Sage Telecom - Proposed Batch Cut Process andSDT

Transcription

1 Lansing, Michigan Office: 2455 Woodlake Circle Okemos, MI Tel. (517) Fax (517) Haran C. Rashes Phone: (517) January 23, 2004 Ms. Mary Jo Kunkle Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way PO Box Lansing, MI Re: On the Commission s Own Motion, to investigate and to implement, if necessary, a batch cut migration process. MPSC Case No. U Dear Ms. Kunkle: Enclosed for filing please an original and four (4) copies of the Direct Testimony and Exhibits of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. in the above-captioned proceeding. Proof of Service upon the parties of record is also enclosed. These pleadings have been filed electronically with the Michigan Public Service Commission s Electronic Case Filing System. Very truly yours, CLARK HILL PLC HCR:kmt Enclosures Haran C. Rashes cc: Parties of Record Ms. Stephanie G. Timko Mr. Robert McCausland v1 Detroit, Michigan Birmingham, Michigan Lansing, Michigan

2 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter, on the Commission s Own Motion, to investigate and to implement, if necessary, a batch cut migration process. ) ) ) Case No. U DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LYNDALL WAYNE NIPPS ON BEHALF OF SAGE TELECOM, INC. Pre-Filed: January 23, v1

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 2 of 46 I. INTRODUCTION... 3 II. III. IV. SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVES OF THE TRO... 8 A. Matrix Issue B. Matrix Issues 28 and C. Matrix Issue D. Matrix Issue E. Matrix Issue F. Matrix Issue 13.1 and G. Matrix Issue SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS DOES NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT OR SERVE CONSUMERS A. Matrix Issues 24.5 and SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS PROMOTES AN ANTI- COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT A. Matrix Issue B. Matrix Issues 4.2, 44 and C. Matrix Issues 5.0 and D. Matrix Issue V. APPROPRIATE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT PLANS A. Matrix Issue VI. ANTI-COMPETITIVE BATCH CUT RATES A. Matrix Issues 57.4 and VII. ADDITIONAL ISSUES A. Matrix Issue B. Matrix Issue C. Matrix Issue VIII. CONCLUSION EXHIBITS LWN-1 (I-_) Educational and Professional Background LWN-2 (I-_) 13-State Collaborative Matrix LWN-3 (I-_) Excerpt from Telcordia s Notes on the Networks v1

4 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 3 of 46 1 I. INTRODUCTION Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. A. Lyndall Wayne Nipps. My business address is 845 Camino Sur, Palm Springs, California, Q. FOR WHOM ARE YOU FILING THIS TESTIMONY? A. I am filing this testimony on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. ( Sage ) Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE. A. I began my career in the telecommunication industry in 1979 as a customer service representative in the Napa Valley office with Pacific Bell/SBC. During my 20-year career with Pacific Bell/SBC, I was promoted within the wholesale services organization. I specialized in pre-order, order, provisioning, billing and collections, methods and procedures, interconnection performance measures, improving results, and personnel management. I was eventually promoted to Director of the Local Wholesale Service Center (LSC-Southern Ca.). I joined Allegiance Telecom in September of I began my five-year career at Allegiance by developing and implementing back-office methods and procedures for the sales organization. I moved to the Regulatory Department where I v1

5 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 4 of was promoted to Vice President, Industry Affairs. My responsibilities included 271 process issues, negotiating performance measures, establishing benchmarks, filing testimony, state level regulatory compliance, rates and tariffs, assessments, policy, and legislation. I am now an independent consultant on telecommunications issues. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Management from the University of Phoenix and a Certificate in Marketing Leadership from the University of California at Berkeley, SF-Extension Campus. I also hold training certificates for TQM Team Leader Training and ISO9000. I am attaching a complete description of my educational and professional background as Exhibit LWN-1 (I-_) Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? A. The purpose of my testimony is to address this Commission s responsibility to establish an incumbent batch hot cut process as mandated by the Federal Communication Commission s ( FCC s ) Triennial Review Order ( TRO ) and to emphasize the Commission s authority within the purview of the TRO. Further, I discuss Sage s concerns about SBC s proposed batch cut process and its inherent shortcomings by discussing elements that need to be added, changed, and why it will not work. I discuss performance measurements and proper enforcement. I also propose a pricing methodology for SBC s batch cut process v1

6 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 5 of Q. DOES YOUR TESTIMONY ADDRESS SPECIFIC ISSUES? A. Yes. The parties developed a matrix of contested issues during the 13 state collaborative process on batch cuts. (See Exhibit LWN-2 (I-_)) My testimony supports Sage s positions within that matrix Q. WHAT WAS THE FCC S FINDING REGARDING UNBUNDLED LOOP PROVISIONING? A. In paragraphs 487 of the TRO, the FCC stated as follows: We have found that a seamless, low-cost batch cut process for switching mass market customers from one carrier to another is necessary, at a minimum, for carriers to compete effectively in the mass market. We conclude that the loop access barriers contained in the record may be mitigated through the creation of a batch cut process by spreading loop migration costs among a large number of lines, decreasing per-line cut over costs. (Footnotes omitted.) Furthermore, in paragraph 512, the FCC stated as follows: Loop Provisioning. We have found on a national basis that the delays and costs associated with loop provisioning those specifically arising from the hot cut process impair a requesting carrier s entry into the mass market v1

7 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 6 of Q. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THIS COMMISSION IN DEVELOPING A BATCH CUT PROCESS FOR INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS ( ILECS )? A. The TRO outlines an active role for the state commissions. Paragraph 489 lists several tasks the state commissions must complete. Specifically: [S]tates should decide the appropriate volume of loops that should be included in the batch. In conjunction with incumbent LECs and competitive LECs, states should also approve specific processes to be employed when performing a batch cut. Generally, however, we expect these processes to result in efficiencies associated with performing tasks once for multiple lines that would otherwise have been performed on a line-by-line basis. In addition to developing a cost-effective hot cut process, state commissions should evaluate whether the incumbent LEC is capable of migrating batch cutovers of unbundled loops combined with unbundled local circuit switching to unbundled stand-alone loops for any requesting carrier in a timely manner. Specifically, state commissions may require that incumbent LECs comply with an average completion interval metric, including any further disaggregation of existing loop performance metrics (i.e., quality or maintenance and repair metrics), for provisioning high volumes of loops. Finally, if they have not done so already, state commissions should adopt TELRIC rates for the batch cut activities they approve. These rates should reflect the efficiencies associated with batched migration of loops to a competitive LEC s switch, either through a reduced per-line rate or through volume discounts v1

8 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 7 of Q. ARE THESE THE ONLY CRITERIA WHICH APPLY TO STATE COMMISSIONS? A. No. Additionally, Paragraph 512 of the TRO tasks states with more general or overriding considerations relative to the development of the batch cut process: [W]e have directed the state commissions to implement batch cut processes to reduce the economic and operational barriers posed by the present hot cut process. Specifically, we ask the states to determine whether incumbent LECs are providing nondiscriminatory access to unbundled loops. State commissions should also consider whether the incumbent s facilities, human resources, and processes are sufficient to handle adequately the demand for loops, collocation, cross connects, and other services required by competitors for facilities-based entry into the voice market. We therefore ask the state commission to consider more granular evidence concerning the incumbent LECs ability to transfer loops in a timely and accurate manner Q. WHAT ARE THE KEY FINDINGS OF YOUR TESTIMONY? A. SBC s proposed batch cut process 1. Does not meet the criteria of the TRO. 2. Does not adequately protect or accommodate the consumer. 3. Discriminates in its provisioning of unbundled loops. 4. Promotes an anti-competitive telecommunications environment v1

9 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 8 of II. SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVES OF THE TRO Q. DOES SBC S BATCH CUT PROCESS MEET THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE TRO? A. No, SBC s batch cut process fails to provide non-discriminatory access to unbundled loops. SBC has not proven that it can accomplish the foreseeable volumes of batch cuts with existing facilities, human resources and processes, let alone an increased demand on those facilities, resources and processes. SBC s proposed batch cut process does not allow competitive local exchange carriers ( CLECs ) to take advantage of any efficiencies of scale or scope. For example, SBC proposes to limit CLECs to 200 orders per day, per central office. SBC s proposal greatly limits the ability of an individual CLEC to process its orders, since the individual CLEC could be constrained by the demand of CLECs in the aggregate. Further, SBC s proposed intervals are wholly unacceptable for a competitive telecommunications environment. SBC s proposed batch cut process is nothing more than the existing process with some window dressing. The number of loops that can be provisioned for a cut has increased, there are some additional proposed tools and OSS enhancements, but the end result is the status quo, or potentially even something less than the status quo v1

10 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 9 of Finally, as I discuss in more detail below, SBC deliberately excludes certain loop types, which should be part of the minimum criteria Q. DOES SBC INCLUDE ALL LOOP TYPES THAT SBC HAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENT PLATFORM ( UNE- P ), INCLUDING LOOPS PROVIDED OVER INTEGRATED DIGITAL LOOP CARRIER ( IDLC ) AND NEXT GENERATION DIGITAL LOOP CARRIER ( NGDLC ), AS WELL AS OVER UNIVERSAL DIGITAL LOOP CARRIER ( UDLC ) EQUIPMENT, HYBRID LOOPS, LOOPS WITH ENHANCED EXTENDED LINKS ( EELS ), AND LOOPS SERVED BY REMOTE SWITCHING MODULES? (MATRIX ISSUE 6.) A. No Q. WHAT IS THE COMPETITIVE AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT OF THESE EXCLUSIONS? A. If CLECs are forced to migrate to unbundled loops ( UNE-L ), they need to be able to convert all customers that they previously served with unbundled switch ports. This includes customers served through line split loops, line shared loops, Broadband loops, loops with EELs, loops provided over IDLC, NGDLC, and UDLC equipment, hybrid loops, and loops served by remote switching modules. Unfortunately, SBC has explicitly omitted line split loops, line shared loops, Broadband loops, and loops v1

11 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 10 of with EELs from its batch cut process. Without a batch cut process that operates at parity with the UNE-P and retail provisioning processes, CLECs will be unable to reasonably convert customers served by SBC s switch within those categories to the CLECs switches. I discuss specific problems for several of these categories in other issues Q. MATRIX ISSUES 28 AND 28.1 ASK WHETHER SBC HAS DEVELOPED CLEAR AND ACCURATE LOOP AND OTHER OSS DATA THAT CAN BE UPDATED ON A REAL-TIME BASIS, INCLUDING CIRCUIT ID INFORMATION RELIED UPON BY SBC AND THE CLEC THAT IS ACCURATE IN THE LOOP QUALIFICATION DATABASE. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR SBC TO DEVELOP CLEAR AND ACCURATE LOOP AND OTHER OSS DATA? A. If SBC s inventory and subsequent databases (particularly the loop databases) are inaccurate, SBC will reject a CLEC s order as being unclean, due to no fault of the CLEC. While SBC and the CLEC sort out fault, the customer is harmed by a delay in their order. The burden will then fall upon the CLEC to facilitate correction of an SBC database and inventory error, because the CLEC will be required by SBC to issue a supplemental order, or change, to the original service order. SBC s rejection will also negatively impact the customer s perception of the ease by which the v1

12 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 11 of customer can migrate his or her services, given all the resulting delays in completion of the end-to-end process Q. WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION DO CLECS NEED FROM SBC S LOOP DATABASES? A. CLECs need clear and accurate data about the circuit ID and loop makeup, including type of loop, loop length, loop gauge, presence of repeaters, bridge taps, and load coils. This is particularly important in instances, such as IDLC, where SBC is requiring the CLEC to select a new loop. CLECs need this information to determine what type of voice and data services the loop can support Q. WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF CIRCUIT ID INFORMATION? A. Circuit ID information is information that identifies a specific loop. If a CLEC is going to lease an unbundled loop from SBC, it needs to know the circuit ID. If the information about the circuit ID is incomplete or inaccurate, the CLEC will be unable to obtain additional information about the loop from SBC s databases. This is particularly important when CLECs are forced to select a new loop (e.g., to replace IDLC loops), because CLECs need to determine the voice and data capabilities of the new loop. CLECs also need accurate circuit ID information to track the loop during CLEC to CLEC migrations. The circuit ID information is a critical success item for v1

13 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 12 of any CLEC for the entire process; pre-order, order, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and accurate and timely billing Q. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE THAT SBC S EXISTING DATABASES, INCLUDING LOOP DATABASES, ARE SUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO ALLOW CLECS TO PROVIDE UNE-L BASED SERVICE TO MASS MARKET CUSTOMERS AT PARITY WITH THE ILEC? (MATRIX ISSUE 27.) A. No. I recommend that the Commission and parties validate the accuracy of these databases as part of any overall validation of SBC s batch cut process. This will require an analysis of each step of SBC s proposed batch cut process to ensure that OSS is available, at parity with UNE-P and retail, for CLECs to participate in and validate the process. Examples include ongoing monitoring of customer-initiated trouble-reports related to hot-cut activities, such as database tests (confirmation of calling scopes), OSS tests (for accuracy and timeliness of order submission and completion), network reliability (including redundancy), quality tests (for quality of the provisioned line), and general maintenance issues. SBC will also need to prove, through performance data at mass-market volumes, that its UNE-L OSS can accommodate the initial bulk demand and subsequent churn within acceptable performance standards. Finally, I recommend that the Commission establish a v1

14 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 13 of benchmark of minimum accuracy failures allowed, so that a CLEC can clearly gauge the opportunity for false reject and jeopardy occurrences Q. DOES SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS INCLUDE PROVISIONING INTERVALS AND STANDARDS AT PARITY WITH EXISTING UNE-P AND RETAIL PROCESSES? (MATRIX ISSUE 10.1.) A. No. In its December 15 th proposal, SBC took the position that UNE-P intervals do not apply to hot cuts. SBC s position implies that CLECs should be subject to considerably longer provisioning intervals if CLECs are forced to migrate to UNE-L for mass market customers, and that any measure of performance deliverables would not apply. SBC s position is a clear indication that CLECs are impaired by such a migration Q. IS SBC S PROPOSED 13 TO 20 BUSINESS-DAY PROVISIONING INTERVAL FOR ITS DEFINED BATCH CUT PROCESS REASONABLE? (MATRIX ISSUE 11.) A. No. The timeframe should be at parity with UNE-P and retail provisioning intervals, which are generally two to three days. CLECs are impaired if, among other issues, they cannot provision UNE-L at parity with the provisioning intervals in the existing UNE-P and retail processes. Therefore, if CLECs are required to migrate to UNE-L, they must be able to migrate their customers to UNE-L at intervals that are at least at v1

15 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 14 of parity with UNE-P and retail intervals. These intervals, and other associated standards, need to be monitored and enforced through the appropriate performance measurement and remedy plan. SBC is taking the position that CLECs and their customers must live with a 13 to 20 day provisioning interval if they want to achieve the alleged efficiencies of the defined batch cut process. This interval far exceeds the two to three day intervals that generally exist in SBC s territory for UNE-P. SBC attempts to justify this elongated interval by pointing to its labor contracts. Regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that CLECs are impaired by a migration to UNE-L if they are forced to rely on a provisioning process that takes four to ten times longer than the UNE-P and retail provisioning process. I view this no differently than establishing parity processes for the 271 process. I also cannot think of a scenario where it would be acceptable to any company that a wholesale supplier would provide less service and quality than that which it provides to its own retail customers Q. CAN CLECS USE THE DAILY BATCH CUT PROCESS TO OBTAIN SHORTER INTERVALS? A. It is unclear whether CLECs can use the daily batch cut process to reasonably convert customers. If SBC proposes the existing enterprise cutover rates for the daily batch cut process, which greatly exceed the UNE-P and retail service order charges, then CLECs are impaired by having to rely on those inflated rates. Furthermore, CLECs v1

16 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 15 of cannot use the daily batch cut process outside of normal business hours. If a customer wants to avoid an outage during the day time and requests an evening or early morning cutover, then CLECs cannot use the daily batch cut process for this customer. Instead, that customer is subjected to the 13 to 20 day provisioning interval for the defined batch process. The batch hot cut process would also greatly limit the total number of conversions any given CLEC could convert in a day, if in fact another CLEC had been given that day as its respective due date and the maximum daily allowable volume was to be exceeded. Thus, the burden to determine which of SBC s proposed hot cut methods best serves the end user becomes the entire responsibility of the CLEC community; ultimately, neither of the proposed options may benefit, nor ease, the consumer s experience Q. CAN SBC SCALE ITS PROCESS SO THAT IT IS ABLE TO HANDLE THE PROJECTED VOLUMES OF HOT CUT REQUESTS? (MATRIX ISSUES 13.1 AND 13.2.) A. I am not confident that it can. The parties need validation of that ability v1

17 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 16 of Q. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE PARTIES TO VALIDATE THAT SBC S BATCH CUT PROCESS CAN ACTUALLY HANDLE THE PROJECTED VOLUMES OF HOT CUT REQUESTS? A. If SBC s process fails, and CLECs customers fail to receive local service in a timely and seamless manner, then CLECs are clearly impaired by a transition to UNE-L. The CLECs public images are inappropriately and unacceptably damaged Q. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE SCALABILITY OF SBC S PROCESSES ON THE ABILITY OF CLECS TO ECONOMICALLY USE THEIR OWN SWITCHES? A. SBC s batch cut processes must be scalable in order to allow carriers owning and operating their own switch to take advantage of the economies of scale using that switch. For example, if a carrier has 100,000 customers, SBC must be able to migrate those customers to the switch in sufficient bulk and in sufficient time so that the CLEC does not have unused capacity in the switch v1

18 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 17 of Q. HAS SBC ESTABLISHED AT LEAST ONE PROCESS THAT PROVIDES BATCH CUTS AT INTERVALS, STANDARDS, AND RATES THAT ARE AT PARITY WITH SBC S UNE-P AND RETAIL MIGRATION PROCESSES? (MATRIX ISSUE 15.) A. No. The defined batch cut process subjects CLECs and their customers to 13 to 20 day provisioning intervals, which far exceed the two to three day intervals for UNE-P and retail orders. The daily batch cut process does not allow CLECs to process orders outside of business hours (in order to avoid customer outages during business hours) and apparently will be priced by SBC at the current inflated rates for enterprise cutovers. Finally, the bulk project process lacks any intervals or rates at all, since they are subject to negotiation on an individual case basis III. SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS DOES NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT OR SERVE CONSUMERS Q. HAS SBC PLACED A PRIORITY ON AVOIDING, PREVENTING, AND A. No. REMEDYING CUSTOMER OUTAGES? (MATRIX ISSUES 24.5 AND 63.) v1

19 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 18 of Q. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO AVOID LOSS OF SERVICE FOR CUSTOMERS? A. When customers receive service from SBC or from a UNE-P carrier, they expect to receive the service without an outage. If customers start experiencing significant service outages as CLECs transition to UNE-L, the customers will blame the CLEC. Therefore, CLECs will be impaired in their ability to keep and obtain customers Q. DID THE FCC ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN THE TRO? A. Yes. Paragraphs of the TRO require orderly, seamless, and trouble free migrations for mass-market customers. As the FCC stated on paragraph 467, [c]ompetition is meant to benefit consumers, and not create obstacles for them Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE TO SBC S STATEMENT IN ITS DECEMBER 15 TH PROPOSAL THAT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE BATCH CUT PROCESS WILL REMAIN MANUAL? A. Yes. The issue of automating the provisioning of hot cuts is up to SBC. However, if SBC chooses to maintain manual provisioning processes, it must still meet provisioning intervals that are at parity with retail and UNE-P intervals, not impose outages beyond a de-minimus (e.g., five minute) level, and charge rates that are at parity with retail and UNE-P migration rates. Additionally, I am concerned whether by opting to use a manual process, which I perceive to be planned failure, that SBC v1

20 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 19 of will be able to meet its own stated intervals. I would also note that flow-through is not defined as a CLEC being able to fully and mechanically interface with SBC. That would only demonstrate the existence of mechanical interface mechanisms for order issuance. Instead, flow-through is the ability of SBC to handle an order without human intervention on an end-to-end basis. Without a fully mechanized flowthrough end-to-end process, CLECs are impaired Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE TO SBC S STATEMENT IN ITS DECEMBER 15 TH PROPOSAL THAT THE TRO DOES NOT INDICATE IN ANY WAY THAT THAT POTENTIAL [FOR DISRUPTION OF SERVICE] (OR A REDUCTION IN THAT POTENTIAL) IS ONE OF THE CRITERIA THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN IT DECIDES WHETHER TO APPROVE A BATCH CUT PROCESS? A. Yes. First of all, SBC misinterprets the TRO. As I outline above, paragraphs of the TRO require orderly, seamless, and trouble free migrations for massmarket customers. More importantly, SBC s position shows a clear disregard for the welfare of customers. SBC is willing to subject customers to service outages in order to advance its regulatory and strategic goals of eliminating UNE-P v1

21 1 2 3 IV. Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 20 of 46 SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS PROMOTES AN ANTI- COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT Q. WHAT IS THE OPERATIONAL AND COMPETITIVE IMPACT OF SBC S DECISION TO OMIT CLEC TO CLEC MIGRATIONS FROM THE BATCH CUT PROCESS? (MATRIX ISSUE 2.2.) A. In the context of this proceeding, CLEC to CLEC migrations occur when a customer switches from one facilities-based CLEC to another facilities-based CLEC. That requires the parties, including SBC, to coordinate the transfer of SBC s loop from the switch of the first CLEC to the switch of the second CLEC. SBC s omission of CLEC to CLEC migrations operationally and competitively impairs CLECs. Currently, CLECs use UNE-P to serve the vast majority of their mass market residential customers. Sage, for example, relies exclusively on UNE-P. With UNE-P, a customer can transition from one UNE-P CLEC to another UNE-P CLEC using a simple service order. There is no disruption in service for the customer and the process flows are well understood. If CLECs are forced to convert to UNE-L, as requested by SBC, then conversions from one CLEC to another will have to occur through the cutover process. If that process is not smoothly implemented, customers will lose confidence in their ability to exercise competitive choices between CLECs. 1 1 By excluding CLEC to CLEC migrations from the batch cut process, SBC is subjecting those migrations to the many problems posed by the existing hot cut process, which was only designed for low volume business customers v1

22 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 21 of In the end, those customers may conclude that it is easier to remain customers of the ILECs Q. DID THE FCC REQUIRE SBC TO INCLUDE CLEC TO CLEC MIGRATIONS IN THE BATCH CUT PROCESS? A. Yes. In paragraph 478 of the TRO, the FCC stated [c]ompetition in the absence of unbundled local circuit switching requires seamless and timely migration not only to and from the incumbent s facilities, but also to and from the facilities of other 9 competitive carriers. 2 Furthermore, 47 C.F.R (d)(2)(ii) defines an ILEC batch hot cut process to include a process by which the incumbent LEC simultaneously migrates two or more loops from one carrier s local circuit switch to another carrier s local circuit switch and paragraph 514 of the TRO raises the lack of CLEC to CLEC cross connects as a source of impairment. Many states already recognize that it is important for the consumers overall experience to have rules and process guidelines for CLEC to CLEC migrations. To that end, it is a logical conclusion that this process should include specific processes for CLEC to CLEC migrations Emphasis added v1

23 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 22 of Q. ARE CLEC TO CLEC MIGRATIONS SUBJECT TO STATE REQUIREMENTS? A. In many instances, yes. The batch cut process should include all state requirements for CLEC to CLEC migrations Q. DOES SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS ALLOW CLECS TO PROVISION UNBUNDLED LOOPS AT A QUALITY IN PARITY WITH THE LEVEL OF QUALITY AT WHICH SBC PROVIDES TO ITSELF OR ITS AFFILIATES? (MATRIX ISSUES 4.2, 44, AND 45.) A. No. The loop migration process proposed by SBC materially degrades the signal quality of the loop, epitomized by an unacceptable reduction in the customer s modem duration speeds for dial-up Internet access Q. HOW? A. If SBC serves a customer through an IDLC-provisioned loop and the customer chooses a CLEC as his or her local provider, SBC will migrate the customer off of the IDLC and replace the loop with a copper or a UDLC-provisioned loop Q. DID THE FCC ADDRESS IDLC ISSUES IN THE TRO? A. Yes. In paragraphs of the TRO, the FCC removed its national finding that ILECs had to provide access to IDLC v1

24 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 23 of Q. DOES THIS PRECLUDE STATES FROM SEPARATELY UNBUNDLING IDLC? A. I am not an attorney, however, based upon my expert opinion state commissions have the authority to unbundle elements such as IDLC under separate state authority. Section 252(e)(3) of federal Telecommunications Act ( the Act ), entitled Preservation of authority states: [N]othing in this section shall prohibit a State commission from establishing or enforcing other requirements of State law in its review of an agreement, including requiring compliance with intrastate telecommunications service quality standards or requirements. Likewise, Section 251(d)(3) of the Act, entitled Preservation of State access regulations states: In prescribing and enforcing regulations to implement the requirements of this section, the Commission shall not preclude the enforcement of any regulation, order, or policy of a State commission that - (A) establishes access and interconnection obligations of local exchange carriers; (B) is consistent with the requirements of this section; and (C) does not substantially prevent implementation of the requirements of this section and the purposes of this part. Finally, Section 601(c)(1) of the Act states: No implied effect- This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be construed to modify, impair, or supersede Federal, State or local law unless expressly so provided in such Act or amendments v1

25 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 24 of Q. DID THE FCC ADDRESS THE INDEPENDENT UNBUNDLING AUTHORITY OF STATE COMMISSIONS IN THE TRO? A. Yes. The FCC stated as follows in paragraphs 192 and 194 of the TRO: Based on the plain language of the statute, we conclude that the state authority preserved by section 251(d)(3) is limited to state unbundling actions that are consistent with the requirements of section 251 and do not substantially prevent the implementation of the federal regulatory regime * * * * [W]e find that the most reasonable interpretation of Congress intent in enacting sections 251 and 252 to be that state action, whether taken in the course of a rulemaking or during the review of an interconnection agreement, must be consistent with section 251 and must not substantially prevent its implementation Q. BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING, DOES UNBUNDLING IDLC SUBSTANTIALLY PREVENT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT? A. No. SBC is still required under the Act to provide reasonable and non-discriminatory access to loops. As I discuss below, SBC will inherently provide CLECs with inferior loops if CLECs have to migrate from IDLC to long copper loops or UDLC. The loops will be inferior because, among other things, a CLEC s customer will suffer a degradation in dial-up Internet speeds. Accordingly, unbundling IDLC for v1

26 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 25 of narrowband services substantially enhances, rather than prevents, the implementation of the Act Q. IF ILECS ARE PERMITTED TO DENY IDLC LOOPS TO CLECS, HOW WOULD A CLEC CONVERT A CUSTOMER FROM SBC USING ITS OWN OR A THIRD-PARTY SWITCH? A. Under that framework, in order for a CLEC to use its own switch to serve a customer that is currently on an IDLC system, the ILEC must first physically move the customer s loop to a pre-existing spare copper facility and then the hot cut procedure can be used to transfer the loop to the CLEC s switch. This procedure hinges on access to the copper facility that would typically have been replaced by the fiber-fed IDLC. Alternatively, if spare copper is not available, the ILEC can attempt to move the end-user s service off of the IDLC system and to reconnect it to a UDLC system that connects to the main distribution frame at the central office presumably then becoming eligible for the hot-cut process Q. DO THESE ALTERNATIVES OF MIGRATING TO SPARE COPPER LOOPS OR UDLC PROVIDE FOR LEVELS OF SERVICE ACCEPTABLE TO CUSTOMERS ACCUSTOMED TO RECEIVING ILEC SERVICE? A. No. Both processes of moving the customer s loop off of IDLC to connect it with a CLEC or third-party switch materially degrade the signal quality of the loop, v1

27 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 26 of epitomized by an unacceptable reduction in modem operation speed for the popular 56 kilobyte per second modems preferred by most dial-up users of the Internet Q. DO YOU HAVE SUPPORT FOR YOUR POSITION? A. Attached as Exhibit LWN-3 (I-_) is an excerpt from Issue 4, October 2002 of Telecordia s Notes on the Networks outlining methods of unbundling IDLC configured loops and the inherent operational problems associated with such unbundling. Customers face significant degradation in dial-up Internet connection speeds due to the longer copper loop lengths and the additional digital to analog conversions caused by UDLC Q. WHEN WOULD THE END-USE CUSTOMER NOTICE THESE CHANGES? A. If the end-use customer was a customer of the ILEC whose service was routed through an IDLC, and was switching via the UDLC approach to a competitive carrier, the customer would start to experience these problems as soon as he or she switched to the competitive carrier v1

28 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 27 of Q. HOW DOES THIS IDLC TO UDLC OR IDLC TO COPPER LOOP SCENARIO DIFFER FROM THE MANNER IN WHICH SBC PROVISIONS AN IDLC CONFIGURED LOOP USING UNE-P? A. SBC provisions UNE-P over IDLC if the retail customer was previously served by IDLC. In fact, both the FCC and the Supreme Court of the United States (through the Verizon decision) have directed that the elements which are combined in the ILEC network must remain combined, if so requested, in the conversion to a CLEC UNE-P serving method. Thus, customers served via UNE-P avoid the conversion problems as well as the problems with operational parity that I discuss above. It should also be noted that the UNE-P regime already represents a fully automated and efficient batch hot cut process for the unbundled local loops, using software controlled digital telephony principles only, and no analog re-wiring. It should be considered the yardstick by which other hot cut alternatives are measured Q. WHAT IS THE COMPETITIVE IMPACT OF THE DEGRADATION IN THE CUSTOMER S DIAL-UP INTERNET SPEEDS? A. Half of Sage s customer base access the Internet through dial-up, particularly customers in the rural and suburban areas that Sage serves. If those customers experience a significant degradation in their dial-up Internet speeds after switching to a CLEC, they will naturally want to switch back to SBC in order to regain the higher dial-up speeds, taking away any opportunity to compete within a given market v1

29 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 28 of Q. ARE THERE OTHER IMPACTS TO THE CUSTOMER THAT RESULT FROM SBC S DECISION TO PROVISION IDLC CONFIGURED LOOPS VIA HOME RUN COPPER OR UDLC? A. Yes. There is a specific impact associated with the UDLC configuration. To enable a UDLC configuration to support all of the key functions associated with the switch, either the ILEC s GR303 protocol must be unbundled and included in provisioning of the loop, and a partition of digital channels from the IDLC handed off to the CLEC in the central office or at the remote terminal; or, the CLEC must be able to access the loop digitally at the central office end of a UDLC so that the GR303 protocol of the CLEC switch will govern the provisioned loops. In either case, a digital cross connect must be mandated as the standard hand-off, together with a fully functional GR303 signaling arrangement, in order to ensure parity quality of service for the loop. Therefore, Sage recommends the establishment of a pre-engineering process for loops served by digital loop carrier ( DLC ) that accommodates the configuration outlined above while allowing the migration to take place at intervals that are at parity with UNE-P (and retail) and that would ensure that the UNE-L performs at parity with the IDLC loop previously used by SBC to provide retail service to the customer. This parity performance should include the same dial-up Internet speeds that are achievable through the ILEC s IDLC arrangement for UNE-P customers of a CLEC, v1

30 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 29 of or for the ILEC s own customers. Any lack of parity, such as that which will result from the use of UDLC equipment as deployed by SBC for CLECs, is grounds for the Commission s rejection of SBC s process Q. DOES SBC S DECEMBER 15 TH PROPOSAL ADDRESS THE PRE- ENGINEERING CHECK? A. SBC appears to agree in concept to deploy a pre-order tool that allows CLECs to proactively identify customers with IDLC. This is a positive and welcome step, although CLECs need additional information about the tool. Furthermore, CLECs need additional information about how SBC will provision the IDLC orders within the standard provisioning intervals and rates Q. WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROCESS FOR PERFORMING THE PRE-ENGINEERING CHECK? A. I recommend the following: identification of the loop being provisioned if the loop is served by IDLC, determination of the alternate configuration (e.g., home run copper, UDLC, or maintaining the IDLC) if home run copper will be supplied, the CLEC should be given the specifications of the copper loop (length, etc) so that the CLEC can accommodate the signal (e.g., the CLEC might have to install a range extender in its collocation cage) v1

31 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 30 of if UDLC will be supplied, the CLEC needs to know that in advance so that it can be prepared to test the circuit after the hot cut to ensure the quality of the voice and data service offered to the customer in the case of EELs, CLECs need to be able to oversee the continuity of the circuit to ensure the quality of the voice and data service offered to the customer Q. IN SUMMARY, WHAT ARE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS ISSUE? A. SBC should provide additional detail on a pre-engineering check for IDLC loops and SBC should provide access to existing GR303 functionality for UDLC loops so that the customer does not suffer a degradation in dial-up Internet speeds and retains traditional functions of their phone service when SBC converts the loop from IDLC to UDLC Q. SHOULD CLECS HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS ADDITIONAL WORK? A. No. CLECs would prefer to have access to the IDLC. SBC is creating the additional work, so SBC should incur the cost v1

32 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 31 of Q. ARE THERE OTHER OMISSIONS IN SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS THAT CREATE AN ANTI-COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT? A. Yes. SBC has refused to include line split and line shared loops in the batch cut process (Matrix Issues 5.0 and 5.4). In addition, in its December 15 th proposal, SBC states: Although SBC is willing to consider the development of a batch cut process for EELs as an enhancement to the batch cut process after the process initial roll-out, it did not include such a process in its final proposal. (Matrix Issue 7.) Q. WHAT ARE LINE SPLIT AND LINE SHARED LOOPS? A. Line split loops are loops that have voice provided by the CLEC and digital subscriber line ( DSL ) based data provided by a CLEC, an ILEC s DSL affiliate, or the ILEC. Line shared loops are loops that have voice provided by the ILEC and DSL-based data provided by a CLEC, an ILEC s DSL affiliate, or the ILEC Q. WHAT IS THE COMPETITIVE IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS AND CLECS OF EXCLUDING LINE SPLIT AND LINE SHARED LOOPS FROM THE BATCH CUT PROCESS? A. Many customers increasingly desire a combined voice and data product. If CLECs are required to self-provision switches and use UNE-L, they will also have to be able v1

33 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 32 of to provide a DSL product with UNE-L in order to stay competitive. A batch cut process for line splitting and line sharing is a necessary (although not necessarily sufficient) step for CLECs to be able to provide a combined voice and data product to customers through UNE-L Q. IS IT APPROPRIATE, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, TO INCLUDE LINE SPLIT AND LINE SHARED LOOPS IN THE BATCH CUT PROCESS? A. Yes. Section 251(c)(3) of the Act requires SBC to provide nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis. SBC undoubtedly provisions DSL to its retail customers on an expeditious basis, particularly since there is no need to establish a new loop and switch connection for its retail DSL customers. SBC s CEO Ed Whitacre, addressing the Citigroup Conference on, indicated that SBC has about 50 percent of the market share if you look across SBC. 3 Additionally, Mr. Whitacre indicated that SBC intends to continue to be very aggressive in DSL. Therefore, the Commission should ensure a competitive playing field in the DSL market by requiring SBC to provide line splitting and line sharing to CLECs on a non-discriminatory basis. Although batch hot cuts inherently fail to ensure entirely nondiscriminatory access, they very likely could provide better access 3 The presentation is available online at v1

34 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 33 of than the existing line-by-line cutover process. Accordingly, SBC should include line splitting and line sharing in the batch cut process Q. WHAT IS THE COMPETITIVE AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT OF SBC S EXCLUSION OF EELS FROM THE BATCH CUT PROCESS? (MATRIX ISSUE 7.0.) A. SBC s refusal to include EELs in the batch cut process makes it very difficult for CLECs to rely on EELs to expand the scope of their switches for mass market customers. From an operational perspective, an EEL is a combination of loop and transport facilities that allows a CLEC to transport a customer s traffic from one wire center to a switch in a remote location, without requiring the CLEC to collocate in the customer s wire center. The EEL accomplishes this by combining the loop with multiplexing and transport Q. WHAT STEPS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVISION AN EEL AS PART OF A CUTOVER? A. First, the parties have to set up the EEL itself, which requires the parties to connect the loop to the multiplexer and establish the appropriate circuit over the transport facility to the CLEC s switch. Then, once the EEL is established and tested, the parties can perform the standard steps for a hot cut v1

35 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 34 of Q. WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? A. SBC should include loops with EELs in its batch cut process and establish, if technically feasible, procedures that allow the parties to provision the EELs at intervals and rates that are at parity with UNE-P and retail orders. In the event that it is not technically feasible to provision EELs at intervals and rates that are at parity with UNE-P and retail orders, then EELs are not a reasonable substitute for unbundled local switching for the mass market V. APPROPRIATE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT PLANS Q. HAS SBC PROPOSED LOOP PERFORMANCE METRICS (I.E., QUALITY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR METRICS) FOR PROVISIONING HIGH VOLUMES OF LOOPS? (MATRIX ISSUES 55.2.) A. No. In its December 15 th proposal, SBC stated that it would establish new performance measurements for the defined batch processes. However, SBC does not address the daily batch or the bulk project processes. It is my understanding that SBC wants to keep the existing performance measurements for the daily batch process. Presumably, SBC would not measure its performance for the bulk project process at all v1

36 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 35 of Q. IS SBC S PROPOSAL REASONABLE? A. No. The existing performance measurements for enterprise hot cuts are insufficient to adequately measure daily batch cuts for mass market customers. For example, the existing measurements generally allow SBC to subject the customer to a service outage of one or two hours. This may (or may not) be acceptable for the enterprise market, but is certainly not acceptable for residential customers. Furthermore, the existing measurements often exempt batches of more than 24 lines. That unreasonably limits the number of lines that CLECs can convert if CLECs are forced to migrate to UNE-L. Finally, exempting the bulk project process from performance measurements altogether is unacceptable because it means SBC has no accountability for errors or delays in converting customers under this process Q. WHAT ARE THROWBACKS? A. Throwbacks occur when a customer is reconnected to SBC s switch because of operational problems that arise during the cutover. I expect the volume of throwbacks to rise as customers are converted from IDLC to copper loops or UDLC, due to problems with the new loop, or if other generic operational problems occur during cutover v1

37 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 36 of Q. DOES SBC CURRENTLY MEASURE THE INTERVALS FOR PERFORMING THROWBACKS IN ITS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS? A. No Q. SHOULD SBC MEASURE THROWBACK INTERVALS? A. Yes, given the likelihood that throwbacks will increase due to SBC s position that it will migrate customers off of IDLC onto new loops Q. WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION ON SBC S PROPOSAL? A. The Commission and parties should develop performance measurements for all three batch cut processes that recognize the special characteristics of mass market customers. There should be no exemptions and the outage times should be no more than a de-minimus amount, such as five minutes. Finally, SBC should measure the volume of throwbacks and the period of time that SBC takes to complete the throwbacks. The measure should not only reflect the aggregate information, but CLEC-specific information as well since the central offices could be limited by volume per day, per CLEC v1

38 1 2 VI. ANTI-COMPETITIVE BATCH CUT RATES Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 37 of Q. IS SBC AGREEING TO SET BATCH CUT RATES AT LEVELS THAT PROVIDE CLECS WITH A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE, GIVING EQUAL WEIGHT TO THE INCREMENTAL COSTS THAT CLECS INCUR, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF A RATE APPLICABLE TO ALL END USERS, SIMILAR TO THE LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY ( LNP ) CHARGE? (MATRIX ISSUES 57.4 AND 57.5.) A. No. SBC s rate structure should provide CLECs with a meaningful opportunity to compete for mass market customers. Otherwise, SBC s markets will no longer be irreversibly open to competition, as required by Section 271 of the Act. Accordingly, Sage proposes consideration of a charge applicable to all end 13 users, similar to the LNP charge. This approach is appropriate because SBC s 14 proposed batch cut costs are costs that would apply to CLECs that were not foreseen 15 by CLECs when they developed their business plans. If SBC is going to get reimbursed for its costs, it is only equitable for CLECs to get reimbursed for their costs particularly since SBC is the cost causer that is pushing for the transition to UNE-L v1

39 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 38 of Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSED LNP-STYLE CHARGE. A. The Commission would request submissions of costs from every carrier that believes it will incur costs to implement the new batch cut process. The Commission would then review the reasonableness of the costs and set a reimbursement level for each carrier. The Commission would then aggregate all of the approved costs, divide the costs by the total number of local lines in the state (irrespective of the service provider), and approve a per line customer charge. Each local carrier would then have the option whether to assess the per line charge on its local customers Q. IS THIS APPROACH CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROACH THAT THE FCC TOOK FOR RECOVERING NUMBER PORTABILITY COSTS? A. Yes. The FCC approved a similar approach in its LNP Order, In Re Telephone Number Portability, Third Report and Order, FCC (rel. May 12, 1998). In paragraph 8 of the LNP Order, the FCC stated: We conclude that the cost[s] of number portability that carriers must bear on a competitively neutral basis include the costs that LECs incur to meet the obligations imposed by section 251(b)(2), as well as the costs other telecommunications carriers such as interexchange carriers (IXCs) and commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers incur for the industry-wide solution to providing local number portability. * * * * Furthermore, we conclude that the costs of establishing number portability include not just the v1

40 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 39 of costs associated with the creation of the regional databases and the initial physical upgrading of the public switched telephone network for the provision of number portability, but also the continuing costs necessary to provide number portability. In Paragraph 9 of the LNP Order, the FCC outlined the following mechanism for recovering these costs: Beginning February 1, 1999, we will allow but not require rate-of-return and price-cap LECs to recover their carrier-specific costs directly related to providing long-term number portability through a federally tariffed, monthly number-portability charge that will apply to end users for no longer than five years, as well as through a federally tariffed intercarrier charge for long-term number portability query services they perform for other carriers; other telecommunications carriers may recover their carrier-specific costs directly related to providing long-term number portability in any lawful manner Q. ARE CARRIERS BATCH CUT COSTS AN EXTENSION OF THE NUMBER PORTABILITY COSTS THAT THE FCC ADDRESSED IN THE LNP ORDER? A. Yes. Mass market customers almost always want to keep their telephone numbers when they migrate to a new carrier. The batch cut process allows them do so when they migrate to a switch-based CLEC. Also, in the absence of unbundled local switching, customers cannot change carriers without loop provisioning. Similar to the customer s telecommunications number, the loop functions as an address and is associated with an individual switch operated by a particular phone company serving v1

41 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 40 of a particular geographic market. Therefore, batch cut costs are conceptually related to the number portability costs that the FCC addressed in the LNP Order Q. IS YOUR PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH SOUND PUBLIC POLICY? A. Yes. With number portability, the FCC sought to implement a cost recovery mechanism that was competitively neutral. In other words, the cost recovery mechanism should not restrict competition or provide a cost advantage to one company over another. If SBC can collect its batch cut costs from CLECs, and the customers of CLECs, then SBC receives a competitive advantage because CLECs have to pay SBC s costs and the CLEC s costs. This is unfair and anticompetitive. My proposal remedies that by spreading out the costs among all industry-participants Q. YOU PROPOSE TO RECOVER ALL CARRIERS REASONABLE BATCH CUT COSTS THROUGH A PER LINE CHARGE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES? A. Yes. The ILECs could recover their batch cut costs from their customers and the CLECs could recover their batch cut costs from their customers. This approach is conceptually fair because all customers receive a benefit from having the choice of migrating to another carrier. Furthermore, it is fair for the ILECs to recover the costs from their customers because it is the ILECs that are pushing to drop UNE-P and move towards UNE-L v1

42 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 41 of VII. ADDITIONAL ISSUES Q. HAS SBC DOCUMENTED PROCESS FLOW CHANGES ANTICIPATED TO RESULT FROM THE SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS THAT SBC INDICATED WOULD OCCUR BY DECEMBER 13, 2003? (MATRIX ISSUE 1.9.) A. During the collaborative meetings, SBC indicated that it would be implementing several enhancements to the hot cut process by December 13, Parties asked to see the impact of those enhancements on the batch cut process that SBC was proposing. Sage wants to confirm that the enhancements are included in the process flows, specifically identified, and defined by benefit from the flows originally submitted, rather than having to seek them out. Hopefully this is a simple matter of having SBC identify where the enhancements are reflected in SBC s December 15 th batch cut proposal Q. DID SBC PROPOSE A PROCESS THAT WILL ALLOW CLECS TO USE WHOLESALE CARRIERS TO PROVIDE SWITCHING, INCLUDING AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT CHARGES WOULD APPLY AND WHAT CARRIER WOULD BE INTERFACING WITH SBC? (MATRIX ISSUE 9.2.) A. In its December 15 th proposal, SBC indicated that it was willing to develop procedures to address this scenario. Sage appreciates the offer and is prepared to v1

43 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 42 of work with SBC on this task. However, until the procedures are in place and verified, through verifiable SBC testing with wholesale carriers unaffiliated with the ILEC, if any such carriers exist, this remains an open issue Q. DOES SBC S PROPOSED BATCH CUT PROCESS GIVE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AND ATTENTION TO ALL DATABASE ISSUES, INCLUDING MAKING SURE THAT ALI, CNAM, 911 AND LIDB DATABASES ARE UPDATED ON A REAL-TIME BASIS IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONVERSION? (MATRIX ISSUE 31.) A. SBC states that it is evaluating whether it can perform the updates for UNE-L orders on more of a real-time basis. Sage looks forward to seeing the results of SBC s evaluation. However, this issue is still open. The Commission and parties have spent considerable resources ensuring that customer-affecting databases, such as automatic location information ( ALI ), calling name ( CNAM ), 911, and LIDB databases, are updated quickly for UNE-P orders. If CLECs are forced to migrate to UNE-L, the same quick updates should apply to UNE-L orders. I would note that the introduction of a second switch potentially complicates the process for updating these databases, so special attention may be needed on this issue v1

44 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 43 of 46 1 VIII. CONCLUSION Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR POSITIONS. A. I recommend the following additions and changes to SBC s proposed batch cut process: 4 1. Document and indicate process flow changes and define their respective benefits to the process, anticipated to result from the system enhancements that SBC indicated would occur by December 13, (Issue 1.9) 2. Include CLEC to CLEC migrations in the process. (Issue 2.2) 3. Include in the provisioning process a pre-engineering check for all loops, particularly those loops served by IDLC. Ensure no degradation in the capabilities of the loop after migration, including voice quality, data transmission speeds, and video quality. Provide access to GR303, where available, to ensure no degradation in the capabilities of the loop after the migration. (Issues 4.2, 44, and 45) 4. Include line splitting and line sharing in the process. (Issues 5.0 and 5.4) 4 For ease of reference, I am listing the issues in the order that appear in the matrix, with the exception of issues that I consolidated with other issues v1

45 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 44 of Include all loop types that SBC has provided as part of the UNE-P. These include loops provided over IDLC and NGDLC, as well as over UDLC equipment, hybrid loops, and loops served by remote switching modules. (Issue 6.0) 6. Include the provisioning of EELs, within statutorily required periods, to allow access to a loop with switching provided from a distant central office. (Issue 7) 7. Establish a process that will allow CLECs to use wholesale carriers to provide switching. Included in that consideration is an analysis of what charges would apply and what carrier would be interfacing with SBC. (Issue 9.2) 8. Set provisioning intervals and standards at parity with existing UNE-P and retail processes. Document such standards and intervals within relevant steps in the process. (Issue 10.1) 9. SBC s proposed 13 to 20 business-day provisioning interval for its defined batch cut process is unreasonable. The timeframe should be at parity with UNE-P and retail provisioning intervals, which are generally two to three days. (Issue 11) 10. Scale SBC s process so that it is able to handle the projected volumes of hot cut requests. (Issues 13.1 and 13.2) v1

46 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 45 of Establish at least one process that provides batch cuts at intervals, standards, and rates that are at parity with SBC s UNE-P and retail migration processes. (Issue 15) 12. Any batch cut process must be automated, seamless, and accurate without loss of service to customers. Place a priority on avoiding, preventing, and remedying customer outages. Avoid planned failures and manual intervention. (Issue 24.5 and 63) 13. Establish parity OSS for the batch cut processes. (Issue 27) 14. Develop clear and accurate loop and other OSS data that can be updated on a real-time basis. The circuit ID information relied upon by SBC and the CLEC should be accurate in the loop qualification database. (Issues 28 and 28.1) 15. Give special consideration and attention to all database issues. ALI, CNAM, 911 and LIDB databases must be updated on a real-time basis immediately after conversion. (Issue 31) 16. Enforce provisioning standards and intervals through the appropriate performance measurement and remedy plan, including performance measurements for instances where the parties have to transfer a customer back to the ILEC switch due to operational problems (i.e., throwbacks). (Issue 55.2) v1

47 Direct Testimony of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. MPSC Case No. U Pre-Filed: January 23, 2004 Page 46 of Set batch cut rates at levels that provide CLECs with a meaningful opportunity to compete, giving equal weight to the incremental costs that CLECs incur. Sage respectfully proposes consideration of a rate applicable to all end users, similar to the LNP charge. (Issues 57.4 and 57.5) Q. DOES THIS COMPLETE YOUR TESTIMONY? A. Yes, it does v1

48 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter, on the Commission's Own Motion, to investigate and to implement, if necessary, a batch cut migration process. ) ) ) Case No. U DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LYNDALL WAYNE NIPPS ON BEHALF OF SAGE TELECOM, INC. EXHIBIT LWN-1 (I-_) Lyndall Wayne Nipps Educational and professional background v1

49 Lyndall Wayne Nipps Palm Springs, Ca Home TN: Work TN: SUMMARY: 25 years of diverse general management, operations, marketing and regulatory experience. B.S. -Business Management, University of Phoenix, Certificate in Marketing Leadership, UC Berkeley, Expertise in: regulation, compliance, finance, policy, negotiations, projects, process, methods and procedures, organizational issues, customer service, call centers, interpersonal skills and personnel management. Intuitive, innovative and solution oriented. Board member CALTEL, Allegiance Telecom Experience: 9/98 09/03 Vice President of Regulatory, Western Region, Palm Springs, Ca., Home Office 04/01 09/03 - Responsible for ensuring compliance w/all state (24) and federal regulatory requirements - Develop and maintain regulatory process methods and procedures, including IS requirements - Review and implement efficiencies; e.g. refunds from overpaid assessments =$200+K in Achieving favorable outcomes for the company in state proceedings, and filing of company comments, managing external counsel - Implement company initiatives at local and state levels - Manage inter-telecommunications issues and escalations - Interdepartmental liaison for all regulatory process issues; includes training, as needed - Review/ summarize policy implications for senior leadership/board team for all state level commission orders/rulings - State docket management for CA, NV, OR, WA, CO, AZ, TX, IL, MO, OH, MI, MN - Regulatory escalations for Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Legislative agencies and Wholesale Vendors - Regulatory project management and implementation - Participate in industry association conferences (NARUC, ALTS, etc.) - State Regulatory and Legislative process, and/or hearings, collaboratives, etc. - Political fund-raising and lobbying efforts, as needed (most recent was Nancy Pelosi: 10/25/02) - Numbering oversight and project management for all states, includes 411, 911, 711, 211 issues - State and Federal Tariff development, filing and maintenance - Regulator project facilitator for all states, including data requests, processes and inquiries - Interconnection Contractual Performance Measures management and development - Developed and managed legal and regulatory budgets, expenses, financial accruals Director Regulatory and Interconnection-Western Region, Palm Springs, 9/99 04/01 Ca., Home Office - 271,OSS, Interconnection Contractual Performance Measures management and development - State docket management for CA, NV, OR, WA, CO and AZ - Regulatory escalations for Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Legislative agencies - State Regulatory and Legislative process development - Regulator project facilitator for all states, including data requests, processes and inquiries - Schools and Libraries Fund Coordinator, all surcharge issues and implementation for compliance - CLEC to CLEC migration compliance, contractual agreements and implementation - Board of CALTEL, member of ALTS, WSCTC, CTC and ROC City Vice President - Sales, Orange County, Ca., Sales 9/98 8/99 - Managed sales office with a crew of 55 personnel, focusing on personnel retention - Sold product line of local dial tone and data services - Consistently met or exceeded sales goals and objectives and under ran budget - Consistently exceeded installation and revenue targets - Strong emphasis on sales call activity, funnel management, post sale activity - Highest post-sale customer retention rate in California - Developed and implemented statewide provisioning processes and protocols for all California Engineering Teams - 1 of 2

50 Lyndall Wayne Nipps Pacific Bell/SBC Experience: 5/79 9/98 Director - Local Wholesale Operations, Anaheim, CA 12/97 9/98 - Managed Local Service Center (LSC) for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLEC) - Team of over employees, supporting 65 Competitive Local Exchange Carriers; 9 Direct Reports, 32 managers, balance non-salaried - Performance measure results for each CLEC s interconnection agreement - Managed DA/OSS/411 listings for all CLECs - Billing & collections, pre-order/order processing, and provisioning - Developed budget and financial targets: under ran and exceeded, respectively - Step II grievance executive for CWA Union Local 9410; last step before arbitration. 99% settled. Business Office Manager - LSC, Industry Markets, San Francisco, CA 6/97 11/97 - Reassigned to repair broken processes, improve results and remedy Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) complaints from CLECs - Restructured the organization s management and non-exempt teams within 45 days - Service level results improved to more than 85% w/n 4 months, 95% w/n 6 months - Significant reduction in escalations - Redesigned production processes and established internal performance measures - Promoted to Director and relocated to Southern California Business Manager AT&T Account Team Carrier Management 5/96 5/97 - Represented Assistant Vice President at Interconnection Negotiations with AT&T - Responsible to improve customer report card ratings for 7 categories - Within 6 months, improved 6 out of 7 results by one category - Established measurements of success, documented processes, and developed Performance Standards and Expectations for subordinate team which facilitated continuous improvement Product Manager, Wholesale Wireless, Vendor Management 1/94 5/96 - Negotiated billing contracts with Independent Local Exchange Carriers and processes Area Manager, Carrier Service Center-Switched/ Special Access 8/92 12/93 - Managed large team of 120+ employees in high-demand, fast-paced environment - Responsible for pre-order, order, provisioning, billing and collections for AT&T, MCI and Sprint Various Non-Salaried and Salaried Positions, CA - Statewide 5/79 7/92 - Customer Service Representative in Residential, Commercial and Industry Offices - Database programmer for facility inventory and assignment BellCore systems - Billing and Provisioning Supervisor for Switched and Special Access - Developed Methods and Procedures for High-Capacity Services (T1/T3) EDUCATION: 1997 BSBM-Business Management, University of Phoenix, SFO, CA 1996 Certificate in Marketing Leadership, University of California at Berkeley, 40hrs. (graduate credits) 2 of 2

51 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter, on the Commission's Own Motion, to investigate and to implement, if necessary, a batch cut migration process. ) ) ) Case No. U DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LYNDALL WAYNE NIPPS ON BEHALF OF SAGE TELECOM, INC. EXHIBIT LWN-2 (I-_) Matrix of contested issues during the 13 state collaborative process on batch cuts v1

52 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 1.0 Provide a more detailed description, clarifying the differences between the current hot cut process and the two proposed hot cut batch processes; namely the daily batch and the defined batch. Hot Cut Definition. The term hot cut is used in the local exchange industry as a generic term to describe the near-simultaneous disconnection of an incumbent LEC s working loop from an existing port on one carrier s switch, and the reconnection of that loop to a port on a different carrier s switch, without any significant out-of-service period Incumbent Switch. The existing switch port in most situations is provided by the incumbent LEC, and the migrating loop may be: (a) from incumbent retail voice service to a UNE-L, (b) from resold service to a UNE-L, or (c) from a UNE-P arrangement to UNE-L. The latter two situations are CLEC-to-CLEC migrations. In all three scenarios, after the cutover, the UNE-L would be connected to a CLEC s switch, and disconnected from the incumbent s switch. CLEC Switch. In a far less common situation, the existing switch port is provided by a CLEC and the migrating loop may be: (a) from a UNE-L connected, through a CLEC collocation arrangement, to a new CLEC switch, being used by that CLEC to provide local exchange service to one of its customers, or (b) from a UNE-L to incumbent retail voice service. In the first scenario, after the cutover, the UNE-L would be connected to a different CLEC switch, and the migrations is a CLEC-to- CLEC migration. In the second, win-back, situation, after cutover, the loop would be connected to the incumbent s switch. Revised Description of Proposal. SBC s batch cut process properly addresses SBC-to-CLEC hot cuts, which include (a) SBC retail voice service to a UNE-L, (b) SBC resold service to a UNE-L, and (c) UNE-P arrangement to UNE-L. A detailed description of SBC s proposed batch processes was provided on December 15, MCI does not necessarily agree with these definitions and will address areas of disagreement in testimony. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 1 of 74

53 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 1.1 SBC should compare batch cut proposals with existing processes; what the same, what changing, and detail advantages in writing. 1.2 Process flow charts should include all the triggers and timeframes for LNP, 911 unlock, and other required database updates, such as CNAM and directory listings Proposal should address all known SBC should provide details regarding its current Hot Cut processes (CHC and FDT). Specifically, process flows, LSOR guidelines and sample orders should be made available. Moreover, to the extent performance metrics and flow-through rates are available, such information should be made available to the collaborative for review. 1.4 SBC must provide considerably more detail Version 2.0, SBC s final proposal will compare its proposed batch cut process with the existing processes, and describes the advantages of the batch cut proposal. Descriptions of SBC s existing hot cut processes are available at clec.sbc.com for each region. See December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. Final process flow charts for the batch cut proposal provided on December 15, 2003 included triggers and timeframes for LNP, 911, CNAM and directory updates. provides detail flows of the current CHC and FDT processes. This site also provides LSOR guidelines as set per national standards, and indicates how each field on the LSOR is to be populated. Performance results for CHC and FDT provisioning were provided on December 4, SBC has included a description of the advantages of the proposal compared to the existing process. See Attachment 1. MCI believes that the approach taken in the December 19, 2003 SBC proposal is largely acceptable but reserves the right to raise additional concerns when more information becomes available regarding SBC s implementation plans. McLeod: SBC needs to add timeframes, as well as what is automated versus manual to these process flows. As requested, the final process flows provided on December 15, 2003 AT&T: there is still significant for SBC s batch cut proposal are more defined. The final proposal detail missing from SBC s batch 01/22/2004 Page 2 of 74

54 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of considerably more detail concerning its process, including exclusions, inclusions, CLEC-specific batches, OSS modifications, potential ICA amendments, and timelines for each step of the process. summarizes planned OSS modifications and enhancements that will allow CLECs to use their existing systems to gather more information in a timely manner. Timelines for these processes are being established and will be included in the December 15, 2003 final proposal to the extent possible. hot cut proposal, including: (i) pricing, (ii) performance measures, (iii) detail concerning the proposed OSS upgrades (in terms of functionality, business rules, and availability). 1.5 Proposal should include implementation schedules for all needed OSS and process enhancements, and address third party testing of these changes. 1.7 Each proposed Batch Hot Cut process should be defined clearly, in writing/flow charts, such that all interested parties are able to easily identify and compare/contrast with existing Hot Cut processes, at a minimum, the following: types of orders to be included types of orders to be excluded (e.g. CLEC to CLEC loop?, Line Sharing, etc..) minimum and Implementation schedules for all needed OSS and process enhancements will be provided when avaialble. These changes will be tested consistent with SBC s change management policies and practices. In addition, SBC is willing to engage in beta testing with interested CLECs. SBC does not plan to retain a third party to test these changes. See December 15, 2003 Final Proposal for types of orders to be included, provisioning intervals and minimum and maximum number lines per CO which will be cut per carrier per day as well as per CO per day. Orders which will be excluded are detailed the Scope of Batch Process portion of this matrix Lines per LSR are in accordance with existing ordering guidelines. See Response to 65.0 regarding ICA amendments. It is MCI s position that this issue is still in dispute. MCI believes that substantial differences exist between the proposals made by SBC on this issue and MCI s position. These differences will be described more fully in the CLEC petition and in testimony. 01/22/2004 Page 3 of 74

55 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of maximum provisioning intervals minimum and maximum lines per LSR minimum and maximum LSRs which can be sent to SBC per day, per carrier minimum and maximum number lines per CO which will be cut per carrier per day as well as per CO per day (inclusive of the whole industry) LSOR guidelines pertaining to each such proposed Hot Cut process sample LSRs for each order type included in each proposed hot cut process for each such proposed Hot Cut process, identification of OSS changes which Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 4 of 74

56 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of will be required and an estimate as to when LSOR guidelines will be updated as well as an estimate as to when changes will be implemented such that carrier to carrier testing can begin identification of the procedures carriers will be required to utilize when accessing the proposed reservation system identified as part of the proposed defined batch cut process written description of the specific system or human event with triggers an unlock of 911 records with Intrado written explanation of ICA modification process, including 01/22/2004 Page 5 of 74

57 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of proposed amendment and identification of adoption/implement ation timelines as well as a discussion as to whether ICA type issues must be resolved prior to the CLECs testing with SBC s OSS personnel applicable prices. 1.8 Clarify what occurrences would require an order to receive manual intervention. If an LSR is submitted electronically what, if anything, would cause it to receive manual intervention in the LSC? 1.9 Document process flow changes anticipated to result from the system Manual intervention would be required at the LSC if a CLEC faxes an order. There are limited circumstances that could result in manual intervention. For example, an electronically submitted request is designed to fall out for manual handling if it contains characteristics (e.g., hunting) that are not eligible for flow-through; or when an unexpected condition is encountered on the LSR or on the embedded record that would prevent the system from creating a service order; or if an electronically submitted request creates a service order, but encounters an edit that would prevent the request from being provisioned by SBC California s downstream electronic systems. In these situations, the LSR is routed to the LSC for manual intervention, and the LSC corrects the error(s) to ensure that the request provisions properly CHC and FDT orders for UNE-P to UNE-L and Resale to UNE-L are flow-through eligible in the SBC Midwest region, are flow-through eligible in California and the Southwest region effective with the MCI believes that the approach described by SBC, if implemented, can produce a more effective hot cut process. However, as discussed above, MCI has concerns that a substantial amount of work must be done to SBC s operating systems in a short period of time in order for the electronic ordering process to operate efficiently. McLeod: SBC should elaborate on what order types require manual intervention MCI reserves the right to raise additional concerns about this issue upon receipt of further Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 6 of 74

58 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of enhancements that SBC indicated would occur by 12/13/03. December 13, 2003, OSS release. (These releases are described in Response to Issue 38.0.) Retail to UNE-L are flow-through eligible in California, and in the Midwest and Southwest regions. information about process flows from SBC. 2.0 CLEC to CLEC migrations need to be included in the BHC process. The FCC explicitly found that the absence of a CLEC-to-CLEC hot cut migration process is a source of CLEC impairment. TRO at 478 ( Competition in the absence of unbundled local circuit switching requires seamless and timely migration not only to and from the incumbent s facilities, but also to and from the facilities of other competitive carriers. ) The applicable FCC rule requires state commission to establish an ILEC batch hot cut process, which is defined broadly to include a process by which the incumbent LEC simultaneously migrates two or more loops from one carrier s local circuit switch to another carrier s local circuit switch. 47 Scope of TRO Batch Process. Although FCC Rule 319(d)(2)(ii) may appear to apply to migrations from both the incumbent switch and the CLEC switch, the Rule, when read in context of the FCC s reasoning for the Rule and the evidence before it, applies only to migrations from the incumbent s switch. In justifying its Rule, the FCC found that, in some markets, the hot cut process used to transfer loops from incumbent switches to CLEC switches posed operational and economic barriers to CLECs deploying their own switches. (TRO 465.) The FCC stated, The physical transfer of a customer s line from the incumbent LEC switch to the competitive LEC switch currently requires a coordinated loop cut over or hot cut for each customer s line. (TRO 465.) The FCC only addressed the hot cut process that requires incumbent LEC technicians to manually disconnect the customer s loop, which was hardwired to the incumbent LEC switch, and physically re-wire it to the competitive LEC switch, while simultaneously reassigning (i.e., porting) the customer s original telephone number from the incumbent LEC switch to the competitive LEC switch. (TRO. n. 1409, emphasis added.) The FCC did not address hot cut migrations from one CLEC switch port to another CLEC switch port. Likewise the FCC did not address migrations from a CLEC switch port back to the incumbent LEC s switch. The only record before the FCC involved migrations from the incumbent switch to a CLEC switch, and in particular a migration from a UNE-P arrangement to a UNE-L. Accordingly, SBC s batch process does not include hot cut migrations from one CLEC switch port to another CLEC switch port, and it also does not include win-back situations. Although the process used for these CLEC-to-CLEC and win-backs is similar in some ways to the standard SBC-to-CLEC hot cut process, it is also different from that process it some significant respects. MCI believes that the TRO and Rule 319 require that CLEC migrations be included in the proposed hot cut process. AT&T: The plain terms of the TRO requires that the batch hot cut process address CLEC-to- CLEC migrations. These types of migrations are common in the mass market and must be addressed. CoreComm: This is still a disputed issue. McLeod: BHC process needs to include CLEC to CLEC migrations. 01/22/2004 Page 7 of 74

59 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of C.F.R (d)(2)(ii). The FCC specifically did not limit this process to ILEC-to-CLEC migrations. For example, in a switch-based CLEC to switched-based CLEC migration the switch rewiring and telephone number porting must be coordinated between the two CLECs, rather than between one CLEC and SBC. Likewise, in a win-back cutover, little or no coordination is required between SBC and the CLEC. In a win-back scenario the new dial tone is being provided by SBC, and it is SBC that submits the final authorization to port the customer s number. It is also SBC that performs the physical wiring work that completes the hot cut. Thus, win-backs primarily require coordination within SBC rather than between SBC and a CLEC. 2.1 CLEC to CLEC migrations must also be included in the BHC process. This is especially important if the eventual elimination of UNE-P leads to some fraction of UNE-P carriers opting out of a market. Lack of a CLEC to CLEC process means customers served by a defunct UNE-P carrier would default to the ILEC because of the lack of such a process. The reference to 478 is misplaced. In this portion of the TRO the FCC is not addressing the batch cut process. Rather, it is addressing other potential operational impairment factors. This particular reference addresses CLEC-to-CLEC cross connects between their collocation areas in SBC s central office. For the reasons stated in 2.0, SBC s batch process is limited to migrations from SBC s switch to a CLEC s switch, including (a) SBC retail voice service to a UNE-L, (b) SBC resold service to a UNE-L, and (c) UNE-P arrangement to UNE-L. The later two scenarios are CLEC to CLEC migrations.. See MCI s objections to 2.0 above. CoreComm: This is still a disputed issue. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 8 of 74

60 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 2.2 Include CLEC to CLEC migrations in the process. See 2.0 and 2.1. See MCI s objections to 2.0 above. Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk-America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. 2.3 Defined process should consider CLEC to CLEC migrations While not part of the Triennial Review Order, at an industry level the process needs to not only define the transactions that pass from ILEC to CLEC, but be adaptable for CLEC to CLEC transactions as well. 3.0 SBC should include frame due time ( FDT ) cuts in both its daily and defined batches. Reduced coordination is inherent in the frame due time process, and the batch process should reflect those benefits to the extent possible. SBC s claim that the FDT process is sufficient on its own is unsupported by the Version 2.0, SBC agrees with Neustar that CLEC-to CLEC migrations (i.e., migrations from one CLEC switch to another CLEC switch) are not part of the Triennial Review Order. See 2.0 and 2.1. FDT is included the daily process with no change in availability. FDT has also been included in both the defined batch and bulk processes as described in Attachment 1. SBC has not taken the position that the FDT is sufficient on its own, as AT&T indicates. Subject to its pending appeal of this portion of the TRO, SBC is proposing a batch cut process that includes FDT. In addition, AT&T s reference to 474 of the TRO is misplaced. The FCC simply found that for some ILECs the FDT process was either not sufficiently developed or widespread. Neither of those shortcomings applies to any SBC ILEC. See MCI s objections to 2.0 above. It is MCI s position that the inclusion of FDT is a step in the right direction but reserves the right to raise further concerns as more information regarding this issue becomes available. 01/22/2004 Page 9 of 74

61 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of Triennial Review Order ( TRO ). See TRO at 474 (rejecting the BOC arguments that current FDT processes cure operational impairment associated with hot cuts). 3.1 Will frame due time be included in SBC s proposal? 4.0 IDLC loops must be included in the BHC process. 4.1 Each process should permit provisioning within defined timeframes regardless of whether the customer is served on IDLC. Yes. See 3.0. See MCI s objections to 3.0 above. Conversions from IDLC loops with switching (UNE-P, resale or retail voice service) to stand-alone voice grade DSO loops are included in the defined batch cut process as described in Attachment 1. SBC December 15, 2003 Final Proposal includes loops provisioned over IDLC. IDLC loops that are included in a defined batch will be completed between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on the scheduled due date Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. CLECs will be permitted to chose either AM or PM. (The requested time should correspond to the cutover time for the other lines in the batch.) The AM IDLC requests will be provisioned between 8 a.m. and noon on the day of the cut, and the PM IDLC requests will be provisioned between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on the day of the defined batch cutover. IDLC is not unbundled via the same, uniform cut-over process as other loop plant See TRO 297 (noting that unbundling IDLC loops may require incumbent LECs to implement policies, practices, and procedures different from those used to unbundle other kinds of loops); id. n.855 (describing a number of different ways that IDLC loops might be unbundled). As described in 4.3 below, IDLC requires Similar to 3.0, MCI believes that the inclusion of IDLC in the process is a step in the right direction. However, a process for IDLC migrations has only recently be provided, so MCI reserves its right to raise further concerns. Furthermore, MCI reserves the right to address the issue of whether IDLC should be unbundled, and whether impairment can be resolved with a requirement that IDLC be unbundled (as opposed to a conversion to home run copper or UDLC). As discussed with respect to 4.1, MCI believes that the issue of IDLC unbundling should be addressed in the impairment phase of this case. MCI disagrees with SBC s position on this Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 10 of 74

62 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of an outside dispatch that must be coordinated with the other activities involved in the cut to ensure that the cut can be made on the due date. As a result, a hot cut for an IDLC-equipped loop must be scheduled for a specified period of time because of variability in the travel conditions and other factors that may affect the time required for the outside technician to reach the SAI.. interval issue and will address it in further detail in testimony. AT&T still disputes this issue. 4.2 While SBC has allowed for IDLC customers to be included, their inclusion is severely limited. Respondents suggest that: a process must include a pre-engineering process for loops served by DLC, and carriers have access to GR-303 technology. Access to a DLC loop at the central office in the absence of access to GR303 essentially gives the carrier a useless loop the two must be provisioned hand-in-hand. As noted above, unbundling a loop provisioned over IDLC raises unique issues. IDLC will be included in the defined batch cut process where the end user is transferred to a copper based loop or a loop served by universal digital loop carrier UDLC. SBC disagrees that this severely limits a CLEC. Presently a team is in the process of designing a pre-order process that will identify IDLC provisioned loops. It is not clear what is meant by a pre engineering process for IDLC loops. SBC has a consistent 13 state approach to assignment, engineering and provisioning when unbundling loops provisioned over IDLC. When provisioning voice service both DLC derived and copper loops meet standards for providing such services. See MCI s responses to 4.0 and 4.1. Sage and Talk-America: The preengineering process may or may not be fully resolved, depending on the details of SBC s planned process. Sage and Talk-America will await further details before finalizing a decision on whether to litigate the issue before the Commission. The GR-303 issue is unresolved and Sage and Talk-America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. 4.3 Include a flow chart that shows how IDLC is provisioned and where, e.g., difference between CO and SAI. Version 2.0, IDLC is a loop provisioning technology. In IDLC-equipped loops, the electrical signal generated by the end user s customer premises equipment is converted into a channelized, digital, DS0 format at a Remote Terminal ( RT ). The DS0 channels are then multiplexed, in groups of 24, into DS1 signals, and are transported to the central office over a fiber feeder or other high-speed digital feeder facility. At the central office, the feeder facility is terminated and IDLC traffic is routed In addition to its fundamental concerns with IDLC unbundling, MCI notes that this response is another one that will require substantial system changes by SBC before becoming a reality. MCI will provide further 01/22/2004 Page 11 of 74

63 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of as DS1-level signals directly to the digital line ports on the switch. Since in IDLC technology voice traffic is delivered into the switch as a multiplexed, DS1-level signal, there is no direct appearance of individual analog voice grade loops in the central office. Flows have been updated for IDLC information through testimony on this issue. CoreComm: This is still a disputed issue. Although IDLC is a well-accepted and efficient means to deliver voice traffic over a digital loop carrier system to a digital switch, there is no technically feasible, practicable means of obtaining access to individual voice-grade loops at the central office when such loops are provisioned over an IDLC system. Accordingly, before a customer served by an IDLC-equipped loop can be cut over to a switch-based CLEC, the customer must be shifted from an IDLC-equipped loop to an all-copper loop or to a loop served via Universal Digital Loop Carrier ( UDLC ) technology (which, unlike IDLC, permits access to individual loops at the central office). In the case of IDLC-equipped loops, a field operations technician must be dispatched to the Serving Area Interface ( SAI ) associated with the copper distribution pair that serves the customer. (Because the SAI is part of the outside loop plant, such dispatches are referred to as outside dispatches.) The distribution pair for an IDLCequipped loop is cross-connected at the SAI to a copper sub-feeder pair that is in turn connected to IDLC electronics at the RT. In order to permit a hot cut to be made, the distribution pair must be moved at the SAI so that it will be cross-connected either to a pair in a copper feeder system, or to a sub-feeder pair associated with a UDLC system in the RT. If spare copper or UDLC facilities are not available at the SAI, then a line and station transfer ( LST ; also known as a pair swap ) may be required. In an LST, the technician moves another SBC retail Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 12 of 74

64 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of customer from copper or UDLC facilities to IDLC equipment. The customer for whom the hot cut was requested can then be moved to the freed-up copper or UDLC facilities Flows have been updated for IDLC 4.4 What percent of SBC s loop facilities are served by IDLC? What percent of UNE-P are served by IDLC? SBC provisions approximately three percent of all of its lines over IDLC. Moreover, many DLC locations have both IDLC and UDLC because for several years SBC s loop deployment guidelines have required the deployment of at least one UDLC system where IDLC is deployed. Another common method for allowing CLEC access to a line that SBC serves over IDLC is to roll over that line to spare copper facilities and then hot cut the line to the CLEC, as with any other copper loop. The availability of UDLC and spare copper lines provide CLECs with alternative facilities for percent of all of SBC s lines served over IDLC. SBC California estimates that out of approximately 17.5 million working lines, a mere 1% (or about 205,000) use IDLC technology. However, of that number only about 1,900, or about 1%, are working at an FDI where there are no all-copper or UDLC alternatives, and that these 1,900 working lines are actually spread across the entire state among 42 different wire centers. Finally, there are approximately 1.3 million UNE-P arrangements in SBC California, but only about 1,100 of the UNE-P loops (0.08%) are provisioned over IDLC where the FDI has no all-copper or UDLC alternatives. MCI believes that SBC should provide this information by wire center in each of its serving territories. This information is crucial to understanding impairment and the extent to which the process will operate smoothly. CoreComm: This is still a disputed issue. McLeod: IF SBC moves a CLEC s loop currently on IDLC onto a UDLC system or a home-run copper loop, the CLEC customer will experience service degradation Any process must provide Line sharing occurs when a data carrier provides digital subscriber line It is MCI s position that, as with Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 13 of 74

65 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of for migrating customers with both data and voice (i.e. split or shared lines.). CLEC migrations, line sharing is an issue of substantial disagreement. (DSL) service over the same copper loop that SBC uses to provide retail local voice service, with the data carrier using the high frequency of portion of the loop and SBC using the low frequency portion of the loop. The FCC found that line sharing is no longer a required network element and adopted a three year transition for grandfathered line sharing arrangements. See. FCC Rule 319(a)(1)(i). Covad: This is still a disputed issue. 5.1 SBC should include lineshared and line split loops in its BHC process in order to address CLEC customers that also have CLEC-provided DSL. Line splitting occurs when two CLECs use a single unbundled DSL loop provided by SBC to provide both voice service and DSL to a single end-user customer on that same loop. In this arrangement, one CLEC provides analog circuit switched voice service and the same or another provides DSL-based data service. There are two basic types of line splitting arrangements contemplated under FCC Rule 319(a)(1)(ii)(A). First, the voice CLEC in a line splitting arrangement may use its own switch to provide the end user s voice service ( CLEC-Switched Line Splitting ). Second, where available, the voice CLEC in a line splitting arrangement may use unbundled local switching with shared transport ( ULS-ST ) provided by SBC ( UNE Line Splitting ). The activities associated with UNE Line Splitting do not involve a change from one carrier s switch to another carrier s switch. Therefore, these line splitting scenarios do not involve a hot cut. As discussed below, CLEC-Switched Line Splitting migrations are outside the scope of the batch cut process contemplated by the TRO. Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. See MCI s response to 5.0. AT&T and Covad: This is still a disputed issue. 5.2 Any process must provide for the inclusion of flow through capability for 'as is' line spitting/sharing arrangement in SBC's BHC process. Short of that Version 2.0, The FCC defined its batch-cut requirements in terms of developing a process to migrate loops from one carrier s local circuit switch to another carrier s local circuit switch..319(d)(ii) (defining batch cut process ) (emphasis added). The FCC s definition of a batch cut process thus does not include conversions including loop-splitting arrangements that also connect an unbundled loop to a third carrier s See MCI s response to 5.0. AT&T: See /22/2004 Page 14 of 74

66 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of provision, anything else would effectively shut out data customers in SBC's proposed Batch Hot Cut process. packet switch. Covad requests inclusion of line splitting and line sharing migrations in the batch cut process that will be approved by the Texas Commission. Indeed, at the last meeting of SBC's 13-state line splitting collaborative, SBC stated that batch cut migration issues should be taken up in the batch cut proceedings, not the collaborative. The batch hot cut analysis must include examination of migration scenarios for batch hot cuts of existing customers served by line shared DSL loops (SBC voice and CLEC DSL) and line split DSL loops (provisioned on UNE-P). The FCC s decision not to include loop splits as part of the batch conversion process makes sense: conversions from UNE-P directly to loop-splitting arrangements cannot be consolidated into a batch because each loop must be individually checked to ensure it is capable of carrying DSL signals and, if not, conditioned. Just as contemplated by the TRO, the voice CLEC in a potential line-splitting arrangement will be able to use SBC s current processes to migrate individual lines to stand-alone unbundled loops connected to that CLEC s circuit switch. There are practical reasons that line sharing and line splitting arrangements do not need to be include in this batch proposal. Today there are very few line sharing arrangements in place between SBC and non-affiliated CLECs. Even if one hundred percent of these customers were to migrate to a switched based provider in a line splitting arrangement, the activity for these new acquisitions would not occur simultaneously. SBC alos estimate very few line splitting arrangement in place. The volumes that could be reasonably expected to occur will at any given time simply do not lend themselves to the development of a batch process. This issue is also be addressed in line splitting collaboratives. The first was held in November, 2003, and the second, in December. The primary focus of the initial meeting was determining the line splitting related processes that CLECs wanted SBC to develop and prioritizing those processes. Between the first and second collaborative workshops, SBC product teams worked to evaluate the CLEC requests and, to the extent possible, began work to implement the processes. The second collaborative included a read-out of SBC s findings and, where available, estimates on when process modifications could be made available. Additional discussion had been requested regarding certain processes involving a change of voice provider. The CLECs did not reach a consensus at the workshop, and scheduled a CLEC-only meeting to work through the details. The January collaborative meeting will be a 01/22/2004 Page 15 of 74

67 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of conference call that will be held after the CLEC-only meeting. The February collaborative meeting will be another face-to-face workshop. In response to CLECs requests, SBC is evaluating the CLECs proposal to determine if it would practical for SBC to develop such a product offering, and, if so, how the offering would be made available. As reported in the December state collaborative workshop, SBC is currently in the process of looking into the system, inventory and operational issues associated with the CLECs proposal. If SBC does decide to develop a new offering, this new product would need to go through the standard product development process. 5.3 Processes for Line Sharing and Line Splitting Not applicable to batch cut process. See MCI s response to 5.0. Covad: This is still a disputed issue. 5.4 Include line splitting and line sharing in the process. 5.5 Is there an ICA provision that supports SBC s position that UNE-P is a Version 2.0, Not required to be included in batch cut process. The FCC, in discussing its requirement that incumbent LECs modify their OSS in such a manner as to facilitate line splitting, stated:... we encourage incumbent LECs and competitors to use existing state commission collaborative and change management processes to address OSS modifications that are necessary to support line splitting. TRO 252. SBC followed the FCC s recommendation and proactively initiated a 13-state line splitting collaborative. By working with CLECs on a thirteen-state basis, SBC hopes and expects to be able to develop line splitting processes that are more consistent across the thirteen states than they otherwise would be, and that are therefore more efficient for both SBC and the CLECs. The following excerpts from SBC s existing generic 13 state interconnection agreement confirm that UNE-P is an existing combination made up exclusively of unbundled network elements and 01/22/2004 See MCI s response to 5.0. Covad: This is still a disputed issue. Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk-America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. See MCI s response to 5.0. Page 16 of 74

68 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of combination of all needed combination made up exclusively of unbundled network elements and Covad: This is still a disputed elements, all within its excludes line sharing and line splitting. In contrast, line splitting is an issue. network, all within its activity requiring the provision of an unbundled xdsl-capable loop control; in contrast to line splitting, which is simply the provision of an and either an unbundled switch port provided by SBC, where available, or CLEC-provided local switching. In all cases line splitting requires CLEC-provided data equipment including a splitter and DSLAM. unbundled xdsl-capable loop and an unbundled SBC s UNE Appendix, dated December 2, 2003, with respect to UNEswitch port, provided by P, also referred to a Pre-Existing Combination, provides: SBC to the CLEC at a CFA, which is then Contiguous Interconnection of Network combined by the Elements means the situation when CLEC CLEC/DLEC to their orders all the SBC-13STATE UNEs required DSLAM and splitter, either outside of SBC s network (1) to convert to a combinations of and control.? UNEs-only (which must include Local Loop UNE and ULS) an SBC-13STATE End User, another carrier s pre-existing End User served exclusively using UNEs, or CLEC s or another carrier s resale End User; or (2) if the Pre-Existing Combination includes a local loop UNE with unbundled local switching, to activate that Pre-Existing Combination for CLEC (a) without any change in features or functionality that was being provided at the time of the order, and/or (b) with the only change needed being to route the operator Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 17 of 74

69 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of service and directory assistance ( OS/DA ) calls from the End User to be served by that Pre-Existing Combination to CLEC s OS/DA platform via customized routing, and/or (c) with only changes needed in order to change a local switching feature resident and activated in the serving switch and available to the switch port class used to provide service, e.g., call waiting for residential local service, and/or (d) at the time of the order and when the order is worked by SBC-13STATE, the End User in question is not served by a line sharing arrangement as defined herein (or, if not so defined, by applicable FCC orders) or the technical equivalent, e.g., the loop facility is being used to provide both a voice service and also an xdsl service. (Section (2)(b) applies only to orders involving customized routing after customized routing has been established to CLEC s OS/DA platform from the relevant SBC- 13STATE local switch, including CLEC s payment of all applicable charges to establish that routing.) SBC s Appendix XDSL Loops, dated November 5, 2003, with respect Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 18 of 74

70 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of to Line Splitting, provides: Line Splitting is defined as the process in which one CLEC provides narrowband voice service and a second CLEC provides xdsl service over the same xdsl Loop to the same End-User at the same location using a CLEC-owned splitter collocated at an SBC-12STATE central office where the xdsl Loop terminates into a distribution frame or its equivalent, regardless of whether the CLEC provides voice service using its own switching or obtains local circuit switching from SBC-12STATE as a UNE. 3.4 Line Splitting: CLEC may provide voice and data services over the same copper xdsl Loop by engaging in line splitting as set forth in the FCC s Triennial Review Order and implementing rules. Consistent with that Order, SBC-12STATE shall not be required to provide low frequency voice service to CLEC A and high frequency data service to CLEC B on the same xdsl Loop. Any line splitting between two CLECs shall be accomplished between those parties using a CLEC-owned or provided splitter collocated in an SBC-12STATE central office where the xdsl Loop terminates into a distribution frame or its equivalent and shall not utilize SBC-12STATE s High Frequency Portion of the Loop (HFPL) product or any SBC- 12STATE-owned or provided splitters. To implement line splitting, CLEC may order, including using supporting OSS, xdsl Loops, unbundled local switching, collocator-tocollocator connections, and available cross-connects, under the terms and conditions referenced or set forth in this Appendix and at the rates set forth in the Appendix Pricing or elsewhere in this agreement. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 19 of 74

71 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 6.0 The parity process must include all loop types that SBC historically used for UNE-P. The proposal does not allow for line spitting, line sharing, Broadband, EELs or DS1 customers in the process, thus effectively shutting out all data customers The parity process must include all loop types that SBC historically used for UNE-P. This includes IDLC, UDLC, hybrid loops, and remote switching modules. The FCC adopted its batch conversion requirement to assist CLECs in serving the mass market, which the FCC defined as consumers of analog plain old telephone service or POTS that purchase only a limited number of POTS lines and can only economically be served via analog DS0 loops. See TRO 459. As discussed above the batch cut process is not intended to address data service or packet switches. DS1 loops are not mass market loops and therefore are outside the scope of the batch cut process. IDLC, UDLC, hybrid loops, and remote switching modules are addressed in 4.0 and 4.3 above. MCI believes that the UNE-P batch cut process should stand as the benchmark for an hot cut process. Thus, all loop types used for UNE-P should be included. Covad: This is still a disputed issue. Sage and Talk-America: This issue is unresolved for line splitting, line sharing, Broadband, and EELs and Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate those portions of the issue before the Commission. The issue may or may not be partially resolved for IDLC, UDLC, hybrid loops, and remote switching modules, depending on the details of SBC s upcoming pre-engineering process. Sage and Talk-America clarify that they are not seeking to include DS-1 loops in the batch cut process. Instead, they counterpropose the inclusion of EELs, that may include DS-1 transport, in the batch cut process. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 20 of 74

72 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 7.0 Migration must allow for a CLEC to obtain an EEL, within statutorily required periods, to allow access to a loop, with switching provided from a distant central office. This issue is still under consideration by SBC. More information will be provided in the final proposal on December 15, Although SBC is willing to consider the development of a batch cut process for EELs as an enhancement to the batch cut process after the process initial roll-out, it did not include such a process in its final proposal. The current batch cut proposal could not be easily modified to address EELs, and SBC did not want to jeopardize the effectiveness or efficiency of the proposed processes by attempting to incorporate a new process for EELs at this time. MCI believes that a seamless and efficient batch cut process must include migration of loops to EELs arrangements, and that CLECs will be impaired without such a process. Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk-America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission.. McLeod needsto better understand SBC s process proposal for EELS. 7.1 EEL based connectivity options including: 1. Loop connected to CLEC transport 2. Loop connected to SBC provide transport 3. Loop connected to other carrier transport Version 2.0, See Response to 7.0. See MCI s response to /22/2004 Page 21 of 74

73 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 7.2 SBC must facilitate EEL based Hot Cuts even where it has requested or been granted a finding of nonimpairment regarding transport originating and/or terminating at CO if the requesting CLEC is not collocated in that CO. 8.0 Any process must provide for a batch migration for all Mass Market customers, regardless of the number of DS0 lines included in the MM definition (i.e. not limited to 3). SBC has not presented sufficient evidence to support its contention that mass market customers as those with three or less DS0s. See Response to 7.0. See MCI s response to It is SBC s understanding that the appropriate DSO cutoff between Mass Market customers and Enterprise customers will be determined by each State commission in on-going proceedings addressing Mass Market switching. SBC confirms that the same DSO cutoff determined in those proceedings will be used in determining customer eligibility for the batch cut process. The final proposal expands the Designed Batch Process to include orders for enterprise customers with lines up to the existing project limits which vary by state between 19 and 24 lines. (Assuming that this Commission arrives at a number lower than for the DSO cutoff, this last change clearly goes beyond what the TRO requires, and thus demonstrates SBC s willingness to accommodate CLEC concerns where it is practicable to do so, even where SBC could not lawfully be required to do so.) Similar to other items on this matrix, it is MCI s position that SBC s response is a step in the right direction, but MCI reserves the right to raise concerns when more information becomes available. Sage and Talk-America: Sage and Talk-America need additional clarification on SBC s proposal. Until then, this issue is unresolved. 8.1 Strike the 3 or less line restriction.. It is Sage's understanding from the recent workshop at the Texas Commission that SBC will comply with each state commission's decision on the proper DS 0cutover Version 2.0, SBC used 3 DSOs or less because that was the default cutoff used by the FCC. As noted above, the actual DSO cutoff for the batch process will be the same as determined by each State commission for purposes of mass market switching. See Issue 8.0 See MCI s response to Sage and Talk-America: Sage and Talk-America need additional clarification on SBC s proposal. Until then, this issue is unresolved. 01/22/2004 Page 22 of 74

74 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of on the proper DS-0 cutover point. 9.0 Consider how to incorporate third party switching providers in the batch hot cut process. I don t expect a process for UNE-L with LNP to UNE- L with LNP, since most providers do not have a process for doing those even individually, but I would hope to see something which could be used by a UNE-P only provider to convert it s customers to UNE-L with switching it has obtained from a third party. Procedurally, this would be akin to a hot cut of the third party s UNE-P to UNE-L, but the third party switching vendor might need to produce the equivalent of an LOA to show that it was converting lines on behalf of the UNE- P only provider. This is technically much easier than UNE-L to UNE-L. The pricing portion of the BHC dockets should also If a UNE-P only provider decides to convert it s customers to UNE-L with local circuit switching it will obtain from a third party wholesale switching provider, SBC believes that its current or proposed hot cut processes could be used to accomplish such migration using some version of a letter of authorization. SBC is willing work with any interested wholesale switching provider(s) to further develop this LOA process and any other needed modifications to its current and proposed hot cut processes. At the present time, SBC is not aware of any wholesale switching provider offering services in its service territory, nor has any UNE-P only provider identified any potential wholesale provider that it intends to use for such purpose. CLECs using third party wholesale switching providers are not prohibited from utilizing SBC s proposed batch cut processes, but may have to follow a slightly modified process. For instance, SBC will not terminate CLEC A s UNEs at CLEC B s collocation arrangement unless CLEC A has previously established that it has CLEC B s authorization to do so. However, at this time, no current UNE-P provider has indicated to SBC that it plans to use a particular third party wholesale switching provider. As such, SBC has no knowledge of the manner in which CLECs that may choose to utilize a third part wholesale switching provider may wish to operate. SBC is willing to work with any CLECs expressing interest in this type of arrangement and, where appropriate, develop process modifications to better support this type of arrangement. See MCI s response to /22/2004 Page 23 of 74

75 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of include this type of conversion. Moving from UNE-P to UNE-L and a third party s switching should not result in the same NRCs as when the third party wins a customer and orders a new UNE-L, and hot cut and LNP. Since third party switching may come from wire centers or locations other than that in which the UNE-P customer is located, the batch hot cut process needs to address cut that connect a UNE-L to transport and/or EELs. (Transport and EELs also need to be included in SBC s processes for other reasons, including providers with limited collocation and potential collocation exhaust.) 9.1 Proposal should describe how a batch cut would be implemented for a CLEC using wholesale (third party) switch provider. 9.2 Any process must be provided in a manner that will allow CLECs to use See Response to 9.0. See MCI s response to See Response to 9.0. See MCI s response to /22/2004 Page 24 of 74

76 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of wholesale carriers to provide switching. Included in that consideration is an analysis of what charges would apply and what carrier would be interfacing with SBC Intervals should meet the UNE-P standard interval. UNE-P intervals are not applicable or relevant to hot cuts. Due date intervals for the enhanced daily process are the same as existing intervals for a UNE-L because the conversion is to a UNE-L. The due date interval for the defined batch is 13 business days to allow for resources to be allocated to accommodate the batch. The due date interval for the bulk process is negotiated. Sage and Talk-America: Sage and Talk-America need additional clarification on SBC s proposal. Until then, this issue is unresolved. It is MCI s position that while SBC may not be able to achieve hot cuts in intervals and at levels of mechanization achieved for UNE-P in the short term, the Commission must evaluate that shortcoming when considering impairment Set provisioning standards and intervals that are at parity with the existing UNE-P and retail processes. Document such standards and intervals within relevant steps in the process. McLeod: The 13 business day interval for the defined batch is unacceptable. See 10.0 See MCI response to Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 25 of 74

77 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 11.0 The 13-day notice provision in the Defined Batch process is too long. This timeframe should be much closer to the current 5-day timeframe for coordinated hot cuts. SBC must also explain how its proposed 13-day BHC process complies with current State laws requiring new service be provided in less than 13 days. The 13-day notice provision for defined batches is far too long. The defined batch timeframe should be much closer to the normal timeframe (5 days) for coordinated hot cuts. 5 day intervals instead of 13 day intervals SBC s proposed 13- business day interval for its batch cut process is This 13 day interval period is driven by SBC s labor contracts with its bargained employees. Section A1.03 para. B of the 2001 Communication Workers of America contract states, Schedules shall cover not less than a two-week period and shall be posted at least 48 hours prior to the start of such period. When work schedules are posted to cover periods of more than two weeks the first two-week period shall be considered the basic period for determining an employee s regular shift. Before SBC can make the required posting, the CLEC must communicate its request for a defined batch to the CLEC s point of contact at SBC; that point of contact must communicate the CLEC s request internally within SBC; SBC field office personnel must match the CLEC s request against current staffing plans to see what special arrangements need to be made; and, often, there will be additional internal SBC communications and communications between the CLEC and SBC. Given that SBC must post two-week (i.e., ten business day) schedules at least 48 hours before the two-week period begins, and that several events must precede the posting, SBC needs thirteen business days advance notice in order to ensure that it is in a position to execute the hot cuts on the designated date in substantially all instances. Because the 13 business day interval is not an absolute, will agree to a not to exceed interval of 20 business days. See item 20.0 for discussion of State laws requiring new service to be provided in less than 13 days. MCI believes that the 13 day interval is unacceptable. As discussed in the Report, such a provisioning interval is driven by SBC s manual labor requirements, and is an issue to be addressed in the collaborative on mechanized provisioning. At a minimum, issues such as this one must be considered by the Commission in its impairment analysis. Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. AT&T: This is still a disputed issue, as this timeframe significantly dilutes any purported benefit to the batch hot cut process. It certainly eliminates any use of that process for new customer acquisition. SBC s citation to its union contracts also affirms that SBC s cannot manage its workforce in a manner that would allow it to account for large volumes of UNE-L orders (whether or not in a batch) absent anything less than 13-business Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 26 of 74

78 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of unacceptable. day notice. This fact only confirms that SBC could not handle new UNE-L orders in the volumes, and in the short timeframes, as currently encountered with UNE-P. McLeod: The 13 business day interval for the defined batch is unacceptable The timeframe for performance of the batch cuts should be based upon the preferences of end use customers, not SBC s traditional business hours Daily line counts need to be increased for SBC s proposed Daily and Defined Batch processes. Version 2.0, Both the defined and the bulk processes provide CLECs with the option to request hours outside normal business hours. The quantities included in SBC s proposal are sufficient to meet all anticipated demand for UNE-L provisioning in the event local circuit switching is no longer a required unbundled network element. SBC s proposal contains no limit on the number of loops provisioned pursuant to the daily process. The loops within this process include migrations from SBC retail to UNE-L and Resale to UNE-L and UNE-P to UNE- Sage and Talk-America: Sage and Talk-America need additional clarification on SBC s proposal. Until then, this issue is unresolved. McLeod: The Enhanced Daily process should provide an offhours option. Although SBC has stated that it is capable of handling the volumes described in this response, it is MCI s position that no information has been provided to date that would support such 01/22/2004 Page 27 of 74

79 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of L where the winning and losing CLEC are not affiliated. There are no quantity limitations on these daily migrations, and existing provisioning intervals will apply. claim. For the defined batch process, which includes embedded based migrations from either Resale to UNE-L or UNE-P to UNE-L with no change in CLEC, each CLEC may migrate up to 100 lines per day, per central office, with a combined cap of 200 defined cuts per day, per central office, for all CLECs. Based on SBC s analysis of existing embedded base, these quantities will enable each CLEC to migrate all of its embedded base well within the FCC s 27 month transitional period, assuming a relatively constant migration. Based on reasonable demand assumptions, SBC is confident that it will have adequate capacity to provision all daily and defined migrations within established intervals. SBC s December 15, 2003 final proposal will include its detailed demand assumptions. See Demand Analysis included with December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. McLeod: Scaleability of BHC process. The 100 lines per day per CLEC per Central office maximum does not provide sufficient scaleability. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 28 of 74

80 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 13.1 The quantity of the batch must be sufficient to allow carriers owning and operating their own switch to take advantage of the economies of scale using that switch. For example, if a carrier has 100,000 customers, SBC must be able to migrate those customers to the switch in sufficient bulk and in sufficient time so that the CLEC does not have unused capacity in the switch Scale SBC s process so that it is able to handle the projected volumes of hot cut requests The Daily and Defined batch processes should be expanded to handle multiple central offices per See 13.0 SBC agrees that it needs sufficient capacity to provision the embedded base migrations. The example, however, appears to ignore the fact that the capacity of the CLEC to perform the tasks that it must perform in sufficient quantity and in a timely manner is a prerequisite to hot cut performance at the desired level. If a CLEC contends that SBC s proposal is not adequate to match the CLECs ability to perform all hot-cut related activities required of it, SBC requests that CLEC demonstrate how its capacity significantly exceeds the capacity proposed by SBC. SBC has processes in place to ensure that it can adjust its staffing levels for the LSC, LOC and LFO-In, the work groups involved in the hot cut process, to absorb any reasonably foreseeable increases in hot cut volumes that might result from the elimination of unbundled switching. SBC regularly adjusts its workforce to accommodate spikes in loop provisioning, and it can draw upon that experience to satisfy any similar increase in hot cut activity that might result from the elimination of unbundled switching. Indeed, as discussed above in response to 13.0, even assuming that every UNE-P unbundled switching order becomes an order for a hot cut loop which is certainly an aggressive estimate of the likely hot cut volumes if unbundled switching is eliminated SBC readily can meet projected volumes. As revised, SBC s daily process proposal has no daily limit, and it is therefore not necessary to expand it to multiple offices. The 100 lines per office per CLEC per day limit for the defined batch process will not hamper SBC s ability to timely provision the embedded base See MCI response to See response to Sage and Talk-America: This issue is unresolved because SBC s claims have not been validated. Several CLECs have proposed methods to validate the ability of SBC to meet projected volumes. Sage and Talk-America look forward to participating in the Commission s review of those methods 01/22/2004 Page 29 of 74

81 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of batch (perhaps limited to central offices within the same geographical areas) Dividing the batch cut process into three separate processes could unnecessarily complicate the process. Respondents request one process that provides batch cuts at intervals, standards, and rates that are at parity with SBC's UNE-P and retail migration processes. migrations as well as all foreseeable additional cut-overs. SBC is not willing to split batches between central offices, because it appears unnecessary and in any event adds additional complexity thereby reducing operational efficiencies. In response to this concern, SBC has modified its batch proposal. As revised the new batch process is limited to migration of embedded base. The daily process is business-as-usual subject to price restructuring. This issue is still in dispute. Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. As Sage and Talk-America discuss in other issues, business as usual does not provide parity intervals, standards (including performance standards), or rates Proposal should include historical data on number of hot cuts performed SBC must clarify the maximum/minimum volumes per day per CLEC for all batches SBC must explain its assumptions and information surrounding its proposed 100-order limit per day per central office in the Defined Batch process. Version 2.0, Hot cut volume are included in the attached performance results. MCI: SBC appears to have provided the information requested. See Response to See response to As discussed in Response to 13.0 above, the offering is for 200 lines per central office per day 100 lines per CLEC per central office. The 200 per office limit can be divided in various ways depending on the scheduled batch reservations. For example, two CLECs could each reserve 100 lines, or four CLECs could each reserve 50 lines. This 200 per office limit was based on existing work force and work load for retail and wholesale activity. SBC is committed to matching future See response to AT&T: This issue is in dispute. 01/22/2004 Page 30 of 74

82 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of SBC should provide the assumptions and information surrounding volumes for the defined batch process. force to load by reallocation, overtime, or adding headcount Proposal should include current UNE-L and UNE-P volume trends over last year. SBC s final proposal provided on December 15, 2003 will include UNE-L and UNE-P volumes for last year. See Demand Analysis included with December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. MCI: SBC appears to have provided the information requested SBC should provide the daily line count threshold that it can handle from a switch translation, collocation and service center perspective for its own UNE-P and retail migrations. Parity must be maintained SBC should specify the assumptions and exceptions made per batch. (Types of orders, volume limits, etc). SBC can support any switch translations i.e. disconnect (port out) required to support coordinated conversions defined in the both the Enhanced Daily and Defined Batch processes. In addition, the process for coordinated conversions (both Enhanced Daily and Defined Batch) requires SBC to provision 10-digit triggers prior to the conversion date and time. This trigger allows a CLEC to activate a port and properly route calls for a their customer. This feature facilitates a graceful transition of the customer's dial tone from SBC to the CLEC without impairment to the end user customer's service. As discussed above, the batch cut process is not intended to address data service or packet switches and therefore excludes line splitting and line sharing. DS1 loops are not mass market loops and therefore are outside the scope of the batch cut process. IDLC, UDLC, hybrid loops, and remote switching modules are addressed in 4.0 and 4.3 above. MCI reserves the right to raise concerns about SBC s assertions that its switch translations will support conversions defined in the Enhanced Daily and Defined Batch processes. McLeod: SBC has yet to provide the daily line count threshold that it can handle from a switch translation, collocation and service center perspective for its own UNE-P and retail migrations. This issue is still in dispute for all of the reasons discussed in regards to SBC s refusal to included line splitting and line sharing. Version 2.0, SBC also assumed that existing OBF ordering requirements would 01/22/2004 Page 31 of 74

83 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of apply SBC should evaluate whether additional MDF and IDF capacity will be needed by central office. Are there space and or other limitations on the existing MDF or IDF that will cause any problems in the wire center? 19.0 SBC should clarify the intervals per batch and what the dependencies are per LSR SBC has not provided the cut timeframe in the defined batch process. If a CLEC reserves time for 50, 75, or 100 cuts, in what timeframe will SBC conduct these 50, 75, or 100 cuts? AT&T suggests that SBC complete these cuts in the following Daily process and bulk have no volume limits, the defined batch is 100 lines per day, per office per CLEC, with an aggregate maximum of 200 lines per day per office. SBC has planning practices in place to maintain a suitable capacity for use on copper MDF and IDF frames. These frames are indigenous to the Central Office and should be placed close to the Cable Vault for ready access to copper cable facilities. The MDF/IDF frames are designed to be an integral part of the Central Office and are planned to support the expected growth of the community that the CO serves. The MDF/IDF is designed to grow linearly as needed in the future. SBC is not aware of any existing space or other limitations that result in existing MDF or IDF limitations or that would prevent MDF/IDF growth in the future if needed. Due date intervals for the enhanced daily process are the same as existing intervals for a UNE-L. Due date interval for the defined batch is 13 business days to allow for resources to be allocated to accommodatethe batch. The due date interval for the bulk process is negotiated. OBF guidelines apply to the number of lines place on an LSR. The cut timeframes for the defined batch process are 20 lines per hour from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, 25 lines per hour during weekday off-hours and on Saturdays. AT&T: SBC has not provided sufficient detail to eliminate AT&T s concern. This issue is therefore still in dispute. MCI considers this issue to still be in dispute to the extent that the applicable intervals are disputed. MCI: SBC appears to have provided the information requested. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 32 of 74

84 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of timeframes: 50 cuts 2 hours, 75 cuts 2.5 hours, 100 cuts 3 hours Provide feedback on how SBC s proposed defined batch 13-day interval fits within the Ohio Minimum Telephone Service Standards (MTSS) requirement that new access lines be provided within at least five business days (O.A.C. 4901:1-5-20). Proposal should be consistent with applicable minimum service standards for installing new service, both retail and wholesale SBC must explain how its proposed 13-day BHC process complies with current State laws requiring new service be provided in less than 13 days A process needs to be developed for staffing unmanned COs to seamlessly deal with postcut technical problems in order to reduce customer d ti i h Version 2.0, The timeframes provided by the various states for the installation of new access line service do not apply to SBC s proposed batch hot cut process. A hot cut, by definition, does not involve the provisioning of new access line service. For example, new access line service is not provided in a UNE-P to UNE-L migration or a resale to UNE-L migration. In these situations, the customer already has service and, in fact, never changes its service provider. Nor is new access line service provisioned by the migration of an existing service from one telecommunications carrier to another carrier. Again, the customer already has service. Thus, the timeframes required by the various states for new access lines do not apply in the hot cut scenario. State rules reflect this. For example, Ohio requires that local service providers provide new access line service within five business days of receiving an application for new service or by the dated requested by an applicant where at least five business days notice was given to a local service provider. Ohio Administrative Code ( OAC ), 4901: (C). And, Ohio only requires local service providers to waive installation charges associated with a new service where they fail to meet prescribed timeframes. OAC, 4901:1-5-16(D). SBC will match force to load, and has processes in place to serve customers in unmanned offices. The CHC process provides for the resolution of post hot cut problems. Dispatches will be made for any customer when necessary This issue is still in dispute. McLeod: SBC should outline in its batch hot cut process what happens between Day 2 and Day 11 in its processes. MCI reserves the right to raise additional concerns about the implementation of this response when more information becomes available. 01/22/2004 Page 33 of 74

85 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of downtime in such instances Clarify how various parties orders will be prioritized. Priority should be placed on avoiding, preventing, and remedying outages to the customer SBC should clarify how many parallel time slots it will provide to CLECs for all types of hot cuts across each wire center (e.g. Can 1 CLEC be performing a Defined Batch Cut while at the same time a second CLEC is performing a daily batch while a third CLEC is performing a bulk batch in the same wire center? At the same time, can new CLEC customer orders that are placed individually be cut over. If not, what are the rules around what can be performed in parallel and what cannot? CLECs will have the ability to reserve time via a mechanized reservation tool that would prioritize batch requests based on first in, first out. As demonstrated by actual performance results, SBC s existing processes place a high priority on avoiding and minimizing customer outages. These existing processes will continue. Since the daily process has no quantity limit, the concept of parallel time slots does not apply. As described above in Response to 16.2, the parallel time slots that may be available under the defined batch will depend on the number of lines reserved at a given central office, subject to a limit of 200 defined batch cut lines per central office per day. See response to Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. See response to Any BHC process must be automated in order to Version 2.0, As described in Response to 38, SBC is improving its electronic order flow capability. Likewise, as described in Response to 46, SBC has Again, MCI believes that additional mechanization is the 01/22/2004 Page 34 of 74

86 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of migrate both current UNE- also proposed a method that could automate the LNP activation activity only way to overcome the P volumes and, equally performed by the CLEC. However, as the FCC recognized in the TRO, impairment recognized by the important to the ultimate it is not reasonable or necessary to require the automation of certain FCC. To the extent SBC goal of achieving facilitiesbased manual components of the hot cut process, such are pre-wiring before cannot/will not employ such competition on the due date and the lift and lay on due date. mechanization, CLECs will strictly a UNE-L platform, undoubtedly be impaired and to timely process future should have access to UNE-P. UNE-L orders in order to minimize or eliminate AT&T: This issue is still in service disruptions to dispute. customers. It is not clear whether the CLECs are requesting that this conclusion of the FCC be ignored here and that these manual components be replaced with mechanized processes or systems that have been advocated in the past including. In the past, CLECs have proposed three different approaches: (1) a theoretical electronic loop provisioning ( ELP ) plan proposed by AT&T during the Triennial Review comment phase, which would require SBC to install true Next Generation Digital Loop Carrier ( NGDLC ) equipment throughout its entire network in order to implement the complete packetization of SBC's loop network; (2) the deployment and use of digital cross-connect systems ( DCS ), including additional multiplexing equipment, for every loop terminated on the main distributing frames throughout SBC s entire network; or (3) mechanized frames, which SBC currently does not employ and would therefore have to install throughout its entire network. McLeod: Any BHC must be automated and provide for electronic flow-through, prior to going live with the BHC process. Version 2.0, SBC does not believe that any of these processes or systems is commercially available in a manner that could be used as a cost effective or practical replacement for the existing manual hot cut processes at this time. None of these options is in place in great numbers and they would all require operation support system ( OSS ) development to attempt to eliminate the insertion of additional manual intervention. All of these options would restrict SBC's future plans for its network and if required to be implemented would take all available capital and vendor resources for the foreseeable future to install. To the extent CLECs are proposing these options in this proceeding, they should be rejected as they were by the FCC. 01/22/ 2004 Page 35 of 74

87 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 24.1 The manual aspects of See Response to See MCI s response to SBC s proposed process should be replaced with mechanized, to eliminate the disparate aspects of the process Greater Mechanization is Possible Tools and processes allowing for application-to-application mechanization to provide integration with CLEC order management systems. GUIs require data to be manually input as well as duplicate entries of data. Each step involving manual intervention increases the likelihood of errors. To further reduce errors introduced by manual intervention, steps that involve phone calls between parties can be designed to have a mechanized means of exchanging the same information. Process automation allowing for the reduction of resource requirements See Response to See MCI s response to Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 36 of 74

88 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of will allow for greater volumes and lower costs. Manual intervention is required for the following steps in the proposed process: - Reserve date and obtain project ID - Complete and submit cut sheet - CLEC call to ILEC Local Field Office to initiate cut - ILEC call to CLEC that cut is complete (possibly multiple calls if more than 20 lines) - CLEC communication to ILEC LOC regarding CFA dial tone/ani problems 24.3 Inclusion of the ancillary transactions in the batch hot cut process To ensure success of the porting process transactions such as; - LSR Preorder (e.g. A i Version 2.0, The reservation tool will improve appointment scheduling. CFA validation is available is available via the existing EDI interface. SBC has proposed a method that would enable the CLEC to automate NPAC activates. No CLEC has responded to date. SBC s processes for E-911 and LIDB updates and maintenance are MCI has scheduled time to work with SBC on the ANAC protocol and reserves the right to raised additional concerns at a later time. 01/22/2004 Page 37 of 74

89 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of Appointment automated. scheduling, CFA validation) - NPAC SV Creates/Activates - E-911/LIDB maintenance Process automation that includes these transactions will be more useful to the industry as a whole and ensure a complete migration The BHC process needs to See Response to See MCI s response to provide system flowthrough end to end, prior to going live with the BHC process Any BHC process must be As described above in Response to 24.0, although many components of This issue is still in dispute. automated, seamless, and the process can be automated, certain components are manual in nature. be 100% accurate without Sage and Talk-America: The loss of service to As described in Response to 16, SBC s process is scalable, and the issue is unresolved. Sage and customers. It must be daily process, the defined batch and the bulk project provide multiple Talk-America intend to litigate scalable and adaptable to options for varying facilities-based CLECs. The batch cut process will the issue before the Commission. the needs and requirements be available for the entire 27 months during the post non-impairment Sage and Talk-America clarify of varying facilities-based finding offering all UNE-P CLECs sufficient time to migrate their that the issue of automating the CLECs, alternative lines. provisioning of hot cuts is up to wholesale providers, and SBC. However, if SBC chooses intermodal carriers. to maintain manual provisioning processes, it must still meet Any batch cut process must provisioning intervals that are at Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 38 of 74

90 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of be scalable and adaptable to the needs and requirements of varying facilities-based CLECs, alternative wholesale providers, and intermodal carriers. Indeed, many smaller UNE-P CLECs would have to purchase and deploy facilities, if no impairment is found in a market area. Therefore, the batch cut process should allow these CLECs sufficient time to deploy the facilities, as appropriate. parity with retail and UNE-P intervals, not impose outages beyond a de-minimus (e.g., 5 minute) level, and charge rates that are at parity with retail and UNE-P migration rates. Otherwise, CLECs are impaired The order flow through verification and due date reservation tools should apply to all of SBC s proposed options, not just the defined batch and bulk project proposals Any pre-order, order, or post-order functionality to support any BHC process must be developed in both EDI and GUI. SBC has only promised to build the functionality in their GUI, and has not agreed to develop the same Order flow through applies to an order type regardless whether is submitted as a daily or defined batch. The due date reservation tool will apply to the enhance daily and defined batch cut options. As requested, SBC is assessing enhancing EDI include new pre-order and post-order functionality to support the batch cut process. In the meantime, the GUI functionality is sufficient to meet the FCC batch cut requirements. See Attachment 3 to December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. MCI believes that SBC s response is a step in the right direction, however much work must accomplished before this enhancement can become a reality. MCI believes that SBC s PWS system must be a system to sytem application if it is to reach its potential in removing manual coordination from the hot cut process and thereby increase seamlessness, scalability and reduce costs. 01/22/2004 Page 39 of 74

91 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of functionality in EDI (i.e.; Reservation tool, etc.). CLECs should not be forced to go outside of its primary OSS interface in order to utilize this BHC process Establish parity OSS for the batch cut processes Develop clear and accurate loop and other OSS data that can be updated on a real-time basis. SBC requests further explanation regarding need for parity since there is no batch cut process for retail. SBC requests clarification on this issue. What additional information is required as a result of the batch cut process that has not already been included in SBC s proposal? McLeod: The BHC process should not be rolled out until the same functionality that was built for the PWS system is built for EDI and Corba platforms Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk-America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. Parity means the OSS that SBC uses for migrations or new installations for its retail customers. Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. As Sage and Talk-America explained it their comments in various forums, CLECs need clear and accurate data about the loop makeup, including type of loop, loop length, loop gauge, presence of repeaters, bridge taps, load coils, etc. SBC s loop database has historically had problems with completeness and accuracy The circuit ID information relied upon by the ILEC SBC believes the circuit ID information in the loop qualification database meets all existing regulatory requirements regarding Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 40 of 74

92 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of and the CLEC should be accurate in the loop qualification data base. nondiscriminatory access. In any event, this is not a batch cut issue Mechanisms whereby the pending order issue can be resolved. MCI recommends that a set of exceptions to the current pending order rules be developed so that customers in the process of migrating to a UNE-L carrier could migrated to another carrier of their choice prior to the UNE-L order completing. This change in existing process would need to be addressed in SBC s 13 State Change Management process. SBC encourages MCI and other interested CLECs to make a specific proposal in that forum. SBC has been working on a consistent pending order policy for all states, and plans to share its plans for pending orders at the January 6, 2004, CLEC User Forum meeting. The planned policy is based on FIFO (First In/First Out), and would require that a pending order (regardless of date or type of order) be completed before another request pertaining to the line in question will considered.however, there must be exceptions to FIFO. SBC recommends the following exceptions to FIFO: 1.If the incoming request is from the CLEC that is currently providing service for the line (referred to here as the incumbent or the incumbent provider ) and there are other pending orders from the incumbent, the request would be worked. 2.If the incoming request is from the incumbent provider and there is a pending migration order from another CLEC, the incoming request from the incumbent provider is rejected. (FIFO policy where the migration request takes precedence). Talk-America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. Circuit ID information is a batch cut issue, particularly if carriers are adding data to the loop. Having recently seen this proposal, MCI is continuing to evaluate it and reerves the right to recommend modifications in the future is necessary. Version 2.0, 3.If the incoming request is a migration from another CLEC and all the pending orders belong to the incumbent provider, the migration request will be processed. Those pending orders from the incumbent provider where the due date is prior to the due date on the migration order will be worked. Those pending orders from the incumbent provider where the 01/22/2004 Page 41 of 74

93 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of due date is after the due date on the migration order will be returned to the incumbent provider with a jeopardy notification and will not be worked. 4.If the incoming request is a migration and there is a current pending migration request (either for Winback Retail or another CLEC), the incoming request will be rejected, with an indication that a migration is already in progress. (FIFO policy where the first migration in the system takes precedence.) 5. If the incoming request is a migration for the voice service and the current account has DSL linesharing on the account, either pending, completed or posted, the incoming migration request is rejected. 6. If the incoming request is to add DSL linesharing to a voice account and the existing retail voice account has a migration order pending to move the voice account to a CLEC provider, then the DSL linesharing request is rejected The hot cut timeline requested by AT&T should include SBC actions related to accepting orders or databases changes submitted by CLECs. For example, SBC does not accept 10-digit triggers for LNP orders before the order is placed, but does accept those by the cutover date. SBC should Version 2.0, Ten Digit Triggers on analog services is applied to all LNP capable central offices, which includes all offices except 1A type switches, which are minimal. Ten digit triggers are performed at 11:30 pm the night before the cut based on the submitted LSR that generated internal service orders. The end user translations, including the TDT, will be removed from the SBC switch by 11:30 pm of the due date requested A CLEC does not submit an independent request for 10-digit triggers. This process is automatic with the LNP order. SBC provisions 10-digit triggers for all lines that are "porting out" of the SBC network. The 01/22/2004 AT&T reserves its right to raise this issue as a disputed issue in this proceeding. AT&T is still reviewing SBC's response. Page 42 of 74

94 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of show where in the process trigger is provisioned in accordance with the NANC industry it begins accepting 10-digit guidelines. The application of the 10-digit trigger does not impact the triggers, and what event ANAC trap and trace process. There is a procedural issue concerning triggers that acceptance DD-2 ANI testing. The SBC DD-2 ANI test would generate the CLEC (LSR, etc.) SBC should Trap and Trace process. This can be addressed by the CLEC through also show whether those either their Network Management Control system or manually by dates can be moved, and ignoring the Trap and Trace generated DD-2. This Trap and Trace issue the consequences. is not related to the 10-digit trigger. (rationale for moving this trigger: If SBC did not SBC unlocks E-911 once the jumper moves have been complete after accept / process 10-digit noon the following day. This allows for throwback activity if necessary. triggers prior to the cutover SBC s final process flow charts will show when impacted databases date, the CLECs could use are unlocked or modified, as well as the triggering event. the ANAC trap and trace process, but any early 10- digit triggers sent during D-2 testing would not trigger premature number ports. Note that there may be better options to solving this problem than this change, such as specialized traps, etc..) SBC should also show the date / time when the 911 database is unlocked and the event that trigger unlocking the database in its timeline. SBC should show when any other databases (e.g. DA/DL, etc.) are unlocked or modified, as well as the triggering event. 01/22/2004 Page 43 of 74

95 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 31.0 Special consideration must be taken to address all database issues. ALI, CNAM, 911 and LIDB databases must be updated on a real-time basis immediately after conversion. SBC is accessing intervals to update database to determine whether such update can be done in more a more real time basis. That assessment and a summary of the existing process for updating ALI, CNAM, E-911 and LIDB will be provided in the final December 15, 2003 proposal. MCI reserves the right to raise additional concerns about this issue. Sage and Talk-America: Unless SBC makes a further proposal to update these databases in realtime, this issue is unresolved and Sage and Talk-America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission A clear, concise and failsafe method of ensuring that end-use customers that are transferred through the BHC process retain the accuracy of their service SBC to unlock the 911 data base at the completion of the physical provisioning step (the port) rather than after the order is closed to billing PWS site should be enhanced to a) allow status communications in real time, and b) provide circuit engineering details in a SBC is not aware of any issues affecting the accuracy of 911 service in the existing CHC and FDT processes. The existing methods for updating the 911 database in a timely and accurate manner is not planned to change as a result of the batch cut process. If CLECs are aware of any specific issues regard the accuracy of 911 updates after a hot cut, SBC would appreciate a description of the perceived issue. SBC is assessing the feasibility of providing the unlock notice at the end of provisioning, rather than when the order is closed to billing. More detail will be provided on December 15, Completion Flow included with final proposal PWS will provide real time status. PWS is currently providing order details by 6:00 p.m. on DD-2 SBC requests clarification regarding engineering detail requested. MCI: Concerns remain regarding SBC s ability to unlock 911 listings in a coordinated fashion when faced with dramatically increased hot cut volumes. This function will need to be part of any commercial testing process. MCI reserves the right to raise additional concerns regarding this issue. McLeod: SBC never provided any additional detail after assessing the feasibility of this issue. See MCI s response to Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 44 of 74

96 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of comprehensible manner to allow CLECs to verify the accuracy of circuit engineering prior to DD Assuming that PWS is enabled to allow real time communications, and referring to the step process for CHC located on CLEC ONLINE: Step 1.7, if info is not located on website, the reason for absence of information should be located on the PWS and no call by the CLEC to the LSC should be necessary; Phone calls from CO tech to LOC and from LOC to CLEC specified in Steps 2.1 and 2.2 should be replaced with PWS listings; 1.14, once the orders are confirmed on the PWS, the need for the LOC to send a cut sheet to the CO should be eliminated, and all communications between LOC and CO should be handled via the PWS, so that CLECs may monitor such communications; 1.17,1.18,1.19,3.1, CLEC- PWS will provide CLECs real time status through the provisioning process. Dial tone, ANI and jeopardy information will be included within the status messaging. SBC s enhancements will replace many manual processes and scheduler/load leveler will allow for mechanical tracking of manual processes. Posting of internal communications will not be included on the PWS web site. See Attachment 3 to December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. The PWS is step in the right direction on this issue but, as with other issues, the CLECs reserve the right to raise additional concerns regarding SBC s ability to provide this enhancement. 01/22/2004 Page 45 of 74

97 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of initiated phone calls per CO 30 minutes before cut time to the LOC should be replaced with PWS-based correspondence; 3.7, postcut LOC telephone calls to CLEC should be replaced with PWS based communication; 3.12, 3.6, where LOC notifies CLEC as to "no dialtone/ani" discrepancies, such instances should replaced with throwback and a jep, and progress with the remainder of the orders should continue VERIGATE should be enhanced to contain outside plant records so that IDLC and other facility information is made available to CLECs as a pre-order validation tool. This functionality will also reduce the need for FMOD SBC should integrate PWS (Web Based order and status system for hot cuts) into its existing Datagate and EDI interfaces Version 2.0, Verigate enhancements are being assessed to include a pre-ordering tool for IDLC. See Attachment 3 to December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. SBC is now investigating the changes needed to integrate PWS into Datagate and EDI. See Attachment 3 to December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. MCI would like to review the process by which IDLC information is obtained, including the systems from which the data is taken. See MCI s response to AT&T: This issue is still in dispute. 01/22/2004 Page 46 of 74

98 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of allowing CLECs to either use the web based system or Datagate for pre-order and EDI for ordering SBC pre-order systems should allow CLECs to reserve CHC slots for new customer orders such that a CLEC can provide assurance to its customers of the cut over times at parity with the times provided via retail to UNE- P conversions Improvements to Reservation Tool should be made available all hot cuts, daily, batch or otherwise. The enhancements to scheduler/load leveler are designed to work together with the Daily and Defined hot cut processes and reservation database. See Attachment 3 to December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. The reservation tool will be available for requests during regular business hours and outside business hours for both embedded base conversions under the Defined Batch Process and for new customer acquisitions under the Enhanced Daily Process. These responses were provided recently and MCI reserves the right to raise additional concerns after further review. AT&T: This issue is still in dispute. These responses were provided recently and MCI reserves the right to raise additional concerns after further review Due date reservations for all Hot Processes, including the existing processes for single and multiple lines Reservation tool applied to Frame Due Time cutovers as well as real time, mechanized status reports, presumably through the upgraded PWS tool SBC should consider making available the realtime reservation tool for Version 2.0, See Response to See response to See Response to See response to See Response to AT&T: This issue is still in dispute. 01/22/2004 Page 47 of 74

99 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of the daily batch process Develop additional detail on the definitions for the due date reservation tool and the timeline for the defined batch process Allow CLECs to use a single LSR for converting multiple lines on a single account SBC should provide the details on the system modifications being performed for the December CR that will allow CHC orders to flow through The detailed definitions and timelines are under development. See Attachment 3 to December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. Industry standards allow multiple lines to be migrated on a single LSR based on end user location. Several CRs will be implemented with the December 13, 2003 release to allow orders for CHC and FDT to flow through CR 20861, REQTYP A, ACT V (UNEP to UNE Loop) CR is for (MW, SW and W) REQTYP A, ACT V (UNEP to UNE Loop) to allow CHC orders to flow through. The Scheduler will be used to obtain the next available timeslot on CHC and FDT orders CR 20862, REQTYP B, ACT V (UNEP to UNE Loop with NP) ) CR is for (SW & W) These responses were provided recently and MCI reserves the right to raise additional concerns after further review. These responses were provided recently and MCI reserves the right to raise additional concerns after further review. The CLECs have not had an opportunity to evaluate this information and may have additional issues. REQTYP B, ACT V (UNEP to UNE Loop with NP) to allow CHC orders to flow through. The Scheduler will be used to obtain the next available timeslot on CHC and FDT orders CR will be implemented with the December 13, 2003 release for CR is for (SW) Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 48 of 74

100 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of REQTYP A & B, ACT V (Retail/Resale to UNE Loop or Retail/Resale to UNE Loop with NP)) to allow CHC orders to flow through SBC has not explained the process for making changes to an order within a batch during the interval from when the batch is defined and a cut sheet is created to the time the hot cut is performed The SBC Batch Cut processes should allow for OCNs representing different companies to be used (for example: connecting a loop associated with CLEC A s OCN to CLEC B s collocation APOT, assuming CLEC A and CLEC B have the proper agreements for this arrangement). This will facilitate truly functioning wholesale switching arrangements An option whereby CLECs can elect to have SBC s Version 2.0, The Scheduler tool will be used to obtain the next available timeslot on CHC and FDT orders. Changes to an order will follow existing LSOR Guidelines which identifies if changes are made via supp the clock starts from the time of a good clean order. SBC is investigating this issue and will provide its position in its final proposal on December 15, See Issue 9.0. See Response to 47.0 and AT&T: This issue is still in dispute. MCI is unclear as to SBC s response in this regard as SBC s response to 9.0 does not discuss the notion of provisioning loops to a carrier with a separate OCN. SBC should discuss this issue specifically in the next round of workshops. This is still an open issue. 01/22/2004 Page 49 of 74

101 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of OSS automatically effectuate the completion of the number porting process (activate the customers numbers now residing on the CLECs switch within the database), thus eliminating the two step process currently in place When converting UNE-P to UNE-L, SBC should reuse the existing and working loop in all situations. When converting UNE-P served by an all copper loop or UDLC to UNE-L, where the UNE-L is voice grade POTs DSO, it is SBC s policy and practice to re-use the existing and working loop where possible. It is MCI s position that a commitment stronger than SBC s policy and practice may be required to resolve problems related to the issue of re-use in an environment with dramatically increased UNE-L providers. When converting UNE-P to UNE-L, SBC should be required to re-use the existing and working loop in all situations barring an express request from a CLEC for new facilities 43.0 SBC needs to provide real time return of their 865 EDI completions, prior to moving forward with this process. Currently SBC sends completions in a Version 2.0, AT&T: This issue is still in dispute for line shared or line split loops. McLeod: SBC must re-use existing and working loops SBC s return of 865 completion notices is consistent with existing While MCI has not taken a performance measurement standards. position on the issue of real time 865 notifiers, it notes that SBC s existing performance measures standards may need to be revisited specific to its hot cut 01/22/2004 Page 50 of 74

102 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of nightly "batch," thereby preventing us from capturing the actual completion time of the cut from a systems perspective. be revisited specific to its hot cut processes. Simply because an SBC process meets with its current standards does not mean that changes shouldn t be made in order to facilitate a more efficient hot cut process. CoreComm: This is still a disputed issue. McLeod: SBC needs to provide real time return of its 865 EDI completions Ensure no degradation in the capabilities of the loop after migration, including voice quality, data transmission speeds, and video quality. When the loop that was providing voice service is reused it is not retested when converting UNE P to UNE L. The CLEC can use its switch to perform post cut loop testing and SBC will correct deficiencies in the loop as detailed in the CLECs interconnection agreement. Video and high speed data quality loops are not provided when the CLEC has ordered an 8Db voice grade loops for serving POTS customers. MCI substantially disagrees with SBC s manual IDLC loop provisioning process. As competition has allowed companies to bundle local and long distance services, these services are becoming Version 2.0, When a new loop is assigned (i.e. when cutting off of IDLC) the field technician will perform standard transmission tests for a UNE loop to determine if the facility is acceptable. Additionally when replacing a loop the CLEC has the opportunity to accept the new facility before the order is completed. As a part of standard operating procedures, SBC perform metallic and continuity tests only on a 8dB voice grade loop. If there is a problem with the cut, it is handled BAU - cut to another pair, refer to cable if Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. SBC s proposal for new loop assignments only addresses voice quality, not transmission speeds for dial-up Internet access. 01/22/2004 Page 51 of 74

103 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of commodities. Companies need to provide additional services, including access to the Internet, to remain competitive. Most customers still access the Internet through dial-up. Therefore, any degradation in data transmission speeds caused by loop migrations places CLECs at a distinct competitive disadvantage. necessary, etc. If there were no copper pairs to cut to, SBC would not leave the end-user out-of-service. The order that order would be placed in a jep status and left working on IDLC. McLeod: SBC should provide the same level of service to CLEC customers that it provides to SBC customers The batch cut provisioning process should include a pre-engineering check for all loops, particularly those loops served by IDLC. Placing an IDLC configured loop in a jeopardy status causes unnecessary delays and harms the customers. Sage proposes that, instead of using a jeopardy status, SBC institute a preengineering check of all hot cut requests prior to executing the hot cut. Further, the preengineering check should be included as part of the total provisioning interval SBC is working to develop a tool to identify whether a loop is provisioned over IDLC. as a pre ordering tool. See Response to Issuing a jeopardy notice is consistent with existing policy. This notice provides the CLEC with the needed information to determine whether it wishes to migrate or not. If a CLEC determine a loop is provision over IDLC the order would be completed on the due date within 8 hours. Given the small number of loops provisioned over IDLC and the existing procedures associated with IDLC provisioning options, SBC believes that any changes to the IDLC process are more appropriately addressed in the CLEC User Forum or the 13 State CMP, rather than this batch cut proceeding. MCI reserves the right to raise concerns about this issue when more information becomes available. Sage and Talk-America: The preengineering portion of this issue may or may not be resolved, depending on the details of SBC s proposed tool. The jeopardy and IDLC provisioning portions of this issue are unresolved and Sage and Talk-America intend to litigate those portions of the issue before the Commission. 01/22/2004 Page 52 of 74

104 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of outlined in the interconnection agreements and performance measurements. Further define remedial steps available to CLECs when orders either reject or result in jeopardy notices SBC and CLECs should continue to explore the ANAC / trap & trace option. The sidebar discussions after the Ohio meeting seemed promising. However, parties should consider whether implementing this type of approach would mean a significant shift from coordinated cuts to frame due time, and what effect that change might have on resources and on the issue of whether to include FDT in the BHC process and/or pricing scheme SBC should expand on the Trap and Trace concept that CLECs could use to show when cuts are complete. SBC sent an example of how the trap trace functionality could be utilized on November 15, Such a process would be feasible for any CLEC to set up even with limited network management capabilities. However, with some Network Management Systems (NMS) the processes could be significantly automated by using this approach. CLECs could then design and develop the level of customer service it is willing to build in to these processes using its own network resources MCI substantially disagrees with SBC s manual IDLC loop provisioning process. See MCI s response to See Response to See MCI s response to McLeod would like to further explore the trap and trace process with other CLECs and SBC. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 53 of 74

105 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 47.0 SBC should investigate completing the LNP transaction on behalf of the CLEC and notify the CLEC of the order completion including LNP activation via its EDI and LEX interfaces Investigate acceptance of donor initiated NPAC activation of ports after validation of ANI is complete. - It would take 6-9 months to develop the ability of the NPAC to accommodate this. Subject to the CLEC response to SBC s proposal in Response to 46.0, and to NPAC s ability to timely accommodate such a change in procedure, SBC will evaluate the option of undertaking this work for the CLEC, assuming adequate cost recovery. SBC would not subject such a proposal if it adversely affected its ability to implement a batch cut proposal by July 2, See MCI s response to MCI further reserves the right to raise additional concerns with respect to this issue, particularly with respect to SBC s ability to implement this option in a short time period. AT&T: This is an open issue. See Response to 47.0 See response to The NPAC is currently designed to send port notifications to both the donor and recipient carriers. These port notifications can take the place of the manual calling now designed into the process to notify the CLEC that numbers are being ported. Because the ILEC is allowed to activate the port, costs for coordination, including labor on both Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 54 of 74

106 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of sides, will be reduced SBC should outline its throw back process and bad Customer Facilities Assignment process for the BHCs to understand customer impact. SBC s existing throw back process will be used in the batch process. A bad customer facility assignment occurs where the CLEC has provided a CFA that is incorrect. The existing process to address this situation where SBC requests the CLEC to issue a supplement to correct the LSR prior to further processing will continue. Throw back process flow is included in December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. MCI: SBC appears to have provided the information requested. However, the extent to which the exiting throw back process can work effectively at dramatically increased volumes remains unknown and should be part of any commercial testing. SBC has always gone to extraordinary measures to assure customer service. However, if the service order is complete, the CLEC would need to issue letters of authorization and all new service orders would be required to establish as a UNE-P or resale circuit. However, the CHC process allows for throw-backs to occur during the coordination communication with the LOC. MCLeod: SBC should provide its CFA expedite process SBC has not explained what would happen if trouble is detected on a loop on a particular defined batch cut sheet (e.g., on the fourth loop listed on the cut sheet). AT&T suggests that the SBC frame technician should continue with the batch and provide AT&T notice at the next notification Version 2.0, SBC agrees. If trouble is detected on a loop in a particular defined batch cut sheet using the CHC process, SBC s frame technician will continue with the remaining loops in the batch and the LOC will provide notice to the CLEC at the next notification interval. MCI reserves the right to raise concerns about this response when more information becomes available. 01/22/2004 Page 55 of 74

107 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of interval Develop details on how to rectify problems. See Response to 48.0 and No new jeopardy situations are anticipated as a result of this proposal. Sage and Talk-America: This issue can be closed Process should provide information on Billing and SBC notifiers to CLECs. CLEC s will be billed on per-line basis. See Attachment 3 of December 15, 2003 Final Proposal. FOCs, SOCs and BCNs will be provided for loops provisioned in a defined batch. All current triggers for CLEC notification will remain in place. BCN s are based on a per service order basis not batch. Existing UNE Bans can be used. MCI: SBC appears to have provided the information requested SBC should test the defined batch process on its retail customers. SBC should volume test the defined batch process on its retail customers SBC must load test their systems to verify whether it can handle the large number of FOCs, SOCs, and billing activities. SBC must also ensure that associated vendors Version 2.0, The processes used for hot cuts between an SBC switch and a CLEC switch can not be tested on SBC customers, because SBC retail customers are not served by CLEC switches. SBC s existing hot cut process was evaluated by an independent third party in each region in connection with the Section 271 process. In each case, the third party evaluator, the State commission and the FCC found that the existing hot cut process was adequate to provide nondiscriminatory access on a timely basis and with minimal; disruption to end users. This testing is relevant to the process being proposed here. SBC s pre-ordering and ordering computer systems were successfully load tested as part of the Section 271 approval process in each region by a third party. This testing is relevant to the process being proposed here. MCI believes that the manner in which SBC s processes should be tested will be a highly contested issue. MCI does not agree that the independent third party described by SBC will be sufficient Instead, a period of commercial viability testing is a more effective approach. AT&T: Testing is still in dispute. See MCI s response to AT&T: Testing is still in dispute. NPAC has represented that it can handle any increased load in the 01/22/2004 Page 56 of 74

108 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of associated vendors event unbundled switching is no longer required. (numbering administrator, E911 administrator, etc.) SBC will contact INTRADO to confirm its ability to handle any can handle any increased increased load in the event unbundled switching is no longer required loads. based on our projected demand Testing. SBC should be required to test any proposed BHC process before a Commission makes a finding on whether CLECs are impaired in switching mass-market customers. SBC must also ensure that associated vendors (numbering administrator, E911 administrator, etc.) can handle any increased loads SBC must implement, test and prove that the batch cut processes the Commission adopts will work. Any other approach could result in serious problems, including customer outages if the proposed processes do not work at commercial volumes. As the Commission need only adopt a process to be implemented at some point See Response to See MCI s response to Subject to the pending appeal of the TRO, SBC agrees that it must implement a working batch cut process on July 2, McLeod: SBC should be required to test any BHC process before a Commission determines whether it is sufficient. See MCI s response to AT&T: Testing is still in dispute. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 57 of 74

109 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of in time, the burden rests with the ILECs to establish that the batch cut process works. If they can not present such proof, including testing, within nine months, then the Commission may not lift the finding of impairment 53.3 SBC should propose an appropriate testing process other than an internal test bed option The LNP process must be thoroughly tested to ensure that any issues arising from the scalability of the process do not cause service failure Identified performance metrics with financial incentives. SBC s internal, business-as-usual testing is adequate for any OSS or See MCI s response to process changes required to implement this proposal. However, SBC is willing to engage in beta testing prior to July 2, 2004 with an interested CLEC, similar to other such testing that has been done in the past when process enhancement were made to the hot cut processes. SBC believes that third party testing of the batch cut process is unnecessary. See Response to 53.0 and See MCI s response to Existing performance measures that apply to the existing hot cut processes, including those that are related to ordering, provisioning and completion are summarized below: California PM 2 (FOC/LSC Notice Timeliness), PM 18 (Completion Notice Interval), PM 9 (Coordinated Conversions), PM 9A (FDT Conversions), PM 15 (Provisioning Trouble Reports) and PM 17 (Percentage of Troubles in 10 Days for Non-Special Orders). If projects are uniquely defined for the measure, it is noted in the measure business rules or exclusions. Performance data for the past 12 months for the relevant basic UNE loops submeasures of PMs Performance metrics for the enhanced batch hot cut process has not been provided and therefore are still in dispute. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 58 of 74

110 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of listed above are included in Attachment XX. In some measures (PMs 2, 9A, 15 and 17), submeasures are defined specifically for basic UNE loops. In the other measures, basic UNE loop data are part of the dataset for the submeasure displayed. All submeasures are remedies eligible, except for the two submeasures in PM 17 that are marked "Diagnostic." Midwest PM 5, PM 6, PM 7, PM7.1, PM 8, PM 114, PM 114.1, PM 115, PM 115.1, PM and PM MI3. No coordinated conversions worked as projects are reported in the Coordinated Conversion PMs (114 - MI3). FOCs and SOCs for CHC/FDT are the same as for non- CHC/FDT LNP with Loop orders. Performance data for the past 12 months for the relevant basic UNE loops submeasures of PMs listed above are included in Attachment XX. PMs 5, 7.1, 114, 114.1, 115, are currently subject to remedy under each SBC Midwest state remedy plan. Agreement has been reached in the current collaborative to delete PM MI 3. Southwest PM 5 (Percent Firm Order Confirmations (FOCs) Returned on time for LSR Requests), PM 7.1 (Percent Mechanized Completions Notifications Available Within One Day of Work Completions), and PMs the Coordinated Conversions measures. Note: There are 3 versions of the measures, Arkansas, Kansas and Texas are on Version 3.0, Oklahoma is on Version 2.0 and Missouri is on Version 1.7. Performance data for the past 12 months for the relevant basic UNE loops submeasures of PMs listed above are included in Attachment XX. PM are remedied consistent with the applicable Business Rules. In Texas, SBC is currently negotiating a successor agreement and has proposed a set of PMs, which it believes accurately measure Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 59 of 74

111 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of SBC Texas performance. The PMs identified above are not included in SBC Texas initial proposal. However, SBC Southwest has been willing to negotiate the PMs in its original proposal with any CLEC that is willing to do so Performance measures should be established to provide a level of performance consistent with that currently available for UNE-P. Existing performance standards applicable to the existing CHC and FDT hot cuts are appropriate for the enhance daily process and do not need to be modified. To the extent PMs do not exists for the daily process or for the defined batch, this proceeding could, if not being addressed in another proceeding implement PMs that address the timely manner of performing batch hot cut. Whatever PM are adopted in a batch cut proceeding would be available to CLECs in the same manner other hot cut related terms and condition are made avaialbe. See e.g. Issue Any PMs considered in a batch cut proceeding should be narrowly focused on the hot cut process. For example, there is no need for flow through PMs for the batch hot cut process. Included in PM 13 in SBC Midwest are those wholesale orders that are designed to be flow through eligible. PM 13.1 in SBC Midwest includes all orders, regardless of flow-through eligible or not. Therefore, Batch Hot Cut orders will be included in PM 13 if they are designed to flow through, and will be included in PM 13.1 regardless of whether they are designed to flow through or not. No disaggregation would be required since the Batch Hot Cut process is not specific to the flow through measurement. MCI does not agree that existing performance standards are appropriate for the proposed enhanced daily process. The necessity for specific performance metrics, with financial penalties, will be addressed in MCI s testimony. AT&T: Performance measures are still in dispute Enforce provisioning standards and intervals Version 2.0, SBC agrees that the new defined batch cut process should be subject to performance measures comparable to those that currently apply to CHC 01/22/2004 This issue is still in dispute. Page 60 of 74

112 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of through the appropriate performance measures comparable to those that currently apply to CHC performance measurement and FDT, as modified to reflect any different operational or and remedy plan. provisioning intervals unique to the defined batch process Identify whether existing performance metrics (PMs) and incentives apply to the batch cut proposal. If not, describe SBC s specific PM/incentive recommendation. California SBC will make recommendations on whether performance measures 9 and 9 (a) of the Joint Partial Settlement Agreement on Performance Measures (see, D ) should be modified to address any unique issues raised by the batch cut processes. SBC California recommends that any such issues be presented to the JPSA participants who are scheduled to meet on January 14, 2003 to commence the next performance measure review. SBC California will submit its initial proposal during this meeting SBC California also recommends that any such issues be given priority treatment and that they be resolved within 60 days of the commencement of the JPSA review Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk-America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. Performance measurements and appropriate remedies should be developed for all components of the batch cut process. SBC s existing measurements need to be modified to reflect the increased importance of the hot cut process if CLECs have to use the process for mass market customers. MCI: Issures surrounding performance metrics and the venue within which they should be decided remain in dispute. See MCI response to Version 2.0, Midwest SBC has, made representation that TRO issues (impacts upon PMs) will be discussed in the current collaborative. Specific proposals will be dependent upon the definition of the final defined batch proposal. SBC anticipates that it will make a recommendation to the six month collaborative by then end of January /22/ 2004 Page 61 of 74

113 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 56.0 Link between performance metrics and the immediate, dynamic reversal of any non-impairment finding where such finding may exist. For any time period during which Hot Cut performance is substandard, UNE-P would be available at TELRIC rates and such lines activated in these periods would be grandfathered to UNE-P or, at the CLEC s option, cut to CLEC s switch free of charge when Hot Cut performance is back within compliance. This should include commercial testing Pricing information should be included with final proposal. Version 2.0, Southwest There are currently no 6-month reviews scheduled in the Southwest. We are in the process of negotiating with various CLECs for a replacement to the T2A. SBC anticipates that it will make a recommendation in the pending batch cut proceedings in the Southwest by the end of January SBC disagrees with this proposal because it is inconsistent the TRO. SBC agrees that the batch hot cut pricing structure will be included with the final proposal. The existing SBC Southwest and West region NRCs do not include any hot cut effort. In the SBC Midwest region, the OH and IN NRCs do 01/22/2004 This issue is still in dispute. See MCI s comments regarding pricing. MCI believes pricing will be a disputed issue to be addressed in testimony. Page 62 of 74

114 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of What is the hot cut component of the existing NRCs? not include any hot cut effort. For the other Midwest region states (IL, MI, WI), it is not possible to determine whether the NRCs encompass any hot cut costs, for two reasons: First, there is insufficient detail in the underlying cost studies. Second, the state commissions in which the NRCs were established in many instances adopted CLEC positions and/or made adjustments to the cost studies (including eliminating activities and reducing times and probabilities); as a result, even if it were clear that the NRCs as presented in the cost studies encompassed some hot cut costs, it would be very difficult to determine if such costs remained a component of the NRC the state commission approved The FCC stressed one of the key factors for concluding that impairment exists in switching mass market customers involves the cost of the nonrecurring charges (NRCs) charged to CLECs. SBC s Midwest proposal must specifically quantify all proposed NRCs involved in the BHC process. On January 7, 2004, SBC will submit cost studies for CA, andon January 9, 2004 for IL and by Januury 15, 2004 identifying nonrecurring costs associated with the rate elements contained in the December 15, 2003 final batch hot cut process proposal. Cost studies for the eight remaining Midwest and Southwest states will be completed by the end of January Need appropriate rates. On January 7, 2004, SBC will submit nonrecurring rates for CA,, and on January 9 for IL and by January 15, 2004 for TX associated with the rate elements identified in the December 15, 2003 final batch hot cut process proposal. Rates for the eight remaining Midwest and Southwest states will be identified by the end of January Consideration should be given to a competitively neutral cost recovery mechanism for all costs. SBC intends to submit TELRIC compliant cost studies based on cost causation principles. The TRO, paragraph 489 explicitly states that state commissions should adopt TELRIC rates for the batch cut activities they approve. These rates should reflect the efficiencies associated with the batched migration of loops to a competitive LEC s See MCI s response to MCLeod: Current NRCs are one critical reason why impairment exists in switching mass market customers. See MCI s response to See MCI s response to Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 63 of 74

115 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of switch, either through a reduced per-line rate or through volume discounts Cost and pricing details need to be fully examined, The cost of implementing and provisioning the batch must be spread across all customers (similar to the LNP charge), and not to the carriers that must migrate their customers. In identifying these costs, the CLEC additional costs must also be identified and recovered through the same process that the ILEC additional costs are recovered. In determining rates, equal weight should be given to the incremental costs incurred by CLECs The batch cut rates must provide CLECs with a See See MCI s response to Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. See 57.3 See MCI s response to /22/2004 Page 64 of 74

116 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of meaningful opportunity to compete and any proceeding to determine such rates should give equal weight to the incremental costs incurred by CLECs. SBC's proposed batch cut costs are costs that would apply to CLECs that were not foreseen by CLECs when they developed their business plans. Therefore, Sage proposes consideration of a rate applicable to all end users, similar to the LNP charge. At the very least, the incremental cost to the ILEC and CLEC must be reimbursed. Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk-America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. This issue can be consolidated with Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 65 of 74

117 58.0 Identify the specific wire centers located within the MSAs that SBC identified in its October 23, 2003 filing as not being subject to the batch cut process. Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of The Ohio specific wire centers located within the MSAs that SBC This issue is still in dispute. identified in its October 23, 2003 filing as not being subject to the batch cut process are identified in Attachment 58. Proposal should clearly defined in which geographic markets the new batch cut process will be available Referring to SBC Ohio's October 17 Petition, Attachment B as filed in Case No TP-COI, what is the access area (B, C, or D) for each wire center? 59.0 MCI remains hopeful that procedures and practices eventually emanating from the SBC Batch Hot Cut process will help to facilitate the transition of a significant portion of its current, or embedded, UNE-P-based mass market customers to services provided over unbundled loop facilities purchased from SBC and switching SBC proposes that the defined batch process will only be available in those geographic markets where a finding of non-impairment for mass market switching is made. If a CLEC can demonstrate that the embedded base in a geographic market where unbundling switching is still required warrants the deployment of the defined batch, SBC will consider expanding. The revised daily process and the bulk batch will be available in all portions of SBC s service territory. Access area (B, C, or D) for each wire center in SBC Ohio's October 17 Petition, Attachment B as filed in Case No TP-COI, are shown in Attachment 58 See Response to MCI: SBC appears to have provided the information requested. MCI: This issue is an overview of many individual issues described elsewhere in this matrix. As such, it can likely be removed from the matrix as duplicative. 01/22/2004 Page 66 of 74

118 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of facilities owned and/or controlled by MCI itself. It is MCI s expectation that any processes designed facilitate such a migration will be efficient, economical and, most importantly, non customer impacting. MCI does not believe, however, that the mere identification as distinguished from the designing, testing, implementation and ongoing performance of a Batch Hot Cut process is sufficient to address questions of impairment MCI encourages SBC, State Public Service Commission Staffs and all other Parties involved in this on-going collaborative to recognize that the establishment or modification of a Batch Hot Cut processes must be considered along with all other affected systems, procedures and practices in order to verify that each such system, procedure and practice will effectively As noted above in Response to 2.0, the FCC never found impairment due to CLEC switch to-clec switch migrations, or due to CLEC switch-to-ilec switch. As noted above in Response to 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2, line splitting and line sharing are outside of the batch cut process required by the TRO. SBC remains committed to working with the industry to address ongoing and future enhancements to each of these scenarios. However, none of them is within the narrow scope of this 9 month proceedings. See MCI s comments with regard to CLEC-to-CLEC migrations. 01/22/2004 Page 67 of 74

119 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of perform their designed functions simultaneously. Also, a Batch Hot Cut process which has been discussed in these collaboratives does not address other areas of impairment relating to other types of hot cuts - such as CLEC to CLEC migrations, CLEC to ILEC migrations which will occur after the embedded base of a given has been transitioned to UNE-L in a given geographic market or the migration of customers who have CLEC data services from UNE-P line splitting to UNE-L line splitting MCI encourages SBC, State Public Service Commission Staffs and all other Parties involved in this ongoing collaborative to remain focused on the long-term objectives involved with the establishment of an efficient Hot Cut process and to consider not only the short-term, manual As discussed in Response to 24.0, equipment to transfer UNE-Ls from ILEC switches to non-ilec switches is limited and is not widely deployed in SBC's network. See MCI s comments with regard to mechanized provisioning. The ELP or GR303 proposal would require every loop SBC has in place to be converted to a new technology. This would take many years and billions of dollars to accomplish. The FCC even recognized in the Triennial Review Order that in order for an ELP process, to be effective, would require significant and costly upgrades to the existing local network at both the remote terminal and central office. Also, the FCC cited to ILEC comments that ELP would require dramatic and t i lt ti t th ll hit t f i b t 01/22/ 2004 Page 68 of 74

120 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of modifications, but the longer term possibilities including, for example, the wider implementation of GR303 capable Digital extensive alterations to the overall architecture of every incumbent LEC local telephone network. Such a GR303 deployment would also implicate many additional concerns (security concerns, limitations on CLEC availability, etc.) under any scenario, and so far no CLEC has proposed feasible methods for addressing concerns Loop Carrier systems which would allow for the he mechanized frame option is also mentioned by MCI. A few of these unbundling of DLC based frames have been placed by other ILECs, primarily as a trial or in niche loops without migration to applications. They are currently limited to 5,000 lines or less, and have other facilities, which not passed the standards work needed to be placed into wide spread often times contributes to application. To utilize them, every loop and office equipment additional manual process, termination would need to be transferred or rewired to the new delay and error. The use of mechanized frames. These new frames would require additional space automated, or robotic, assignments and continue to use the old cross-connect frame as a frames should also be connectivity point. If a larger, viable product ever makes it to the contemplated as a longer market, using mechanized frames in wire centers with more than 5,000 term solution, particularly lines would be extremely difficult because of all of the inter-frame in unmanned COs similar connections that would be required, if such a multitude of mechanized to those in which such connections would be possible at all. This could cause central office technologies have already exhausts, and would require years of time and untold dollars to been tested, proven and are accomplish. The time a customer may be out of service during the hot currently operational. cut performed by the mechanized frame is comparable to the time under the current manual hot cut process. Current mechanized frames are not compatible with existing systems and manual work is required to input the data to the mechanized frames. These devices are mechanical in nature with numerous reliability and mean-time-tofailure issues when considering harsh environmental and NEBS issues. Much of the NEBS and hardening testing has yet to be performed. There is also a lack of consistent standards for this product line for software and hardware growth, systems integration and interoperability with other manufacturers products. Telcordia has been quoted stating that the mechanized frame industry is not ready for prime time. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 69 of 74

121 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of 62.0 Neither the SBC proposed Daily Batch or Defined Batch processes resolve the impairment problems that exist for customer acquisition. The Daily Batch process is the same Hot Cut process that exists today (with its inherent flaws regarding timeliness, cost and scalability). The Defined Batch process includes a 13 business day interval (almost three calendar weeks), which makes the process unsuitable for customer acquisition (mass market customers will expect service much faster and Version 2.0, Though none of these options is in place in great numbers, they would all require operation support system (OSS) development to attempt to eliminate the insertion of additional manual intervention. Manual cutovers causing service outages would also be required for the vast majority of voice grade loops even if the end user never changed service providers under MCIs proposal. All of these options would restrict SBC's future plans for the network and if required to be implemented would take all available capital and vendor resources for the foreseeable future to install. SBC is not aware of a system that is available today that would not require some manual intervention, plus the capital and expense dollars to install and integrate. int. existing network. SBC disagrees that its existing hot cut process or its proposed enhancement to those processes have inherent flaws regarding timeliness, cost and scalability. In response to the concern regarding customer acquisition, SBC has revised its proposal. As now proposed, any hot cut migration where the providing carrier changes will be included in the daily process with no quantity limitations and the existing approved intervals for UNE-L will apply. As described above, the defined batch is limited to migration from either resale or UNE-P to UNE-L where the carrier and the customer stay the same. The justification for the 13-day interval is provided in Response to The 13-day interval should have no customer impact because the CLEC is already providing service to the customer and will continue to provide service, the only change will be the switch used. See MCI s comments. The number of lines that can be include on an LSR is subject to OBF guidelines 01/22/2004 Page 70 of 74

122 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of CLECs will lose customers if the interval is so long). SBC should consider revising the Daily Batch process to facilitate the use of one LSR from the CLEC that allows many end users to be addressed and provisioned together. SBC should also make the Defined Batch process more timely (using current UNE-P intervals rather than the 13 day interval). guidelines The drafters and regulators of the batch cut process should place a priority on avoiding, preventing, and remedying outages to the customer. As paragraphs of the TRO require, migrations for mass-market customers must be orderly, seamless, and trouble free. "Competition is meant to benefit consumers, and not create obstacles for them." (TRO, para. 467.) Also, in today's environment, it is important for public safety and the safety of customers The FCC s Rule itself makes no mention of the potential for disruption of service to the customer; it does not indicate in any way that that potential (or a reduction in that potential) is one of the criteria the Commission should consider when it decides whether to approve a batch cut process. The FCC correctly recognized that a momentary disruption of service is inevitable, at least with currently available technology, when the customer s loop is moved from one switch to another, and that the FCC did not contemplate that the institution of a batch cut process would eliminate (or shorten or otherwise affect) that disruption. SBC notes, in fact, that in the various paragraphs of the TRO that discuss the benefits the FCC anticipates from the establishment of a batch process, no mention is made of an effect on service disruptions. See TRO 474, This issue is still in dispute. Sage and Talk-America: The issue is unresolved. Sage and Talk- America intend to litigate the issue before the Commission. 01/22/2004 Page 71 of 74

123 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of for the customers to have continuous access to the telephone system A complete batch hot-cut process should include automation not only of the CLEC-ILEC interaction relating to the scheduling and coordination of the hot cut, but also to all the ancillary transactions that need to be managed. One way to ensure that this process goes smoothly is through an industrystandard clearinghouse. Such a clearinghouse would: SBC does not believe this proceeding is the appropriate place for NeuStar to promote its non-npac business interests. All required information that SBC must provide to a CLEC in connection with a hot cut, include the new defined batch cut is currently available directly form SBC, without the need for an industry clearinghouse. Likewise SBC already provide significant performance related information and reports to CLECs and regulators to ensure that the hot cut process is providing nondiscriminatory access. This issue is still in dispute. Manage the exchange of information amongst all the industry s trading partners using established and proven technology that includes process automation, fallout management, automated local service request Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 72 of 74

124 Version 2.0, Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of gateways, adapters to third party service bureaus (such as E911, LIDB and CNAM databases) and the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC). Allow CLECs and ILECs to interact with a single clearinghouse instead of each interacting with all the others. Provide CLECs, ILECs, and regulators with the information and reports necessary to manage batch hot cuts and ensure the process is working smoothly SBC should identify what contract amendments/changes will be required to use the batch hot cut processes. If no ICA modifications are required, SBC should state that affirmatively. If ICA modifications are required, SBC should SBC assumes that a contract amendment will be necessary to incorporate rates, terms and conditions for a new batch hot cut process into current interconnection agreements. Upon approval by a state commission of the batch hot cut process, SBC will propose amendment language, based upon the rates, terms and conditions approved by the commission, to CLECs via online posting and accessible letter. It is anticipated that the batch hot cut rates, terms and conditions will be contained in a separate appendix that can be added to the interconnection agreement via amendment. SBC will ensure that the final contract amendment will be available to CLECs on or before five 01/22/2004 MCI: It would be more meaningful for SBC to propose contract language with its final batch hot cut proposal. The Commission and other parties could then review not only the high level aspects of SBC s proposal, but also the specific contract language meant to implement the proposal. Page 73 of 74

125 Issue SBC Response as of December 19, Disputed Issue & CLEC as of provide enough detail that we can understand what the timing will be. implement the proposal. SBC should identify what contract amendments or changes will be required to use their batch hot cut processes. If no interconnection agreement modifications are required, SBC should state that affirmatively. If ICA modifications are required, they should provide enough detail that CLECs can understand the details of the changes and the timeframe for making such changes Identify which issues on the "issues tracking matrix" do not apply to California, if any. final contract amendment will be available to CLECs on or before five days following state commission approval of the batch cut process. In no event shall a CLEC's failure to obtain or delay in obtaining such batch hot cut process amendment modify the transition timeline for unbundled local circuit switching for mass market customers as established in FCC Rule (d)(2)(iv). SBC has not identified any general issue that should not also apply to California. AT&T: This issue is still in dispute. McLeod: SBC should identify what ICA amendments/changes will be required to implement the BHC process and a timeline for the amendments/changes. MCI: This issue appears to be California specific and should be removed. Version 2.0, 01/22/2004 Page 74 of 74

126 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter, on the Commission's Own Motion, to investigate and to implement, if necessary, a batch cut migration process. ) ) ) Case No. U DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LYNDALL WAYNE NIPPS ON BEHALF OF SAGE TELECOM, INC. EXHIBIT LWN-3 (I-_) Excerpt from Issue 4, October 2002 of Telecordia s Notes on the Networks v1

127 SR-2275 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Issue 4 Distribution October 2000 Subsequent to the passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ILECs sought judicial relief and won an appeal at the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court to repeal the UNE mandates. Upon appeal by the FCC and CLECs, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its FCC Remand Order, which required the FCC to re-examine all seven UNEs and justify/explain the rationale for each UNE that the FCC considers necessary. In November 1999, the FCC released its Docket , which eliminated the Operator/Directory Services UNE, but retained the other six UNEs. In addition, the FCC added a new UNE called Sub-Loop. A sub-loop unbundled network element refers to any portion of the ILEC s whole loop which is outside the central office and that a CLEC can access and make interconnection to offer service to a customer. In December 1999, the FCC released its Docket , which mandated another UNE, this one relating to the high-frequency portion of the loop. The mandate requires line sharing arrangements between an ILEC and a CLEC for both whole loop and sub-loop unbundling configurations. Line sharing, which is also known as spectrum unbundling, refers to the same twisted copper pair being used by more than one carrier. The ILEC can carry traditional voice-switched telephone service within the 0- to 3-Khz spectrum, and the CLEC can provide DSL services over the spectrum above 3 Khz. All ILECs must begin line sharing implementations by midyear Loop Unbundling There are two main types of loop unbundling. The first is called whole loop unbundling, which is the unbundling of a whole loop from the MDF in the ILEC s central office to the customer premises. The second type is called sub-loop unbundling, which refers to a portion of the ILEC s whole loop being offered to a CLEC. This section provides more information about each type of loop unbundling Whole Loop Unbundling Configurations Typically, when a customer requests dial tone service from a CLEC, the ILEC removes the wired connection to the ILEC switch in the central office and rewires the customer s loop to a CLEC meet point in the central office. Figure depicts whole loop transfers in the ILEC central office when the customer is served by copper facilities or by a UDLC system. In most cases, there is an analog handoff to the CLEC. If the CLEC requests a digital handoff, the ILEC may utilize a D4 channel bank to digitize the circuits. Most CLECs transport the unbundled loops back to their central offices (switches) using GR-303 IDLC systems. To do this, the CLECs deploy GR-303 RDTs within their collocation cages in the ILEC s central offices. The most critical factor associated with unbundling a customer loop is the type of loop facility that the customer is already utilizing for service, such as all-copper, UDLC system, or IDLC system

128 SR-2275 Issue 4 October 2000 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Distribution CLEC#2 CLEC#1 DS1(s) Analog Lines D4 Analog Lines from MDF to CLECs MDF Analog copper pairs ILEC & CLEC customers ILEC Switch COT RDT Analog UDLC ILEC CO Digital Analog ILEC circuits routed through MDF to ILEC switch CLEC circuits routed through MDF to CLEC collocation equipment Figure Unbundling Loops Served by Copper or UDLC Systems If the customer is receiving service over all-copper facilities, the transfer of the whole loop is straightforward as indicated in Figure The ILEC removes the central office connection to its switch and places a jumper from the MDF to the meet point at the CLEC s collocation cage. There is no need to rewire the outside plant or visit the customer premises. If the customer is receiving service over a UDLC system, the transfer of the whole loop can be straightforward as shown in Figure The ILEC removes the central office connection to its switch and places a jumper from the MDF to the meet point at the CLEC s collocation cage. Again, there is no need to rewire the outside plant or visit the customer premises. However, if the customer is served by an IDLC system, the loop is digitally transmitted to the ILEC switch. There are a variety of technically feasible options available to the ILEC to unbundle the loop. Each ILEC has established its own set of approved unbundling options along with the corresponding methods, procedures, and practices needed for implementing these options. Numerous unbundling options are possible because many of today s RDTs support multiple kinds of interfaces such as: GR-303, TR-08, UDLC, and D4 DS1. Also, some RDTs are capable of supporting multiple GR-303 Interface Groups, thereby permitting a single RDT to connect to multiple switches. Some common IDLC unbundling options are: 1. Bypass the IDLC system and transfer the loop to an all-copper pair If there are available spare copper facilities serving the customer s neighborhood, transferring the IDLC customer to a spare all-copper circuit may be a viable option for the ILEC, as shown in Figure Although this 12 53

129 SR-2275 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Issue 4 Distribution October 2000 CLEC Analog Lines M D F COT UDLC RDT Switch CLEC Customer to either Copper or UDLC ILEC LDS I D T IDLC GR-303 RDT ILEC CO Figure IDLC Unbundling - Bypass the IDLC System procedure is relatively simple, it requires central office and outside plant rewiring to complete the new circuit from the MDF to the customer. The allcopper unbundled loop is the easiest unbundling architecture for the ILEC to perform maintenance and testing. Some ILECs serve new neighborhoods/housing developments with DLC systems and install a very limited number of copper pairs to support certain services. In these areas, spare copper facilities can be quickly exhausted if used for unbundled loops. 2. Bypass the IDLC system and transfer the loop to a UDLC system If there are no spare copper facilities in the customer s neighborhood, the ILEC may transfer the customer s circuit from the IDLC system to a UDLC system (see Figure 12-33). This transfer will also involve both central and outside plant work activity. The customer fill rates at IDLC/UDLC CEV sites are typically 50 to 70%. There is a moderate amount of spare capacity on the UDLC systems to support transfers from IDLC systems. 3. Utilize the UDLC capability of the IDLC system If the IDLC system is equipped to support UDLC functionality, the ILEC can electronically re-provision the circuit from IDLC to UDLC (see Figure 12-34). No outside plant work activity is needed. Central office work activity is needed to run jumpers from the MDF to the collocation cage and, if necessary, place a UDLC plug-in at the COT. 4. Utilize a separate GR-303 Interface Group for the CLEC customers Figure shows the use of separate GR-303 Interface Groups to carry ILEC and CLEC traffic. The RDT must support the MIG (Multiple Interface Group) capability defined in the GR-303 specification. This configuration allows a CLEC switch to connect to the ILEC s RDT at the GR-303 interface level

130 SR-2275 Issue 4 October 2000 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Distribution CLEC#2 DS1(s) CLEC#1 Analog Lines ILEC circuits use GR-303 D4 ILEC LDS Analog Lines I D T MDF Analog Lines GR-303 DS1(s) MUX/COT UDLC RDT 303 UDLC ILEC CO CLEC circuits use UDLC Figure IDLC Unbundling Using the UDLC Capability of RDT CLEC#2 CLEC#1 Note that RDT must support MIG capability as defined in GR-303 GR-303 DS1(s) IG#2 GR-303 DS1(s) IG#3 RDT LDS ILEC CO I D T GR-303 DS1(s) IG#1 MUX 303 IG#1 303 IG#2 303 IG#3 Figure IDLC Unbundling Using Separate GR-303 Interface Groups This arrangement may be cost effective for those CLECs having a critical mass of subscribers served by the RDT or group of RDTs in a CEV. Since the GR-303 Interface Group supports operations functionality, there are a variety of issues (provisioning, alarm reporting, sharing of test resources, etc.) that are currently being addressed by the industry. In response to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, GR-303 requirements were changed in 1997 to permit a single DS1 to be called a 303 Interface Group. A minimum of two DS1s was previously required. This change allows a CLEC to serve a small base of customers at an RDT more economically (but at the risk of lower service availability and reliability). 5. Share a GR-303 Interface Group and use the sidedoor port of the switch to transport CLEC traffic out of the ILEC switch 12 55

131 SR-2275 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Issue 4 Distribution October 2000 Figure shows the use of a GR-303 Interface Group sharing ILEC and CLEC traffic where all CLEC traffic is routed through sidedoor port DS1s out of the ILEC s switch. CLEC#2 CLEC#1 DCS-1/0 enables side-door DS1 to be more efficiently filled Analog Lines Side-door Port(s) D4 DS1(s) DS1(s) RDT Handles ILEC and CLEC circuits LDS I D T I D C U I D C U DS1(s) DCS-1/0 GR-303 DS1(s) ILEC CO RDT Figure IDLC Unbundling Using Sidedoor Port CLEC circuits are provisioned as non-switched, non-locally switched circuits within the IDLC system. While the DCS-1/0 is shown in the figure, it is not a requirement of this architecture. The advantage of using a DCS-1/0 is realized if the CLEC is not fully utilizing a DS1 from the ILEC LDS to the CLEC, and multiple switch modules with IDCUs are used by the ILEC. If a DCS-1/0 is placed between the LDS DS1 sidedoor port and the CLEC DS1s, it would permit full utilization of the sidedoor LDS/IDCU hardware by enabling CLEC DS0s to be rearranged in the DCS-1/0 and placed on the individual CLEC DS1s. The ILEC must address the following issues associated with the sidedoor port arrangement: A. The cost of a DS1 switch termination for a sidedoor port is about ten times the cost for a DS1 line card on a RDT. B. Since each CLEC circuit requires a nailed up DS0, the ILEC may encounter blocking over the IDLC system as other circuits compete for DS0 channels. C. The number of sidedoor ports that can be engineered varies depending on the LDS supplier. D. There is limited support in existing special services design systems and databases to support sidedoor port circuits. E. The ILEC may need field visits to install special service D4 channel units at the RDT

132 SR-2275 Issue 4 October 2000 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Distribution 6. Utilize separate TR-08 Interface Groups to transport CLEC traffic Figure shows the use of separate TR-08 Interface Groups to carry CLEC traffic while utilizing the GR-303 Interface for ILEC traffic. In the figure, the RDT supports both GR-303 and TR-08 generic interface capabilities. CLEC switches can interconnect with the ILEC s RDT utilizing the DS1 handoff from the TR-08 interface. CLEC#2 CLEC#1 Handles ILEC circuits TR-08 DS1(s) IG#2 TR-08 DS1(s) IG#1 RDT LDS I D T GR-303 DS1(s) MUX IG#1 08 IG#2 ILEC CO Figure IDLC Unbundling Using Separate TR-08 Interface Groups 7. CLEC leases entire RDT Figure shows the configuration when a CLEC leases an entire RDT from the ILEC. CLEC#2 CLEC#1 Leased RDT CLEC Customers DS1s from RDT#2 RDT#2 MUX LDS ILEC CO I D T DS1s from RDT#1 RDT#1 ILEC Customers Figure IDLC Unbundling - CLEC Leases Entire RDT 12 57

133 SR-2275 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Issue 4 Distribution October 2000 RDT#1 serves the ILEC customers, and RDT#2 serves the CLEC customers. This unbundling option may be cost-effective for the CLEC if the CLEC has a significant number of residential customers in the neighborhood or is serving a business park or campus Sub-Loop Unbundling Configurations Sub-loop unbundling occurs when a CLEC interconnects to a loop facility at a point outside the ILEC s central office. The Sub-Loop UNE is defined by the FCC as portions of the loop that can be accessed at terminals in the ILEC s outside plant. An accessible terminal is a point on the loop where technicians can access the wire or fiber within the cable without removing a splice case to reach the wire or fiber within. Examples of access terminals are: poles, pedestals, the NID, the Minimum Point Of Entry (MPOE) to the customer premises, the MDF, and the Feeder/ Distribution Interface (including CEVs, utility rooms, and DLC Remote Terminals). Figure12-39 shows sub-loop unbundling at a GR-303 Remote Terminal (RDT) where a CLEC interconnects at the ILEC s RDT using its own GR-303 Interface Group facilities to provide service to its customers. In this configuration, the CLEC leases from the ILEC the RDT equipment and the RDT line facilities to each of its customer premises. CLEC LDS I D T CLEC Customers CLEC CO GR-303 DS1(s) IG#2 RDT ILEC & CLEC Customers 303 IG#2 ILEC LDS I D T ILEC Customers GR-303 DS1(s) IG#1 303 IG#1 ILEC CO Figure Sub-Loop Unbundling at an RDT The FCC mandate on sub-loop network elements places the burden on each state regulatory commission to determine whether specific interconnection points in the outside plant are technically feasible. The law directs the state commission to examine the ILEC s specific architecture and the specific technology used over the loop to determine whether it is really technically feasible to unbundle the sub-loop at a potential access point where a competing carrier requests access. Two key factors that are considered in this technically feasible determination are whether there is adequate space for collocated CLEC equipment to be installed and if the site has sufficient security safeguards to prevent mischief or sabotage. The FCC has 12 58

134 SR-2275 Issue 4 October 2000 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Distribution indicated that its central office collocation rules are also applicable to collocation in outside plant locations. Since the FCC sub-loop unbundling mandate was announced in 1999, there has been little time for ILECs, CLECs, and state commissions to deal with this UNE. Sub-loop UNEs are an emerging market and, at this time, it is not clear which portions of the ILEC outside plant will be aggressively pursued by CLECs. Numerous sub-loop unbundling configurations are possible. A CLEC may lease facilities from multiple carriers to create circuits, or it may deploy some of its own facilities and lease other facilities to extend its network to reach a greater customer base. Depending on the CLEC s network architecture, some of the transmission and technical issues associated with IDLC and UDLC configurations (described in Section ) may be observed Unbundling Issues Associated with UDLC and IDLC Systems There are various transmission and other technical issues associated with the use of UDLC and IDLC systems in the unbundling environment. In many loop unbundling configurations, the CLEC utilizes an IDLC system to economically transport unbundled loops from the ILEC s central office to the CLEC s central office. Issues arise when the ILEC terminates long length all-copper loops or DLCtransported loops to the CLEC s RDT (meet points at the collocation cage). When an unbundled all-copper loop greater than 900 ohms or 12 Kft long is terminated at the CLEC s RDT, the customer may encounter degraded voice frequency transmission. To maintain the POTS grade of service, the CLEC may need to install an RDT line unit with a higher DC supervisory range to accommodate the long loop. When an unbundled UDLC loop is terminated at the CLEC s RDT, the following impacts may be observed: Increased dial tone delay Degradation of on-hook transmission services, such as caller ID (due to delays) Degradation of signal quality (as a result of multiple A/D and D/A conversions) Reduction in analog modem operation speed (connection speed depends on loop length, number of A/D conversions, local switch type, and interoffice facility type). Figure shows the back-to-back DLC configuration

135 SR-2275 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Issue 4 Distribution October 2000 ILEC Customers UDLC (ILEC) IDLC (CLEC) LDS ILEC RT ILEC COT MDF CLEC RDT #1 GR-303 Generic I/F IDT To PSTN ILEC T-R analog Switch CLEC Customers ILEC Serving Office CLEC Switch CLEC Serving Office Figure ILEC/CLEC Back-To-Back DLC Configuration The Evolving Loop Unbundling Environment Initially, ILECs offered and provided unbundled circuits to CLECs as analog handoffs to the collocation cages of the CLECs. Many ILECs now offer DS-0 digital connectivity to the CLEC collocation cages. DS-1 interconnection is emerging. Less than 2% of all access lines in the U.S. are currently unbundled, but this may rise to as much as 30% in the next 5 to 10 years. The factors that will significantly impact the potential growth in unbundled loops are: additional FCC regulatory/court changes, rate of implementation of ILEC/CLEC line sharing, and decisions by individual state commissions. In the current loop unbundling environment, CLECs are largely focusing on unbundling ILEC business customers. The drivers behind this approach are economics and scalability. Provisioning and maintaining multiple unbundled loops from a single business customer lets the CLEC use digital subscriber lines over ILEC facilities. CLECs are requesting copper unbundled pairs and placing DSL equipment on these pairs to provide multiple POTS lines over no more than two unbundled copper pairs. The residence unbundling architecture presents a greater economic challenge to the CLEC because residential customers will generally request a single unbundled loop. CLECs find serving business customers much more profitable than serving residential customers. The FCC mandates on sub-loop unbundling and line sharing are expected to have a significant impact on CLEC expansion into the xdsl marketplace because CLECs will no longer be forced to incur the full cost of a separate copper line to serve customers. The FCC orders mandating sub-loop unbundling and line sharing will likely be challenged in the courts. While this process evolves, CLECs will press for access to the local loop at the interconnection point nearest to the customer. When DLC systems are used to provide ILEC services, the CLEC will want to interconnect at the RDT. The reasoning for gaining access to the RDT on the analog customer side is to have the ability to provide all of the offered ILEC services without the 12 60

136 SR-2275 Issue 4 October 2000 Telcordia Notes on the Networks Distribution transmission impairments and operational issues associated with interconnection at any other location. When these RDTs are within 3,000 feet of the customer, either the ILEC or CLEC can have the ability to use xdsl technology to offer high-speed data access as well as video services. The CLEC may also choose to offer traditional telephone services using voice over IP technology. With this technology, it is possible to have the ILEC owning the 0- to 3-khz bandwidth on a twisted pair from the RDT to the customer NID and having no services connected at the customer premises. The CLEC utilizes the frequency above 3 khz (xdsl) and provides voice, data, and video services. The evolution of the loop plant is shifting toward greater fiber deployment. When fiber systems advance to the situation where a significant number of residences are served using FTTC systems, CLECs will request access to some of the interconnection points in the fiber network

137 STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter, on the Commission's own motion, to investigate and to implement, if necessary, a batch cut migration process. ) ) ) Case No. U State of Michigan ) ) ss Ingham County ) PROOF OF SERVICE Kinneitha M. Thomas, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is an employee of Clark Hill PLC, and that on January 23, 2004, a copy of the Direct Testimony and Exhibits of Lyndall Wayne Nipps on behalf of Sage Telecom, Inc. in the above-captioned proceeding, was served via electronic and United States Postal Service first-class mail upon those parties listed on the attached service list. Subscribed and sworn to before me the 23 rd day of January, Kinneitha M. Thomas Haran C. Rashes, Notary Public Washtenaw County, Michigan. Acting in Ingham County, Michigan. My Commission Expires: September 18, v1

138 MPSC Case No. U Service List Page 1 of 8 Administrative Law Judge Hon. James N. Rigas Administrative Law Judge Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way, Suite 14 P.O. Box Lansing, MI [email protected] Allegiance Telecom, Inc John C. Gockley Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 700 E. Butterfield Road, Suite 400 Lombard, Illinois [email protected] [email protected] mary.albert@ allegiancetelecom.com [email protected] [email protected] AT&TCommunications of Michigan, Inc. and TCG Detroit John J. Reidy, III AT&T Communications, Inc. 222 W Adams Ste 1500 Chicago, IL Arthur LeVasseur Fischer Franklin & Ford 500 Griswold Street, Suite 3500 Detroit, MI [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] v1 0000/00000

139 MPSC Case No. U Service List Page 2 of 8 Bullseye Telecom, Inc. and Safe-T Michael J. Brown Stewart A. Binke Howard and Howard Attorneys, P.C. The Phoenix Building, Suite North Washington Square Lansing, MI Steve Goldman Bullseye Telecom, Inc Greenfield Road, Suite 330 Oak Park, MI Randall B. Lowe Davis Wright Tremaine 1500 K Street, NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] CenturyTel of Michigan, Inc., CenturyTel Midwest-Michigan, Inc., CenturyTel of Northern Michigan, Inc., and CenturyTel of Upper Michigan, Inc. Harvey J. Messing Sherri A. Wellman Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis, & Gotting, P.C. 232 S. Capitol Ave., Ste Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] CLEC Association of Michigan Roderick S. Coy Leland R. Rosier Haran C. Rashes Clark Hill PLC 2455 Woodlake Circle Okemos, MI [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Climax Telephone Company Gary L. Field Michael C. Rampe Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis, & Gotting, P.C. 232 S. Capitol Ave., Ste Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] CMC Telecom, Inc. Gary L. Field Michael C. Rampe Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis, & Gotting, P.C. 232 S. Capitol Ave., Ste Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] v1 0000/00000

140 MPSC Case No. U Service List Page 3 of 8 Covad Communications Company Albert Ernst Daniel J. Oginsky Dykema Gossett PLLC 800 Michigan National Tower Lansing, MI William J. Cobb, III Senior Counsel Covad Communications Company 100 Congress Avenue, Ste 2000 Austin, TX [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] LDMI Telecommunications, Inc. Gary L. Field Michael C. Rampe Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis, & Gotting, P.C. 232 S. Capitol Ave., Ste Lansing, MI MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC, MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., and Brookes Fiber Communications of Michigan, Inc. James Denniston MCI WorldCom 205 N Michigan Ave Ste 1100 Chicago, IL Albert Ernst Christine Mason Soneral Daniel Oginsky Dykema Gossett PLLC 800 Michigan National Tower Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] v1 0000/00000

141 MPSC Case No. U Service List Page 4 of 8 McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. Roderick S. Coy Leland R. Rosier Haran C. Rashes Clark Hill PLC 2455 Woodlake Circle Okemos, MI William A. Haas William Courter McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc C Street SW PO Box 3177 Cedar Rapids, IA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Michigan Public Service Commission Staff Steven D. Hughey Assistant Attorney General Public Service Division 6545 Mercantile Way, Suite 15 Lansing, MI Orjiakor Isiogu Director, Communications Division Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way PO Box Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Quick Communications, Inc. Gary L. Field Michael C. Rampe Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis, & Gotting, P.C. 232 S. Capitol Ave., Ste Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] v1 0000/00000

142 MPSC Case No. U Service List Page 5 of 8 Sage Telecom, Inc Roderick S. Coy Haran C. Rashes Clark Hill PLC 2455 Woodlake Circle Okemos, MI Robert W. McCausland Stephanie Timko Sage Telecom, Inc. 805 Central Expressway South, Suite 100 Allen, TX [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] SBC Michigan Dennis Friedman Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL Craig A. Anderson Joseph P. Tocco SBC Michigan 444 Michigan Avenue, Room 1750 Detroit, MI [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Superior Spectrum, Inc. Gary L. Field Michael C. Rampe Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis, & Gotting, P.C. 232 S. Capitol Ave., Ste Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] v1 0000/00000

143 MPSC Case No. U Service List Page 6 of 8 Talk America, Inc. Brad E. Mutschelknaus Edward A. Yorkgitis, Jr. Michael B. Hazzard Kelley Drye & Warren LLP th Street, N.W., Ste. 500 Washington, D.C., Henry T. Kelly Joseph E. Donovan Julie Musselman Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, 26 th Floor Chicago, IL Francie McComb Vice President, Law and Public Policy 6805 Route 202 New Hope, PA Sharon Thomas Rosaline Williams Talk America, Inc Science Drive, Suite 130 Orlando, FL TDS Metrocom, LLC Michael S. Ashton Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap PC 124 W Allegan St, Ste 1000 Lansing, MI Peter R. Healy Manager CLEC External Relations TDS Metrocom, LLC 525 Junction Road, Suite Madison, WI [email protected] TelNet Worldwide, Inc. Gary L. Field Michael C. Rampe Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis, & Gotting, P.C. 232 S. Capitol Ave., Ste Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] Michael S. Ashton Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap PC 124 W Allegan St, Ste 1000 Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] v1 0000/00000

144 MPSC Case No. U Service List Page 7 of 8 Verizon North, Inc. Contel of the South, Inc D/B/A Verizon North Systems Daniel J. Demlow Daniel L. Stanley (P-57052) 222 N. Washington Square, Ste. 400 Lansing, MI XO Communications, Inc. Michael S. Ashton Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap PC 124 W Allegan St, Ste 1000 Lansing, MI [email protected] A. Randall Vogelzang Verizon North Inc. HQE02H Hidden Ridge Irving, TX [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Winn Telephone Company Gary L. Field Michael C. Rampe Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis, & Gotting, P.C. 232 S. Capitol Ave., Ste Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] v1 0000/00000

145 MPSC Case No. U Service List Page 8 of 8 Z-Tel Communications, Inc. Brad E. Mutschelknaus Edward A. Yorkgitis, Jr. Michael B. Hazzard Kelley Drye & Warren LLP th Street, N.W., Ste. 500 Washington, D.C., Henry T. Kelly Joseph E. Donovan Julie Musselman Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, 26 th Floor Chicago, IL Thomas M. Koutsky Vice President, Law and Public Policy Z-Tel Communications, Inc th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC Ron Walters Z-Tel Communications, Inc. 601 South Harbor Island Boulevard, Ste 220 Tampa, FL Michael S. Ashton Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap PC 124 W Allegan St, Ste 1000 Lansing, MI [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] v1 0000/00000