19.9.1.4 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (%) 3.80% 3.82% 0.00% 3.43% 50.00% 3.91% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.19.9.2.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 20.39% 0.00% 16.26% 0.00% 16.08% 0.00% 21.32% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 11.92% 0.00% 11.43% 11.97% 13.09% 1 B. 2.19.11.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 11.98% 11.45% 11.97% 13.26% B. 2.19.11.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA(%) 3.80% 0.00% 3.82% 3.43% 3.91% 1 B. 2.19.11.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 20.39% 16.26% 16.08% 21.32% B. 2.19.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 11.92% 10.61% 11.43% 6.35% 11.97% 8.41% 13.09% 14.62% B. 2.19.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 20.00% 0.00% 17.61% 100.00% 18.24% 0.00% 21.83% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 11.98% 9.09% 11.45% 3.09% 11.97% 12.66% 13.26% 5.06% B. 2.19.13.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA(%) 3.80% 4.55% 3.82% 0.00% 3.43% 5.88% 3.91% 0.00% B. 2.19.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 20.39% 0.00% 16.26% 0.00% 16.08% 0.00% 21.32% 28.57% 1,2,3,4 B. 2.19.13.2.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA(%) 12.50% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,4 B. 2.19.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 5.71% 0.00% 6.16% 0.00% 7.32% 0.00% 5.73% 1,2,3 B. 2.19.15.1.1 Other Non- Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 11.92% 11.43% 0.00% 11.97% 50.00% 13.09% 0.00% 2,3,4 B. 2.19.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.93% 4.13% 0.00% 4.16% 0.00% 4.22% 2,3 B. 2.19.15.2.1 Other Non- Desi gn/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 20.00% 17.61% 18.24% 21.83% B. 2.19.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 4.02% 4.16% 4.15% 4.22% 0.00% 4 B. 2.19.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 11.98% 0.00% 11.45% 0.00% 11.97% 0.00% 13.26% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 G- 28 396 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.19.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 4.02% 0.00% 4.16% 0.00% 4.15% 0.00% 4.22% 0.00% B. 2.19.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 20.39% 16.26% 16.08% 21.32% 0.00% 4 B. 2.19.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 15.79% 0.00% 30.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% B. 2.19.18.1.1 Di gital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 5.36% 5.20% 4.23% 4.50% 5.58% 7.26% 5.29% 5.95% B. 2.19.19.1.1 Di gital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 5.10% 17.89% 5.71% 15.23% 7.43% 16.13% 5.73% 13.68% Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.21.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.30 0.24 2.92 0.14 2.11 0.40 2.63 0.19 B. 2.21.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 0.95 0.87 0.88 0.77 1.04 0.75 1.17 0.79 B. 2.21.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ GA (hours) 1.04 0.75 0.96 0.71 1.12 0.73 1.28 0.77 B. 2.21.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (hours) 0.84 0.90 0.76 0.78 0.94 0.75 1.05 0.79 B. 2.21.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 5.88 0.05 13.76 0.70 10.34 0.05 7.66 0.06 1,4 B. 2.21.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 6.04 1.27 3.37 2.81 0.02 4 B. 2.21.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (hours) 2.95 1.43 3.51 1.52 0.02 4 B. 2.21.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 14.80 13.96 10.70 15.94 17.85 4 B. 2.21.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 9.22 10.14 2.46 2.24 8.94 B. 2.21.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 22.50 17.25 22.99 15.81 11.82 8.19 9.55 13.98 B. 2.21.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 9.22 0.02 10.14 0.05 2.46 2.24 0.07 1,2,4 B. 2.21.7.1.2 Line Sharing/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 0.91 0.68 0.86 0.34 1.12 0.54 1.77 0.02 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.30 19.53 2.92 21.85 2.11 11.42 2.63 23.04 B. 2.21.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 5.88 0.02 13.76 63.27 10.34 0.02 7.66 0.02 1,2,3,4 G- 29 397 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.21.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.15 0.24 2.79 0.18 1.70 0.08 2.47 0.27 B. 2.21.9.1.4 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (hours) 0.83 0.74 0.91 1.04 0.02 4 B. 2.21.9.2.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.22 0.02 5.34 0.02 3.41 0.02 5.34 0.10 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.30 9.65 2.92 11.85 2.11 9.02 2.63 15.93 B. 2.21.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 5.88 3.38 13.76 8.95 10.34 7.12 7.66 36.23 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.15 0.30 2.79 0.03 1.70 0.09 2.47 0.10 B. 2.21.13.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA( hours) 0.83 0.05 0.74 0.02 0.91 0.04 1.04 0.15 B. 2.21.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.22 0.02 5.34 0.02 3.41 0.51 5.34 0.48 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.13.2.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA( hours) 0.65 0.40 30.53 0.03 4.95 3 B. 2.21.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 0.95 0.88 1.04 1.17 0.88 4 B. 2.21.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 2.15 0.13 2.79 1.70 0.02 2.47 1,3 B. 2.21.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 0.94 0.69 0.87 0.98 1.03 0.75 1.16 0.71 B. 2.21.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 11.99 0.69 0.56 0.58 13.49 0.50 2.02 0.59 1,2,3,4 B. 2.21.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 12.46 17.25 12.95 15.81 6.20 8.19 7.80 11.98 B. 2.21.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 413.42 33.04 372.69 34.26 370.70 25.26 366.18 21.65 Average Completion Notice Interval - Non- Mechanized [P- 5] B. 2.22.2.1.1 Local Interoffice Transport/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 19.38 88.31 20.65 14.28 1,3,4 G- 30 398 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.22.3.1.1 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 18.21 16.99 12.60 16.00 B. 2.22.3.1.2 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 9.33 11.71 11.80 9.49 B. 2.22.3.1.3 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Switch Based Orders/ GA (hours) 3.93 5.40 10.64 5.86 B. 2.22.3.1.4 Loop + Port Combinations/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (hours) 15.56 18.74 15.07 13.13 B. 2.22.3.2.1 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 26.23 18.73 9.42 0.02 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.3.2.2 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 0.78 14.01 19.73 1,3,4 B. 2.22.3.2.4 Loop + Port Combinations/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (hours) 0.78 14.01 19.73 1,3,4 B. 2.22.4.1.1 Combo Other/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 59.14 86.54 56.18 42.46 B. 2.22.5.1.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 32.86 36.18 19.03 27.10 B. 2.22.6.1.1 UNE ISDN/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 52.92 75.54 105.22 44.53 B. 2.22.7.1.1 Line Sharin g/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 3.82 1.17 2.27 5.27 B. 2.22.7.1.2 Line Sharing/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 0.88 1.13 0.97 3.00 B. 2.22.8.1.1 2W Analog Loop Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 29.87 44.84 40.94 37.17 B. 2.22.8.2.1 2W Analog Loop Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 17.92 59.78 1,3 B. 2.22.9.1.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 18.75 22.13 22.67 18.43 B. 2.22.9.1.4 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch In/ GA (hours) 0.02 21.43 14.55 1,2,3 B. 2.22.9.2.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 59.57 22.58 9.28 2,3,4 B. 2.22.10.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) G- 31 399 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.22.11.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 20.72 4 B. 2.22.11.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ INP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA( hours) B. 2.22.12.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 64.76 22.88 32.18 24.29 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.12.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) B. 2.22.13.1.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 19.50 14.12 21.75 19.67 4 B. 2.22.13.1.4 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch In/ GA( hours) 20.82 19.08 31.76 19.46 2,3,4 B. 2.22.13.2.1 2W Analog Loop w/ LNP Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 17.55 27.25 7.19 1,2,3 B. 2.22.14.1.1 Other Desi gn/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 15.02 61.73 1,2 B. 2.22.15.1.1 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 17.05 18.48 20.02 1,2,3 B. 2.22.15.1.2 Other Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 35.47 27.70 1,2 B. 2.22.16.1.2 INP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 14.00 14.00 3,4 B. 2.22.17.1.1 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 10.28 0.02 8.23 35.00 1,2,3,4 B. 2.22.17.1.2 LNP (Standalone)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 2.93 2.55 2.34 2.56 B. 2.22.17.2.1 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 0.02 3 B. 2.22.17.2.2 LNP (Standalone)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 0.59 3.73 0.53 0.70 1,4 B. 2.22.18.1.1 Digital Loop < DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 38.28 42.32 24.04 22.47 B. 2.22.19.1.1 Digital Loop >= DS1/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 49.93 70.35 93.95 65.15 Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] G- 32 400 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 2.34.1.1.1 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.1.2 Design (Specials)/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 100.00% 67.07% 69.33% B. 2.34.1.2.1 Desi gn (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% B. 2.34.1.2.2 Design (Specials)/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 100.00% 90.91% 3 B. 2.34.2.1.1 Loo ps Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 98.18% 95.65% 96.00% 96.33% B. 2.34.2.1.2 Loops Non- Design/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 99.09% 98.18% 100.00% 98.02% B. 2.34.2.2.1 Loo ps Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 97.75% 89.81% 97.90% 97.73% B. 2.34.2.2.2 Loops Non- Design/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 97.20% 97.98% 98.73% 97.53% UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] B. 3.1.1.1 Switch Ports/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 8.42% 7.26% 6.72% 0.00% 6.61% 0.00% 4 B. 3.1.1.2 Switch Ports/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.04% 1.06% 1.74% 0.00% 1.31% 0.00% 4 B. 3.1.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.44% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.91% 0.00% 3 B. 3.1.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.40% 0.00% 0.16% 0.00% 0.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 8.46% 3.21% 7.29% 3.98% 6.74% 3.51% 6.73% 3.36% B. 3.1.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.15% 1.88% 1.18% 1.13% 1.89% 0.77% 1.38% 1.57% B. 3.1.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 8.23% 0.69% 7.10% 2.49% 6.58% 1.16% 6.57% 1.97% B. 3.1.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 8.23% 0.00% 7.10% 0.00% 6.58% 0.00% 6.57% 0.78% B. 3.1.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 49.12% 0.00% 55.07% 0.00% 46.01% 3.03% 45.82% 0.00% B. 3.1.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.25% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 1.54% 0.00% 1.75% 0.00% B. 3.1.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 13.38% 2.86% 17.45% 1.19% 11.11% 0.00% 18.62% 0.00% B. 3.1.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 2.89% 3.23% 4.61% 0.00% 3.40% 0.00% 4.12% 0.00% B. 3.1.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 49.12% 0.00% 55.07% 0.00% 46.01% 13.79% 45.82% 7.69% 1 B. 3.1.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.25% 4.44% 3.45% 1.69% 1.54% 7.84% 1.75% 13.04% B. 3.1.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 8.46% 4.55% 7.29% 0.37% 6.74% 2.36% 6.73% 0.39% B. 3.1.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 8.46% 0.00% 7.29% 0.00% 6.74% 0.75% 6.73% 0.00% B. 3.1.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 8.41% 4.54% 7.24% 2.62% 6.69% 4.68% 6.59% 4.37% B. 3.1.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.86% 0.00% 0.87% 8.33% 1.74% 3.57% 1.17% 0.00% 4 G- 33 401 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.1.10.1 Other Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.56% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.87% 0.00% 0.72% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 3.1.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.07% 0.00% 0.22% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 0.16% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.1.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 8.46% 0.00% 7.29% 0.00% 6.74% 0.00% 6.73% 0.00% 4 B. 3.1.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.15% 0.00% 1.18% 0.00% 1.89% 0.00% 1.38% 0.00% 3 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] B. 3.2.1.1 Switch Ports/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.85% 2.05% 2.19% 0.00% 2.20% 11.11% 3,4 B. 3.2.1.2 Switch Ports/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.19% 1.17% 1.30% 0.00% 1.23% 22.22% 3,4 B. 3.2.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.99% 0.00% 2.04% 0.00% 2.24% 0.37% 2.15% 0.00% B. 3.2.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.65% 1.89% 1.40% 2.54% 1.60% 1.47% 1.62% 0.35% B. 3.2.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.68% 1.15% 1.86% 1.18% 1.99% 1.21% 1.99% 1.46% B. 3.2.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.08% 0.44% 1.08% 0.40% 1.19% 0.38% 1.12% 0.39% B. 3.2.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.43% 4.10% 1.58% 5.31% 1.69% 4.29% 1.69% 4.80% B. 3.2.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 1.43% 2.16% 1.58% 2.64% 1.69% 2.48% 1.69% 3.05% B. 3.2.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.89% 0.58% 1.31% 0.94% 1.36% 0.86% 1.26% 1.25% B. 3.2.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 2.08% 0.63% 3.43% 0.44% 4.63% 0.31% 2.74% 0.52% B. 3.2.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 4.92% 1.31% 5.03% 1.65% 4.45% 1.39% 4.99% 1.37% B. 3.2.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 6.27% 0.58% 5.13% 0.65% 6.02% 0.54% 5.00% 0.67% B. 3.2.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.89% 0.33% 1.31% 0.52% 1.36% 1.21% 1.26% 1.02% B. 3.2.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 2.08% 2.49% 3.43% 2.78% 4.63% 2.13% 2.74% 2.70% B. 3.2.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.68% 0.74% 1.86% 0.83% 1.99% 0.94% 1.99% 0.85% B. 3.2.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.68% 0.37% 1.86% 0.32% 1.99% 0.42% 1.99% 0.45% B. 3.2.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.84% 1.19% 2.04% 1.30% 2.19% 1.13% 2.19% 1.25% B. 3.2.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.93% 0.04% 0.93% 0.03% 1.06% 0.09% 1.03% 0.01% B. 3.2.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.24% 0.53% 0.25% 0.00% 0.26% 1.12% 0.26% 1.11% B. 3.2.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.40% 0.53% 0.42% 0.55% 0.45% 1.12% 0.43% 0.56% B. 3.2.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.68% 0.00% 1.86% 0.00% 1.99% 0.00% 1.99% 0.17% B. 3.2.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 1.08% 0.00% 1.08% 0.00% 1.19% 0.17% 1.12% 0.00% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] B. 3.3.1.1 Switch Ports/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 22.85 24.35 20.94 0.00 21.05 19.00 4 B. 3.3.1.2 Switch Ports/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 5.50 5.75 6.48 0.00 6.78 0.50 4 B. 3.3.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 3.49 0.00 3.52 0.00 3.66 0.98 4.03 0.00 3 G- 34 402 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.3.2.2 Local Interoffice Transport/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 1.81 2.79 1.68 3.86 1.48 3.76 1.62 8.47 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 22.57 11.54 24.00 11.59 20.69 11.76 20.82 11.89 B. 3.3.3.2 Loop + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 5.49 3.59 5.69 3.45 6.45 3.96 6.72 5.04 B. 3.3.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 22.12 4.31 23.46 4.87 20.30 4.52 20.39 5.13 B. 3.3.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 22.12 1.64 23.46 1.53 20.30 1.47 20.39 1.63 B. 3.3.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 55.62 5.14 66.87 3.56 44.06 8.84 32.41 4.30 B. 3.3.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 3.38 1.35 4.77 2.56 2.65 2.13 1.59 2.40 B. 3.3.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA( hours) 18.74 4.92 19.14 3.99 15.71 4.03 17.38 4.09 B. 3.3.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 4.73 3.43 4.77 2.30 6.04 2.83 5.63 3.44 B. 3.3.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 55.62 12.25 66.87 18.27 44.06 23.14 32.41 21.27 1 B. 3.3.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 3.38 5.63 4.77 3.53 2.65 6.88 1.59 13.46 B. 3.3.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 22.57 5.11 24.00 4.76 20.69 5.10 20.82 4.28 B. 3.3.8.2 2W Analog Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 22.57 1.95 24.00 1.97 20.69 2.42 20.82 2.21 B. 3.3.9.1 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 22.86 10.36 24.36 9.07 20.94 9.39 21.03 8.94 B. 3.3.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 5.91 8.09 6.20 9.50 7.08 7.36 7.28 6.50 4 B. 3.3.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 6.66 1.42 4.46 0.00 6.03 7.22 4.87 1.68 1,3,4 B. 3.3.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 1.82 6.98 2.27 0.42 1.79 1.37 2.02 1.00 1,2,3,4 B. 3.3.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 22.57 0.00 24.00 0.00 20.69 0.00 20.82 21.50 4 B. 3.3.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA( hours) 5.49 0.00 5.69 0.00 6.45 3.00 6.72 0.00 3 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] B. 3.4.1.1 Switch Ports/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 17.11% 17.78% 17.96% 0.00% 17.61% 100.00% 4 B. 3.4.1.2 Switch Ports/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 14.54% 15.31% 14.57% 0.00% 14.75% 0.00% 4 B. 3.4.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 22.73% 0.00% 22.33% 0.00% 18.05% 0.00% 20.85% 0.00% 3 B. 3.4.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 16.60% 0.00% 15.53% 0.00% 13.56% 25.00% 20.32% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 17.00% 14.34% 17.69% 12.31% 17.83% 12.28% 17.53% 11.16% B. 3.4.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 14.51% 12.79% 15.31% 12.63% 14.59% 11.28% 14.77% 9.95% B. 3.4.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 17.11% 26.39% 17.82% 24.38% 17.89% 24.86% 17.68% 26.60% G- 35 403 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.4.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 17.11% 17.11% 17.82% 19.00% 17.89% 20.00% 17.68% 21.71% B. 3.4.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 16.88% 4.55% 21.45% 19.44% 24.55% 6.06% 26.43% 6.25% B. 3.4.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 22.29% 0.00% 24.13% 0.00% 27.29% 0.00% 28.63% 10.00% B. 3.4.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 20.07% 18.57% 20.81% 14.29% 17.62% 11.43% 22.76% 17.91% B. 3.4.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 19.69% 9.68% 24.01% 9.09% 21.53% 11.11% 21.31% 6.06% B. 3.4.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 16.88% 50.00% 21.45% 27.27% 24.55% 55.17% 26.43% 46.15% 1 B. 3.4.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 22.29% 20.00% 24.13% 32.20% 27.29% 25.49% 28.63% 37.68% B. 3.4.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 17.00% 11.98% 17.69% 10.86% 17.83% 10.47% 17.53% 7.87% B. 3.4.8.2 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 17.00% 6.72% 17.69% 5.88% 17.83% 3.76% 17.53% 6.77% B. 3.4.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 17.08% 13.38% 17.74% 10.48% 17.94% 9.64% 17.58% 6.41% B. 3.4.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 13.98% 12.50% 15.13% 16.67% 14.25% 3.57% 14.34% 0.00% 4 B. 3.4.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 21.03% 0.00% 22.49% 0.00% 20.02% 0.00% 23.38% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 3.4.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 17.46% 0.00% 16.93% 0.00% 16.35% 50.00% 19.39% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.4.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 17.00% 0.00% 17.69% 0.00% 17.83% 0.00% 17.53% 0.00% 4 B. 3.4.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 14.51% 0.00% 15.31% 0.00% 14.59% 0.00% 14.77% 0.00% 3 Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] B. 3.5.1.1 Switch Ports/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 23.00% 24.72% 24.42% 0.00% 25.48% 0.00% 4 B. 3.5.1.2 Switch Ports/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 7.17% 8.19% 9.74% 0.00% 10.06% 0.00% B. 3.5.2.1 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.44% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.91% 0.00% 3 B. 3.5.2.2 Local Interoffice Trans port/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.40% 0.00% 0.16% 0.00% 0.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.3.1 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 22.69% 7.14% 24.27% 7.54% 24.07% 9.97% 25.11% 9.23% B. 3.5.3.2 Loo p + Port Combinations/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 7.04% 3.06% 7.85% 2.53% 9.24% 2.21% 9.60% 1.75% B. 3.5.4.1 Combo Other/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 21.71% 0.69% 23.25% 2.49% 23.14% 1.16% 24.11% 1.97% B. 3.5.4.2 Combo Other/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 21.71% 0.00% 23.25% 0.00% 23.14% 0.00% 24.11% 0.78% B. 3.5.5.1 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 49.12% 0.00% 55.07% 0.00% 46.01% 3.03% 45.82% 0.00% B. 3.5.5.2 xDSL (ADSL, HDSL and UCL)/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.25% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 1.54% 0.00% 1.75% 0.00% B. 3.5.6.1 UNE ISDN/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 18.25% 2.86% 22.73% 1.19% 16.23% 0.00% 24.32% 0.00% B. 3.5.6.2 UNE ISDN/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 2.74% 3.23% 1.95% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00% 3.15% 0.00% B. 3.5.7.1 Line Sharin g/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 49.12% 0.00% 55.07% 0.00% 46.01% 0.00% 45.82% 100.00% 4 B. 3.5.7.2 Line Sharin g/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 3.25% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 1.54% 0.00% 1.75% 0.00% B. 3.5.8.1 2W Analo g Loop Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 22.69% 4.55% 24.27% 0.37% 24.07% 2.36% 25.11% 0.39% G- 36 404 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June B. 3.5.8.2 2W Analog Loop Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 22.69% 0.00% 24.27% 0.00% 24.07% 0.75% 25.11% 0.00% B. 3.5.9.1 2W Analo g Loop Non- Design/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 23.00% 13.33% 24.72% 10.00% 24.41% 8.00% 25.47% 8.33% B. 3.5.9.2 2W Analog Loop Non- Design/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 7.18% 0.00% 8.21% 0.00% 9.76% 0.00% 10.05% 0.00% 1,2,3 B. 3.5.10.1 Other Desi gn/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.56% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.87% 0.00% 0.72% 0.00% 1,3,4 B. 3.5.10.2 Other Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.07% 0.00% 0.22% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 0.16% 0.00% 1,2,3,4 B. 3.5.11.1 Other Non- Desi gn/ Dispatch/ GA(%) 22.69% 0.00% 24.27% 0.00% 24.07% 0.00% 25.11% 0.00% B. 3.5.11.2 Other Non- Desi gn/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 7.04% 0.00% 7.85% 0.00% 9.24% 0.00% 9.60% 0.00% 3 UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] B. 4.1 GA (%) 98.28% 99.93% 98.50% 100.00% 98.72% 99.95% 98.05% 100.00% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CRIS [B- 2] B. 4.2 Re gion( business days) 3.68 7.29 3.86 4.97 3.47 3.78 3.82 3.46 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - ORDERING % Rejected Service Requests [O- 7] C. 1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (%) 6.04% 52.87% 40.74% 51.02% Reject Interval [O- 8] C. 1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (%) 100.00% 97.83% 93.18% 97.33% FOC Timeliness [O- 9] C. 1.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (%) 100.00% 98.91% 100.00% 99.24% FOC & Reject Response Completeness [O- 11] C. 1.4 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (%) 75.84% 99.16% 100.00% 99.22% LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - PROVISIONING Order Completion Interval [P- 4] C. 2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (days) 25.90 27.46 21.79 28.01 25.06 21.60 19.33 20.60 Held Orders [P- 1] C. 2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (days) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Jeopardies [P- 2] C. 2.3 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % Missed Installation Appointments [P- 3] C. 2.5 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (%) 0.00% 0.00% 9.62% 2.65% 1.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % Provisioning Troubles within 30 Days [P- 9] C. 2.6 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (%) 4.85% 0.00% 1.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% G- 37 405 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June Average Completion Notice Interval [P- 5] C. 2.7 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (hours) 185.87 11.85 234.39 30.43 289.67 56.90 125.60 15.74 Total Service Order Cycle Time [P- 10] C. 2.8 Local Interconnection Trunks/ GA (days) 29.69 27.83 23.46 22.44 % Completions w/ o Notice or < 24 hours [P- 6] C. 2.10.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Service Order Accuracy [P- 11] C. 2.11.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/< 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% C. 2.11.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,4 C. 2.11.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/>= 10 circuits/ Non- Dis patch/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Missed Repair Appointments [M& R- 1] C. 3.1.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.1.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 Customer Trouble Report Rate [M& R- 2] C. 3.2.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% C. 3.2.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.07% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% Maintenance Average Duration [M& R- 3] C. 3.3.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dispatch/ GA( hours) 1.55 0.00 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.43 0.00 C. 3.3.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dis patch/ GA( hours) 0.60 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.73 2.94 0.37 3.47 3,4 % Repeat Troubles within 30 Days [M& R- 4] C. 3.4.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.4.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 5.74% 0.00% 10.24% 0.00% 4.91% 0.00% 7.12% 0.00% 3,4 G- 38 406 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June Out of Service > 24 hours [M& R- 5] C. 3.5.1 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Dis patch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C. 3.5.2 Local Interconnection Trunks/ Non- Dispatch/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3,4 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - BILLING Invoice Accuracy [B- 1] C. 4.1 GA (%) 98.28% 99.26% 98.50% 99.26% 98.72% 99.48% 98.05% 99.07% Mean Time to Deliver Invoices - CABS [B- 2] C. 4.2 Re gion( calendar days) 4.84 4.54 3.94 3.89 4.96 4.92 4.54 4.29 LOCAL INTERCONNECTION TRUNKS - TRUNK BLOCKING Trunk Group Performance - Aggregate [TGP- 1] C. 5.1 GA 0 0 0 0 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - PRE- ORDERING % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.71% 100.00% 99.64% 100.00% D. 1.1.2 HAL/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.3 LENS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.98% 99.85% 99.76% D. 1.1.4 LEO MAINFRAME/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.6 LESOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.1.7 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.95% 99.99% 99.86% D. 1.1.8 PSIMS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 2] D. 1.2.1 ATLAS/ COFFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% D. 1.2.2 BOCRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 1.2.3 DSAP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.98% D. 1.2.4 RSAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.5 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.6 SONGS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.86% D. 1.2.7 DOE/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.26% D. 1.2.8 LNP Gatewa y/ Region(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 99.49% D. 1.2.9 COG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.48% D. 1.2.10 DOM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.11 SOG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% G- 39 407 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 1.2.1- new ATLAS/ Region (%) 100.00% 99.99% D. 1.2.2- new COFFI/ Re gion (%) 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval - CLEC (LENS) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.3.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 0.91 1782.46 1.11 2.87 1.20 2.88 1.02 D. 1.3.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 0.91 2.95 1.11 2.94 1.20 2.91 1.02 D. 1.3.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 0.91 1204.18 1.02 2.99 1.10 3.03 0.93 D. 1.3.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 0.91 4.86 1.02 4.77 1.10 4.76 0.93 D. 1.3.3.1 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 0.88 2.95 0.88 2.95 0.88 3.01 0.80 D. 1.3.3.2 ATLAS/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 0.88 2.61 0.88 2.60 0.88 2.61 0.80 D. 1.3.4.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 0.53 2.70 0.57 2.71 0.53 2.71 0.52 D. 1.3.4.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 0.53 2.58 0.57 2.57 0.53 2.57 0.52 D. 1.3.5.1 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.08 212.02 1.25 3.21 2.12 3.24 1.14 D. 1.3.5.2 CRSECSRL/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.08 2.91 1.25 2.87 2.12 2.95 1.14 D. 1.3.6.1 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.63 4.40 0.67 4.60 0.63 4.35 0.64 D. 1.3.6.2 COFFI/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.63 3.92 0.67 7.28 0.63 3.73 0.64 D. 1.3.7.1 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 4.46 0.03 4.40 0.04 4.60 0.04 4.35 0.04 D. 1.3.7.2 PSIMS/ ORB/ Re gion( seconds) 3.81 0.03 3.92 0.04 7.28 0.04 3.73 0.04 Average Response Interval - CLEC (TAG) (BST Measure Includes Additional 2 Seconds) [OSS- 1] D. 1.4.1.1 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 1440.12 1.10 1782.46 1.31 2.87 1.60 2.88 1.52 D. 1.4.1.2 RSAG, b y TN/ Region( seconds) 2.96 1.10 2.95 1.31 2.94 1.60 2.91 1.52 D. 1.4.2.1 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 712.69 1.62 1204.18 1.85 2.99 3.05 3.03 2.34 D. 1.4.2.2 RSAG, b y ADDR/ Region( seconds) 4.82 1.62 4.86 1.85 4.77 3.05 4.76 2.34 D. 1.4.4.1 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.4.2 ATLAS - DID/ Re gion( seconds) 1.48 2.18 1.76 1.37 D. 1.4.5.1 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 1330.23 1.35 2.95 1.56 2.95 1.86 3.01 1.89 D. 1.4.5.2 ATLAS - TN/ Re gion( seconds) 2.61 1.35 2.61 1.56 2.60 1.86 2.61 1.89 D. 1.4.6.1 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.68 1.58 2.70 1.71 2.71 1.74 2.71 1.83 D. 1.4.6.2 DSAP/ Re gion( seconds) 2.58 1.58 2.58 1.71 2.57 1.74 2.57 1.83 D. 1.4.7.1 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 3.20 1.75 212.02 2.15 3.21 2.51 3.24 2.85 D. 1.4.7.2 TAG/ Re gion( seconds) 2.95 1.75 2.91 2.15 2.87 2.51 2.95 2.85 OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR % Interface Availability - CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.2.1 CLEC TAFI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% G- 40 408 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June D. 2.2.2 ECTA/ Region(%) 100.00% 99.95% 100.00% 99.86% % Interface Availability - BST & CLEC [OSS- 3] D. 2.3.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.96% 99.99% D. 2.3.2 LMOS HOST/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% 100.00% D. 2.3.3 LNP/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.91% D. 2.3.4 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.5 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% D. 2.3.6 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.92% D. 2.3.7 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% Average Response Interval <= 4 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.4.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 94.91% 94.17% 94.75% 94.83% 95.12% 94.99% 94.95% 94.66% D. 2.4.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 3.07% 3.22% 3.14% 4.03% 3.16% 4.59% 2.58% 3.67% D. 2.4.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 4.30% 2.41% 4.07% 2.41% 4.03% 3.36% 4.47% 7.51% D. 2.4.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.67% 99.69% 99.63% 99.59% 99.60% 99.60% 99.61% 99.58% D. 2.4.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 78.95% 70.39% 76.71% 65.38% 78.49% 66.19% 79.21% 66.24% D. 2.4.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.78% 99.37% 99.31% 99.09% 99.68% 99.19% 99.65% 98.81% D. 2.4.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.4.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 23.94% 13.59% 27.25% 20.73% 31.23% 24.50% 33.15% 21.43% D. 2.4.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.4.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.84% 99.91% 99.83% 99.90% 99.85% 99.88% 99.81% 99.86% D. 2.4.11 NIW/ Region(%) 82.97% 81.81% 84.38% 83.15% 84.01% 83.00% 82.83% 81.89% Average Response Interval <= 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.5.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 98.99% 99.34% 98.97% 99.34% 99.05% 99.46% 99.02% 99.39% D. 2.5.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 78.81% 86.16% 78.96% 87.92% 79.20% 85.30% 77.66% 82.58% D. 2.5.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 77.94% 92.02% 77.45% 91.98% 76.65% 88.18% 71.08% 41.67% D. 2.5.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 99.81% 99.86% 99.79% 99.82% 99.79% 99.84% 99.80% 99.85% D. 2.5.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 90.95% 83.33% 89.31% 80.59% 90.04% 80.25% 90.59% 80.53% D. 2.5.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 99.93% 99.87% 99.54% 99.72% 99.81% 99.63% 99.83% 99.52% D. 2.5.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 28.35% 33.16% 28.32% 26.44% 28.04% 31.69% 28.10% 29.64% D. 2.5.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 96.89% 96.12% 97.38% 95.12% 97.81% 97.35% 98.41% 95.83% D. 2.5.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 15.78% 19.48% 15.03% 20.43% 13.82% 19.61% 12.71% 21.73% D. 2.5.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.98% 99.98% 100.00% 99.98% 100.00% D. 2.5.11 NIW/ Region(%) 99.17% 98.96% 99.49% 99.33% 99.39% 99.21% 99.42% 99.25% G- 41 409 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June Average Response Interval > 10 Seconds [OSS- 4] D. 2.6.1 CRIS/ Re gion(%) 1.01% 0.66% 1.03% 0.66% 0.95% 0.54% 0.98% 0.61% D. 2.6.2 DLETH/ Re gion(%) 21.19% 13.84% 21.04% 12.08% 20.80% 14.70% 22.34% 17.42% D. 2.6.3 DLR/ Re gion(%) 22.06% 7.98% 22.55% 8.02% 23.35% 11.82% 28.92% 58.33% D. 2.6.4 LMOS/ Re gion(%) 0.19% 0.14% 0.21% 0.18% 0.21% 0.16% 0.20% 0.15% D. 2.6.5 LMOSu pd/ Region(%) 9.05% 16.67% 10.69% 19.41% 9.96% 19.75% 9.41% 19.47% D. 2.6.6 LNP/ Re gion(%) 0.07% 0.13% 0.46% 0.28% 0.19% 0.37% 0.17% 0.48% D. 2.6.7 MARCH/ Re gion(%) 71.65% 66.84% 71.68% 73.56% 71.96% 68.31% 71.90% 70.36% D. 2.6.8 OSPCM/ Re gion(%) 3.11% 3.88% 2.62% 4.88% 2.19% 2.65% 1.59% 4.17% D. 2.6.9 Predictor/ Re gion(%) 84.22% 80.52% 84.97% 79.57% 86.18% 80.39% 87.29% 78.27% D. 2.6.10 SOCS/ Re gion(%) 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% D. 2.6.11 NIW/ Region(%) 0.83% 1.04% 0.51% 0.67% 0.61% 0.79% 0.58% 0.75% COLLOCATION - COLLOCATION Average Response Time [C- 1] E. 1.1.1 Virtual/ GA (calendar days) 6 7 5 51,2,3,4 E. 1.1.2 Ph ysical Caged/ GA( calendar days) 9 12 13 9 1,3,4 E. 1.1.3 Ph ysical Cageless/ GA( calendar days) 17 14 13 12 3,4 Average Arrangement Time [C- 2] E. 1.2.1 Virtual- Ordinar y/ GA( calendar days) 31 41 48 2,3,4 E. 1.2.3 Ph ysical Caged/ GA( calendar days) 58 57 84 79 3,4 E. 1.2.4 Ph ysical Cageless/ GA( calendar days) 48 53 57 54 1,3 % Due Dates Missed [C- 3] E. 1.3.1 Virtual/ GA (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,3,4 E. 1.3.2 Ph ysical/ GA(%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% GENERAL - FLOW THROUGH % Flow Through Service Requests [O- 3] F. 1.1.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 85.28% 86.05% 84.50% 85.96% F. 1.1.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 86.49% 87.39% 86.74% 88.58% F. 1.1.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 73.55% 71.89% 69.54% 73.74% F. 1.1.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 83.88% 84.78% 82.57% 83.84% % Flow Through Service Requests - Achieved [O- 3] F. 1.2.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% G- 42 410 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June F. 1.2.2 Aggregate/ Region(%) 75.79% 77.51% 76.58% 78.96% F. 1.2.3 Residence/ Re gion(%) 79.16% 80.53% 79.88% 81.68% F. 1.2.4 Business/ Re gion(%) 50.63% 51.15% 51.58% 53.42% F. 1.2.5 UNE/ Re gion(%) 72.17% 74.87% 74.12% 77.27% % Flow Through Service Requests - LNP [O- 3] F. 1.3.1 Summar y/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% F. 1.3.2 A ggregate/ Region(%) 92.25% 92.59% 89.75% 83.63% GENERAL - PRE- ORDERING Loop Makeup Inquiry (Manual) [PO- 1] F. 2.1 Loo ps/ GA(%) 100.00% 66.67% 38.89% 2,3 Loop Makeup Inquiry (Electronic) [PO- 2] F. 2.2 Loo ps/ GA(%) 95.99% 92.13% 97.90% 80.60% GENERAL - ORDERING Average Speed of Answer [O- 12] F. 4.1 Re gion( seconds) 141.64 30.33 137.90 28.63 194.86 35.16 259.48 58.19 GENERAL - MAINTENANCE CENTER Average Answer Time [M& R- 6] F. 5.1 Re gion( seconds) 43.10 26.35 41.00 23.60 64.68 25.99 52.80 28.04 GENERAL - OPERATOR SERVICES (TOLL) Average Speed to Answer [OS- 1] F. 6.1 GA (seconds) 2.50 2.31 2.24 2.44 % Answered in 10 seconds [OS- 2] F. 6.2 GA (%) 92.30% 93.20% 93.70% 92.80% GENERAL - DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE Average Speed to Answer [DA- 1] F. 7.1 GA (seconds) 6.11 6.25 5.79 5.66 % Answered in 12 seconds [DA- 2] F. 7.2 GA (%) 83.00% 82.10% 84.60% 85.00% GENERAL - BILLING Usage Data Delivery Accuracy [B- 3] F. 9.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.75% 100.00% 95.22% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Usage Data Delivery Timeliness [B- 5] F. 9.2 Re gion(%) 98.37% 93.14% 75.41% 94.80% 94.93% 97.64% 99.33% 99.38% G- 43 411 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June Usage Data Delivery Completeness [B- 4] F. 9.3 Re gion(%) 99.38% 99.89% 99.77% 99.54% 97.21% 99.95% 99.92% 99.91% Mean Time to Deliver Usage [B- 6] F. 9.4 Re gion( days) 3.49 3.05 6.85 3.29 4.34 2.52 3.24 2.43 Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 7] F. 9.5.1 Resale/ GA (%) 77.01% 96.32% 82.68% 94.20% 77.51% 97.80% 81.54% 98.83% F. 9.5.2 UNE/ GA (%) 99.46% 99.29% 99.11% 98.29% F. 9.5.3 Interconnection/ GA (%) 97.49% 97.47% 99.53% 90.58% Non- Recurring Charge Completeness [B- 8] F. 9.6.1 Resale/ GA (%) 90.17% 93.79% 85.38% 95.44% 90.83% 98.37% 90.45% 98.59% F. 9.6.2 UNE/ GA (%) 94.41% 95.60% 97.59% 97.67% F. 9.6.3 Interconnection/ GA (%) 69.98% 98.02% 94.37% 94.38% GENERAL - CHANGE MANAGEMENT % Software Release Notices Sent On Time [CM- 1] F. 10.1 GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 2,3 % Change Management Documentation Sent On Time [CM- 3A] F. 10.3 GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,4 % Change Management Documentation (Defects, Corrections, etc.) Sent On Time [CM- 3B] F. 10.4 GA (%) 77.78% 2 Average Documentation Release Delay Days [CM- 4] F. 10.5 GA (average) % CLEC Interface Outages Sent within 15 Minutes [CM- 5] F. 10.6 GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% GENERAL - NEW BUSINESS REQUESTS % New Business Requests Processed within 30 Business Days [BFR- 1] F. 11.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,2,3,4 % Quotes Provided within X Business Days [BFR- 2A] F. 11.2.1 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 1,3 F. 11.2.3 Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2,3,4 GENERAL - ORDERING Acknowledgement Message Timeliness [O- 1] F. 12.1.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 99.97% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% F. 12.1.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% G- 44 412 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Georgia Performance Metric Data March April May June Acknowledgement Message Completeness [O- 2] F. 12.2.1 EDI/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.62% F. 12.2.2 TAG/ Re gion(%) 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% GENERAL - DATABASE UPDATES Average Database Update Interval [D- 1] F. 13.1.1 LIDB/ GA (hours) 1.38 1.38 1.01 1.01 1.06 1.06 0.87 0.87 F. 13.1.2 Director y Listings/ GA( hours) 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 F. 13.1.3 Director y Assistance/ GA( hours) 3.65 3.44 4.03 3.63 4.15 3.29 5.98 5.09 % Update Accuracy [D- 2] F. 13.2.1 LIDB/ GA (%) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 93.48% F. 13.2.2 Director y Listings/ GA(%) 99.38% 99.03% 99.79% 99.35% F. 13.2.3 Director y Assistance/ GA(%) 100.00% 100.00% 97.87% 99.19% % NXXs / LRNs Loaded by LERG Effective Date [D- 3] F. 13.3 Re gion(%) 96.77% 100.00% 100.00% 98.41% GENERAL - NETWORK OUTAGE NOTIFICATION Mean Time to Notify CLEC of Major Network Outages [M& R- 7] F. 14.1 Region( minutes) 739 218 0 0 154 123 791 602 1,3,4 Abbreviations: blank cell = no data available Notes: 1 = Sample Size under 10 in March 2 = Sample Size under 10 in April 2 = Sample Size under 10 in May 4 = Sample Size under 10 in June G- 45 413 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Appendix H Statutory Requirements I. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 1. The 1996 Act conditions BOC entry into the market for provision of in- region interLATA services on compliance with certain provisions of section 271. 1 BOCs must apply to the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) for authorization to provide interLATA services originating in any in- region state. 2 The Commission must issue a written determination on each application no later than 90 days after receiving such application. 3 Section 271( d)( 2)( A) requires the Commission to consult with the Attorney General before making any determination approving or denying a section 271 application. The Attorney General is entitled to evaluate the application “using any standard the Attorney General considers appropriate,” and the Commission is required to “give substantial weight to the Attorney General’s evaluation.” 4 2. In addition, the Commission must consult with the relevant state commission to verify that the BOC has one or more state- approved interconnection agreements with a facilities-based competitor, or a Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions (SGAT), and that either the agreement( s) or general statement satisfy the “competitive checklist.” 5 Because the Act does not prescribe any standard for the consideration of a state commission’s verification under section 271( d)( 2)( B), the Commission has discretion in each section 271 proceeding to 1 For purposes of section 271 proceedings, the Commission uses the definition of the term “Bell Operating Company” contained in 47 U. S. C. § 153( 4). 2 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 1). For purposes of section 271 proceedings, the Commission utilizes the definition of the term “in- region state” that is contained in 47 U. S. C. § 271( i)( 1). Section 271( j) provides that a BOC’s in- region services include 800 service, private line service, or their equivalents that terminate in an in- region state of that BOC and that allow the called party to determine the interLATA carrier, even if such services originate out- of-region. Id. § 271( j). The 1996 Act defines “interLATA services” as “telecommunications between a point located in a local access and transport area and a point located outside such area.” Id. § 153( 21). Under the 1996 Act, a “local access and transport area” (LATA) is “a contiguous geographic area (A) established before the date of enactment of the [1996 Act] by a [BOC] such that no exchange area includes points within more than 1 metropolitan statistical area, consolidated metropolitan statistical area, or State, except as expressly permitted under the AT& T Consent Decree; or (B) established or modified by a [BOC] after such date of enactment and approved by the Commission.” Id. § 153( 25). LATAs were created as part of the Modification of Final Judgment’s (MFJ) “plan of reorganization.” United States v. Western Elec. Co., 569 F. Supp. 1057 (D. D. C. 1983), aff’d sub nom. California v. United States, 464 U. S. 1013 (1983). Pursuant to the MFJ, “all [BOC] territory in the continental United States [was] divided into LATAs, generally centering upon a city or other identifiable community of interest.” United States v. Western Elec. Co., 569 F. Supp. 990, 993- 94 (D. D. C. 1983). 3 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3). 4 Id. § 271( d)( 2)( A). 5 Id. § 271( d)( 2)( B). 414 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 2 determine the amount of weight to accord the state commission’s verification. 6 The Commission has held that, although it will consider carefully state determinations of fact that are supported by a detailed and extensive record, it is the FCC’s role to determine whether the factual record supports the conclusion that particular requirements of section 271 have been met. 7 3. Section 271 requires the Commission to make various findings before approving BOC entry. In order for the Commission to approve a BOC’s application to provide in- region, interLATA services, a BOC must first demonstrate, with respect to each state for which it seeks authorization, that it satisfies the requirements of either section 271( c)( 1)( A) (Track A) or 271( c)( 1)( B) (Track B). 8 In order to obtain authorization under section 271, the BOC must also show that: (1) it has “fully implemented the competitive checklist” contained in section 271( c)( 2)( B); 9 (2) the requested authorization will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of section 272; 10 and (3) the BOC’s entry into the in- region interLATA market is “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” 11 The statute specifies that, unless the Commission finds that these criteria have been satisfied, the Commission “shall not approve” the requested authorization. 12 6 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3962, para. 20; Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 97- 137, 12 FCC Rcd 20543, 20559- 60 (1997) (Ameritech Michigan Order). As the D. C. Circuit has held, “[ a] lthough the Commission must consult with the state commissions, the statute does not require the Commission to give State Commissions’ views any particular weight.” SBC Communications Inc. v. FCC, 138 F. 3d 410, 416 (D. C. Cir. 1998). 7 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20560; SBC Communications v. FCC, 138 F. 3d at 416- 17. 8 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( A). See Section III, infra, for a complete discussion of Track A and Track B requirements. 9 Id. §§ 271( c)( 2)( B), 271( d)( 3)( A)( i). 10 Id. § 272; see Implementation of the Non- Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 96- 149, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905 (1996) (Non- Accounting Safeguards Order), recon., Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2297 (1997), review pending sub nom., SBC Communications v. FCC, No. 97- 1118 (D. C. Cir., filed Mar. 6, 1997) (held in abeyance pursuant to court order filed May 7, 1997), remanded in part sub nom., Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v. FCC, No. 97- 1067 (D. C. Cir., filed Mar. 31, 1997), on remand, Second Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97- 222 (rel. June 24, 1997), petition for review denied sub nom. Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v. FCC, 113 F. 3d 1044 (D. C. Cir. 1997); Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Accounting Safeguards Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 (1996). 11 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( C). 12 Id. § 271( d)( 3); see SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 138 F. 3d at 416. 415 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 3 II. PROCEDURAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK 4. To determine whether a BOC applicant has met the prerequisites for entry into the long distance market, the Commission evaluates its compliance with the competitive checklist, as developed in the FCC’s local competition rules and orders in effect at the time the application was filed. Despite the comprehensiveness of these rules, there will inevitably be, in any section 271 proceeding, disputes over an incumbent LEC’s precise obligations to its competitors that FCC rules have not addressed and that do not involve per se violations of self- executing requirements of the Act. As explained in prior orders, the section 271 process simply could not function as Congress intended if the Commission were required to resolve all such disputes as a precondition to granting a section 271 application. 13 In the context of section 271’s adjudicatory framework, the Commission has established certain procedural rules governing BOC section 271 applications. 14 The Commission has explained in prior orders the procedural rules it has developed to facilitate the review process. 15 Here we describe how the Commission considers the evidence of compliance that the BOC presents in its application. 5. As part of the determination that a BOC has satisfied the requirements of section 271, the Commission considers whether the BOC has fully implemented the competitive checklist in subsection (c)( 2)( B). The BOC at all times bears the burden of proof of compliance with section 271, even if no party challenges its compliance with a particular requirement. 16 In demonstrating its compliance, a BOC must show that it has a concrete and specific legal obligation to furnish the item upon request pursuant to state- approved interconnection agreements that set forth prices and other terms and conditions for each checklist item, and that it is currently furnishing, or is ready to furnish, the checklist items in quantities that competitors may reasonably demand and at an acceptable level of quality. 17 In particular, the BOC must demonstrate that it is offering interconnection and access to network elements on a 13 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6246, para. 19; see also American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 220 F. 3d 607, 631 (D. C. Cir. 2000). 14 See Procedures for Bell Operating Company Applications Under New Section 271 of the Communications Act, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 19708, 19711 (1996); Revised Comment Schedule For Ameritech Michigan Application, as amended, for Authorization Under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in the State of Michigan, Public Notice, DA 97- 127 (rel. Jan. 17, 1997); Revised Procedures for Bell Operating Company Applications Under Section 271 of the Communications Act, Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 17457 (1997); Updated Filing Requirements for Bell Operating Company Applications Under Section 271 of the Communications Act, Public Notice, DA 99- 1994 (rel. Sept. 28, 1999); Updated Filing Requirements for Bell Operating Company Applications Under Section 271 of the Communications Act, Public Notice, DA 01- 734 (CCB rel. Mar. 23, 2001) (collectively “271 Procedural Public Notices”). 15 See, e. g., SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order 16 FCC Rcd at 6247- 50, paras. 21- 27; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18370- 73, paras. 34- 42; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3968- 71, paras. 32- 42. 16 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18374, para. 46; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3972, para. 46. 17 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973- 74, para. 52. 416 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 4 nondiscriminatory basis. 18 Previous Commission orders addressing section 271 applications have elaborated on this statutory standard. 19 First, for those functions the BOC provides to competing carriers that are analogous to the functions a BOC provides to itself in connection with its own retail service offerings, the BOC must provide access to competing carriers in “substantially the same time and manner” as it provides to itself. 20 Thus, where a retail analogue exists, a BOC must provide access that is equal to (i. e., substantially the same as) the level of access that the BOC provides itself, its customers, or its affiliates, in terms of quality, accuracy, and timeliness. 21 For those functions that have no retail analogue, the BOC must demonstrate that the access it provides to competing carriers would offer an efficient carrier a “meaningful opportunity to compete.” 22 6. The determination of whether the statutory standard is met is ultimately a judgment the Commission must make based on its expertise in promoting competition in local markets and in telecommunications regulation generally. 23 The Commission has not established, nor does it believe it appropriate to establish, specific objective criteria for what constitutes “substantially the same time and manner” or a “meaningful opportunity to compete.” 24 Whether this legal standard is met can only be decided based on an analysis of specific facts and circumstances. Therefore, the Commission looks at each application on a case- by- case basis and considers the totality of the circumstances, including the origin and quality of the information in the record, to determine whether the nondiscrimination requirements of the Act are met. A. Performance Data 7. As established in prior section 271 orders, the Commission has found that performance measurements provide valuable evidence regarding a BOC’s compliance or noncompliance with individual checklist items. The Commission expects that, in its prima facie case in the initial application, a BOC relying on performance data will: 18 See 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( i), (ii). 19 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6250- 51, paras. 28- 29; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3971- 72, paras. 44- 46. 20 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18373, para. 44; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3971, para. 44. 21 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3971, para. 44; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20618- 19. 22 Id. 23 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18374, para. 46; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3972, para. 46. 24 Id. 417 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 5 a) provide sufficient performance data to support its contention that the statutory requirements are satisfied; b) identify the facial disparities between the applicant’s performance for itself and its performance for competitors; c) explain why those facial disparities are anomalous, caused by forces beyond the applicant’s control (e. g., competing carrier- caused errors), or have no meaningful adverse impact on a competing carrier’s ability to obtain and serve customers; and d) provide the underlying data, analysis, and methodologies necessary to enable the Commission and commenters meaningfully to evaluate and contest the validity of the applicant’s explanations for performance disparities, including, for example, carrier specific carrier- to- carrier performance data. 8. The Commission has explained in prior orders that parity and benchmark standards established by state commissions do not represent absolute maximum or minimum levels of performance necessary to satisfy the competitive checklist. Rather, where these standards are developed through open proceedings with input from both the incumbent and competing carriers, these standards can represent informed and reliable attempts to objectively approximate whether competing carriers are being served by the incumbent in substantially the same time and manner, or in a way that provides them a meaningful opportunity to compete. 25 Thus, to the extent there is no statistically significant difference between a BOC’s provision of service to competing carriers and its own retail customers, the Commission generally need not look any further. Likewise, if a BOC’s provision of service to competing carriers satisfies the performance benchmark, the analysis is usually done. Otherwise, the Commission will examine the evidence further to make a determination whether the statutory nondiscrimination requirements are met. 26 Thus, the Commission will examine the explanations that a BOC and others provide about whether these data accurately depict the quality of the BOC’s performance. The Commission also may examine how many months a variation in performance has existed and what the recent trend has been. The Commission may find that statistically significant differences exist, but conclude that such differences have little or no competitive significance in the marketplace. In such cases, the Commission may conclude that the differences are not meaningful in terms of statutory compliance. Ultimately, the determination of whether a BOC’s performance meets the statutory requirements necessarily is a contextual decision based on the totality of the circumstances and information before the Commission. 9. Where there are multiple performance measures associated with a particular checklist item, the Commission would consider the performance demonstrated by all the measurements as a whole. Accordingly, a disparity in performance for one measure, by itself, 25 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6252, para. 31; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18377, para. 55 & n. 102. 26 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3970, para. 59. 418 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 6 may not provide a basis for finding noncompliance with the checklist. The Commission may also find that the reported performance data are affected by factors beyond a BOC’s control, a finding that would make it less likely to hold the BOC wholly accountable for the disparity. This is not to say, however, that performance discrepancies on a single performance metric are unimportant. Indeed, under certain circumstances, disparity with respect to one performance measurement may support a finding of statutory noncompliance, particularly if the disparity is substantial or has endured for a long time, or if it is accompanied by other evidence of discriminatory conduct or evidence that competing carriers have been denied a meaningful opportunity to compete. 10. In sum, the Commission does not use performance measurements as a substitute for the 14- point competitive checklist. Rather, it uses performance measurements as valuable evidence with which to inform the judgment as to whether a BOC has complied with the checklist requirements. Although performance measurements add necessary objectivity and predictability to the review, they cannot wholly replace the Commission’s own judgment as to whether a BOC has complied with the competitive checklist. B. Relevance of Previous Section 271 Approvals 11. In some section 271 applications, the volumes of the BOC’s commercial orders may be significantly lower than they were in prior proceedings. In certain instances, volumes may be so low as to render the performance data inconsistent and inconclusive. 27 Performance data based on low volumes of orders or other transactions are not as reliable an indicator of checklist compliance as performance based on larger numbers of observations. Indeed, where performance data are based on a low number of observations, small variations in performance may produce wide swings in the reported performance data. It is thus not possible to place the same evidentiary weight upon – and to draw the same types of conclusions from – performance data where volumes are low, as for data based on more robust activity. 12. In such cases, findings in prior, related section 271 proceedings may be a relevant factor in the Commission’s analysis. Where a BOC provides evidence that a particular system reviewed and approved in a prior section 271 proceeding is also used in the proceeding at hand, the Commission’s review of the same system in the current proceeding will be informed by the findings in the prior one. Indeed, to the extent that issues have already been briefed, reviewed and resolved in a prior section 271 proceeding, and absent new evidence or changed circumstances, an application for a related state should not be a forum for re- litigating and reconsidering those issues. Appropriately employed, such a practice can give us a fuller picture of the BOC’s compliance with the section 271 requirements while avoiding, for all parties 27 The Commission has never required, however, an applicant to demonstrate that it processes and provisions a substantial commercial volume of orders, or has achieved a specific market share in its service area, as a prerequisite for satisfying the competitive checklist. See Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20585, para. 77 (explaining that Congress had considered and rejected language that would have imposed a “market share” requirement in section 271( c)( 1)( A)). 419 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 7 involved in the section 271 process, the delay and expense associated with redundant and unnecessary proceedings and submissions. 13. However, the statute requires the Commission to make a separate determination of checklist compliance for each state and, accordingly, we do not consider any finding from previous section 271 orders to be dispositive of checklist compliance in current proceedings. While the Commission’s review may be informed by prior findings, the Commission will consider all relevant evidence in the record, including state- specific factors identified by commenting parties, the states, the Department of Justice. However, the Commission has always held that an applicant’s performance towards competing carriers in an actual commercial environment is the best evidence of nondiscriminatory access to OSS and other network elements. 28 Thus, the BOC’s actual performance in the applicant state may be relevant to the analysis and determinations with respect to the 14 checklist items. Evidence of satisfactory performance in another state cannot trump convincing evidence that an applicant fails to provide nondiscriminatory access to a network element in the applicant state. 14. Moreover, because the Commission’s review of a section 271 application must be based on a snapshot of a BOC’s recent performance at the time an application is filed, the Commission cannot simply rely on findings relating to an applicant’s performance in an anchor state at the time it issued the determination for that state. The performance in that state could change due to a multitude of factors, such as increased order volumes or shifts in the mix of the types of services or UNEs requested by competing carriers. Thus, even when the applicant makes a convincing showing of the relevance of anchor state data, the Commission must examine how recent performance in that state compares to performance at the time it approved that state’s section 271 application, in order to determine if the systems and processes continue to perform at acceptable levels. III. COMPLIANCE WITH ENTRY REQUIREMENTS – SECTIONS 271( c)( 1)( A) & 271( c)( 1)( B) 15. As noted above, in order for the Commission to approve a BOC’s application to provide in- region, interLATA services, a BOC must first demonstrate that it satisfies the requirements of either section 271( c)( 1)( A) (Track A) or 271( c)( 1)( B) (Track B). 29 To qualify for Track A, a BOC must have interconnection agreements with one or more competing providers of “telephone exchange service . . . to residential and business subscribers.” 30 The Act states that “such telephone service may be offered . . . either exclusively over [the competitor’s] own telephone exchange service facilities or predominantly over [the competitor’s] own telephone exchange facilities in combination with the resale of the telecommunications services 28 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18376, para. 53; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3974, para. 53. 29 See 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( A). 30 Id. 420 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 8 of another carrier.” 31 The Commission concluded in the Ameritech Michigan Order that section 271( c)( 1)( A) is satisfied if one or more competing providers collectively serve residential and business subscribers. 32 16. As an alternative to Track A, Section 271( c)( 1)( B) permits BOCs to obtain authority to provide in- region, interLATA services if, after 10 months from the date of enactment, no facilities- based provider, as described in subparagraph (A), has requested the access and interconnection arrangements described therein (referencing one or more binding agreements approved under Section 252), but the state has approved an SGAT that satisfies the competitive checklist of subsection (c)( 2)( B). Under section 271( d)( 3)( A)( ii), the Commission shall not approve such a request for in- region, interLATA service unless the BOC demonstrates that, “with respect to access and interconnection generally offered pursuant to [an SGAT], such statement offers all of the items included in the competitive checklist.” 33 Track B, however, is not available to a BOC if it has already received a request for access and interconnection from a prospective competing provider of telephone exchange service. 34 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPETITIVE CHECKLIST – SECTION 271( c)( 2)( B) A. Checklist Item 1 – Interconnection 17. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( i) of the Act requires a section 271 applicant to provide “[ i] nterconnection in accordance with the requirements of sections 251( c)( 2) and 252( d)( 1).” 35 Section 251( c)( 2) imposes a duty on incumbent LECs “to provide, for the facilities and equipment of any requesting telecommunications carrier, interconnection with the local exchange carrier’s network . . . for the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange access.” 36 In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that interconnection referred “only to the physical linking of two networks for the 31 Id. 32 See Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20589, para. 85; see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20633- 35, paras. 46- 48. 33 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( A)( ii). 34 See Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20561- 62, para. 34. Nevertheless, the above- mentioned foreclosure of Track B as an option is subject to limited exceptions. See 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 1)( B); see also Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20563- 64, paras. 37- 38. 35 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( i); see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3977- 78, para. 63; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640, para. 61; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20662, para. 222. 36 47 U. S. C. § 251( c)( 2)( A). 421 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 9 mutual exchange of traffic.” 37 Section 251 contains three requirements for the provision of interconnection. First, an incumbent LEC must provide interconnection “at any technically feasible point within the carrier’s network.” 38 Second, an incumbent LEC must provide interconnection that is “at least equal in quality to that provided by the local exchange carrier to itself.” 39 Finally, the incumbent LEC must provide interconnection “on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the requirements of [section 251] and section 252.” 40 18. To implement the equal- in- quality requirement in section 251, the Commission’s rules require an incumbent LEC to design and operate its interconnection facilities to meet “the same technical criteria and service standards” that are used for the interoffice trunks within the incumbent LEC’s network. 41 In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission identified trunk group blockage and transmission standards as indicators of an incumbent LEC’s technical criteria and service standards. 42 In prior section 271 applications, the Commission concluded that disparities in trunk group blockage indicated a failure to provide interconnection to competing carriers equal- in- quality to the interconnection the BOC provided to its own retail operations. 43 19. In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the requirement to provide interconnection on terms and conditions that are “just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” means that an incumbent LEC must provide interconnection to a competitor in a manner no less efficient than the way in which the incumbent LEC provides the 37 Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15590, para. 176 (1996) (Local Competition First Report and Order). Transport and termination of traffic are therefore excluded from the Commission’s definition of interconnection. See id. 38 47 U. S. C. § 251( c)( 2)( B). In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission identified a minimum set of technically feasible points of interconnection. See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15607- 09, paras. 204- 11. 39 47 U. S. C. § 251( c)( 2)( C). 40 Id. § 251( c)( 2)( D). 41 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15613- 15, paras. 221- 225; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 64; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20641- 42, paras. 63- 64. 42 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15614- 15, paras. 224- 25. 43 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 64; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20648- 50, paras. 74- 77; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20671- 74, paras. 240- 45. The Commission has relied on trunk blockage data to evaluate a BOC’s interconnection performance. Trunk group blockage indicates that end users are experiencing difficulty completing or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer’s perception of a competitive LEC’s service quality. 422 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 10 comparable function to its own retail operations. 44 The Commission’s rules interpret this obligation to include, among other things, the incumbent LEC’s installation time for interconnection service 45 and its provisioning of two- way trunking arrangements. 46 Similarly, repair time for troubles affecting interconnection trunks is useful for determining whether a BOC provides interconnection service under “terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions” the BOC provides to its own retail operations. 47 20. Competing carriers may choose any method of technically feasible interconnection at a particular point on the incumbent LEC’s network. 48 Incumbent LEC provision of interconnection trunking is one common means of interconnection. Technically feasible methods also include, but are not limited to, physical and virtual collocation and meet point arrangements. 49 The provision of collocation is an essential prerequisite to demonstrating compliance with item 1 of the competitive checklist. 50 In the Advanced Services First Report and Order, the Commission revised its collocation rules to require incumbent LECs to include shared cage and cageless collocation arrangements as part of their physical collocation offerings. 51 In response to a remand from the D. C. Circuit, the Commission adopted the Collocation Remand Order, establishing revised criteria for equipment for which incumbent LECs must permit collocation, requiring incumbent LECs to provide cross- connects between 44 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 45 47 C. F. R. § 51.305( a)( 5). 46 The Commission’s rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two- way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C. F. R. § 51.305( f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978- 79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612- 13, paras. 219- 20. 47 47 C. F. R. § 51.305( a)( 5). 48 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549- 50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640- 41, para. 61. 49 47 C. F. R. § 51.321( b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779- 82, paras. 549- 50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640- 41, para. 62. 50 47 U. S. C. § 251( c)( 6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640- 41, paras. 61- 62. 51 Deployment of Wireline Services offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 4761, 4784- 86, paras. 41- 43 (1999), aff’d in part and vacated and remanded in part sub nom. GTE Service Corp. v. FCC, 205 F. 3d 416 (D. C. Cir. 2000), on recon., Collocation Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17806 (2000); on remand, Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, Fourth Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 15435 (2001) (Collocation Remand Order), petition for recon. pending. 423 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 11 collocated carriers, and establishing principles for physical collocation space and configuration. 52 To show compliance with its collocation obligations, a BOC must have processes and procedures in place to ensure that all applicable collocation arrangements are available on terms and conditions that are “just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” in accordance with section 251( c)( 6) and the FCC’s implementing rules. 53 Data showing the quality of procedures for processing applications for collocation space, as well as the timeliness and efficiency of provisioning collocation space, help the Commission evaluate a BOC’s compliance with its collocation obligations. 54 21. As stated above, checklist item 1 requires a BOC to provide “interconnection in accordance with the requirements of sections 251( c)( 2) and 252( d)( 1).” 55 Section 252( d)( 1) requires state determinations regarding the rates, terms, and conditions of interconnection to be based on cost and to be nondiscriminatory, and allows the rates to include a reasonable profit. 56 The Commission’s pricing rules require, among other things, that in order to comply with its collocation obligations, an incumbent LEC provide collocation based on TELRIC. 57 22. To the extent pricing disputes arise, the Commission will not duplicate the work of the state commissions. As noted in the SWBT Texas Order, the Act authorizes the state commissions to resolve specific carrier- to- carrier disputes arising under the local competition provisions, and it authorizes the federal district courts to ensure that the results of the state arbitration process are consistent with federal law. 58 Although the Commission has an independent statutory obligation to ensure compliance with the checklist, section 271 does not compel us to preempt the orderly disposition of intercarrier disputes by the state commissions, particularly now that the Supreme Court has restored the Commission’s pricing jurisdiction and has thereby directed the state commissions to follow FCC pricing rules in their disposition of those disputes. 59 52 See Collocation Remand Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 15441- 42, para. 12. 53 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649- 51, para. 62. 54 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640- 41, paras. 61- 62. 55 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( i) (emphasis added). 56 Id. § 252( d)( 1). 57 See 47 C. F. R. §§ 51.501- 07, 51.509( g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812- 16, 15844- 61, 15874- 76, 15912, paras. 618- 29, 674- 712, 743- 51, 826. 58 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U. S. C. §§ 252( c), (e)( 6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U. S. 366 (1999) (AT& T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). 59 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; AT& T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U. S. at 377- 86. 424 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 12 23. Consistent with the Commission’s precedent, the mere presence of interim rates will not generally threaten a section 271 application so long as: (1) an interim solution to a particular rate dispute is reasonable under the circumstances; (2) the state commission has demonstrated its commitment to the Commission’s pricing rules; and (3) provision is made for refunds or true- ups once permanent rates are set. 60 In addition, the Commission has determined that rates contained within an approved section 271 application, including those that are interim, are reasonable starting points for interim rates for the same carrier in an adjoining state. 61 24. Although the Commission has been willing to grant a section 271 application with a limited number of interim rates where the above- mentioned three- part test is met, it is clearly preferable to analyze a section 271 application on the basis of rates derived from a permanent rate proceeding. 62 At some point, states will have had sufficient time to complete these proceedings. The Commission will, therefore, become more reluctant to continue approving section 271 applications containing interim rates. It would not be sound policy for interim rates to become a substitute for completing these significant proceedings. B. Checklist Item 2 – Unbundled Network Elements 63 1. Access to Operations Support Systems 25. Incumbent LECs use a variety of systems, databases, and personnel (collectively referred to as OSS) to provide service to their customers. 64 The Commission consistently has 60 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4091, para. 258 (explaining the Commission’s case- by- case review of interim prices). 61 SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6359- 60, para. 239. 62 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4091, para. 260. 63 We note that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently opined in two relevant Commission decisions, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 3696 (1999) (Local Competition Order) and Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order in CC Doc. No. 98- 147 and Fourth Report and Order in CC Doc. No. 96- 98, 14 FCC Rcd 20912 (1999) (Line Sharing Order). USTA v. FCC, 290 F. 3d 415 (D. C. Cir. 2002), petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc denied Sept. 4, 2002. The court's decision addressed both our UNE rules and our line sharing rules. The Commission is currently reviewing its UNE rules, Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 16 FCC Rcd 22781 (2001) (Triennial Review Notice). Further, the court stated that “the Line Sharing Order must be vacated and remanded.” USTA v. FCC, 290 F. 3d at 429. The court also stated that it “grant[ ed] the petitions for review[] and remand[ ed] the Line Sharing Order and the Local Competition Order to the Commission for further consideration in accordance with the principles outlined.” Id. at 430. On September 4, 2002, the D. C. Circuit denied petitions for rehearing filed by the Commission and others. See Order, Nos. 00- 1012 and 00- 1015 (D. C. Circuit, filed Sept. 4, 2002). 64 Id. at 3989- 90, para. 83; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 585. 425 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 13 found that nondiscriminatory access to OSS is a prerequisite to the development of meaningful local competition. 65 For example, new entrants must have access to the functions performed by the incumbent’s OSS in order to formulate and place orders for network elements or resale services, to install service to their customers, to maintain and repair network facilities, and to bill customers. 66 The Commission has determined that without nondiscriminatory access to the BOC’s OSS, a competing carrier “will be severely disadvantaged, if not precluded altogether, from fairly competing” in the local exchange market. 67 26. Section 271 requires the Commission to determine whether a BOC offers nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii) requires a BOC to provide “nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections 251( c)( 3) and 252( d)( 1).” 68 The Commission has determined that access to OSS functions falls squarely within an incumbent LEC’s duty under section 251( c)( 3) to provide unbundled network elements (UNEs) under terms and conditions that are nondiscriminatory and just and reasonable, and its duty under section 251( c)( 4) to offer resale services without imposing any limitations or conditions that are discriminatory or unreasonable. 69 The Commission must therefore examine a BOC’s OSS performance to evaluate compliance with section 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii) and (xiv). 70 In addition, the Commission has also concluded that the duty to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions is embodied in other terms of the competitive checklist as well. 71 Consistent with prior orders, the Commission examines a BOC’s OSS performance directly under checklist items 2 and 14, as well as other checklist terms. 72 27. As part of its statutory obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions, a BOC must provide access that sufficiently supports each of the three modes of competitive entry envisioned by the 1996 Act – competitor- owned facilities, UNEs, and resale. 73 65 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3990, para. 83; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 547- 48, 585; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20653. 66 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3990, para. 83. 67 Id. 68 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii). 69 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3990, para. 84. 70 Id. 71 Id. As part of a BOC’s demonstration that it is “providing” a checklist item (e. g., unbundled loops, unbundled local switching, resale services), it must demonstrate that it is providing nondiscriminatory access to the systems, information, and personnel that support that element or service. An examination of a BOC’s OSS performance is therefore integral to the determination of whether a BOC is offering all of the items contained in the competitive checklist. Id. 72 Id. at 3990- 91, para. 84. 73 Id. at 3991, para. 85. 426 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 14 For OSS functions that are analogous to those that a BOC provides to itself, its customers or its affiliates, the nondiscrimination standard requires the BOC to offer requesting carriers access that is equivalent in terms of quality, accuracy, and timeliness. 74 The BOC must provide access that permits competing carriers to perform these functions in “substantially the same time and manner” as the BOC. 75 The Commission has recognized in prior orders that there may be situations in which a BOC contends that, although equivalent access has not been achieved for an analogous function, the access that it provides is nonetheless nondiscriminatory within the meaning of the statute. 76 28. For OSS functions that have no retail analogue, the BOC must offer access “sufficient to allow an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete.” 77 In assessing whether the quality of access affords an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete, the Commission will examine, in the first instance, whether specific performance standards exist for those functions. 78 In particular, the Commission will consider whether appropriate standards for measuring OSS performance have been adopted by the relevant state commission or agreed upon by the BOC in an interconnection agreement or during the implementation of such an agreement. 79 If such performance standards exist, the Commission will evaluate whether the BOC’s performance is sufficient to allow an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete. 80 29. The Commission analyzes whether a BOC has met the nondiscrimination standard for each OSS function using a two- step approach. First, the Commission determines “whether the BOC has deployed the necessary systems and personnel to provide sufficient access to each of the necessary OSS functions and whether the BOC is adequately assisting competing carriers to understand how to implement and use all of the OSS functions available to 74 Id. 75 Id. For example, the Commission would not deem an incumbent LEC to be providing nondiscriminatory access to OSS if limitations on the processing of information between the interface and the back office systems prevented a competitor from performing a specific function in substantially the same time and manner as the incumbent performs that function for itself. 76 See id. 77 Id. at 3991, para. 86. 78 Id. 79 Id. As a general proposition, specific performance standards adopted by a state commission in an arbitration decision would be more persuasive evidence of commercial reasonableness than a standard unilaterally adopted by the BOC outside of its interconnection agreement. Id. at 20619- 20. 80 See id. at 3991- 92, para. 86. 427 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 15 them.” 81 The Commission next assesses “whether the OSS functions that the BOC has deployed are operationally ready, as a practical matter.” 82 30. Under the first inquiry, a BOC must demonstrate that it has developed sufficient electronic (for functions that the BOC accesses electronically) and manual interfaces to allow competing carriers equivalent access to all of the necessary OSS functions. 83 For example, a BOC must provide competing carriers with the specifications necessary for carriers to design or modify their systems in a manner that will enable them to communicate with the BOC’s systems and any relevant interfaces. 84 In addition, a BOC must disclose to competing carriers any internal business rules 85 and other formatting information necessary to ensure that a carrier’s requests and orders are processed efficiently. 86 Finally, a BOC must demonstrate that its OSS is designed to accommodate both current demand and projected demand for competing carriers’ access to OSS functions. 87 Although not a prerequisite, the Commission continues to encourage the use of industry standards as an appropriate means of meeting the needs of a competitive local exchange market. 88 31. Under the second inquiry, the Commission examines performance measurements and other evidence of commercial readiness to ascertain whether the BOC’s OSS is handling 81 Id. at 3992, para. 87; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20616; see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20654; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 592- 93. In making this determination, the Commission “consider[ s] all of the automated and manual processes a BOC has undertaken to provide access to OSS functions,” including the interface (or gateway) that connects the competing carrier’s own operations support systems to the BOC; any electronic or manual processing link between that interface and the BOC’s OSS (including all necessary back office systems and personnel); and all of the OSS that a BOC uses in providing network elements and resale services to a competing carrier. Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20615; see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20654 n. 241. 82 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3992, para. 88. 83 Id. at 3992, para. 87; see also Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20616, para. 136 (The Commission determines “whether the BOC has deployed the necessary systems and personnel to provide sufficient access to each of the necessary OSS functions and whether the BOC is adequately assisting competing carriers to understand how to implement and use all of the OSS functions available to them.”). For example, a BOC must provide competing carriers the specifications necessary to design their systems interfaces and business rules necessary to format orders, and demonstrate that systems are scalable to handle current and projected demand. Id. 84 Id. 85 Business rules refer to the protocols that a BOC uses to ensure uniformity in the format of orders and include information concerning ordering codes such as universal service ordering codes (USOCs) and field identifiers (FIDs). Id.; see also Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20617 n. 335. 86 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3992, para. 88. 87 Id. 88 See id. 428 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 16 current demand and will be able to handle reasonably foreseeable future volumes. 89 The most probative evidence that OSS functions are operationally ready is actual commercial usage. 90 Absent sufficient and reliable data on commercial usage, the Commission will consider the results of carrier- to- carrier testing, independent third- party testing, and internal testing in assessing the commercial readiness of a BOC’s OSS. 91 Although the Commission does not require OSS testing, a persuasive test will provide us with an objective means by which to evaluate a BOC’s OSS readiness where there is little to no evidence of commercial usage, or may otherwise strengthen an application where the BOC’s evidence of actual commercial usage is weak or is otherwise challenged by competitors. The persuasiveness of a third- party review, however, is dependent upon the qualifications, experience and independence of the third party and the conditions and scope of the review itself. 92 If the review is limited in scope or depth or is not independent and blind, the Commission will give it minimal weight. As noted above, to the extent the Commission reviews performance data, it looks at the totality of the circumstances and generally does not view individual performance disparities, particularly if they are isolated and slight, as dispositive of whether a BOC has satisfied its checklist obligations. 93 Individual performance disparities may, nevertheless, result in a finding of checklist noncompliance, particularly if the disparity is substantial or has endured for a long time, or if it is accompanied by other evidence of discriminatory conduct or evidence that competing carriers have been denied a meaningful opportunity to compete. a. Relevance of a BOC’s Prior Section 271 Orders 32. The SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order specifically outlined a non- exhaustive evidentiary showing that must be made in the initial application when a BOC seeks to rely on evidence presented in another application. 94 First, a BOC’s application must explain the extent to which the OSS are “the same” – that is, whether it employs the shared use of a single OSS, or the use of systems that are identical, but separate. 95 To satisfy this inquiry, the Commission looks to whether the relevant states utilize a common set of processes, business rules, interfaces, 89 Id. at 3993, para. 89. 90 Id. 91 Id. 92 See id.; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20659 (emphasizing that a third- party review should encompass the entire obligation of the incumbent LEC to provide nondiscriminatory access, and, where applicable, should consider the ability of actual competing carriers in the market to operate using the incumbent’s OSS access). 93 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6301- 02, para. 138. 94 See id. at 6286- 91, paras. 107- 18. 95 See id. at 6288, para. 111. 429 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 17 systems and, in many instances, even personnel. 96 The Commission will also carefully examine third party reports that demonstrate that the BOC’s OSS are the same in each of the relevant states. 97 Finally, where a BOC has discernibly separate OSS, it must demonstrate that its OSS reasonably can be expected to behave in the same manner. 98 Second, unless an applicant seeks to establish only that certain discrete components of its OSS are the same, an applicant must submit evidence relating to all aspects of its OSS, including those OSS functions performed by BOC personnel. b. Pre- Ordering 33. A BOC must demonstrate that: (i) it offers nondiscriminatory access to OSS pre-ordering functions associated with determining whether a loop is capable of supporting xDSL advanced technologies; (ii) competing carriers successfully have built and are using application-to- application interfaces to perform pre- ordering functions and are able to integrate pre- ordering and ordering interfaces; 99 and (iii) its pre- ordering systems provide reasonably prompt response times and are consistently available in a manner that affords competitors a meaningful opportunity to compete. 100 34. The pre- ordering phase of OSS generally includes those activities that a carrier undertakes to gather and verify the information necessary to place an order. 101 Given that pre-ordering represents the first exposure that a prospective customer has to a competing carrier, it is 96 The Commission has consistently held that a BOC’s OSS includes both mechanized systems and manual processes, and thus the OSS functions performed by BOC personnel have been part of the FCC’s OSS functionality and commercial readiness reviews. 97 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, id. at 6287, para. 108. 98 See id. at 6288, para. 111. 99 In prior orders, the Commission has emphasized that providing pre- ordering functionality through an application- to- application interface is essential in enabling carriers to conduct real- time processing and to integrate pre- ordering and ordering functions in the same manner as the BOC. SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18426, para. 148. 100 The Commission has held previously that an interface that provides responses in a prompt timeframe and is stable and reliable, is necessary for competing carriers to market their services and serve their customers as efficiently and at the same level of quality as a BOC serves its own customers. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4025 and 4029, paras. 145 and 154. 101 See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4014, para. 129; see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20660, para. 94 (referring to “pre- ordering and ordering” collectively as “the exchange of information between telecommunications carriers about current or proposed customer products and services or unbundled network elements or some combination thereof”). In prior orders, the Commission has identified the following five pre- order functions: (1) customer service record (CSR) information; (2) address validation; (3) telephone number information; (4) due date information; (5) services and feature information. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4015, para. 132; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20660, para. 94; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 619, para. 147. 430 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 18 critical that a competing carrier is able to accomplish pre- ordering activities in a manner no less efficient and responsive than the incumbent. 102 Most of the pre- ordering activities that must be undertaken by a competing carrier to order resale services and UNEs from the incumbent are analogous to the activities a BOC must accomplish to furnish service to its own customers. For these pre- ordering functions, a BOC must demonstrate that it provides requesting carriers access that enables them to perform pre- ordering functions in substantially the same time and manner as its retail operations. 103 For those pre- ordering functions that lack a retail analogue, a BOC must provide access that affords an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete. 104 In prior orders, the Commission has emphasized that providing pre- ordering functionality through an application- to- application interface is essential in enabling carriers to conduct real- time processing and to integrate pre- ordering and ordering functions in the same manner as the BOC. 105 (i) Access to Loop Qualification Information 35. In accordance with the UNE Remand Order, 106 the Commission requires incumbent carriers to provide competitors with access to all of the same detailed information about the loop that is available to the incumbents, 107 and in the same time frame, so that a competing carrier can make an independent judgment at the pre- ordering stage about whether an end user loop is capable of supporting the advanced services equipment the competing carrier intends to install. 108 Under the UNE Remand Order, the relevant inquiry is not whether a BOC’s retail arm accesses such underlying information but whether such information exists anywhere in 102 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4014, para. 129. 103 Id.; see also BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 623- 29 (concluding that failure to deploy an application- to- application interface denies competing carriers equivalent access to pre- ordering OSS functions). 104 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4014, para. 129. 105 See id. at 4014, para. 130; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20661- 67, para. 105. 106 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3885, para. 426 (determining “that the pre- ordering function includes access to loop qualification information”). 107 See id. At a minimum, a BOC must provide (1) the composition of the loop material, including both fiber and copper; (2) the existence, location and type of any electronic or other equipment on the loop, including but not limited to, digital loop carrier or other remote concentration devices, feeder/ distribution interfaces, bridge taps, load coils, pair- gain devices, disturbers in the same or adjacent binder groups; (3) the loop length, including the length and location of each type of transmission media; (4) the wire gauge( s) of the loop; and (5) the electrical parameters of the loop, which may determine the suitability of the loop for various technologies. Id. 108 As the Commission has explained in prior proceedings, because characteristics of a loop, such as its length and the presence of various impediments to digital transmission, can hinder certain advanced services technologies, carriers often seek to “pre- qualify” a loop by accessing basic loop makeup information that will assist carriers in ascertaining whether the loop, either with or without the removal of the impediments, can support a particular advanced service. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 4021, para. 140. 431 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 19 a BOC’s back office and can be accessed by any of a BOC’s personnel. 109 Moreover, a BOC may not “filter or digest” the underlying information and may not provide only information that is useful in provisioning of a particular type of xDSL that a BOC offers. 110 A BOC must also provide loop qualification information based, for example, on an individual address or zip code of the end users in a particular wire center, NXX code or on any other basis that the BOC provides such information to itself. Moreover, a BOC must also provide access for competing carriers to the loop qualifying information that the BOC can itself access manually or electronically. Finally, a BOC must provide access to loop qualification information to competitors within the same time intervals it is provided to the BOC’s retail operations or its advanced services affiliate. 111 As the Commission determined in the UNE Remand Order, however, “to the extent such information is not normally provided to the incumbent’s retail personnel, but can be obtained by contacting back office personnel, it must be provided to requesting carriers within the same time frame that any incumbent personnel are able to obtain such information.” 112 c. Ordering 36. Consistent with section 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii), a BOC must demonstrate its ability to provide competing carriers with access to the OSS functions necessary for placing wholesale orders. For those functions of the ordering systems for which there is a retail analogue, a BOC must demonstrate, with performance data and other evidence, that it provides competing carriers with access to its OSS in substantially the same time and manner as it provides to its retail operations. For those ordering functions that lack a direct retail analogue, a BOC must demonstrate that its systems and performance allow an efficient carrier a meaningful opportunity to compete. As in prior section 271 orders, the Commission looks primarily at the applicant’s ability to return order confirmation notices, order reject notices, order completion notices and jeopardies, and at its order flow- through rate. 113 109 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3885- 3887, paras. 427- 431 (noting that “to the extent such information is not normally provided to the incumbent’s retail personnel, but can be obtained by contacting back office personnel, it must be provided to requesting carriers within the same time frame that any incumbent personnel are able to obtain such information.”). 110 See SWBT Kansas Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6292- 93, para. 121. 111 Id. 112 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3885- 3887, paras. 427- 31. 113 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18438, para. 170; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4035- 39, paras. 163- 66. The Commission examines (i) order flow- through rates, (ii) jeopardy notices and (iii) order completion notices using the “same time and manner” standard. The Commission examines order confirmation notices and order rejection notices using the “meaningful opportunity to compete” standard. 432 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 20 d. Provisioning 37. A BOC must provision competing carriers’ orders for resale and UNE- P services in substantially the same time and manner as it provisions orders for its own retail customers. 114 Consistent with the approach in prior section 271 orders, the Commission examines a BOC’s provisioning processes, as well as its performance with respect to provisioning timeliness (i. e., missed due dates and average installation intervals) and provisioning quality (i. e., service problems experienced at the provisioning stage). 115 e. Maintenance and Repair 38. A competing carrier that provides service through resale or UNEs remains dependent upon the incumbent LEC for maintenance and repair. Thus, as part of its obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions, a BOC must provide requesting carriers with nondiscriminatory access to its maintenance and repair systems. 116 To the extent a BOC performs analogous maintenance and repair functions for its retail operations, it must provide competing carriers access that enables them to perform maintenance and repair functions “in substantially the same time and manner” as a BOC provides its retail customers. 117 Equivalent access ensures that competing carriers can assist customers experiencing service disruptions using the same network information and diagnostic tools that are available to BOC personnel. 118 Without equivalent access, a competing carrier would be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage, as its customer would perceive a problem with a BOC’s network as a problem with the competing carrier’s own network. 119 f. Billing 39. A BOC must provide nondiscriminatory access to its billing functions, which is necessary to enable competing carriers to provide accurate and timely bills to their customers. 120 In making this determination, the Commission assesses a BOC’s billing processes and systems, 114 See Bell Atlantic New York, 15 FCC Rcd at 4058, para. 196. For provisioning timeliness, the Commission looks to missed due dates and average installation intervals; for provisioning quality, the Commission looks to service problems experienced at the provisioning stage. 115 Id. 116 Id. at 4067, para. 212; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20692; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20613, 20660- 61. 117 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4058, para. 196; see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20692- 93. 118 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4058, para. 196. 119 Id. 120 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18461, para. 210. 433 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 21 and its performance data. Consistent with prior section 271 orders, a BOC must demonstrate that it provides competing carriers with complete and accurate reports on the service usage of competing carriers’ customers in substantially the same time and manner that a BOC provides such information to itself, and with wholesale bills in a manner that gives competing carriers a meaningful opportunity to compete. 121 g. Change Management Process 40. Competing carriers need information about, and specifications for, an incumbent’s systems and interfaces to develop and modify their systems and procedures to access the incumbent’s OSS functions. 122 Thus, in order to demonstrate that it is providing nondiscriminatory access to its OSS, a BOC must first demonstrate that it “has deployed the necessary systems and personnel to provide sufficient access to each of the necessary OSS functions and . . . is adequately assisting competing carriers to understand how to implement and use all of the OSS functions available to them.” 123 By showing that it adequately assists competing carriers to use available OSS functions, a BOC provides evidence that it offers an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete. 124 As part of this demonstration, the Commission will give substantial consideration to the existence of an adequate change management process and evidence that the BOC has adhered to this process over time. 125 41. The change management process refers to the methods and procedures that the BOC employs to communicate with competing carriers regarding the performance of, and changes in, the BOC’s OSS. 126 Such changes may include updates to existing functions that impact competing carrier interface( s) upon a BOC’s release of new interface software; technology changes that require competing carriers to meet new technical requirements upon a BOC’s software release date; additional functionality changes that may be used at the competing carrier’s option, on or after a BOC’s release date for new interface software; and changes that may be mandated by regulatory authorities. 127 Without a change management process in place, a BOC can impose substantial costs on competing carriers simply by making changes to its systems and interfaces without providing adequate testing opportunities and accurate and timely 121 See id.; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6316- 17, at para. 163. 122 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3999- 4000, para. 102; First BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 6279 n. 197; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 625 n. 467; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20617 n. 334; Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19742. 123 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3999, para. 102. 124 Id. at 3999- 4000, para. 102 125 Id. at 4000, para. 102. 126 Id. at 4000, para. 103. 127 Id. 434 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 22 notice and documentation of the changes. 128 Change management problems can impair a competing carrier’s ability to obtain nondiscriminatory access to UNEs, and hence a BOC’s compliance with section 271( 2)( B)( ii). 129 42. In evaluating whether a BOC’s change management plan affords an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete, the Commission first assesses whether the plan is adequate. In making this determination, it assesses whether the evidence demonstrates: (1) that information relating to the change management process is clearly organized and readily accessible to competing carriers; 130 (2) that competing carriers had substantial input in the design and continued operation of the change management process; 131 (3) that the change management plan defines a procedure for the timely resolution of change management disputes; 132 (4) the availability of a stable testing environment that mirrors production; 133 and (5) the efficacy of the documentation the BOC makes available for the purpose of building an electronic gateway. 134 After determining whether the BOC’s change management plan is adequate, the Commission evaluates whether the BOC has demonstrated a pattern of compliance with this plan. 135 2. UNE Combinations 43. In order to comply with the requirements of checklist item 2, a BOC must show that it is offering “[ n] ondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of section 251( c)( 3).” 136 Section 251( c)( 3) requires an incumbent LEC to “provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier . . . nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.” 137 Section 251( c)( 3) of the Act also requires incumbent 128 Id. at 4000, para. 103. 129 Id. 130 Id. at 4002, para. 107. 131 Id. at 4000, para. 104. 132 Id. at 4002, para. 108. 133 Id. at 4002- 03, paras. 109- 10. 134 Id. at 4003- 04, para. 110. In the Bell Atlantic New York Order, the Commission used these factors in determining whether Bell Atlantic had an adequate change management process in place. See id. at 4004, para. 111. The Commission left open the possibility, however, that a change management plan different from the one implemented by Bell Atlantic may be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of section 271. Id. 135 Id. at 3999, para. 101, 4004- 05, para. 112. 136 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii). 137 Id. § 251( c)( 3). 435 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 23 LECs to provide UNEs in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide a telecommunications service. 138 44. In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission emphasized that the ability of requesting carriers to use UNEs, as well as combinations of UNEs, is integral to achieving Congress’ objective of promoting competition in local telecommunications markets. 139 Using combinations of UNEs provides a competitor with the incentive and ability to package and market services in ways that differ from the BOCs’ existing service offerings in order to compete in the local telecommunications market. 140 Moreover, combining the incumbent’s UNEs with their own facilities encourages facilities- based competition and allows competing providers to provide a wide array of competitive choices. 141 Because the use of combinations of UNEs is an important strategy for entry into the local telecommunications market, as well as an obligation under the requirements of section 271, the Commission examines section 271 applications to determine whether competitive carriers are able to combine network elements as required by the Act and the Commission’s regulations. 142 3. Pricing of Network Elements 45. Checklist item 2 of section 271 states that a BOC must provide “nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with sections 251( c)( 3) and 252( d)( 1)” of the Act. 143 Section 251( c)( 3) requires incumbent LECs to provide “nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.” 144 Section 252( d)( 1) requires that a state commission’s determination of the just and reasonable rates for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be 138 Id. 139 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20718- 19; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 646. 140 BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 646; see also Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15666- 68. 141 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4077- 78, para. 230. 142 Id. In Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 219 F. 3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000), the Eighth Circuit had vacated the Commission’s “additional combinations” rules (47 C. F. R. Sections 51- 315( c)-( f)). However, on May 13, 2002, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit with respect to those rules and remanded the case to the court of appeals “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646, 1687. See also id. at 1683- 87. In response, the Eighth Circuit, on August 21, 2002, vacated its prior opinion insofar as it had vacated the pertinent combinations rules and denied the petitions for review with respect to those rules. Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 8th Circuit Nos. 96- 3321, et al., Judgment, filed August 21, 2002.). 143 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii). 144 Id. § 251( c)( 3). 436 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 24 nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. 145 Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for UNEs must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. 146 The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315( b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. 147 The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state’s pricing determinations and will reject an application only if “basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on matters so substantial that the end result falls outside the range that the reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce.” 148 46. Although the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed the Commission’s pricing rules in 1996, 149 the Supreme Court restored the Commission’s pricing authority on January 25, 1999, and remanded to the Eighth Circuit for consideration of the merits of the challenged rules. 150 On remand from the Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit concluded that while TELRIC is an acceptable method for determining costs, certain specific requirements contained within the Commission’s pricing rules were contrary to Congressional intent. 151 The Eighth Circuit stayed the issuance of its mandate pending review by the Supreme Court. 152 The 145 47 U. S. C. § 252( d)( 1). 146 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844- 46, paras. 674- 79; 47 C. F. R. §§ 51.501 et seq.; see also Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98- 147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96- 98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 (Line Sharing Order) (concluding that states should set the prices for line sharing as a new network element in the same manner as the state sets prices for other UNEs). 147 See 47 C. F. R. § 51.315( b). 148 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4084, para. 244; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6266, para. 59. 149 Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F. 3d 753, 800, 804, 805- 06 (8 th Cir. 1997). 150 AT& T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U. S. 366 (1999). In reaching its decision, the Court acknowledged that section 201( b) “explicitly grants the FCC jurisdiction to make rules governing matters to which the 1996 Act applies.” Id. at 380. Furthermore, the Court determined that section 251( d) also provides evidence of an express jurisdictional grant by requiring that “the Commission [shall] complete all actions necessary to establish regulations to implement the requirements of this section.” Id. at 382. The Court also held that the pricing provisions implemented under the Commission’s rulemaking authority do not inhibit the establishment of rates by the states. The Court concluded that the Commission has jurisdiction to design a pricing methodology to facilitate local competition under the 1996 Act, including pricing for interconnection and unbundled access, as “it is the States that will apply those standards and implement that methodology, determining the concrete result.” Id. 151 Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 219 F. 3d 744 (8 th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. granted sub nom. Verizon Communications v. FCC, 121 S. Ct. 877 (2001). 152 Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, No. 96- 3321 et al. (8 th Cir. Sept. 25, 2000). 437 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 25 Supreme Court, on May 13, 2002, upheld the Commission’s forward- looking pricing methodology in determining costs of UNEs and “reverse[ d] the Eighth Circuit’s judgment insofar as it invalidated TELRIC as a method for setting rates under the Act.” 153 Accordingly, the Commission’s pricing rules remain in effect. C. Checklist Item 3 – Poles, Ducts, Conduits and Rights of Way 47. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( iii) requires BOCs to provide “[ n] ondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights- of- way owned or controlled by the [BOC] at just and reasonable rates in accordance with the requirements of section 224.” 154 Section 224( f)( 1) states that “[ a] utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right- of- way owned or controlled by it.” 155 Notwithstanding this requirement, section 224( f)( 2) permits a utility providing electric service to deny access to its poles, ducts, conduits, and rights- of- way, on a nondiscriminatory basis, “where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes.” 156 Section 224 also contains two separate provisions governing the maximum rates that a utility may charge for “pole attachments.” 157 Section 224( b)( 1) states that the Commission shall regulate the rates, terms, and conditions governing pole attachments to ensure that they are “just and reasonable.” 158 Notwithstanding this general grant of authority, section 224( c)( 1) states that “[ n] othing in [section 224] shall be construed to 153 Verizon v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. at 1679. On August 21, 2002, the Eighth Circuit implemented the Supreme Court’s mandate with respect to the Commission’s TELRIC pricing rule by vacating its prior opinion insofar as it had invalidated that rule and by denying the petitions for review of that rule. Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 8th Circuit Nos. 96- 3321, et al., Judgment, filed August 21, 2002. 154 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( iii). As originally enacted, section 224 was intended to address obstacles that cable operators encountered in obtaining access to poles, ducts, conduits, or rights- of- way owned or controlled by utilities. The 1996 Act amended section 224 in several important respects to ensure that telecommunications carriers as well as cable operators have access to poles, ducts, conduits, or rights- of- way owned or controlled by utility companies, including LECs. Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20706, n. 574. 155 47 U. S. C. § 224( f)( 1). Section 224( a)( 1) defines “utility” to include any entity, including a LEC, that controls “poles, ducts, conduits, or rights- of- way used, in whole or in part, for any wire communications.” 47 U. S. C. § 224( a)( 1). 156 47 U. S. C. § 224( f)( 2). In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that, although the statutory exception enunciated in section 224( f)( 2) appears to be limited to utilities providing electrical service, LECs should also be permitted to deny access to their poles, ducts, conduits, and rights- of- way because of insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes, provided the assessment of such factors is done in a nondiscriminatory manner. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16080- 81, paras. 1175- 77. 157 Section 224( a)( 4) defines “pole attachment” as “any attachment by a cable television system or provider of telecommunications service to a pole, duct, conduit, or right- of- way owned or controlled by a utility.” 47 U. S. C. § 224( a)( 4). 158 47 U. S. C. § 224( b)( 1). 438 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 26 apply to, or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to the rates, terms, and conditions, or access to poles, ducts, conduits and rights- of- way as provided in [section 224( f)], for pole attachments in any case where such matters are regulated by a State.” 159 As of 1992, nineteen states, including Connecticut, had certified to the Commission that they regulated the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments. 160 D. Checklist Item 4 – Unbundled Local Loops 48. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( iv) of the Act, item 4 of the competitive checklist, requires that a BOC provide “[ l] ocal loop transmission from the central office to the customer’s premises, unbundled from local switching or other services.” 161 The Commission has defined the loop as a transmission facility between a distribution frame, or its equivalent, in an incumbent LEC central office, and the demarcation point at the customer premises. This definition includes different types of loops, including two- wire and four- wire analog voice- grade loops, and two- wire and four- wire loops that are conditioned to transmit the digital signals needed to provide service such as ISDN, ADSL, HDSL, and DS1- level signals. 162 49. In order to establish that it is “providing” unbundled local loops in compliance with checklist item 4, a BOC must demonstrate that it has a concrete and specific legal obligation to furnish loops and that it is currently doing so in the quantities that competitors demand and at an acceptable level of quality. A BOC must also demonstrate that it provides nondiscriminatory access to unbundled loops. 163 Specifically, the BOC must provide access to any functionality of the loop requested by a competing carrier unless it is not technically feasible to condition the loop facility to support the particular functionality requested. In order to provide the requested loop functionality, such as the ability to deliver xDSL services, the BOC may be required to take affirmative steps to condition existing loop facilities to enable competing carriers to provide services not currently provided over the facilities. The BOC must provide 159 Id. § 224( c)( 1). The 1996 Act extended the Commission’s authority to include not just rates, terms, and conditions, but also the authority to regulate nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights- of- way. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16104, para. 1232; 47 U. S. C. § 224( f). Absent state regulation of terms and conditions of nondiscriminatory attachment access, the Commission retains jurisdiction. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16104, para. 1232; 47 U. S. C. § 224( c)( 1); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4093, para. 264. 160 See States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments, Public Notice, 7 FCC Rcd 1498 (1992); 47 U. S. C. § 224( f). 161 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( iv). 162 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15691, para. 380; UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3772- 73, paras. 166- 67, n. 301 (retaining definition of the local loop from the Local Competition First Report and Order, but replacing the phrase “network interconnection device” with “demarcation point,” and making explicit that dark fiber and loop conditioning are among the features, functions and capabilities of the loop). 163 SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18481- 81, para. 248; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4095, para. 269; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20637, para. 185. 439 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 27 competitors with access to unbundled loops regardless of whether the BOC uses digital loop carrier (DLC) technology or similar remote concentration devices for the particular loops sought by the competitor. 50. On December 9, 1999, the Commission released the Line Sharing Order, which introduced new rules requiring BOCs to offer requesting carriers unbundled access to the high-frequency portion of local loops (HFPL). 164 HFPL is defined as “the frequency above the voiceband on a copper loop facility that is being used to carry traditional POTS analog circuit-switched voiceband transmissions.” This definition applies whether a BOC’s voice customers are served by cooper or by digital loop carrier equipment. Competing carriers should have access to the HFPL at either a central office or at a remote terminal. However, the HFPL network element is only available on a copper loop facility. 165 51. To determine whether a BOC makes line sharing available consistent with Commission rules set out in the Line Sharing Order, the Commission examines categories of performance measurements identified in the Bell Atlantic New York and SWBT Texas Orders. Specifically, a successful BOC applicant could provide evidence of BOC- caused missed installation due dates, average installation intervals, trouble reports within 30 days of installation, mean time to repair, trouble report rates, and repeat trouble report rates. In addition, a successful BOC applicant should provide evidence that its central offices are operationally ready to handle commercial volumes of line sharing and that it provides competing carriers with nondiscriminatory access to the pre- ordering and ordering OSS functions associated with the provision of line shared loops, including access to loop qualification information and databases. 52. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( iv) also requires that a BOC demonstrate that it makes line splitting available to competing carriers so that competing carriers may provide voice and data service over a single loop. 166 In addition, a BOC must demonstrate that a competing carrier, either alone or in conjunction with another carrier, is able to replace an existing UNE- P configuration used to provide voice service with an arrangement that enables it to provide voice and data service to a customer. To make such a showing, a BOC must show that it has a legal obligation to provide line splitting through rates, terms, and conditions in interconnection agreements and that it offers competing carriers the ability to order an unbundled xDSL- capable 164 See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20924- 27, paras. 20- 27; see also n. 63 at C- 12 supra. 165 See Deployment of Wireline Services offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98- 147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96- 98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106- 07, para. 10 (2001). 166 See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515- 17, paras. 323- 329 (describing line splitting); 47 C. F. R. § 51.703( c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers “to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element”). 440 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 28 loop terminated to a collocated splitter and DSLAM equipment, and combine it with unbundled switching and shared transport. 167 E. Checklist Item 5 – Unbundled Local Transport 53. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( v) of the competitive checklist requires a BOC to provide “[ l] ocal transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.” 168 The Commission has required that BOCs provide both dedicated and shared transport to requesting carriers. 169 Dedicated transport consists of BOC transmission facilities dedicated to a particular customer or carrier that provide telecommunications between wire centers owned by BOCs or requesting telecommunications carriers, or between switches owned by BOCs or requesting telecommunications carriers. 170 Shared transport consists of transmission facilities shared by more than one carrier, including the BOC, between end office switches, between end office switches and tandem switches, and between tandem switches, in the BOC’s network. 171 F. Checklist Item 6 – Unbundled Local Switching 54. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( vi) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to provide “[ l] ocal switching unbundled from transport, local loop transmission, or other services.” 172 In the Second 167 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 168 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( v). 169 Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201. 170 Id. A BOC has the following obligations with respect to dedicated transport: (a) provide unbundled access to dedicated transmission facilities between BOC central offices or between such offices and serving wire centers (SWCs); between SWCs and interexchange carriers points of presence (POPs); between tandem switches and SWCs, end offices or tandems of the BOC, and the wire centers of BOCs and requesting carriers; (b) provide all technically feasible transmission capabilities such as DS1, DS3, and Optical Carrier levels that the competing carrier could use to provide telecommunications; (c) not limit the facilities to which dedicated interoffice transport facilities are connected, provided such interconnections are technically feasible, or restrict the use of unbundled transport facilities; and (d) to the extent technically feasible, provide requesting carriers with access to digital cross- connect system functionality in the same manner that the BOC offers such capabilities to interexchange carriers that purchase transport services. Id. at 20719. 171 Id. at 20719, n. 650. The Commission also found that a BOC has the following obligations with respect to shared transport: (a) provide shared transport in a way that enables the traffic of requesting carriers to be carried on the same transport facilities that a BOC uses for its own traffic; (b) provide shared transport transmission facilities between end office switches, between its end office and tandem switches, and between tandem switches in its network; (c) permit requesting carriers that purchase unbundled shared transport and unbundled switching to use the same routing table that is resident in the BOC’s switch; and (d) permit requesting carriers to use shared (or dedicated) transport as an unbundled element to carry originating access traffic from, and terminating traffic to, customers to whom the requesting carrier is also providing local exchange service. Id. at 20720, n. 652. 172 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( vi); see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20722. A switch connects end user lines to other end user lines, and connects end user lines to trunks used for transporting a call to (continued….) 441 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 29 BellSouth Louisiana Order, the Commission required BellSouth to provide unbundled local switching that included line- side and trunk- side facilities, plus the features, functions, and capabilities of the switch. 173 The features, functions, and capabilities of the switch include the basic switching function as well as the same basic capabilities that are available to the incumbent LEC’s customers. 174 Additionally, local switching includes all vertical features that the switch is capable of providing, as well as any technically feasible customized routing functions. 175 55. Moreover, in the Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, the Commission required BellSouth to permit competing carriers to purchase UNEs, including unbundled switching, in a manner that permits a competing carrier to offer, and bill for, exchange access and the termination of local traffic. 176 The Commission also stated that measuring daily customer usage for billing purposes requires essentially the same OSS functions for both competing carriers and incumbent LECs, and that a BOC must demonstrate that it is providing equivalent access to billing information. 177 Therefore, the ability of a BOC to provide billing information necessary for a competitive LEC to bill for exchange access and termination of local traffic is an aspect of unbundled local switching. 178 Thus, there is an overlap between the provision of unbundled local switching and the provision of the OSS billing function. 179 56. To comply with the requirements of unbundled local switching, a BOC must also make available trunk ports on a shared basis and routing tables resident in the BOC’s switch, as necessary to provide access to shared transport functionality. 180 In addition, a BOC may not limit the ability of competitors to use unbundled local switching to provide exchange access by requiring competing carriers to purchase a dedicated trunk from an interexchange carrier’s point of presence to a dedicated trunk port on the local switch. 181 (Continued from previous page) another central office or to a long- distance carrier. Switches can also provide end users with “vertical features” such as call waiting, call forwarding, and caller ID, and can direct a call to a specific trunk, such as to a competing carrier’s operator services. 173 Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20722, para. 207. 174 Id. 175 Id. at 20722- 23, para. 207. 176 Id. at 20723, para. 208. 177 Id. at 20723, para. 208 (citing Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20619, para. 140). 178 Id. 179 Id. 180 Id. at 20723, para. 209 (citing the Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20705, para. 306). 181 Id. (citing the Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20714- 15, paras. 324- 25). 442 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 30 G. Checklist Item 7 – 911/ E911 Access and Directory Assistance/ Operator Services 57. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii) of the Act requires a BOC to provide “[ n] ondiscriminatory access to – (I) 911 and E911 services.” 182 In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission found that “section 271 requires a BOC to provide competitors access to its 911 and E911 services in the same manner that a BOC obtains such access, i. e., at parity.” 183 Specifically, the Commission found that a BOC “must maintain the 911 database entries for competing LECs with the same accuracy and reliability that it maintains the database entries for its own customers.” 184 For facilities- based carriers, the BOC must provide “unbundled access to [its] 911 database and 911 interconnection, including the provision of dedicated trunks from the requesting carrier’s switching facilities to the 911 control office at parity with what [the BOC] provides to itself.” 185 Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii)( II) and section 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii)( III) require a BOC to provide nondiscriminatory access to “directory assistance services to allow the other carrier’s customers to obtain telephone numbers” and “operator call completion services,” respectively. 186 Section 251( b)( 3) of the Act imposes on each LEC “the duty to permit all [competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service] to have nondiscriminatory access to . . . operator services, directory assistance, and directory listing, with no unreasonable dialing delays.” 187 The Commission concluded in the Second BellSouth Louisiana Order that a BOC must be in compliance with the regulations implementing section 251( b)( 3) to satisfy the requirements of sections 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii)( II) and 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii)( III). 188 In the Local Competition Second Report and Order, the Commission 182 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii). 911 and E911 services transmit calls from end users to emergency personnel. It is critical that a BOC provide competing carriers with accurate and nondiscriminatory access to 911/ E911 services so that these carriers’ customers are able to reach emergency assistance. Customers use directory assistance and operator services to obtain customer listing information and other call completion services. 183 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20679, para. 256. 184 Id. 185 Id. 186 47 U. S. C. §§ 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii)( II), (III). 187 Id. § 251( b)( 3). The Commission implemented section 251( b)( 3) in the Local Competition Second Report and Order. 47 C. F. R. § 51.217; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19392 (1996) (Local Competition Second Report and Order) vacated in part sub nom. People of the State of California v. FCC, 124 F. 3d 934 (8th Cir. 1997), overruled in part, AT& T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U. S. 366 (1999); see also Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Provision of Directory Listings Information under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 15550 (1999) (Directory Listings Information NPRM). 188 While both sections 251( b)( 3) and 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii)( II) refer to nondiscriminatory access to “directory assistance,” section 251( b)( 3) refers to nondiscriminatory access to “operator services,” while section 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii)( III) refers to nondiscriminatory access to “operator call completion services.” 47 U. S. C. (continued….) 443 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 31 held that the phrase “nondiscriminatory access to directory assistance and directory listings” means that “the customers of all telecommunications service providers should be able to access each LEC’s directory assistance service and obtain a directory listing on a nondiscriminatory basis, notwithstanding: (1) the identity of a requesting customer’s local telephone service provider; or (2) the identity of the telephone service provider for a customer whose directory listing is requested.” 189 The Commission concluded that nondiscriminatory access to the dialing patterns of 4- 1- 1 and 5- 5- 5- 1- 2- 1- 2 to access directory assistance were technically feasible, and would continue. 190 The Commission specifically held that the phrase “nondiscriminatory access to operator services” means that “a telephone service customer, regardless of the identity of his or her local telephone service provider, must be able to connect to a local operator by dialing ‘0, ’ or ‘0 plus’ the desired telephone number.” 191 58. Competing carriers may provide operator services and directory assistance by reselling the BOC’s services, outsourcing service provision to a third- party provider, or using their own personnel and facilities. The Commission’s rules require BOCs to permit competitive (Continued from previous page) §§ 251( b)( 3), 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii)( III). The term “operator call completion services” is not defined in the Act, nor has the Commission previously defined the term. However, for section 251( b)( 3) purposes, the term “operator services” was defined as meaning “any automatic or live assistance to a consumer to arrange for billing or completion, or both, of a telephone call.” Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19448, para. 110. In the same order the Commission concluded that busy line verification, emergency interrupt, and operator- assisted directory assistance are forms of “operator services,” because they assist customers in arranging for the billing or completion (or both) of a telephone call. Id. at 19449, para. 111. All of these services may be needed or used to place a call. For example, if a customer tries to direct dial a telephone number and constantly receives a busy signal, the customer may contact the operator to attempt to complete the call. Since billing is a necessary part of call completion, and busy line verification, emergency interrupt, and operator- assisted directory assistance can all be used when an operator completes a call, the Commission concluded in the Second BellSouth Louisiana Order that for checklist compliance purposes, “operator call completion services” is a subset of or equivalent to “operator service.” Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20740, n. 763. As a result, the Commission uses the nondiscriminatory standards established for operator services to determine whether nondiscriminatory access is provided. 189 47 C. F. R. § 51.217( c)( 3); Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19456- 58, paras. 130- 35. The Local Competition Second Report and Order’s interpretation of section 251( b)( 3) is limited “to access to each LEC’s directory assistance service.” Id. at 19456, para. 135. However, section 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii) is not limited to the LEC’s systems but requires “nondiscriminatory access to . . . directory assistance to allow the other carrier’s customers to obtain telephone numbers.” 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii). Combined with the Commission’s conclusion that “incumbent LECs must unbundle the facilities and functionalities providing operator services and directory assistance from resold services and other unbundled network elements to the extent technically feasible,” Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15772- 73, paras. 535- 37, section 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii) ’s requirement should be understood to require the BOCs to provide nondiscriminatory access to the directory assistance service provider selected by the customer’s local service provider, regardless of whether the competitor; provides such services itself; selects the BOC to provide such services; or chooses a third party to provide such services. See Directory Listings Information NPRM. 190 Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19464, para. 151. 191 Id. at 19464, para. 151. 444 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 32 LECs wishing to resell the BOC’s operator services and directory assistance to request the BOC to brand their calls. 192 Competing carriers wishing to provide operator services or directory assistance using their own or a third party provider’s facilities and personnel must be able to obtain directory listings either by obtaining directory information on a “read only” or “per dip” basis from the BOC’s directory assistance database, or by creating their own directory assistance database by obtaining the subscriber listing information in the BOC’s database. 193 Although the Commission originally concluded that BOCs must provide directory assistance and operator services on an unbundled basis pursuant to sections 251 and 252, the Commission removed directory assistance and operator services from the list of required UNEs in the UNE Remand Order. 194 Checklist item obligations that do not fall within a BOC’s obligations under section 251( c)( 3) are not subject to the requirements of sections 251 and 252 that rates be based on forward- looking economic costs. 195 Checklist item obligations that do not fall within a BOC’s UNE obligations, however, still must be provided in accordance with sections 201( b) and 202( a), which require that rates and conditions be just and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. 196 H. Checklist Item 8 – White Pages Directory Listings 59. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( viii) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to provide “[ w] hite pages directory listings for customers of the other carrier’s telephone exchange service.” 197 Section 251( b)( 3) of the 1996 Act obligates all LECs to permit competitive providers of 192 47 C. F. R. § 51.217( d); Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19463, para. 148. For example, when customers call the operator or calls for directory assistance, they typically hear a message, such as “thank you for using XYZ Telephone Company.” Competing carriers may use the BOC’s brand, request the BOC to brand the call with the competitive carriers name or request that the BOC not brand the call at all. 47 C. F. R. § 51.217( d). 193 47 C. F. R. § 51.217( C)( 3)( ii); Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19460- 61, paras. 141- 44; Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Provision of Directory Listing Information Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Third Report and Order, Second Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 15550, 15630- 31, paras. 152- 54 (1999); Provision of Directory Listing Information Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, First Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 2736, 2743- 51 (2001). 194 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3891- 92, paras. 441- 42. 195 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3905, para. 470; see generally 47 U. S. C. §§ 251- 52; see also 47 U. S. C. § 252( d)( 1)( A)( i) (requiring UNE rates to be “based on the cost (determined without reference to a rate- of- return or other rate- based proceeding) of providing the … network element”). 196 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3905- 06, paras. 470- 73; see also 47 U. S. C. §§ 201( b), 202( a). 197 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( viii). 445 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 33 telephone exchange service and telephone toll service to have nondiscriminatory access to directory listing. 198 60. In the Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, the Commission concluded that, “consistent with the Commission’s interpretation of ‘directory listing’ as used in section 251( b)( 3), the term ‘white pages’ in section 271( c)( 2)( B)( viii) refers to the local alphabetical directory that includes the residential and business listings of the customers of the local exchange provider.” 199 The Commission further concluded, “the term ‘directory listing, ’ as used in this section, includes, at a minimum, the subscriber’s name, address, telephone number, or any combination thereof.” 200 The Commission’s Second BellSouth Louisiana Order also held that a BOC satisfies the requirements of checklist item 8 by demonstrating that it: (1) provided nondiscriminatory appearance and integration of white page directory listings to competitive LECs’ customers; and (2) provided white page listings for competitors’ customers with the same accuracy and reliability that it provides its own customers. 201 I. Checklist Item 9 – Numbering Administration 61. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( ix) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to provide “nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers for assignment to the other carrier’s telephone exchange service customers,” until “the date by which telecommunications numbering administration, guidelines, plan, or rules are established.” 202 The checklist mandates compliance with “such guidelines, plan, or rules” after they have been established. 203 A BOC must demonstrate that it adheres to industry numbering administration guidelines and Commission rules. 204 198 Id. § 251( b)( 3). 199 Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20748, para. 255. 200 Id. In the Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, the Commission stated that the definition of “directory listing” was synonymous with the definition of “subscriber list information.” Id. at 20747 (citing the Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19458- 59). However, the Commission’s decision in a later proceeding obviates this comparison, and supports the definition of directory listing delineated above. See Implementation of the Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information, CC Docket No. 96- 115, Third Report and Order; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96- 98, Second Order on Reconsideration; Provision of Directory Listing Information under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, As Amended, CC Docket No. 99- 273, FCC 99- 227, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, para. 160 (rel. Sept. 9, 1999). 201 Id. 202 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ix). 203 Id. 204 See Second Bell South Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20752; see also Numbering Resource Optimization, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 7574 (2000); Numbering Resource (continued….) 446 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 34 J. Checklist Item 10 – Databases and Associated Signaling 62. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( x) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to provide “nondiscriminatory access to databases and associated signaling necessary for call routing and completion.” 205 In the Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, the Commission required BellSouth to demonstrate that it provided requesting carriers with nondiscriminatory access to: “( 1) signaling networks, including signaling links and signaling transfer points; (2) certain call- related databases necessary for call routing and completion, or in the alternative, a means of physical access to the signaling transfer point linked to the unbundled database; and (3) Service Management Systems (SMS).” 206 The Commission also required BellSouth to design, create, test, and deploy Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) based services at the SMS through a Service Creation Environment (SCE). 207 In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission defined call- related databases as databases, other than operations support systems, that are used in signaling networks for billing and collection or the transmission, routing, or other provision of telecommunications service. 208 At that time the Commission required incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to their call- related databases, including but not limited to: the Line Information Database (LIDB), the Toll Free Calling database, the Local Number Portability database, and Advanced Intelligent Network databases. 209 In the UNE Remand Order, the Commission clarified that the definition of call- related databases “includes, but is not limited to, the calling name (CNAM) database, as well as the 911 and E911 databases.” 210 K. Checklist Item 11 – Number Portability 63. Section 271( c)( 2)( B) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to comply with the number portability regulations adopted by the Commission pursuant to section 251. 211 Section 251( b)( 2) requires all LECs “to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in (Continued from previous page) Optimization, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 99- 200 and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99- 200, CC Docket Nos. 96- 98; 99- 200 (rel. Dec. 29, 2000); Numbering Resource Optimization, Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96- 98 and CC Docket No. 99- 200 (rel. Dec. 28, 2001). 205 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( x). 206 Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20753, para. 267. 207 Id. at 20755- 56, para. 272. 208 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15741, n. 1126; UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3875, para. 403. 209 Id. at 15741- 42, para. 484. 210 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3875, para. 403. 211 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xii). 447 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 35 accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.” 212 The 1996 Act defines number portability as “the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.” 213 In order to prevent the cost of number portability from thwarting local competition, Congress enacted section 251( e)( 2), which requires that “[ t] he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission.” 214 Pursuant to these statutory provisions, the Commission requires LECs to offer interim number portability “to the extent technically feasible.” 215 The Commission also requires LECs to gradually replace interim number portability with permanent number portability. 216 The Commission has established guidelines for states to follow in mandating a competitively neutral cost- recovery mechanism for interim number portability, 217 and created a competitively neural cost- recovery mechanism for long- term number portability. 218 L. Checklist Item 12 – Local Dialing Parity 64. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( xii) requires a BOC to provide “[ n] ondiscriminatory access to such services or information as are necessary to allow the requesting carrier to implement local dialing parity in accordance with the requirements of section 251( b)( 3).” 219 Section 212 Id. at § 251( b)( 2). 213 Id. at § 153( 30). 214 Id. at § 251( e)( 2); see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20757, para. 274; In the Matter of Telephone Number Portability, Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11701, 11702- 04 (1998) (Third Number Portability Order); In the Matter of Telephone Number Portability, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 16459, 16460, 16462- 65, paras. 1, 6- 9 (1999) (Fourth Number Portability Order). 215 Fourth Number Portability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16465, para. 10; Telephone Number Portability, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8409- 12, paras. 110- 16 (1996) (First Number Portability Order); see also 47 U. S. C. § 251( b)( 2). 216 See 47 C. F. R. §§ 52.3( b)-( f); Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20758, para. 275; First Number Portability Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8355, 8399- 8404, paras. 3, 91; Third Number Portability Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 11708- 12, paras. 12- 16. 217 See 47 C. F. R. § 52.29; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20758, para. 275; First Number Portability Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8417- 24, paras. 127- 40. 218 See 47 C. F. R. §§ 52.32, 52.33; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20758, para. 275; Third Number Portability Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 11706- 07, para. 8; Fourth Number Portability Order at 16464- 65, para. 9. 219 Based on the Commission’s view that section 251( b)( 3) does not limit the duty to provide dialing parity to any particular form of dialing parity (i. e., international, interstate, intrastate, or local), the Commission adopted rules in August 1996 to implement broad guidelines and minimum nationwide standards for dialing parity. Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19407; Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers (continued….) 448 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 36 251( b)( 3) imposes upon all LECs “[ t] he duty to provide dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service with no unreasonable dialing delays.” 220 Section 153( 15) of the Act defines “dialing parity” as follows: [A] person that is not an affiliate of a local exchange carrier is able to provide telecommunications services in such a manner that customers have the ability to route automatically, without the use of any access code, their telecommunications to the telecommunications services provider of the customer’s designation. 221 65. The rules implementing section 251( b)( 3) provide that customers of competing carriers must be able to dial the same number of digits the BOC’s customers dial to complete a local telephone call. 222 Moreover, customers of competing carriers must not otherwise suffer inferior quality service, such as unreasonable dialing delays, compared to the BOC’s customers. 223 M. Checklist Item 13 – Reciprocal Compensation 66. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiii) of the Act requires that a BOC enter into “[ r] eciprocal compensation arrangements in accordance with the requirements of section 252( d)( 2).” 224 In turn, pursuant to section 252( d)( 2)( A), “a state commission shall not consider the terms and conditions for reciprocal compensation to be just and reasonable unless (i) such terms and conditions provide for the mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated with the transport and termination on each carrier’s network facilities of calls that originate on the network facilities of the other carrier; and (ii) such terms and conditions determine such costs on the basis of a reasonable approximation of the additional costs of terminating such calls.” 225 (Continued from previous page) and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, CC Docket No. 95- 185, Further Order On Reconsideration, FCC 99- 170 (rel. July 19, 1999). 220 47 U. S. C. § 251( b)( 3). 221 Id. § 153( 15). 222 47 C. F. R §§ 51.205, 51.207. 223 See 47 C. F. R. § 51.207 (requiring same number of digits to be dialed); Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19400, 19403. 224 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiii). 225 Id. § 252( d)( 2)( A). 449 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 37 N. Checklist Item 14 – Resale 67. Section 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiv) of the Act requires a BOC to make “telecommunications services . . . available for resale in accordance with the requirements of sections 251( c)( 4) and 252( d)( 3).” 226 Section 251( c)( 4)( A) requires incumbent LECs “to offer for resale at wholesale rates any telecommunications service that the carrier provides at retail to subscribers who are not telecommunications carriers.” 227 Section 252( d)( 3) requires state commissions to “determine wholesale rates on the basis of retail rates charged to subscribers for the telecommunications service requested, excluding the portion thereof attributable to any marketing, billing, collection, and other costs that will be avoided by the local exchange carrier.” 228 Section 251( c)( 4)( B) prohibits “unreasonable or discriminatory conditions or limitations” on service resold under section 251( c)( 4)( A). 229 Consequently, the Commission concluded in the Local Competition First Report and Order that resale restrictions are presumed to be unreasonable unless the LEC proves to the state commission that the restriction is reasonable and nondiscriminatory. 230 If an incumbent LEC makes a service available only to a specific category of retail subscribers, however, a state commission may prohibit a carrier that obtains the service pursuant to section 251( c)( 4)( A) from offering the service to a different category of subscribers. 231 If a state creates such a limitation, it must do so consistent with requirements established by the Federal Communications Commission. 232 In accordance with sections 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii) and 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiv), a BOC must also demonstrate that it provides nondiscriminatory access to operations support systems for the resale of its retail 226 Id. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiv). 227 Id. § 251( c)( 4)( A). 228 Id. § 252( d)( 3). 229 Id. § 251( c)( 4)( B). 230 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15966, para. 939; 47 C. F. R. § 51.613( b). The Eighth Circuit acknowledged the Commission’s authority to promulgate such rules, and specifically upheld the sections of the Commission’s rules concerning resale of promotions and discounts in Iowa Utilities Board. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F. 3d at 818- 19, aff’d in part and remanded on other grounds, AT& T v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U. S. 366 (1999). See also 47 C. F. R. §§ 51.613- 51.617. 231 47 U. S. C. § 251( c)( 4)( B). 232 Id. 450 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 38 telecommunications services. 233 The obligations of section 251( c)( 4) apply to the retail telecommunications services offered by a BOC’s advanced services affiliate. 234 V. COMPLIANCE WITH SEPARATE AFFILIATE REQUIREMENTS – SECTION 272 68. Section 271( d)( 3)( B) requires that the Commission shall not approve a BOC’s application to provide interLATA services unless the BOC demonstrates that the “requested authorization will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of section 272.” 235 The Commission set standards for compliance with section 272 in the Accounting Safeguards Order and the Non- Accounting Safeguards Order. 236 Together, these safeguards discourage and facilitate the detection of improper cost allocation and cross- subsidization between the BOC and its section 272 affiliate. 237 In addition, these safeguards ensure that BOCs do not discriminate in favor of their section 272 affiliates. 238 69. As the Commission stated in the Ameritech Michigan Order, compliance with section 272 is “of crucial importance” because the structural, transactional, and nondiscrimination safeguards of section 272 seek to ensure that BOCs compete on a level playing field. 239 The Commission’s findings regarding section 272 compliance constitute 233 See, e. g., Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4046- 48, paras. 178- 81 (Bell Atlantic provides nondiscriminatory access to its OSS ordering functions for resale services and therefore provides efficient competitors a meaningful opportunity to compete). 234 See Verizon Connecticut Order, 16 FCC Rcd 14147, 14160- 63, paras. 27- 33 (2001); Association of Communications Enterprises v. FCC, 235 F. 3d 662 (D. C. Cir. 2001). 235 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( B). 236 See Implementation of the Accounting Safeguards Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96- 150, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 (1996) (Accounting Safeguards Order), Second Order On Reconsideration, FCC 00- 9 (rel. Jan. 18, 2000); Implementation of the Non- Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 96- 149, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905 (1996) (Non- Accounting Safeguards Order), petition for review pending sub nom. SBC Communications v. FCC, No. 97- 1118 (filed D. C. Cir. Mar. 6, 1997) (held in abeyance May 7, 1997), First Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2297 (1997) (First Order on Reconsideration), Second Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 8653 (1997) (Second Order on Reconsideration), aff’d sub nom. Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v. FCC, 131 F. 3d 1044 (D. C. Cir. 1997), Third Order on Reconsideration, FCC 99- 242 (rel. Oct. 4, 1999) (Third Order on Reconsideration). 237 Non- Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21914; Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 17550; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20725. 238 Non- Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21914, paras. 15- 16; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20725, para. 346. 239 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20725, para. 346; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4153, para. 402. 451 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 39 independent grounds for denying an application. 240 Past and present behavior of the BOC applicant provides “the best indicator of whether [the applicant] will carry out the requested authorization in compliance with section 272.” 241 VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST – SECTION 271( D)( 3)( C) 70. In addition to determining whether a BOC satisfies the competitive checklist and will comply with section 272, Congress directed the Commission to assess whether the requested authorization would be consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 242 Compliance with the competitive checklist is itself a strong indicator that long distance entry is consistent with the public interest. This approach reflects the Commission’s many years of experience with the consumer benefits that flow from competition in telecommunications markets. 71. Nonetheless, the public interest analysis is an independent element of the statutory checklist and, under normal canons of statutory construction, requires an independent determination. 243 Thus, the Commission views the public interest requirement as an opportunity to review the circumstances presented by the application to ensure that no other relevant factors exist that would frustrate the congressional intent that markets be open, as required by the competitive checklist, and that entry will therefore serve the public interest as Congress expected. Among other things, the Commission may review the local and long distance markets 240 Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20785- 86, para. 322; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4153, para. 402. 241 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4153, para. 402. 242 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( C). 243 In addition, Congress specifically rejected an amendment that would have stipulated that full implementation of the checklist necessarily satisfies the public interest criterion. See Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20747 at para. 360- 66; see also 141 Cong. Rec. S7971, S8043 (June. 8, 1995). 452 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 H- 40 to ensure that there are not unusual circumstances that would make entry contrary to the public interest under the particular circumstances of the application at issue. 244 Another factor that could be relevant to the analysis is whether the Commission has sufficient assurance that markets will remain open after grant of the application. While no one factor is dispositive in this analysis, the overriding goal is to ensure that nothing undermines the conclusion, based on the Commission’s analysis of checklist compliance, that markets are open to competition. 244 See Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20805- 06, para. 360 (the public interest analysis may include consideration of “whether approval . . . will foster competition in all relevant telecommunications markets”). 453 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 260 Separate Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps Re: Joint Application by BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc., for Provision of In- Region, InterLATA Services in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina BellSouth has done a great deal to open its local markets to competition in these states. Indeed, its performance has shown improvement in certain areas that were at issue in prior applications. I also commend the State commissions in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina for their efforts to promote competition. In BellSouth’s application for Georgia and Louisiana, I noted that, in a number of areas, including in particular the operations support systems and the process for modifying those systems, BellSouth only minimally passed the statutory checklist. The record in this proceeding indicates that BellSouth has improved its performance in these areas, as the Department of Justice and other parties recognize, but that there are additional steps that BellSouth should take to further improve its systems. Our expectation is that BellSouth’s performance will continue to improve and that it will work cooperatively with other carriers through business- to- business relationships to resolve any issues that develop. To the extent that BellSouth does not adequately address problems that occur, the Commission and the state commissions have a statutory obligation to enforce the market-opening obligations of the Act. In this Order, the Commission has directed its 271 Compliance Team to examine all aspects of BellSouth’s performance to guard against backsliding, and has focused its attention in particular on OSS and change control issues. We must be proactive and vigilant as we monitor compliance in these areas, just as we remain vigilant on all facets of section 271 compliance. 454