20040630Exhibit K.pdf

Exhibit K
PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE PLAN
Introduction
As set forth in this Agreement, awest and CLEC voluntarily agree to the
terms of the following Performance Assurance Plan ("PAP"), prepared in conjunction
with awest's application for approval under Section 271 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (the "Act") to offer in-region long distance service.
Plan Structure
The PAP is a two-tiered, self-executing remedy plan. CLEC shall be provided
with Tier 1 payments if, as applicable, awest does not provide parity between the
service it provides to CLEC and that which it provides to its own retail customers, or
awest fails to meet applicable benchmarks.
As specified in section 7., if awest fails to meet parity and benchmark
standards on an aggregate CLEC basis , awest shall make Tier 2 payments to a
Fund established by the state regulatory commission or, if required by existing law, to
the state general fu nd.
As specified in sections 6.0 and 7.0 and Attachments 1 and 2 , payment is
generally on a per occurrence basis , (Le., a set dollar payment times the number of
non-conforming service events). For the performance measurements which do not
lend themselves to per occurrence payment payment is on a per measurement
basis , (Le., a set dollar payment). The level of payment also depends upon the
number of consecutive months of non-conforming performance, (Le., an escalating
payment the longer the duration of non-conforming performance).
awest shall be in conformance with the parity standard when service awest
provides to CLEC is equivalent to that which it provides to its retail customers. The
PAP relies upon statistical scoring to determine whether any difference between
CLEC and awest performance results is significant, that is, not attributable to simple
random variation. Statistical parity shall exist when performance results for CLEC
and for awest retail analogue result in a z-value that is no greater than the critical z-
values listed in the Critical Z-Statistical Table in section 5.
For performance measurements that have no awest retail analogue, agreed
upon benchmarks shall be used. Benchmarks shall be evaluated using a "stare and
compare" method. For example, if the benchmark is for a particular performance
measurement is 950/0 or better, awest performance results must be at least 950/0 to
meet the benchmark. Percentage benchmarks will be adjusted to round the
allowable number of misses up or down to the closest integer, except when a
benchmark standard and low CLEC volume are such that a 1000/0 performance result
would be required to meet the standard and has not been attained. In such a
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised , Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29,2004 - 1-
Exhibit K
situation , the determination of whether Qwest meets or fails the benchmark standard
will be made using performance results for the month in question , plus a sufficient
number of consecutive months so that a 1000/0 performance result would not be
required to meet the standard. For purposes of section 6., a meet or fail determined
by this procedure shall count as a single month.
Performance Measurements
The performance measurements included in the PAP are set forth
Attachment 1. Each performance measurement identified is defined in the
Performance Indicator Definitions ("PIDs ) developed in the ROC Operational
Support System ("OSS") collaborative, and which are included in the SGA T at Exhibit
B. The measurements have been designated as Tier 1 , Tier 2, or both Tier 1 and
Tier 2 and given a High , Medium, or Low designation.
Statistical Measurement
Qwest uses a statistical test, namely the modified "test " for evaluating the
difference between two means (Le., Qwest and CLEC service or repair intervals) or
two percentages (e., Qwest and CLEC proportions), to determine whether a parity
condition exists between the results for Qwest and the CLEC(s). The modified z-
tests shall be applicable if the number of data points are greater than 30 for a given
measurement. For testing measurements for which the number of data points are 30
or less, Qwest will use a permutation test to determine the statistical significance of
the difference between Qwest and CLEC.
Qwest shall be in conformance when the monthly performance results for
parity measurements (whether in the form of means , percents , or proportions and at
the equivalent level of disaggregation) are such that the calculated z-test statistics
are not greater than the critical z-values as listed in Table 1 , section 5.
Qwest shall be in conformance with benchmark measurements when the
monthly performance result equals or exceeds the benchmark, if a higher value
means better performance, and when the monthly performance result equals or is
less than the benchmark if a lower value means better performance.
The formula for determining parity using the modified z-test is:
z = DIFF O"OIFF
Where:
DIFF = MQwest - MCLEC
MQWEST = Qwest average or proportion
Qwest Idaho SGA T Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29, 2004 - 2-
Exhibit K
MCLEC = CLEC average or proportion
crOIFF = square root ocr Qwest (1/ n CLEC + 1/ n Owest))
0west = calculated variance for Qwest
nOwest = number of observations or samples used in Qwest
measurement
nCLEC = number of observations or samples used in CLEC
measurement
The modified z-tests will be applied to reported parity measurements that contain
more than 30 data points.
In calculating the difference between Qwest and CLEC performance, the above
formula applies when a larger Qwest value indicates a better level of performance.
cases where a smaller Qwest value indicates a higher level of performance, the order
is reversed , i.e., MCLEC - MOWEST.
For parity measurements where the number of data points is 30 or less
Qwest will apply a permutation test to test for statistical significance. Permutation
analysis will be applied to calculate the z-statistic using the following logic:
Calculate the modified z-statistic for the actual arrangement of the data
Pool and mix the CLEC and Qwest data sets
Perform the following 1000 times:
Randomly subdivide the pooled data sets into two pools , one the same
size as the .original CLEC data set (nCLEC) and one reflecting the
remaining data points, and one reflecting the remaining data points
(which is equal to the size of the original Qwest data set or nOWEST).
Compute and store the modified z-test score (Zs) for this sample.
Count the number of times the z-statistic for a permutation of the data
greater than the actual modified z-statistic
Compute the fraction of permutations for which the statistic for the rearranged
data is greater than the statistic for the actual samples
If the fraction is greater than a , the significance level of the test, the hypothesis of no
difference is not rejected , and the test is passed. The a shall be .05 when the critical
z value is 1.645 and .15 when the critical z value is 1.04.
Critical Z-Value
The following table shall be used to determine the critical z-value that is
referred to in section 6.0. It is based on the monthly business volume of the CLEC
Qwest Idaho SGA T Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29, 2004 - 3-
Exhibit K
for the particular performance measurements for which statistic testing is being
performed.
TABLE 1: CRITICAL Z-ALUE
CLEC volu me LIS Trunks UDITs All Other
(Sample size)Resale, UBL-DS 1 and DS-
04*645
11-645 645
151-300
301-600
601-3000
3001 and above
The 1.04 applies for individual month testing for performance measurements
involving LIS trunks and DS-1 and DS-3 that are UDITs, Resale, or Unbundled
Loops. The performance measurements are OP-3d/e, OP-4d/e, OP-, OP-4/5
MR-5a/b , MR-7d/e , and MR-
For purposes of determining consecutive month misses , 1.645 shall be used. Where
performance measurements disaggregate to zone 1 and zone 2, the zones shall be
combined for purposes of statistical testing.
Tier 1 Payments to CLEC
Tier 1 payments to CLEC shall be made solely for the performance
measurements designated as Tier 1 on Attachment 1. The payment amount for non-
conforming service varies depending upon the designation of. performance
measurements as High , Medium , and Low and the duration of the non-conforming
service condition as described below. Non-conforming service is defined in section
Determination of Non-Conforming Measurements: The number of
performance measurements that are determined to be non-conforming and
therefore , eligible for Tier 1 payments, are limited according to the critical z-value
shown in Table 1 , section 5.0. The critical z-values are the statistical standard that
determines for each CLEC performance measurement whether Qwest has met
parity. The critical z-value is selected from Table 1 according to the monthly CLEC
volume for the performance measurement. For instance, if the CLEC sample size for
that month is 100, the critical z-value is 1.645 for the statistical testina of that oaritv
.... .
performance measurement.
Determination of the Amount of Payment: Tier 1 payments to CLEC, except
as provided for in sections 6.3 and 10., are calculated and paid monthly based on
the number of performance measurements exceeding the critical z-value. Payments
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 4-
Exhibit K
will be made on either a per occurrence or per measurement basis , depending upon
the performance measurement , using the dollar amounts specified in Table 2 below.
The dollar amounts vary depending upon whether the performance measurement is
designated High , Medium, or Low and escalate depending upon the number of
consecutive months for which Qwest has not met the standard for the particular
measurement.
The escalation of payments for consecutive months of non-conforming
service will be matched month for month with de-escalation of payments for every
month of conforming service. For example , if Qwest has four consecutive monthly
misses" it will make payments that escalate from month 1 to month 4 as shown inTable 2. If, in the next month , service meets the standard Qwest makes no
payment A payment "indicator" de-escalates down from month 4 to month 3.
Qwest misses the following month , it will make payment at the month 3 level of Table
2 because that is where the payment "indicator" presently sits. If Qwest misses again
the following month , it will make payments that escalate back to the month 4 level.
The payment level will de-escalate back to the original month level only upon
conforming service sufficient to move the payment "indicator" back to the month
level.
For those performance measurements listed on Attachment 2
Performance Measurements Subject to Per Measurement Caps " payment to a
CLEC in a single month shall not exceed the amount listed in Table 2 below for the
Per Measurement" category. For those performance measurements listed on
Attachment 2 as "Performance Measurements Subject to Per Measurement
Payments " payment to a CLEC will be the amount set forth in Table 2 below under
the section labeled "per measurement"
TABLE 2: TIER-1 PAYMENTS TO CLEC
Per Occurrence
Measurement Group Month Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6
and each
following
month
High $150 $250 $500 $600 $700 $800
Medium $ 75 $150 $300 $400 $500 $600
Low $ 25 $ 50 $100 $200 $300 $400
Per Measurement
Cap
Measurement Group Month Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6
and each
following
month
High $25,000 $50 000 $75 000 $100 000 $125,000 $150,000
Medium $10 000 $20,000 $30 000 $ 40,000 $ 50 000 $ 60 000
Low $ 5 000 $10,000 $15 000 $20,000 $ 25 000 $ 30 000
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 5-
Exhibit K
For collocation, CP-2 and CP-4 performance measurements shall be relied
upon for delineation of collocation business rules. For purposes of calculating Tier
payments , collocation jobs and collocation feasibility studies that are later than the
due date will have a per day payment applied according to Table 3. The per day
payment will be applied to any collocation job in which the feasibility study is provided
or the collocation installation is completed later than the scheduled date. The
calculation of the payment amount will be performed by applying the per day
payment amounts as specified in Table 3. Thus, for days 1 through 10 , the payment
is $150 per day. For days 11 through 20, the payment is $300 per day and so on.
TABLE 3: TIER-1 COLLOCATION PAYMENTS TO CLECS
Days Late Completion Date Feasibility Study
1 to 10 days $150/day $45/day
11 to 20 days $300/day $90/day
21 to 30 days $450/day $135/day
31 to 40 days $600/day $180/day
More than 40 days 000/day $300/day
A minimum payment calculation shall be performed at the end of each year
for each CLEC with annual order volumes of no more than 1 200. The payment shall
be calculated by multiplying $2 000 by the number of months in which at least one
payment was due to the CLEC. To the extent that the actual CLEC payment for the
year is less than the product of the preceding calculation Qwest shall make an
additional payment equal to the difference.
Tier 2Paym~nts to the State
Payments to the State shall be limited to the performance measurements
designated in section 7.4 for Tier 2 per measurement payments and in Attachment
for per occurrence payments and which have at least 10 data points each month for
the period payments are being calculated. Similar to the Tier 1 structure , Tier 2
measurements are categorized as High , Medium , and Low and the amount of
payments for non-conformance varies according to this categorization.
Determination of Non-Conforming Measurements: The determination of non-
conformance will be based upon the aggregate of all CLEC data for each Tier 2
performance measurement. Non-conforming service is defined in section 4.2 (for
parity measurements) and 4.3 (for benchmark measurements), except that a 1.645
critical z-value shall be used for Tier 2 parity measurements that have Tier
counterparts. The critical z-value is the statistical standard that determines for each
performance measurement whether Qwest has met parity.
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 6-
Exhibit K
Determination of the Amount of Payment: Except as provided in section 7.Tier 2 payments are calculated and paid monthly based on the number
performance measurements failing performance standards for a third consecutive
month , or if two out of three consecutive months in the 12 month period have been
missed , the second consecutive month for Tier 2 measurements with Tier
counterparts. For Tier 2 measurements that do not have Tier 1 counterparts
payments are calculated and paid monthly based on the number of performance
measurements exceeding the critical z-values, identified in section 5., in any single
month. Payment will be made on either a per occurrence or per measurement basis
whichever is applicable to the performance measurement, using the dollar amounts
specified in Table 4 or Table 5 below. Except as provided in section 7., the dollar
amounts vary depending upon whether the performance measurement is designated
High , Medium, or Low.
For those Tier 2 measurements listed on Attachment 2 as "Performance
Measurements Subject to Per Measurement Caps " payment to the State in a single'
month shall not exceed the amount listed in Table 4 for the "Per Measurement"
category.
TABLE 4: TIER-2 PAYMENTS TO STATE FUNDS
Per Occurrence
Measurement Group
High
$500
Medium
$300
Low
$200
Per Measurement/Cap
Measurement Grou
Hi h
Medium
Low
$75,000
$30,000
$20,000
Performance Measurements Subject to Per Measurement Payment:The
following Tier 2 performance measurements shall have their performance results
measured on a region-wide (14 state) basis. Failure to meet the performance
standard, therefore, will result in a per measurement payment in each of the Qwestin-region 14 states adopting this PAP. The performance measurements are:
GA-
GA-
GA-3 :
GA-
GA-
PO-
OP-
Center
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised , Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004
Gateway Availability - IMA-GUI
Gateway Availability - IMA-EDI
Gateway Availability - EB-
System Availability EXACT
Gateway Availability - GUI-Repair
Pre-Order/Order Response Times
Call Answered within Twenty Seconds - Interconnect Provisioning
- 7-
Exhibit K
MR-2: Calls Answered within Twenty Seconds - Interconnect Repair Center
GA-1 has two sub-measurements: GA-, and GA-1 D. PO-1 shall have two sub-
measurements: PO-1A and PO-1 B. PO-1A and PO-1 B shall have their transaction
types aggregated together. PO-201 shall have two product disaggregations - Resale
POTS / UNE-P (POTS) and Unbundled Loops (Analog and Non-Loaded 2-Wire).
For these measurements, Qwest will make a Tier 2 payment based upon monthly
performance results according to Table 5: Tier 2 Per Measurement Payments to
State Funds.
TABLE 5: TIER-2 PER MEASUREMENT PAYMENTS TO STATE FUNDS
Measuremen Performance State Payment 14 State Payment
GA-1 ,1 % or lower 000 $14 000
~1 0/0 to 30 $10 000 $140 000
~3O/0 to 50 $20 000 $280 000
~5O $30 000 $420 000
PO-2 sec. Or less 000 $14 000
sec.000 $70 000
sec.
~5 sec. to 10 $10 000 $140 000
sec.
~1 0 sec.$15 000 $210 000
OP-2/MR-1 0/0 or lower 000 $14 000
~1 % to 30/0 000 $70 000
~30/0 to 50 $10,000 $140 000
~50/0 $15 000 $210 000
PO-
Resale 1 0/0 or lower $500 000
POTS /
UNE-~1 % to 30/0 500 $35 000
(POTS)
~30/0 to 50/0 000 $70,000
~50/0 500 $105,000
- Unbundled 1 0/0 or lower $500 000
Loops
(Analog ~1 0/0 to 30/0 500 $35 000
and 2-Wire
Non-~30/0 to 50/0 $5,000 $70 000
Loaded)
~50/0 500 $105 000
Step by Step Calculation of Monthly Tier 1 Payments to CLEC
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 8-
Exhibit K
Application of the Critical Z-Values: Qwest shall identify the Tier parity
performance measurements that measure the service provided to CLEC by Qwest for
the month in question and the critical z-value from Table 1 in section 5.0 that shall be
used for purposes of statistical testing for each particular performance measurement.
The statistical testing procedures described in section 4.0 shall be applied. For the
purpose of determining the critical z-values, each disaggregated category of a
performance measurement is treated as a separate sub-measurement. The critical
z-value to be applied is determined by the CLEC volume at each level of
disaggregation or sub-measurement.
Performance Measurements for which Tier 1 Payment is Per Occurrence:
Performance Measurements that are Averages or Means:
1 Step 1: For each performance measurement, the average or the mean that
would yield the critical z-value shall be calculated. The same denominator as the oneused in calculating the z-statistic for the measurement shall be used: (For
benchmark measurements , the benchmark value shall be used.
2 Step 2: The percentage differences between the actual averages and the
calculated averages shall be calculated. The calculation is % diff = (CLEC result
Calculated Value )/Calculated Value. The percent difference shall be capped at a
maximum of 1000/0. In all calculations of percent differences in sections 8.0 and 9.
the calculated percent differences is capped at 1000/0.
2 Step 3: For each performance measurement, the total number of data points
shall be multiplied by the percentage calculated in the previous step and the per
occurrence dollar. amounts from the Tier 1 Payment Table shall determine the
payment to the CLEC for each non-conforming performance measurement.
Performance Measurements that are Percentages:
1 Step 1: For each performance measurement , the percentage that would yield
the critical z-value shall be calculated. The same denominator as the one used in
calculating the z- statistic for the measurement shall be used. (For benchmark
measurements , the benchmark value shall be used.
2 Step 2: The difference between the actual percentages for the CLEC and the
calculated percentages shall be determined.
3 Step 3: For each performance measurement, the total number of data points
shall be multiplied by the difference in percentage calculated in the previous step,
and the per occurrence dollar amount taken from the Tier 1 Payment Table, to
determine the payment to the CLEC for each non-conforming performance
measu rement.
Qwest Idaho SGA T Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29, 2004 - 9-
Exhibit K
Performance Measurements that are Ratios or Proportions:
1 Step 1: For each performance measurement the ratio that would yield the
critical z-value shall be calculated. The same denominator as the one used
calculating the z-statistic for the measurement shall be used. (For benchmark
measurements, the benchmark value shall be used.
2 Step 2: The absolute difference between the actual rate for the CLEC and
the calculated rate shall be determined.
3 Step 3: For each performance measurement, the total number of data points
shall be multiplied by the difference calculated in the previous step, and the per
occurrence dollar amount taken from the Tier 1 Payment Table, to determine the
payment to the CLEC for each non-conforming performance measurement.
Performance Measurements for which Tier 1 Payment is Per Measure:
For each performance measurement where Qwest fails to meet the standard
the payment to the CLEC shall be the dollar amount shown on the "per measure
portion of Table 2: Tier 1 Payments to CLEC.
Step by Step Calculation of Monthly Tier 2 Payments to State Funds
Application of the Critical Z-Value: Qwest shall identify the Tier 2 parity
performance measurements that measure the service provided by Qwest to all
CLECs for the month in question. The statistical testing procedures described in
section 4.0 shall be applied, except that a 1.645 critical z-value shall be used for Tier
parity measurements that have Tier 1 counterparts For Tier 2 parity
measurements that do not have Tier 1 counterparts, the statistical testing procedures
described section 4.0 shall be applied using the critical z-values identified in section
To determine if Tier 2 payments for performance measurements listed on
Attachment 1 shall be made in the current month , the following shall be determined.
For Tier 2 measurements that have Tier 1 counterparts it shall be determined
whether Qwest missed the performance standard for three consecutive months , or if
Qwest has missed the standard in any two out of three consecutive months for the
month period and for an additional two consecutive months. For Tier 2
measurements that do not have Tier 1 counterparts , it shall be determined whether
Qwest missed the performance standard for single month. If any of these
conditions are met and there are at least 10 data points for the measurement in each
month , a Tier 2 payment will be calculated and paid as described below and will
continue in each succeeding month until Qwest's performance meets the applicable
standard. For Tier 2 measures that have Tier 1 counterparts, the most recent three
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised , Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29,2004 - 10-
Exhibit K
months of nonconforming performance data that results in payment liability shall be
averaged to determine payment.
Performance Measurements for which Tier 2 Payment is Per Occurrence:
Performance Measurements that are Averages or Means:
1 Step 1: The monthly average or the mean for each performance
measurement that would yield the critical z-value for each month shall be calculated.
The same denominator as the one used in calculating the z-statistic for the
measurement shall be used. (For benchmark measurements, the benchmark value
shall be used.
2 Step 2: The percentage difference between the actual averages and the
calculated averages for the relevant month(s) shall be calculated . The calculation
for parity measurements is 0/0 diff = (actual average - calculated average)/calculated
average. The percent difference shall be capped at a maximum of 1000/0. In all
calculations of percent differences in section 8.0 and section 9., the calculated
percent difference is capped at 1000/0.
3 Step 3: For each performance measurement, the total number of data points
for the relevant month( s) shall be multiplied by the percentage calculated in the
previous step. The amount (average amount, if more than one month) (rounded to
the nearest integer) is then multiplied by the result of the per occurrence dollar
amount taken from the Tier 2 Payment Table to determine the payment to the State
for each non-conforming performance measurement.
Performance Measurements that are Percentages:
Step 1: For each performance measurement , the monthly percentage that
would yield the critical z-value for each month shall be calculated. The same
denominator as the one used in calculating the z-statistic for the measurement shall
be used. (For benchmark measurements, the benchmark value shall be used.
2 Step 2: The difference between the actual percentages and the calculated
percentages for the relevant month(s) shall be calculated. The calculation for parity
measurement is diff = (CLEC result - calculated percentage). This formula shall be
applicable where a high value is indicative of poor performance. The formula shall be
reversed where high performance is indicative of good performance.
3 Step 3: For each performance measurement, the total number of data pointsfor the relevant month(s) shall be multiplied by the difference in percentage
calculated in the previous step. The amount (average amount, if more than one
month)(rounded to the nearest integer) is then multiplied by the result of the per
occurrence dollar amounts taken from the Tier 2 Payment Table to determine the
payment to the State.
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 11-
Exhibit K
Performance Measurements that are Ratios or Proportions:
Step 1: For each performance measurement, the ratio that would yield the
critical z-value for each month shall be calculated. The same denominator as the
one used in calculating the z-statistic for the measurement shall be used. (For
benchmark measurements, the benchmark value shall be used.
1 Step 2: The difference between the actual rate for the CLEC and the
calculated rate for the relevant month(s) shall be calculated. The calculation is: diff =
(CLEC rate calculated rate). This formula shall apply where a high value is
indicative of poor performance. The formula shall be reversed where high
performance is indicative of good performance.
2 Step 3: For each performance measurement , the total number of data points
shall be multiplied by the difference calculated in the previous step for each month.
The amount (average amount, if more than one month)(rounded to the nearest
integer) is then multiplied by the result of the per occurrence dollar amounts taken
from the Tier 2 Payment Table to determine the payment to the State.
Performance Measurements for which Tier 2 Payment is Per Measure:
For each performance measurement where Qwest fails to meet the standard
the payment to the State Fund shall be the dollar amount shown on the "per
measure" portion of the Tier 2 Payment Table.
10.Low Volume, Developing Markets
10.For certain qualifying performance standards if the aggregate monthly
volumes of CLECs participating in the PAP are more than 10 , but less than 100
Qwest will make Tier 1 payments to CLECs for failure to meet the parity or
benchmark standard for the qualifying performance sub-measurements. The
qualifying sub-measurements are the UNE-P (POTS), megabit resale, and ADSL
qualified loop product disaggregation of OP-, OP-, OP-5a, MR-, MR-, MR-, and
MR-8. If the aggregate monthly CLEC volume is greater than 100, the provisions of
this section shall not apply to the qualifying performance sub-measurement.
10.The determination of whether Qwest has met the parity or benchmark
standards will be made using aggregate volumes of CLECs participating in the PAP.
In the event Qwest does not meet the applicable performance standards, a total
payment to affected CLECs will be determined in accordance with the high , medium
low designation for each performance measurement (see Attachment 1) and as
described in section 8., except that CLEC aggregate volumes will be used. In the
event the calculated total payment amount to CLECs is less than $5 000, a minimum
payment of $5 000 shall be made. The resulting total payment amount to CLECs will
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised , Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29,2004 - 12-
Exhibit K
be apportioned to the affected CLECs based upon each CLEC's relative share of the
number of total service misses.
10.At the six (6)-month reviews , Qwest will consider adding to the above list of
qualifying performance sub-measurements new products disaggregation
representing new modes of CLEC entry into developing markets.
11.Payment
11.Payments to CLEC , the State, or the Special Fund shall be made one month
following the due date of the performance measurement report for the month for
which payment is being made. Qwest will pay interest on any late payment and
underpayment at the prime rate as reported in the Wall Street Journal. On any
overpayment Qwest is allowed to offset future payments by the amount of the
overpayment plus interest at the prime rate.
11.Payment to CLEC shall be made via bill credits. Bill credits shall be identified
on a summary format substantially similar to that distributed as a prototype to the
CLECs and the Commissions. To the extent that a monthly payment owed to CLEC
under this PAP exceeds the amount owed to Qwest by CLEC on a monthly bill
Qwest will issue a check or wire transfer to CLEC in the amount of the overage.
Payment to the State shall be made via check or wire transfer.
11.Special Fund shall be created for the purpose of payment of an
independent auditor and audit costs as specified in section 15.and payment ofother expenses incurred by the participating Commissions in the regional
administration of the PAP.
11.1 Qwest shall establish the Special Fund as an interest bearing escrow account
upon the first FCC section 271 approval of the PAP applicable to a participating state
Commission. Qwest shall be authorized to withhold and deposit into the Special
Fund one-half of all Tier 2 payments. The cost of the escrow account will be paid
for from account funds.
11.2 Commissions participating in the Special Fund shall appoint a person
designated to administer and authorize disbursement of funds. All claims against thefund shall be presented to the Commissions' designates and shall be the
responsibility of the participating Commissions.
11.3 Qwest shall advance funds to meet initial claims against the Special Fund to
the extent Tier 2 contributions are insufficient. Such funds shall not exceed $500 000
and shall be reduced appropriately in the event that at least six states in which the
QPAP is in effect do not agree to participate in the Special Fund. Upon a
determination by the participating Commissions that the Special Fund has become
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 13-
Exhibit K
self-sustaining or is no longer required Qwest shall be allowed to recover any such
advances plus interest at the rate that the escrow account would have earned.
11.4 Upon the execution of a memorandum of understanding with the Idaho
Commission Qwest shall establish an Idaho Discretionary Fund as a separate
interest bearing escrow account. Qwest shall deposit into the Discretionary Fund the
remaining balance of Tier 2 payments after disbursement of Tier 2 payments to the
Special Fund pursuant to section 13.1. The Commission shall appoint a person
designated to administer and authorize disbursements of funds from the
Discretionary Fund. Disbursements from the Discretionary Fund shall be limited to
competitively neutral Idaho telecommunications initiatives. The costs of the
Discretionary Fund will paid for from the account's funds.
12.Cap on Tier 1 and Tier 2 Payments
12; 1 There shall be a cap on the total payments made by Qwest for a 12 month
period beginning with the effective date of the PAP for the State of Idaho. The
annual cap for the State of Idaho shall be 360/0 of ARMIS Net Return , recalculatedeach year based upon the prior year Idaho ARMIS results , subject to any
applicable adjustment permitted pursuant to section 12.2. Qwest shall submit to the
Commission the calculation of each year s cap no later than 30 days after submission
of ARMIS results to the FCC. CLEC agrees that this amount constitutes a maximum
annual cap that shall apply to the aggregate total of Tier liquidated damages
including any such damages paid pursuant to this Agreement, any other
interconnection agreement, or any other payments made for the same underlying
activity or omission under any other contract, order or rule and Tier 2 assessments or
payments made by Qwest for the same underlying activity or omission under any
other contract, order or rule.
12.The 360/0 annual cap may be increased to 440/0 or decreased to 300/0 of
ARMIS Net Return as follows:
12.1 An increase in the cap of a maximum of 4 percentage points at anyone time
(Le., first to 40 percent) shall occur upon order by the Commission if the cap has
been exceeded for any consecutive period of 24 months by that same 4 percent or
more, provided that: (a) the Commission has determined that the preponderance ofthe evidence shows Qwest could have remained beneath the cap through
reasonable and prudent effort, and (b) the Commission has made that determination
after having available to it on the record the results of audits and root cause
analyses, and provided an opportunity for Qwest to be heard.
12.2 A decrease in the cap of a maximum of 4 percentage points at anyone time
shall occur upon order by the Commission after performance for any consecutive
period of 24 months in which total payments are 8 or more percentage points below
the cap amount, provided that: (a) the Commission has determined that. the
preponderance of the evidence shows the performance results underlying those
Qwest Idaho SGA T Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29, 2004 - 14-
Exhibit K
payments results from an adequate Qwest commitment to meeting its responsibilities
to provide adequate wholesale service and to keeping open its local markets and (b)
the Commission shall have made that determination after providing all interested
parties an opportunity to be heard.
12.3 The provisions of 12.1 and 12.2 shall be in effect for the next 24 month
period commencing with the end of the 24 month period upon which the
Commission s order is based.
12.If the annual cap is reached, each CLEC shall , as of the end of the year, be
entitled to receive the same percentage of its total calculated Tier 1 payments.
order to preserve the operation of the annual cap, the percentage equalization shall
take place as follows:
12.1 The amount by which any month'total year-to-date Tier 1 and Tier 2
payments exceeds the cumulative monthly cap (defined as 1/12th of the annual cap
times the cumulative number of months to date) shall be calculated and apportioned
between Tier 1 and Tier 2 according to the percentage that each bore of total
payments for the year-to-date. The Tier 1 apportionment resulting of this calculation
shall be known as the "Tracking Account."
12.2 The Tier 1 apportionment shall be debited against the monthly payment due
to each CLEC, by applying to the year-to-date payments received by each the
percentage necessary to generate the required total Tier 1 amount.
12.3 The Tracking Amount shall be apportioned among all CLECs so as to provide
each with payments equal in percentage of its total year to date Tier 1 payment
calculations.
12.4 This calculation shall take place in the first month that the year-to-date total
Tier 1 and Tier 2 payments are expected to exceed the cumulative monthly cap and
for each month of that year thereafter. Qwest shall recover any debited amounts by
reducing payments due to any CLEC for that month and any succeeding months, as
necessary.
13.Limitations
13.The PAP shall not become available in the State unless and until Qwest
receives effective section 271 authority from the FCC for that State.
13.Qwest will not be liable for Tier 1 payments to CLEC in an FCC approvedstate until the Commission has approved an interconnection agreement between
CLEC and Qwest which adopts the provisions of this PAP.
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised , Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29,2004 - 15-
Exhibit K
13.Qwest shall not be obligated to make Tier 1 or Tier 2 payments for any
measurement if and to the extent that non-conformance for that measurement was
the result of any of the following: 1) with respect to performance measurements with
a benchmark standard , a Force Majeure event as defined in section 5.7 of the SGAT.
Qwest will provide notice of the occurrence of a Force Majeure event within 72 hours
of the time Qwest learns of the event or within a reasonable time frame that Qwest
should have learned of it; 2) an act or omission by a CLEC that is contrary to any of
its obligations under its interconnection agreement with Qwest or under federal or
state law; an act or omission by CLEC that is in bad faith. Examples of bad faith
conduct include, but are not limited to: unreasonably holding service orders and/or
applications
, "
dumping" orders or applications in unreasonably large batches
dumping" orders or applications at or near the close of a business day, on a Friday
evening or prior to a holiday, and failing to provide timely forecasts to Qwest for
services or facilities when such forecasts are explicitly required by the SGA T;
problems associated with third-party systems or equipment, which could not have
been avoided by Qwest in the exercise of reasonable diligence provided, however
that this third party exclusion will not be raised in the State more than three times
within a calendar year. If a Force Majeure event or other excusing event recognized
in this section merely suspends Qwest's ability to timely perform an activity subject to
a performance measurement that is an interval measure, the applicable time frame in
which Qwest's compliance with the parity or benchmark criterion is measured will be
extended on an hour-for-hour or day-for-day basis, as applicable , equal to the
duration of the excusing event.
13.1 Qwest will not be excused from Tier 1 or Tier 2 payments for any reason
except as described in Section 13.0. Qwest will have the burden of demonstrating
that its non-conformance with the performance measurement was excused on one of
the grounds described in this PAP. A party may petition the Commission to require
Qwestto deposit disputed payments into an escrow account when the requesting
party can show cause, such as grounds provided in the Uniform Commercial Code
for cases of commercial uncertainty.
13.Notwithstanding any other provision of section 13 of this QPAP, Qwest shall
not be excused for failing to provide such performance that Qwest could reasonably
have been expected to deliver assuming that it had designed , implemented, staffed
provisioned , and otherwise provided for resources reasonably required to meet
foreseeable volumes and patterns of demands upon its resources by CLECs.
13.Qwest's agreement to implement these enforcement terms, and specifically
its agreement to pay any "liquidated damages" or "assessments" hereunder, will not
be considered as an admission against interest or an admission of liability in any
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29,2004 - 16-
Exhibit K
legal , regulatory, or other proceeding relating in whole or in part to the same
performance.
13.CLEC may not use: 1) the existence of this enforcement plan; or 2) Qwest's
payment of Tier -1 "liquidated damages" or Tier 2 "assessments" as evidence that
Qwest has discriminated in the provision of any facilities or services under Sections
251 or 252 , or has violated any state or federal law or regulation. Qwest's conduct
underlying its performance measures however are not made inadmissible by its
terms.
13.2 By accepting this performance remedy plan CLEC agrees that Qwest's
performance with respect to this remedy plan may not be used as an admission of
liability or culpability for a violation of any state or federal law or regulation. (Nothing
herein is intended to preclude Qwest from introducing evidence of any Tier
liquidated damages" under these provisions for the purpose of offsetting the
payment against any other damages or payments a CLEC might recover.) The terms
of this paragraph do not apply to any proceeding before the Commission or the FCC
to determine whether Qwest has met or continues to meet the requirements of
section 271 of the Act.
13.By incorporating these liquidated damages terms into the PAP , Qwest and
CLEC accepting this PAP agree that proof of damages from any non-conforming
performance measurement would be difficult to ascertain and , therefore, liquidated
damages are a reasonable approximation of any contractual damages that may
result from a non-conforming performance measurement. Qwest and CLEC further
agree that Tier 1 payments made pursuant to this PAP are not intended to be a
penalty. The application of the assessments and damages provided for herein is not.
intended to foreclose other noncontractual legal and non-contractual regulatory
claims and remedies that may be available toa CLEO.
13.This PAP contains a comprehensive set of performance measurements
statistical methodologies, and payment mechanisms that are designed to function
together, and only together, as an integrated whole. To elect the PAP, CLEC must
adopt the PAP in its entirety, in its interconnection agreement with Qwest. By
electing remedies under the PAP , CLEC waives any causes of action based on a
contractual theory of liability, and any right of recovery under any other theory of
liability (including but not limited to a state utility regulatory commission or Federal
Communications Commission rule or order) to the extent such recovery is related to
harm compensable under a contractual theory of liability (even though it is sought
through a noncontractual claim, theory, or cause of action).
13.
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 17-
Exhibit K
If for any reason a CLEC agreeing to this QPAP is awarded compensation for the
same harm for which it received payment under the QPAP , the court or other
adjudicatory body hearing such a claim may offset the damages resulting from such
claim against payments made for the same harm.
13.Qwest shall not be liable for both Tier 2 payments under the PAP and
assessments, sanctions, or other payments for the same underlying activity or
omission pursuant to any Commission order or service quality rules.
13.Whenever a Qwest Tier 1 payment to an individual CLEC exceeds $3 million
in a month , Qwest may commence a proceeding to demonstrate why it should not be
required to pay any amount in excess of the $3 million. Upon timely commencement
of the proceeding, Qwest must pay the balance of payments owed in excess of $3
million into escrow, to be held by a third-party pending the outcome of the
proceeding. To invoke these escrow provisions, Qwest must file, not later than the
due date of the Tier 1 payments , its application. Qwest will have the burden of proof
to demonstrate why, under the circumstances, it would be unjust to require it to make
the payments in excess of $3 million. If Qwest reports non-conforming performanceto CLEC for three consecutive months on 200/0 or more of the measurements
reported to CLEC and has incurred no more than $1 million in liability to CLEC, then
CLEC may commence a similar proceeding. In any such proceeding CLEC will have
the burden of proof to demonstrate why, under the circumstances, justice requires
Qwest to make payments in excess of the amount calculated pursuant to the terms of
the PAP. The disputes identified in this section shall be resolved in a manner
specified in the Dispute Resolution section of the SGA T with the CLEC.
14.. Reporting
14.Upon receiving effective section 271 authority from the FCC for a state
Qwest will provide CLEC that has an approved interconnection agreement with
Qwest, a monthly report of Qwest's performance for the measurements identified in
the PAP by the last day of the month following the month for which performance
results are being reported. However Qwest shall have a grace period of five
business days, so that Qwest shall not be deemed out of compliance with its
reporting obligations before the expiration of the five business day grace period.
Qwest will collect , analyze, and report performance data for the measurements listed
on Attachment 1 in accordance with the most recent version of the PIDs. Upon
CLEC's request, data files of the CLEC's raw data, or any subset thereof, will be
transmitted, without charge, to CLEC in a mutually acceptable format, protocol , and
transmission medium.
14.Qwest will also provide the Commission a monthly report of aggregate CLEC
performance results pursuant to the PAP by the last day of the month following the
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised , Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 18-
Exhibit K
month for which performance results are being reported. However, Qwest shall have
a grace period of five business days , so that Qwest shall not be deemed out of
compliance with its reporting obligations before the expiration of the five business day
grace period. Individual CLEC reports of participating CLECs will also be available to
the Commission upon request. By accepting this PAP , CLEC consents to Qwest
providing CLEC's report and raw data to the State Commission. Pursuant to the
terms of an order of the Commission , Qwest may provide CLEC-specific data that
relates to the PAP, provided that Qwest shall first initiate any procedures necessary
to protect the confidentiality and to prevent the public release of the information
pending any applicable Commission procedures and further provided that Qwest
provides such notice as the Commission directs to the CLEC involved , in order to
allow it to prosecute such procedures to their completion. Data files of participating
CLEC raw data , or any subset thereof, will be transmitted, without charge, to the
Commission in a mutually acceptable format, protocol , and transmission form.
14.In the event Qwest does not provide CLEC and the Commission with a
monthly report by the last day of the month following the month for which
performance results are being reported , Qwest will pay to the State a total of $500 for
each business day for which performance reports are 6 to 10 business days past the
due date; $1 000 for each business day for which performance reports are 11 to 15
business days past the due date; and $2 000 for each business day for which
performance results are more than 15 business days past the due date. If reports
are on time but are missing performance results , Qwest will pay to the State a total of
one-fifth of the late report amount for each missing performance measurement
subject to a cap of the full late report amount. These amounts represent the total
payments for omitting performance measurements or missing any report deadlines
rather than a payment per report. Prior to the date of a payment for late reports
Qwest may file a request for a waiver of the payment, which states the reasons for
the waiver. The Commission may grant the waiver,. deny the waiver, or provide any
other relief that may be appropriate.
14.To the extent that Qwest recalculates payments made under this PAP , such
recalculation shall be limited to the preceding three years (measured from the later of
the provision of a monthly credit statement or payment due date). Qwest shall retain
sufficient records to demonstrate fully the basis for its calculations for long enough to
meet this potential recalculation obligation. CLEC verification or recalculation efforts
should be made reasonably contemporaneously with Qwest measurements. In any
event, Qwest shall maintain the records in a readily useable format for one year. For
the remaining two years, the records may be retained in archived format. Any
payment adjustments shall be subject to the interest rate provisions of section 11.
15.Integrated Audit Program/Investigations of Performance Results
Qwest Idaho SGA T Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29, 2004 - 19-
Exh i bit K
15.Audits of the PAP shall be conducted in a two-year cycle under the auspices
of the participating Commissions in accordance with a detailed audit plan developedby an independent auditor retained for a two-year period. The participating
Commissions shall select the independent auditor with input from Qwest and CLECs.
15.1 The participating Commissions shall form an oversight committee of
Commissioners who will choose the independent auditor and approve the audit plan.
Any disputes as to the choice of auditor or the scope of the audit shall be resolved
through a vote of the chairs of the participating commissions pursuant to Section
15.
15.2 The audit plan shall be conducted over two years. The audit plan will identifythe specific performance measurements to be audited , the specific tests to
conducted, and the entity to conduct them. The audit plan will give priority to auditing
the higher risk areas identified in the OSS report. The two-year cycle will examine
risks likely to exist across that period and the past history of testing, in order to
determine what combination of high and more moderate areas of risk should be
examined during the two-year cycle. The first year of a two-year cycle will
concentrate on areas most likely to require follow-up in the second year.
15.3 The audit plan shall be coordinated with other audit plans that may be
conducted by other state commissions so as to avoid duplication , shall not impede
Qwest's ability to comply with the other provisions of the PAP and should be of a
nature and scope that can be conducted in accordance with the reasonable course of
Qwest's business operations.
15.4 Any dispute arising out of the audit plan , the conduct of the audit, or audit
results shall be resolved by the oversight committee of Commissioners. Decisions of
the oversight committee of Commissioners may be appealed to a committee of the
chairs of the participating Commissions.
15.Qwest may make management processes more accurate or more efficient to
perform without sacrificing accuracy. These changes are at Qwest's discretion but
will be reported to the independent auditor in quarterly meetings in which the auditor
may ask questions about changes made in the Qwest measurement regimen. The
meetings, which will be limited to Qwest and the independent auditor, will permit an
independent assessment of the materiality and propriety of any Qwest changes
including, where necessary, testing of the change details by the independent auditor.
The information gathered by the independent auditor may be the basis for reports bythe independent auditor to the participating Commissions and, where the
Commissions deem it appropriate, to other participants.
15.In the event of a disagreement between Qwest and CLEC as to any issue
regarding the accuracy or integrity of data collected , generated , and reported
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised , Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 20-
Exhibit K
pursuant to the PAP, Qwest and the CLEC shall first consult with one another and
attempt in good faith to resolve the issue. If an issue is not resolved within 45 days
after a request for consultation , CLEC and Qwest may, upon a demonstration of good
cause , (e., evidence of material errors or discrepancies) request an independent
audit to be conducted , at the initiating party s expense. The independent auditor will
assess the need for an audit based upon whether there exists a material deficiency in
the data or whether there exists an issue not otherwise addressed by the audit plan
for the current cycle. The dispute resolution provision of section 18.0 is available to
any party questioning the independent auditor s decision to conduct or not conduct a
CLEC requested audit and the audit findings, should such an audit be conducted.
audit may not proceed until dispute resolution is completed. Audit findings willinclude: (a) general applicability of findings and conclusions (i.e., relevance to
CLECs or jurisdictions other than the ones causing test initiation), (b) magnitude of
any payment adjustments required and , (c) whether cost responsibility should be
shifted based upon the materiality and clarity of any Qwest non-conformance with
measurement requirements (no pre-determined variance is appropriate, but should
be based on the auditor s professional judgment). CLEC may not request an audit of
data more than three years from the later of the provision of a monthly credit
statement or payment due date.
15.Expenses for the audit of the PAP and any other related expenses , except
that which may be assigned under section 15.3, shall be paid first from the Tier 2
funds in the Special Fund. For Idaho , the remainder of the audit expenses will be
paid by Qwest.
15.Qwest will investigate any second consecutive Tier 2 miss to determine the
cause of the miss and to identify the action needed in order to meet the standard set
forth in the performance measurements. To the extent an investigation determines
that a CLEC was 'responsible in whole or in part for the Tier 2 missesi Qwest shall.
receive credit against future Tier 2 payments in an amount equal to the Tier 2
payments that should not have been made. The relevant portion of subsequent Tier
2 payments will not be owed until any responsible CLEC problems are corrected. For
the purposes of this sub-section , Tier 1 performance measurements that have not
been designated as Tier 2 will be aggregated and the aggregate results will be
investigated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
16.Reviews
16. 1 Every six (6) months, beginning six months after the effective date of section
271 approval by the FCC for the state of Idaho, Qwest, CLECs, or the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission may initiate a review of the performance measurements to
determine whether measurements should be added , deleted , or modified; whetherthe applicable benchmark standards should be modified or replaced by parity
standards; and whether to move a classification of a measurement to High, Medium
or Low, Tier 1 or Tier 2. The criterion for reclassification of a measurement shall be
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 21-
Exhibit K
whether the actual volume of data points was less or greater than anticipated.
Criteria for review of performance measurements, other than for possible
reclassification , shall be whether there exists an omission or failure to capture
intended performance, and whether there is duplication of another measurement. Any
disputes regarding adding, deleting, or modifying performance measurements shall
be resolved pursuant to a proceeding before the Commission and subject to judicial
review. No new performance measurements shall be added to this PAP that havenot been subject to observation as diagnostic measurements for a period of 6
months. Any changes made at the six-month review pursuant to this section shall
apply to and modify this agreement between Qwest and CLEC, subject to a stay,
modification or reversal upon appeal or judicial review.
16.Notwithstanding section 16., if any agreements on adding, modifying
or deleting performance measurements as permitted by section 16.1 are reachedbetween Qwest and CLECs participating in an industry Regional Oversight
Committee (ROC) PID administration forum , those agreements shall be incorporated
into the QPAP and modify the agreement between CLEC and Qwest at any time
those agreements are submitted to the Commission, whether before or after a six-
month review.
16.For the first twelve months that any changes made pursuant to paragraphs
16.1 or 16.1 are in effect, Qwest's liability for such changes shall be limited to 100
of the monthly payments that Qwest would have made absent the effect of such
changes as a whole. This provision shall be referred as "the 100/0 payment collar.
Such payment limitation shall be accomplished by factoring the payments resulting
from the changes to ensure that such payments remain within 10010 of the payments
Qwest would have made absent such changes.
. 16.In the event that the Commission adds, modifies, or reclassifies a
performance measurement that has not been agreed upon in the ROC PI D
administration forum process in 16., the 10010 payment collar shall remain in effect
unless removed by the Commission pursuant to this section. If, after a minimum of 6
months of payments to a CLEC , Qwest's payments have been limited by the 100/0
payment collar to 800/0 or less of what the total payments would have been absent
the collar for the preceding 6-month period , the Commission may, upon motion by an
affected CLEC , conduct a record proceeding to determine whether the 10010 payment
collar should be removed from any such performance measure. The Commission
can prospectively remove the 100/0 collar for Tier 1 payments to affected CLEC(s) for
any such performance measure upon a demonstration through a record proceeding
and a Commission determination that the total payments to the CLEC(s) under the
QPAP were inadequate to compensate CLEC(s) for actual harm incurred during the
same period and upon a determination that such change is otherwise necessary and
appropriate and in the public interest.
16.Two years after the effective date of the first FCC 271 approval of the PAP
the participating Commissions may conduct a joint review by a independent third
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised , Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 22-
Exhibit K
party to examine the continuing effectiveness of the PAP as a means of inducing
compliant performance. This review shall not be used to open the PAP generally to
amendment , but would serve to assist Commissions in determining existing
conditions and reporting to the FCC on the continuing adequacy of the PAP to serve
its intended functions. The expense of the reviews shall be paid from the Special
Fund.
16.Qwest will make the PAP available for CLEC interconnection agreements
until such time as Qwest eliminates its Section 272 affiliate. At that time, the
Commission and Qwest shall review the appropriateness of the PAP and whether its
continuation is necessary. However, in the event Qwest exits the interLA T A market
that State PAP shall be rescinded immediately.
17.Voluntary Performance Assurance Plan
This PAP represents Qwest's voluntary offer to provide performance assurance.
Nothing in the PAP or in any conclusion of non-conformance of Qwest's service
performance with the standards defined in the PAP shall be construed to be , of itself
non-conformance with the Act.
18.Dispute Resolution
For the purpose of resolving disputes over the meaning of the provisions of the PAP
and how they should be applied , the dispute resolution provisions of the SGA T
section 5., shall apply whether the CLEC uses the SGA T in its entirety or elects to
make the PAP part of its interconnection agreements (Le., the unique dispute
resolution provisions of interconnection agreements should not apply).
. .
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 23-
Exhibit K
Attachment 1: Tier 1 and Tier 2 Performance Measurements Subject to Per Occurrence
Payment
Performance Measurement Tier 1 Payments Tier 2 Payments
Low Med Low Med High
High
GATEWAY
Timely Outage Resolution GA-
PRE-ORDER/ORDERS
LSR Rejection Notice Interval PO-
Firm Order Confirmations On Time PO-
Work Completion Notification Timeliness PO-
Billing Completion Notification Timeliness PO- 70
Jeopardy Notice Interval PO-
Timely Jeopardy Notices PO-
Release Notifications PO-
(Expanded)Manual Service Order PO-20c
Accuracy
ORDERING AND PROVISIONING
Installation Commitments Met OP-
Installation Intervals OP-
New Service Quality OP-
Delayed Days OP-
Number Portability Timeliness OP-
Coordinated Cuts On Time -Unbundled OP-13a
Loops
LNP Disconnect Timeliness OP-
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
Out of Service Cleared within 24 hours MR-
All Troubles Cleared within 4 hours MR-
Mean time to Restore MR-
Repair Repeat Report Rate MR-
Trouble Rate MR-
LNP Trouble Reports Cleared within 24 MR-
Hours
LNP Trouble Reports-Mean Time MR-
Restore
BILLING
Time to Provide Recorded Usaqe Records BI-
Billing Accuracy-Adjustments for Errors BI-
Billinq Completeness BI-
NEnNORK PERFORMANCE
Trunk Blocking NI-
NXX Code Activation NP-
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29 2004 - 24-
Exhibit K
a. PO-3 is limited to PO-3a-, PO-3b-, and PO-3c.
b. PO-6 is included with PO-7 as two "families:" PO-6a/PO-7a and PO-6b/PO-7b. Measurements within
each family share a single payment opportunity with only the measurements with the highest payment being
paid.
c. For PO-, where CLEC order volumes are 1 - 20 , apply a benchmark standard of "not greater than one
order in error." Under this provision, no payment applies if there is only one order with an error. For each
phase beginning with Phase 1 , there will be no more than a 3 month measurement stabilization period for all
fields introduced in that phase. Additional fields are not subject to payments during the measurement
stabilization period. During the Phase 1 measurement stabilization period, measurement and payment will
continue for the original PO-20 as defined in Exhibit B
d. OP-4 is included with OP-6 as five "families:" OP-4aIOP-, OP-4b/OP-, OP-4c/OP-, OP-4d/OP-
, and OP-4eIOP-5. Measurements within each family share a single payment opportunity with only the
measurement with the highest payment being paid.
e. For purposes of the PAP, OP-6a and OP-6b will be combined and treated as one. The combined OP-
breaks down to OP-1 (within MSA), OP-2 (outside MSA), OP-3 (no dispatch), OP-4 (zone 1), and
OP-5 (zone 2).
Qwest Idaho SGA T Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29, 2004 - 25-
Exhibit K
Attachment 2: Performance Measurements Subject to Per Measurement Caps
Billing
Time to Provide Recorded Usage Records - BI-1 (Tier 1/Tier 2)
Billing Accuracy - Adjustments for Errors - BI-(Tier 1)
Billing Completeness - BI-(Tier 1/Tier 2)
Qwest Idaho SGAT Third Revised, Third Amended Exhibit K, June 29,2004 - 26-
Minutes
Long Term PID Administration Conference Call
(Minutes Provided by Qwest)
DaLt; & 'filIlt;ftrnrsrnrY7'Ec~Il'trei1~~2()ro-T15 ITL
- .
Purpose:
. --- -
- u
- -- .
u _- nu
To review two sample PIDs with a hyperlink
To address Proposal Numbers 13 and 33 on Volume Thresholds
To address Proposal Numbers 25-30 pertaining to Data Services, time
permitting
To review pending Action Items
Nancy
Lubamersky
Eschelon Ray Smith Qwest Dean Buhler
Covad Megan Doberneck Qwest Kathy Haile
MCI Chad Warner Qwest Patricia Emigh
US Link Jennifer Arnold Qwest Duane Cooke
John Epley CO PUC Qwest Barb Brohl
IA Utilities Board . Penny Baker Qwest Tom Kowal
ill PUC Wayne Hart Qwest Char Mahs
MT Consumer Mary Wright Qwest Todd Staebell
Council
MN PUC Ganesh Krishnan Qwest Dave Phillips
ND PSC Pat Fahn Qwest John Hayat
NM PRC Mike Ripperger Qwest Nancy Tangeman
SD PUC Harlan Best Qwest Tim Francis
UT Div. of Public J oni Zenger Qwest Paul Diamond
Utilities
WY PUC Mike Korber
Sample PIns with a Hyperlink: On the adhoc call on December 11 that
addressed the Action Item concerning the proposed deletion of the
parenthetic reference to the "I" and "T" action coded line USOCs in
several Pills, AT&T proposed using a hyperlink for the Inward Activity
definition. Qwest reviewed two sample Pills (OP-3 and PO-IS) with such
a hyperlink. Parties agreed to the use ofhyperlinks to Definition of Terms
in the Pill. The question arose whether all defined terms in the Definition
of Terms should be hyperlinked.
Resolution: Qwest will propose a list of terms which are
generally more Qwest-specific to be hyperlinked and will
distribute the list in the first week in January.
ATTACHMENT
Issues 13 and 33: Qwest clarified its proposal that it distributed on
12/12/03 by restating the two thresholds that it is proposing: (1) when
new installations of a product grow to 500 at a CLEC-aggregate level, 14-s~aslswithln 6 months or (?) w;~e_em~aseJor
product reaches 1000 at a CLEC-aggregate level, 14-statewide basis, over
any period of time, whichever occurs first. In response to Qwest's
proposal, some of the CLECs summarized their position, which was
distributed on 12/17/03 , stating that Qwest should disaggregate all
products that are offered to CLECs and, as a result, that Qwest should
provide a list of all products not already disaggregated in the monthly
perfonnance results along with their associated volumes. Qwest
requested a list of products that the CLECs would like to have reported.
After much discussion, the parties focused on x-DSL-I capable loops.
Resolution: These issues remain open. Qwest will identify
whether x-DSL-I capable loops are included in the PO, OP, and
MR Pills and will provide the volumes in service. This
infonnation will be provided to help resolve Issue 32 where
inclusion of these loops in various Pills is requested. Qwest will
also provide a "reference aid" identifying infonnation such as
which Pills include all LSRs, which ones include electronic LSRs
by interface or which PIDs include only products specified in the
Disaggregation Reporting section of the definition.
In response to a CLEC' s question about whether some historical
data could be reported once a volume threshold is reached and
reporting has begun, Qwest agreed to research the capability of its
data warehouse to support this request, focusing specifically on
line splitting.
Issue 25, including line splitting as a separate product in the PIns
where line sharing is separately reported (PO-5, OP-3, OP-, OP-
OP-6, OP-15, MR-3, MR-4, MR-6, MR-7, and MR-8): Qwest stated its
willingness to report line splitting in these Pills because it met Qwest'
Volume Threshold proposal. It was noted that line splitting is already a
separate category in the new OP-5 where reporting will start in January
2004 with November 2003 results.
Resolution: Qwest will separately report line splitting in OP-, 4
, 6, 15, MR-, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Line Splitting will be reported in the
(b) product group of Unbundled Loops and specified UNEs for
PO-5. (After the call Qwest identified that line splitting is already
included in PO-5 (b) as is line sharing. J It was agreed that line
splitting will be placed just prior to the line sharing in the Product
Reporting section of the appropriate Pills.
Qwest will detennine how quickly the reporting of line splitting
perfonnance can begin and whether prior months ' results can also
be included.
Issue 26, including loop splitting as a separate product in PO-5, OP-
OP-4, OP-5, OP-, OP-15, MR-3, MR-, MR-6, MR-7, and MR-
PIDs: Qwest declined to separately report loop splitting at this time since
no CLEC...h~~ Qn~lQop-spli1tlne: c.on~p.qllentlY,-_nQJ()()p splittingJin~is.
In servIce.
Resolution: The issue remains open. MCI and Covad will discuss
this issue offline and may offer an alternative proposal.
-- - . .- .- - .
Issue 27, set a standard for line sharing and line splitting where
diagnostic is listed for the OP-5, OP-6, and OP-15 PIDs:
For OP-, the CLECs requested that a parity standard with either
Qwest DSL or retail Residence and Business POTs be established
for line sharing. Qwest agreed to take this proposal back for
consideration. The same request was made for line splitting and
Qwest stated per prior PID negotiations that a diagnostic standard
should be used for the first 6 months when reporting a new product
to allow time to fine tune operational and reporting processes and
to build a performance record on which a standard may then be set.
For OP-, the CLECs requested that a parity standard with Qwest
DSL be established for line sharing and line splitting. Qwest
replied that the standard for OP-I5 is diagnostic for all products
and should remain so, including line sharing and line splitting.
For OP-, the CLECs requested the same parity standard be set
for line splitting as was established for line sharing. As with the
other requests, Qwest stated that the standard for line splitting
should be diagnostic for the first 6 months. With the reporting of
the new OP-5 to start in January 2004 with November 2003 results
the parties agreed that OP-SB for line sharing will remain
diagnostic for the first 6 months of reporting. OP-5R is to be
diagnostic for all products for the first six months after which a
standard, yet to be determined, may be possible. OP-5T is to
remain diagnostic for all products.
Resolution: The issue remains open. Qwest will return with its
position on specific line sharing and line splitting standards and its
implementation schedule for reporting the line splitting results.
Clarification of the Scope of L TP A:
To clarify the scope of the LTPA discussions, John Kern clarified
that Qwest's compliance with the rIDs was not within scope.
Status of Pending Action Items:
The Inclusion of the Revised OP-S in the Minnesota Wholesale
Service Quality Plan The revised OP-5 is in effect in the
Minnesota SGA T. Qwest is in the process of requesting the
, .
Commission to take notice of the revised OP-5 in the Wholesale
Service Quality Plan.
Filing of the Redlined Adminstrative Clean-up of the PID with
Qwest's SGAT Filing in Early January to Put into Effect the
Administrative Changes. Correct PQ-16 and Deal with the GA-1 m
Issues: The parties agreed to the filing and agreed to include the
deletion of shared loop from the PID in the redlined changes. The
proposed deletion of the parenthetic reference to the "I" and "
action coded line USOCs in several PIDs was approved subj ect to
Ray Smith's concurrence. He will provide approval to Nancy
Lubamersky.
Eschelon s Proposal for Issue14b Distributed 12/17/03: John Kern
will add the consideration of Eschelon s proposed redlined PIDs
for MR-, MR-, MR-, MR-, MR- 7, MR-, MR-9 and the
Definition of Terms to the Issues Matrix.
Reporting of Trouble Tickets to the Call Center within 72 Hours of
Order Completion Qwest has begun the analysis of this process
and underlying documentation. This will be considered again
when the other changes to the M&R measurements are discussed.
Inclusion of PAP Reference on Introduction Page i of PID
document:Qwest proposed the following sentence be used:
Individual state performance assurance plans may specify and
apply state specific variations from the Performance Measurement
Definitions and/or standards contained herein." The parties
tentatively agreed to the use of this sentence; however, if a party
objects after considering the above sentence, they will contact
Qwest by January 5th.
Potential.Face-to-Face Meeting: Since the L TP A will not meet the next
two weeks and a number of issues still remain to be addressed, John Kern
asked the parties to consider a one or two day face-to-face meeting in a
location to be determined between late January and mid-February. This
issue will be revisited in early January.
New Action Items:
John Kern will distribute the next agenda and an updated Master Issues
Matrix.
Qwest will:
Propose a list of terms from the Definition of Terms which are
generally more Qwest-specific to be hyperlinked in the first week
in January.
Identify which PIDs include x-DSL-I capable loops and provide
the volumes in service. Provide a "reference aid" identifying
information such as which PIDs include all LSRs, which ones
include electronic LSRs by interface or which PIDs include only
products specified in the Disaggregation Reporting section of the
definition.
Provide its position on the specific line sharing and line splitting
parity standards and its implementation schedule for reporting line
~lilli!!gLe~l.!ll~Landi1~_~bjlitytQ_~rior months results Wh~l1_
beginning to report a new disaggregation.
Covad and MCI may offer an alternative proposal for Issue 26, the
inclusion of loop splitting as a separately reported product in various Pills.
Next Meetin2:
January 8 2004, at 1 p.m. M.
Conference bridge: 1-877-552-8688 pass code 3381262#
- - u n -
- .
Minutes
Long Term PID Administration Conference Call
(Minutes Provided by Qwest)
Date & Time: Thursday, January 15 2004, 1 p.m. M.
Purpose (L TP A participants had not received the agenda sent January 11 th from
John Kern. It was re-sent at the beginning of the meeting.
To address Issue lOa, change phrase "of receipt" to "that Qwest is first
notified of the trouble by CLEC" for MR-, MR-, MR-, and MR-
To address Issue 10b, delete the phrase "indicated as" from MR-3 and
MR-
To address Issue 22, adopt Arizona version ofPO-19 region-wide
To address Qwest's response to Issue 27, standards for line sharing and
line splitting for OP-6 and OP-
To address Issue 31 , adopt Colorado EEL standards for PO-, OP-, OP-
OP-, OP-, MR-, MR-, MR-, and MR-
To review the following pending Action Items:
Proposed L TP A Web Site
Issue 3 , MCI's response to wording change in formula for BI-
Issue 32, Eschelon and Qwest x-DSL-I volume discrepancy
To address the two day face-to-face meeting
Nancy
Lubamersky
ill PUC.Wayne Hart Qwest DeanBuhler
AT&T Joe Bloss Qwest Kathy Haile
Covad Megan Dobemeck Qwest Patricia Emigh
Eschelon Ray Smith Qwest Duane Cooke
MCI Chad Wamer Qwest Barb Brohl
U SLink Rod Cox Qwest Todd Staebell
IA Utilities Board Penny Baker Qwest T om Kowal
MN DOC Sue Pierce Qwest Char Mahs
MT PUC Kate Whitney Qwest Barry Orre!
MT PU C Tina Shorten Qwest Dave Phillips
OR PUC Irv Emmons Qwest Nancy Tangeman
UT Div. of Public J oni Zenger Qwest Tim Francis
Utilities
W A UTC Tom Spinks Qwest John Hayat
WY PUC Mike Korber Qwest Paul Diamond
Qwest Cindi Houston
A TT ACHMENT 2
Issue lOb, delete the phrase "indicated as" from MR-3 and MR-
Qwest agreed to the deletion of the "indicated as" phrase.
Resolution: Issue closed.
Issue lOa, change phrase "of receipt" to "that Qwest is first notified of
the trouble by CLEC" for MR-3, MR-, MR-, and MR-6: Qwest
agreed to the language change with the understanding that the clock starts
on trouble reports when, with all the required information available, the
repair ticket is created. The CLECs reiterated their concern that the time
from when a trouble is reported to the Call Center to the time when a
repair trouble report is created is not captured in the M & R measures.
Qwest provided October 2003 data showing that after service order
completion less than 1 % of the CLEC repair troubles involve the CLECs
first calling the Call Center, the Call Center being unable to resolve the
problem, and then being referred to Repair, resulting in an average elapsed
time of one hour. The data also showed that after a service order
completes, the CLECs predominantly submit a repair ticket through
CEMR or call the Repair Center. In these latter situations and assuming
all the required field information is provided, a repair ticket is created and
all such time is captured in the M & R Pills. Qwest also stated it sent a
CMP notice to the CLECs that Qwest is reducing the time after service
order completion that a CLEC is encouraged to contact the Call Center
with a trouble from 72 hours to 24 hours. Eschelon requested adding the
average one hour timeframe to the M & R Pills. Qwest stated its
unwillingness to do so reiterating that the CLEC always has the option to
contact the Repair Center directly or submit a trouble report through
CEMR, which is how the CLECs are predominantly reporting troubles
after service order completion.
In response to a question about how Qwest measures repair time for its
retail customers, Qwest stated that when a Qwest end user contacts the
Business Office about a new service problem, the Business Office can
often solve the problem. If the Business Office needs to refer the trouble
to repair, the clock starts when the trouble report is created. For both end
users and CLECs the time interval for repair is calculated the same way.
A CLEC expressed concern about what happens to the M & R
measurements if the gateway for submitting repair trouble reports is
experiencing unscheduled down time. Qwest stated that gateway
availability has not been an issue and is captured in the applicable
Gateway Pills, not in the M & R Pills.
Resolution: The CLECs will review this issue and the data
presented above with their internal experts. If a CLEC finds
discrepancies between its data and Qwest', it should discuss this
off-line with Qwest. This issue will be discussed further at a later
date.
Issue 22, adopt Arizona version of PO-19 region-wide: PO-
measures the Stand-Alone Test Environment (SATE). The Arizona
version has two sub-measures while the version for the other 13 states
only has one. The Arizona version arose out of the Arizona 271 test and a
recommendation from the vendor. Qwest is publishing the results for all
14 states in its monthly perfonnance results report per discussions it had
with the FCC Wire line Bureau. The additional submeasure measures the
extent that SATE mirrors production by measuring the percentage of
transactions that produce comparable results in SATE and the production
environment. The region-wide standard would be 95%, the same as for
Arizona.
Resolution: The CLECs will review this issue with their internal
experts. It will be discussed further on the January 22 call.
Issue 27, standards for line sharing and line splitting for OP-6 and
OP-15: As agreed upon for Issue 29 on the January gtli call, discussions
on standards for line splitting will begin after the February report with 5
months of data comes out. With respect to line sharing, Qwest stated that
in response to Covad's request, Qwest is willing to adopt a standard of
Parity with retail Qwest DSL" for OP-6. Qwest stated that, since all
standards within OP-15 are diagnostic, the line sharing standard should
remain diagnostic but Qwest would be willing to add "(Expectation:
Parity with retail Qwest DSL)." In response to a question about when the
Qwest DSL standard for OP-6 would be reported, Qwest stated that the
standard would be part of the next SGA T Exhibit B Pill filing targeted for
the early part of April, effective in the June timeframe, and then with the
reporting starting in July with the June performance report.
Resolution: The CLECs agreed on using Qwest DSL for the OP-
standards. The CLECs will review with their internal experts
Qwest's proposal for OP-15.
Issue 31, adopt Colorado EEL standards for PO-5, OP-3, OP-4, OP-
OP-6, MR-5, MR-6, MR-7, and MR-8: Qwest stated its willingness to
adopt the current Colorado EEL standards with the understanding that the
TRO network modification requirements may impact multiple Pills and
product reporting, including the current Colorado EEL standards and these
Pills. Qwest does not yet know the full impact of these TRO
requirements on its business processes and performance requirements.
Qwest requested the CLECs share any information or documentation they
may have on the subject. In response to a question about when these EEL
standards would be reflected in the PAP reporting, Qwest stated that the
April Exhibit B Pill filing must first occur and become effective.
Resolution: Issue closed but the Issues Matrix should reflect that
this issue may need to be re-opened as the impact of the TRO
network modification requirements is better understood, especially
Pending Action Items:
L TP A Web Site: Qwest reviewed the proposed L TP A web site.
The test URL sent out to the participants turned out to be
inaccessible to parties external to Qwest. Qwest provided screen
shots of each of the proposed 7 screens. Qwest reviewed each
screen with the parties, requesting feedback if the web site
included what was desired or whether it included too much.
Feedback was especially requested about when individual Pills
and the 14-State Pill documents should appear on the Draft Pill
screen versus the Agreed Upon Pill screen. The web site will have
a URL that the parties will have to access directly and will be
unavailable through navigation or browsing on the Web.
Resolution: The parties will review the screen shots and
provide their input on next week's call. The parties should
contact Duane Cooke directly with any technical questions.
Issue 3, changing formula language in BI-3A: MCI agrees with
the proposed language change.
Resolution: Issue closed.
Issue 32 action item, reconciliation of x-DSL-I volumes: When
Qwest and Eschelon examined their respective x-DSL-I volumes
for the same time periods, their numbers were essentially the same.
New Action Items:
on the Colorado EEL standards. Qwest was invited to provide a
new issue relating to the TRO network modifications.
Other Items:
0 Face-to- Face Meeting: Qwest stated that it had conflicts with the
mid-February dates. John Kern recommended that the parties
continue going through the issues on the weekli conference calls.
Then in a two-day face-to-face meeting in March the parties will
address any outstanding open issues and detennine which issues, if
any, will be going to impasse. John Kern asked the parties to
submit their availability for such a meeting in the first two weeks
of March excluding March 3rd and the weekends. Qwest will
provide an audio bridge for those parties who cannot attend the
meeting in person.
Contract Extension: Because the first three months of billings by
John Kern have totaled well under half of the 6-month $50 000
cap, if the State Commissions want to, his contract can be extended
into April 2004. That would allow extra time after the March in-
person meeting to complete any impasse issues as well as complete
the all-inclusive SGAT Exhibit B filings.
John Kern will distribute the next agenda and an updated Master Issues
Matrix by noon on Monday, January 19. If parties do not receive the
agenda and matrix by then, please notify John Kern.
Qwest will provide a new issue relating to the TRO network modification
requirements impacting the Pills and the product reporting.
The CLECs will:
Review the Call Center infonnation presented above by Qwest in
Issue 10a.
Review the PO-19 infonnation presented above by Qwest in Issue
22 for further discussion on January 22.
Review internally Qwest's proposal for the line sharing OP-
standard presented above in Issue 27.
The parties will:
Review the proposed LTPA Web Site screen shots for further
discussion on January 22.
Provide to John Kern their availability within the first two weeks
of March excluding March 3rd to attend a two-day face-to-face
meeting in Denver.
Next Meetin2:
January 22, 2004, at 1 p.m. M.
Conference bridge: 1-877-552-8688 pass code 3381262#
Revised Minutes
Long Term PID Administration Conference Call
(Minutes Provided by Qwest)
Date & Tinte ~c1mm:ry~~n~4;-"t-p~nr
- ____
Purpose:
To address the following issues:
Issue 8, Qwest's response to CLECs ' Line Loss Pill proposal
Issue 11 , Qwest' s response to CLECs ' proposal for benchmark
standards for OP-3 and OP-
Issue 12, CLECs ' response to Qwest's proposal to add OP-
exclusion language for non-Qwest reasons to OP-, OP-, and OP-
Issue 15, CLECs' response to Qwest's proposal to adopt region-
wide the Arizona benchmarks for the 9th and 10th pre-order
transactions in PO-
To address the following pending action items:
Issue 10a, CLECs ' response to Qwest's position on measuring
trouble tickets for MR-, MR-, MR-, and MR-
Issues 13 and 33 , Qwest's response to CLECs' alternate new
product reporting proposal
LTPA Facilitator John Kern OR PUC Irv Emmons
ill PUC Wayne Hart SD PUC Harlan Best
AT&T Joe Bloss UT Div. of Public Joni Zenger
Utilities
Covad Megan Doberneck W A UTC Tom Spinks
Eschelon Ray Smith WY PUC Mike Korber
McLeodUSA Julia Redmond-Qwest Nancy
Carter Lub am ersky
MCI Chad Wamer Qwest Dean Buhler
MCI Liz Balvin Qwest Kathy Haile
US Link Jennifer Arnold Qwest Patricia Emigh
USLink Rod Cox Qwest Duane Cooke
CO PUC John Epley Qwest Char Mahs
IAUB Penny Baker Qwest Todd Staebell
IAUB Cecil Wright Qwest Dave Phillips
MT PSC Kate Whitney Qwest Nancy Tangeman
NM PRC Mike Ripperger Qwest John Hayat
Qwest Tim Francis
New Issues:
TT ACHMENT 3
Issue 8, Qwest's response to CLECs ' Line Loss PID proposal: Qwest
reviewed and expanded upon its written position in response to the
CLECs ' Line Loss Pill proposal. Qwest pointed out that not all RBOCs
have a Line Loss Pill; BellSouth does not. The same major issues were
Iais~d~t pOl nted-ol lLtb.e refl~ons that..Bcl1South
believed the responsibility of notifying lines lost resided with the
Customer and the local carrier, not BellSouth. Additionally, Qwest
pointed out that the Line Loss Pill provided to Qwest with its four sub-
measures goes well beyond the Line Loss Pills in place with other
RBOCs.
In response to CLEC CMP requests, Qwest shared that it has implemented
two major system improvements in its line loss notification process.
both June and September 2003 it put new edits into its service order
processor improving the ability to process the line loss notification
electronically. On December 8, 2003, with IMA Release 14., it
implemented a new line loss notification capability with near real-time
notification via the IMA-EDI and IMA-GUI interfaces, rearchitected for
stability and reduced the time from service order completion to
availability of the line loss notification from up to 24 hours to two hours or
less.
At the CMP meeting held January 27 2003 , which addressed line loss
notification, the parties acknowledged the progress with the system
improvements and focused on process concerns resulting from errors that
occur due to manual handling of an order. Qwest stated that it invoked
quality control measures. The next CMP meeting is on February 19 2004
and will continue the discussion. As a result, Qwest proposed that the
subject of a Line Loss PID be deferred to the February 26~ 2004, L TP A
meeting (1) to allow time for Qwest to evaluate the stability of the new
system capability and to address the process issues with CMP and (2) to
allow the CLECs to evaluate and provide input about the new system
capability and the steps Qwest has taken to improve the manual handling
of service orders.
A CLEC stated that the CLECs are to only receive external losses (those
lines lost to another provider) via the line loss notification and not the
internal losses (those lines that stayed with the CLEC but changed local
service products). As a result of the manual handling of some of the
orders, the CLEC pointed out that the wrong DCR code is sometimes
placed on the order resulting in an internal loss being reported to the
CLEC as a loss or an external loss not being reported at all. The latter
case can cause the CLEC to continue billing the customer.
The CLECs asked if Qwest could quantify the frequency of the incorrect
code being assigned in order to evaluate how large the process problem
may be. CLECs stated that Qwest should put controls in place prior to
service order completion to address the manual errors and should consider
auditing its wholesale billing to ensure double billing is not occurring.
CLECs stated that the most critical issuewi1h line los&llotiflCatLonR does
not involve timeliness of line loss notification but with line losses not
being sent or being mis-reported.
John Kern suggested that the CLECs try to validate the system and process
improvements and determine if modifications to the CLEC Pill proposal
are indicated. He stated that any process problems resulting from the
validation should continue to be addressed via the CMP.
Resolution: The issue remains open and will be revisited on
February 26 2004 after the continued process discussion occurs in
the February 19, 2004, CMP meeting. The CLECs will begin
validating the system and process improvements. Qwest will
continue its process improvement steps and provide data on the
frequency of incorrect DCR -coded orders.
Issue 11 , Qwest's response to CLECs' proposal for benchmark
standards for OP-3 and OP-4: Eschelon explained that when
developing the EEL standards in Colorado, the difference in the standard
interval for loops between retail and wholesale was identified. Eschelon
also stated its belief that when retail missed its DS 1 interval, Qwest
waives the NRC. No such remedy applies to wholesale DS 1 loops.
Eschelon stated that for these reasons the appropriate standard is a
benchmark. Qwest stated other remedy provisions apply on the wholesale
side but that in any case that does not go to whether commitments are met
or missed which is,thepurpose ofOP,-3. As for OP-3 having different.
standards for retail and wholesale, that is not what is being measured. The
measurement is, rather, whether the interval for each is met or missed and
the parity with the analog of retail DS 1 private line is an appropriate
standard. Qwest stated that it could be argued Qwest is in fact working to
its disadvantage since there was a shorter time frame within which to meet
the wholesale due date than to meet the retail due date.
USLink stated it generally favors a benchmark over a parity standards for
Pills and that these Pills are no exception.
Qwest stated that in all 14 states the standard interval for retail DS 1 loops
is 9 days. For wholesale DS1 capable loops, seven states have an interval
of 5 days and seven states have an interval of 9 days. The interval
generally varies by loop volume ordered for retail and wholesale. In
considering the standard for OP-, Qwest asked whether the parties could
ever envision situations whereby the standard interval for the same
product between wholesale and retail should differ because of some
inherent difference in the ordering or provisioning process.
A conversation ensued in which the need for a new issue was identified to
addre~Jh~jJ~si~_~nFhi~L12-arity and benc~be -
applied. Qwest stated that some PID standards might be more reasonably
set as benchmarks in certain instances because benchmarks provide a
steady objective. CLECs agreed that such a discussion would be valuable.
This issue also may result in benchmark standards in other rIDs.
- --. -
- u
-- -
Because of the differences in the standard intervals for different volumes
of loops, the parties discussed how a benchmark should be established.
Eschelon stated its belief that the benchmark should be equal to the
applicable interval stated in the SIG. Qwest stated that this was tantamount
to having a benchmark of 100% and that that was unreasonable. Eschelon
stated that Qwest is not correct because each order completed earlier than
the due date allows Qwest to "miss" the SIG guidelines on another so that
Qwest can still meet the standard. CLECs were asked to propose a more
specific benchmark proposal.
Resolution: The issue remains open. Eschelon, USLink, and any
other interested CLEC will develop a proposal for benchmark
standards for OP-3 and OP-4 for Qwest to consider. Qwest will
provide DS 1 capable loop interval data for Zone 1 and Zone 2 and
if available, broken down by volumes ordered. Qwest will provide
an update on the data availability on the February 5 2004, call.
Qwest will frame another issue for L TP A consideration on the
assignment of benchmarks and parity as performance measurement
standards.
Issue 12, CLECs' response to Qwest's proposal to add OP-3 exclusion
language for non-Qwest reasons to OP-, OP-6, and OP-15: Qwest
stated that to improve the consistency of the exclusion-type of language
among the OP-, OP-, OP6, and OP-I5 rIDs, it is proposing to use the
exclusion language in OP-3 (see the redlined rIDs provided with the
initial Master Issues Matrix in November 2003). Qwest is not proposing a
change in how the results are calculated; it is simply proposing that the
PID state what is currently happening. For the intervals being measured in
OP-, OP-, and OP-, the proposed language addition is to state in
various sections of the PID that the time being excluded is also for non-
Qwest reasons, Weather, Disaster, and Work Stoppage. These rIDs
already state that time for customer-caused delays is excluded. The
language addition simply makes clearer how the rIDs were implemented
and audited.
In response to a question about why the language is needed in light of the
Force Majeure language in the PAPs, Qwest stated that the rIDs are
measurements of performance and do not address payment of penalties.
Consequently, they do not always reach Force Majeure significance.
Qwest pointed out that the excluded data is readily available upon CLEC
request.
- -. -
A CLEC questioned whether non-Qwest reasons would affect both retail
and wholesale similarly. Qwest stated that may not always be true
dependent upon the circumstances associated with the specific non-Qwest
reason.
CLECs requested (1) three or four specific examples of occurrences of
non-Qwest reasons, (2) the frequency of these occurrences, and (3)
comparisons of the OP-, OP-, and OP-15 results with the non-Qwest
reasons included and excluded from the results.
Resolution: The issue remains open. The data will be reviewed on
the February 5 2004, LTPA call.
Issue 15, CLECs' response to Qwest's proposal to adopt region-wide
the Arizona benchmarks for the 9th and 10th pre-order transactions in
PO-I: Qwest stated as part of the Arizona test, the TAG met in May 2002
and agreed to the benchmark standards in PO-1 of 25 seconds for the 9th
pre-order transaction, Connecting Facilities Assignment, and 30 seconds
for the 10th pre-order transaction, Meet Point Inquiry. In the merged PO-
l Pill, these benchmarks were stated for Arizona only and "TBD" was the
listed standard for the other 13 states. Qwest has provided a redlined Pill
with the initial Master Issues Matrix which shows the Arizona standards
for all 14 states.
Resolution: The parties agreed with the proposal. The issue is
closed.
Pending Action Items:
Issue lOa, CLECs' response to Qwest's position on measuring trouble
tickets for MR-3, MR-4, MR-5, and MR-6: Qwest sent out additional
information pertaining to the number of New Service Quality calls to the
ISC which result in repair trouble reports. Using the average
September and November figures, the ISC received a total of 35 950 New
Service Quality reports. After its initial research, the ISC advised the
CLEC to contact repair for only 41 (.12%) of these reports. Only 20
06%) of these 41 reports resulted in a repair trouble report. In addition
Qwest performed a manual study of October and November 2003 tickets
to quantify the interval between the time a CLEC contacts the ISC to the
time the ISC advises the CLEC to contact repair. The average time for the
two months was 55 minutes. Based on this data and the proposed change
to 24 hours after service order completion that Qwest recommends a
CLEC contact the ISC with a trouble, Qwest does not support the CLEC
proposal to change the manner in which the repair interval is calculated.
Other Items:
Resolution: The issue remains open pending Eschelon reviewing
the additional information with its internal experts. Eschelon will
contact John Kern if the issue can be closed.
Issues 13 and 33
,-
est's res~Cs~_aUeJ:naje_uew pIorlJ!~l
reporting proposal: In response to Qwest providing its clarifying
questions to the CLECs, the CLECs provided their reply. Qwest asked if
putting aside product issues that arise from the regulatory environment
the parties could agree on volume thresholds for products that have very
low volumes. Covad stated it needed to discuss that possibility with MCI
and Eschelon but its initial reaction was the concern of committing to a
one size fits all" approach without knowing what might happen in the
future. Covad stated that there might be specific scenarios where it would
agree to a volume threshold but Qwest would need to bring forth a specific
proposal. Covad stated that product volumes and growth are not
necessarily indicative of the importance of a product to a CLEC. Covad
stated that relative to its proposed product reporting process its primary
concern is for current CLEC requests for new product reporting. Covad
asked how likely it would be that for a product having very low volumes
and extremely low current order activity, CLECs would ask for the
product to be reported in the performance results.
- -- - -- - -
In discussing the CLECs ' proposal for setting of standards for newly
reported products, Covad stated that it does not rule out the possibility of a
diagnostic standard but does not agree that it would last for 6 months.
Eschelon gave the example of the new OP-5B diagnostic standard as a
case where the CLECs agreed to a diagnostic standard during an initial
reporting period. Both Qwest and the CLECs stated that instances may
arise where a standard needs to be changed~ .
Resolution: The issue remains open. Qwest will re-examine its
volume threshold proposal for the February 12, 2004, call.
Format of PID Reports: AT &T raised the issue of replacing or
enhancing the PDF format of the monthly Performance Result reports so
that the data could be more easily accessed by the CLECs. MCI and
USLink also concurred in the request. Qwest stated that it has already
started looking at the options.
Resolution: The issue will be added to the Master Issues Matrix.
Qwest will provide an update on the February 12, 2004, call.
New Action Items:
John Kern will distribute the next agenda and an updated Master Issues
Matrix by noon on Monday, February 2nd
Qwest will:
Continue the CMP process pertaining to line loss notifications and
provide data on the frequency of incorrect DCR -coded orders.
(Issue 8)
Provide DS 1 capable loop interval data for Zone 1 and Zone 2 and
if available, volume QX~~gQ~~~.J-!~date on av~il~J:rilitY_Qf1i~JQ_
be provided on February 5, 2004, call. (Issue 11)
Frame an issue on the use of benchmarks and parity as
perfonnance measurement standards.
Provide for the February 5 , 2004, call (1) some examples of
occurrences of non-Qwest examples (2) the frequency of these
occurrences, and (3) comparisons of the OP-, OP-, and OP-
results with the non-Qwest reasons included and excluded from the
results. (Issue 12)
Re-examine its volume threshold proposal for discussion on
February 12, 2004. (Issues 13 and 33)
Provide an update on February 12, 2004, about enhancing or
replacing the PDF fonnat of the monthly Pill reports.
The CLECs will begin validating the Line Loss Notification system and
process improvements. (Issue 8)
Eschelon, USLink, and any other interested CLEC will develop a proposal
for benchmark standards for OP-3 and OP-4. (Issue 11)
Eschelon to review the Qwest data on ISC New Service Quality reports
resulting in a repair trouble report and report to John Kern whether Issue
10a can be closed.
Next Meetin2:
February 5 , 2004, at 1 p.m. M.
Conference bridge: 1-877-552-8688 pass code 3381262#
- --- -- - _
Minutes
Long Term PID Administration Conference Call
(Minutes Provided by Qwest)
. . . . .. ~ . ... . .. , .~. . .
Date & Time: Thursday, February 19, 2004, 1 p.m. M.
Purpose:
To address the following issues:
Issue 14a, status of US Link's request to establish sub-loop
standards
Issue 34, Qwest's response to Eschelon s proposal to discuss Tier
Designations
Issue 36, Qwest's response to Eschelon s proposal to modify Pills
for batch hot cuts
Issues 16, status by Qwest of data availability for UNE- P Centrex
21 and Line Sharing
To address the following pending action items from the February 12
2004, call:
Issue 9, Qwest' s update on coding issues for MR -
Issue 12, Qwest's report on providing exclusion data for OP-, OP-
, and OP-
Issues 13 and 33, CLECs' response to Qwest's counterproposal on
Volume Thresholds
Issue 23, Qwest's response to CLEC's counterproposal regarding
the PO-20 proposed benchmark
L TP A Facilitator John Kern SD PUC Harlan Best
ill PUC Wayne Hart UT Div. of Public J oni Zenger
Utilities
AT&T Joe Bloss W A UTC Tom Spinks
Covad Megan Doberneck WY PUC Mike Korber
Eschelon Ray Smith Qwest Nancy
Lubamersky
McLeod USA Julia Redman-Dean Buhler
Carter
MCI Chad Wamer Qwest Kathy Haile
US Link Rod Cox Qwest Patricia Emigh
US Link Jennifer Arnold Qwest Duane Cooke
CO PUC John Epley Qwest Barb Brohl
IAUB Dennis Rosauer Qwest Char Mahs
MN PUC Ganesh Krishnan Qwest Barry Orrel
MT PSC Kate Whitney Qwest Dave Phillips
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues:
Issue 14a, status of USLink's request to establish sub-loop standards:
USLink contacted Qwest about this issue and they agreed to defer this
issue to the next L TP A cycle.
(y-
R'C~6 htti68 'fhc--tsstic--1~c-~s f:;'fP,;ccyck-Mld-wtH-bc
addressed in the next one.
Issue 34, Qwest's response to Eschelon s proposal to discuss Tier
Designations: Eschelon provided its proposal on establishing Tier
Designations earlier in the week. Qwest commented that the proposal
only addressed PO-20. Eschelon stated the parties should discuss PAP tier
designations in this forum to avoid the need to address them with each of
the 14 state commissions. Since the BI-5 and Line Loss proposed rIDs
are not ready for PAP tier discussions, Eschelon s proposal specifically
addressed tier designations for PO-20. Qwest stated that only rIDs should
be addressed in the L TP A. Qwest expressed that, since tier designations
vary among the 14 states, it would like to finish this L TP A cycle, make the
required Exhibit B and Exhibit K filings, and revisit PAP tier designations
after all the state commissions finish their review of these filings.
Eschelon stated that it recognizes that variances exist among the 14-state
PAPs and its proposal is intended to not accentuate the variances. It stated
that when discussing new rIDs, it believes there is enough "common
ground" among the parties to minimize the differences among the states.
MCI and several state commission staffs also stated that it would be more
efficient to discuss the PAP issues in the L TP A than dealing with them
separately with the 14 state commissions. Tom Spinks from the
Washington PU C staff stated that it was Washington s understanding,
when it decided to support the LTPA, that PAP issues would be discussed'
in the L TP A forum. Qwest stated a concern with this approach since some
of the local or state-specific CLECs that have been quite vocal on PAP
issues in the state commission proceedings do not participate in the L TP A.
One of the CLECs stated that addressing PAP issues in a collaborative
forum works quite well in the SBC-Midwest region. Qwest stated that it
would review this issue with its Public Policy people.
John Kern stated that when PAP issues are being addressed it will be
important to invite those state commissions that are not active in the L TP A
to attend. He also stated that it will be important that each state provide a
notice to the CLECs. Qwest requested that the state commission staff
people on the call discuss this issue with their colleagues.
John Kern pointed out that the LTPA web site would be a good resource to
provide infonnation on a specific issue with PAP implications for those
CLECs that are not very active in the L TP A forum.
Qwest stated that it would be convening an ad hoc meeting to address PAP
issues for PO-, a Pill which was unique in its development from other
Pills.
Resolution: This issue remains open and will be addressed on the
F~afY
~;--
Qw-es-t-wi-lt-fEwi~w- th~ftt)tie-iftt;af-fegi-eftal
~--- .
CLECs with Public Policy. State commission staffs will discuss
this issue with their colleagues.
Issue 36, Qwest's response to Eschelon s proposal to modify PIDs for
batch hot cuts: Qwest discussed with its internal experts the status of the
development of the batch hot cut process. Qwest stated that a couple of
activities are still under way: (1) in the states, hearings will address
disputed issues arising out of the collaborative forum, which could result
in substantial changes to the batch hot cut process and (2) CMP is
continuing to address issues associated with important areas of the system
functionality which will likely be finalized no earlier than April. Qwest
recommended that this issue be addressed when the process is sufficiently
defined.
The CLECs concurred with Qwest that the batch hot cut process area is
still in a state of flux and recommended that batch hot cuts be addressed
with a high priority in the next L TP A or sooner if the process definition is
completed in advance.
John Kern stated that, based on the parties' input , this issue should be
deferred to the next 6-month LTPA cycle or addressed in ad hoc meetings
if the batch hot cut process is defined earlier.
Resolution: The issue is closed for this L TP A cycle.
Issues 16, status by Qwest of data availability for UNE-P Centrex 21
and Line Sharing: Qwest stated that it does not have Pill quality
historical flow-through-eligible data for its UNE-P (Centrex 21) or Line
Sharing products. In November 2003 , when Qwest submitted this issue for
L TP A consideration, it had not undertaken the development work required
to begin reporting. Qwest does not do the coding for a Pill issue until the
parties reach agreement. The historical flow-through-related data cannot
distinguish between line sharing and line splitting because, although line
sharing is flow-through-eligible, line splitting is not. Qwest stated that it is
inappropriate to look at the historical data until the full Pill development
has occurred, and importantly has been validated to be accurate. Qwest
continued that it should go forward with full development, assuming the
LTPA's agreement on Qwest's proposal, with June 2004 results being
reported in July. Qwest stated that the parties should then use this data to
set a standard. Qwest also stated that the establishment of a standard is
partially dependent on the resolution of Issues 13 and 33, Volume
Thresholds/New Product Reporting.
One CLEC asked if Qwest could look at the historical data for the line
sharing/line splitting category prior to when line splitting was included in
the category. Qwest reiterated its concern that the data has not been.v~-t~ellswI'~-t~he ~ef-:f&RDQBS8 r8~a:1l~ it~ ~8i:tFate antle~ .
.. -
- u
free.
One CLEC stated that, in the CMP process, Qwest told the CLECs that it
had an internal benchmark for flow-through-eligibility for Centrex 21 that
was in the 90% range (see September 2003 CMP meeting minutes). The
CLEC stated that the benchmark should be the same as for UNE- P POTs
and that Qwest's current proposal adds a lot of delay to when the parties
could discuss setting a standard.
Resolution: The issue remains open. Qwest will investigate the
material from the CMP meeting. The issue will be readdressed on
the February 26th call.
Pending Action Items:
Issue 9, Qwest's update on coding issues for MR- 7: Qwest requested
L TP A agreement to proceed with its forward-looking proposal for MR -
Qwest stated that because of the specialization required to code MR
measures versus PO measures, there are different development teams
addressing changes to MR measures and PO measures; therefore, there is
no resource contention between these two areas.
Based on the discussion from the February 12th call, one CLEC asked
what the relationship is between MR-7 and MR-8. Qwest replied that
having MR- 7 be forward-looking would assist its network experts to
. identify and fix problems concerning the health of the overall network
thereby improving MR -
One CLEC stated that, while Qwest can go forward quickly with
implementing its MR- 7 proposal, it expressed concern regarding the
development time related to other PIDs that the CLECs want. Qwest
responded that, while resources are scarce across the industry, including
with Qwest, its development cycles are typically shorter than other
RBOCs, which take at least 4 months to implement PID changes, with 3-
months for disaggregations and 4-9 months for new PIDs.
In response to John Kern s prioritization question, Qwest stated that it
does not prioritize its own PID change work over that of the CLECs
' .
One CLEC stated that it could agree to close this issue if Qwest could
respond to its specific concerns about the implementation of Phase 3 of
PO-20. The parties discussed the CLEC's concerns, reaching agreement
on that item. (See PO-20 discussion below.) The CLECs then agreed
with Qwest's MR- 7 forward-looking proposal.
Resolution: The issue is closed.
Issuc t-Z Qwest's leport Oft Pl()~fttill~ exchrsimntata-fol 6~~;n _
and OP-15: Qwest is proposing to take its OP-3 exclusion and update the
language in OP-, OP-6 and OP-15. In response to the CLECs' request
for some data, Qwest sent out its data yesterday.
Qwest reviewed the data it had provided relating to the subtraction of time
due to non-Qwest reasons. Since the data represented completed orders
the data pertains to OP-4 and OP-6. The data does not address OP-
since that Pill addresses pending orders. Qwest provided 10 examples
region-wide: 2 for wholesale and 8 for retail. All of the examples address
service order delays that had an association to severe weather. Qwest
stated that it is unable to provide a comparison of Pill results with and
without the exclusions because (1) the 10 instances were a sampling of
January data, (2) the January performance results are not yet available and
(3) to do so requires a significant use of resources. For low volume
products the parity could change but the exclusions would likely not
impact the results of higher-volume products. Regardless of the
quantitative impact, Qwest stated that the Pills are focusing on Qwest
perf~rmance and, therefore, subtractions of time for non-Qwest reasons
are valid.
One CLEC stated that for PAP purposes provisions exist to deal with these
kinds of events. It continued that the Pill is supposed to show actual
performance, regardless of these kinds of events. It provided an example
where Qwest took an additional 27 days to complete an order that was
delayed for a severe winter weather event. It felt the delay was too long
and Qwest should have the burden to show that a delay is appropriate.
Qwest responded that only the weather-related time would be excluded.
That time associated with items under its control would be captured in a
Pill.
John Kern asked whether weather events come under the Force Maj eure
provisions. Qwest replied that a number of events do not rise to that level.
It gave the example where the road was closed in Montana, preventing the
installer from reaching the premises.
When a CLEC stated that the Pills are not impacted by these performance
anomalies, Qwest stated that with low volume product categories the
results could be affected. The CLEC stated that Qwest could potentially
abuse the use of the exclusion. It continued that Qwest should report what
it actually did. Qwest responded that performance results are intended to
reflect Qwest's perfonnance and that including delays outside of Qwest'
control renders the results inaccurate.
One CLEC stated that it was not prepared to approve this proposal.
state&-tftM--s-iRee-o-~o-P-~-primarily-me parity ~e~e
events should impact both wholesale and retail equally, thereby not
needing the exclusion. Qwest stated that if these events generally affected
a large area, that might be the case; however, many of these events are
very localized. Qwest stated that these exclusions are no different in
principle from customer-initiated delays which are excluded from the
Pills.
John Kern recommended that Qwest collect data going forward and bring
the issue back to the L TP A in the next session.
Resolution: The issue is closed for this LTPA cycle, leaving the
existing Pills language as is. Qwest may collect data for February
through April 2004 to support it position in the next L TP A cycle.
Issues 13 and 33, CLECs' response to Qwest's counterproposal on
Volume Thresholds: From the February lih call, the CLECs were to
review Qwest's counterproposal and contact Qwest if they were interested
in pursuing it further.
Covad stated that it has some questions that it would like to discuss with
Qwest prior to the next call. The other CLECs had no input at this time
and would prefer to discuss this issue after Qwest and Covad have their
discussions.
Resolution: The issue remains open. Covad and Qwest will
discuss Covad's questions off-line.
Issues 23, Qwest's response to CLEC's counterproposal regarding the
PO-20 proposed benchmark: In response to a CLEC asking for specific
dates for implementation of Phase 3 which contain a majority of the
blocking requirements, Qwest responded that it has a finn commitment to
fund that phase. It has defined the requirements and is now detennining
the amount of coding hours required. Once it identifies the extent of the
resources required, it will address where the project will fit into the
prioritization schedule. In response to Qwest's question on what it would
take for Eschelon to close this concern, Eschelon requested that (1) Qwest
provide a monthly status on the progress of implementing its blocking
requirements by end of first quarter 2005 with a target date of December
2004 and (2) the proposed Pill be amended to reflect that time frame.
Qwest agreed to provide both items.
In response to the CLECs ' proposal on tier designations for the proposed
PO-, Qwest proposed a separate call to discuss PO-20 and discuss PAP
issues. While Qwest stated that it reserves the right not to discuss PAP
issues in the L TP A, it is willing to address PO-20 PAP process issues in a
multi-state collaborative forum separate from the LTP A because of the
unique history associated with PO-20. Qwest recounted it voluntarily~e existing Pe-*~cltssionsw~e'titiling thc-n
~271 approval process. It is a region-wide measurement and is included in
the PAP of some states. Under the proposed PO-, each state will
require changes in the Exhibit K of its SGAT.
All the CLECs agreed to such a meeting. One CLEC recommended that a
notice be sent about the meeting to all the CLECs operating in the region.
In response to the suggestion that the L TP A distribution list be used for
such a notice, Qwest stated that it would investigate that possibility.
At the parties' request, Qwest agreed to provide infonnation on the PAP
issue and a notice of the meeting prior to the meeting date.
Resolution: The issue remains open. Qwest will provide (1) a
monthly status on Qwest's progress on addressing the CLECs
blocking requirements by end of first quarter 2005 with a target
date of December 2004 and (2) the proposed Pill amended to
reflect these time frames. The ad hoc call is scheduled for March
1 st at 11 a.m. MS T. Qwest will provide infonnation and notice no
later than the morning of February 26th
New Action Items:
John Kern will distribute the next agenda and an updated Master Issues
Matrix by noon on Monday, February 23rd
Qwest will:
Review the noticing of regional CLECs.(Issue 34)
Investigate the material from the CMP meeting. (Issue 16)
Provide (1) a monthly status on Qwest's progress on addressing the
CLECs' blocking requirements by end of first quarter 2005 with a
target date of December 2004 and (2) the proposed Pill amended
to reflect these time frames. (Issue 23)
Explore the possibility of using the L TP A list to notice CLECs
about the ad hoc PO-20 meeting. (Issue 23)
Provide infonnation and notice of the PO-20 PAP issues no later
than the morning of February 26th . (Issue 23)
Covad and Qwest will discuss Covad's questions about Qwest'
counterproposal on volume thresholds/new product reporting off-line prior
to the February 26th LTP A call. (Issues 13 and 33)
State commission staffs will discuss noticing regional CLECs with their
colleagues. (Issue 34)
Next Meetin2:
February 26, 2004, at 1 p.m. M.
Conference bridge: 1-877-552-8688 pass code 3381262#
- --
- n .
---- -. _- -
Minutes
Long Term PID Administration Denver Meeting
(Minutes Provided by Qwest)
Date & T;IIlC -, 2004;a-=III:
- - - _- _
n -
Friday, March 12, 2004, 8:30 a.m. M.
To address the following issues:
Issue 8, Line Loss
Issue 5, BI-3A Proposals
Issues 4 and 6, BI-5 Proposals
Issue 17, PO-2 Diagnostic if Standard Met for OP-3 and OP-
Issues 13, 33, 16, 26, 32, Volume Threshold and related PIDs
concerning reporting
Issues 23, 24 and 34, PO-20 and Tier Designations
Issues 27, 28, 29, and 30, standards for line splitting and loop
splitting
Issue 11 , benchmark for OP-4 DS-l Capable Loops
Next steps
Purpose:
Attendees in Denver:
LTPA Facilitator
CO PUC
NM PRC
UT Diy. of Public
Utilities
W A UTC
Covad
Eschelon
MCI
Qwest
Qwest
John Kern
John Epley
Mike Ripperger
Jonathon Lee
T om Spinks
Megan Doberneck
Ray Smith
Chad Warner
Cherie Axelrod
Dean Buhler
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Barb Brohl
Char Mahs
Kathy Haile
Duane Cooke
Pat Emigh
Barry Orrel
Dave Phillips
Issues:
Attendees on Audio Bridge:AZ CC Richard BoylesIA DB Penny Baker
ill PUC Wayne Hart
MN DOC.Susan Peirce
MT PSC
OR PUC
SD PUC
W A UTC
WY PUC
McLeod USA
Kate Whitney
Irv Emmons
Harlan Best
Rebecca Beaton
Mike Korber
Julia Redman-
Carter
Rod Cox
elmifer Arnold
ATTACHMENTS
Issue 8, Line Loss: Qwest reviewed the description of the process it used
to perform the Line Loss Accuracy study, which it had distributed earlier
in the week. Although it showed that Qwest achieved a 99.250/0 accuracy
rate in reporting line losses, Qwest further examined the misses thatsu~-.5~error ra~ % o(1he error rat~m
was for notices that were not sent and 0.64% were for internal loss notices
that should not have been sent. Qwest stated that overall the results are
excellent, supporting Qwest's position that a Line Loss PID is not needed.
During the discussion, Qwest stated a number of points. First, just
because a performance area can be measured does not mean that it should
be measured. Qwest stated that the CLECs have not provided any data to
indicate a problem exists. Qwest continued that the Pills arose in the
various workshops for areas that were important to the CLECs where
Qwest had demonstrable performance problems and needed to meet its
nondiscrimination obligations. Second, Qwest stated that with the
implementation of the line loss system enhancements and process
improvements, most of which arose out of the CMP, the CLECs should
evaluate these changes and if ongoing problems arise, bring them forward
for further discussion; however, based on the current evidence, the need
for a line loss PID is not supported. Third, line loss notices are only
provided for those products for which the CLEC subscribed via the IT
Help Desk. Fourth, not all RBOCs have a line loss PID in place and none
have one as onerous as the one the CLECs have proposed.
The CLECs made a number of statements. First, the CLECs stated that to
avoid the over-billing of end users who have switched to another CLEC
they need the line loss notice for UNE- P and resale products because the
CLEC has no other reliable way of knowing about the customer loss.
Second, they stated that a new PID is appropriate for a performance area
that has material impact to CLECs' businesses and does not require
evidence that a problem exists. Third, inaccurate line loss notification is a
problem throughout the industry and involves considerable research to
resolve a customer s double-billing complaint. Fourth, with partnership
arrangements, the partner (usually the DLEC), which is not the partner of
record, is especially vulnerable to the double-billing of an end user
without a line loss notification first going to its partner. Fifth, line loss
notification is more of a problem now with customers changing their
carrier more often. Sixth, the CLECs are unable to fully evaluate Qwest's
study data because it is too soon to know the extent of the missing line
loss notices for the study s time frame. Lastly, one CLEC requested the
study data be recalculated excluding the unbundled loop category because
line loss notices are only critical for UNE-P and Resale. It had calculated
its individual accuracy rates excluding unbundled loops to be for each
week: 72.%, 87.9%, 75.3%, 82.4%,81.9%, and 93.8%.
On March 12, Qwest presented its recalculated study data excluding
unbundled loops. For the studied entities, the overall line loss accuracy
rate decreased minimally, from 99.25% to 99.24%.
Status: CLECs are to provide data to Qwest on their line loss
problems by March 19. 2004. Owestreau~C~_
include with their data, the time frame covered, the products
impacted, and the system and products to which the CLECs
subscribed for line loss notification via the IT Help Desk. The
issue will be discussed further on the March 25th call.
-- _
Issues 4 and 6, BI -5 Proposal: In response to the CLECs' proposal to add
subpart BI-5C (CLEC-challenged resolutions) and BI-5R (repeated billing
claims), Qwest stated that the sub-measures are unnecessary. Qwest
recommended that the parties finish defining BI-5A and BI-, proceed
with the system and process changes, begin performance reporting, and
allow the results to speak for themselves. Under the CLECs ' proposal
Qwest stated that it would be held accountable for the sub-measure
performance but the CLECs determine the results. It also stated that Pills
are not meant to address operational problems. Qwest stated it will bring
to CMP the billing dispute process including the use of a standard form for
submitting the claim and the transmission of more complete, accurate, and
clearer resolutions. Through CMP, the CLECs and Qwest can agree to the
necessary process changes to support the proposed Pill and address the
process issues that underlie the CLECs' proposal for the 5C and 5R
subparts. Qwest stated it is uncertain how long it will take CMP to
address the billing claims issues but it expected that it will require a level
4 notice which takes the longest. If changes arise in CMP that are
inconsistent with the proposed PID, the PID will need to be re-addressed.
However, Qwest emphasized that CMP addresses the business processes
and the L TP A addresses the performance measurements and
representatives of the two forums will need to communicate with each
other.
The CLECs, in supporting their proposed sub-measures, stated that BI-
is little more than a stroke tally of resolutions that Qwest provides within
the 28 days and does not address the clarity, completeness, or accuracy of
the resolution. They stated that 5C goes more towards the quality of the
resolution. They stated that the current resolutions are often unclear as to
whether they are statuses or final resolutions, are incomplete in providing
the reason for denying or denying in part a claim, and occasionally are
changed after further consideration by Qwest. For resolutions that are
denying a claim because of a cost docket, one CLEC highlighted the need
for better information such as the docket number and the implementation
date. The CLECs also stated that, even though Qwest might grant the
billing dispute, it does not necessarily fix the problem in the billing system
which causes the CLECs to submit the same type of claim in succeeding
months, which is the performance area 5R would address. While the
CLECs agreed that CMP needs to address the billing dispute process, they
expressed concern that the efforts of CMP and the proposed Pill could get
out of synchronization.
When the meeting reconvened on March 12t , Qwest reviewed proposedPill language changes that addressed improving the quality of the dispute
resolutions, the details of which CMP will address.
Qwest also proposed that the proposed Pill be reported at a CLEC-
aggregate and not at a CLEC-specific level. Qwest stated that the existing
BI-5 is reported only at the CLEC-aggregate level and that no CLEC has
requested that it be reported at a CLEC-specific level. The CLECs stated
a willingness to consider the Pill being reported at the CLEC-aggregate
only if they had access to their ad hoc data with the Pill-defined
numerator and denominator also being available with the data.
Status: The issues will be addressed further on the March 18th
call. Qwest will confirm with its CMP reps that they will be
addressing in detail the business processes needed to implement
BI-5A and BI-5B including improved dispute resolutions. Qwest
will research its capability to provide the numerator and
denominator figures with a CLEC's ad hoc data. The CLECs will
(1) review the revised PID language to determine if it is sufficient
and (2) consider CLEC-aggregate reporting if they can obtain their
ad hoc data with the numerator and denominator figures.
Issue 5, CLECs ' BI-3A Proposal: Qwest stated that its BI-3A results are
good but occasional dips in performance occur and Qwest has not yet been
, able to identify atrend in the data or any underlying performance problem.
It stated that when high volumes are being measured as with this Pill, a
deviation can be considered statistically significant but not impact the
CLECs' ability to compete. Qwest stated that the FCC concurs with this
statement. Qwest proposed redoubling its efforts in analyzing the BI-
data and would be looking at additional product granularity. It stated that
the results from this analysis should assist the CLECs and Qwest to
determine (1) what factors are at play, (2) whether they relate to
performance, data, process or measurement issues, and (3) what
modifications should be made to the Pill.
Qwest stated that until the analysis was completed, it is premature to adopt
the CLECs' proposed PID modifications because no data yet exists to
confirm that these modifications would address any existing factors.
In response to the CLECs, Qwest stated that it was unwilling to report the
data on an informal basis at the disaggregated level of the CLECs
proposal because (1) it would divert resources from its analysis of the
existing Pro and (2) it would be using reporting resources on
modifications that are not yet shown to be needed.
Also in response to the CLECs, Qwest stated that it would research
collocation examples that the CLECs nrovid~ngs. -
Qwest also stated that it would be willing to look at collocation data but
was not willing to agree that collocation would be added to BI-
The CLECs stated that problems exist with BI-3A considering that over
$100 million has been credited back on CLEC bills. The CLECs
maintained that their proposal with the diagnostic standards is meant to
identify problems, which may result in the need for CMP to address
process changes. They also expressed a concern that the study would not
address their specific concerns with a number of products including
collocation.
With respect to the CLECs' proposal to use a 6-month rolling average in
the denominator of the calculation, Qwest stated that this modification to
the Pro should await the results of its proposed in-depth analysis to
detennine what the issues are. Qwest stated that the reasons for any
lumpiness in the data may result from the "bunching" of disputes by
CLECs or the implementation of cost dockets.
The CLECs stated that using the 6-month rolling average would address
the "lumpiness" issue regardless of whether the underlying factors result
from Qwest or CLEC actions and would avoid any "gaming" of PAP
payments. They recommended implementing it now and modifying later
if indicated by the study results. The CLECs stated a concern that this
issue was raised in a Colorado Commission proceeding where Qwest said.
that it would address the issue but so far it appears that nothing has been
done. The CLECs continued that the study could continue on, resulting in
no definitive action occurring to resolve this issue in a reasonable time
frame.
Status: Qwest will undertake an analysis that will include
additional product granularity. Qwest will detennine the
availability of additional product-specific data that can be shared
with the CLECs. The parties declared an impasse on the use of the
6-month rolling average issue.
Issue 17, PO-2B Diagnostic if Standard Met for OP-3 and OP-8: In
support of its proposal, Qwest stated that no evidence exists that links the
flow-through level with a negative impact on the CLECs' ability to
compete. In FCC proceedings no direct causal link has been shown
between flow-through rates and customer impact and, therefore, flow-
through rates have dropped in importance with the FCC. Qwest stated that
when PO-2B was established, there was a lack of accountability for
service order accuracy but since then OP-5B captures some manual
service order errors and the proposed PO-20 addresses this issue. Qwest
stated that regardless of this proposal Qwest will continue to improve its
flow-through rate because of a number of benefits including the significant
cost reductions from the decrease in handling manual service orders. -
- ----- -- -----
Qwest stated that having one Pill's standard dependent on another Pill'
results is not unique in that the standard for MR -11 is diagnostic when
OP-17 meets its standard.
The CLECs stated their concerns. First, changing the standard for PO-2 to
diagnostic effectively removes it from the PAP. The CLECs stated that
this issue should first be addressed with the state commissions. Second
the CLECs are hanned as long as they need to continue with their quality
control steps to review manual service orders prior to the due date, which
they state will probably continue through implementation of Phase 4 of
PO-20 because 2/3 of the service order errors pertain to blocking and due
dates. Third, adopting this proposal removes the incentive for Qwest to
increase its flow-through rate. The CLECs stated that their position is that
this proposal is premature since the proposed PO-20 has not yet been
implemented. The CLECs had varying opinions about which phase of
PO-20 needed to be implemented before considering this proposal again.
Resolution: Qwest withdrew its proposal. Qwest may re-
introduce the proposal after PO-20 - Phase 2 implementation.
Issues 13, 33, 16, 26, 32, Volume Threshold and related PIDs
concerning reporting: Qwest stated that, as a result of some
reorganization changes, its executive management was reviewing the
. volume threshold process and discussing issues related toil. It stated that
it needs to continue the internal dialogue and is not in a position to resolve
these issues in this 2-day meeting.
The CLECs expressed their disappointment on not being able to resolve
these issues in this meeting. Considering they wanted to discuss each new
product request on an individual basis, they stated that it had been a major
concession on their part to discuss a process and now they feel that the
L TP A session may conclude without any agreement on these issues. The
CLECs continued that they needed the reporting of loop splitting and
xDSL- I to be addressed in this L TP A session.
Status: Qwest will address on the March 25th conference call what
it is willing to do with respect to reporting loop splitting and
xDSL- I capable unbundled loops.
Issues 23, 24 and 34, PQ-20 and Tier Designations: Qwest stated its
concern about Eschelon s Minnesota filing that addressed PO-20 and
recommended the 99% benchmark in the absence of letting the L TP A
process reach completion.
John Kern put forth for consideration an alternate sliding scale benchmark~ementsJ:ion sc~hases: 97% (o
Phase 1 , 95% for Phase 2, and 93% for Phase 3. Qwest expressed its
willingness to go forward but with a caveat of a diagnostic bum-in period
for each phase of 3 months.
The CLECs were opposed to the declining sliding scale proposal stating
that a 7% error rate is too high. They continued that as each phase is
implemented, the error rate should significantly decrease and their
proposed 99% benchmark should be easily attainable.
Upon reconvening on March 12th a number of sliding scale options were
discussed, none of which allowed the parties to reach agreement.
Resolution: The parties declared an impasse on the benchmark
Issue.
Issues 27, 28, 29, and 30, standards for line splitting and loop
splitting: The CLECs had distributed their proposed line splitting
standards earlier in the week. Qwest responded that for PO-5 the parties
had previously agreed on that standard. Qwest also agreed to the CLECs
proposed standards for OP-6 (Parity with retail Qwest DSL) and OP-
(Diagnostic (Expectation: Parity with retail Qwest DSL)). For the line
splitting standard in the other measures, Qwest expressed concern about
the extremely low volumes which result in Qwest not meeting the standard
with only 1 miss. Qwest proposed a low volume caveat that permitted
one free miss
~"
for volumes less than or equal to 20, similar to what is
stated in MR-ll.
In response to a question from a CLEC, Tom Spinks from the Washington
Commission staff stated that the "Low Volume, Emerging Markets
provision in some of the PAPs only apply to certain services.
For OP-, Qwest clarified that the 3.15 days standard is not effective in
Colorado but is under formal reconsideration. After stating its
disagreement with the 3.15 standard, Qwest countered with different
standards for the three OP-4 sub-measures to reflect the significant volume
differences. The CLECs did not support this proposal stating that it is
unprecedented and because potential discrimination among CLECs might
exist due to the different focus on urban and rural areas that a CLEC can
have.
For OP-5A and the MR Pills, Qwest countered that the proper parity
measure is Qwest DSL and not Res and Bus POTs, reciting the similarities
Schedules:
in the processes used. One CLEC questioned why the line splitting
standard should be parity with Qwest DSL when the line sharing standard
is parity with Res and Bus POTs for all the MR rIDs except MR- 7 (which
has a line sharing parity standard with retail Qwest DSL). Qwestresponded that initially these services were processed thro!!gh the
igned services process but that they have now migrated to the non-
designed services process. Therefore, retail Qwest DSL is the better parity
standard.
In response to the CLECs ' statement that switching to a parity standard
with Qwest DSL is of concern since generally Qwest DSL perfonnance is
lower than the Res and Bus POTs perfonnance, Qwest stated that the
parity standard should be with that product which best aligns with line
splitting, not the product that establishes the higher perfonnance standard.
The CLECs asked Qwest if the perfonnance difference between Qwest
DSL and Res and Bus POTs could be attributed to ISP service issues
being included in the Qwest DSL results. The CLECs stated that to the
extent ISP service issues are included in Qwest DSL results and are not
included in the CLECs' line splitting results , the more comparable
standard may be Res and Bus POTs. Qwest countered that the appropriate
retail analogue is the one that uses processes similar to those used for line
splitting, which would be Qwest DSL. The POTs processes differ
considerable from those used for line splitting.
Resolution: The parties will discuss this issue further on the
March 2Sth call. The parties agree on the CLECs' proposed
standards for PO-, OP-, Or-, and MR- 7. For OP-3 Qwest will
agree to a 9S% standard if the CLECs agree to the low volume
caveat of "one free miss" for volumes less than or equal to 20. For
OP-, the CLECs will consider a 3.3 days standard with the low
volume caveat. For Or-SA and the other MR rIDs, the CLECs
will consider using Qwest DSL as the parity standard after
reviewing Qwest DSL results with the ISP issues removed. The
CLECs are also considering the low volume caveat for Or-SA.
Issue 11, benchmarks for OP-3 and OP-4 DS-l Capable Loops: Prior
to the meeting, the CLECs agreed to Qwest's proposal for OP-4 and
withdrew their proposal for OP-
Impasse Issues:
April 2, 2004: CLECs and Qwest submit separate position papers
on BI-3A and PO-
April 12 2004: John Kern s recommendations due
April 20, 2004: State staff recommendations due
The state commission staffs will discuss whether a reply cycle
should be inserted within the schedule
Redlined PID:
April 2, 2004: Qwest to circulate the PID document with all the
agreed-upon revisions redlined
pril 9, 2004: CLECs to respond with any issues on an "excemion
only basis" via e-mail with silence being concurrence
May 1 , 2004: Date by which Qwest will make its Exhibit B filing
with each state commission absent any open issues arising from
CLEC feedback
New Action Items:
John Kern will distribute the next agenda and an updated Master Issues
Matrix by noon on March 15th
Qwest will:
Address the BI-5 items addressed in Issues 4 and 6 above
Undertake an analysis for BI-3A that will include additional
product granularity and will detennine the availability of additional
product-specific data that can be shared with the CLECs (Issue 5)
Address on the March 25th conference call what it is willing to do
about reporting loop splitting and xDSL- I (Issues 26 and 32)
. Will consider the line splitting items in Issues 27-30 above
The CLECs:
May provide data to Qwest on their line loss problems by March
, 2004 (Issue 8)
Will address the BI-5 items addressed in Issues 4 and 6 above
Will consider the line splitting items in Issues 27-30 above
LTPA Change Recommendations:
May 1 , 2004: Parties to distribute to the L TP A list their comments
and recommendations about changes to the L TP A process
Benchmark/Parity White Papers:
May 15 2004: White papers due on the appropriate criteria for
setting a benchmark versus a parity standard
Next Meetin2:
March 18 2004, at 1 p.m. M.
Conference bridge: 1-877-552-8688 pass code 3381262#
Minutes
Long Term PID Administration Conference Call
(Minutes Provided by Qwest)
Date & Time: Thursday, March 25, 2004, 1 p.m. M.
Purpose:
To address the following issues:
Issue 8 , line loss notifications, continued discussions on line loss
notices
Issues 13, 33 , 26, 32 , and 16: volume threshold/new product
reporting process, reporting for loop splitting and xDSL-, and
standards for UNE- P and line sharing in PO-
Issues 29 and 30, lines splitting standards
Issues 4 and 6, BI-
L TP A Facilitator
ill PUC
AT&T
Covad
Eschelon
Eschelon
MCI
US Link
US Link
IAUB
IAUB
MN DOC
MN PUC
UT PUC
Issues:
John Kern
Wayne Hart
Joe Bloss
Megan Doberneck
Ray Smith
Bonnie Johnson
Chad Warner
Rod Cox
Jennifer Arnold
Penny Baker
Cecil Wright
Sue Peirce
Ganesh Krishnan
J oni Zenger
WY PUC
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Mike Korber
Cherie Axelrod
Dean Buhler
Kathy Haile
Duane Cooke
Pat Emigh
Barb Brohl
Char Mahs
Barry Orrel
LatirelBuike
Nancy Tangeman
Todd Staebell
Dave Phillips
Paul Diamond
Issue 8, line loss notifications, continued discussions on line loss
notices: The discussion focused on a number of areas. First, John Kern
stated that the CLECs were to validate their own line loss data. One
CLEC stated that it was fairly close to Qwest's timeliness figures which
dipped into the 800/0 range for notifications provided within 1 business
day. Qwest clarified that it had provided results for a timeliness study that
showed for the IMA system 93 % of the notifications in the study were
provided in 80 minutes or less and 100% were provided in less than 3
hours. Qwest continued that it also conducted an accuracy study of line
TT ACHMENT 6
loss notifications in the January and February time frames where the
overall accuracy rate was 99.25%.
Another CLEC stated that it had provided Qwest its timeliness data but
found that it had pulled data from both the IMA-EDI near-real time system
and the batch report system for the same transactions, thereby double-
counting the notifications. It was attempting to re-run the data to
separately identify the notifications sent via IMA-EDI. It expressed
concern about those notifications that appeared to be sent in the longer
notification intervals. Qwest recommended that Qwest and the CLEC
examine the data after it has been re-run and research areas of interest.
Qwest pointed out that even the existing data shows that over 950/0 of the
notifications were sent within one transmission day, which was the
CLECs' proposed standard.
Secondly, at least one CLEC raised the issue that to convert to IMA
Release 14.0 to obtain line loss notifications on a near-real time basis was
too expensive. Qwest clarified that a CLEC does not have to be an IMA
EDI 14.0 user but if it has GUI access, it can receive line loss notices via
e-mail, fax or both or it can query for line loss notices. The CLEC
continued that accessing the line losses via the Service Delivery Gateway
via the older batch process provided the notices all together in one place
and was easier to access. Qwest also stated that, while it provides a
number of methods for the CLECs to obtain line loss notices, the
discussions until now had totally focused on the IMA 14.0 near real-time
capability. Qwest continued that the CLECs need to each evaluate and
select which method best complements their business plans.
Thirdly, a CLEC stated.that the accuracy data Qwest provided from its
recently-implemented IMA 14.0 system is not representative of the
accuracy rate that the CLECs have experienced over the last 212 years.
The CLEC continued that errors result from incorrect DCR codes being
placed on those service orders that drop out for manual handling and that
during the study time frame Qwest was focusing on improving the error
rate in its centers. It expressed that over time the focus on minimizing the
errors would decrease and the accuracy rate would drop. The CLEC
continued that Qwest in CMP had agreed to send a notice to the centers
periodically reminding them of the importance to use the proper DCR
code. However, it stated that the Pill is still needed.
Qwest stated that it has been responsive to the CLECs over time. Through
CMP it has enhanced the system with both new SOP edits and later on
implementing the IMA 14.0 near real-time capabilities. It has
implemented in its centers quality steps to improve the errors on the
manually-handled orders and has agreed to periodic reminders to the
centers. Now in LTPA, the CLECs have expressed concern over the
timeliness of the notifications and Qwest's study showed that its
timeliness is excellent with 930/0 of the notifications via IMA 14.0 are sent
within 80 minutes of the service order being completed in the SOP and
100% in less than 3 hours. Then the CLECs focused on accuracy. Qwest
responded showing a 99.25% accuracy rate for the sample and, when
requested, it removed unbundled loops from the study with results of
99.24% accuracy. Qwest stated that now the CLECs are raising issues
about the older batch process while it has been clear from the start of the
L TP A discussions that Qwest is focusing and providing data on the
enhanced near real-time version. Qwest stated that in light of the excellent
study results it has provided and in the absence of any verifiable data by
the CLECs, it does not agree to adopt a line loss PID.
Fourth, the parties declared an impasse. The CLECs agreed to withdraw
their proposed sub-measures C and D of the CLEC-proposed PID which
addressed missing notifications and only go to impasse on sub-measures A
andB.
Resolution: The parties declared an impasse.
Issues 13, 33, 26, 32, and 16: volume threshold/new product reporting
process, reporting for loop splitting and xDSL-, and standards for
UNE-P and line sharing in PO-2: Qwest first addressed the volume
threshold/new product reporting process issue and then specifically
addressed the reporting of loop splitting and xDSL-i capable loops.
Qwest stated that it has continued to have discussions with its executive
management about these issues. In reviewing the proposed process with
them, PAP-related concerns arose about any new products automatically
flowing into the PAPs. Qwest stated that they have been meeting their
nondiscrimination obligations and the existing PAPs are in place to
demonstrate that Qwest is not backsliding, and that continuing to add
obligations was not appropriate as a matter of principle.
Qwest proposed that its current volume threshold proposal be left in tact
through Step 5 and the subsequent steps be deleted. For those products
that the parties reach agreement to have reported, Qwest would do so in a
similar manner to how it reports the "*,, measures (e., MR- 7* and MR-
) which it voluntarily reports but are not in Exhibits Band K. Such
measurements would be included in Qwest's publicly-available monthly
perfonnance reports and be footnoted indicating that the measurement is
being voluntarily reported on an infonnational basis only. Star
measurements are not included in the official PID and therefore not
included in the PAP. Qwest stated that the proposed "*,, reporting would
meet the CLECs' data needs.
Regarding the reporting of loop splitting, Qwest stated that the time was
not ripe to report this product because there are no volumes in service and
no other factors or changes in the regulatory environment indicate such
reporting should yet occur.
In examining xDSL-i capable loops, Qwest stated that since the volumes
are approaching the 1 000 threshold, Qwest has done the developmental
work and is willing to begin reporting April 2004 results in the May report
and do so as a "*,, measure.
The CLECs responded with a number of points. First, one CLEC
confirmed with Qwest that if Qwest's proposed thresholds were not met
and therefore Qwest would not report the product, the product reporting
may become an impasse issue or be taken to some other forum for
resolution. Second, a CLEC stated that it preferred addressing a product
reporting request on an individual case basis because of the differences in
the importance of different products to a CLEC. Third, the CLECs stated
that they could not agree to the "*,, measure reporting. They continued
that Qwest has not been willing to address PAP issues but is now using
PAP issues as justification for not including the new product in the official
Pill. Qwest responded that the LTPA had been established to address Pill
issues and the intent was not to have PID agreements automatically flow
into the PAP without being properly addressed. Fourth, the CLECs stated
that, with Qwest's modifications to the volume threshold process, they
could not agree with this revised proposal. Therefore, the CLECs
disagreed with Qwest's positions on the reporting of loop splitting and
xDSL-i loops.
After considerable discussion, the CLECs. and Qwestagreed to withdraw
Issues 13 and 33 (volume threshold/new product reporting) and to declare
as impasse issues the reporting of loop splitting and xDSL-i loops.
Relative to Issue 16, the inclusion of UNE- P Centrex 21 and Line Sharing
in PO-, Qwest continued to propose a diagnostic standard for the first six
months of reporting and the CLECs continued to propose a 95%
benchmark. The parties declared an impasse on the standard. Covad and
MCI agreed to determine their position for a standard on line sharing and
provide that to Qwest on March 26, 2004.
Resolution: Qwest and the CLECs withdrew Issues 13 and 33.
They declared an impasse on Issues 26 (reporting of loop splitting)
and 32 (reporting ofxDSL-I loops). They declared an impasse on
the portion of Issue 16 pertaining to the standard for UNE-
Centrex 21 in PO-2. Covad and MCI are to provide their proposal
for the line sharing standard in PO-2 on March 26 2004.
Issues 29 and 30, lines splitting standards: At the March 11th 12th
LTP A meeting in Denver, the parties discussed the appropriate line
splitting parity standard for OP-, MR-, MR-, MR-, and MR-
Qwest proposed "Parity with retail Qwest DSL" because of the similarities
in the processes used between line splitting and Qwest DSL. The CLECs
proposed "Parity with RES and BUS POTS" because it is the same
standard being used for line sharing in those PIDs. The CLECs also had
pointed out that the performance for RES and BUS POTS has been higher
than that for Qwest's DSL. The CLECs had asked if this difference could
be attributed to ISP service issues being included in the Qwest DSL
results. After researching this issue since the March 12th meeting, Qwest
stated that these ISP issues are coded to IEC and therefore excluded from
the DSL results. Qwest acknowledged that some Qwest DSL performance
changes had occurred but were temporary. In October 2003, Qwest hadmade process changes to handle the increased DSL volumes in its centers.
Qwest stated that it has a lot at stake with its DSL product and continues
to focus on process improvements. Qwest reiterated that Qwest DSL is
still the appropriate standard for these PIDs because of the similarity in the
products' network elements and in the provisioning and repair processes.
A CLEC raised the issue that for these PIDs the ROC PID performance
results for line sharing uses the RES and BUS POTS parity standard and
the Colorado PAP uses Qwest DSL. The CLEC felt that the ROC PID
should also use the Qwest DSL standard for Colorado results. It stated
that by using the RES and BUS POTS parity standard instead of Qwest
DSL for Colorado in the ROC PID performance results that Qwest'
appears to be performing better than it actually is. Qwest explained that
the ROC PID is the standard 14-state offering and generally reports using
the same standard for each state.
. .. .
Qwest stated that it is inappropriate for the CLECs to propose a parity
standard based on a product with the highest performance standard. The
retail standard should be the product having the greatest product
provisioning and repair similarities, which for line splitting is Qwest DSL.
A CLEC commented that, when the retail analog for line sharing which is
similar to line splitting was established, the parties including Qwest
thought the RES and BUS POTS analog was appropriate and asked what
has changed. Qwest responded that Qwest has migrated to different
processes such as from designed provisioning to non-designed
provisioning for Qwest DSL. In reply to a CLEC's question, Qwestexplained that the substantial change in the provisioning process for Qwest
DSL caused large changes for the repair process which makes Qwest DSL
the appropriate retail analog for use with line splitting in the MR PIDs.
In response to a question about why Qwest did not propose in this L TP A
session that Qwest DSL be the parity standard for line sharing, Qwest
stated that it had simply tried to be judicious in the total number
changes proposed.. However, Qwest stated that it would be willing to
change the parity standards for line sharing from RES and BUS POTS to
retail Qwest DSL.
The CLECs next raised the issue of the benchmark standards for OP-3 and
OP-4. The parties reached agreement on the 950/0 standard for OP-3 and
3 days for OP-4. The discussion focused on Qwest's proposal to include
a "one free miss" as part of the standard for low volume situations. The
CLECs replied that the notion of "one free miss" is more appropriately a
PAP issue and that the Pill should measure what it is intended to measure.
Qwest pointed out that (1) not all PAPs have the "one free miss" concept
and (2) the Pill perfonnance report is used to detennine if Qwest is
providing good service and in the case of low volumes a reasonable
standard should apply so as not to provide an improper view of Qwest'
perfonnance. The CLECs countered that (1) they felt those who reviewed
the perfonnance results would not generally gain a negative impression for
a miss on a low volume product and (2) to the extent this is an issue, it is
an issue for all measurements and products. Qwest responded that the
reader should not have to figure out that a poor perfonnance result pertains
to a low volume situation. The parties declared an impasse on the "one
free miss" issue.
Relative to OP-Qwest's position was that the time was not ripe to set a
standard with only two months of data being available. One CLEC asked
whether Qwest would be willing to set a standard based on 3 months of
data. Qwest replied that it needed to consider this internally before
responding.
Resolution: The parties declared an impasse on (1) the parity
standard for MR-, MR-, MR-, and MR-, (2) the establishment
of a standard for OP-, and (3) the "one free miss" low volume
Issue.
Issues 4 and 6, BI-5: Qwest stated that Eschelon s proposal that it
provided on March 17th provided only one month to implement business
rules that are not defined pertaining to the content of responses denying or
denying in part a billing claim and to the identification and handling of
status responses. Qwest continued that it has met internally to evaluate
Eschelon s proposal. Qwest has detennined that the addition of the
proposed business rules which have not been specifically defined and
agreed to by the parties could be a substantial change to the
implementation effort Qwest was undertaking. Given that Eschelon
proposal was made only a week ago, Qwest has not had enough time to
identify all the issues, detennine the programming impacts or even
Impasse Schedule:
March 30, 2004: John Kern to provide issue statements for BI-
and PO-
April 1 2004: John Kern to provide issues statements for Line
Loss~ reporting of loop splitting and xDSL-i capable loops, the
standard for UNE-P Centrex 21 (and possibly Line Sharing) in PO-
, line splitting standards, and BI-
April 9 2004: CLECs and Qwest submit separate position papers
for Line Loss, reporting of loop splitting and xDSL-i capable
loops, the standard for UNE-P Centrex 21 (and possibly Line
Sharing) in PO-, line splitting standards, and BI-
April 19 2004: John Kern s recommendations due for Line Loss
reporting of loop splitting and xDSL-I capable loops, the standard
for UNE-P Centrex 21 (and possibly Line Sharing) in PO-, line
splitting standards and BI-
April 27, 2004: State staffs ' vote due for Line Loss , reporting of
loop splitting and xDSL-i capable loops, the standard for UNE-
Centrex 21 (and possibly Line Sharing) in PO-, line splitting
standards, and BI-
determine whether it will eventually reject or accept the proposal. Qwest
stated that it needed more time to do so and proposed working with
Eschelon to resolve the outstanding issues via bi-weekly meetings. Qwest
stated its willingness to continue these meetings even though this L TP A
session may end before all issues are resolved. Otherwise, Qwest stated
that it stands ready to adopt its currently-proposed BI-5 PID provided at
the Denver meeting on March 1ih with a possible implementation of July
2004 results in August. When asked by Eschelon whether the remaining
issues could be resolved within the next two weeks prior to the end of this
L TP A session, Qwest replied that the first discussion could be held but it
was unclear whether all issues would be resolved.
The parties continued to discuss how much longer it would likely take to
resolve the outstanding issues and what would happen if the issues did not
get resolved within this L TP A session. To the extent the issues were not
resolved within this session, the parties felt that the issue would then likely
go to impasse. Qwest reiterated that, until it has more time to evaluate
Eschelon s recent proposal, it is unknown whether there is sufficient time
to resolve the issues and/or implement a solution before the end of this
L TP A session even with a one-month extension. Qwest could not commit
to the CLECs ' proposal but offered to give it further consideration , and to
move forward with its current proposal. The CLECs did not agree.
Resolution: The parties declared an impasse.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maiser~puclist.state.id.us on behalf of Haile, Kathleen (Kathleen.Haile~qwest.com)
Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:42 PM
T271 ~puclist.state.id.
Update on PO-20 Definition to be included in Exhibit B filings
OraftPO-
:xpanded) Manual S
In preparing the documents for the upcoming Exhibit B filings
add the expanded PO-20 definition, Qwest noticed that in the last
version distributed for concurrence on April 30, Qwest failed to delete
the parenthetical addressing the need for possible PID revisions during
the implementation process. Rather than include this language, which
was intended to be part of the drafts circulated during the negotiation
stage, Qwest will remove it in the final version to be included in the
revised Exhibit B. In addition this version includes one other clean up
item on page 4. In the remarks section for the LTY field the font color
was changed from blue to black. For your information a redline copy of
the PID with the parenthetical removed and the font color changed isattached. If comments are not received on or before June 16, 2004, the
attached version will be included in Qwest' s anticipated Exhibit B
filings as the agreed upon PO-20.
which will
Thanks,Kathy Haile
Qwe s
ATTACHMENT 7