*Pages 1--129 from Microsoft Word - final merge 4-10.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Application by SBC Communications Inc., Nevada Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., for Authorization To Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Nevada ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 03 -10 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: April 14, 2003 Released: April 14, 2003 By the Commission: Commissioners Martin and Adelstein issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................... 4 III. PRIMARY ISSUES IN DISPUTE................................................................................... 8 A. COMPLETE- AS- FILED WAIVER .......................................................................................... 10 B. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 271( C)( 1)( A) ....................................................................... 14 1. Broadband PCS Constitutes Telephone Exchange Services for Purposes of Section 271( c)( 1)( A).......................................................................................................................... 16 2. Nevada Bell’s Broadband PCS Evidence ..................................................................... 18 C. CHECKLIST ITEM 2 – UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS.................................................. 27 1. Pricing Unbundled Network Elements ......................................................................... 29 2. Operations Support Systems ......................................................................................... 39 IV. OTHER CHECKLIST ITEMS ..................................................................................... 49 A. CHECKLIST ITEM 4 – UNBUNDLED LOCAL LOOPS.............................................................. 49 B. CHECKLIST ITEM 1— INTERCONNECTION........................................................................... 66 C. REMAINING CHECKLIST ITEMS (3, 5- 14)............................................................................ 68 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 2 V. SECTION 272 COMPLIANCE..................................................................................... 69 VI. PUBLIC INTEREST ...................................................................................................... 70 VII. SECTION 271( d)( 6) ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.............................................. 74 VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 77 IX. ORDERING CLAUSES................................................................................................. 78 APPENDIX A - LIST OF COMMENTERS APPENDIX B - NEVADA PERFORMANCE METRICS APPENDIX C - CALIFORNIA PERFORMANCE METRICS APPENDIX D - STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1. On January 14, 2003, SBC Communications Inc. and its subsidiaries, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. (collectively, Nevada Bell or Applicant) filed this 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 State of Nevada. 2 We grant Nevada Bell’s application in this Order based on our conclusion that Nevada Bell has taken the statutorily required steps to open its local exchange markets in Nevada to competition. 2. Nevada Bell serves only a portion of the lines in Nevada, and its serving area is characterized by low population density and few urban centers. 3 Nevada Bell serves just over 371,000 access lines in an area encompassing approximately 48,000 square miles. 4 Even 1 We refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other statutes, as the Communications Act or the Act. See 47 U. S. C. §§ 151 et seq. We refer to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as the 1996 Act. See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). 2 See Application by SBC Communications Inc., Nevada Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. for Provision of In- Region, InterLATA Services in Nevada, WC Docket No. 03- 10 (filed Jan. 14, 2003) (Nevada Bell Application). 3 Nevada Bell Application at 7. 4 Petition for Review and Approval of the Draft Application by SBC Communications, Inc., Nevada Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. d/ b/ a Nevada Bell Long Distance, for Provision of In- Region InterLATA Services in Nevada, Recommendation in Support of Nevada Bell Telephone (continued….) 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 3 including the most populous city, Las Vegas, which is not in Nevada Bell’s serving area, Nevada is one of the most sparsely populated states in the nation. 5 3. In granting this application, we wish to acknowledge the effort and dedication of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (Nevada Commission), for the significant time and effort expended in overseeing Nevada Bell’s implementation of the requirements of section 271. The Nevada Commission reviewed Nevada Bell’s section 271 compliance in open proceedings with ample opportunities for participation by interested third parties. In addition, it adopted a comprehensive Performance Measurement Plan, as well as a Performance Incentives Plan (PIP) designed to create a financial incentive for post- entry compliance with section 271. 6 As the Commission has recognized, state proceedings demonstrating a commitment to advancing the pro- competitive purpose of the Act serve a vitally important role in the section 271 process. 7 II. BACKGROUND 4. In the 1996 amendments to the Communications Act, Congress required that the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) demonstrate compliance with certain market- opening requirements contained in section 271 of the Act before providing in- region, interLATA long distance service. Congress provided for Commission review of BOC applications to provide such service in consultation with the affected state and the Attorney General. 8 (Continued from previous page) Company’s Application to the Federal Communications Commission for Provision of In- Region, InterLATA Services in Nevada, P. U. C. N. Docket No. 00- 7031, at 26 (Dec. 17, 2002) (Nevada Commission Order). 5 Nevada Bell Application at 7; Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 5, Tab 19, Affidavit of J. Gary Smith, (Nevada Bell Smith Aff.) at para. 4; Nevada Commission Order at 26. See also Federal Communications Commission, Statistics of Communications Common Carriers, Tables 2.1 and 2.4 (2002). 6 Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 3, Tab 11, Affidavit of Daniel O. Jacobsen (Nevada Bell Jacobsen Aff.) at para. 40; Nevada Commission Order at 207- 13. 7 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). 8 The Commission has summarized the relevant statutory framework in prior orders. See, e. g., Joint Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 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); 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 Rcd 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). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 4 5. On July 24, 2000, Nevada Bell filed its draft section 271 application to provide in- region, interLATA service, with the Nevada Commission. Because of the Nevada Commission’s reliance on Pacific Bell’s operations support system (OSS) testing in California, the Nevada Commission divided the proceeding into two phases. 9 The first phase encompassed hearings and a collaborative workshop only upon those checklist items that did not rely on the result of OSS testing in California. 10 The second phase, commenced after the completion of the California OSS testing, encompassed checklist items that relied on the California results. 11 In addition, after the release of the California OSS test results in December 2000, Nevada Bell engaged Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) to attest that Nevada Bell’s and Pacific Bell’s OSS met the “sameness” standards set out in the SBC Kansas/ Oklahoma Order. 12 6. On December 17, 2002, the Nevada Commission released its recommendation concluding that Nevada Bell had successfully complied with the 14 checklist items set out in section 271. The Nevada Commission also determined that Nevada Bell had demonstrated the “sameness” of its OSS with that of Pacific Bell in California, utilizing the roadmap and standard established by the Commission. 13 On the issue of whether Nevada Bell satisfied the requirements of section 271( c)( 1)( A) (Track A), the Nevada Commission noted that Nevada Bell 9 Nevada Bell Jacobsen Aff. at para. 52; Nevada Commission Order at 18. 10 Phase One hearings were conducted in October through early December 2000. The issues addressed included the following topics: State Regulatory Background; Number Administration; Wholesale Account Management; Poles, Ducts, Conduits and Rights- of- Way; Billing; Operator Services/ Directory Assistance/ White Pages; State of Competition; Network; and Wholesale Policy. In December 2000, after completion of the hearings, parties participated in a collaborative process that was facilitated by Nevada Commission staff, and focused mainly on checklist items three (Poles, Ducts, Conduits and Rights- of- Way), nine (Numbering Administration), twelve (Local Dialing Parity) and thirteen (Reciprocal Compensation). Nevada Bell Jacobsen Aff. at para. 53. 11 Phase Two of the Nevada Commission proceedings was further subdivided into two subphases: A and B. The hearing in Phase Two- A was conducted on April 9, 10, and 11, 2001, and covered the following topics: Public Interest; Accounting Safeguards; Economic Impacts; and Section 272 Compliance. Nevada Bell Jacobsen Aff. at para. 54; Nevada Commission Order at 22. The Nevada Commission conducted the hearing in Phase Two- B on October 22, 2001, which covered the following topics: Structural Separation of Advanced Services; Wholesale Provisioning of Advanced Services; Performance Measures and Incentives; Operations Support Systems; Local Number Portability; and “Sameness” of OSS between California and Nevada. At the hearing, the participating parties presented an oral stipulation of the parties which, among other things, requested that the Nevada Commission close the evidentiary record by accepting the testimony that had been filed, and reserve an exhibit number for the document to be issued by the California Commission as the final order on Pacific Bell’s section 271 application or a final decision on Pacific Bell’s OSS. The stipulation also provided that upon Nevada Bell filing this exhibit, the parties would file briefs and reply briefs on the entire Nevada section 271 proceeding. Nevada Bell Jacobsen Aff. at para. 58; Nevada Commission Order at 24. 12 Nevada Bell Jacobsen Aff. at para. 61. 13 Nevada Commission Order at 52; see also SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6288- 91, paras. 111- 16; Application by SBC Communications Inc., Pacific Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services Inc., for Authorization To Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in California, WC Docket No. 02- 306, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 25650, 25685- 90, paras. 72- 80 (2002) (Pacific Bell California Order). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 5 had made the showing that at least two facilities- based competitive local exchange carriers (LECs) provide primarily facilities- based service to business carriers, and several competing carriers provide service to residential subscribers pursuant to resale. 14 Although the Nevada Commission expressed its belief that such a showing would satisfy the requirements of Track A, it deferred that determination to this Commission. 15 7. The Department of Justice filed its evaluation on February 21, 2003, recommending approval of the Nevada Bell application. 16 The Department of Justice concludes that, given the levels of entry in Nevada for business customers, the absence of any evidence that Nevada Bell has behaved anticompetitively, and the evidence concerning Pacific Bell’s California OSS, opportunities are available for competitive carriers to serve business customers in Nevada. 17 The Department of Justice also concludes that, based on the absence of competitive carrier complaints in this proceeding, and the evidence concerning Pacific Bell’s California OSS, Nevada Bell has fulfilled its obligations to open its markets to residential competition. 18 On the issue of whether Nevada Bell has satisfied the statutory requirements of Track A, the Department of Justice “defer[ s] to the Commission’s expert judgment in interpreting its own statute.” 19 III. PRIMARY ISSUES IN DISPUTE 8. In a number of prior orders, the Commission discussed in considerable detail the analytical framework and particular legal showing required to establish checklist compliance. 20 In this Order, we rely upon the legal and analytical precedent established in those prior orders. In addition, we include comprehensive appendices containing performance data and the statutory framework for evaluating section 271 applications. 21 In reviewing this application, we examine 14 Nevada Commission Order at 53. 15 Nevada Commission Order at 55. 16 Department of Justice Evaluation at 2. Section 271( d)( 2)( A) requires us to give “substantial weight” to the Department of Justice’s evaluation. 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 2)( A). 17 Department of Justice Evaluation at 6. 18 Department of Justice Evaluation at 6. 19 Department of Justice Evaluation at 7. 20 See, e. g., 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 Texas, CC Docket No. 00- 65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18354, 18359- 61, 18365- 78, paras. 8- 11, 21- 40, 43- 58 (2000) (SWBT Texas Order); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3961- 63, 3966- 69, 3971- 76, paras. 17- 20, 29- 37, 43- 60; see also Appendix D. 21 See generally Appendices B (Nevada Performance Data), C (California Performance Data), and D (Statutory Requirements). See also 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 (continued….) 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 6 performance data as reported in monthly performance reports reflecting service in the period of September 2002, through January 2003. 9. We focus in this Order on the issues in controversy in the record. Accordingly, we begin by addressing whether we should waive our procedural rules and consider Nevada Bell’s late- filed evidence regarding Track A, and whether the application qualifies for consideration under Track A. Next, we address checklist item two (Unbundled Network Elements, or UNEs), checklist item four (unbundled local loops) and checklist item one (interconnection). The remaining checklist items 3 and 5 through 14 are discussed only briefly, as they received no attention from commenting parties. We also discuss issues concerning compliance with section 272 and the public interest requirements. A. Complete- As- Filed Waiver 10. Before evaluating Nevada Bell’s compliance with the requirements of section 271, we discuss why we accord evidentiary weight to the Nevada Bell survey and affidavits regarding the broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS) provider Cricket Communications that Nevada Bell filed on day 31 to support its Track A arguments. The Commission maintains certain procedural requirements governing BOC section 271 applications. 22 In particular, the “complete- as- filed” requirement provides that when an applicant files new information after the comment date, the Commission reserves the right to start the 90- day review period again or to accord such information no weight in determining section 271 compliance. 23 We maintain this requirement to afford interested parties a fair opportunity to comment on the BOC’s application, to ensure that the Attorney General and the state commission can fulfill their statutory consultative roles, and to afford the Commission adequate time to evaluate the record. 24 The Commission can waive its procedural rules, (Continued from previous page) Rhode Island, CC Docket No. 01- 324, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 3300, Apps. B, C, and D (2002) (Verizon Rhode Island Order); 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, CC Docket No. 01- 194, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 20719, Apps. B, C, and D (2001) (SWBT Arkansas/ Missouri Order); 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, 17508- 545, Apps. B and C (2001) (Verizon Pennsylvania Order). 22 See 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) (Mar. 23, 2001 Public Notice). 23 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6247, para. 21. 24 See 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, 20572- 73, paras. 52- 54 (1997) (Ameritech Michigan Order). 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 7 however, “if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and such deviation will serve the public interest.” 25 11. For reasons discussed below, we waive the complete- as- filed requirement pursuant to Nevada Bell’s request 26 to the extent necessary to consider Nevada Bell’s late- filed Track A evidence. We first conclude that the special circumstances before us warrant a deviation from the general rules for consideration of late- filed information. Nevada Bell responded to criticism in the record regarding its showing as to whether Cricket Communications’ broadband PCS offering satisfied the requirements of Track A. 27 We note that Nevada Bell responded expeditiously to such criticisms by submitting explanatory evidence with regard to Cricket Communication’s market presence in Nevada and whether Nevada customers were substituting Cricket’s service for their wireline telephone service. 12. This is not a situation in which the BOC has attempted to maintain high rates or other anticompetitive conditions only to modify the rates or terms at the last minute in order to gain section 271 approval. The evidence Nevada Bell submitted was factual in nature, and existed regardless of whether and when Nevada Bell commissioned the study to discern the extent of Cricket’s market presence. Thus, this appears to be a case where the Applicant has submitted additional evidence to respond quickly and positively to concerns raised in the record, rather than strategically delayed taking actions necessary to comply with the statute at the expense of commenting parties and Commission staff. Moreover, the evidence Nevada Bell submitted was straightforward to evaluate. Because the evidence was filed on day 31, the Bureau had sufficient time to place the evidence on public notice and request comments specific to the evidence submitted. 28 The Department of Justice was able to consider this evidence 29 and parties to the proceeding were able to file comments on the additional Track A evidence, allowing the Commission to fully evaluate this evidence in considering Nevada Bell’s application. 30 Indeed, no party objected to the late- filed nature of the evidence and the only party submitting reply comments addressed Nevada Bell’s Track A evidence. 31 Thus, we see no reason to believe that submission of Nevada Bell’s Track A evidence in any way prejudiced any party to the proceeding or diminished the ability of the Commission to evaluate the application. 32 25 Northeast Cellular Tel. Co. v. FCC, 897 F. 2d 1164, 1166 (D. C. Cir. 1990); WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F. 2d 1153 (D. C. Cir. 1969); see also 47 U. S. C. § 154( j); 47 C. F. R. § 1.3. 26 Nevada Bell Track A Reply at 15. 27 See WorldCom Comments at 5- 7. 28 Comments Requested Regarding SBC’s Track A Reply Comments in Connection with SBC’s Pending Section 271 Application, Public Notice, DA 03- 461 (WCB rel. Feb. 14, 2003). 29 Department of Justice Evaluation at 7- 8. 30 See WorldCom Reply Comments at 5- 8. 31 See WorldCom Reply Comments at 5- 8. 32 See, e. g., Verizon Rhode Island Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 3307, para. 9. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 8 Under these circumstances, we believe that consideration of Nevada Bell’s additional evidence better serves the Commission’s interest in ensuring a fair and orderly 271 process than restarting the 90- day clock. 13. We also conclude that grant of this waiver will serve the public interest and thus will satisfy the second element of the waiver standard described above. Grant of this waiver credits Nevada Bell’s affirmative response to questions in the record concerning its Track A evidentiary showing and its otherwise persuasive section 271 application. In addition, grant of this waiver permits the Commission to act on this section 271 application quickly and efficiently, without the delays inherent in restarting the 90- day clock. Given that interested parties have had an opportunity to comment on this evidence, we do not believe that the public interest would be served in this instance by strict adherence to our procedural rules. B. Compliance With Section 271( c)( 1)( A) 14. In order for the Commission to approve a BOC’s application to provide in- region, interLATA services, the BOC must first demonstrate that it satisfies the requirements of either section 271( c)( 1)( A) (Track A) or section 271( c)( 1)( B) (Track B). 33 To meet the requirements of Track A, a BOC must have interconnection agreements with one or more competing providers of “telephone exchange service ... to residential and business subscribers.” 34 In addition, 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 of another carrier." 35 The Commission has concluded that section 271( c)( 1)( A) is satisfied if one or more competing providers collectively serve residential and business subscribers, 36 and that unbundled network elements are a competing provider's "own telephone exchange service facilities" for purposes of section 271( c)( 1)( A). 37 The Commission has further held that a BOC must show that at least one “competing provider” constitutes “an actual commercial alternative to the BOC,” 38 which a BOC can do by demonstrating that the provider serves “more than a de 33 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 1); Appendix D at paras. 15- 16. 34 Id. 35 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 1)( A). 36 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20589, para. 85; see also Application by BellSouth Corporation, et al., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, To Provide 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) (BellSouth Second Louisiana Order). 37 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20598, para. 101. 38 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). 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 9 minimis number” of subscribers. 39 The Commission has held that Track A does not require any particular level of market penetration and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has affirmed that the Act “imposes no volume requirements for satisfaction of Track A.” 40 15. We conclude that Nevada Bell satisfies the requirements of Track A in Nevada. The Nevada Commission, although it developed a factual record and believed Nevada Bell satisfied Track A, deferred the issue of Nevada Bell’s compliance with Track A requirements to the Commission. 41 Nevada Bell relies on interconnection agreements with Advanced Telecom Group, WorldCom, and Cricket Communications in support of its Track A showing. 42 These interconnection agreements are ‘‘… binding agreements that have been approved under section 252 specifying the terms and conditions under which [Nevada Bell] is providing access and interconnection to its network facilities ... ’’ 43 as required under section 271( c)( 1)( A). We find that Advanced Telecom Group and WorldCom each serve more than a de minimis number of business end users predominantly over their own facilities and represent “actual commercial alternatives” to Nevada Bell for business telephone exchange services. 44 As we explain further below, we find that Cricket Communications, a PCS provider, serves more than a de minimis number of residential users over its own facilities and, for purposes of section 271 compliance, represents an actual commercial alternative to Nevada Bell for residential telephone exchange services. 45 39 SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6257, para. 42; see also Ameritech Michigan Order 12 FCC Rcd at 20585, para. 78. 40 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) (“ Track A does not indicate just how much competition a provider must offer in either the business or residential markets before it is deemed a ‘competing’ provider.”). 41 Nevada Commission Order at 55. The Nevada Commission concluded that WorldCom and ATG provide facilities- based service to business customers and that other carriers provide resale service to residential customers. Id. 42 Nevada Bell Jacobson Aff., Attach. D; Nevada Bell Smith Aff. at para. 5. 43 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 1)( A). 44 Nevada Bell Smith Aff. at para. 5; Nevada Bell Smith Aff., Attach. D (citing confidential information). Nevada Bell estimates that competing LECs now serve at least 37,700 business access lines in Nevada. Nevada Bell Smith Aff. at para. 10. 45 Because we conclude that Nevada Bell has satisfied Track A through its showing for Cricket Communications, we do not need to determine whether the other competitive carriers Nevada Bell cites serve more than a de minimis number of residential subscribers sufficient to satisfy Track A. Nevada Bell Smith Aff at paras. 11- 13; Nevada Bell Supplemental Track A Reply at 5- 8, 11- 13; Nevada Bell Supplemental Track A Reply, Reply Affidavit of J. Gary Smith at paras. 4- 9 (Nevada Bell Smith Reply Aff.); Department of Justice Evaluation at 7- 9; see contra WorldCom Comments at 2; WorldCom Reply at 1- 5; Letter from Keith Seat, Senior Counsel – Federal Advocacy, WorldCom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 03- 10, at 1 (filed Mar. 25, 2003) (WorldCom Mar. 25 Ex Parte Letter). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 10 1. Broadband PCS Constitutes Telephone Exchange Services for Purposes of Section 271( c)( 1)( A) 16. The Commission has previously determined that broadband PCS 46 satisfies the statutory definition of a telephone exchange service for section 271( c)( 1)( A) purposes, and that broadband PCS may form the basis of a Track A finding. 47 In the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, the Commission found that the broadband PCS service at issue there constitutes a telephone exchange service for purposes of Track A, notwithstanding the different technical configuration, service characteristics, and service charges of broadband PCS and wireline service. 48 Similarly, here we find that Cricket Communications’ residential broadband PCS offering in Nevada also is a ‘‘ telephone exchange service’’ for purposes of Track A. 49 The Commission recognized at that time that broadband PCS provides some advantages and disadvantages over wireline telephone services. For instance, consumers may be willing to pay a premium for broadband PCS in light of the benefits of mobility. 50 We reject WorldCom’s argument that the price premium for broadband PCS or the technical differences between broadband PCS service and traditional wireline service (e. g., slower transmission speed for data or inability to have multiple handsets for the same phone number) should exclude a consideration of broadband PCS as a telephone exchange service for Track A purposes. 51 The limitations listed by WorldCom are not new limitations to broadband PCS and were features of the BellSouth broadband PCS service that the Commission concluded in 1998 constituted a telephone exchange service for purposes of section 271( c)( 1)( A). 52 As in the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, while there are certain technical and functional differences between broadband PCS and wireline exchange service we conclude, based on the current record, that these differences are not sufficient to prevent Cricket’s broadband PCS offering from fitting within the definition of telephone exchange service for purposes of section 271. Nor do we see any other reason to reconsider our finding that a Track A compliance can be based on a broadband PCS provider. 17. In the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, the Commission determined that to satisfy Track A, a BOC must show that consumers are using broadband PCS in lieu of and not as 46 Broadband PCS refers to mobile telephony service authorized in the 1850- 1910 and 1930- 1990 MHz bands. 47 C. F. R. § 24.200. 47 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20606, 20622- 23, paras. 11, 29- 30. 48 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20622, para. 29. 49 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20622- 23, paras. 29- 30. 50 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20624, para. 32. 51 WorldCom Comments at 6- 7; WorldCom Reply at 7; WorldCom Mar. 25 Ex Parte Letter at 2- 3. 52 Nevada Bell Track A Reply at 9; WorldCom Comments at 6- 7. See BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20621- 22, 20624, paras. 28- 29, 32. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 11 a supplement to their wireline telephone service. 53 The Commission found that relevant evidence could include studies identifying customers that had used broadband PCS in lieu of wireline service, as well as marketing efforts by broadband PCS providers designed to induce replacement of wireline service with broadband PCS service. 54 The Commission noted that the persuasive value of any study would depend upon the quality of the survey and statistical methodology used in the study. 55 The Commission also indicated that a survey used for this purpose should include a question asking the respondent whether he or she subscribes to a wireline service or should otherwise verify that the subscriber does not have a wireline service. 56 2. Nevada Bell’s Broadband PCS Evidence 18. We find that the evidence submitted by Nevada Bell adequately demonstrates that more than a de minimis number of Cricket customers use their service in lieu of wireline telephone service. The record shows that Cricket’s marketing efforts stress that its product is a substitute for residential local telephone service. Further, we find that Nevada Bell’s survey also demonstrates that Cricket customers use Cricket service in lieu of wireline telephone service. In particular, we find that the survey was random, contains statistical analysis of sufficient quality to allow us to rely on it for the purpose of showing compliance with Track A, and suffers from none of the fundamental flaws discussed in the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order. 57 19. Nevada Bell’s Track A showing relies upon a description of similarities between Cricket’s broadband PCS and traditional wireless service, a survey of Cricket’s customers in Nevada, 58 and examples of Cricket Communications’ marketing strategy. 59 Cricket 53 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20623- 24, paras. 31- 32. The Commission recognized that it may be difficult to determine whether a customer subscribes to broadband PCS as a complement to a wireline service or in place of a second line. BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20623- 24, para. 31, n. 71. 54 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20623- 24, paras. 31- 32. 55 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20624, para. 32. 56 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20628, para. 39. 57 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20625- 28, paras. 35- 39. 58 Nevada Bell Smith Aff. at paras. 14- 21; Nevada Bell Supplemental Track A Reply Comments at 8- 11; Nevada Bell Supplemental Track A Reply, Tab 1, Reply Affidavit of J. Gary Smith, at paras. 10- 16 (Nevada Bell Smith Reply Aff.) Nevada Bell Supplemental Track A Reply, Tab 2, Keith Frederick Affidavit, at paras. 6- 24 (Nevada Bell Frederick Aff). 59 The Commission has recognized in other contexts that substitution between wireless and local telephony service has increased, and that some broadband PCS carriers, and in particular Cricket Communications, have purposefully designed their service packages to compete directly with wireline local telephone service. See In the Matter of Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96- 45, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 02- 329, para. 21 (rel. Dec. 13, 2002); Federal Communications Commission, Seventh Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, FCC 02- 179, at 32- 36 (2002) (Seventh CMRS Competition Report); Federal Communications Commission, Sixth Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial (continued….) 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 12 Communications is a facilities- based broadband PCS provider operating in Reno, Sparks, and Carson City, Nevada. 60 As noted in Leap Wireless’ (Cricket Communications’ parent) press releases and Securities and Annual Report, Cricket service is marketed as a ‘‘ landline replacement. ’’ 61 As with residential wireline service, subscribers to Cricket pay a flat monthly fee for unlimited local calling from its service area in Nevada and for unlimited incoming calls, pay additional per- minute charges for outgoing long distance calls, and may subscribe to vertical features for an additional monthly charge. 62 We note that newspaper ads encourage consumers to replace their home phones with Cricket service and that the home web- page for Cricket directly markets this service as a substitute for residential local telephone service with a large print header inviting subscribers to “Get this home phone free. ’’ 63 We find that, consistent with the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, this evidence is persuasive in demonstrating that broadband PCS is being used to replace wireline service in Nevada. 20. In addition to Cricket’s marketing materials, Nevada Bell submits the results of a large, random telephone survey of Cricket’s subscribers in Nevada conducted by FrederickPolls. 64 We find the quality of that survey and the statistical methodology of the survey sufficient to establish that Cricket Communications is an actual commercial alternative to Nevada Bell for purposes of Track A compliance and that more than a de minimis number of consumers use Cricket broadband PCS service in lieu of Nevada Bell’s local wireline telephone service. 65 The FrederickPolls survey is consistent with the evidentiary framework established by the Commission in the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order. The Commission found that the persuasive value of any study of broadband PCS and wireline service competition would depend upon the quality of the survey and statistical methodology used in the study. 66 (Continued from previous page) Mobile Services, FCC 01- 192, at 32- 34 (2001) (Sixth CMRS Competition Report). We note that Leap Wireless, Cricket Communications’ parent, reports that it has succeeded as a landline substitute as 26% of its customers do not subscribe to any traditional landline phone service at home, and that its customers use approximately 1,200 minutes per month, more than triple the industry average for PCS and cellular customers. Letter from Laurie Itkin, Director – Government Affairs, Leap Wireless, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 95- 116, at 2 (filed Feb. 25, 2003). 60 Nevada Bell Smith Aff. at para. 17; Nevada Bell Frederick Aff. at 5. 61 Nevada Bell Smith Aff, Attach. D (Leap Wireless 2001 Annual Report); Leap Reports Results for Third Fiscal Quarter of 2002 ( Nov, 13, 2002); Leaping over Landline: Leap Leads Wireline Displacement Trend, (June 24, 2002). 62 Nevada Bell Smith Aff. at para. 15- 17; Nevada Bell Frederick Aff. at para. 5 n. 1. 63 Nevada Bell Smith Aff, at 17, Nevada Bell Smith Aff., Attach E. We also take administrative notice that Cricket’s website invites subscribers to ‘‘ Get this home phone free. ’’ http:// www. cricketcommunications. com (visited Feb. 27, 2002). 64 Nevada Bell Frederick Aff. at para. 6- 7. 65 Nevada Bell Frederick Aff. at paras. 8- 24. 66 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20624, para. 32. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 13 21. First, consistent with the framework established in the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, the survey asks directly whether the Cricket billpayers have a wireline phone service in their home. 67 Specifically, the survey measures two types of replacement by Cricket users: (1) Cricket billpayers who do not now have wireline telephone service in their homes and (2) Cricket billpayers who do not now have wireline telephone service in their homes and had subscribed to such service prior to deciding to initiate Cricket service. 68 We reject WorldCom’s criticism that respondents did not understand that the term ‘‘ wireline’’ referred to traditional local telephone service because the word is immediately followed by the phrase ‘‘ local telephone service in their home. ’’ 69 There is no reason to believe that the respondents, who are consumers of wireless phone service, are incapable of understanding the difference between wireless phone service, wireline phone service, and a cordless wireline phone. Moreover, if the respondent was unsure of what the term meant, the phrase ‘‘ wireline local telephone service’’ was defined. 70 22. Second, the FrederickPolls survey is based on a randomly- selected sample of Cricket customers in Nevada. 71 Third, we find that the survey results themselves establish a sufficient number of individuals to satisfy Track A requirements, eliminating the need to extrapolate from the survey results to the larger population of Cricket customers. In this respect, the survey conducted by FrederickPolls is significantly different than the survey proffered by BellSouth in the Louisiana II proceeding. 72 We conclude that the survey respondents that stated that they do not have a local wireline telephone in their home are sufficient to establish that Cricket is a commercial alternative to Nevada Bell and that more than a de minimis number of 67 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20627- 28, para. 39; Nevada Bell Federick Aff. at para. 12; Nevada Bell Frederick Aff., Attach. B. 68 Nevada Bell Frederick Aff. at para. 6. 69 WorldCom Reply at 6; WorldCom Mar. 25 Ex Parte Letter at 5. We further reject WorldCom’s arguments that the survey improperly suggested to the respondents that they had disconnected their wireline phone. See WorldCom Mar. 25 Ex Parte Letter at 5. As we state above, we find that the survey asked direct questions as required by the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order. 70 Wireline local telephone service was defined as, ‘‘ dial- tone phone service provided by your local phone company that allows you to make and receive phone calls by plugging your home phone into a wall- jack. ’’ Nevada Bell Frederick Aff., Attach. B; Nevada Bell Supplemental Track A Reply at 6- 7; Nevada Bell Frederick Aff., at para. 11. 71 Cricket has been assigned 40,000 telephone numbers in Nevada Bell’s service territory. Eight thousand telephone numbers were randomly selected from these 40,000 numbers. Calls were placed to these telephone numbers during the first week in February. Nevada Bell Frederick Aff. at paras. 9- 12. The Commission has recognized that the randomness of any survey will be affected to some extent by the unwillingness of some parties to participate. BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20627, para. 37, n. 86. 72 FrederickPolls determined that, of the 1,841 survey respondents, 912 Cricket customers do not currently have wireline telephone service in their homes, and 345 of the 912 customers indicated that they previously had wireline local telephone service that was disconnected or terminated because they decided to have a Cricket phone. Nevada Bell Frederick Aff. at paras. 19- 23; Nevada Bell Frederick Aff., Attach. C at 1- 5. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 14 Cricket customers use Cricket in lieu of local wireline telephone service in Nevada for purposes of Track A compliance. 73 23. We reject WorldCom’s argument that, in the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, the Commission sought a higher incidence of consumers using broadband PCS in lieu of wireline telephony than FrederickPolls survey indicates. 74 The BellSouth Second Louisiana Order specifically excludes any discussion of a minimum level of substitution or replacement, and specifically notes that there is no market share test for entry under Track A. 75 As noted above, the Commission found that the most persuasive evidence is evidence that consumers are actually subscribing to broadband PCS in lieu of wireline service. Nevada Bell provides such evidence here. 24. We further reject WorldCom’s attempt to extrapolate the Commission’s criticism of a study submitted in BellSouth’s second Louisiana application to support a conclusion here that the Commission was looking for a higher incidence of substitution than the FrederickPolls survey indicates. 76 In the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, the Commission did not reject BellSouth’s consumer studies because the number of survey respondents or the estimated number of consumers was too low. One study submitted by BellSouth was rejected because there were no assurances that the respondents were representative of the population which the survey sought to characterize (broadband PCS users in Louisiana), and the study disguised the complementary nature of the services. 77 The other study submitted by BellSouth was rejected because the study was based on a price comparison of local wireline service and broadband PCS service that the Commission found flawed. 78 25. In contrast, the survey submitted in the instant application is based on a relatively large sample of Cricket customers in Nevada and purports only to make predictions about 73 We reject WorldCom’s suggestion that Cricket’s future is somewhat uncertain because it has recently been de-listed from NASDAQ as there are no indications that Cricket is no longer operating in the market. Nevada Bell Track A Reply at 11n. 6; WorldCom Comments at 6; WorldCom Reply at 7- 8. 74 WorldCom Reply at 6- 7; WorldCom Mar. 25 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 75 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20623- 32, paras. 31- 43. We, therefore, also reject WorldCom’s argument that the Commission should use standards other than section 271 statutory analysis to evaluate the ability of Cricket Communications to satisfy Track A. WorldCom Mar. 25 Ex Parte Letter at 4. 76 WorldCom Reply at 6- 7. 77 ‘‘ Because the survey respondents were self- selected, rather than randomly selected, there can be no assurance that the respondent or their responses to the survey questions are generally representative of PCS customers in New Orleans … Further, there is no evidence that the New Orleans respondents are similar to the state- wide PCS user population … In order to be considered persuasive, future studies of this type should use a random sample or explain why the study results are meaningful without a random sample. ’’ BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20627, para. 37. See also id at 20625- 28, paras. 35- 39. 78 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20629- 30, paras. 41- 42. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 15 Cricket customers in Nevada. 79 We see no reason to believe that the survey respondents are not representative of Cricket customers in Nevada. Moreover, the Commission found the type of survey submitted in the instant application to be persuasive because it shows actual consumer behavior, 80 and unlike the surveys submitted in the BellSouth second Louisiana application this survey does not hide the complementary nature of the services. Thus, we reject WorldCom’s contention that the Commission sought a larger number of customers that substitute broadband PCS for wireline service than what is established by the survey submitted in the instant application. 81 Accordingly, we find Nevada Bell compliant with Track A because it has demonstrated that Cricket Communications is an actual commercial alternative to Nevada Bell that serves more than a de minimis number of consumers in Nevada. 26. We note that the Cricket Communications directly markets this service as a substitute for residential local telephone service asking potential subscribers ‘‘ is it a home phone or a mobile phone? ’’ 82 We find that, consistent with the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, this evidence is persuasive in demonstrating that broadband PCS is marketed and provided as a replacement for wireline service in Nevada. 83 Therefore, based on the entirety of the record in this proceeding, we find that Cricket is an actual commercial alternative to Nevada Bell’s residential telephone service in Nevada, and that Cricket provides service to more than a de minimis number of residential subscribers in Nevada for purposes of establishing Track A compliance under section 271. We note that our consideration of Cricket Communications for Track A compliance does not mean that all Nevada Bell residential telephone exchange service consumers view the Cricket service as a commercial alternative to Nevada Bell’s telephone exchange service. Our consideration is limited for the purposes of section 271 compliance. C. Checklist Item 2 – Unbundled Network Elements 27. Checklist item two 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. 84 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.” 85 Section 79 FrederickPolls randomly selected 8,000 telephone numbers from the pool of 40,000 telephone numbers assigned to Cricket in Nevada. Surveys were completed by 1,841 billpayers. Nevada Bell Frederick Aff. at paras. 8- 10, 18. 80 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20624, para. 32. 81 WorldCom Reply at 6- 7. 82 Nevada Bell Smith Reply Aff. at 13. 83 BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20623- 24, para. 31. 84 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii). 85 47 U. S. C. § 251( c)( 3). 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 16 252( 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. 86 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. 87 28. 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. 88 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.” 89 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. 1. Pricing Unbundled Network Elements a. Background 29. UNE Recurring Cost Proceedings. The state proceedings that produced Nevada Bell’s recurring rates for local loop, network interface device (NID), switching (local and tandem) and interoffice transmission (transport), and signaling commenced in September 1996, and concluded in July 2000. 90 These proceedings consisted of two phases: the model selection phase, and the inputs selection phase. 30. The Nevada Commission conducted proceedings and evidentiary hearings for its model selection phase during 1997. Nevada Bell filed its own econometric telecommunication network models and studies. The Nevada Commission, however, adopted the Hatfield (HAI) model submitted by AT& T as the model platform for developing UNE costs. 91 After selecting 86 47 U. S. C. § 252( d)( 1). 87 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-. 515. The Supreme Court has upheld the Commission’s forward- looking pricing methodology in determining the costs of UNEs. Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646, 1679 (2000). 88 Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17453, para. 55 (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.”). 89 Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17453, para. 55. 90 Nevada Commission Order at 28- 31. 91 See Nevada Commission Order at 28- 29. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 17 the HAI model, the Nevada Commission conducted evidentiary hearings to determine the appropriate state- specific input values and assumptions during the summer of 1998. 92 31. On February 1, 1999, the Nevada Commission adopted its first pricing order establishing the UNE recurring rates for Nevada Bell. 93 In this order, the Nevada Commission concluded that it employed a TELRIC methodology, and “succeeded in identifying inputs and obtaining TELRIC estimates” for Nevada Bell, consistent with the Commission’s UNE pricing methodologies and principles. 94 32. On May 3, 1999, Nevada Bell filed a petition with the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for the judicial review of the Nevada Commission Pricing Order I. This state litigation was removed to federal court, the U. S. District Court, District of Nevada, by AT& T. 95 On July 19, 2000, the court approved a settlement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Nevada Commission has initiated a proceeding to reexamine UNE rates. 96 While this proceeding is pending, the UNE recurring rates established by the Nevada Commission using the HAI model remain in place. 97 33. UNE Non- Recurring Cost (NRC) Proceedings. On December 15, 1999, Nevada Bell and AT& T filed competing NRC studies. 98 Subsequently, the parties began settlement discussions. The proceedings were resolved in two steps. First, the parties agreed to use as the nonrecurring rates for Nevada Bell the rates that resulted from the NRC proceedings before the 92 Nevada Commission Order at 29. 93 Nevada Commission Order at 30; In re Filing of Nevada Bell’s Unbundled Network Element (UNE) Cost Study, P. U. C. N. Docket No. 98- 6004 (Feb. 1, 1999) (Nevada Commission Pricing Order I). On May 11, 1999, the Nevada Commission modified certain aspect of the Nevada Commission Pricing Order I. See In re Filing of Nevada Bell’s Unbundled Network Element (UNE) Cost Study, P. U. C. N. Docket No. 98- 6004 (May 11, 1999) (Nevada Commission Pricing Order II). 94 Nevada Commission Pricing Order I at 19. 95 Nevada Commission Order at 30. 96 Nevada Commission Order at 30. 97 In re Petition of Nevada Bell Telephone Company for an Order Commencing a Proceeding to Determine New Costs and Rates for Unbundled Network Elements, P. U. C. N. Docket No. 00- 7012 (Mar. 19, 2001) (Nevada Commission Pricing Order V). 98 See Nevada Commission Order at 31; In re Filing by Nevada Bell of its Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) Nonrecurring Cost Study pursuant to the Order issued in Docket No. 98- 6004, P. U. C. N. Docket No. 99- 12033, Filing by AT& T Communications of Nevada, Inc. of its Nonrecurring Cost Study for Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs) purchased from Nevada Bell pursuant to the Order issued in Docket No. 98- 6004, P. U. C. N. Docket No. 99- 12034, Petition of Nevada Bell for Review and Approval of Its Cost Study and Proposed Rates for Conditioning Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Loops, P. U. C. N. Docket No. 00- 4001 (consolidated), Order (Oct. 4, 2000) (Nevada Commission Pricing Order III). 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 18 California Commission. 99 The Nevada Commission approved the parties’ stipulation, and thereby adopted final nonrecurring rates for most of Nevada Bell’s UNEs. 100 34. Second, with respect to nonrecurring rates for the remaining Nevada Bell’s UNEs, the Nevada Commission conducted six days of evidentiary hearings, taking testimony from nine different witnesses, which comprised over 650 pages of transcripts and 39 hearing exhibits. On November 20, 2000, the Nevada Commission approved with specific modifications Nevada Bell’s UNE NRC, loop qualification, and DSL line conditioning studies. 101 35. Interim rates. In the above- described proceedings, the Nevada Commission established final recurring and nonrecurring rates for the majority of Nevada Bell’s UNE offerings. Nevada Bell states that, in addition to those UNE offerings, Nevada Bell had a limited number of UNE offerings for which the Nevada Commission has not yet established final recurring and nonrecurring rates. 102 Nevada Bell has filed rates for these UNEs, and these rates have not been challenged. These rates are interim and subject to true- up pending the determination of final rates as part of the Nevada Commission’s ongoing reexamination of UNE rates. 103 b. Discussion 36. Based on the evidence in the record, we find that Nevada Bell’s UNE rates are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory as required by section 251( c)( 3), and are based on cost plus a reasonable profit as required by section 252( d)( 1). Thus, Nevada Bell’s UNE rates satisfy checklist item two. 37. The Nevada Commission conducted extensive pricing proceedings to establish wholesale rates for UNEs. 104 It approved recurring rates by using a Nevada specific version of 99 Nevada Commission Pricing Order III at 2. See also Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 5, Tab 16, Affidavit of Thomas G. Ries (Nevada Bell Ries Aff.) at para. 74- 81. 100 See Nevada Commission Pricing Order III at 3. 101 In re Filing by Nevada Bell of its Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) Nonrecurring Cost Study Pursuant to the Order Issued in Docket No. 98- 6004, P. U. C. N. Docket No. 99- 12033, Petition of Nevada Bell for Review and Approval of its Cost Study and Proposed Rates for Conditioning Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Loops, P. U. C. N. Docket No. 00- 4001 (consolidated), Order (Nov. 20, 2000) (Nevada Commission Pricing Order IV). 102 See Nevada Bell Ries Aff. at para. 15. 103 See Nevada Commission Order at 78; Nevada Bell Ries Aff. at para. 91; Nevada Bell Jacobson Aff. at para. 31. 104 Nevada Commission Order at 28- 33, 78- 79; Nevada Commission Pricing Order I at 22- 24 (establishing recurring UNE rates); Nevada Commission Pricing Order II at 6 (modifying recurring UNE rates set in Nevada Commission Pricing Order I); Nevada Commission Pricing Order III at 3- 4 (establishing nonrecurring rates); Nevada Commission Pricing Order IV at 11- 12 (establishing additional non- recurring rates); Nevada Commission Pricing Order V at 2- 3 (initiating a new proceeding to reexamine UNE rates). See also Department of Justice Evaluation at 2. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 19 the HAI model advocated by AT& T. Competitive LECs agreed to the vast majority of the nonrecurring rates. The Nevada Commission concluded that Nevada Bell’s UNE rates are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory as required by section 251( c)( 3), and satisfy the requirements of checklist item two. 105 No party alleges that Nevada Bell’s rates are inconsistent with TELRIC, or that the Nevada Commission committed TELRIC errors. Based on this record, we find that Nevada Bell has met its burden to show that its prices for UNEs satisfy the statutory mandate. 38. WorldCom alleges that Nevada Bell’s UNE rates are high and exceed a benchmark comparison to the rates in California. 106 WorldCom does not, however, allege any specific TELRIC errors. Where our review consists of a stand- alone analysis of a BOC’s rates, we do not engage in any benchmark comparison. Rather, we review the state’s rate- setting methodology on its own merits. Our analysis is complete if it reveals that there are no basic TELRIC violations or clear errors on substantial factual matters. 107 There is no allegation in the record that the Nevada Commission committed TELRIC errors, nor does our own independent analysis reveal any inconsistencies with TELRIC principles as we have established and applied them. Thus, we need not perform a benchmark comparison to determine TELRIC compliance. 108 To do otherwise would undermine the importance of state- specific, independent analysis of rates for UNEs. It is important to recognize both that costs may vary between states and that state commissions may reach different reasonable decisions on matters in dispute while correctly applying TELRIC principles. 109 Accordingly, we find that Nevada Bell’s current UNE rates satisfy the requirements of checklist item two. 105 Nevada Commission Order at 78- 79; Nevada Commission Pricing Order I at 6- 10. 106 WorldCom Comments at 8. 107 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, 9034, paras. 24- 25 (BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order); 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 Vermont, CC Docket No. 02- 7, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7625, 7639, para. 26 (Verizon Vermont Order); Verizon Rhode Island Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 3320, para. 38- 39; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6276, para. 82; 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, CC Docket No. 02- 67, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 12275, 12295, para. 49 (Verizon New Jersey Order). See also WorldCom v. FCC, 308 F. 3d 1, 4 (D. C. Cir. 2002). 108 Benchmarking is used for the limited purpose of providing confidence that a rate, despite its potential TELRIC errors, falls within the range that a reasonable application of TELRIC would produce. Failure to meet a benchmark, by itself, is not evidence that a state commission failed to reasonably apply TELRIC in setting UNE rates. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9035, para. 25. 109 See e. g., BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9034- 35, paras. 24- 25; Verizon Vermont Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7639, para. 26; Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12285, para. 17. See also AT& T Corp. v. FCC, 220 F. 3d at 615. 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 20 2. Operations Support Systems 39. Based on the evidence in the record, we find, as did the Nevada Commission, 110 that Nevada Bell provides nondiscriminatory access to its OSS in Nevada. 111 As we discuss below, Nevada Bell has shown that evidence concerning its OSS in California, which the Commission previously found to satisfy the requirements of checklist item two, should be considered in this proceeding. 112 No commenter has raised any concerns with Nevada Bell’s OSS or with its reliance on evidence regarding California’s OSS in this proceeding. We therefore discuss here the relevance of California’s systems, and those performance areas involving minor discrepancies that require further consideration. a. Relevance of California’s OSS 40. Consistent with our precedent, Nevada Bell relies in this application on evidence concerning its California OSS. 113 Specifically, Nevada Bell asserts that Pacific Bell’s OSS in California are substantially the same as its OSS in Nevada and, therefore, evidence concerning Pacific Bell’s OSS in California is relevant and should be considered in our evaluation of the Nevada OSS. 114 To support its claim, Nevada Bell submits a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). 115 PwC evaluated the OSS functionality made available to support competitive LEC activity in Nevada and California in order to attest to Nevada Bell management’s assertions that the OSS interfaces in Nevada and California are identical, and the personnel and work center facilities supporting the OSS “employ the same processes” in Nevada 110 See Nevada Commission Order at 76. 111 See Nevada Bell Application at 28- 39; see generally Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 3, Tab 10, Joint Affidavit of Stephen D. Huston and Beth Lawson (Nevada Bell Huston/ Lawson Aff.); Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 4a, Tab. 12, Affidavit of Gwen S. Johnson (Nevada Bell Johnson Aff.). 112 Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25685- 707, paras. 72- 101; see also Verizon Rhode Island Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 3329- 35, paras. 58- 71. 113 See Appendix D at para. 32. 114 See Nevada Bell Application at 29- 30; see also Nevada Bell Huston/ Lawson Joint Aff. at para. 13; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order 16 FCC Rcd at 6239, 6253- 54, 6286, paras. 3, 35- 36, 107. In the Pacific Bell California Order, the Commission conducted a thorough analysis of the Cap Gemini Ernest & Young and General Electric Global Exchange Services testing of Pacific Bell’s OSS functionalities. Specifically, the Commission evaluated Pacific Bell’s ability to provide competitive LECs in California with nondiscriminatory access to pre- ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing functionalities. The Commission held that the third-party test was broad and objective and supported the finding that Pacific Bell provided nondiscriminatory access to its OSS. See Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25685, para. 73. 115 See Nevada Bell Application App. C, Tab 51, Joint Declaration of Theodore V. Schaefer and James J. Murphy, on behalf of Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Petition for Review and Approval of Draft Application by SBC Communications Inc., et al., for Provision of In- Region, InterLATA Services in Nevada, Docket No. 00- 7031 (May 10, 2001) (PwC Decl.). See also SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6286, para. 107 (under the Commission’s analysis, a BOC should support its claim of “sameness” through the submission of an attestation letter and a supplemental report from a third- party consultant). 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 21 as in California. 116 Nevada Bell also submits declaratory evidence that competitive LECs operating in Nevada territory use common interfaces and gateway systems throughout the 13- state operating region. 117 We note that no commenter has raised any issues with respect to checklist item two, or suggested that evidence of Pacific Bell’s OSS should not be considered in this proceeding. We find that Nevada Bell, through the PwC Report and its declarations, provides evidence that the OSS in California are substantially the same as the OSS in Nevada and, therefore, evidence concerning the OSS in California is relevant and should be considered in our evaluation of Nevada Bell’s OSS in Nevada. Accordingly, when volumes in Nevada are too low to yield meaningful information concerning Nevada Bell’s compliance with the competitive checklist, we examine data reflecting Pacific Bell’s performance in California. b. Pre- Ordering 41. We conclude that Nevada Bell demonstrates that it provides nondiscriminatory access to its OSS pre- ordering functions. As discussed below, we find that while Nevada Bell’s performance data demonstrate a few scattered disparities for pre- ordering activity, such disparities do not constitute a significant impact on competitive entry in Nevada, and as such, do not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 118 42. Nevada Bell states that over the relevant five- month data period, the pre- ordering interfaces in Nevada generally met or exceeded the benchmarks for all but one of the sub-measurements established by the Nevada Commission pertaining to competitive LEC pre-ordering transactions. 119 Specifically, Nevada Bell acknowledges that it failed to meet the benchmark standard in Nevada for average response time to obtain telephone numbers for its Verigate interface in four out of the five relevant months. 120 Nevada Bell argues that new functionality and additional lookups for telephone numbers, as requested by competitive LECs, 116 See PwC Decl. at 6- 10. After reviewing the electronic components of the OSS, PwC confirmed that, with the exception of four flow- through items confirmed by Nevada Bell’s management assertion, Nevada Bell and Pacific Bell are served by the same OSS or served by discernibly separate OSS that are identical or behave the same. The four flow- through items include orders for: Resale Conversions “As Is/ With Changes”; certain resale services; 5db Loop Conversions “As Specific”; and “New Connects” for DS1 loops. With respect to the manual components of the OSS, PwC and Nevada Bell confirmed that the similarities between the states will produce similar results. See Nevada Commission Order at 45. 117 Nevada Bell Huston/ Lawson Aff. at para. 5. Nevada Bell states that a uniform system has been established throughout SBC’s 13- state region since implementation of the Uniform and Enhanced Plan of Record (U& E POR). 118 Nevada Bell Johnson Aff. at para. 55 n. 17. See Appendix B; PM 1 (NV Average Response Time). 119 Nevada Bell Application at 31. Nevada Bell states that its pre- ordering interfaces generally met or exceeded the benchmarks for all but one of the sub- measurements established by the Nevada Commission for responsiveness to competitive LEC pre- ordering transactions other than the loop qualification sub- measures. 120 See PM 1- 107101 (Average Response Time (to Pre- Order Queries) Mechanized Verigate – Request for Telephone Number). 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 22 contributed to the additional response time and poor performance results of this measurement. 121 In addition, Nevada Bell provides that during the relevant five- month period, the average response times afforded to competitive LECs relative to this pre- order query type were approximately three seconds beyond the benchmark established by the Nevada Commission. 122 In light of these explanations, and recognizing that no commenter raised any issues regarding Nevada Bell’s pre- ordering OSS, we conclude that Nevada Bell provides access to its pre-ordering functionality in a manner that allows competitive LECs a meaningful opportunity to compete. c. Ordering and Provisioning 43. Based on the evidence in the record, we find that Nevada Bell provides competitive LECs with access to OSS ordering and provisioning functions, on a timely and consistent basis and in a manner that allows these carriers a meaningful opportunity to compete, with few exceptions. 123 As stated above, however, Nevada Bell’s performance data demonstrate generally low volumes for Nevada’s ordering and provisioning functionality over the relevant five- month period. 124 We therefore examine data reflecting Pacific Bell’s performance in California as a means of assessing Nevada Bell’s compliance with this checklist item. Our analysis indicates that while Pacific Bell fails to satisfy the relevant benchmark and parity standard for several performance measurements, we find that these misses generally are isolated and slight, and thus do not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. Two metrics relating 121 Nevada Bell Huston/ Lawson Aff. at para. 23. SBC implemented a Uniform and Enhanced Plan of Record (U& E POR) throughout its 13 state region. Nevada Bell argues that the U& E POR additional functions, such as providing telephone number pooling status and supporting true telephone number reservation, require more processing for the inquiry, which increases the overall turnaround time. Nevada Bell also notes that to accommodate the enhanced capabilities provided by this pre- order query type, it plans to propose a benchmark change to 95% within 10 seconds for 2003. See Nevada Bell Johnson Aff. at para. 55, n. 18. 122 Nevada Bell Johnson Aff. at para. 55. We note that the average response time afforded to competitive LECs relative to this pre- order query type was approximately 7.5 seconds, which was just a few seconds beyond the benchmark of 4.5 seconds. In addition, we note that, with the exception of November, there was an improving trend over the relevant five- month period with Nevada Bell meeting the benchmark standard in January. 123 See Appendix B; see also PM 2 (NV Average FOC/ LSC Notice Interval); PM 2 (CA Average FOC/ LSC Notice Interval); PM 3 (CA Average Reject Notice Interval); PM 6 (CA Average Jeopardy Notice Interval); PM 15a (CA Average Time to Restore Provisioning Troubles – Service Order Completion); and PM 16 (CA Percentage Troubles in 30 Days for Special Service Orders). We acknowledge that Nevada Bell has encountered some difficulties in its flow- through performance. We note, however, that the Commission has stated that flow- through is not the sole indicator of non- discriminatory OSS. Specifically, the Commission found that a BOC’s ability to return timely order confirmation and rejection notices, accurately process manually handled orders, and scale its system is more relevant than a single flow- through analysis. See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order 17 FCC Rcd at 9092, para. 143; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4034- 35, para. 162. The Nevada Bell application demonstrates that Nevada Bell returns timely order confirmation and reject notices, accurately processes manually handled orders, and scales its system. See Nevada Bell Johnson Aff. at para. 75. 124 See supra para. 40. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 23 to Pacific Bell’s ordering and provisioning functionality in California, however, warrant further discussion, which we provide below. 125 44. First, we note that Pacific Bell failed to meet the benchmark standard in California in three out of the five relevant months for returning timely Firm Order Confirmations (FOC) for electronically received UNE- P orders. 126 Nevada Bell argues that Pacific Bell’s performance failures on this metric for two of the relevant months were caused by a series of system failures experienced by one major competitive LEC on its own electronic interfacing system. 127 Given this evidence, and recognizing that Pacific Bell’s performance disparities are slight for this metric, we find that these misses do not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 45. Second, as in previous section 271 orders, we give substantial weight to missed commitment measures as an indicator of provisioning timeliness. 128 We note that Pacific Bell failed to provide competitive LECs with timely notices that it would miss a scheduled installation date, and the performance data show that it has fallen short of the benchmark standard for this measure for each of the five relevant months for UNE- P. 129 However, the missed committed due dates were a very small percentage of competitive carriers’ total UNE- P orders completed in California. Furthermore, as we determined in the Pacific Bell California Order, Pacific Bell demonstrated timely performance for total UNE- P orders completed for each 125 See PM 2- 202200 (CA Average FOC/ LSC Notice Interval UNE- P); and PM 6- 652000 (CA Average Jeopardy Notice Interval – Missed Commitment – UNE- P). 126 See PM 2- 202200 (CA Average FOC/ LSC Notice Interval UNE- P). Pacific Bell missed the .33 minute benchmark standard for September, October, and November. The competitive LEC results for September, October, November, December, and January were 0.42, 0.40, 0.50, 0.23, and 0.23, respectively. We note Nevada Bell’s assertion that it consistently met or exceeded the applicable benchmark standard for measure 2. However, Nevada Bell’s Average FOC Notice Interval for UNE- P – PM 202201 demonstrates extremely low volumes. As such, we are obligated to look to Pacific Bell’s performance measures for this ordering provision. See Nevada Bell Johnson Aff. at para. 63. 127 Letter from Colin S. Stretch, SBC Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 03- 10, Attach. at 6 (filed Feb. 19, 2003) (SBC Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter). The Applicant claims that the system problems of one competitive LEC continued over a number of weeks in late September and early October. Nevada Bell states that Pacific Bell attempted to work with this particular competitive LEC to ensure a progressive flow of orders once its interface system was again functional. However, on more than one occasion, the competitive LEC sent a large volume of backlogged service requests in a very short time frame, thus slowing processing on Pacific Bell’s side of the ordering interface. Nevada Bell contends that, upon reviewing the data, the particular competitive LEC agreed that its actions were the primary cause of the performance shortfalls in September and October. 128 See Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25692- 94, paras. 84- 85. See also SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6307- 08, paras. 147- 49. 129 See Appendix C, PM 6- 652000 (CA Average Jeopardy Notice Interval – Missed Commitment – UNE- P). Jeopardy notices alert customers when Pacific Bell misses a committed due date, and Pacific Bell should provide 95% of missed commitment notices to competitors within 24 hours. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 24 of the relevant months. 130 Accordingly, we find that Nevada Bell, pursuant to its own performance and the performance of Pacific Bell in California, provides competitive LECs with sufficient access to the ordering and provisioning functions of its OSS. d. Maintenance and Repair 46. We conclude that Nevada Bell provides competitive LECs with nondiscriminatory access to maintenance and repair OSS functions in substantially the same time and manner as Nevada Bell’s retail operation, and restores services to competing carriers’ customers in substantially the same time and manner and with a similar level of quality as it restores service to its own customers. 131 Furthermore, we find that Nevada Bell satisfied the applicable parity or benchmark standard for each major performance measurement with few exceptions. 132 47. As noted above, however, in light of Nevada Bell’s generally low volumes for its performance measures, we supplement our analysis using Pacific Bell’s maintenance and repair functionality in California in order to ensure checklist compliance in Nevada. 133 A review of these measures indicates that Pacific Bell has missed parity in California for certain UNE- P maintenance troubles during the relevant five- month period. 134 The Applicant acknowledges 130 Total UNE- P orders completed for this period were 124,691 in September, 188,198 in October, 170,602 in November, 190,692 in December, and 208,251 in January. Appendix C, PM 11 (CA Percent of Due Dates Missed, UNE- P.) Based on these data, Pacific Bell missed less than 1% of committed due dates during the period of September through January 2002. As we stated in the Pacific Bell California Order, we view Pacific Bell’s performance issuing timely missed commitment notices within the broader context of Pacific Bell’s high rate of on-time performance provisioning UNE- P orders, and therefore do not find these disparities to be competitively significant. See Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25692- 93, para. 84. 131 See BellSouth Georgia/ Louisiana Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9111, para. 169; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4067, para. 211. 132 See Appendix B. 133 See supra para. 40. We note, that an evaluation of Pacific Bell’s California performance measurements is supplemental to our Nevada Bell analysis of checklist compliance. As such, less weight may be provided towards California’s performance measurement analysis. We nevertheless find Pacific Bell’s explanations of its performance failures to be both helpful and satisfactory in our analysis of Nevada Bell’s application. 134 See PM 19 (CA Customer Trouble Report Rate); PM 20 (CA Percentage of Customer Trouble Not Resolved Within Estimated Time); PM 21 (CA Average Time to Restore); PM 23 (CA Frequency of Repeat Troubles in 30- Day Period). Pacific Bell missed parity all five of the relevant months for PM 1993600. The comparable percentages were 0. 71, 0. 89, 1. 43, 1. 32, and 1. 14 for competitive LECs, and 0. 47, 0. 49, 0. 73, 0. 71, and 0. 69 for Pacific Bell. Pacific Bell also missed parity for November and January for PM 20- 2097201. The comparable percentages for November and January were 18. 25 and 15. 79 for competitive LECs and 15. 63 and 14. 95 for Pacific Bell, respectively. Furthermore, Pacific Bell missed all five of the relevant months for PM 21- 2197401. The comparable percentages were 9. 11, 8. 32, 17. 29, 16. 14, and 12. 87 for competitive LECs, and 7. 52, 7. 37, 14. 91, 15.21, and 11.98 for Pacific Bell. Finally, Pacific Bell missed all five of the relevant months for PM 23- 2393600. The comparable percentages were 9. 15, 8. 65, 8. 71, 10. 34, and 11. 21 for competitive LECs, and 7. 18, 7. 7, 7. 13, 8.76, and 9.21 for Pacific Bell. We note in the Pacific Bell California Order, that the Department of Justice raised concerns with Pacific Bell’s failure to achieve parity with respect to these three metrics. After thoroughly (continued….) 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 25 these disparities, and argues that UNE- P maintenance troubles in California are significantly affected by the manner in which the parity comparison currently is defined in the maintenance performance measures. 135 For example, the Applicant states that a parity comparison of UNE- P maintenance services with retail business services in California affects Pacific Bell’s ability to achieve parity for the Average Time to Restore UNE- P sub- measure. 136 As a response to this problem, the Applicant states that Pacific Bell has implemented prioritization of competitive LEC UNE- P troubles, paying special attention to those troubles that might be carried over to the next business day. 137 After analyzing Pacific Bell’s performance on this measurement, we find that the disparity in California for the Average Time to Restore reflects a minimal percentage difference between competitive LECs and Pacific Bell’s retail customers. As such, we find these misses to be competitively insignificant, and that lack of parity does not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 48. Finally, we recognize that Pacific Bell’s performance measurement for Frequency of Repeat Troubles in a 30- Day Period for UNE- P has failed to meet parity with the retail analogue all five of the relevant months. 138 The Applicant acknowledges the performance disparity, and states that, as of December 2002, Pacific Bell has implemented new procedures for (Continued from previous page) examining Pacific Bell’s performance, we determined that those misses were not competitively significant. Similarly, we find these misses are not competitively significant in this instance. We will, however, continue to monitor Pacific Bell’s performance in this area for compliance with the conditions of approval in this order. See Pacific Bell California Order 17 FCC Rcd at 25695, para. 87. 135 See Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 5, Tab 13, Joint Affidavit of Richard J. Motta and Richard P. Resnick (Nevada Bell Motta/ Resnick Aff.). Nevada Bell admits that the issue regarding UNE- P maintenance troubles in California has significantly contributed to parity shortfalls for measure 19 – Customer Trouble Report Rate -- and for measure 21 – Average Time to Restore. Nevada Bell explains that Pacific Bell has proposed a change to the analogue for all UNE- P provisioning and maintenance measures to “all retail POTS services.” Nevada Bell claims that had Pacific Bell assessed parity for UNE- P services against the total base of retail services, parity would have been achieved in each of the past three months. Id. at para. 20. 136 See PM 21- 2197401( CA Average Time to Restore – UNE Platform- Basic Port and (8db and 5.5db) Loop). Nevada Bell states that Pacific Bell has analyzed the results for this sub- measure and found that for UNE- P services, troubles were reported about 20% of the time after 5: 00p. m., while for the retail analogue, business POTS, trouble reports were submitted after 5: 00p. m. only 10% of the time. According to Nevada Bell, the significance of this finding is that troubles reported near the end of the business day are less likely to be resolved the same day and more frequently carried over to the next day for resolution. As a result, Nevada Bell concludes that on average, trouble restoral times will be slightly longer for residential services as compared to business services. See Nevada Bell Motta/ Resnick Aff. at para. 23. 137 See Nevada Bell Motta/ Resnick Aff. at para. 24. The Applicant states that from September 2002 through November 2002, average restoral times for basic UNE- P services in California were one to three hours longer than for the retail analogue. While this difference is unlikely to have compromised competitive LECs’ opportunities to compete, the Applicant states that it has sought to mitigate the effects of the disparity. As such, it has implemented the prioritization of competitive LEC UNE- P troubles. 138 See PM 23- 2393600 (CA Frequency of Repeat Troubles in 30- Day Period- UNE- P). Pacific Bell missed parity all five of the relevant months. The comparable percentages were 9. 15, 8. 65, 8. 71, 10. 34, and 11. 21 for competitive LECs, and 7.18, 7.57, 7.13, 8.76, and 9.21 for Pacific Bell. 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 26 both repeated troubles associated with features on the UNE- P service and troubles on the UNE- P facility. 139 Given the generally acceptable performance for all other categories of maintenance and repair and the absence of complaints about these categories in this record or before the Nevada Commission, and recognizing the small percentage disparity with this measurement, we find that these slight performance issues do not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. However, we will continue to monitor performance measurements in this area for compliance with the conditions of approval in this order. Should we find that performance disparities continue to exist or grow worse, we will not hesitate to initiate enforcement mechanisms under section 271( d)( 6) of the Act. IV. OTHER CHECKLIST ITEMS A. Checklist Item 4 – Unbundled Local Loops 49. 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.” 140 Based on the evidence in the record, 141 we conclude, as did the Nevada Commission, 142 that Nevada Bell provides unbundled local loops in accordance with the requirements of section 271 and our rules. We also note that no commenter challenges Nevada Bell’s showing on this checklist item or the California evidence that it relies upon. 50. As of January 2003, competitors have acquired and placed into use approximately 7,200 stand- alone loops (including DSL loops) from Nevada Bell in Nevada. 143 Consistent with prior section 271 orders, we do not address every aspect of an applicant’s loop performance where our review of the record satisfies us that the applicant’s performance complies with the parity and benchmark measures established by the state at issue, in this case Nevada. 144 Instead, 139 The Applicant describes the new procedures as follows: To ensure that feature- related troubles are resolved on the initial trouble report, when troubles of this type are reported, Pacific Bell’s technicians will first verify that the feature is provisioned in its switch. If it is not, Pacific Bell’s technicians will then provision the feature. If the feature does appear in the switch, technicians will test in the central office to validate that the feature is functional. If the feature appears not to be working at the central office, a switch translations technician will “refresh” the feature in the main memory of the switching machine. The feature will then be verified to ensure it is working correctly before the trouble ticket is closed. 140 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( b); see also Appendix D at paras. 48- 52 (regarding requirements under checklist item four). 141 See Nevada Bell Application at 40- 53; see generally Nevada Bell Johnson Aff.; Nevada Bell Application App. A. Vol. 1, Tab 2, Affidavit of Carol A. Chapman (Nevada Bell Chapman Aff.); see also Appendices B, C. 142 See Nevada Commission Order at 137. 143 See Nevada Bell Application at 41 (noting that Verizon had provisioned approximately 750 loops in Vermont and BellSouth had provisioned 3,841 loops in Kentucky and 6,258 loops in Mississippi at the time those BOCs filed their section 271 applications for those states); Nevada Bell Smith Aff. Attach. A, D. 144 See Verizon Connecticut Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 14151- 52, para. 9. 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 27 we focus our discussion on those areas where the record indicates discrepancies in performance between the Applicant and its competitors. In making our assessment, we look for patterns of systemic performance disparities that have resulted in competitive harm or that have otherwise denied new entrants a meaningful opportunity to compete. 145 Isolated cases of performance disparity, especially when the margin of disparity is small, generally will not result in a finding of checklist noncompliance. 146 51. In applying this analysis to the instant record, we find that, in the few instances where there were disparities in Nevada Bell’s performance measures, 147 Nevada Bell’s order volumes with respect to certain categories of loops, or order volumes with respect to a specific metric for a certain category of loop, may be too low to provide meaningful data for our analysis. 148 As discussed above, 149 where we have no meaningful data reflecting Nevada Bell’s performance, we examine the performance of its affiliate, Pacific Bell, in California. 52. Voice- Grade Loops. We conclude, as did the Nevada Commission, 150 that the Applicant demonstrates that it provides nondiscriminatory access to voice- grade loops. Given the low number of orders in Nevada, we examine Pacific Bell’s performance in California. 53. Pacific Bell experienced performance disparities for Frequency of Repeat Troubles within 30 Days for voice- grade loops in three of the five months at issue in this proceeding. 151 This metric measures the percentage of customers that report line troubles within 30 days of a prior trouble report. 54. However, the performance disparities are minor, and Pacific Bell met parity in January. Moreover, even Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate’s customers continue to experience a large number of repeat troubles. 152 In addition, in instances where competitive LECs have submitted 145 See Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9055- 56, para. 122. 146 See Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9055- 56, para. 122. 147 See Appendix B. 148 A small handful of observations may cause seemingly large variations in performance measures. See Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8988, para. 93 n. 296 149 See discussion in Section III. C. 2. a above. 150 See Nevada Commission Order at 139- 143. 151 See PM 23- 2392601 (CA Frequency of Repeat Troubles within 30 days). The comparable percentages of repeat troubles were 8.39, 9.17, 8.80, 10.19 and 9.76 for competitive LECS and 7.15, 7.47, 7.10, 8.76, and 9.27 for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate in September, October, November, December, and January respectively. Pacific Bell failed to meet parity for this metric in October, November, and December. 152 For the period of September through January, the disparity between Pacific Bell’s performance for the competitive LECs and for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate was 1. 34%. See Appendix C; Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 6; compare Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25721, para. 127 n. 459 (noting the minor discrepancy of 1.95% in Pacific Bell’s performance on this performance measure in August 2002). 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 28 trouble reports, Pacific Bell has achieved parity in the measure Average Time to Restore in all but one month from September 2002 to January 2003, and in that one month where parity was not met, the disparity was only 0.17 hours. 153 Finally, we note that Pacific Bell has committed to taking concrete steps to improve its performance on this metric. 154 According to the Applicant, since implementing these steps, “Pacific Bell has seen a reduction in repeat trouble reports on basic UNE loops of over 20%.” 155 Thus, as in the California section 271 proceeding, we find that these performance disparities do not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance. 55. High- Capacity Loops. Based on the evidence in this record, we find, as did the Nevada Commission, that Nevada Bell provides non- discriminatory access to high- capacity loops. 156 Given the low number of orders in Nevada, as noted above, we examine Pacific Bell’s performance in California. While the record reveals a number of performance disparities in Pacific Bell’s California performance measures, we find that these disparities are slight, some disparities were caused by one- time unusual events, and Pacific Bell has taken steps to improve performance. 56. In our review of the record, we find disparities in Pacific Bell’s California performance in the following categories: (1) Percent of Orders Given Jeopardy Notice; (2) Percent of Due Dates Missed, and Percent of Due Dates Missed Due to Lack of Facilities; and 153 See PM 21- 2195401 (CA Average Time to Restore). 154 Specifically, Pacific Bell had implemented a new Fault Isolation Test (FIT) that enables Pacific Bell technicians to interact directly with the competitive LECs in order to get a more complete, accurate description of the trouble, and consequently permits Pacific Bell and the competitive LEC to determine where in the two companies’ networks the trouble lies and to solve the trouble so that it is not as likely to reoccur. See Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25721, para. 127 n. 457. See also Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 6. In addition, since April 2002, Pacific Bell states that it provides more training for tracking and dispatch of maintenance troubles, has upgraded its dispatch system so that competitive LECs receive priority dispatch from field technicians, ensures that dispatched field technicians have expertise to resolve the service problem, and reviews all competitive LEC trouble tickets daily to ensure that no trouble tickets are delayed due to administrative error. See Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25721, para. 127 n. 457; see also Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 6 n. 5. 155 Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 6. Nevada Bell states that, before the FIT process was deployed, from January 2002 to March 2002, competitive LECs suffered repeat trouble rates for basic UNE loops averaging 12.25%. From April 2002, when FIT was fully deployed, through December 2002, repeat trouble rates have averaged around 9.4%. See id. Attach. at 6 n. 5. 156 See Nevada Commission Order at 146. 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 29 (3) Average Time To Restore, and Frequency of Repeat Troubles in a 30- Day Period. 157 We address these performance measures in order. 158 57. First, in the relevant five- month data period for the instant application, Pacific Bell missed parity in the Percentage of Orders Given Jeopardy Notices for three months. 159 The Applicant states that these performance measures do not accurately represent the number of orders that were actually in jeopardy. 160 According to the Applicant, Pacific Bell’s software provisioning system sent jeopardy notices to competitive providers automatically whenever an order required special handling on Pacific Bell’s part. 161 This occurred even though the due date of these special orders was not, in fact, subject to being missed. On December 8, 2002, Pacific Bell upgraded its provisioning program to address this issue. 162 Although Pacific Bell’s original software showed a disparity for December, the upgraded system showed that parity was met for that month. 163 Pacific Bell also met parity in January. 164 157 See Appendix C; PM 5- 523300 (CA Percent of Orders Given Jeopardy Notice) (measuring the number of placed orders for which Pacific Bell sent a notice that completion of the order by the promised due date was in jeopardy); PM 11 (CA Percent of Due Dates Missed); PM 12 (CA Percent of Due Dates Missed Due to Lack of Facilities); PM 21- 2195801 (CA Average Time to Restore) (measuring how long it takes Pacific Bell to complete a competitive LEC trouble ticket); PM 23- 2392801 (CA Frequency of Repeat Troubles in a 30- Day Period) (measuring the percentage of customer trouble reports within 30 days of a prior customer trouble report). 158 We also found slight disparities in the length of time it takes Pacific Bell, upon request from a competitive LEC, to qualify loops during the pre- ordering stage. See PM 1- 105600 (CA Average Time to Pre- Order Mechanical Loop Qualification Actual – Verigate); PM 1- 106007 (CA Average Time to Pre- Order Mechanical Loop Qualification Actual – EDI- CORBA). However, the disparity in Pacific Bell’s performance for these manual searches was only a matter of seconds, and we find it to be not competitively significant. See Appendix C. 159 PM 5- 523300 (CA Percentage of Orders Given Jeopardy Notices). The comparable percentage numbers of orders given jeopardy notices were 6. 33, 9. 07, 8. 17, 5. 72, and 4. 75 for competitive LECS and 4. 38, 4. 10, 4. 06, 5. 92, and 5.20 for September, October, November, December, and January for Pacific Bell’s retail analogue respectively. 160 Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 1. 161 Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 1. “Special handling” is necessary whenever a facilities request falls out of the automatic assignment process and must be manually handled, as in instances where fieldwork may be required to complete an order. See id. 162 Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 1. 163 Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 1. The Applicant states that it does not have appropriate data to restate the months of September through November for Pacific Bell’s performance on these measures. Pacific Bell failed to meet the 95% benchmark for giving advance notice that an order might not be completed by its due date in November and December. PM 6- 648200 (CA Average Jeopardy Notice Interval). The benchmark required that notice be given three hours before close of business 95% of the time that jeopardy notices were issued. Pacific Bell failed that standard by scoring 67, 78, and 75% in November, December, and January respectively. To place these numbers in perspective, however, the Applicant states that, in November and December, Pacific Bell installed over 1000 DS1 loop orders, and only 15 of those missed their due dates. Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 1. Of these 15 jeopardies, notices on only four were not sent out within three hours of the committed due date. Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 1- 2. In January, Pacific Bell installed over 580 DS1 loop orders, and of that number, only seven were placed in jeopardy. Letter from Colin S. Stretch, counsel for Nevada Bell, to (continued….) 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 30 58. Second, Pacific Bell experienced performance disparities for (a) Percent of Due Dates Missed, and (b) Percent of Due Dates Missed Due to Lack of Facilities. As a preliminary matter, we note that the discrepancy in performance is minimal. 165 More importantly, the Applicant states that each month’s miss was due to one- time events that distorted that month’s metric numbers. For example, for the month of November, the Applicant states that heavy rains in the Northern California area caused an unusually high number of loops to fail. 166 Again in January 2003, Northern California suffered not only heavy rains, but the Applicant was also prevented by holiday construction restrictions to gain access to underground facilities in order to complete orders. .167 Given the slight disparity in the performance figures and the unique (Continued from previous page) Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 03- 10, Attach. A, at 1 (filed March 11, 2003) (Nevada Bell Mar. 11 Ex Parte Letter). 164 See Appendix C. 165 For PM 11 (CA Percent of Due Dates Missed), the comparable percentages of due dates missed were 1.96, 2. 83, 3. 12, 3. 59, and 2. 41% for the competitive LECs and 3. 13, .57, 1. 00, 1. 28, and .79% for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate for the months of September, October, November, December and January respectively. For this measure, Pacific Bell failed to achieve parity in October, November, December, and January. For PM 12 (CA Percent of Due Dates Missed Due to Lack of Facilities), the percentage of due dates missed was .98, 1. 19, 1. 66, 2. 39, and 2. 07% for the competitive LECs and .72, .14, .28, .85, and 1. 11% for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate for the months of September, October, November, December, and January, respectively. For this measure, Pacific Bell failed to reach parity in October, November, December and January. 166 The Applicant explains in more detail: Each [California] shortfall was due to an independent event affecting discreet market areas. In October, missed due dates in the North region caused the performance shortfall. This was the only month among the last five months in which Pacific’s performance in the North region did not achieve parity. In November, heavy rains in the Bay region contributed to a higher than usual number of bad cable facilities, causing a slightly higher miss rate for DS1 loops. Pacific did not miss either PM 11 or PM 12 for DS1 loops in the Bay region in any other month in 2002. Finally, in December, issues associated with late engineering designs in the LA region for DS1 loops caused a performance shortfall in that region. As in the Bay region, this was the first time in 2002 that Pacific’s LA region performance for PMs 11 and 12 fell short of parity. Even apart from the isolated nature of these performance shortfalls, in absolute terms Pacific’s performance provisioning DS1 loops has been strong. In the months of September through December, the percentage of due dates missed for DS1 loops was never greater than 3.6%. Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 2. 167 The Applicant explains further: In the North[ ern California] region, Pacific [Bell] missed nine due dates, all as a result of lack of facilities. Two of the misses were due to the California Highway Department’s holiday restrictions, which did not allow access to needed underground facilities during the first few days of January 2003. Another two misses were due to wet cables from the late December rains. Three misses were generated because needed construction work was so extensive that it could not be completed by the committed due date. The final two misses represent orders that were missed due to a Customer Not Ready (“ CNR”) condition. Though Pacific [Bell] was ready to install these orders on time, the orders were shown as “misses” because they initially were placed in jeopardy status early on the due date, due to a lack of facilities. Nevada Bell Mar. 11 Ex Parte Letter Attach. B at 3. 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 31 circumstances surrounding each month’s performance, we find no indication of discriminatory conduct. We note that, on February 20, 2003, the Commission announced in its Triennial Review proceeding that it will address competitive LEC requests that may require new facilities. 168 Although no commenter challenged the Applicant’s showing of nondiscrimination in the performance measure Percent of Due Dates Missed Due to Lack of Facilities, in the wake of the Triennial Review Order, a competitive LEC may assert arguments of discrimination in a section 271( d)( 6) complaint proceeding, where there is an opportunity to build a complete record. 169 59. Third, Pacific Bell experienced performance disparities in the Average Time to Restore metric 170 and the Frequency of Repeat Troubles in 30- Day Period metric. 171 These measures gauge how quickly Pacific Bell repairs a competitive LEC’s customer problem and what percentage of customer trouble reports are made within 30 days of a prior trouble report. 60. The Applicant argues that the general underlying basis for these disparities is the difference in Pacific Bell’s ability to test loops provided to competitive LECs as opposed to its ability to test loops provided to its retail affiliate. 172 The Applicant states that its ability to resolve a customer’s trouble in a timely fashion, and to prevent a recurrence of the trouble, depends in part on the competitive LEC’s ability to identify troubles on its DSL service before submitting a trouble report to Nevada Bell or Pacific Bell. 173 The Applicant states that if the competitive LEC were to test xDSL loops for potential problems prior to provisioning, the number of customer troubles would decline in the first instance, thereby diminishing the number of repeat trouble reports. In addition, potential problems would be identified early in the process, thereby reducing Pacific Bell’s average time to restore. 174 168 The Triennial Review Order will be released in the near future. A press release issued by the Commission at the time it voted on the Triennial Review item states that incumbent LECs “are required to make routine network modifications to UNEs used by requesting carriers where the requested facility has been constructed” and that incumbent LECs are required “to condition loops for the provision of xDSL services.” See FCC Adopts New Rules For Network Unbundling Obligation Of Incumbent Local Phone Carriers, CC No. 01- 338, Press Release ( Feb. 20, 2003), Attach. at 3. 169 Application by Verizon Maryland Inc., Verizon Washington, D. C. Inc., Verizon West Virginia 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 Maryland, Washington, D. C., and West Virginia, WC Docket No. 02- 384, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03- 57, para. 122 (rel. Mar. 19, 2003) (Verizon MD/ D. C./ WVA Order). 170 PM 21- 2195801 (CA Average Time to Restore UNE Lp 2w xDSL); PM 21- 2196001 (CA Average Time To Restore UNE Lp 4w Dig HDSL). 171 PM 23- 2392801 (CA Frequency of Repeat Troubles UNE Lp 2w xDSL). 172 Nevada Bell Mar. 11 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 1. 173 See Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 3. 174 See Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 3. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 32 61. In September 2002, Pacific Bell began signal testing all DSL- capable loops for competitive LECs and Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate, testing for both continuity of the loop and whether a data signal can be passed on the circuit. 175 Pacific Bell states that it will also perform synchronization tests for DSL service, if the competitive LEC provides test modems to Pacific Bell for the testing. 176 As a result of these new testing procedures, the Applicant states that repeat trouble reports have been reduced from levels of 18 to 25 percent for the January to August 2002, time frame to levels of 16 to 18 percent for September to December 2002. 177 62. However, we note with concern that, from September 2002 through January 2003, the percentage numbers of repeat troubles for competitive LECs climbed from 16.69 percent to 22.73 percent. The disparity in recurring troubles for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate and the recurring troubles for the competitive LECs widened from 4.43 percent in September 2002, to 9.51 percent in January 2003. 178 The Applicant argues that this increase in recurring competitive LEC troubles in January 2003, was due to wet weather conditions. 179 In addition, the apparent disparity in this measurement of recurring troubles is due, the Applicant states, to the types of recurring troubles that are measured. 180 63. The heavy January rains, the Applicant states, caused an increase in recurring physical failures of entire loops. 181 For the competitive LECs, this increase is reflected in PM 23- 2392801. For its retail affiliate, the Applicant states that an increase in the physical failure of its loops is reflected in voice- loop recurring trouble performance measurements. 182 Our review 175 See Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 3. 176 See Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 3. To date, only Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate has provided test modems for synchronization testing. See id. 177 See Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 3. 178 PM 23- 2392801 (CA Frequency of Repeat Troubles UNE Lp 2w xDSL). The comparable percentage numbers of repeat troubles were 16.69, 17.84, 17.71, 17.60, and 22.73% for the competitive LECs and 12.09, 13.13, 12.36, 13. 10, and 13. 22% for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate. Pacific Bell failed to meet parity in September, October, November, December, and January. 179 Nevada Bell Mar. 11 Ex Parte Letter Attach A at 1. The Applicant states that 72% of the repeat troubles were resolved at the cable facility. Id. at Attach A at 2. 180 The Applicant explains that, for purposes of this performance measure, the retail analogue for xDSL loops that it provides to competitive LECs are line shared loops that Pacific Bell shares with is retail affiliate. Nevada Bell Mar. 11 Ex Parte Letter Attach A at 1. The Applicant states that PM 23- 2392801 measures a recurring problem for its retail affiliate’s line shared loop when there is a recurring trouble with only the data portion of the loop. If there is a trouble with the entire line shared loop that affects both the voice and data portions, the trouble is reported under a performance metric that gauges recurring troubles for voice, not data. Nevada Bell Mar. 11 Ex Parte Letter Attach A at 2. 181 Nevada Bell Mar. 11 Ex Parte Letter Attach A at 1. 182 Nevada Bell Mar. 11 Ex Parte Letter Attach A at 2. 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 33 of a performance measurement reflecting recurring troubles of statewide residential POTs confirms a slight increase in Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate’s recurring trouble rate. 183 64. The record also demonstrates that, even though Pacific Bell continues to suffer a disparity in its Average Time to Restore xDSL trouble tickets, it shortened its average time to restore competitive xDSL trouble tickets by 3.47 hours between December 2002, and January 2003. 184 In light of this improvement, the overall minimal disparity in the average time to repair customer trouble reports, 185 Pacific Bell’s explanation of the January 2003, recurring trouble performance measures, and Pacific Bell’s new offerings to trouble test xDSL capable loops prior to provisioning, we do not find any evidence of discrimination with regard to high- capacity loops. 65. Line Sharing and Line Splitting. Based on the evidence in the record, we find, as did the Nevada Commission, that Nevada Bell demonstrates that it provides nondiscriminatory access to the high frequency portion of the loop. 186 Given the low number of orders in Nevada, as noted above, we examine Pacific Bell’s performance in California. To the extent that there were discrepancies in Pacific Bell’s California performance with regard to line sharing and line splitting trouble reports after provisioning, such discrepancies do not appear to be competitively significant. 187 Moreover, as discussed in the high- capacity loop section above, Pacific Bell’s new line testing procedures have lowered the percentage of trouble reports. 188 183 See PM 23- 2391600 (CA Frequency of Repeat 30 Day Troubles: Statewide Resale Residential POTS). On this performance measure, Pacific Bell’s affiliate’s repeat trouble rate increased from 11.22% to 12.46% from December 2002, to January 2003. The repeat trouble rate for competitive LECS on this performance measure increased from 6.52% to 10.3% during this same period. 184 See PM 21- 2195801 (CA Average Time to Restore UNE Lp 2w xDSL), the comparable numbers (in hours taken to restore service) were 12. 32, 10. 87, 16. 69, 18. 16, and 14. 69 for the competitive LECs and 12. 50, 9. 86, 13. 17, 14. 12, and 12. 01 for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate for the months of September, October, November, December, and January. Pacific Bell failed to meet parity in October, November, December, and January. See also PM 21- 2196001 (CA Average Time to Restore UNE Lp 4w Dig HDSL). In the months submitted in this proceeding, Pacific Bell’s performance (in hours taken to restore service ) was 4.28, 3.88, 4.85, 3.91, and 3.25 for competitive LECs and 3. 14, 3. 10, 4. 45, 4. 46, and 3. 62 for the Pacific Bell affiliate for the months September, October, November, December, and January. Pacific Bell failed to meet parity in September, October, November, and January. 185 The disparity in the Average Time to Restore a DSL problem was in most months a matter of hours. See Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25723, para. 130 n. 467 (noting that two hours difference in repair time for competitive LECs and Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate was minimal). 186 See Nevada Commission Order at 152- 53. 187 See PM 16 (CA Percentage Troubles within 30 Days for Special Services Orders). Pacific Bell failed to meet parity for this performance measure during October, November, December, and January. For this measure, the comparable percentages of troubles with special orders were 2.08, 3.47, 2.95, 3.32, and 2.84 for the competitive LECs and 1. 87, 2. 31, 1. 94, 3. 08, and 1. 78 for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate for the months September, October, November, December, and January. Pacific Bell missed parity for September, October, November, December, and January for CA Customer Trouble Report Rate. See 19- 1994100 (CA Customer Trouble Report Rate). For this (continued….) 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 34 B. Checklist Item 1— Interconnection 66. 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 Nevada Commission, that Nevada Bell complies with the requirements of this checklist item. 189 In reaching this conclusion, we have examined Nevada Bell’s performance with respect to collocation and interconnection trunks, as the Commission has done in prior section 271 proceedings. When analyzing Nevada Bell’s showing, we first review Nevada performance data for measures where there are sufficient commercial volumes. However, for other measures, where volumes are low, we look to California data. (Continued from previous page) measure, the comparable percentages of trouble rates were .69, .95, .67, .64 and .8 for the competitive LECs and .42, .48, .43, .43 and .45 for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate for the months September, October, November, December, and January. In addition, Pacific Bell missed parity for October, November, and December for CA Frequency of Repeat Troubles in a 30- Day Period. See PM 23- 2394000 (CA Frequency of Repeat Troubles in 30- Day Period). For this measure, the comparable percentages of repeat troubles were 14.44, 18.60, 17.65, 19.04, and 18.5 for the competitive LECs and 12. 09, 13. 13, 12. 36, 13. 10, and 13. 22 for Pacific Bell’s retail affiliate for the months of September, October, November, December, and January. Pacific Bell failed to meet parity in October, November, December, and January. 188 The Applicant states Pacific Bell’s efforts have reduced repeat trouble reports for competitive LEC line shared loops. See Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 3. According to the Applicant, repeat reports for line shared loops have gone down from 18 to 24% in the months January through August 2002, to 14.5 to 19% in the September to December 2002, timeframe. See id. 189 See Nevada Commission Order at 55- 56. See also Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9092- 95, paras. 183- 87, 9097- 98, paras. 194- 95. We note that Nevada Bell met the parity standard for the vast majority of interconnection performance measures for which there was sufficient volume. See Appendix B. For performance measures with low volumes, we note that Pacific Bell met the parity standard for the vast majority of interconnection performance measures in California. See Appendix C. The one performance measure for which Nevada Bell failed to meet the benchmark standard in Nevada was the Percent Blocking of Common Trunks measure. See PM 24- 240010 (NV Percent Blocking on Common Trunks). For that performance measure, Nevada Bell failed the benchmark standard four of the five months reported by having between 3 and 6% of common trunks blocked, when the benchmark standard is 2%. Nevada Bell explains that for the misses in September and October, the trunk blockages were due in part to a one- time routing error on the part of a Nevada Bell employee, and in part due to overflow traffic onto the Nevada Bell common transport network from one competitive LEC. See Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 1, Tab 5, Affidavit of William C. Deere (Nevada Bell Deere Aff.) at paras. 34- 42; see also Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 6. Nevada Bell further explains that the performance shortfall in December was caused by a high volume of traffic from a telemarketer occurring for one hour on one day of the month, and the performance failure in January was also caused by a single trunk group being blocked greater than the objective level. Because of the small number of trunk groups in Nevada, Nevada Bell claims that significant overflow from even one competitive LEC can cause customer- affecting blocking levels on the network. Accordingly, Nevada Bell is requesting some modifications to this performance measure. Nevada Bell Feb. 19 Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 6; see also Nevada Bell Mar. 11 Ex Parte Letter Attach B at 9. We note that no competitive carriers commented on this performance or suggested that they were negatively affected by the common trunk blockage during these months. After evaluating Nevada Bell’s explanations, we find that these misses do not overcome Nevada Bell’s showing of checklist compliance. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 35 67. We reject the allegations of several paging carriers that Nevada Bell should fail this checklist item because it has refused to provide interconnection facilities and has charged these paging companies inappropriately for the delivery of interconnection services. 190 In response to these comments, Nevada Bell claims that it has provided all of the commenting carriers with interconnection facilities. 191 Because Nevada Bell claims that these facilities are underutilized, it contends that it has not provided additional trunking requested by the paging carriers at issue. Instead, it has offered to work with the carriers to determine whether any additional trunking is needed. 192 On the issue of billing paging carriers improperly, Nevada Bell claims that the charges at issue include those that incumbent LECs may charge paging carriers for facilities utilized for various services (e. g., transit traffic and wide area calling services). 193 Nevada Bell further claims that it has sought to negotiate interconnection agreements with the paging carriers that would resolve the issue of whether any refunds are owed and would address the question of what charges Nevada Bell is entitled to bill on a going- forward basis. 194 According to Nevada Bell, the paging carriers have not been willing to engage in negotiations. In addition, Nevada Bell states that although it has submitted bills to these paging carriers, it has not taken adverse action against them for failure to pay the disputed charges. 195 These paging carrier comments do not seem to suggest any systemic failure on the part of Nevada Bell, but instead appear to be carrier- specific complaints concerning Nevada Bell’s conduct. As the Commission has found in prior section 271 proceedings, we find that the complaint process is the more appropriate forum to examine these types of carrier- specific factual disputes. 196 Indeed, at least two of the paging companies indicate that they have initiated some sort of enforcement action before both the Commission and the Nevada Commission against Nevada Bell. 197 We would foreclose a possible resolution of this issue by the Nevada Commission were we to find that this issue warrants a finding of checklist noncompliance, and we decline to do so. 190 See Edwards Industries Comments; January Communications Comments; Nevada Microwave Comments; NRTN Comments; and Satellite Page Comments. Specifically, Edwards Industries, Nevada Microwave, and NRTN claim that Nevada Bell has refused to provide interconnection services. Edwards Industries, January Communications, NRTN, and Satellite Page also claim that Nevada Bell has been billing inappropriately for the delivery of interconnection services. 191 Nevada Bell Application Supplemental Reply, Reply Affidavit of Daniel O. Jacobsen (Nevada Bell Jacobsen Reply Aff.), at paras. 10, 13- 14. 192 Nevada Bell Jacobsen Reply Aff. at paras. 10,14. 193 Nevada Bell Jacobsen Reply Aff. at para. 6. 194 Nevada Bell Jacobsen Reply Aff. at para. 8. 195 Nevada Bell Jacobsen Reply Aff. at para. 8. 196 As the Commission has found in past proceedings, the section 271 process simply could not function if we were required to resolve every interpretive dispute between a BOC and each competitive carrier about the precise content of the BOC’s obligations to its competitors. See, e. g., SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18366- 67, 18541, paras. 22- 27, 383; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6355, para. 230. 197 See Edwards Industries Comments at 2; January Communications Comments at 2. 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 36 C. Remaining Checklist Items (3, 5- 14) 68. 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), 198 item 5 (transport), 199 item 6 (unbundled local switching), 200 item 7 (911/ E911 access and directory assistance/ operator services), 201 item 8 (white pages directory listings), 202 item 9 (numbering administration), 203 item 10 (databases and associated signaling), 204 item 11 (number portability), 205 item 12 (local dialing parity), 206 item 13 (reciprocal compensation), 207 and item 14 (resale). 208 Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude, as did the Nevada Commission, that Nevada Bell demonstrates that it is in compliance with these checklist items in Nevada. 209 None of the commenting parties challenge Nevada Bell’s compliance with these checklist items. V. SECTION 272 COMPLIANCE 69. 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.” 210 Based 198 47 U. S. C § 271( c)( 2)( B)( iii). 199 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( v). 200 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( vi). 201 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( vii). 202 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( viii). 203 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ix). 204 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( x). 205 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xi). 206 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xii). 207 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiii). 208 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiv). We note that, regarding advanced services, Nevada Bell provides the same resale offerings in Nevada as Pacific Bell provides and we approved in California. See Nevada Bell Application at 64; Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25713- 15, paras. 110- 15. 209 Nevada Bell Application at 39- 40 (checklist item 3), 54- 55 (checklist item 5), 56- 57 (checklist item 6), 57- 59 (checklist item 7), 59- 60 (checklist item 8), 60 (checklist item 9), 60- 61 (checklist item 10), 61- 63 (checklist item 11), 63 (checklist item 12), 63- 64 (checklist item 13), and 64- 67 (checklist item 14); Nevada Commission Order at 133- 36 (checklist item 3), 156- 61 (checklist item 5), 161- 66 (checklist item 6), 166- 75 (checklist item 7), 175- 79 (checklist item 8), 179- 81 (checklist item 9), 181- 87 (checklist item 10), 187- 93 (checklist item 11), 193- 95 (checklist item 12), 195- 97( checklist item 13), and 197- 205 (checklist item 14). 210 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( B); Appendix D at paras. 68- 69. 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 37 on the record, we conclude that Nevada Bell has demonstrated that it will comply with the requirements of section 272. 211 Significantly, Nevada Bell provides evidence that it maintains the same structural separation and nondiscrimination safeguards in Nevada as it does in California. 212 No party challenges Nevada Bell’s section 272 showing. 213 VI. PUBLIC INTEREST 70. Apart from determining whether a BOC satisfies the competitive checklist of section 271 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. 214 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).” 215 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. 71. 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 Nevada 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 211 See Nevada Bell Application at 77- 78; Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 1, Tab 1, Affidavit of Joe Carrisalez (Nevada Bell Carrisalez Aff.); Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 2a- c, Tab 8, Affidavit of Robert L. Henrichs (Nevada Bell Henrichs Aff.); Nevada Bell Application App. A, Vol. 5, Tab 20, Affidavit of Linda G. Yohe (Nevada Bell Yohe Aff.). 212 See Nevada Bell Carrisalez Aff. Attach. A at para. 5; Nevada Bell Henrichs Aff. Attach. C at para. 9; Nevada Bell Yohe Aff. Attach. A at para. 7. See also Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25731- 33, paras. 145- 46; SWBT Arkansas/ Missouri Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 20780- 81, paras. 122- 23; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6370- 74, paras. 256- 65; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18548- 57, paras. 394- 415. 213 Ernst & Young has completed the first independent audit of SBC’s section 272 compliance pursuant to section 53.209 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. § 53.209. See Letter from Brian Horst, Partner, Ernst & Young, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communication Commission (Sept. 16, 2002) (transmitting audit report). Although the audit raises issues that may require further investigation, the audit results, standing alone, are insufficient to establish whether Nevada Bell is in compliance with section 272. 214 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( C); Appendix D at paras. 70- 71. 215 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 3)( C). 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 38 the relevant local exchange market is open to competition consistent with the competitive checklist. Moreover, in the absence of any arguments made, or evidence presented by commenters to the contrary, we find no reason to depart from this general assumption. 72. In addition, we find that the Nevada Commission’s PIP provides further assurances that Nevada Bell will keep the local exchange markets open. 216 Although it is not a requirement for section 271 approval that a BOC be subject to such post- entry performance assurance mechanisms, such mechanisms are probative evidence that the BOC will continue to keep the local exchange markets open in the public interest. 217 73. We have examined key aspects of Nevada’s PIP and find that the plan is likely to provide incentives that are sufficient to foster post- entry checklist compliance. As in prior section 271 orders, 218 we find present in the Nevada Commission plan the following elements necessary for a successful performance assurance plan: total liability at risk in the plan for failure to meet performance measurements; structure of the plan; self- executing nature of remedies of the plan; data validation and audit procedures of the plan; and accounting requirements. 219 The Nevada Commission will also, from time to time, reexamine and amend performance measures and the incentive plan to ensure that they reflect changes in the telecommunications industry. 220 No commenter has argued or presented evidence that the Nevada incentives plan is in any way deficient in continuing to protect the public interest embodied in section 271. VII. SECTION 271( d)( 6) ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY 74. Section 271( d)( 6) of the Act requires Nevada Bell to continue to satisfy the “conditions required for . . . approval” of its section 271 application after the Commission approves its application. 221 Thus, the Commission has a responsibility not only to ensure that Nevada Bell 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 216 See Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25738, para. 160 n. 570. We note that in all of the applications granted by the Commission, the applicant was subject to a performance assurance plan designed to protect against backsliding from its section 271 obligations once the BOC enters the long distance market. 217 See Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25738, para. 160 n. 571; Verizon New Jersey Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12362, para. 176; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20748- 50, paras. 393- 98. 218 See Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25738- 39, para. 161; Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9121- 25, paras. 240- 47; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6377- 81, paras. 273- 78. 219 See Nevada Commission Order at 207- 13; Nevada Bell Application at 76- 77; Nevada Bell Johnson Aff. at paras. 201- 08, 211- 12, 215. 220 See Nevada Commission Order at 209- 10; see also Pacific Bell California Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 25739- 40, para. 163 (noting with approval that the California Commission would continue to review that state’s performance measures and incentives plans and make “adjustments and modifications to the components, if necessary”). 221 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 6). 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 39 and its section 271( d)( 6) enforcement powers in detail in prior orders, it is unnecessary to do so again here. 222 75. Working in concert with the Nevada Commission, we intend to monitor closely Nevada Bell’s post- approval compliance for Nevada to ensure that Nevada Bell does not “cease[] to meet any of the conditions required for [section 271] approval.” 223 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 Nevada. We are prepared to use our authority under section 271( d)( 6) if evidence shows market opening conditions have not been maintained. 76. We require Nevada Bell to report to the Commission all Nevada carrier- to- carrier performance measure results and PIP reports 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, on an ongoing basis, Nevada Bell’s performance 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 Nevada Bell’s entry into the Nevada long distance market. 224 VIII. CONCLUSION 77. For the reasons discussed above, we grant Nevada Bell’s application for authorization under section 271 of the Act to provide in- region, interLATA services in the State of Nevada. 222 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. 223 47 U. S. C. § 271( d)( 6)( A). 224 See, e. g., Bell Atlantic- New York, Authorization Under Section 271 of the Communications Act To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in the State of New York, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5413, 5413- 23 (2000) (adopting consent decree between the Commission and Bell Atlantic that included provisions for Bell Atlantic to make a voluntary payment of $3,000,000 to the United States Treasury, with additional payments if Bell Atlantic failed to meet specific performance standards and weekly reporting requirements to gauge Bell Atlantic’s performance in correcting the problems associated with its electronic ordering systems). 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 40 IX. ORDERING CLAUSES 78. 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, Nevada Bell’s application to provide in- region, interLATA service in the State of Nevada, filed on January 14, 2003, IS GRANTED. 79. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE April 25, 2003. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 APPENDIX A Commenters in WC Docket No. 03- 10 Commenters Abbreviation Alliance for Public Technology APT Edwards Industries Edwards Industries Department of Justice Department of Justice January Communications January Communications Nevada Radio Telephone Network NRTN Nevada Microwave Nevada Microwave Nevada Public Utilities Commission Nevada Commission State of the Arts Communications and Electronics Satellite Page REC Networks REC WorldCom, Inc. WorldCom Reply Commenters Abbreviation Nevada Bell Nevada Bell WorldCom, Inc. WorldCom 41 Metrics with no retail analog provided are usually compared with a benchmark. Note that for some metrics during the period provided there ma y be changes in the metric definition, or changes in the retail analog applied, making it difficult to compare data over time. Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Appendix B Nevada Performance Metrics Except where noted, the data included here are taken from the Nevada performance reports provided by Nevada Bell, calculated according to the Nevada Performance Measurement Plan as of 9/ 12/ 02. 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). 42 Metric Number Metric Name Metric Number Metric Name Pre- Ordering 23 Fre quency of Repeat Troubles in 30- Day Period 1 Avera ge Response Time (to Pre- Order Queries) Network Performance 24 Percent Blocking on Common Trunks 2 Avera ge FOC Notice Interval 25 Percent Blockin g on Interconnection Trunks 3 Avera ge Reject Notice Interval 26 NXX Loaded by LERG Effective Date 4 Percenta ge of Flow- Through Orders Billing Provisioning 38 Usage Timeliness 5 Percent of Orders Jeo pardized 30 Wholesale Bill Timeliness 6 Jeo pardy Notices Returned by the Required Interval 31 Usa ge Completeness 7 Com pleted Interval 32 Recurrin g Charge Completeness 8 Percent Completed Within Standard Interval as a Percentage On - Time 33 Non- Recurring Charge Completeness 9 Coordinated Customer Conversion 34 Bill Accurac y 9a Frame Due Time (FDT) Conversions as a Percentage on Time 35 Billin g Completion Notice Interval 10 LNP Network Provisionin g 11 Percent of Due Dates Missed Database U pdates 12 Percent Com pany Missed Due Dates Due to Lack of Facilities 37 Database Update Interval 13 Dela y Order Interval to Completion Date 38 Percent Database Accurac y 14 Held Order Interval 39 E911/ 911 MS Database U pdate Interval 15 Provisionin g Trouble Reports 15a Avera ge Time to Restore Provisioning Troubles Collocation 16 Percent Troubles in 30 Da ys for New Orders (Specials) 40 Time to Respond to a Collocation Request 17 Percent Troubles in 10 Da ys for New Orders (Non- Specials) 41 Time to Provide a Collocation Arran gement 18 Avera ge Completion Notice Interval Interfaces Maintenance 42 Percent of Time Interface is Available 19 Customer Trouble Re port Rate 44 Center Res ponsiveness 20 Percent of Customer Trouble not Resolved within Estimated 21 Avera ge Time to Restore 22 POTS Out of Service Less Than 24 Hours Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Performance Metric Categories Ordering B - 2 43 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Pre- Ordering 1 - Average Response Time (to Pre- Order Queries) 1 - 103300 Man Fax: Req for CSR 100.00 96.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 - 105101 K1023: Man Qual - All Other Products 0.39 10.52 1.21 5.32 2.64 7.71 0.85 3.85 1.44 7.52 abcde 1 - 105102 K1023: Man Qual - xDSL & Line Sharin g Loops 1.25 0.82 0.43 1.02 1.08 0.99 0.65 1.21 0.77 0.46 abcde 1 - 107001 Mech Veri gate: Add Verif 1.57 1.94 2.75 1.93 1.82 1 - 107101 Mech Veri gate: Request TN 7.27 7.09 8.21 6.32 4.44 1 - 107201 Mech Veri gate: Request CSR 3.60 3.65 6.21 5.06 4.36 1 - 107301 Mech Veri gate: Svc Avail 0.86 0.96 1.95 0.81 0.84 1 - 107500 Mech Veri gate: Rej/ Fail Inq 2.58 3.61 9.84 1.84 3.81 1 - 107501 Mech Veri gate: Dispatch Req/ Fac Avail nd nd nd nd 5.91 abcde 1 - 107700 Mech L p Qual: Verigate Mech Lp Qual Actual 13.43 9.48 1 - 107702 Mech L p Qual: Verigate Mech Lp Qual Actual 100.00 98.46 92.65 93.18 1 - 107800 Mech Loo p Qual: Verigate Mech Loop Qual Design 4.34 3.69 a 1 - 107802 Mech Loo p Qual: Verigate Mech Loop Qual Design 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 b 1 - 108001 Mech EDI/ COBRA: Address Verification 5.19 3.00 n d 1.43 nd a cde 1 - 108101 Mech EDI/ COBRA: Re quest TN 1.62 5.30 nd 2.66 nd abcde 1 - 108201 Mech EDI/ COBRA: Re quest CSR 1.90 2.27 3.22 0.70 0.86 1 - 108500 Mech EDI/ COBRA: Re j/ Fail Inq 1.39 2.04 1.27 0.95 0.77 2 - 200101 Elect/ Elect - Resale Res POTS 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 2 - 200201 Elect/ Elect - Resale Bus POTs 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 abcd 2 - 201101 Elect/ Elect - UNE 2/ 4w (8db & 5.5db) Weight 2/ 4w Anal L p (incl Coin/ Anal PBX) 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 2 - 201201 Elect/ Elect - UNE L p 2w Dig ISDN Cap 0.02 0.02 nd nd 0.02 abcde 2 - 201301 Elect/ Elect - UNE L p 2w Dig xDSL Cap (A, H, I, S) 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 2 - 201403 Elect/ Elect - UNE L p 4w Dig 1.544 mbpd Cap/ HDSL 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 a cde 2 - 202201 Elect/ Elect - UNE Pltfrm Basic Port & (8db & 5.5db) 0.19 0.14 0.15 0.18 nd abcde 2 - 204004 Elct Man- UNE Voice- Grade L p - Enhance Extend nd nd 2.12 0.68 2.65 abcde 2 - 204005 Elct Man- UNE 4w Di g DS1 Lp - Enhance Extend 1.58 0.33 1.42 1.87 1.33 abcd 2 - 205301 Man- Man- Resale Res POTS 1.39 1.77 2.21 1.41 1.64 2 - 205401 Man- Man- Resale Bus POTS 2.89 2.68 3.02 2.54 2.44 2 - 205600 Man- Man- Resale Centre x 2.44 2.68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 2 - Average FOC Notice Interval Ordering B - 3 44 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 2 - 206101 Man- Man- Resale Specials 3.66 2.57 2.91 2 - 206600 Man- Man- UNE 4w Di g 1.544 mbps Cap/ HDSL (DS1 Lp) nd nd 6.78 nd nd abcde 2 - 207302 Man- Man- UNE Ded Trans port DS3 nd nd 8.17 nd nd abcde 2 - 207801 Pro jects All Systems- Projects 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 nd abcde 2 - 207802 Pro jects All Systems- Proj Interconnect Trks 1.79 nd b 2 - 207804 Pro jects All Systems- Proj Interconnect Trks- New 100.00 100.00 100.00 cde 2 - 208105 Elect/ Elect- Hi gh Bandwidth Line Share UNE 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 abcde 2 - 208205 Elect/ Man- Hi gh Bandwidth Line Share UNE 2.92 1.62 2.58 nd 0.85 a cde 2 - 209000 Intercnnect Trks- Intercnnect Trks - New (in days) 0.00 2.67 2.00 nd 3.00 abcde 2 - 209100 Intercnnect Trks- Intercnnect Trks - Au gument (in days) 1.20 1.55 2.00 0.25 1.55 a cd 2 - 211405 Elect/ Elect- UNE EELS - DS1 0.02 0.02 n d nd 0.02 abcde 2 - 212500 Elect/ Elect- LNP Sim ple 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 abcde 2 - 212700 Elect/ Man- Resale Res POTS 1.11 1.01 1.29 1.14 1.32 2 - 212800 Elect/ Man- Resale Bus POTS 1.79 1.75 1.66 1.97 2.27 a cd 2 - 213100 Elect/ Man- Resale PBX n d 3.33 ab 2 - 213501 Elect/ Man- Resale S pecials 2.77 2.27 2.04 cd 2 - 213601 Elect/ Man- UNE 2/ 4w (8db& 5.5db) weighted 2/ 4w Anal L p (incl Coin/ Anal PBX) 1.83 1.76 2.81 1.50 1.23 2 - 213800 Elect/ Man- UNE L p 2w Dig ISDN Cap 1.76 1.72 nd nd 3.18 abcde 2 - 213900 Elect/ Man- UNE L p 2w Dig xDSL Cap (A, H, I, S) 5.22 2.24 1.94 1.71 1.54 2 - 214000 Elect/ Man- UNE L p 4w Dig 1.544 mbps Cap 1.47 2.07 1.74 1.56 0.94 2 - 214702 Elect/ Man- UNE Ded Trns pt - DS3 1.40 nd nd nd nd abcde 2 - 214800 Elect/ Man- UNE Pltfrm Basic Port & (8db & 5.5db) Basic Loo p 6.86 nd nd nd 2.32 abcde 2 - 215101 Elect/ Man- Standalone LNP 1.69 1.84 2.58 1.77 1.68 2 - 216300 Elect/ Man- UNE 2/ 4w (8db & 5.5db) wt 2/ 4w Anal Lp (incl Coin/ Anal PBX) nd nd 2.10 nd nd abcde 2 - 217700 Man/ Man- Standalone LNP 6.28 n d nd nd nd abcde 3 - 300201 Elct: LEX- CLEO/ LASR Stand Alone Dir List Sytax (edit en gine) Rej Notice 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.08 de 3 - 300202 Elct/ Elct: LEX CLEO/ LASR Othr Fac Base/ UNE Syntax (edit eng) Rej Not 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 3 - Average Reject Notice Interval B - 4 45 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 3 - 300301 Elct: Elct/ Elct: LEX- CLEO/ LASR Resale Syntax (edit eng) Re j Not 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.05 3 - 300401 Elct/ Elct: EDI- CLEO/ LASR Othr Fac Base UNE Syntax (edit eng) Rej Not 0.15 nd nd 0.15 0.15 bcde 3 - 300700 Elct Man: LEX- CLEO/ LASR:( Exc to LSC) Facilities Content Errs 2.39 1.63 1.40 1.41 1.82 3 - 300800 Elct Man: LEX- CLEO/ LASR:( Exc to LSC) Resale Content Errs 1.66 0.94 1.74 1.32 1.59 cd 3 - 300900 Elct Man: EDI- CLEO/ LASR: Otr Fac Base/ UNE Content Errs (otr edits) Rej Ntc 2.71 1.70 nd 3.92 1.64 abcde 3 - 301300 Man- Man: CESAR Facilities Content Errors 2.57 2.06 2.66 2.41 2.37 3 - 310100 Elect/ Man: Fac Content Errors (othr edits) Rej Not nd nd nd 3.65 2.05 abcde 3 - 320000 Pro jects: Projects 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 bcde 4 - 410400 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Standalone LNP- Svc Migration w/ ch gs 42.11 8.70 10.00 7.14 9.68 4 - 410500 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Lp 8db wt 2w anal bas- New Svc Install 70.00 86.96 71.43 75.00 77.78 4 - 410700 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Lp 2w dig xDSL cap- New Svc Install 86.67 75.00 54.55 76.00 70.45 4 - 410801 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Lp 4w dig (1.544 mbps cap) New Svc Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 4 - 410900 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 8db wt 2w anal bas- Svc Discnnec t 48.21 69.23 29.23 29.03 40.74 4 - 411100 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE L p 2w dig ISDN- Svc 33.33 20.00 50.00 nd nd abcde 4 - 411200 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Lp 2w dig xDSL cap- Svc Discnnec t 0.00 9.52 21.43 50.00 20.00 4 - 411300 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Lp 4w dig( 1.544 mbps)- Svc Discnnec t 88.89 58.82 100.00 54.55 100.00 a e 4 - 411500 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: LNP w/ Loo p- Svc Migration w/ chgs nd 18.75 41.03 33.33 20.00 a 4 - 411700 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Platform( Loop & Prt)- Svc Discnnec t 66.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 nd abcde 4 - 412000 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Platform( Loop w/ Prt)- Chg Activities 0.00 nd nd 100.00 nd abcde 4 - Percent of Flow- Through Orders B - 5 46 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 4 - 412100 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Hgh Bndwdt Line Share- New Svc Install 100.00 100.00 50.00 nd 100.00 abcde 4 - 412200 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Hgh Bndwdt Line Share- Svc Discnnec t 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 40.00 a cd 4 - 412300 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Lp 2w dig IDSL cap- Svc Disconnec t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cde 4 - 412400 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE EELs- Voice Grade- Svc Disconnec t nd nd 0.00 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 412600 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE EELs- DS1- Svc Disconnec t 100.00 100.00 nd 0.00 100.00 abcde 4 - 412700 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE EELs- DS1- New Svc Instal l 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 420501 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Res POTS- New Svc Install 26.58 30.49 37.04 33.87 26.39 4 - 420601 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Res POTS- Ch g Activities 75.00 83.33 100.00 100.00 25.00 abcde 4 - 420701 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Res POTS- Svc Disconnect 100.00 100.00 98.28 98.78 97.37 4 - 420801 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Res POTS- Svc Mig w/ out ch gs 100.00 nd 0.00 nd nd abcde 4 - 421201 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- New Svc Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n d abcde 4 - 421301 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- Ch g Activities 50.00 100.00 80.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 4 - 421401 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Disconnect n d 100.00 66.67 nd 100.00 abcde 4 - 421501 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Migration w/ ou t 100.00 nd 50.00 50.00 46.67 abcd 4 - 421601 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Migration w/ ch gs 0.00 0.00 nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 430100 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Lp 8db wt 2 w anal basic- New Svc Install 70.00 86.96 71.43 75.00 77.78 4 - 430300 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Lp 8db wt 2 w anal basic- Svc Discnnec t 48.21 69.23 29.23 29.03 40.74 4 - 430401 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Lp 8db wt 2 w anal basis- Move Activites 0.00 nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 431300 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE L p 2w dig ISDN- New Svc Install nd 0.00 nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 431500 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Lp 2w dig ISDN cap- Svc Disconnec t 33.33 20.00 50.00 nd nd abcde 4 - 431700 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Lp 2w dig xDSL cap- New Svc Install 86.67 75.00 54.55 76.00 70.45 4 - 431800 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE L p 2w dig xDSL cap- Chg nd nd nd 100.00 0.00 abcde B - 6 47 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 4 - 431900 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Lp 2w dig xDSL cap- Svc Disconnec t 0.00 9.52 21.43 50.00 20.00 4 - 432100 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE L p 2w dig IDSL cap- New Svc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 432200 LEX/ EDI LASR :UNE L p 2w dig IDSL cap- Chg nd 0.00 nd nd nd abcde 4 - 432300 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE L p 2w dig IDSL cap- Svc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cde 4 - 432500 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE 4w dig( 1.544 mbps cap)- New Svc Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 4 - 432700 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Lp 4w dig( 1.544 mbps cap)- Svc Discnnec t 88.89 58.82 100.00 54.55 100.00 a e 4 - 432813 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs- Voice -New Svc Instal l nd nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 432814 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Vce Grde Lp- Enhance Extend- Chg Ac t nd nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 432815 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Vce Grd Lp- Enhanc Extnd- Svc Discnnects nd nd 0.00 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 432817 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs DS1- New Svc Instal l 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 432819 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE 4w dig DS1 Lp- Enhance Extnd- Svc Dis 100.00 100.00 nd 0.00 100.00 abcde 4 - 432841 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE 4 w dig DS1 Lp- Enhance Ext- Move Ac t 0.00 nd nd nd nd abcde 4 - 432900 LEX/ EDI LASR: Standalone LNP- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 42.11 8.70 10.00 7.14 9.68 4 - 433000 LEX/ EDI LASR: LNP w/ Loo p- Svc Migration w/ chgs nd 18.75 41.03 33.33 20.00 a 4 - 433200 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( Loop & Prt)- Chg Activities 0.00 nd nd 100.00 nd abcde 4 - 433300 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( Loop & Prt)- Svc Discnnec t 66.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 nd abcde 4 - 433600 LEX/ EDI LASR: High Bndwdth Line Share- New Svc Install 100.00 100.00 50.00 nd 100.00 abcde 4 - 433700 LEX/ EDI LASR: High Bndwdth Line Sharing- Svc Disconnec t 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 40.00 a cd 4 - 433800 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE 2 Wire Digital Line Sharing- Chg Ac t 0.00 nd nd nd nd abcde 4 - 440100 % Flo- Thru Ords EXACT: Interconnect Trks- New and Aug nd nd 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 440200 % Flo- Thru Ords EXACT: Interconnect Trks- Chg Activities 0.00 0.00 nd nd 0.00 abcde B - 7 48 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 4 - 440300 % Flo- Thru Ords EXACT: Interconnect Trks- Interconnect Trunks nd 0.00 0.00 nd nd abcde 4 - 450101 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- New Svc Instal l 26.58 30.49 37.04 33.87 26.39 4 - 450201 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- Ch g Activites 75.00 83.33 100.00 100.00 25.00 abcde 4 - 450301 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- Move Activities 0.00 0.00 n d 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 450401 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- Svc Disconnec t 100.00 100.00 98.28 98.78 97.37 4 - 450601 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 100.00 nd 0.00 nd nd abcde 4 - 450701 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- New Svc Instal l 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 450801 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- Ch g Activities 50.00 100.00 80.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 4 - 451001 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Disconnec t nd 100.00 66.67 nd 100.00 abcde 4 - 451101 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Mig w/ chgs as s pec 0.00 0.00 nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 451201 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Migration w/ out ch gs 100.00 nd 50.00 50.00 46.67 abcd 4 - 451307 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centrex- Ch g Act nd nd nd 0.00 0.00 abcd 4 - 451308 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centrex- Move Ac t nd nd nd 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 451309 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centrex- Svc Disconnects n d nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 451310 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centex- Svc Mi g w/ chgs nd nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcd 4 - 451311 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centrex- Svc Mi g w/ out chgs nd nd nd 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 451316 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale PBX- Svc Mi g w/ chgs nd 0.00 nd nd nd abcde 5 - 551900 LEX/ CLEO - Resale Res POTS 0.00 0.67 0.45 0.46 1.79 0.52 2.34 0.42 0.47 0.58 5 - 552000 LEX/ CLEO - Resale Bus POTS 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.56 0.00 1.25 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.74 5 - 552200 LEX/ CLEO - Resale Centre x 0.00 1.40 1.31 0.71 5 - 552400 LEX/ CLEO - Resale PBX n d 0.00 0.00 0.00 ab 5 - 552801 LEX/ CLEO - Resale S pecials 1.28 0.95 5.26 0.95 1.99 0.97 5 - 552900 LEX/ EDI LASR- UNE 2/ 4w 8db& 5.5db wt 2/ 4w Anal Lp FW/ NFW 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.19 0.00 2.24 0.00 2.85 4.65 1.38 5 - 553100 LEX/ EDI LASR - UNE L p 2 w Dig ISDN Cap LOF nd 0.00 0.00 1.61 nd 3.30 nd 3.23 0.00 0.00 abcde 5 - 553300 LEX/ EDI LASR- UNE L p 2 w Dig IDSL Cap FW/ NFW 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.00 3.30 0.00 3.23 0.00 0.00 abcde 5 - 553501 LEX/ EDI LASR- UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Cap FW/ NFW 0.00 7.14 8.33 0.00 0.00 5 - 553701 LEX/ EDI LASR- UNE Lp 2 w Dig xDSL Line Share Cap- Cond FW/ NFW 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.98 0.00 1.03 cde 5 - Percent of Orders Jeopardized Provisioning B - 8 49 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 5 - 553900 LEX/ EDI LASR- UNE Lp 2 w Dig xDSL Lne Shar Cap- Non- Cond FW/ NFW 0.00 2.71 0.00 1.02 5 - 554100 LEX/ EDI LASR- UNE Lp 4 w Dig 1.544 mbps Cap/ HDSL FW/ NFW 3.70 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.78 0.00 0.00 5 - 554800 LEX/ EDI LASR - UNE Ded Trns pt DS3 FW/ NFW nd n/ a nd n/ a 0.00 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a abcde 5 - 555201 EELs Voice Grade n d 0.00 0.00 cde 5 - 555203 EELs DS1 0.00 0.00 0.00 cde 5 - 555300 LEX/ EDI LASR - EELS DS1 - Ne w 0.00 0.00 ab 5 - 555900 LEX/ EDI LASR- UNE Pltfrm Bas Prt/ 8db& 5.5db Lp FW/ NFW 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.56 0.00 1.25 0.00 1.21 nd 0.74 abcde 5 - 556300 LEX/ EDI LASR - Interconnect Trks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d 6 - 640000 Whlsle- Assi gn: Resale Res POTS nd nd nd 100.00 100.00 abcde 6 - 640100 Whlsle- Assi gn: Resale Bus POTS nd 100.00 nd nd nd abcde 6 - 641001 Whlsle- Assi gn: Resale- Specials 100.00 nd nd cde 6 - 641600 Whlsle- Assi gn: UNE Lp 2 w dig xDSL Cap FW/ NFW nd 100.00 100.00 nd nd abcde 6 - 641800 Whlsle- Assign: UNE Lp 2/ 4 w 8db& 5.5db wt 2/ 4 w Anal Cn/ Anal PBX FW/ NFW nd nd nd nd 100.00 abcde 6 - 644300 Whlsle- Install: Resale Res POTS 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 n d abcde 6 - 644400 Whlsle- Install: Resale Bus POTS n d 100.00 nd nd nd abcde 6 - 644500 Whlsle- Install: Resale Centre x 100.00 100.00 ab 6 - 645101 Whlsle- Install: Resale S pecials nd 100.00 100.00 cde 6 - 645800 Whlsle- Install: UNE L p 2w Dig xDSL Cap nd nd 100.00 nd nd abcde 6 - 646000 Whlsle- Install: UNE Lp 2/ 4 w 8db& 5.5db wt 2/ 4 w Anal Coin/ Anal PBX FW/ NFW 100.00 nd nd nd nd abcde 6 - 648200 Whlsle- Install: UNE Lp 4 w Dig 1.544 mbps Cap/ HDSL FW/ NFW 100.00 nd nd nd nd abcde 6 - 648500 Whlsle- Miss Commit: Resale Res POTS n d 100.00 nd 50.00 nd abcde 6 - 650001 Whlsle- Miss Commit: UNE L p 2w Dig IDSL Cap nd nd nd 100.00 nd abcde 6 - 650200 Whlsle- Miss Commit: UNE Lp 2/ 4w 8db& 5.5db wt 2/ 4w Anal Coin/ Anal PBX FW/ NFW 100.00 nd nd nd nd abcde 7 - 702600 Resale Res POTS fld w k 0.93 2.00 1.00 1.65 0.94 1.85 2.00 1.82 0.67 1.66 de 7 - 702700 Resale Res POTS no fld w k 0.44 0.77 0.44 0.78 0.45 0.81 0.42 0.81 0.40 0.74 6 - Jeopardy Notices Returned by the Required Interval 7 - Completed Interval B - 9 50 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 7 - 702800 Resale Bus POTS fld wk 1.00 1.65 0.00 1.57 nd 2.61 nd 2.03 nd 1.64 abcde 7 - 702900 Resale Bus POTS no fld w k 2.00 0.61 0.50 0.57 0.33 0.65 0.20 0.39 0.00 0.77 abcde 7 - 703200 Resale CTX fld w k 1.42 1.42 1.00 1.27 7 - 703300 Resale CTX no fld w k 0.45 0.57 0.60 0.73 7 - 704501 Resale S pecials Field Work 1.25 2.19 1.64 3.01 0.71 2.24 c 7 - 704502 Resale S pecials No Field Work 0.50 0.93 0.68 1.14 0.72 0.76 7 - 704703 UNE loo p 2/ 4 w Analog 8db & 5.5 loop w/ out LNP 1.00 1.65 1.00 1.57 1.00 2.61 1.00 2.03 0.50 1.64 abcde 7 - 704704 UNE loo p 2/ 4 w Analog 8db & 5.5 loop w/ LNP nd 100.00 nd 100.00 nd abcde 7 - 704801 UNE L p 2 w Dig ISDN Cap nd 6.55 5.00 7.17 nd 7.60 nd 10.25 5.00 6.00 abcde 7 - 704904 UNE L p 2 w Dig IDSL Cap 5.00 6.55 3.80 7.17 5.00 7.60 6.50 10.25 7.00 6.00 abcde 7 - 704910 UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Cap - Conditioned nd 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 abcde 7 - 704911 UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Cap - Non- Conditioned 5.00 2.33 5.50 5.00 5.00 abcde 7 - 705001 UNE L p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbps Cap/ HDSL 6.00 11.78 6.19 10.08 5.43 11.64 5.92 13.57 7.00 14.50 a e 7 - 705707 UNE EELs DS1 - Ne w 5.00 5.50 ab 7 - 705713 UNE EELs Voice Grade n d nd 10.00 cde 7 - 705714 UNE EELs DS1 7.00 7.00 7.00 cde 7 - 705800 UNE Basic Port/ 8dB 0.00 1.01 n d 0.92 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.81 nd 1.06 abcde 7 - 705900 Interconnect Trunks n d n/ a 12.00 7.71 13.00 57.75 13.33 39.71 24.00 124.80 abcde 7 - 706202 UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Line Share - Non- Conditioned 3.00 3.01 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 nd 3.04 3.00 3.00 abcde 8 - Percent Completed within Standard Interval as a Percentage On- Time 8 - 801900 Resale CTX 100.00 97.98 100.00 98.77 8 - 802301 Resale S pecials 100.00 98.88 93.94 99.24 96.00 98.34 8 - 802601 UNE L p 2 w Dig ISDN Cap nd 100.00 100.00 83.33 nd 80.00 nd 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 8 - 802704 UNE L p 2 w Dig IDSL Cap 100.00 100.00 100.00 83.33 100.00 80.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 100.00 abcde 8 - 802710 UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Cap - Conditioned nd 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 8 - 802711 UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Cap - Non- Conditioned 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 8 - 802800 UNE L p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbpd cap/ HDSL 100.00 100.00 100.00 96.30 100.00 100.00 100.00 92.86 100.00 93.75 a e 8 - 803407 UNE EELs DS1 - Ne w 100.00 100.00 ab 8 - 803413 UNE EELs Voice Grade n d nd 100.00 cde 8 - 803414 UNE EELs DS1 100.00 100.00 100.00 cde 8 - 803600 Interconnect Trunks n d n/ a 100.00 100.00 ab 8 - 803610 Interconnect Trunks 100.00 25.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 6.67 cde 8 - 803702 UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Line Share - Non- Conditioned 100.00 99.77 100.00 99.86 100.00 100.00 nd 99.66 100.00 99.79 abcde 9 - Coordinated Customer Conversion B - 10 51 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 9 - 910400 % On- Time: Coord Conversion Bus 100.00 85.16 100.00 88.11 9 - 910401 % On- Time: Coord Conversion Res/ Bus 100.00 85.47 100.00 86.34 66.67 76.83 9 - 910500 % On- Time: Coord Conversion Port Out 100.00 62.50 100.00 100.00 9 - 910501 % On- Time: Coord Conversion Port Out- bnchmr k 100.00 100.00 100.00 9a - Frame Due Time (FDT) Conversions as a Percentage on Time 9a - 4510200 LNP 100.00 100.00 100.00 nd 100.00 ab de 10 - 1010101 Whlsle LNP Ntwk Prov Fail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 - 1102600 Resale Res POTS field work 0.00 2.55 0.00 1.78 0.00 1.94 9.09 1.81 0.00 2.16 e 11 - 1102700 Resale Res POTS no field work 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 11 - 1102800 Resale Bus POTS field work 0.00 1.58 0.00 2.05 0.00 1.70 0.00 2.01 n d 1.16 abcde 11 - 1102900 Resale Bus POTS no field work 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 - 1103200 Resale Centrex field wor k 2.63 1.53 0.00 0.68 11 - 1103300 Resale Centrex no field wor k 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.22 11 - 1104501 Resale S pecials field work 0.00 1.15 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.57 11 - 1104502 Resale S pecials no field work 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.39 11 - 1104701 UNE Loo p 2/ 4 wire analog 8db & 5.5 dp Loop 3.03 1.58 0.00 2.05 0.00 1.70 0.00 2.01 0.00 1.16 11 - 1104801 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital ISDN capable nd 0.00 0.00 4.35 nd 2.63 nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 11 - 1104904 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital IDSL capable 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.35 0.00 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a cde 11 - 1104910 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital xDSL capable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 - 1105001 UNE L p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbps capable/ HDSL 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 4.55 11 - 1105602 UNE Dedicated Trns prt DS3 field work/ no field work nd n/ a nd n/ a 0.00 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a abcde 11 - 1105710 UNE EELs DS1 - Ne w 16.67 0.00 ab 11 - 1105716 UNE EELs Voice Grade n d nd 0.00 cde 11 - 1105717 UNE EELs DS1 0.00 0.00 0.00 cde 11 - 1105800 UNE Basic Port/ 8db 0.00 0.73 n d 0.86 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.67 nd 0.48 abcde 11 - 1105900 Interconnect Trunks 0.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.33 cd 11 - 1106002 UNE Loo p 2w dig xDSL Line Share- Non- Conditioned 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 nd 0.45 0.00 0.19 bcde 12 - Percent Company Missed Due Dates Due to Lack of Facilities 12 - 1202600 Resale Res POTS fld wk 0.00 2.30 0.00 1.54 0.00 1.67 9.09 1.64 0.00 1.99 e 12 - 1202700 Resale Res POTS no fld w k 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 - 1202800 Resale Bus POTS fld w k 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.58 0.00 1.36 0.00 1.34 nd 0.87 abcde 12 - 1202900 Resale Bus POTS no fld w k 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 - Percent of Due Dates Missed 10 - LNP Network Provisioning B - 11 52 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 12 - 1203200 Resale CTX fld wk 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.34 12 - 1203300 Resale CTX no fld w k 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 - 1204501 Resale S pecials field work 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.52 12 - 1204502 Resale S pecials no field work 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 - 1204701 UNE L p 2/ 4 w Analog 8db & 5.5 db Lp 3.03 1.32 0.00 0.58 0.00 1.36 0.00 1.34 0.00 0.87 12 - 1204801 UNE L p 2 w Dig ISDN Cap nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 12 - 1204901 UNE L p 2 w Dig ISDL Cap 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a cde 12 - 1204910 UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Cap 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 - 1205001 UNE L p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbps Cap/ HDSL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 12 - 1205102 UNE Ded Trns prt DS3 fld wk/ no fld wk nd n/ a nd n/ a 0.00 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a abcde 12 - 1205207 UNE EELs DS1 - Ne w 16.67 0.00 ab 12 - 1205210 UNE EELs DS1 0.00 0.00 0.00 cde 12 - 1205300 UNE Basic Port/ 8dB 0.00 0.61 n d 0.25 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.45 nd 0.36 abcde 12 - 1205400 Interconnect Trunks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cd 12 - 1205500 UNE L p 2 w Dig ADSL Line Sharing 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 0.00 0.06 cde 12 - 1205502 UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Line Share - Non- Conditioned 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 b 13 - Delay Order Interval to Completion Date 13 - 1314410 Resale Res POTS 1- 30 Days nd 7.00 nd cde 13 - 1314413 Resale Res POTS n d 19.68 7.00 8.74 nd 11.75 cde 13 - 1317701 UNE L p 2/ 4 w Anal 8db & 5.5 db 1- 30 Days 3.00 6.40 nd 6.50 ab 13 - 1318510 UNE L p 4w Dig 1.544 mbpd cap/ HDSL 1- 30 Dys nd nd 29.00 cde 13 - 1318513 UNE L p 4w Dig 1.544 mbpd cap/ HDSL nd n/ a nd n/ a 29.00 n/ a cde 13 - 1318910 UNE EELs DS1 New 1- 30 Da ys 3.00 nd ab 14 - 1411400 Resale Res POTS nd 99.76 28.00 97.36 58.00 112.20 nd 125.68 nd 140.58 abcde 14 - 1413307 UNE EELS - DS1 - Ne w nd 43.00 ab 14 - 1413500 Interconnect Trunks n d 44.85 nd 72.67 4.00 105.83 nd 130.67 nd 151.31 abcde 15 - Provisioning Trouble Reports 15 - 1510800 Resale OOS 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.63 0.15 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.06 15 - 1510900 Resale Svc Affectin g 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.05 15 - 1511101 UNE Loo p (excl xDSL) OOS 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.13 1.33 0.06 15 - 1511102 UNE Loo p (excl xDSL) Svc Affecting 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.05 15 - 1511103 UNE Loo p (excl xDSL) TBCC Out of Svc nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd ab e 15 - 1511104 UNE Loo p (excl xDSL) FDT Svc Affecting nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd ab e 14 - Held Order Interval B - 12 53 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 15 - 1511105 UNE Loop (excl xDSL) FDT OOS 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 cde 15 - 1511106 UNE Loo p (excl xDSL) FDT Svc Affecting 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 cde 15 - 1511107 UNE Loo p XDSL Cap OOS 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 15 - 1511108 UNE Loo p xDSL Cap Svc Affect 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 15 - 1511501 Prov Trbl Re p: LNP Port Out - OOS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 - 1511502 Prov Trbl Re p: LNP Port Out Svc Affecting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15a - Average Time to Restore Provisioning Troubles 15a - 4610800 Resale OOS nd 16.18 nd 6.57 0.82 7.44 nd 7.05 nd 8.58 abcde 15a - 4610900 Resale Svc Affec t 1.28 6.51 nd 5.44 nd 4.59 nd 7.39 nd 6.59 abcde 15a - 4611000 UNE L p (excl xDSL) OOS nd 7.44 nd 7.05 1.17 8.58 cde 16 - Percent Troubles in 30 Days for New Orders (Specials) 16 - 1601800 Resale Centrex 4.03 2.73 2.14 4.85 16 - 1602410 Resale S pecials 2.14 3.15 1.06 3.78 2.99 3.25 16 - 1602701 UNE L p 2 wire Dig ISDN cap nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 nd 0.00 100.00 0.00 abcde 16 - 1602810 UNE L p 2 wire Dig xDSL cap 0.00 3.13 17.24 5.41 3.92 16 - 1602900 UNE L p 4 wire Dig 1.544 mbpd cap/ HDSL 0.00 2.44 3.70 2.38 3.57 10.53 7.41 0.00 5.88 4.00 16 - 1603502 UNE Ded Trans port - DS3 nd n/ a nd n/ a 0.00 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a abcde 16 - 1603506 UNE EELs DS1 - Ne w nd nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 16 - 1603508 UNE EELs DS3 - Ne w 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 16 - 1604200 Interconnection Trunks 0.00 190.00 0.00 75.00 0.00 225.00 0.00 600.00 0.00 20.00 cd 16 - 1605200 UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Line Sharing 0.00 1.76 0.00 1.91 0.00 1.58 100.00 3.22 0.00 2.72 bcde 17 - Percent Troubles in 10 Calendar Days for New Orders (Non- Specials) 17 - 1710700 Resale Res POTS 0.60 2.51 2.78 1.94 2.42 1.83 1.22 2.19 1.45 1.99 17 - 1710800 Resale Bus POTS 0.00 2.47 9.68 2.40 3.57 1.86 5.88 1.24 0.00 0.99 17 - 1711100 UNE L p 2/ 4 w Anal 8db & 5.5db Lp 0.00 4.52 9.30 5.23 0.00 2.73 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.87 17 - 1711400 UNE L p 2/ 4 w Anal 8db& 5.5db Lp TBCC nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ab e 17 - 1711600 UNE Platform- Basic Port & Loo p 0.00 2.47 0.00 2.40 0.00 1.86 0.00 1.24 nd 0.99 abcde 17 - 1711700 LNP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 - 1800101 Full y Electronic- LEX/ EDI LASR 100.00 100.00 99.34 100.00 99.79 18 - 1800401 Full y Elec Fallout - LEX/ EDI LASR (% w/ in 24 hrs) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcd 18 - 1800502 Fallout Level- LEX/ EDI LAS R 1.65 18 - 1800900 ALL Other Int- Manual Fa x 99.46 99.47 18 - 1800901 ALL Other Int- Manual Fa x 97.91 99.66 98.38 18 - Average Completion Notice Interval B - 13 54 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 18 - 1801000 All Other Int- EXACT (% w/ in 24 hrs) 100.00 100.00 18 - 1801001 All Other Int- EXACT (% w/ in 24 hrs) 100.00 100.00 100.00 de 19 - 1991600 Stwde Resale Res POTS 0.23 0.60 0.61 0.73 0.79 0.70 0.55 1.12 0.74 0.67 19 - 1991700 Stwde Resale Bus POTS 2.55 0.35 0.25 0.36 0.52 0.43 0.72 0.49 0.24 0.39 19 - 1991900 Stwde Resale Centre x 0.09 0.23 0.29 0.32 19 - 1992410 Stwde Resale S pecials 0.29 0.36 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.32 19 - 1992603 Stwde UNE Loo p 2/ 4 wire 8db & 5.5db loop 0.18 0.33 0.36 0.34 0.08 0.41 0.25 0.46 0.12 0.35 19 - 1992703 Stwde UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital ISDN capable 0.00 3.44 0.00 3.77 0.00 3.80 0.00 3.81 0.68 5.08 19 - 1992802 Stwde UNE Loo p 2 wire Dig xDSL cap - Non- Std 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 19 - 1992804 Stwde UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital xDSL capable 0.23 0.23 1.39 0.58 0.34 19 - 1992904 Stwde UNE Loo p DS3 0.00 n/ a 100.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a abcde 19 - 1992910 Stwde UNE Loo p 4 wire Digital 1.544 mbpd 0.86 1.04 1.72 1.98 1.30 1.81 1.90 2.10 2.07 1.68 19 - 1993501 Stwde UNE Dedicated Trans port - DS1 0.00 1.04 6.25 1.98 0.00 1.81 0.00 2.42 0.00 1.68 19 - 1993502 Stwde UNE Dedicated Trans port - DS3 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a abcde 19 - 1993504 Stwde UNE Dark Fiber 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 19 - 1993505 Stwde UNE EELs - Voice Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 19 - 1993506 Stwde UNE EELs - DS1 1.33 1.30 2.50 0.00 1.23 19 - 1993600 Stwde Platform - Basic Port & Loo p 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.43 5.26 0.49 0.00 0.39 19 - 1993700 Stwde Interconnection Trunks 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 19 - 1993801 Stwde LNP (Port Out) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19 - 1993900 Stwde NXX Code O penings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19 - 1993910 Stwde NXX Code O penings 0.00 0.00 0.00 19 - 1994200 Stwde UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital xDSL Line Sharing 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.50 1.18 0.66 0.00 0.50 20 - Percent of Customer Trouble not Resolved within Estimated Time 20 - 2093100 Stwde Resale Res POTS dispatched 0.00 6.06 0.00 5.12 0.00 4.56 0.00 7.37 0.00 5.38 ab de 20 - 2093200 Stwde Resale Res POTS not dis p 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 nd 0.00 0.00 3.13 0.00 1.56 abcde 20 - 2093300 Stwde Resale Bus POTS dis patched 37.50 9.15 0.00 2.67 0.00 10.11 0.00 12.75 0.00 4.46 abcde 20 - 2093400 Stwde Resale Bus POTS not dis p 0.00 33.33 nd 0.00 nd 0.00 nd 0.00 nd 14.29 abcde 20 - 2093700 Stwde Resale Centrex dis patched 0.00 5.32 0.00 4.69 a 20 - 2093800 Stwde Resale Centrex not dis patched nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 ab 20 - 2094810 Stwde Resale S pecials dispatched 0.00 13.38 0.00 16.67 6.67 19.69 20 - 2094811 Stwde Resale S pecials not disp 0.00 18.18 nd 19.35 nd 9.68 cde Maintenance 19 - Customer Trouble Report Rate B - 14 55 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 20 - 2095201 Ste UNE Lp 5.5db 2/ 4 w anlg assrd nt disp 10.00 9.59 10.53 2.03 0.00 9.50 8.33 11.62 0.00 2.65 c e 20 - 2095401 Stwde UNE L p 2 wire Dig ISDN cap nd 81.82 nd 75.00 nd 25.00 nd 50.00 0.00 56.25 abcde 20 - 2095605 Stwde UNE Loo p 2 wire Dig xDSL 0.00 11.11 0.00 8.06 0.00 5.48 0.00 11.11 0.00 12.20 ab de 20 - 2095803 Stwde UNE Loo p DS3 nd n/ a 0.00 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a abcde 20 - 2095811 Stwde UNE L p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbpd cap/ HDSL 100.00 46.15 50.00 48.00 66.67 34.78 55.56 38.46 40.00 38.10 abcd 20 - 2097001 Stwde UNE Dedicated Trans port- DS1 nd 46.15 100.00 48.00 nd 34.78 nd 33.33 nd 38.10 abcde 20 - 2097005 Stwde UNE EELsVoice Grade n d nd nd nd 100.00 abcde 20 - 2097006 Stwde UNE EELs DS1 100.00 0.00 100.00 n d 0.00 abcde 20 - 2097201 Ste UNE Pltform Bas Pt & 8db &5.5db L p nd 9.62 nd 2.53 nd 9.63 50.00 12.32 nd 4.88 abcde 20 - 2097300 Stwde Interconnect Trunks n d 19.35 100.00 5.88 nd 21.74 nd 12.90 nd 36.36 abcde 20 - 2098001 Ste UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL Lne Shar disp nd 11.11 nd 8.06 nd 5.48 0.00 11.11 nd 12.20 abcde 21 - 2192900 Stwde Resale Res POTS disptchd 2.03 11.89 7.77 10.98 7.31 12.77 18.89 16.23 2.62 12.59 ab de 21 - 2193000 Stwde Resale Res POTS not dis ptchd 0.20 3.43 0.03 3.68 nd 4.92 0.15 9.40 0.15 4.97 abcde 21 - 2193100 Stwde Resale Bus POTS dis ptchd 6.25 7.75 1.10 5.65 3.20 7.86 1.97 8.55 3.57 7.74 abcde 21 - 2193200 Stwde Resale Bus POTS not dis ptchd 0.08 11.69 nd 0.32 nd 3.65 nd 1.76 nd 3.37 abcde 21 - 2193500 Stwde Resale CTX dis ptchd 15.16 5.65 4.04 8.45 a 21 - 2193600 Stwde Resale CTX not dis ptchd nd 0.89 0.96 14.28 ab 21 - 2194810 Stwde Resale S pecials dispatched 1.90 10.65 4.13 7.75 10.84 8.55 21 - 2194811 Stwde Resale S pecials not dispatched 2.83 2.93 nd 3.58 nd 2.43 cde 21 - 2195401 Stwde UNE 2/ 4 w 8db & 5.5 db Loo p 12.83 7.64 4.85 5.29 2.13 7.84 4.18 8.48 1.73 7.38 a c e 21 - 2195601 Stwde UNE L p 2 w Dig ISDN capable nd 7.77 nd 9.05 nd 7.77 nd 4.61 2.83 4.80 abcde 21 - 2195805 Stwde UNE L p 2 w Dig xDSL cap 1.93 7.60 3.57 8.57 6.09 7.94 4.69 12.12 2.05 11.68 abcde 21 - 2196001 Stwde UNE L p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbpd cap/ HDSL 7.70 6.49 4.52 4.98 6.95 5.19 9.05 3.78 4.02 3.56 abcd 21 - 2196003 Stwde UNE L p DS3 nd n/ a 2.33 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a abcde 21 - 2197201 Stwde UNE Ded Trans pt DS1 nd 6.49 15.32 4.98 nd 5.19 nd 3.65 nd 3.56 abcde 21 - 2197205 Stwde UNE EELS Voice Grade n d nd nd nd 23.47 abcde 21 - 2197206 Stwde UNE DS1 9.22 1.07 7.58 n d 3.65 abcde 21 - 2197401 Stwde UNE Pltform Basic Port & 8db & 5.5 db L p nd 7.83 nd 5.35 nd 7.63 30.45 8.30 nd 7.56 abcde 21 - 2197500 Stwde Interconnect Trunks n d 24.38 88.98 8.46 nd 19.64 nd 8.28 nd 10.90 abcde 21 - 2197601 Stwde LNP (Port Out) nd nd nd 5.22 nd abcde 21 - 2198404 Stwde UNE Line Sharin g Lp 2 w Dig xDSL nd 7.60 nd 8.57 nd 7.94 3.02 12.12 nd 11.68 abcde 22 - 2290300 Stwide Resale Bus POTS 100.00 92.86 100.00 100.00 100.00 92.93 100.00 90.00 n d 95.56 abcde 22 - POTS Out of Service Less Than 24 Hours 21 - Average Time to Restore B - 15 56 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 22 - 2290400 Stwide Resale Res POTS 100.00 94.47 100.00 95.81 100.00 92.52 83.33 78.62 100.00 92.94 abcde 22 - 2290501 Stwide UNE L p 2/ 4 wire anal 8db & 5.5db Lp 50.00 92.31 100.00 100.00 100.00 92.78 100.00 90.09 100.00 95.35 abcde 23 - 2391600 Statewide Resale Res POTS 0.00 7.96 0.00 8.88 0.00 9.30 0.00 6.86 0.00 9.64 ab d 23 - 2391700 Statewide Resale Bus POTS 0.00 5.13 0.00 6.33 0.00 5.88 0.00 7.04 0.00 7.23 abcde 23 - 2391900 Statewide Resale CTX 12.50 1.96 12.00 5.59 a 23 - 2392410 Statewide Resale S pecials 0.00 10.73 22.22 10.53 5.88 12.66 23 - 2392601 Statewide UNE Loo p 2/ 4 wire 8db & 5db Lp 10.00 5.48 0.00 6.08 25.00 5.59 7.69 7.50 0.00 6.54 c e 23 - 2392701 Statewide UNE L p 2 wire Digital ISDN Cap nd 18.18 nd 58.33 nd 33.33 nd 33.33 0.00 37.50 abcde 23 - 2392805 Statewide UNE Loo p 2 w Dig xDSL cap 50.00 0.00 8.33 0.00 33.33 ab de 23 - 2392901 Statewide UNE Loo p 4 wire Digital 1.544 mbpd 75.00 23.08 0.00 28.00 16.67 26.09 11.11 23.08 10.00 28.57 abcd 23 - 2392902 Statewide UNE Loo p DS3 n d n/ a 0.00 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a abcde 23 - 2393501 Statewide UNE Ded Trns prt - DS1 n d 23.08 0.00 28.00 nd 26.09 nd 23.33 nd 28.57 abcde 23 - 2393505 Statewide UNE EELS - Voice Grade n d nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 23 - 2393506 Statewide UNE EELS - DS1 0.00 0.00 0.00 n d 0.00 abcde 23 - 2393600 Statewide UNE Platform- Basic Port & Loo p nd 5.13 nd 6.33 nd 5.88 50.00 7.04 nd 7.23 abcde 23 - 2393700 Statewide Int Connct Trnks n d 12.90 0.00 35.29 nd 17.39 nd 19.35 nd 8.70 abcde 23 - 2394100 Statewide UNE L p 2 wire Dig xDSL Line Sharing nd 3.70 nd 3.17 nd 6.85 0.00 10.00 nd 12.20 abcde 24 - 2400100 Common Trunks 5.13 5.71 0.00 5.56 3.23 26 - 2600200 Whlsle n d n/ a nd n/ a 100.00 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a ab de 28 - 2800200 Resale 1.19 2.38 1.21 2.25 1.13 2.43 1.18 2.61 0.98 2.30 28 - 2800300 Unbundled 1.39 2.38 1.34 2.25 1.25 2.43 1.52 2.61 1.28 2.30 28 - 2800500 Meet Pt 0.99 2.38 0.90 2.25 0.89 2.43 0.94 2.61 0.53 2.30 30 - 3000100 Resale n d nd 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 30 - 3000200 Unbundle d 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 30 - 3000300 Fac/ Int Cnnc t 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 31 - 3100200 Resale 99.90 99.81 99.87 99.83 99.98 98.97 100.00 99.81 99.82 99.73 30 - Wholesale Bill Timeliness 31 - Usage Completeness 28 - Usage Timeliness 23 - Frequency of Repeat Troubles in 30- Day Period Billing 26 - NXX Loaded by LERG Effective Date Network Performance 24 - Percent Blocking on Common Trunks B - 16 57 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 31 - 3100300 Unbundled 99.19 99.81 99.41 99.83 99.94 98.97 100.00 99.81 98.96 99.73 31 - 3100400 Fac/ Int Cnnc t 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 32 - 3200200 Resale 92.56 95.42 96.72 95.34 96.12 93.56 95.40 96.87 99.07 97.68 32 - 3200300 UNE POTS 100.00 95.42 100.00 95.34 100.00 93.56 53.85 96.87 100.00 97.68 c e 32 - 3200400 UNE Other 97.39 96.54 99.21 98.92 100.00 32 - 3200500 Fac/ Int Cnnc t 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 33 - 3300200 Resale 96.54 87.54 97.22 84.62 99.21 87.53 94.92 86.22 98.76 83.38 33 - 3300300 UNE POTS 100.00 87.54 100.00 84.62 100.00 87.53 60.00 86.22 100.00 83.38 c e 33 - 3300400 UNE Other 97.30 97.67 98.79 98.97 100.00 34 - 3400401 Resale Usa ge 100.00 99.89 100.00 99.89 100.00 99.90 100.00 99.91 99.42 99.89 34 - 3400501 Resale Recurrin g 99.94 99.94 100.00 99.93 99.94 99.93 100.00 99.94 99.95 99.93 34 - 3400601 Resale Non- Recurrin g 100.00 99.80 100.00 99.82 100.00 99.74 100.00 99.85 100.00 99.84 34 - 3400701 UNE POTS Usa ge 100.00 99.89 100.00 99.89 100.00 99.90 100.00 99.91 100.00 99.89 34 - 3400801 UNE POTS Recurrin g 100.00 99.94 100.00 99.93 100.00 99.93 100.00 99.94 100.00 99.93 34 - 3400901 UNE POTS Non- Recurrin g 100.00 99.80 100.00 99.82 100.00 99.74 100.00 99.85 100.00 99.84 34 - 3401001 UNE Other Usa ge 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 34 - 3401101 UNE Other Recurrin g 100.00 99.28 98.56 100.00 100.00 34 - 3401201 UNE Other Non- Recurrin g 100.00 100.00 99.28 100.00 100.00 34 - 3401301 Fac/ Interconnect Usa ge 98.41 100.00 98.55 100.00 99.96 34 - 3401401 Fac/ Interconnect Recurrin g 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 34 - 3401501 Fac/ Interconnect Non- Recurrin g 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 35 - 3500100 Local Wholesale 96.40 96.74 96.04 95.42 35 - 3500300 LASR/ WFM 96.56 37 - 3700200 Loc Whlse Prod- Svc Ord Gen U pDts 3.08 4.66 2.16 4.52 3.39 4.98 2.38 4.74 1.81 4.46 37 - 3700250 Loc Whlse Prod- Svc Ord Gen U pDts to LIDB 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.09 37 - 3700300 Loc Whlsle Prod Direct Gtw y UpDts 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 37 - Database Update Interval 38 - Percent Database Accuracy 34 - Bill Accuracy 35 - Billing Completion Notice Interval Database Updates 32 - Recurring Charge Completeness 33 - Non- Recurring Charge Completeness B - 17 58 CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B CLEC Result N* B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Nevada Performance Metric Data Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Sept. 2002 Oct. 2002 Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 38 - 3800200 Loc Whlsle Prod- Svc Ord Gen UpDts 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 38 - 3800500 Loc Whlsle Prod- Svc Ord Gen U pDts 98.61 94.19 93.77 92.87 97.58 94.09 99.22 94.87 98.81 94.65 38 - 3800700 Loc Whlsle Prod- Ord Gen LIDB U pdts 96.44 99.51 99.56 99.52 98.52 99.38 98.09 99.63 98.61 99.53 39 - 3900200 Loc Whlsle Prod- Svc Ord Gen UpDts 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 40 - 4000300 S pce Avail & Prce & Sched Quote- ICB- 10 dys 100.00 nd nd cde 42 - 4200700 Wholesale Data gate 99.99 99.87 99.80 99.93 100.00 42 - 4200800 Wholesale WEBVERIGATE 99.98 99.88 99.72 99.89 99.93 42 - 4200900 Wholesale WEBTOOLBAR 99.79 98.36 99.88 100.00 99.36 42 - 4201000 Wholesale WEBLEX 99.98 99.69 100.00 99.96 99.55 42 - 4201300 Wholesale EDI/ Orderin g 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 42 - 4201400 Wholesale PRAF 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.08 42 - 4201500 Wholesale SORD 99.42 99.42 99.61 99.61 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.98 99.77 99.77 42 - 4201700 Wholesale EDS TELIS/ EXACT 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 42 - 4201800 EBTA GUI 99.44 99.99 99.97 99.98 100.00 42 - 4201900 EDI/ CORBA/ Pre- Order 99.98 99.86 99.84 99.94 99.99 42 - 4202000 NDM/ EXACT 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 42 - 4202100 TBTA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 42 - 4202200 EBTA 98.66 99.77 99.85 99.97 100.00 44 - 4400200 R pr Ctr Local Wlsle Prod 6.43 12.07 3.99 11.92 6.27 13.85 3.98 17.22 4.40 10.88 44 - 4400300 Ord Ctr Local Wlsle Prod 5.92 6.41 6.86 5.33 5.71 Abbreviations: n/ a - not available. Notes: a - for September, CLEC sample size was less than 10. nd - denotes 'no data' or no CLEC re quests b - for October, CLEC sam ple size was less than 10. to measure. c - for November, CLEC sam ple size was less than 10. d - for December, CLEC sam ple size was less than 10. Blank s pace means data are not available. e - for Januar y, CLEC sample size was less than 10. Interfaces 44 - Center Responsiveness 42 - Percent of Time Interface is Available Collocation 40 - Time to Respond to a Collocation Request 39 - E911/ 911 MS Database Update Interval B - 18 59 Metrics with no retail analog provided are usually compared with a benchmark. Note that for some metrics during the period provided there ma y be changes in the metric definition, or changes in the retail analog applied, making it difficult to compare data over time. Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Appendix C California Performance Metrics Except where noted, the data included here are taken from the California performance reports provided by Pacific Bell, calculated according to the California OSS OII Performance Measurements (Joint Partial Settlement Agreement) business rules as of 6/ 27/ 02. 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 the m (usually either because there was no activity, or because the metrics are still under development). 60 Metric Number Metric Name Metric Number Metric Name Pre- Ordering 23 Fre quency of Repeat Troubles in 30- Day Period 1 Avera ge Response Time (to Pre- Order Queries) Network Performance 24 Percent Blocking on Common Trunks 2 Avera ge FOC/ LSC Notice Interval 25 Percent Blockin g on Interconnection Trunks 3 Avera ge Reject Notice Interval 26 NXX Loaded by LERG Effective Date 4 Percenta ge of Flow- Through Orders Billing Provisioning 38 Usage Timeliness 5 Percenta ge of Orders Jeopardized 30 Wholesale Bill Timeliness 6 Avera ge Jeopardy Notice Interval 31 Usa ge Completeness 7 Avera ge Completed Interval 32 Recurrin g Charge Completeness 8 Percent Com pleted Within Standard Interval 33 Non- Recurring Charge Completeness 9 Coordinated Customer Conversion 34 Bill Accurac y 9a Frame Due Time (FDT) Conversions as a Percentage on Time 35 Billin g Completion Notice Interval 10 LNP Network Provisionin g 36 Accurac y of Mechanized Bill Feed 11 Percent of Due Dates Missed 12 Percent of Due Dates Missed Due to Lack of Facilities Database U pdates 13 Delay Order Interval to Completion Date (For Lack of F acilities) 37 Average Database Update Interval 14 Held Order Interval 38 Percent Database Accurac y 15 Provisioning Trouble Reports (Prior to Service Order Completion) 39 E911/ 911 MS Database Update 15a Average Time to Restore Provisioning Troubles (Service Order Com pletion) 16 Percenta ge Troubles in 30 Days for Special Services Orders Collocation 17 Percenta ge Troubles in 10 Days for Non- Special Orders 40 Time to Res pond to a Collocation Request 18 Com pletion Notice Interval 41 Time to Provide a Collocation Arran gement Maintenance Interfaces 19 Customer Trouble Re port Rate 42 Percent of Time Interface is Available 20 Percentage of Customer Trouble Not Resolved Within Estimated Time 44 Center Responsiveness 21 Avera ge Time to Restore 22 POTS Out of Service Less Than 24 Hours Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Performance Metric Categories Ordering C - 2 61 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Pre- Ordering 1 - Average Response Time (to Pre- Order Queries) 1 - 103300 Man Fax/ Req for CSR 97.66 99.97 99.96 99.83 99.88 1 - 103500 K1023: xDSL Loo p Qual 4.22 19.98 7.61 15.57 3.21 11.88 5.70 16.98 2.76 14.62 1 - 103501 K1023: Manual K1023 7.67 7.26 5.46 24.86 6.63 11.24 10.10 8.00 7.38 10.33 1 - 104101 CSR Data gate: Rndtrp 1.23 1.27 0.61 0.60 0.56 1 - 104400 Re j/ Fail Inq Datagate: Rndtrp 0.80 0.65 0.36 0.59 0.48 1 - 104501 Addr Verif Veri gate: Rndtrp 1.74 1.68 2.64 2.19 1.95 1 - 104502 Dis p Rqrd/ Fac Avail Verigate: Rndtrp 5.95 4.89 4.85 4.77 4.37 1 - 104601 TN Veri gate: Rndtrp 4.78 4.78 5.42 4.70 3.72 1 - 104701 CSR Veri gate: Rndtrp 3.53 3.09 3.26 3.04 2.70 1 - 104801 Svc Avail Veri gate: Rndtrp 0.92 0.93 1.18 0.77 0.71 1 - 104901 Svc A ppt Sch Verigate: Rndtrp 2.24 2.11 2.55 2.73 2.48 1 - 105000 Re j/ Fail Inq Verigate: Rndtrp 2.45 3.34 5.39 2.34 2.31 1 - 105600 Mech Loo p Qual Actual - Verigate: Rndtrp 13.66 10.66 11.13 9.98 10.71 10.09 11.62 10.33 11.98 10.41 1 - 105700 Mech Loo p Qual Design - Verigate: Rndtrp 3.25 4.37 3.40 3.00 4.34 3.77 3.23 3.99 3.19 3.28 1 - 106000 Addr Verif EDI- CORBA: Rndtr p 1.62 1.35 1.39 1.45 1.25 1 - 106002 TN EDI- CORBA: Rndtr p 4.02 3.26 2.77 2.86 2.75 1 - 106003 CSR EDI- CORBA: Rndtr p 1.47 2.85 1.92 0.67 0.98 1 - 106005 Svc A ppt Sch EDI- CORBA: Rndtrp 2.11 1.63 1.75 1.77 1.58 1 - 106006 Re j/ Fail Inq EDI- CORBA: Rndtrp 3.64 2.62 2.04 1.43 1.85 1 - 106007 Mech Loo p Qual Actual - EDI- CORBA: Rndtrp 15.68 12.17 13.58 10.30 13.05 16.24 12.59 16.21 12.30 10.66 1 - 106008 Mech Loo p Qual Design - EDI- CORBA: Rndtrp 2.89 2.75 2.79 2.95 3.53 3.72 2.70 3.24 2.83 3.11 2 - 200200 Elct Resale Bus 0.14 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 2 - 201101 Elct 8.0 dB and 5.5 dB Loop 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 2 - 201200 Elct 2 Di gital ISDN 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 a c e 2 - 201300 Elct 2 Di gital xDSL 0.16 0.17 0.70 0.15 0.17 2 - 201400 Elct 4 Di gital 1.544 mbpd HDSL 0.10 0.09 0.28 0.08 0.14 2 - 201404 Elct UNE EELs - Voice Grade 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.07 2 - 201405 Elct UNE EELs - DS1 0.14 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 2 - 202200 Elct UNE Platform Basic 0.42 0.40 0.50 0.23 0.23 2 - 202500 Elct PNP 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.03 Sept. 2002 2 - Average FOC/ LSC Notice Interval Ordering Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 C - 3 62 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 2 - 202700 Elct Man- Resale Res POTS 1.15 2.11 1.28 1.99 2.21 2 - 202800 Elct Man- Resale Bus POTS 2.51 1.71 1.61 1.82 1.85 2 - 202900 Elct Man- Resale ISDN BRI 2.38 3.02 3.02 1.56 1.89 cde 2 - 203000 Elct Man- Resale Centrex 2.28 2.13 2.48 1.64 1.73 2 - 203100 Elct Man- Resale PBX 3.02 2.84 2.24 1.50 2.33 d 2 - 203200 Elct Man- Resale DDS n d nd nd nd 8.08 abcde 2 - 203300 Elct Man- Resale DS1/ ISDN- PRI n d nd nd 2.87 4.27 abcde 2 - 203601 Elct Man- 8.0 dB and 5.5 dB Loo p 2.15 2.24 2.77 2.61 2.39 2 - 203800 Elct Man- 2 Di gital ISDN 2.03 1.96 2.17 1.83 2.16 2 - 203900 Elct Man- 2 Di gital xDSL 2.50 2.06 2.08 2.17 2.18 2 - 204000 Elct Man- 4 Di gital 1.544 mbpd HDSL 1.86 2.14 2.17 2.07 1.59 2 - 204001 Elct Man- 4 Di gital DS3 Loop 5.02 4.83 1.49 2.84 5.53 abcde 2 - 204003 Elct Man- UNE Dark Fiber n d 3.86 nd nd nd a cde 2 - 204004 Elct Man- UNE EELs - Voice Grade 1.51 1.50 1.60 1.92 1.57 2 - 204005 Elct Man- UNE EELs - DS1 1.85 1.96 2.16 1.71 1.34 2 - 204006 Elct Man- UNE EELs - DS3 2.17 1.84 3.94 2.00 2.23 abcde 2 - 204701 Elct Man- UNE Dedicated Trns prt DS1 8.92 4.12 3.02 2.46 2.20 2 - 204702 Elct Man- UNE Dedicated Trns prt DS3 2.96 3.10 2.82 2.31 2.07 2 - 204800 Elct Man- UNE Platform Basic 3.00 2.61 2.87 2.54 2.28 2 - 204802 Elct Man- UNE Platform - S pecials 3.90 3.93 1.67 nd 3.31 abcde 2 - 205100 Elct Man- PNP 1.64 1.57 1.88 2.09 1.91 2 - 205300 Man- Man Resale Res POTS 2.38 3.24 2.56 3.20 5.15 2 - 205400 Man- Man Resale Bus POTS 3.22 3.23 3.95 4.11 4.18 2 - 205500 Man- Man Resale ISDN BRI 17.35 6.88 n d nd 4.92 abcde 2 - 205600 Man- Man Resale Centre x 5.07 5.19 3.75 4.70 3.94 2 - 205700 Man- Man Resale PBX 7.35 4.39 17.17 4.71 11.38 abcde 2 - 205900 Man- Man Resale DS1/ ISDN- PRI 3.20 n d 2.25 nd 3.17 abcde 2 - 206201 Man- Man 8.0 dB and 5.5 dB Loo p 3.89 3.88 4.64 5.47 5.39 cde 2 - 206401 Man- Man 4 Di gital DS3 Loop nd 9.42 2.52 nd nd abcde 2 - 206403 Man- Man UNE Dark Fiber 4.79 n d nd nd nd abcde 2 - 206404 Man- Man UNE EELs - Voice Grade n d 3.40 nd nd 8.95 abcde 2 - 206405 Man- Man UNE EELs - DS1 3.78 3.35 1.77 2.30 4.07 bcde 2 - 206500 Man- Man 2 Di gital xDSL 3.55 4.29 nd nd nd cde 2 - 206600 Man- Man 4 Di gital 3.03 4.38 9.46 3.80 2.36 cd C - 4 63 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 2 - 207302 Man- Man UNE Dedicated Trnsprt DS3 nd 1.93 nd 10.50 2.00 abcde 2 - 207400 Man- Man UNE Platform Basic 3.62 3.68 4.85 2.75 3.29 b 2 - 207402 Man- Man UNE Platform S pecials nd nd nd 4.16 nd abcde 2 - 207700 Man- Man PNP 4.12 3.24 4.25 6.80 4.97 2 - 207801 Pro jects - All Other Products 99.39 97.06 91.42 91.89 96.35 2 - 207802 Pro jects - Interconnection Trks- days 2.48 3.62 2.46 5.38 3.01 2 - 207902 Da ys- Held & Denied Intercnnect Trks 52.00 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a abcde 2 - 208000 Elct 2 Di gital Line Sharing 0.18 0.17 0.47 0.16 0.15 2 - 208100 Elct Man- 2 Di gital Line Sharing 2.53 2.05 2.19 2.38 2.46 2 - 208200 Man- Man 2 Di gital Line Sharing nd nd nd nd 3.52 abcde 2 - 208301 Interconn Trunks Ne w 2.98 2.88 3.30 2.33 4.28 2 - 208302 Interconn Trunks Au gment 3.09 3.15 3.19 2.85 2.63 3 - 300200 Elct: LEX- CLEO/ LASR Facilities Syntax 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.04 3 - 300201 Elct: LEX- CLEO/ LASR Director y Listings Syntax 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.06 3 - 300300 Elct: LEX- CLEO/ LASR Resale S yntax 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 3 - 300400 Elct: EDI- CLEO/ LASR Facilities S yntax 0.36 0.33 1.24 0.20 0.23 3 - 300500 Elct: EDI- CLEO/ LASR Resale S yntax 0.21 0.33 0.22 0.19 0.20 3 - 300501 Elct: EDI- CLEO/ LASR Director y Listings Syntax 0.51 0.42 0.98 0.35 0.23 3 - 300700 Elct Man: LEX- CLEO/ LASR (Exc to LSC) Facilities 2.94 1.88 2.56 2.88 1.86 3 - 300800 Elct Man: LEX- CLEO/ LASR (Exc to LSC) Resale Content Errs 1.67 1.91 1.09 1.54 2.55 3 - 300900 Elct Man: EDI- CLEO/ LASR (Exc to LSC) Facilities Content Errs 2.52 2.33 2.55 2.24 2.02 3 - 301000 Elct Man: EDI- CLEO/ LASR (Exc to LSC) Resale Content Errs 10.45 1.11 1.28 1.47 2.02 3 - 301200 Man- Man: FAX Resale Content Errs 3.94 3.20 2.84 3.76 2.78 3 - 301300 Man- Man: FAX Facilities Content Errs 3.68 4.49 3.91 3.35 4.92 3 - 301400 Elct: LEX- CLEO/ LASR Line Sharin g Syntax 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 3 - 301500 Elct: EDI- CLEO/ LASR Line Sharin g Syntax 0.18 0.15 0.19 0.14 0.14 3 - 301600 Elct Man: LEX- CLEO/ LASR (Exc to LSC) Line Sharing 2.25 1.93 2.12 2.48 2.02 3 - 301700 Elct Man: EDI- CLEO/ LASR (Exc to LSC) Line Sharing 1.95 1.67 1.74 1.72 1.78 3 - 310100 Elct Man: EXACT Facilities Content Errs 1.76 2.36 1.97 2.44 1.91 3 - 310200 Man- Man: EXACT Facilities Content Errs n d nd 3.39 nd nd abcde 3 - Average Reject Notice Interval C - 5 64 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 3 - 320000 Projects - All Other Products 100.00 100.00 97.78 82.31 100.00 4 - 410100 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: 8.0 dB Svc Migration w/ chgs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 4 - 410300 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: 2 Digital xDSL- Svc Migration w/ ch gs nd 0.00 nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 410400 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Standalone LNP- Svc Migration w/ ch gs 55.00 53.85 51.56 54.65 57.93 4 - 410500 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 8.0 dB- New Svc Install 70.93 71.69 72.92 69.11 78.97 4 - 410600 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: 5.5 dB- New Svc Install 0.00 25.00 0.00 87.50 75.00 abcde 4 - 410700 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: 2 Di gital xDSL- New Svc Install 65.15 66.92 48.33 46.19 60.04 4 - 410800 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 4 Digital( 1.544 mbps)- New Svc Install 62.04 64.61 53.96 46.06 59.54 4 - 410900 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 8.0 dB- Svc Discnnect 44.20 62.81 76.80 69.19 77.65 4 - 411000 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 5.5 dB- Svc Discnnect 17.65 31.25 51.72 45.45 50.00 4 - 411100 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: 2 Di gital ISDN- Svc Discnnect 3.95 13.41 5.05 2.90 12.26 4 - 411200 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 2 Di gital xDSL- Svc Discnnect 38.80 60.92 57.32 61.61 65.60 4 - 411300 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 4 Digital( 1.544 mbps)- New Svc Install 74.77 78.80 78.13 75.93 79.69 4 - 411500 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: LNP w/ Loo p- Svc Migration w/ chgs 31.15 24.67 29.06 32.63 26.15 4 - 411600 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Platform( Loop w/ Prt)- New Svc Install 53.81 51.88 50.88 50.88 52.52 4 - 411700 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Platform( Loop w/ Prt)- Svc Discnnec t 93.75 93.12 93.57 93.59 92.74 4 - 411800 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Platform( Loop w/ Prt)- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 83.09 87.50 82.34 84.62 82.58 4 - 412000 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Platform( Loop w/ Prt)- Chg Activities 78.38 81.82 80.72 81.51 85.05 4 - 412100 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 2w Dig Line Sharing Loop- New Svc Install 87.25 92.86 77.50 84.24 94.41 4 - 412200 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 2w Dig Line Sharing Loop- Svc Discnnec t 65.21 66.36 80.95 84.36 83.14 4 - 412300 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE L p 2w Dig IDSL cap 68.40 68.83 70.61 72.42 71.98 4 - 412400 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE EELs Voice - Svc Discnnec t 35.00 21.43 42.11 42.11 52.00 4 - 412500 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE EELs DS1 - New Svc Install 57.51 54.76 44.44 7.66 7.51 4 - Percentage of Flow Through Orders C - 6 65 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 4 - 412600 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE EELs DS1 - Svc Discnnect 56.78 69.83 72.90 72.81 55.68 4 - 412700 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE EELs Voice - New Svc Install 50.00 80.00 0.00 20.00 100.00 abcde 4 - 412900 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE Platform( Loop w/ Prt)- Move Activities 5.42 5.42 6.19 4 - 413000 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: UNE 2w Dig Line Sharing Loop- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 0.00 1.00 44.23 4 - 420501 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Res POTS- New Svc Install 69.67 67.94 64.87 72.96 72.04 4 - 420601 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Res POTS- Ch g Activities 94.21 92.96 87.33 86.52 89.33 4 - 420701 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Res POTS- Svc Disconnect 99.02 99.21 98.06 96.30 97.51 4 - 420801 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Res POTS- Svc Migration w/ out ch gs 75.10 94.94 91.18 83.93 88.00 4 - 420901 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Res POTS- Svc Migration w/ ch gs 17.38 7.05 12.20 1.41 1.24 4 - 421201 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- New Svc Install 31.88 20.74 13.33 10.12 19.35 4 - 421301 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- Ch g Activities 85.96 75.58 70.88 74.51 77.24 4 - 421401 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Discnnect 44.54 30.05 61.78 70.21 68.34 4 - 421501 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Migration w/ out ch gs 9.48 2.52 33.02 36.14 24.53 4 - 421601 LEX/ EDI LASR FTE: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Migration w/ ch gs 7.69 12.68 8.97 8.47 14.71 4 - 430100 LEX/ EDI LASR: 8.0 dB- New Svc Instal l 70.93 71.69 72.92 69.11 78.97 4 - 430200 LEX/ EDI LASR: 8.0 dB- Ch g Activities 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 4 - 430300 LEX/ EDI LASR: 8.0 dB- Svc Discnnec t 44.20 62.81 76.80 69.19 77.65 4 - 430400 LEX/ EDI LASR: 8.0 dB- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 4 - 430401 LEX/ EDI LASR: 8.0 dB- Move Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 - 430900 LEX/ EDI LASR: 5.5 dB- New Svc Instal l 0.00 25.00 0.00 87.50 75.00 abcde 4 - 431000 LEX/ EDI LASR: 5.5 dB- Ch g Activities 0.00 nd 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 431100 LEX/ EDI LASR: 5.5 dB- Svc Discnnects 17.65 31.25 51.72 45.45 50.00 4 - 431201 LEX/ EDI LASR: 5.5 dB- Move Activities 0.00 n d nd nd nd abcde 4 - 431300 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital ISDN- New Svc Install nd 0.00 nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 431400 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital ISDN- Chg Activities nd nd 0.00 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 431500 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital ISDN- Svc Discnnect 3.95 13.41 5.05 2.90 12.26 4 - 431601 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital ISDN- Move Activities 0.00 nd nd nd nd abcde 4 - 431700 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital xDSL- New Svc Install 65.15 66.92 48.33 46.19 60.04 C - 7 66 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 4 - 431800 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Digital xDSL- Chg Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.68 5.00 4 - 431900 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital xDSL- Svc Discnnect 38.80 60.92 57.32 61.61 65.60 4 - 432000 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital xDSL- Svc Migration w/ chgs nd 0.00 nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 432001 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital xDSL- Move Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 432100 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital IDSL- New Svc Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 - 432200 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital IDSL- Chg Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 4 - 432300 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital IDSL- Svc Discnnect 68.40 68.83 70.61 72.42 71.98 4 - 432400 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital IDSL- Svc Migration w/ chgs nd nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 432401 LEX/ EDI LASR: 2 Di gital IDSL- Move Activities 0.00 nd 0.00 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 432500 LEX/ EDI LASR: 4 Di gital (1.544 mbps)- New Svc Install 62.04 64.61 53.96 46.06 59.54 4 - 432600 LEX/ EDI LASR: 4 Di gital (1.544 mbps)- Chg Activities 0.00 20.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 abcde 4 - 432700 LEX/ EDI LASR: 4 Di gital (1.544 mbps)- Svc Discnnect 74.77 78.80 78.13 75.93 79.69 4 - 432801 LEX/ EDI LASR: 4 Di gital DS3 Lp- New Svc Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 432803 LEX/ EDI LASR: 4 Di gital DS3 Lp- Svc Discnnect nd 0.00 nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 432813 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs VG- New Svc Instal l 50.00 80.00 0.00 20.00 100.00 abcde 4 - 432814 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs VG- Ch g Activiities nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 432815 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs VG- Svc Discnnec t 35.00 21.43 42.11 42.11 52.00 4 - 432817 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs DS1- New Svc Instal l 57.51 54.76 44.44 7.66 7.51 4 - 432818 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs DS1- Ch g Activiities 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcd 4 - 432819 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs DS1- Svc Discnnec t 56.78 69.83 72.90 72.81 55.68 4 - 432820 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs DS1- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs nd nd nd nd 0.00 abcd 4 - 432821 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs DS3- New Svc Instal l 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 432823 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs DS3- Svc Discnnec t 0.00 nd nd 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 432829 LEX/ EDI LASR: 4 Di gital (1.544 mbps)- Move Activities 0.00 nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 432832 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs VG- Move Activiities n d nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 432833 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE EELs DS1- Move Activiities 0.00 n d 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 432900 LEX/ EDI LASR: Standalone PNP- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 55.00 53.85 51.56 54.65 57.93 4 - 433000 LEX/ EDI LASR: PNP w/ Loo p- Svc Migration w/ chgs 31.15 24.67 29.06 32.63 26.15 4 - 433100 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ Prt)- New Svc Install 53.81 51.88 50.88 50.88 52.52 4 - 433200 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ Prt)- Chg Activities 78.38 81.82 80.72 81.51 85.05 4 - 433300 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ Prt)- Svc Discnnec t 93.75 93.12 93.57 93.59 92.74 C - 8 67 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 4 - 433400 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ Prt)- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 83.09 87.50 82.34 84.62 82.58 4 - 433600 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ Prt)- Move Activities 0.00 0.00 5.42 5.42 6.19 4 - 433601 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ PBX Prt) - New Svc Install nd nd 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 433602 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ PBX Prt) - Ch g Activities nd nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 433603 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ PBX Prt) - Svc Discnnec t nd nd 0.00 nd nd abcde 4 - 433604 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ PBX Prt) - Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 0.00 0.00 nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 433606 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 5.5db Loop w/ PBX Prt) - New Svc Install nd nd nd 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 433607 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 5,5db Loop w/ PBX Prt) - Ch g Activities nd 0.00 nd 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 433609 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 5.5db Loop w/ PBX Prt) - Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a cd 4 - 433614 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ PBX DID Prt )- Svc Migration w/ chgs nd nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 433616 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 5.5db Loop w/ PBX DID Prt )- New Svc Install nd nd 0.00 nd nd abcde 4 - 433619 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 5.5db Loop w/ PBX DID Prt )- Svc Migration w/ chgs 0.00 nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 433620 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 5.5db Loop w/ PBX DID Prt )- Move Activities nd nd 0.00 nd nd abcde 4 - 433626 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( ISDN PRI Port & Loop) - New Svc Install nd nd 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 433644 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ Cntrx Prt) - Ch g Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ab d 4 - 433645 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ Cntrx Prt) - Svc Discnnec t nd nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 433646 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Platform( 8db Loop w/ Cntrx Prt) - Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C - 9 68 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 4 - 433700 LEX/ EDI LASR: Hi Bandwidth Line Sharing UNE- New Svc Install 87.25 92.86 77.50 84.24 94.41 4 - 433800 LEX/ EDI LASR: Hi Bandwidth Line Sharing UNE- Svc Discnnec t 65.21 66.36 80.95 84.36 83.14 4 - 433900 LEX/ EDI LASR: Hi Bandwidth Line Sharing UNE- Chg Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 - 433901 LEX/ EDI LASR: Hi Bandwidth Line Sharing UNE- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 44.23 4 - 440100 EXACT: Intercnnect Trks- New and Au g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 - 440200 EXACT: Intercnnect Trks- Ch g Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 4 - 440300 EXACT: Intercnnect Trks- Svc Discnnec t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 - 440601 EXACT: UNE Dedicated Trns prt DS1- New Svc Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 bc 4 - 440602 EXACT: UNE Dedicated Trns prt DS1- Chg Activities nd nd nd 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 440603 EXACT: UNE Dedicated Trns prt DS1- Svc Discnnect 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 440604 EXACT: UNE Dedicated Trns prt DS3- New Svc Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 e 4 - 440605 EXACT: UNE Dedicated Trns prt DS3- Chg Activities nd 0.00 nd 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 440606 EXACT: UNE Dedicated Trns prt DS3- Svc Discnnect 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 - 440610 EXACT: UNE Dark Fiber - New Svc Install n d nd 0.00 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 440611 EXACT: UNE Dark Fiber - Ch g Activities 0.00 nd nd nd nd abcde 4 - 450101 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- New Svc Instal l 69.67 67.94 64.87 72.96 72.04 4 - 450201 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- Ch g Activities 94.21 92.96 87.33 86.52 89.33 4 - 450301 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- Move Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 - 450401 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- Svc Discnnec t 99.02 99.21 98.06 96.30 97.51 4 - 450501 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 17.38 7.05 12.20 1.41 1.24 4 - 450601 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Res POTS- Svc Migration w/ out ch gs 75.10 94.94 91.18 83.93 88.00 4 - 450701 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- New Svc Instal l 31.88 20.74 13.33 10.12 19.35 4 - 450801 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- Ch g Activities 85.96 75.58 70.88 74.51 77.24 4 - 450901 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- Move Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 - 451001 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Discnnec t 44.54 30.05 61.78 70.21 68.34 4 - 451101 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 7.69 12.68 8.97 8.47 14.71 4 - 451201 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale Bus POTS- Svc Migration w/ out ch gs 9.48 2.52 33.02 36.14 24.53 4 - 451307 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centrex- Ch g Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C - 10 69 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 4 - 451308 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centrex- Move Activities nd nd 0.00 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 451309 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centrex- Svc Discnnec t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 451310 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centrex- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 - 451311 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale Centrex- Svc Mi gration w/ out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 4 - 451312 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale PBX- New Svc Install n d 0.00 0.00 nd nd abcde 4 - 451313 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale PBX- Ch g Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 451314 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale PBX- Move Activities n d nd nd 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 451315 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale PBX- Svc Discnnec t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a de 4 - 451316 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale PBX- Svc Mi gration w/ chgs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 451317 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale PBX- Svc Mi gration w/ out chgs nd 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 451326 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale DS1- Move Activities n d nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 451329 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale DS1- Svc Mi gration w/ out chgs nd nd nd nd 0.00 abcde 4 - 451333 LEX/ EDI CLEO: Resale ISDN PRI- Svc Discnnec t nd nd 0.00 0.00 nd abcde 4 - 451348 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale ISDN BRI- New Svc Instal l 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 4 - 451349 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale ISDN BRI- Ch g Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd bcde 4 - 451351 LEX/ EDI LASR: Resale ISDN BRI- Svc Discnnec t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a de 4 - 451353 LEX/ EDI LASR : Resale ISDN BRI- Svc Migration w/ out ch gs nd 0.00 nd 0.00 0.00 a cde 4 - 460004 LEX/ EDI LASR: UNE Basic Prt Analog- Svc Migration w/ ch gs nd nd 0.00 nd nd abcde 5 - 521900 Resale Residential POTS 0.03 0.70 0.13 0.83 0.27 0.61 0.40 0.71 0.28 0.76 5 - 522000 Resale Business POTS 0.00 0.87 0.16 1.20 0.60 1.79 0.35 1.92 0.58 1.85 5 - 522100 Resale ISDN BRI 0.00 4.38 3.57 4.10 16.67 4.06 20.00 5.92 10.00 5.20 a cd 5 - 522200 Resale Centrex 0.00 1.94 0.00 2.29 2.94 1.48 0.00 3.72 1.05 2.13 5 - 522400 Resale PBX 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.47 c 5 - 522600 Resale DS1 n d 0.11 nd 0.00 nd 0.28 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.47 abcde 5 - 522900 UNE (8db and 5.5db) field wk/ no field wk 0.50 2.23 0.51 3.03 1.01 4.35 0.93 4.86 0.91 4.71 5 - 523100 UNE Loo p 2w Dig ISDN capable field wk/ no field wk 0.00 4.38 0.00 4.10 0.00 4.06 0.00 5.92 33.33 5.20 abcde 5 - 523300 UNE Loo p 2w Dig IDSL capable field wk/ no field wk 6.33 4.38 9.07 4.10 8.17 4.06 5.72 5.92 4.75 5.20 5 - 523500 UNE Loo p 2w Dig xDSL capable field wk/ no field wk 2.12 1.84 1.99 1.85 2.17 5 - 523700 UNE Loop 2w Dig Ln Shrg cap- conditioned- field wk/ no field w k 2.22 0.00 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 8.89 0.00 Provisioning 5 - Percentage of Orders Jeopardized C - 11 70 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 5 - 523900 UNE Loop 2w Dig Ln Shrg cap- nonconditioned- field wk/ no field w k 0.35 1.14 0.29 1.09 0.55 1.95 0.42 1.33 0.66 1.49 5 - 524100 UNE Loop 4w Dig 1.544 mpbs cap/ HDSL field wk/ no field w k 1.16 0.11 0.60 0.00 1.05 0.28 1.39 0.67 0.91 0.47 5 - 524300 UNE Loo p DS3 field wk/ no field wk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cde 5 - 524500 UNE Port Non- S pcls field wk/ no field wk nd 0.31 nd 0.37 0.00 0.40 nd 0.58 nd 0.35 abcde 5 - 524700 UNE Ded Trans port DS1 field wk/ no field wk 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.47 5 - 524800 UNE Ded Trans port DS3 field wk/ no field wk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 - 525000 UNE Dark Fiber field wk/ no field w k 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd a cde 5 - 525200 EELs Voice Grade- Conv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 - 525300 EELs DS1- Ne w 3.31 1.08 0.78 0.00 0.93 5 - 525400 EELs DS1- Con v nd nd 0.00 nd nd abcde 5 - 525500 EELs DS3- Ne w 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 5 - 525900 UNE Platform Basic Port and Loo p field wk/ no field wk 0.02 0.87 0.02 1.20 0.08 1.79 0.08 1.92 0.10 1.85 5 - 526000 UNE Platform S pcls Port and Loop field wk/ no field wk 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.00 abcd 5 - 526300 Interconnection Trunks 1.09 24.37 1.36 24.17 0.17 0.84 0.18 0.40 0.56 2.71 6 - 640000 Whlsle Ass gnmnt- Resale Res POTS 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 6 - 640100 Whlsle Ass gnmnt- Resale Bus POTS nd 100.00 100.00 nd nd abcde 6 - 641300 Whlsle Ass gnmnt- UNE 2w Dig LS Loop- NonConditioned 100.00 nd nd nd nd abcde 6 - 641600 Whlsle Assgnmnt- UNE Loop 2w Dig xDSL cap field wk/ no field w k 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 6 - 641601 Whlsle Assgnmnt- UNE Loop 2w Dig IDSL cap field wk/ no field w k 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcd 6 - 641800 Whlsle Assgnmnt- UNE Lp 2/ 4w (8db and 5.5db) analog field wk/ no field w k 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 6 - 643600 Whlsle Assgnmnt- UNE Plat Basic Port and Loop field wk/ no field w k 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ab de 6 - 644300 Whlsle Install- Resale Res POTS 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 6 - 644400 Whlsle Install- Resale Bus POTS 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 6 - 644500 Whlsle Install- Resale Centre x 100.00 100.00 100.00 nd 100.00 abcde 6 - 645100 Whlsle Install- Resale ISDN BRI n d nd nd 100.00 100.00 abcde 6 - 645400 Whlsle Install- UNE 2w Di g LS Loop- Conditioned 100.00 100.00 nd nd 100.00 abcde 6 - 645500 Whlsle Install- UNE 2w Di g LS Loop- NonConditioned 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 6 - Average Jeoparady Notice Interval C - 12 71 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 6 - 645600 Whlsle Install- UNE Loop 2w Dig ISDN cap field wk/ no field w k nd nd nd nd 100.00 abcde 6 - 645800 Whlsle Install- UNE Loop 2w Dig xDSL cap field wk/ no field w k 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 6 - 645801 Whlsle Install- UNE Loop 2w Dig IDSL cap field wk/ no field w k 100.00 100.00 98.41 100.00 96.77 6 - 646000 Whlsle Install- UNE Lp 2/ 4w (8db and 5.5db) analog field wk/ no field w k 100.00 100.00 98.11 96.30 94.12 6 - 646800 Whlsle Install- UNE Ded Transport DS3 field wk/ no field w k nd nd nd 100.00 nd abcde 6 - 647200 Whlsle Install- EELs DS1- Ne w 85.71 100.00 100.00 nd 100.00 bcde 6 - 647800 Whlsle Install- UNE Plat Basic Port and Loop field wk/ no field w k 97.87 100.00 97.35 94.87 89.77 6 - 648200 Whlsle Install- UNE Loop 4w Dig 1.544 cap/ HDSL field wk/ no field w k 92.31 90.00 66.67 77.78 75.00 cde 6 - 648500 Whlsle Missd Comm- Resale Res POTS 82.05 96.36 97.78 93.18 94.67 6 - 648600 Whlsle Missd Comm- Resale Bus POTS 100.00 90.91 100.00 75.00 85.71 a cde 6 - 648700 Whlsle Missd Comm- Resale Centre x nd 100.00 100.00 nd nd abcde 6 - 649300 Whlsle Missd Comm- Resale ISDN BRI n d 100.00 nd nd nd abcde 6 - 649600 Whlsle Missd Comm- UNE 2w Di g LS Loop- Conditioned 100.00 nd 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 6 - 649700 Whlsle Missd Comm- UNE 2w Dig LS Loop- NonConditioned 100.00 100.00 87.50 100.00 92.59 abc 6 - 649800 Whlsle Missd Comm- UNE Loop 2w Dig ISDN cap field wk/ no field w k nd nd nd nd 100.00 abcde 6 - 650000 Whlsle Missd Comm- UNE Loop 2w Dig xDSL cap field wk/ no field w k 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 6 - 650001 Whlsle Missd Comm- UNE Loop 2w Dig IDSL cap field wk/ no field w k 85.71 88.89 96.88 94.74 84.09 6 - 650200 Whlsle Missd Comm- UNE Lp 2/ 4w (8db and 5.5db) analo g field wk/ no field wk 89.13 93.10 95.35 90.38 92.11 6 - 651400 Whlsle Missd Comm- EELs DS1- Ne w nd 100.00 100.00 100.00 nd abcde 6 - 651500 Whlsle Missd Comm- EELs DS1- Con v nd nd 100.00 nd nd abcde 6 - 652000 Whlsle Missd Comm- UNE Plat Basic Port and Loop field wk/ no field w k 63.78 51.83 85.64 87.35 86.38 C - 13 72 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 6 - 652400 Whlsle Missd Comm- UNE Loop 4w Dig 1.544 cap/ HDSL field wk/ no field w k 100.00 100.00 100.00 85.71 100.00 abcde 7 Resale Residential POTS field work 0.68 1.44 0.92 1.45 1.28 2.04 1.41 2.14 1.34 2.24 7 Resale Residential POTS no field work 0.07 0.69 0.12 0.68 0.16 0.83 0.10 0.72 0.18 0.82 7 Resale Business POTS field wor k 2.19 2.15 1.46 2.17 1.63 2.73 1.31 2.78 2.11 2.48 7 Resale Business POTS no field wor k 0.55 0.73 0.30 0.72 0.37 0.87 0.54 0.85 0.45 0.82 7 Resale ISDN BRI field wor k nd 9.24 7.00 8.77 7.00 8.73 13.00 9.63 15.00 9.41 abcde 7 Resale Centrex field wor k 3.00 4.19 2.73 3.97 2.88 4.08 5.50 4.26 2.86 7.38 a cd 7 Resale Centrex no field wor k 1.08 1.68 1.13 1.35 0.68 1.19 1.27 1.32 0.58 1.40 7 Resale PBX field wor k 1.33 6.58 nd 7.36 nd 7.87 nd 6.52 nd 8.74 abcde 7 Resale PBX no field work 1.00 5.04 1.00 6.30 9.67 6.01 12.00 4.62 5.00 6.19 abcde 7 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing - Conditioned 8.94 10.00 10.15 10.00 10.16 10.00 10.00 n/ a 10.07 n/ a 7 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing - Non Conditioned 3.00 3.03 3.01 3.03 3.00 3.03 3.00 3.03 3.01 3.03 7 Resale DS1 field wor k nd 13.08 nd 11.29 nd 14.20 23.00 23.28 nd 10.54 abcde 7 Resale DS1 no field wor k nd 8.95 nd 10.31 nd 11.25 nd 9.70 5.00 9.31 abcde 7 UNE Loop 2/ 4 wire analog 8db and 5.5db loop without LNP 1.57 1.84 1.55 1.93 1.23 2.58 1.38 2.63 1.20 2.77 7 UNE Loo p 2/ 4 wire analog 8db and 5.5db loop with LNP 100.00 99.91 99.62 99.71 99.69 7 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital ISDN capable 5.00 9.51 8.33 9.27 nd 9.67 nd 10.19 7.00 10.48 abcde 7 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital xDSL capable - Conditioned 100.00 87.50 nd nd 50.00 bcde 7 UNE Loop 2 wire Digital xDSL capable - Non Conditioned 99.49 99.22 99.03 99.20 99.24 7 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital IDSL capable 7.15 9.51 7.61 9.27 7.54 9.67 7.69 10.19 8.15 10.48 7 UNE Loo p 4 wire Digital 1.544 mbpd capable/ HDSL 6.77 12.45 6.44 11.17 6.77 13.92 6.86 21.82 6.81 10.31 7 UNE Port Non S pecials nd 0.73 nd 0.72 1.00 0.87 nd 0.85 nd 0.82 abcde 7 UNE Dedicated Transport - DS1- Field Work/ No field wor k 7.00 12.45 6.80 11.17 7.00 13.92 7.00 21.82 6.78 10.31 abcde 7 UNE Dark Fiber n d nd 35.00 nd nd abcde 7 UNE EELs Voice Grade - Conversion n d 3.00 3.33 3.00 48.00 abcde 7 UNE EELs DS1 - Ne w 6.62 6.81 7.11 7.01 6.87 7 UNE Platform - Basic Port and (8db and 5.5db) Basic Loo p - Field Work/ No Field Work 0.15 1.18 0.14 1.18 0.22 1.48 0.25 1.45 0.28 1.37 7 Interconnection Trunks 19.20 42.75 20.77 24.97 19.83 37.87 18.18 33.29 19.43 29.52 7 - Average Completed Interval C - 14 73 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 7 UNE Platform Special Port/ 8db and 5.5db Loop - field work/ no field wor k 5.50 5.35 nd 7.44 10.00 6.79 nd 6.28 12.00 8.35 abcde 8 - Percent Completed within Standard Interval 8 Resale ISDN BRI nd 78.73 100.00 97.27 100.00 97.39 0.00 92.83 nd 98.72 abcde 8 Resale PBX 100.00 87.42 100.00 98.37 100.00 95.92 100.00 94.91 100.00 97.62 abcde 8 Resale Centrex 100.00 96.53 97.14 97.77 100.00 98.32 89.47 97.83 100.00 98.57 8 Resale DS1 n d 95.89 nd 97.98 nd 99.35 100.00 99.09 100.00 98.13 abcde 8 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing - Conditioned 100.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 96.00 100.00 100.00 n/ a 96.43 n/ a 8 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing - Non Conditioned 99.89 99.29 99.90 99.23 99.83 99.13 99.83 99.06 99.82 99.18 8 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital ISDN capable 100.00 95.61 100.00 95.62 nd 95.89 nd 86.69 0.00 97.43 abcde 8 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital xDSL capable - Conditioned 90.00 87.50 nd nd 50.00 bcde 8 UNE Loop 2 wire Digital xDSL capable - Non Conditioned 99.49 99.22 99.03 99.20 99.35 8 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital IDSL capable 97.45 95.61 96.05 95.62 97.26 95.89 93.65 86.69 94.56 97.43 8 UNE Loo p 4 wire Digital 1.544 mbpd capable/ HDSL 97.52 95.89 98.38 97.98 97.64 99.35 96.56 99.09 96.96 98.13 8 UNE Dedicated Trans port DS1 100.00 95.89 100.00 97.98 100.00 99.35 100.00 99.09 100.00 98.13 abcde 8 UNE Dedicated Trans port DS3 nd n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a 100.00 n/ a nd n/ a abcde 8 UNE Dark Fiber n d nd 100.00 nd nd abcde 8 UNE EELs Voice Grade - Conversion 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 abcde 8 UNE EELs DS1 - Ne w 95.52 95.88 87.27 97.22 97.06 8 UNE Platform S pecial Port and Basic Loop 100.00 90.48 nd 98.41 100.00 94.69 100.00 96.23 100.00 95.74 abcde 8 Interconnection Trunks 98.69 89.29 100.00 100.00 100.00 72.73 97.93 70.59 100.00 95.65 9 - 990400 Bus 98.91 74.62 99.60 78.37 99.51 77.92 99.35 79.23 100.00 78.86 9 - 990500 Port Out 100.00 75.00 100.00 56.41 100.00 40.00 100.00 88.57 100.00 77.78 9a - Frame Due Time (FDT) Conversions as a Percentage on Time 9a - 4590000 Basic Lps 98.32 97.19 96.87 97.34 95.01 9a - 4590100 Basic L ps w/ LNP 96.46 96.52 96.86 97.88 97.21 9a - 4590200 Stwde LNP onl y 100.00 99.92 100.00 99.99 100.00 10 - 1090101 Whlsle PNP Ntwk Prov Fail 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05 11 - Percent of Due Dates Missed 11 Resale Residential POTS field work 1.07 4.57 2.60 4.51 2.14 5.14 3.16 5.83 3.63 6.96 11 Resale Residential POTS no field work 0.02 0.17 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.12 10 - LNP Network Provisioning 9 - Coordinated Customer Conversion C - 15 74 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 11 Resale Business POTS field work 3.80 4.35 3.05 4.50 2.63 4.72 3.42 5.30 4.46 5.47 11 Resale Business POTS no field wor k 0.00 0.44 0.09 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.62 0.17 11 Resale ISDN BRI field wor k 0.00 5.21 12.50 3.28 0.00 3.89 100.00 6.34 0.00 4.96 a cde 11 Resale ISDN BRI no field wor k 0.00 3.02 0.00 1.16 nd 1.20 nd 1.97 nd 0.35 abcde 11 Resale Centrex field wor k 0.00 3.59 1.56 3.71 0.00 3.06 0.00 4.44 0.00 3.70 11 Resale Centrex no field wor k 0.00 1.02 2.27 1.23 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.63 11 Resale PBX field wor k 0.00 1.15 0.00 1.34 nd 1.63 0.00 1.05 0.00 1.73 abcde 11 Resale PBX no field work 0.00 1.77 50.00 0.50 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.70 abcde 11 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing - Conditioned 0.00 0.00 4.17 0.00 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.45 0.00 11 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing - Non Conditioned 0.12 0.83 0.13 0.87 0.16 1.02 0.13 1.06 0.25 1.11 11 Resale DS1 field wor k nd 3.43 nd 0.66 nd 0.96 0.00 1.46 nd 0.93 abcde 11 Resale DS1 no field wor k nd 1.50 nd 0.00 nd 1.33 nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 11 UNE Loo p 2/ 4 wire analog 8db and 5.5db loop 0.37 4.36 0.34 4.50 0.57 4.75 0.78 5.31 0.46 5.49 11 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital ISDN capable 0.00 5.53 0.00 3.52 0.00 4.23 0.00 6.61 100.00 5.35 abcde 11 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital xDSL capable 0.53 0.95 0.96 0.70 0.86 11 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital IDSL capable 2.91 5.53 5.39 3.52 3.49 4.23 9.78 6.61 9.23 5.35 11 UNE Loo p 4 wire Digital 1.544 mbpd capable/ HDSL 1.96 3.13 2.83 0.57 3.12 1.00 3.59 1.28 2.41 0.79 11 UNE Loo p DS3 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.41 abcde 11 UNE Port Non S pecials nd 0.44 nd 0.17 0.00 0.17 nd 0.17 nd 0.17 abcde 11 UNE Dedicated Trans port - DS1 Field Work/ no field work 0.00 3.13 0.00 0.57 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.28 0.00 0.79 11 UNE Dedicated Trans port - DS3 Field Work/ no field work 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 7.41 11 UNE Dark Fiber 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 n d abcde 11 UNE EELs Voice Grade - Conversion 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a cde 11 UNE EELs DS1 - Ne w 2.61 3.69 6.19 0.91 1.08 11 UNE EELs DS3 - Ne w 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 11 UNE Platform - Basic Port and (8db and 5.5db) Basic Loo p - Field Work/ No Field Work 0.05 1.91 0.06 1.82 0.10 1.93 0.11 2.07 0.13 2.18 11 Interconnection Trunks 0.61 12.53 0.42 17.92 0.37 34.66 0.63 8.96 0.74 18.65 11 UNE Platform Special Port and 8db and 5.5db Loop - Field Work/ no field wor k 0.00 1.02 nd 0.82 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.64 abcde 12 Resale Residential POTS field work 0.68 2.82 1.73 2.98 1.20 3.26 2.15 3.61 2.57 4.27 12 Resale Residential POTS no field work 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 12 Resale Business POTS field wor k 3.80 2.58 3.05 3.09 1.75 3.07 2.56 3.34 3.57 3.59 12 - Percent Due Dates Missed Due to Lack of Facilities C - 16 75 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 12 Resale Business POTS no field work 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 12 Resale ISDN BRI field wor k 0.00 3.43 12.50 2.74 0.00 1.78 40.00 4.28 0.00 3.99 a cde 12 Resale ISDN BRI no field wor k 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 nd 0.27 nd 0.30 nd 0.00 abcde 12 Resale Centrex field wor k 0.00 1.91 0.00 2.62 0.00 1.68 0.00 2.40 0.00 2.41 12 Resale Centrex no field wor k 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 12 Resale PBX field wor k 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.69 nd 0.93 0.00 0.47 0.00 1.64 abcde 12 Resale PBX no field work 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 12 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing - Conditioned 0.00 0.00 4.17 0.00 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.45 0.00 12 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing - Non Conditioned 0.10 0.62 0.12 0.64 0.12 0.74 0.11 0.81 0.22 0.87 12 Resale DS1 field wor k nd 0.86 nd 0.16 nd 0.16 0.00 0.97 nd 1.31 abcde 12 Resale DS1 no field wor k nd 0.00 nd 0.00 nd 1.33 nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 12 UNE Loo p 2/ 4 wire analog 8db and 5.5db loop 0.35 2.59 0.30 3.09 0.54 3.09 0.72 3.35 0.44 3.61 12 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital ISDN capable 0.00 3.66 0.00 2.85 0.00 1.98 0.00 4.55 100.00 4.36 abcde 12 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital xDSL capable 0.42 0.95 0.74 0.63 0.71 12 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital IDSL capable 2.26 3.66 4.47 2.85 3.14 1.98 7.83 4.55 7.66 4.36 12 UNE Loo p 4 wire Digital 1.544 mbpd capable/ HDSL 0.98 0.72 1.19 0.14 1.66 0.28 2.39 0.85 2.07 1.11 12 UNE Loo p - DS3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 abcde 12 UNE Dedicated Trans port DS1 Field Work/ no field work 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.85 0.00 1.11 12 UNE Dedicated Trans port DS3 Field Work/ no field work 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 12 UNE EELs DS1 - Ne w 1.74 2.76 2.65 0.45 1.43 12 UNE EELs DS3 - Ne w 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 abcde 12 UNE Platform - Basic Port and (8db and 5.5db) Basic Loo p - Field Work/ No Field Work 0.02 1.05 0.01 1.19 0.05 1.19 0.04 1.25 0.07 1.37 12 Interconnection Trunks 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.32 0.00 2.17 0.00 0.48 0.56 1.04 12 UNE Platform Special Port/ 8db and 5.5db Loop- field work/ no field wor k 0.00 0.09 nd 0.24 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.45 abcde 13 - Delay Order Interval to Completion Date (For Lack of Facilities) 13 - 1394500 Resale Bus POTS 1- 30 Days 7.33 6.56 4.00 6.20 4.50 6.40 3.67 8.46 8.75 7.39 abcde 13 - 1394800 Resale ISDN BRI 1- 30 Da ys nd 9.75 9.00 8.44 nd 5.93 6.00 10.37 nd 10.75 abcde 13 - 1394900 Resale ISDN BRI 31- 90 Da ys nd 49.00 nd 57.25 nd n/ a 56.00 39.00 nd 36.60 abcde 13 - 1395901 UNE 2 w Di g Line Sharing Cond 1- 30 Days nd n/ a 5.00 n/ a 4.00 n/ a nd n/ a 13.50 n/ a abcde 13 - 1395904 UNE 2 w Di g Line Sharing Non Cond 1- 30 Days 3.20 6.23 8.71 6.07 2.80 5.39 5.57 5.65 5.65 5.79 abcd 13 - 1395905 UNE 2 w Di g Line Sharing Non Cond 31- 90 Days nd 34.00 nd 38.00 nd 40.25 nd 35.80 36.00 40.07 abcde 13 - 1397701 UNE l p 8db and 5.5db 2/ 4 w 1- 30 Days 5.08 6.56 6.73 6.21 6.14 6.40 5.91 8.49 5.93 7.42 C - 17 76 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 13 - 1397702 UNE lp 8db and 5.5db 2/ 4 w 31- 90 Days nd 40.67 40.00 46.30 nd 43.50 43.00 45.31 48.00 47.39 abcde 13 - 1398001 UNE l p 2 w Dig ISDN cap 1- 30 Days nd 9.75 nd 8.44 nd 5.93 nd 10.25 4.00 10.75 abcde 13 - 1398301 UNE l p 2 w Dig IDSL cap 1- 30 Days 10.79 9.75 7.37 8.44 8.29 5.93 8.48 10.25 8.22 10.75 13 - 1398302 UNE l p 2 w Dig IDSL cap 31- 90 Days 32.00 49.00 nd 57.25 nd n/ a nd 39.00 44.50 36.60 abcde 13 - 1398310 UNE l p 2 w Dig xDSL cap 9.17 9.25 5.30 4.89 9.38 a de 13 - 1398400 UNE l p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbpd cap/ HDSL 1- 30 Days 8.75 9.50 9.88 4.00 6.75 1.00 6.64 12.38 7.42 6.67 abc 13 - 1398500 UNE l p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbpd cap/ HDSL 31- 90 Days 49.50 59.00 nd n/ a nd 66.00 nd 51.00 nd n/ a abcde 13 - 1398910 UNE EELs DS1 New 1- 30 Da ys 3.50 10.67 12.33 25.00 10.75 abcde 13 - 1399000 UNE Plat Basic Port and L p 1- 30 Days 3.40 6.56 3.96 6.20 4.15 6.40 3.87 8.46 4.57 7.39 13 - 1399100 UNE Plat Basic Port and L p 31- 90 Days nd 41.76 33.00 46.30 nd 43.50 nd 45.31 42.17 47.35 abcde 13 - 1399300 Interconnection Trunks 1- 30 Da ys nd 7.00 nd n/ a nd 1.50 nd 6.00 1.00 10.00 abcde 14 - 1491400 Resale Res POTS 82.00 32.50 19.00 28.81 3.00 29.19 71.00 38.28 0.00 36.05 abcde 14 - 1491500 Resale Bus POTS 4.00 38.65 23.00 30.19 28.50 29.11 15.00 36.26 n d 37.02 abcde 14 - 1491600 Resale ISDN BRI n d 19.56 9.00 14.16 39.00 34.00 nd 14.33 nd 27.05 abcde 14 - 1492401 UNE l p 8db and 5.5db 2/ 4 w anlg 7.33 34.08 22.50 19.09 15.94 18.64 22.20 21.64 34.50 23.35 ab de 14 - 1492600 UNE l p 2 w Dig xDSL cap 9.80 21.00 nd nd nd abcde 14 - 1492602 UNE l p 2 w Dig IDSL cap 7.00 13.55 17.15 10.04 25.33 23.20 11.60 13.33 5.50 26.94 a cde 14 - 1492700 UNE l p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbps cap/ HDSL 14.00 24.28 52.00 233.00 28.25 95.50 40.40 146.60 72.25 56.43 abcde 14 - 1493307 UNE EELs DS1- Ne w 4.50 4.00 nd nd nd abcde 14 - 1493400 UNE Basic Port and L p 9.38 38.65 20.76 30.19 26.76 29.11 25.56 36.26 20.57 37.02 14 - 1493602 UNE l p 2 w Dig Line Sharing- Non Conditioned 6.00 10.59 nd 8.87 nd 9.88 14.00 10.15 6.50 8.12 abcd 15 - Provisioning Trouble Reports (Prior to Service Order Completion) 15 - 1590800 Resale Out of Svc 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.03 0.07 15 - 1590900 Resale Svc Affctn g 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.08 15 - 1591110 UNE l p Out of Svc 0.14 0.07 0.28 0.09 0.27 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.14 0.07 15 - 1591120 UNE l p Svc Affctng 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.08 15 - 1591501 LNP Out of Svc 0.13 0.26 0.32 0.28 0.37 15 - 1591502 LNP Svc Affctn g 0.12 0.16 0.28 0.23 0.20 15 - 1591600 UNE l p 2 w Dig Line Sharing Out of Svc 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.99 0.00 0.00 15 - 1591700 UNE l p 2 w Dig Line Sharing Svc Affctng 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 - 1591701 UNE Platform Out of Svc 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.05 0.07 15 - 1591702 UNE Platform Svc Affctn g 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.08 15a - Average Time to Restore Provisioning Troubles (Service Order Completion) 14 - Held Order Interval C - 18 77 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 15a - 4690800 Resale OOS 24.65 18.07 36.20 8.55 20.64 22.74 18.75 19.21 7.39 20.74 abcde 15a - 4690900 Resale Svc Af f nd 13.50 1.11 5.62 2.17 9.23 33.81 14.74 1.18 6.83 abcde 15a - 4691110 UNE Loo p OOS 1.81 18.07 13.09 8.55 7.10 22.74 7.54 19.21 1.94 20.74 b 15a - 4691120 UNE Loo p Svc Aff 1.82 13.50 1.99 5.62 2.41 9.23 2.05 14.74 10.42 6.83 de 15a - 4691400 LNP Port Out OOS 22.73 5.47 24.92 15.60 17.25 b 15a - 4691500 LNP Port Out Svc Aff 7.84 5.00 26.29 5.73 4.03 b e 15a - 4691501 UNE Loo p 2w DLS OOS nd n/ a 1.17 0.60 nd n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a abcde 15a - 4691502 UNE Loo p 2w DLS Svc Aff nd n/ a 1.11 4.54 nd n/ a nd n/ a nd 4.30 abcde 15a - 4691503 UNE Platform OOS 14.39 18.75 9.01 7.87 23.65 18.98 23.99 20.86 12.83 10.70 a 15a - 4691504 UNE Platform Svc Af f 6.90 14.29 7.10 7.10 19.77 19.80 37.78 15.74 14.28 12.07 a 16 - Percent Troubles in 30 Days for Special Services Orders 16 Resale ISDN BRI 0.00 4.18 0.00 3.79 0.00 5.04 0.00 4.42 0.00 3.46 a cde 16 Resale Centrex 10.26 5.19 2.86 5.03 4.17 5.23 5.13 5.22 4.00 4.42 16 Resale PBX 0.00 1.29 0.00 1.52 0.00 1.86 0.00 1.23 0.00 1.27 abc e 16 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing 2.08 1.87 3.47 2.31 2.95 1.94 3.32 2.08 2.84 1.78 16 Resale DS1 n d 10.46 nd 10.74 nd 10.04 0.00 8.55 0.00 12.01 abcde 16 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital ISDN capable 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 16 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital xDSL capable 5.39 5.89 6.19 5.42 5.47 16 UNE Loo p 4 wire Digital 1.544 mbpd capable/ HDSL 11.76 12.21 11.00 12.48 10.58 11.47 8.44 9.62 5.09 13.68 16 UNE Loo p - DS3 0.00 4.76 20.00 4.62 0.00 4.44 0.00 9.68 0.00 0.00 abcde 16 UNE Dedicated Trans port - DS1 7.41 10.46 3.85 10.74 0.00 10.04 2.08 8.55 4.55 12.01 16 UNE Dedicated Trans port - DS3 6.10 2.08 3.61 3.90 1.30 3.92 4.94 7.50 0.00 0.00 16 UNE Dark Fiber 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n d abcde 16 UNE EELs - Voice Grade 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 16 UNE EELs - DS1 4.35 4.59 5.26 5.77 5.48 16 UNE EELs - DS3 0.00 0.00 0.00 n d 0.00 abcde 16 UNE Platform S pecial Port/ 8db and 5.5db Loop 0.00 0.28 150.00 0.26 40.00 0.72 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.41 abcde 16 Interconnection Trunks 3.67 18.80 0.83 17.92 0.37 34.66 0.63 8.96 0.93 39.90 17 - Percentage Troubles in 10 Days for Non- Special Orders 17 - 1790700 Resale Res POTS 1.42 2.03 1.73 1.74 2.20 2.39 1.71 2.18 1.30 2.07 17 - 1790800 Resale Bus POTS 0.86 2.22 1.45 2.04 1.17 2.40 1.44 2.22 1.86 2.22 17 - 1791100 UNE L p 2/ 4w 8db and 5.5db 2.95 4.63 2.64 2.51 3.26 2.74 2.64 2.75 2.96 2.26 17 - 1791300 UNE L p 2/ 4w 8db and 5.5db FDT 1.00 1.00 1.98 1.28 1.20 17 - 1791400 UNE L p 2/ 4w 8db and 5.5db TBCC 2.64 1.45 2.73 1.76 2.40 C - 19 78 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 17 - 1791500 UNE Port Non Spcls nd 0.73 nd 1.84 0.00 2.22 nd 1.96 nd 0.38 abcde 17 - 1791600 UNE Plat Basic Port and Loo p 0.67 2.22 0.84 2.04 1.10 2.40 0.91 2.22 0.78 2.22 17 - 1791700 LNP 0.14 0.07 0.18 0.06 0.15 18 - 1800101 Elec LEX/ EDI LASR 99.97 99.97 99.02 99.90 99.89 18 - 1800401 Elec Fallout LEX/ EDI LASR 94.93 97.19 96.88 96.53 95.09 18 - 1800502 Fallout Level LEX/ EDI LAS R 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 18 - 1800700 % w/ in 24 hrs All Othr Int CESA R 93.06 95.00 92.65 98.44 100.00 18 - 1800800 % w/ in 24 hrs All Othr Int LTD 99.78 99.54 99.71 100.00 95.41 18 - 1800900 % w/ in 24 hrs All Othr Int EXACT 99.75 99.15 99.25 98.99 99.12 19 - 1991600 Resale Res POTS 0.82 0.89 0.86 0.92 1.33 1.79 1.42 1.79 1.36 1.55 19 - 1991700 Resale Bus POTS 0.27 0.47 0.34 0.49 0.45 0.73 0.37 0.71 0.33 0.69 19 - 1991800 Resale ISDN BRI 0.17 0.96 0.17 1.18 0.00 1.09 0.58 1.02 0.78 1.15 19 - 1991900 Resale CTX 0.44 0.26 0.22 0.28 0.71 0.34 0.63 0.32 0.46 0.35 19 - 1992000 Resale PBX 0.11 0.10 0.25 0.13 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.09 0.16 19 - 1992100 Resale DDS 0.00 2.56 0.00 2.69 0.00 3.14 0.00 3.17 0.00 3.21 abcde 19 - 1992200 Resale DS1 0.00 3.29 0.00 3.64 0.00 4.19 0.00 4.05 2.86 3.85 19 - 1992300 Resale DS3 0.00 1.34 0.00 2.05 0.00 2.13 0.00 2.30 0.00 1.22 abcde 19 - 1992400 Resale VGPL/ DS0 0.00 1.05 0.00 1.04 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.25 0.00 1.19 abcde 19 - 1992603 UNE l p 8db and 5.5db 2/ 4 w 0.35 0.44 0.37 0.46 0.64 0.67 0.51 0.65 0.48 0.64 19 - 1992702 UNE l p 2 w Dig ISDN cap 0.35 0.86 0.18 1.08 0.12 0.98 0.26 0.93 0.55 1.06 19 - 1992801 UNE l p 2 w Dig xDSL cap 0.73 0.81 0.96 0.99 0.96 19 - 1992904 UNE l p DS3 0.00 1.34 7.69 1.97 7.14 2.06 0.00 2.23 0.00 1.15 19 - 1992910 UNE l p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbps cap/ HDSL 2.90 3.17 2.76 3.53 4.28 4.05 4.04 3.93 2.68 3.72 19 - 1993501 UNE Ded Trns pt DS1 0.82 3.29 0.56 3.64 0.38 4.19 1.00 4.05 0.40 3.85 19 - 1993502 UNE Ded Trns pt DS3 0.46 1.34 0.38 2.05 0.38 2.13 0.42 2.30 0.26 1.22 19 - 1993504 UNE Dark Fiber 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 abcde 19 - 1993505 UNE EELs Voice Grade 0.43 1.15 0.54 1.43 0.36 19 - 1993506 UNE EELs DS1 2.14 1.67 2.34 2.95 2.22 19 - 1993507 UNE EELs DS3 n d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 19 - 1993600 Plat Basic Port and L p 0.71 0.47 0.89 0.49 1.43 0.73 1.32 0.71 1.14 0.69 19 - 1993602 Plat S pcl Port and Lp nd 0.10 8.89 0.11 4.44 0.08 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.12 a Maintenance 19 - Customer Trouble Report Rate 18 - Completion Notice Interval C - 20 79 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 19 - 1993700 Int Connct Trnks 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 19 - 1993801 PNP (Port Out) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19 - 1993900 NXX Code Open 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19 - 1994100 UNE l p 2 w Dig Line Sharing 0.69 0.42 0.95 0.48 0.67 0.43 0.64 0.43 0.80 0.45 20 - Percentage of Customer Trouble Not Resolved Within Estimated Time 20 - 2093100 Resale Res POTS disptchd 3.32 6.82 1.42 6.14 8.23 15.87 10.00 17.05 11.46 17.52 20 - 2093200 Resale Res POTS not dis ptchd 2.44 1.29 0.00 1.28 0.00 3.37 0.00 2.99 2.08 1.79 20 - 2093300 Resale Bus POTS dis ptchd 5.94 8.11 11.28 7.76 13.02 16.43 15.09 17.97 11.29 15.81 20 - 2093400 Resale Bus POTS not dis ptchd 0.00 2.65 15.38 2.05 0.00 2.50 0.00 3.76 7.69 2.45 d 20 - 2093500 Resale ISDN BRI dis ptchd nd 21.69 nd 15.59 nd 24.14 0.00 31.60 0.00 27.68 abcde 20 - 2093600 Resale ISDN BRI not dis ptchd 0.00 11.13 0.00 6.75 nd 8.05 0.00 11.18 0.00 7.04 abcde 20 - 2093700 Resale CTX dis ptchd 3.57 9.07 25.00 8.79 13.79 13.49 7.14 15.73 29.03 13.16 20 - 2093800 Resale CTX not dis ptchd 7.14 3.92 0.00 3.05 0.00 3.77 16.67 4.31 0.00 4.07 bc e 20 - 2093900 Resale PBX dis ptchd 0.00 19.70 0.00 14.41 0.00 19.32 0.00 24.50 50.00 23.08 abcde 20 - 2094000 Resale PBX not dis ptchd nd 13.00 0.00 21.23 nd 20.39 nd 17.74 0.00 19.51 abcde 20 - 2094400 Resale DS1 not dis ptchd nd 7.84 nd 9.04 nd 11.50 nd 9.45 0.00 8.52 abcde 20 - 2095201 UNE l p 8db and 5.5db 8.62 7.98 9.10 7.57 18.41 16.13 14.92 17.65 12.09 15.42 20 - 2095401 UNE l p 2 w Dig ISDN cap 33.33 26.19 33.33 8.57 50.00 12.34 25.00 19.25 12.50 14.44 abcde 20 - 2095601 UNE l p 2 w Dig xDSL cap 14.70 13.89 12.93 12.18 18.64 17.49 23.43 19.81 20.46 16.08 20 - 2095801 UNE l p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbps cap/ HDSL 38.80 26.85 28.85 27.47 32.86 34.56 29.44 32.36 23.69 29.85 20 - 2095803 UNE l p DS3 nd 5.88 0.00 11.54 0.00 3.57 nd 9.68 nd 6.25 abcde 20 - 2097001 UNE Ded Trans pt DS1 36.84 26.56 16.67 27.21 12.50 34.43 18.18 32.48 0.00 29.74 c e 20 - 2097002 UNE Ded Trans pt DS3 41.67 5.88 20.00 11.11 10.00 3.45 9.09 9.38 0.00 5.88 e 20 - 2097004 UNE Dark Fiber n d nd 100.00 nd nd abcde 20 - 2097005 UNE EELs Voice Grade 0.00 53.85 66.67 37.50 0.00 a c e 20 - 2097006 UNE EELs DS1 40.66 35.71 36.55 34.52 35.94 20 - 2097201 UNE Pltform Basic Port and Loo p 6.87 7.56 7.11 7.19 18.25 15.63 17.39 17.16 15.79 14.95 20 - 2097202 UNE Pltform S pcl Port and Loop nd 37.19 100.00 44.53 100.00 37.76 nd 44.19 nd 52.45 abcde 20 - 2097300 Int Connct Trnks 9.56 6.31 10.00 3.55 7.06 6.13 4.04 10.28 2.52 5.35 20 - 2097401 PNP (port out) 0.11 0.38 0.10 0.00 0.00 ab 20 - 2097600 NXX Code Open not disptchd nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 20 - 2097801 UNE Line Sharin g lp 2w Dig xDSL 13.08 13.89 5.62 12.18 12.81 17.49 14.14 19.81 11.88 16.08 21 - 2192900 Resale Res POTS disptchd 12.40 17.80 10.06 15.24 30.64 38.57 30.19 35.79 20.99 27.12 21 - Average Time to Restore C - 21 80 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 21 - 2193000 Resale Res POTS not disptchd 1.97 2.95 1.08 2.38 3.67 10.80 4.57 9.25 0.84 3.69 21 - 2193100 Resale Bus POTS dis ptchd 6.42 8.22 8.49 8.10 16.84 15.73 10.89 15.99 8.95 12.76 21 - 2193200 Resale Bus POTS not dis ptchd 1.03 1.98 8.21 1.41 1.34 2.48 0.86 3.31 7.19 1.82 d 21 - 2193300 Resale ISDN BRI dis ptchd nd 18.74 nd 14.74 nd 17.98 6.23 27.33 7.88 21.39 abcde 21 - 2193400 Resale ISDN BRI not dis ptchd 2.00 3.83 2.58 2.30 nd 2.71 2.18 2.99 2.82 2.96 abcde 21 - 2193500 Resale CTX dis ptchd 5.65 7.96 6.39 7.94 11.99 12.53 9.77 13.40 13.42 11.12 21 - 2193600 Resale CTX not dis ptchd 4.14 2.93 1.64 1.86 1.54 2.10 3.30 2.44 0.77 2.52 bc e 21 - 2193700 Resale PBX dis ptchd 3.20 9.98 2.53 10.03 6.13 13.80 2.85 17.18 23.88 13.05 abcde 21 - 2193800 Resale PBX not dis ptchd nd 3.27 nd 5.85 nd 6.77 nd 7.05 0.60 5.66 abcde 21 - 2194100 Resale DDS dis ptchd 0.83 6.94 nd 5.65 nd 8.12 nd 11.97 nd 7.25 abcde 21 - 2194400 Resale DS1 not dis ptchd nd 1.54 nd 1.55 nd 1.86 nd 1.77 0.38 1.59 abcde 21 - 2195401 UNE l p 8db and 5.5db 2/ 4 w 6.32 7.92 7.45 7.79 15.60 15.43 10.72 15.68 8.87 12.36 21 - 2195601 UNE l p 2 w Dig ISDN cap 24.40 14.93 4.70 5.80 6.48 6.97 16.59 12.02 7.30 9.10 abcde 21 - 2195801 UNE l p 2 w Dig xDSL cap 12.32 12.50 10.87 9.86 16.69 13.17 18.16 14.12 14.69 12.01 21 - 2195802 UNE Subl p 2 w Dig xDSL cap nd n/ a 17.70 n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a nd n/ a a cde 21 - 2196001 UNE l p 4 w Dig 1.544 mbps cap/ HDSL 4.28 3.14 3.88 3.10 4.85 4.45 3.91 4.46 3.25 3.62 21 - 2196003 UNE l p DS3 nd 1.20 3.28 1.63 0.08 0.90 nd 1.63 nd 0.63 abcde 21 - 2197201 UNE Ded Trans pt DS1 5.13 3.12 1.56 3.08 2.21 4.44 2.21 4.42 0.68 3.60 c e 21 - 2197202 UNE Ded Trans pt DS3 3.48 1.20 2.06 1.69 1.55 0.89 0.94 1.62 1.27 0.59 e 21 - 2197204 UNE Dark Fiber n d nd 13.28 nd nd abcde 21 - 2197205 UNE EELs Voice Grade 8.13 12.85 24.07 22.13 6.68 a c e 21 - 2197206 UNE EELs DS1 3.99 4.31 5.81 6.50 4.14 21 - 2197401 UNE Pltform Basic Port and Loo p 9.11 7.52 8.32 7.37 17.29 14.91 16.14 15.21 12.87 11.98 21 - 2197402 UNE Pltform S pcl Port and Loop nd 5.66 12.25 8.31 nd 7.01 nd 13.42 nd 7.52 abcde 21 - 2197500 Int Connct Trnks 5.85 7.50 11.07 4.52 8.13 10.21 3.82 12.60 6.24 6.57 21 - 2197601 PNP (port out) 0.43 3.02 2.01 4.97 4.05 21 - 2197800 NXX Code Open not disptchd nd 1.19 1.81 1.39 1.51 0.74 nd 0.89 1.38 1.10 abcde 21 - 2198001 UNE Line Sharin g lp 2w Dig xDSL 10.71 12.50 7.05 9.86 11.50 13.17 13.46 14.12 10.53 12.01 22 - 2290300 Resale Bus POTS 100.00 95.46 94.23 94.55 82.00 83.65 90.32 81.98 95.79 87.22 22 - 2290400 Resale Res POTS 90.42 88.30 94.42 89.74 60.19 55.80 60.03 57.77 74.48 66.34 22 - 2290501 UNE l p 2/ 4 w 8db and 5.5db analog 97.55 95.44 95.29 94.52 87.40 83.51 92.05 81.89 94.69 87.24 22 - 2290700 UNE Platform 98.04 95.46 96.94 94.55 87.54 83.65 85.83 81.98 90.10 87.22 22 - POTS Out of Service Less Than 24 Hours 23 - Frequency of Repeat Troubles in 30- Day Period C - 22 81 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 23 - 2391600 Resale Res POTS 7.07 8.19 4.75 8.18 7.27 8.59 6.52 11.22 10.30 12.46 23 - 2391700 Resale Bus POTS 11.63 7.18 10.00 7.57 7.18 7.13 8.24 8.76 9.15 9.21 23 - 2391800 Resale ISDN BRI 0.00 20.39 0.00 15.78 n d 14.35 33.33 15.23 0.00 16.87 abcde 23 - 2391900 Resale CTX 11.36 7.44 9.52 7.29 9.38 6.40 10.91 7.87 10.26 7.96 23 - 2392000 Resale PBX 0.00 10.68 0.00 8.68 0.00 9.37 0.00 10.91 0.00 9.13 abcde 23 - 2392200 Resale DS1 n d 23.39 nd 23.26 nd 24.16 nd 26.49 100.00 24.57 abcde 23 - 2392601 UNE Loo p 8db and 5.5db 2/ 4 w 8.39 7.15 9.17 7.47 8.80 7.10 10.19 8.76 9.76 9.27 23 - 2392701 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital ISDN Capable 0.00 20.32 66.67 15.23 0.00 14.47 0.00 15.50 0.00 16.87 abcde 23 - 2392801 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital XDSL Capable 16.69 12.09 17.84 13.13 17.71 12.36 17.60 13.10 22.73 13.22 23 - 2392901 UNE Loo p 4 wire Digital 1.544 mbps capable/ HDSL 28.71 23.55 23.08 23.35 23.73 23.92 24.63 26.32 26.77 24.77 23 - 2392902 UNE Loo p DS3 nd 23.53 0.00 26.92 0.00 17.86 nd 16.13 nd 18.75 abcde 23 - 2393501 UNE Ded Trns prt DS1 26.32 23.39 8.33 23.26 12.50 24.16 13.64 26.49 0.00 24.57 c e 23 - 2393502 UNE Ded Trns prt DS3 25.00 23.53 10.00 29.63 30.00 20.69 18.18 15.63 14.29 17.65 e 23 - 2393504 UNE Dark Fiber n d nd 0.00 nd nd abcde 23 - 2393505 UNE EELs Voice Grade 40.00 23.08 33.33 25.00 0.00 a c e 23 - 2393506 UNE EELs DS1 20.33 21.43 18.27 24.60 21.35 23 - 2393600 UNE Plat Basic port and loop 9.15 7.18 8.65 7.57 8.71 7.13 10.34 8.76 11.21 9.21 23 - 2393602 UNE Plat S pcl port and loop nd 5.79 0.00 3.05 0.00 9.00 nd 8.46 nd 4.90 abcde 23 - 2393700 Int Connct Trnks 14.71 8.48 16.43 6.45 10.47 11.88 12.12 12.90 10.08 11.47 23 - 2393801 PNP (Port Out) 0.44 0.13 0.00 0.10 0.00 ab 23 - 2393900 NXX Code Open nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 nd 0.00 0.00 0.00 abcde 23 - 2394000 UNE Loo p 2 wire Digital Line Sharing 14.44 12.09 18.60 13.13 17.65 12.36 19.04 13.10 18.50 13.22 24 - 2400100 Common Trnks 0.93 1.23 1.62 0.54 0.90 25 - Percent Blocking on Interconnection Trunks 25 - 2500700 CLEC Int Cnnct Trnks 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 25 - 2500702 ILEC Tandem Off to CLEC End Of f 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 0.00 n/ a 26 - 2600200 Whlsle 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 n d n/ a nd n/ a de 28 - 2800200 Resale 1.46 2.53 1.43 2.42 1.36 2.46 1.48 2.76 1.23 2.48 26 - NXX Loaded by LERG Effective Date Billing 28 - Usage Timeliness Network Performance 24 - Percent Blocking on Common Trunks C - 23 82 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 28 - 2800300 Unbundled 1.52 2.53 1.46 2.42 1.42 2.46 1.57 2.76 1.32 2.48 28 - 2800500 Meet Pt 1.57 2.53 1.30 2.42 1.13 2.46 1.38 2.76 0.86 2.48 30 - 3000100 Resale 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 30 - 3000200 Unbundle d 100.00 100.00 89.57 100.00 100.00 30 - 3000300 Fac/ Int Cnnc t 100.00 100.00 96.37 100.00 100.00 31 - 3100200 Resale 99.81 99.51 99.78 99.01 99.69 99.60 99.90 99.55 99.94 99.53 31 - 3100300 Unbundle d 99.65 99.51 99.88 99.01 99.82 99.60 99.83 99.55 99.91 99.53 31 - 3100400 Fac/ Int Cnnc t 99.95 99.94 99.91 99.99 99.75 32 - 3200200 Resale 97.35 92.25 98.16 93.10 97.92 92.48 96.46 93.41 98.87 93.67 32 - 3200300 UNE POTS 91.32 92.25 99.91 93.10 99.90 92.48 99.82 93.41 99.70 93.67 32 - 3200400 UNE Other 99.39 99.54 99.22 99.41 99.45 32 - 3200500 Fac/ Int Cnnc t 98.70 92.76 99.96 99.77 99.99 33 - 3300200 Resale 95.97 70.42 98.01 87.15 97.50 87.92 85.25 86.74 98.51 86.48 33 - 3300300 UNE POTS 92.99 70.42 99.91 87.15 99.90 87.92 99.81 86.74 99.88 86.48 33 - 3300400 UNE Other 99.50 99.62 99.55 99.50 99.48 33 - 3300500 Fac/ Int Cnnc t 100.00 99.96 99.97 100.00 100.00 34 - 3400402 Resale Usage 99.94 99.95 99.97 99.87 99.85 34 - 3400502 Resale Recu r 99.85 99.86 99.98 99.96 99.98 34 - 3400602 Resale Non- Recu r 99.73 99.61 99.42 98.94 99.31 34 - 3400610 Resale Combine d 94.32 99.76 98.82 99.73 96.11 99.68 95.35 99.72 99.81 99.62 34 - 3400702 UNE POTS Usa ge 100.00 98.47 99.91 100.00 100.00 34 - 3400802 UNE POTS Recur 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 34 - 3400902 UNE POTS Non- Recur 100.00 98.45 97.68 99.97 99.93 34 - 3400910 UNE POTS Combined 100.00 99.76 98.69 99.73 98.32 99.68 99.99 99.72 99.99 99.62 34 - 3401002 UNE Other Usa ge 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.68 34 - 3401102 UNE Other Recur 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.99 100.00 34 - 3401202 UNE Other Non- Recu r 100.00 99.99 99.98 99.98 99.99 34 - 3401210 UNE Other Combine d 100.00 99.99 99.97 99.98 99.69 34 - 3401302 Fac/ Int Cnnct Usa ge 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.10 99.56 34 - Bill Accuracy 30 - Wholesale Bill Timeliness 31 - Usage Completeness 32 - Recurring Charge Completeness 33 - Non- Recurring Charge Completeness C - 24 83 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 34 - 3401402 Fac/ Int Cnnct Recur 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 34 - 3401502 Fac/ Int Cnnct Non- Recu r 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 34 - 3401510 Fac/ Int Cnnct Combine d 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.10 99.56 35 - 3500100 Resale 99.19 98.96 99.42 98.92 98.43 37 - 3700200 Loc Whlsle Prod Svc Ord Gen U pDts 1.95 4.98 1.92 5.21 1.94 5.64 1.96 5.35 1.99 5.05 37 - 3700250 Loc Whlsle Prod Svc Ord Gen U pDts LIDB 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.12 37 - 3700300 Loc Whlsle Prod Direct Gtw y UpDts 99.99 100.00 99.98 100.00 99.99 38 - 3800200 Loc Whlsle Prod DA/ List Svc Ord Gen UpDts 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 38 - 3800500 Loc Whlsle Prod E911 Svc Ord Gen U pDts 96.79 94.06 98.31 93.44 98.33 94.70 98.43 94.51 98.04 94.69 38 - 3800700 Loc Whlsle Prod LIDB Svc Ord Gen U pDts 99.77 99.35 99.53 99.00 99.71 99.26 99.83 99.37 99.69 99.24 39 - 3900200 Loc Whlsle Prod Svc Ord Gen UpDts 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 39 - 3900300 Loc Whlsle Prod Direct Gtw y UpDts 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 40 - 4000100 S pace Avail w/ in 15 Days 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 cde 40 - 4000200 Price & Sched w/ in 15 Da ys 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 41 - 4100100 New % w/ in Tariff Int 100.00 nd nd 100.00 100.00 bcde 41 - 4100200 Au gment % w/ in 80 Days 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 b 42 - 4200700 Resale Data gate 99.99 99.87 99.80 99.93 100.00 42 - 4200800 Resale WEBVERIGATE 99.98 99.88 99.72 99.89 99.93 42 - 4200900 Resale WEBTOOLBAR 99.79 98.36 99.88 100.00 99.36 42 - 4201000 Resale WEBLEX 99.98 99.69 100.00 99.96 99.55 42 - 4201300 Resale EDI Orderin g 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 42 - 4201400 Resale PRAF 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.08 42 - 4201500 Resale SORD 99.42 99.42 99.61 99.61 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.98 99.77 99.77 41 - Time to Provide a Collocation Arrangement Interfaces 42 - Percent of Time Interface is Available 37 - Average Database Update Interval Collocation 40 - Time to Respond to a Collocation Request 38 - Percent Database Accuracy 39 - E911/ 911 MS Database Update 35 - Billing Completion Notice Interval Database Updates C - 25 84 CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B CLEC Result P* B Notes Sept. 2002 Metric Number Metric Name and Disaggregation Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 California Performance Metric Data Nov. 2002 Jan. 2003 Dec. 2002 Oct. 2002 42 - 4201700 Resale NDM to EXACT 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 42 - 4201800 Resale EBTA GUI 99.44 99.99 99.97 99.98 100.00 42 - 4201900 Resale EDI/ CORBA Pre- Order 99.98 99.86 99.84 99.94 99.99 42 - 4202000 Resale BDS/ Telis to EXACT 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 42 - 4202100 Resale TBTA (Trouble Admin) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 42 - 4202200 Resale EBTA (App to App) 98.66 99.77 99.85 99.97 100.00 44 - 4400200 Rpr Ctr Local Wlsle Prod 10.37 13.94 11.69 14.81 21.96 68.84 13.31 41.44 13.46 25.55 44 - 4400300 Ord Ctr Local Wlsle Prod 9.90 6.53 7.92 7.48 10.07 44 - 4400400 R pr Ctr Provisioning Center 76.97 84.29 75.56 81.86 68.83 Abbreviations: n/ a - not available. Notes: a - for September, CLEC sample size was less than 10. nd - denotes 'no data' or no CLEC re quests b - for October, CLEC sam ple size was less than 10. to measure. c - for November, CLEC sam ple size was less than 10. d - for December, CLEC sam ple size was less than 10. Blank s pace means data are not available. e - for Januar y, CLEC sample size was less than 10. 44 - Center Responsiveness C - 26 85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 Appendix D 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). 86 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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. 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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. 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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. 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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. 90 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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)). 91 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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. 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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). 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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. 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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. 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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. 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 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. 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. 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 13 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 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 63 We note that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently opined on 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), cert. denied sub nom WorldCom, Inc., et al. v. United States Telecom Ass'n, et al., 2003 WL 1448388, 71 USLW 3416 (March 24, 2003). The court's decision addressed both our UNE rules and our line sharing rules. 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). On February 20, 2003, the Commission took action to revise its rules concerning incumbent LECs' obligations to make available elements of their networks on an unbundled basis to requesting carriers. FCC Adopts New Rules For Network Unbundling Obligations Of Incumbent Local Phone Carriers, News Release, (rel. Feb. 20, 2003) (announcing adoption of an Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 01- 338, Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) (Triennial Review News Release). We note, however, that, in determining whether a BOC applicant has satisfied the requirements of section 271, the Commission evaluates an applicant's compliance with the competitive checklist as developed in the Commission’s local competition rules and orders in effect at the time the application was filed. 64 Id. at 3989- 90, para. 83; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 585. 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. 98 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 14 “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 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 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. 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. 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 15 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 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 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. 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. 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 16 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 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 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. 89 Id. at 3993, para. 89. 90 Id. 91 Id. 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 17 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, 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. 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. 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. 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 18 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 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 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. 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. 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 19 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 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 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. 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. 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 20 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 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). 115 111 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. 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. 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 21 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, 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 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. 121 See id.; SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6316- 17, at para. 163. 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 22 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 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 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. 128 Id. at 4000, para. 103. 129 Id. 107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 23 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 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 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). 138 Id. 139 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20718- 19; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 646. 108 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 24 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 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 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, 535 U. S. 467, 539. 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.). See also Competitive Telecommunications Association v. FCC, 309 F. 3d 8 (2002) (affirming the Commission's interim decision to limit the ability of competitive local exchange carriers to gain access to a network element combination known as the enhanced extended link). 143 47 U. S. C. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( ii). 144 Id. § 251( c)( 3). 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). 109 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 25 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 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. 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). 153 Verizon v. FCC, 535 U. S. 467, 523. 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. 110 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 26 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 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 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). 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. 111 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 27 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 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 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. 164 See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20924- 27, paras. 20- 27; see also n. 63 at C- 12 supra. 112 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 28 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 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 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”). 167 See SWBT Kansas/ Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 113 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 29 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 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 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 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. 114 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 30 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 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 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). 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. 115 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 31 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 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. §§ 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 (continued….) 116 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 32 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 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 (Continued from previous page) 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. 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). 117 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 33 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 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 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). 198 Id. § 251( b)( 3). 199 Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20748, para. 255. 118 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 34 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 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 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 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). 119 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 35 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 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 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). 212 Id. at § 251( b)( 2). 213 Id. at § 153( 30). 120 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 36 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 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 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 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). 121 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 37 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 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 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). 226 Id. § 271( c)( 2)( B)( xiv). 227 Id. § 251( c)( 4)( A). 122 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 38 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 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 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. 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 (continued….) 123 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 39 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 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 (Continued from previous page) 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. 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). 124 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 D- 40 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 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. 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). 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”). 125 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN Re: Application by SBC Communications Inc., Nevada Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., for Authorization To Provide In- Region, Inc., for Authorization To Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Nevada (WC Docket No. 03- 10) Today we grant SBC authority to provide in- region, interLATA service originating in the State of Nevada. I commend the Nevada Public Utilities Commission for their hard work. The Commission approves SBC’s application in Nevada based on the Commission’s precedent in the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order 1 Under that decision, a BOC can satisfy its market- opening requirements by showing that consumers are using broadband PCS as a substitute for wireline telephone service. This showing can be demonstrated in the form of: (i) surveys identifying customers that had used broadband PCS in lieu of wireline service; and (ii) evidence of marketing efforts by broadband PCS providers designed to induce replacement of wireline service with broadband PCS service. I have some trepidation with the Commission’s decision and precedent in the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order. First, I would prefer a more comprehensive and timely filed survey. Moreover, our finding of Track A compliance relies solely on the presence of just one PCS provider. Given that this provider has just filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, I have some concerns with the long- term health of competition in Nevada. At this point, however, no evidence exists indicating that the PCS provider has stopped offering or providing service in the state. 1 See Application by BellSouth Corporation, et al., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, To Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Louisiana, CC Docket 98- 121, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 20599, 20633- 35 (1998)( BellSouth Second Louisiana Order). 126 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN Re: Application by SBC Communications, Inc., Nevada Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., for Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Nevada I approve the Commission’s Order to grant section 271 relief to SBC Communications, Inc. to provide long distance service in Nevada. I would like to commend the Nevada Public Utilities Commission and the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau for their excellent and diligent work in bringing this item to the Commission. Today, the Commission grants section 271 relief to SBC Communications, Inc., to provide long distance services in the state of Nevada based on our finding that SBC satisfies “Track A” of Section 271. Track A requires that one or more competing providers collectively serve business and residential subscribers using their own telephone exchange service facilities. I am somewhat concerned about relying on the existence of broadband PCS competition in demonstrating the presence of competition under Track A. However, our precedent, in the BellSouth Second Louisiana Order, clearly states that broadband PCS satisfies the definition of a telephone exchange service for purposes of Section 271( c)( 1)( A). And the Commission specifically found that the most persuasive evidence of competition between PCS and wireline local telephony is evidence that customers are actually subscribing to PCS in lieu of wireline service. SBC has established such a connection in this proceeding. To disrupt this precedent and find that SBC has not satisfied the Track A analysis with the presence of wireline PCS competition would be to effectively create a “Catch 22” for the company. Under Commission precedent, the company would not be able to satisfy Track B, either. The Commission in the BellSouth South Carolina Order found that Track B may only be satisfied if a State Commission certifies that “the only provider or providers making such a request have (i) failed to negotiate in good faith as required by section 252, or (ii) violated the terms of an agreement approved under Section 252 by the provider’s failure to comply, within a reasonable period of time, with the implementation schedule contained in such agreement.” The State Commission has not so certified. Simply stated, this Commission has clearly established precedent under both Track A and Track B. The RBOCs have relied on that precedent in filing for their Section 271 approval. In this particular case, if we were to overturn the Track A precedent and determine that SBC must use Track B, we would be holding SBC hostage to the business plans of its competitors. Such a result would penalize the consumers in Nevada. Our decisions are meant to ensure that consumers have access to telecommunications services at reasonable rates. Our section 271 analysis is ultimately about bringing choice to consumers. If we were to eschew our Track A analysis precedent, the citizens of Nevada might not have the opportunity for greater choice among long distance providers for a very long time. This 127 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 means they might not have access to lower rates, new calling plans or packages to which many others now have access. On this basis, given that possibility, I support relying on the existence of broadband PCS service to demonstrate the Track A compliance, consistent with the Commission’s precedent. 128 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 80 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS, CONCURRING Re: Application by SBC Communications Inc., Nevada Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., for Authorization to Provide In- Region, InterLATA Services in Nevada I write separately to explain the reason that I concur in this Order granting SBC’s application to provide long- distance service in Nevada. Let me begin by noting that SBC has made significant progress in opening local business markets in Nevada to competition. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission also has worked hard to promote competition in the state. I commend both SBC and the Nevada Public Utilities Commission for their efforts. The key issue in this proceeding has been compliance with the Track A requirement of section 271. There appears to be little, if any, facilities- based wireline competition for residential subscribers in Nevada. Nonetheless, the majority finds that SBC meets Track A’s presence of a facilities- based competitor requirement on the basis of wireless competition. The majority goes even further when they suggest that a particular wireless carrier’s service is a substitute for local wireline service. I am troubled by this aspect of the decision. I question whether such a far- reaching conclusion properly is based on the very limited survey evidence presented in this application. When we conclude that wireless service is a commercial alternative to wireline service in the instant context we may impact Commission efforts to define competitive markets in other contexts. These include, but are by no means limited to, merger reviews, unbundling analyses and determinations of dominant carrier status. Furthermore, it strikes me as premature to decide that wireline and wireless services are more than complementary. Important differences exist in service quality, ubiquity, truth- in- billing rules and number portability practices. A determination that the services should be treated as commercial alternatives has large implications for both the wireless and wireline industries, and I am not yet ready to make the judgment that the majority makes herein. Today’s Order, however, is not written on a blank slate. SBC reasonably relied on Commission precedent when it presented evidence of wireless competition to support its Track A showing in Nevada. Under these circumstances, it would be unfair to penalize the applicant in the present proceeding for difficulties I have with the majority’s application of the Commission’s prior decisions. For this reason, I concur. 129