20100730Williams Testimony, Exhibit.pdf

Mar S. Hobson
Attorney & Counselor
999 Main, Suite 1108
Boise, ID 88702
208-885-8666
iow JUl 30 PH 3= l 8
July 30,2010
VIA BAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretar
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983
RE: Docket No. QWE-T-08-04
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing with this Commission are nine (9) copies of the testimony and
exhibit of Michael G. Wilams that are prefied on behalf of Qwest Corporation in
support of its Amended Petition, fied today under separate cover. Qwest is also
providing a CD ofthe Wiliams testimony and exhibits as required by Rule 231.05. If
you have any questions, please contact me.
Than you for your cooperation in this matter.
Ver trly yours,1-1/~~tt::ff~ lL-
Enclosures
cc Service List
Mary S. Hobson (ISB #2142)
999 Main, Suite 1103
Boise, 10 83702
Tel: [phone]
mary. hobson~qwest. com
Adam L. Sherr
Corporate Counsel, Qwest
1600 7th Avenue, Room 1506
Seattle, WA 98191
Tel: [phone]
adam. sherr~qwest. com
Attorney Representing Qwest Corporation
RE r1
zoin JUL 30 PM 3: 18
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF )
Q'HST CORPORATION REQUESTING )
AUTHORIZATION TO WITHDRAW ITS )STATEMNT OF GENERALY )
AVAILALE TERMS AN CONDITIONS )
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
Michael G. Wi.lli.am
Q'HST CORPORATION
July 30, 2010
CASE NO.
Q'H-T-08-04
1 Table of Contents
2
3 Identification of Witness...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
4 Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
5 Background and Purpose of the QPAP.......................... 3
6 'The Current QPAP............................................ 5
7 The QPAP has Fulfilled Its Purpose.......................... 7
8 Shortcomings of Current QPAP............................... 14
9 First Concern: Self-Executing QPAP Not Balanced.......... 15
10 Second Concern: QPAP Overly Puni ti ve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
11 Third Concern: QPAP Too Complex and Burdensome. . . . . . . . . .. 19
12 Qwest's QPAP II Proposal................................... 20
13 Oefining Superior Service................................ 23
14 Building on the Current QPAP............................. 26
15 Payment Increments, Performance Credits and Payment
16 Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
17 Tier 2 and Minimum Payments.............................. 36
18 Measurement Streamlining................................. 38
19 Service/Element Streamlining............................. 48
20 Other PI0 Proposals...................................... 56
21 Removing QPAP from the SGAT................................ 59
22 Concl usion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60
23
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-i-
1 IDENTIFICATION OF WITNSS
2 Q.PLESE STATE YOUR NAM, BUSINSS ADDRESS, AN CURNT
3 POSITION.
4 A.My name is Michael Williams.My business address is
5 1801 California Street, Oenver, Colorado 80202.I am a
6 Senior Oirector of Public Policy for Qwest.
7 Q.HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TESTIMONY IN THIS
8 PROCEEDING?
9 A.No, this is the first time any testimony has been filed
10 in this docket.
11 Q.PLESE STATE YOUR BACKGROUN AN QUALIFICATIONS.
12 A.I hold an MBA degree from the University of Utah, 1985,
13 and a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from
14 Brigham Young University, 1976.Since 1981, I have worked
15 for Qwest or its predecessors in various management
16 positions,including engineering,technical sales,
17 regulatory, new technologies, international cellular joint
18 venture leadership, wholesale interconnection operations and
19 regulatory finance.My responsibilities have included
20 service quality-related metrics and payments since 1997.I
21 have held my current responsibilities since July 2005.
22 Specifically, I am responsible for Qwest' s policies and
23 compliance associated with regulatory retail and wholesale
24 service quality requirements.I have submitted testimony and
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-1-
1 participated in workshops in each of the 14 states in Qwest's
2 local services region.
3 PUROSE
4 Q.WHT is THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
5 A.My testimony addresses Qwest' s Amended Petition to
6 withdraw the Qwest Performance Assurance Plan (QPAP) from its
7 Statement of Generally Available Terms (SGAT) .Qwest
8 considers this docket as constituting a review under section
9 16.3 of the QPAP, which calls for a review to determine the
10 future of the QPAP.Therefore, I also address Qwest's
11 proposal to modify the QPAP in all existing interconnection
12 agreements that have it. In this testimony, I refer to the
13 proposed modified performance assurance plan as "QPAP II,"
14 which is attached to this testimony as Qwest Exhibit No.1.
15 Qwest's proposed QPAP II continues to provide CLECs with
16 self-executing payments for the same performance dimensions
17 covered under the current QPAP,subject to specified
18 streamlining of metrics and products, while also introducing
19 incenti ves to provide superior performance.Overall,I
20 provide background regarding the QPAP, explain the basis for
21 Qwest's Amended Petition, and describe QPAP II and how it
22 would operate.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-2-
1 BACKGROUN AN PURSE OF THE QPAP
2 Q.WHT is THE Q'HST PERFORMCE ASSURCE PLA (QPAP)?
3 A.The QPAP is a self-executing plan based on Qwest' s level
4 of service performance under a variety of metrics called PI0s
5 (performance indicator definitions) .The PI0s are
6 measurements of specific dimensions of Qwest' s service
7 performance.For example, PI0s cover the areas of pre-
8 order/order, billing, provisioning, maintenance and repair,
9 network performance and so forth. PI0 results for Idaho are
10 reported on an individual CLEC basis, as well as on an
11 aggregate-CLEC basis, statewide.
12 The PI0s have three types of standards:parity,
13 benchmark, or diagnostic. Parity standards compare Qwest s
14 performance for CLECs to its performance for its own retail
15 customers or operations, while benchmark standards compare
16 Qwest s performance to specified fixed performance levels.
17 Oiagnostic standards designate that the PI0 results are for
18 monitoring purposes. QPAP payments to CLECs (so called "Tier
19 1 payments" under the existing QPAP) and payments to states
20 ("Tier 2 payments" under the existing QPAP) are triggered as
21 provided in the QPAP only by measurements with parity or
22 benchmark standards in the PI0s and as further delineated in
23 the body of the QPAP.
24 Q.WHT WAS THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE QPAP?
25 A.Qwest obtained approval of the QPAP in conjunction with
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-3-
1 obtaining interLATA long distance approval from the Federal
2 Communications Commission (FCC) under section 271 of the
3 Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act).The FCC looked for
4 assurance that wholesale markets would remain open after the
5 requirements of section 271 had been met and interLATA
6 freedom granted to the Bell Operating Company (s) (BOCs) such
7 as Qwest.While it accepted performance assurance plans for
8 this purpose, the FCC noted at the time that it could not
9 require such plans. Instead, the FCC stated it would deem a
10 properly-designed plan as "probative evidence that the BOC
11 will continue to meet its section 271 obligations after a
12 grant of such authority.,,1
13 Q.DID Q'HST OR THE IDAHO COMMISSION INTEND FOR THE QPAP TO
14 BE PERMNT?
15 A.No.Section 16.3 of the QPAP approved by the Idaho
16 Commission clearly declares its temporary nature:
17 "Qwest will make the PAP available for CLEC18 interconnection agreements until such time as Qwest19 eliminates its Section 272 affiliate. At that time, the
20 Commission and Qwest shall review the appropriateness of21 the PAP and whether its continuation is necessary. . ."
22 (Emphasis added).
23 Qwest notes that its section 272 affiliate was eliminated
24 effective February 20, 2007, i. e., nearly three and a half
25 years ago.
1 FCC Qwest Nine State Order, 17 FCC Red 26303 at 26544, ~ 440.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-4-
1 Q.WAS THIS LAGUAGE LIMITING THE DURTION OF THE PLA
2 APPROVED?
3 A.Yes. Both the Idaho Commission and the FCC approved
4 Qwest's Idaho PAP with this language in place.
5 Q.HOW DOES THE QPAP RELATE TO INTRCONNCTION AGREEMNTS
6 BETWN Q'HST AN CLECS?
7 A.If adopted by a CLEC, the QPAP becomes part of the
8 CLEC's interconnection agreement in the form of two exhibits.
9 Exhibit B sets forth the measurement definitions and
10 standards, and Exhibit K sets forth the payment framework. In
11 this docket, as I will discuss in detail below, Qwest now
12 seeks to amend Exhibits Band K of existing interconnection
13 agreements to reflect a more balanced approach that continues
14 to provide economic incentives to Qwest to help further an
15 open telecommunications markets for CLECs.
16 THE CURNT QPAP
17 Q.PLESE SUMIZE THE PRIMY ELENTS OF THE CUR
18 QPAP.
19 A.The current QPAP consists of pros in Exhibit Band
20 payment provisions in Exhibit K.The payment provisions use
21 PI0s as the self-executing basis for triggering payments when
22 service performance is nonconforming to standards set forth
23 in the pros.Standards based on either parity with Qwest' s
24 retail operations or negotiated benchmarks are used to
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-5-
1 trigger and determine payment amounts.Oiagnostic standards
2 are used only for monitoring purposes.
3 Q.WHY AR THERE BOTH PARITY AN BENCHM STANARS?
4 A.At the lowest (most detailed) level of disaggregation,
5 each non-diagnostic PIO has only one or the other: a parity
6 standard or a benchmark standard.The nondiscrimination
7 standard of the Act calls for a comparison between wholesale
8 and retail performance.However, precisely comparable retail
9 services do not always exist.If there existed comparable
10 retail services for all wholesale services and elements
11 measured by the PIOs, there would be only parity standards in
12 the PIOs.Strictly speaking, "parity" is not an explicit
13 requirement of the Act, but it is a factor in evaluating
14 nondiscrimination. Accordingly, in the original collaborative
15 proceedings in which the PIOs were developed, the parties
16 agreed to use parity as the primary basis for setting
17 standards.However, in some cases precise, apples-to-apples
18 comparisons with retail analogues are not available.For
19 example, there are no retail unbundled loops with which to
20 compare unbundled loops provided to CLECs.In these cases,
21 proxies were selected that were as close as possible to
22 specific types of unbundle loops.In other cases there were
23 not any retail analogues and no reasonable proxies for such
24 analogues,so benchmark standards were adopted through
25 negotiations in the various proceedings that pre-dated the
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-6-
1 Qwest 271 FCC applications.Benchmarks were also used to
2 evaluate the "pre-order" processes where, for example, CLECs
3 submit local service requests (LSRs) and trouble reports
4 through interfaces that do not exist in the retail context.
5 HOW AR PAYMNT AMOUNS DETERMNED UNER THE QPAP?Q.
6 Payment amounts are determined by the extent to whichA.
7 PIO results miss the standards.Specifically, the difference
8 between a PIO result and the applicable standard is
9 translated into a numer of occurrences (e. g. , orders or
10 tickets) missing the standard, which numer is multiplied by
11 the applicable per-occurrence payment level to calculate the
12 payment amount due for that PIO result.
13 The QPAP defines two categories of payments: Tier 1 and
14 Tier 2.Tier 1 payments are made to individual CLECs, and
15 Tier 2 payments are made to the state.The QPAP also defines
16 payment-affecting such as paymentotherprocedures,
17 consecuti ve nonconformingescalations(where there are
18 months) and minimum payments (where the low volumes of small
19 CLECs generate small payments).
20 THE QPAP HAS FUFILLE ITS PUROSE
21 Q.HOW HAS THE QPAP'S PURPOSE BEEN FUFILLED?
22 The wholesale telecommunications market is irrevocablyA.
23 open, and Qwest has consistently demonstrated its ability and
24 commitment satisfy its section 271continuetoto
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-7-
1 obligations.
2 Q.DOES THE REIN AN BASIS FOR QPAP TO CONTINU?
3 A.i do not believe so. As I have pointed out, the FCC
4 stated that the Act did not require a performance assurance
5 plan,2 but noted that such a plan, properly designed and
6 implemented, could provide "probative evidence" regarding the
7 public interest aspects of section 271 - specifically that
8 the market openness that justified granting interLATA
9 freedoms to Qwest continued after the Company achieved its
10 goal of entering the interLATA market.In approving Qwest's
11 271 application in Idaho, the FCC approved a QPAP containing
12 provisions that allowed it to terminate after the elimination
13 of Qwest's section 272 affiliate, with no further involvement
14 of the FCC required. Hence, the FCC and this Commission have
15 already ruled both on the QPAP's place in supporting Qwest's
16 271 application and on the fact that it could terminate via
17 its own provisions.
18 Q.WITHOUT QPAP, WHT INCENTIVS WOUL REIN FOR Q'HST TO
19 CONTIN TO PROVIDE NONDISCRIMNATORY SERVICE TO CLECS?
20 A.While the QPAP was originally established to provide
21 economic incentives for Qwest to continue to provide
22 nondiscriminatory service to CLECs seeking to compete with
23 Qwest using part of the existing network,far larger
24 incentives in the form of actual market forces are now at
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-8-
1 work to ensure CLECs continue to have nondiscriminatory
2 access to the network.Specifically, Qwest's persistent and
3 significant line losses, primarily due to cellular and cable
4 competitors who do not participate in the QPAP, highlight how
5 important CLECs are to Qwest in helping keep customers on its
6 network.Today, the total numer of resale and unbundled
7 loops provided to CLECs is nearly 25 percent of Qwest's
8 retail access lines in Idaho.Hence Qwest values CLECs as
9 partners in helping keep customers on our network, a fact
10 which, in itself, provides a huge incentive, independent of
11 QPAP, for Qwest to serve CLECs well. The veracity of this
12 fact is borne out by additional evidence, which I discuss
13 below, that Qwest provides superior service to CLECs far more
14 often than it provides inferior service that triggers QPAP
15 payments.If the QPAP were the only incentive at play here,
16 that would not likely be the case.
17 Q.AR THERE STILL OTHER INCENTIVS AT PLAY?
18 A.Certainly. As I have explained, the wholesale market is
19 very valuable to Qwest, but perhaps the most basic incentive
20 is the law that requires Qwest to provide nondiscriminatory
21 service to CLECs.Qwest respects and obeys the law, and
22 there are avenues other than the QPAP for CLECs to pursue if
23 Qwest does not.
2 ibid.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-9-
1 Q.WHT DEVLOPMNTS HAVE OCCUR SINCE THE QPAP
2 ORIGINALLY WE INTO EFFECT?
3 A.Much has transpired in the industry and marketplace
4 since the inception of the QPAP that indicates fulfillment of
5 the purpose and intent of the QPAP.The FCC granted Qwest's
6 application for section 271 relief, thereby authorizing Qwest
7 to provide interLATA long distance services.The FCC's
8 authorization signaled its determination that the local
9 market was indeed open at that time. 3 A later FCC decision
10 granted that Qwest was no longer required to provide in-
11 region, interLATA services through a separate (section 272)
12 affiliate. 4 More recently, in response in part to changing
13 market conditions in the state and Qwest's petition, the
14 Idaho Commission approved Qwest s petition to withdraw its
15 SGAT.
16 Meanwhile, customers have access to a whole variety of
17 alternatives for telecommunica tions services that were
18 neither as varied nor robust in 2003 when the QPAP was
19 created as they are today.As a result, Qwest's market share
20 has declined while that of competi tors (CLECs,cable
3 ibid., ~ 407.
4 See Section 272 (f) (1) Sunset of the BOC Separate Affiliate and Related
Requirements, WC Doeket No. 02-112, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC
Red 26869 (2002). Given that the FCC granted Qwest's seetion 271
authorization for Idaho in an order released on Deeember 23, 2002 and that
the relevant requirements of seetion 272 expire three years after an ILEC
is authorized to provide interLATA serviees, then pursuant to seetion
272 (f) (1), the provisions of seetion 272 (other than seetion 272 (e))
sunset by operation of law for Qwest in Idaho effeetive Deeember 23, 2005.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-10-
1 providers, wireless, and others) has grown significantly. It
2 is no longer appropriate to look at government-mandated
3 facilitation of competition with the same perspective that
4 prevailed when the Act was being first implemented.Today,
5 market forces have replaced the need for government-mandated
6 incentives.
7 Q.WHT EVIDENCE is THERE THAT THE MAT REINS OPEN?
8 A.Since 2003 when the FCC found that the market was open,
9 the number of CLECs has grown dramatically in Idaho.
10 Specifically, in 2003, only ten had opted into the QPAP in
11 Idaho.By 2009, there were 81 CLECs with interconnection
12 agreements, of which fifty-seven had opted-in to the QPAP.
13 Q.HAVE QPAP PAYMNTS ALSO GROWN WITH THE INCRESING
14 NUERS OF CLECS IN IDAHO?
15 A.No. The payments made to CLECs have declined since the
16 time the QPAP was made available in Idaho.In 2003, the
17 first year of QPAP operation, Qwest paid nearly $70,000 in
18 payments to individual CLECs in Idaho. Payments increased in
19 2004 but have declined every year since that peak. In 2009,
20 payments paid to CLECs in Idaho amounted to slightly more
21 than $14,000 for the entire year, across all CLECs opting
22 into the QPAP. Since the inception of the QPAP, Qwest has
23 paid out a total of $576,013 in Idaho in Tier 1 and Tier 2
24 payments under the existing QPAP structure, despite providing
25 inarguably excellent wholesale service performance, as I
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-11-
1 illustrate later in my testimony.
2 Q.HAVE THE AVERAGE PER-CLEC QPAP PAYMS CHAGED OVER
3 THIS TIM?
4 A.The average individual CLEC payments in Idaho have also
5 declined. In 2003, the average payment was just a bit more
6 than $17,000 per CLEC.The per-CLEC amount dropped
7 significantly in 2004 and has steadily declined. In 2009 the
8 average was just over $1,500 per CLEC.
9 Q.HOW HA Q'HST'S SERVICE TO CLECS COMPARD TO THAT FOR
10 ITS RETAIL CUSTOMES IN IDAHO?
11 A.On the whole, Qwest's performance for CLECs as measured
12 by the QPAP has been at least equal to and, far more often,
13 better than for retail customers.Any exceptions have been
14 few and isolated.
15 Q.ON WHT DO YOU BASE THIS ASSERTION?
16 A.I base my assertion on the facts that (1) the percentage
17 of PIOs that triggered QPAP payments is miniscule, and (2)
18 the percentage of PI0s representing better service for CLECs
19 is far greater than the percentage triggering payments.
20 Q.WHT PERCENTAGE OF QPAP PIDS ACTUALLY TRIGGERED PAYMNTS
21 IN 2009?
22 A.In 2009, only 0.9 percent of PIOs triggered payments in
23 Idaho.Across the entire seven years of the QPAP in Idaho,
24 through 2009, this numer was 1.7 percent, and in any
25 individual year it has never been higher than 2.3 percent.
QWE-T-08-04
Jul y 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-12-
1 Q.OF THE TOTAL NUR OF PIDS, WHT PROPORTION HAVE PARITY
2 STANARS AN WHT DOES THIS ME?
3 A.Over 60 percent of monthly PIO standards are parity
4 standards, i. e., are based on a statistical parity comparison
5 between Qwest' s performance for CLECs and its performance for
6 retail services.This means that over 60 percent of the PI0
7 standards directly address the statistical aspect of whether
8 Qwest is providing service that is nondiscriminatory to
9 CLECs.
10 Q.SO,FOR THESE PIDS WITH PARITY STANARS,WHT
11 PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL TRSACTIONS (I. E., ORDERS AN
12 TROUBLE TICKETS)WERE INVOLVED IN METING THE PARITY
13 STANARS?
14 A.In 2009, Qwest provided service to CLECs that was as
15 good as or better than it provided its retail customers 99.99
16 percent of the time.Overall, across the seven years since
17 the QPAP became effective in 2003, that number is 99.71
18 percent. The following Table 1 provides details:
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-13-
1 Table 1
Idaho PeriodsPercent ItemsS Met
PID Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
Billing (BI)95.83%99.61%99.77%99.99%99.99%99.98%100.00%99.72%
Maintenance &99.29%99.36%99.55%99.43%99.59%99.61%99.55%99.46%Repair (MR)
Ordering &99.11%98.68%98.67%97.48%98.21%95.95%96.19%98.06%
Provisioning (OP)
Pre-order / Order 99.10%99.52%99.32%99.48%98.36%99.22%98.92%99.18%(PO)
Grand Total 95.98%99.60%99.77%99.97%99.98%99.97%99.99%99.71%
2
3 SHORTCOMINGS OF CURNT QPAP
4 Q.WHT AR THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE CURNT QPAP?
5 A.Qwest's primary concerns with the current QPAP are
6 three-fold.First, the QPAP applies self-executing payment
7 consequences without considering the totality of Qwest' s
8 service levels provided to CLECs.When originally
9 volunteering for a self-executing QPAP, Qwest effectively
10 gave up due process relative to the payment consequences of
11 its alleged substandard performance.While that expedient
12 was an acceptable trade-off initially,its perpetual
13 continuation was not originally envisioned, is not required,
14 and is not rational in light of (1) the QPAP's overall
15 purpose, i. e., to ensure that the telecommunications market
16 in Idaho remains open to CLECs following Qwest s entry into
5 ~Items" refers to individual units of measure, sueh as orders and
trouble tiekets. Table 1 refleets the pereentage of all ~ items" measured
that were involved in the PIDs that met standards.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-14-
1 the interLATA long distance market and (2) the seven years of
2 performance history that indicates Qwest has provided
3 superior performance far more often than it has provided
4 allegedly inferior performance.
5 Second, the current QPAP has been overly punitive,
6 relative to the small proportion of standards that triggered
7 payments.Oespi te the exceptionally good performance across
8 the seven years of the QPAP, Qwest has paid over a half
9 million dollars in penal ties in Idaho.
10 Third, the PI0s have been unnecessarily complex and
11 voluminous. This is underscored by the fact that only a
12 handful the PI0s and products represent the vast maj ori ty
13 (e. g. , over 90 percent) of the payment issues and product
14 volumes.
15 First Concern: Self-Executing QPAP Not Balanced
16 Q.IN DESCRIBING YOUR FIRST CONCER, WHREIN YOU STATE THAT
1 7 QWEST HAS PROVIDED "SUPERIOR PERFRMCE FAR MORE OFTEN THA
1 8 IT HAS PROVIDED ALLEGEDLY INFRIOR PERFORMCE," HOW DO YOU
19 DEFINE "SUPERIOR PERFRMCE"?
20 A.I define "superior" as performance that is significantly
21 better than standard. In my testimony describing Qwest's
22 QPAP II proposal below, I will explain how the same rules the
23 QPAP uses to define statistically significant, nonconforming
24 performance can be used in reverse to define "superior"
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-15-
1 service.
2 Q.WHT is THE BAiS FOR YOUR ASSERTION THAT QWEST PROVIDES
3 SUPERIOR PERFORMCE FAR MORE OFTEN THA IT PROVIDES
4 ALLEGEDLY INFRIOR PERFORMCE?
5 A.Looking at all PIOs that could generate payments in
6 2009, only 0.9 percent of them missed their standards.
7 However,over $30,000 in payments was generated.In
8 contrast,46 percent of all PIOs reported superior
9 performance in 2009.This means that 99.04 percent of PIOs
10 met their standards,and nearly half of those were
11 significantly better than standard.These facts highlight
12 the imbalance that exists in the current QPAP, which
13 considers only nonconforming performance, but not the extent
14 of superior performance.
15 Second Concern: QPAP Overly Puitive
16 Q.WHT is THE BASIS FOR YOUR SECOND STATED CONCERN THAT
17 THE QPAP is "OVERLY PUNITIVE"?
18 A.In Idaho, only 0.8 percent of the parity comparisons
19 showed performance levels that were numerically worse than
20 their retail comparatives, and yet this was still enough to
21 generate nearly $13,000 in payments for these measures in
22 2009.In contrast 27 percent of parity PIOs indicated
23 superior performance.
24 Looking at PIOs with benchmarks, only one percent had
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-16-
1 performance that failed to satisfy the standard, and yet this
2 generated over $17,000 in payments in 2009.In contrast,
3 fully 71 percent of benchmark PIOs indicated superior
4 performance.
5 Q.BUT ISN'T IT APPROPRIATE THAT QWEST SHOUL PAY WH ITS
6 PERFORMCE IS BELOW STANAR?
7 A.Not necessarily -- particularly when either there is a
8 disproportionately high level of superior performance, as I
9 have just explained, or the failure rate in parity PI0s is so
10 tiny that it is well within the range of statistical error.
11 Q.PLESE EXPLAIN YOUR POINT ABOUT STATISTICA ERROR.
12 A.Parity comparisons involve statistics that attempt to
13 account for random variations that are inherent in any
14 performance.The purpose is to distinguish observed
15 dìfferences that could be explained by random variations
16 (i. e.,the differences would not be statistically
17 significant) from situations that could NOT be explained
18 solely by random variation (i. e.,those that are
19 statistically significant), based on a chosen level of
20 statistical confidence.
21 In the QPAP,the established confidence level is
22 typically 95 percent.This means that, when an observed
23 difference in performance levels is found to be statistically
24 significant, that determination is made with 95 percent
25 confidence. In other words, 95 percent of the time the
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-17-
1 determination is correct, and 5 percent of the time it is
2 not.The statistical analyses do not identify specifically
3 which items are incorrect, but 5 percent of the statistical
4 conclusions can be expected to be incorrect.Accordingly,
5 across many such comparisons, even if Qwest were actually
6 providing parity service in each and every case,the
7 statistical analyses would still declare 5 percent of the
8 observations to be "out of parity."
9 Q.HOW DOES THIS STATISTICA VAIABILITY APPLY TO QWEST'S
10 PERFORMCE IN IDAHO UNER THE QPAP?
11 A.Applying this to Idaho, Qwest's actual performance under
12 the QPAP shows that only 0.8 percent of observations are out
13 of parity - far less than the 5-percent disparities one would
14 from statistical using 95analysesexpect percenta
15 confidence level.Thus, this situation is consistent, not
16 only with a conclusion that Qwest is providing parity
17 service, but also that Qwest is likely providing BETTER than
18 pari ty service in more cases than it is not.As already
19 pointed out above, this is precisely the case.
20 Q.WHT CONCLUSION CA BE DRAWN FROM THIS?
21 A.The fact that less than one percent of PIOs were
22 calculated to be out of parity far from revealing some
23 persistent impediment to CLEC competition that might justify
24 continuing the QPAP in its current form -- is well wi thin the
25 realm of results can be explained,that overall,by
QWE-T-OS-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-1S-
1 statistical error.Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude
2 that Qwest should not have had to make any penalty payments
3 on parity PIOs,if the plan had accounted for these
4 statistical realities.
5 Q.AR YOU PROPOSING THAT QPAP BE ELIMNATE BECAUSE OF
6 THIS STATISTICA ANALYSIS?
7 A.No.I am suggesting that the Plan be modified as
8 proposed in QPAP II so that it more fairly reflects overall
9 performance, not just the one-sided view of nonconforming
10 performance even where it may be only a statistical anomaly.
11 Third Concern: QPAP Too Comlex and Burdensome
12 Q.PLEASE ELAORATE ON YOUR CONCERN THAT THE CURNT QPAP
13 IS TOO COMPLEX AN BURENSOM.
14 A.Soon after the Act went into effect and the parties
15 began to negotiate PIOs and PAPs, no one really knew what to
16 expect.CLECs endeavored to make sure that every dimension
17 of service performance was measured; RBOCs6 attempted to keep
18 the number of measurements to the minimum necessary while, at
19 the same time, defining disaggregations (sub-measurements)
20 that would help assure "apples-to-apples" comparisons in the
21 parity analyses; and state commission staffs endeavored to
22 ensure the public interest was protected by covering all the
6 Regional Bell Operating Companies or ineumbent loeal exehange earriers
(ILECs) that were divested from the former AT&T via the 1984 divestiture
and Consent Deeree.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-19-
1 bases.As a result, in Qwest's case, there are about 350
2 PIOs/ sub-measurements based on CLEC acti vi ty in Idaho.
3 (Originally, this numer was even higher.)This represented
4 an unprecedented volume of measurements and performance
5 monitoring, along with the supporting systems and programming
6 necessary to implement, maintain, change manage, and analyze
7 metrics and results.The cost to maintain this effort is
8 over a million dollars a year for Qwest, regionwide.
9 Q.WITH THE SEVN-PLUS YES' EXPERIENCE THAT HAS SINCE
10 BEEN GAINED, WHT DO WE NOW KNOW ABOUT THIS EXTESIVE ARY
11 OF PIDS AN PAP PROVISIONS?
12 A.In a nutshell, we know that very few of them are needed
13 in order to cover the vast majority of activity.
14 Specifically, fewer than ten PIOs account for over 90 percent
15 of the total QPAP payment amounts, and fewer than ten
16 services and elements cover over 90 percent of the CLEC
17 volume of activity (i.e., orders and trouble tickets). Thus,
18 the current QPAP is more complex and burdensome than
19 necessary.
20 QWEST'S QPAP II PROPOSAL
21 Q.GIVN QWEST' S POSITION THAT THE QPAP WAS NEVER INTED
22 TO BE PERMNT AN THAT IT HA FUILLED ITS PURPOSE, WHT IS
23 QWEST NOW PROPOSING FOR PERFRMCE ASSURCE FOR CLECS?
24 A.Qwest is volunteering a modified version of the current
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-20-
1 QPAP as shown in Qwest Exhibit 1.If the Commission,
2 exercising its authority under section 16.3 of the existing
3 PAP, enters its order adopting QPAP II for Idaho, this will
4 continue to provide performance assurance to CLECs that have
5 the QPAP in their present agreements, and QPAP II will be
6 available for CLECs that are negotiating agreements, until
7 the Plan Term, Oecember 31, 2013.
8 Q.DOES QWEST EXPECT TO ELIMNATE PERFORMCE ASSURCE
9 ONCE THE PLA TERM DATE is ACHIEVD?
10 A.No.First, Qwest may choose to voluntarily extend the
11 Plan Term beyond Oecember 31, 2013. However, if Qwest does
12 not intend to do so, the provisions of QPAP II require Qwest
13 to notify the Commission of its intention to terminate or
14 modify the Plan before the Plan Term date. At that point the
15 Commission may conduct a review to evaluate the future of
16 performance assurance for the wholesale marketplace in the
17 state. The details of that review process may be found in
18 Qwest Exhibit 1 in section 7.
19 Meanwhile, please remember that the Plan Term date is
20 more than three years away, making it more than ten years
21 from the date the original QPAP was adopted.No one knows
22 for certain how the telecommunications industry or its
23 regulatory framework will change over that time. However,
24 Qwest expects that the market incentives that today drive
25 Qwest to provide excellent service to customers, including
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-21-
1 CLECs, will continue.
2 Q.WHT is QWEST'S PROPOSAL FOR QPAP II?
3 A.Qwest proposes to modify the current QPAP in a manner
4 that satisfies the above concerns, while continuing to
5 provide CLECs with self-executing Tier 1 performance
6 assurance that covers the same categories of performance over
7 the term of the Plan.
8 Q.PREIOUSLY YOU TESTIFIED THAT QWEST'S PARITY PERFRMCE
9 LELS, OVERAL, HAVE BEEN WELL WITHIN THE RAGE THAT CA BE
10 ATTRIBUTED TO STATISTICA ERROR.HOW DOES QPAP II DEA WITH
11 THAT ISSUE?
12 A.QPAP II does not change the statistical methods.There
13 is no perfect way to completely avoid statistical error in
14 determining with absolute certainty that all of the parity
15 declarations are correct. Rather, QPAP II continues to accept
16 the reality that statistical analyses have limits and that
17 all performance naturally has some degree of random variation
18 that can account for differences.On that statistical
19 foundation, which is the same as the current QPAP for Tier 1,
20 QPAP II makes the consequences of the measurement results
21 more balanced by adding offsetting performance credits for
22 service that significantly exceeds standards.
23 Q.HOW DOES QPAP II ADDRESS QWST'S FIRST CONCERN THAT THE
24 CURNT QPAP is "ONE-SIDED" AN "NOT BACED"?
25 A.Qwest s QPAP II proposal addresses the self-executing,
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-22-
1 "one-sided" nature of the current QPAP by adding provisions
2 that provide performance credits where Qwest's performance
3 for CLECs is superior to the standards.
4 Defining Superior Service
5 Q.HOW DOES QPAP II IDENTIFY SERVICE THAT IS SUPERIOR TO
6 THE STANARS?
7 A.Superior service will be identified by the same rules
8 the current QPAP uses to define statistically significant,
9 nonconforming performance - only in reverse.By that I mean
10 that, for measurements with parity standards, I apply the
11 same QPAP rules that trigger payments, but in the opposite
12 direction, i. e., toward better performance, and then count
13 the numer of PIOs that meet those criteria.QPAP II uses
14 statistical rules to determine whether the measured results
15 are better than the standard to a statistically-significant
16 degree, based on a 95 percent confidence level (which is
17 commonly used in QPAP) .
18 For example,consider a case in which the retail
19 performance level is 92 percent, and QPAP statistical methods
20 determine that the threshold for significantly better
21 performance is 94 percent.If the actual performance
22 provided to the CLEC were 94 percent or better, it would be
23 deemed as superior.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-23-
1 Q.HOW WOUL QPAP II IDENTIFY SUPERIOR PERORMCE IN CASES
2 WHRE STANARS AR BENCHMS RATHER THA STATISTICA
3 PARITY?
4 A.Even though benchmark standards do not use statistical
5 methods to determine conformance, statistical methods are
6 needed in order to determine superior performance.
7 Q.PLESE EXPLAIN.
8 A.For benchmark standards the QPAP uses what is called the
9 "stare and compare" method to determine whether Qwest's
10 performance meets standards.This means that if a PI0 result
11 is not numerically equal to or better than the benchmark, it
12 is considered to be nonconforming and generates a payment
13 increment. Nevertheless, the overall objective of the PIOs is
14 to determine whether Qwest service to CLECs is non-
15 discriminatory.
16 Benchmarks are treated as negotiated substitutes for
17 conformance thresholds that would otherwise be represented by
18 cri tical-z values,if there had been comparable retail
19 analogues with which to establish a parity standard.Since
20 benchmarks are fixed-point values that address only the
21 negative side of the performance question, they say nothing
22 about the positive side.Accordingly, statistics are needed
23 to identify the posi ti ve threshold, based on the variableness
24 inherent in actual service performance and us ing the
25 benchmark as a starting point.By starting with the
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-24-
1 benchmark we insure that the degree of "significance" for
2 identifying both negative and positive performance levels is
3 the same.
4 For example, consider a case in which the benchmark is
5 90 percent, and QPAP statistical methods determine that the
6 threshold for significantly better performance is 93 percent. 7
7 If the actual performance provided to the CLEC were 93
8 percent or better, it would be deemed as superior.
9 Q.WHT is THE PUROSE OF USING STATISTICA CONCEPTS FROM
10 THE CURNT QPAP TO IDENTIFY SUPERIOR PERFRMCE UNER YOUR
11 QPAP II PROPOSAL?
12 A.The purpose of the statistical approach in the current
13 QPAP is to determine whether differences in performance
14 levels are explainable by random variations in performance.
15 If not found to be due to randomness, those differences in
16 performance levels are considered to be "statistically
17 significant, "within a specified level of confidence
18 (typically 95 percent).For parity standards, this approach
19 is applied in both "directions"i. e.,both toward
20 nonconforming and toward superior performance.With
21 benchmarks, since nonconforming performance is identified by
22 "stare and compare" with a fixed point, only the superior
23 performance needs to be identified using statistical methods.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-25-
1 But for both parity and benchmark standards statistical
2 methods have the same purpose:to determine whether
3 conforming performance exceeds a statistically-determined
4 threshold level that would indicate the result could be
5 explained solely by random variations inherent in
6 performance.If a performance level exceeds the threshold,
7 it is considered to be superior.
8 Q.AR THESE THE SAM METHODS YOU USED EAIER IN STATING
9 THE PERCENTAGES OF PIDS WITH "SUPERIOR PERFRMCE"?
10 A.Yes.In sum, using 2009 QPAP data for Idaho, the
11 percentage of PI0s indicating "superior performance" during
12 the year was 46 percent.In comparison, as I pointed out
13 earlier, less than one percent of PIOs triggered payments.
14 Of the parity PIOs,27 percent yielded superior
15 performance, with less than one percent nonconforming.For
16 benchmark PIOs, 71 percent yielded superior performance, with
17 only one percent nonconforming.
18 Bui.lding on the Current QPAP
19 Q.APART FROM INTRODUCING THE CONCEPT SUPERIOR SERIVCE, HOW
20 DOES QPAP II DIFFR FROM THE CUNT QPAP?
21 A.Overall QPAP II builds on the provisions of the current
22 QPAP. However the proposal eliminates some features of the
7 This is not to say that 93 pereent always would be the threshold for
superior performanee, given a benehmark of 90 pereent, sinee faetors sueh
CLEC volumes ean impaet the number, but this is a plausible example.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-26-
1 existing QPAP that Qwest believes are no longer relevant or
2 necessary, and it streamlines the operation of the Plan as I
3 discuss below.
4 Q.PLESE DESCRIBE IN MORE DETAIL HOW QPAP II BUILDS ON
5 PROVISIONS OF THE CURNT QPAP?
6 A.QPAP II retains CLEC-specific payments for performance
7 that does not satisfy standards.But it goes further and
8 awards performance credits, where appropriate, that offset
9 payment increments as an incentive to continue to provide
10 statistically better performance.In addition,in
11 streamlining PIO reporting by reducing the granularity of
12 sub-measurements (disaggregations) ,QPAP II continues to
13 cover the same CLEC-specific performance dimensions that the
14 current QPAP covers for those PI0s.
15 Table 2 below maps the current QPAP sections to QPAP II
16 sections that address the same or equivalent topical areas:
17 Table 2 - Mapping of Current QPAP Sections to Modified18 Q Addr 1PAPIISectionsessinqtheSamor Equiva ent TODics
Current QPAP Sections QPAP II Equivalent Sections (if any)
1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction
2.0 Plan Structure 1.2 Introduction
3.0 Performance Measurements 2.0 Performance Measurements and Reporting
4.0 Statistical Measurement 3.3.2PlDs with Parity Standards
5.0 Critical Z-Value 3.4 Applicable Critical-Z Values
6.0 Tier 1 Payments to CLEC 3.5 Dollar Levels, Escalations, and Caps
7.0 Tier 2 Payments to State Not applicable
8.0 Step by Step Calculation of Monthly Tier 1 4.0 Step-By-Step Calculations
Payments to CLEC
9.0 Step by Step Calculation of Monthly Tier 2 Not applicable
Payments to State Funds
10.0 Low Volume, Developing Markets Not applicable
11.0 Payment 5.0 Payments
12.0 Cap on Tier 1 and Tier 2 Payments Not applicable
13.0 Limitations 6.0 Limitations
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-27-
Current QPAP Sections QPAP II Equivalent Sections (if any)
14.0 Reporting 2.0 Performance Measurements and Reporting
15.0 Integrated Audit Program/Investigations of Not applicable
Performance Results
16.0 Reviews 7.0 Voluntary Plan, Plan Term, Plan Review, and
17.0 Voluntary Performance Assurance Plan Ongoing Wholesale Service Quality Assurance
18.0 Dispute Resolution 8.0 Dispute Resolution
Attachment 1: Tier 1 and Tier 2 Performance Attachment 2: Payment Levels for PIDs Subject to
Measurements Subject to Per Occurrence Per Occurrence Payment Increments and
Payments Performance Credits
Attachment 2: Performance Measurements 3.5.1.3 Per-PID Caps
Subject to Per Measurement Caps
Exhibit B Performance Indicator Definitions Attachment 1: Performance Indicator Definitions
1
2 Q.DOES QPAP II INCORPORATE ALL OF THE PIDS AN PRODUCTS
3 THAT AR CONTAIND IN THE CURNT QPAP?
4 A.No,QPAP II proposes several changes including:
5 eliminating some PIOs that are not designated to generate
6 payments in the current QPAP; removing some PIOs from the
7 "reinstatement/removal process" that have never required
8 reinstatement; adding some PI0s to the reinstatement/removal
9 process, consistent with Liberty Report recommendation 2; 8
10 removing a PIO that has never had payments; combining some
11 services and elements into single categories; removing some
12 services and elements that have always had very low acti vi ty;
13 and updating several PI0s to reflect a change in gateways (as
14 I explain later).These changes are summarized in Table 3
15 below:
8 Liberty Report, pages 4 and 86.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-28-
1 Table 3 - Qwest Proposals for Stmlification in QPAP II
1.Reduce DisalilirelZations: Combine or collapse sub-measurements within PlDs
OP-3 Installation Commitments Met MR-4 Service Affecting Troubles Cleared within
OP-4 Installation Interval 48 hours
OP-S New Service Quality MR-S Troubles Cleared within 4 hours
OP-6 Delayed Days MR-6 Mean Time to Restore
MR-3 Out of Service Cleared within 24 hrs MR-7 Repair Repeat Report Rate
2.Remove PIDs not in OPAP: Remove from PID some measurements not designated to trigger payments
PO-4C LSRs Rejected (faxed)DB-1 Time to Update Databases
PO-1S Number of Due Date Changes per Order DB-2 Accurate Database Updates
PO-19 Stand-Alone Test Environment Accuracy DA-1 Speed of Answer - Directory Assistance
OP-1S Interval for Pending Orders Delayed OS-1 Speed of Answer - Operator Services
MR-9 Repair Appointments Met CP-1 Collocation Completion Interval
BI-2 Invoices Delivered within 10 Days
3.Remove Some PIDs in Reinstatement/Removal Process from OPAP: Remove some PIDs currently in the
reinstatement/removal process that have never required reinstatement (continue to report as PIDs)
GA-7 Timely Outage Resolution following PO-16 Timely Release Notifications
Softare Releases OP-17B Timeliness of LNP Disconnects (assoc.
PO-3C LSR Rejection Notice Interval (faxed)w/untimely CLEC requests)
PO-SC Firm Order Confirmations (FOCs) On NP-1 Trunk Blocking
Time (faxed)BI-4 Billng Completeness
PO-8D Jeopardy Notice Interval
PO-9D Timely Jeopardy Notices (UNE-P (POTS))
4.Add Some PIDs to Reinstatement/Removal Process
PO-9A, B, & C Timely Jeopardy Notices CP-2 Collocations Completed in Scheduled Intervals
PO-20 Manual Service Order Accuracy CP-4 Collocation Feasibility Study Commitments Met
5.Remove from PID/gPAP a measurement that has never generated payments
PO-1 Pre-Order/Order Response Times
6.Combine service/element cateiiories
.Provisioning (OP) and Repair (MR) PlDs:.Resale non-residential services (Centrex, Centrex 21, and PBX);.Resale digital services (Basic ISDN, Primary ISDN, DSO, DS1, and Frame Relay);
.Jeopardy Notice PlDs:.Combine Non-designed Services and Unbundled Loops into one reporting category.Make LIS trunks diagnostic and remove UNE-P (POTS)
7.Remove services/elements with verv low activity.UDIT above DS1 .Unbundled Loops-DS3 and Above.Line Sharing .Dark Fiber; and UNE-P (POTS).Loop Splitting
8.Modify PIDs for XML replacing EDI, streamlining definitions as done in states having implemented
Create GA-8 PID (XML Gateway Availability) and modify the following PlDs to replace EDI with XML:
PO-2 Electronic Flow-through PO-6 Work Completion Notification Timeliness
PO-3 LSR Rejection Notice Interval PO-7 Billing Completion Notification Timeliness
PO-4 LSRs Rejected PO-20 Manual Service Order Accuracy
PO-S Firm Order Confirmations on Time
2
3 Q.DOES QPAP II ELIMINATE WHOLESAL PERFORMCE ASSURCE
4 FOR IDAHO CLECS WHO HAVE ADOPTE THE CUNT PAP?
5 A.Far from it.QPAP II continues the same Tier-1,
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-29-
1 performance-based,self-executing payment provisions that
2 exist in the current QPAP and applies them to a streamlined
3 structure of services,elements,and PIOs.And,as I
4 mentioned, the proposed QPAP also includes an additional
5 incentive in the form of performance credits that are earned
6 by performance that is significantly better than the
7 established standards.
8 Payment Increments, Performce Credi ts and Paymnt Structure
9 Q.YOU HAVE STATED THAT QPAP II WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
10 ECONOMIC INCETIVES FOR PERFORMCE, IN WHT WAY AR THE
11 PERFORMCE CREDITS AN INCENTIV TO QWEST?
12 A.Performance credits are generated when Qwest provides
13 superior performance,relati ve to established standards.
14 Thus, if Qwest fails to satisfy standards, it has the
15 opportunity in the ensuing months or across multiple services
16 in the same categories to offset potential payments with
17 superior performance.Performance credits not only provide
18 an incentive to provide superior performance, but also
19 resolve Qwest s concern about the one-sided nature of the
20 current QPAP by taking into account both nonconforming and
21 superior performance before assessing payments.
22 Q.HOW WILL PAYMNTS BE CACULTED UNER QPAP II?
23 A.Payment increments and performance credits will be
24 calculated for EACH CLEC on a monthly basis and reported on a
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-30-
1 quarterly basis, and payments will be assessed on an annual
2 basis. In this way, there is still a consequence for every
3 CLEC-specific performance dimension that exists in the
4 current QPAP.
5 Q.HOW WILL PAYMNT INCRENTS BE DETERMIND?
6 A.Payment increments will be determined in the same way
7 that payments are determined under the current QPAP,
8 including applicable statistical procedures, per-occurrence
9 dollar levels and escalations.The only difference is that,
10 instead of immediately triggering an actual payment each
11 month, the payment increments identify amounts that may
12 result in a payment to the extent they exceed the sum of
13 offsetting performance credits in a given year.
14 Q.HOW WOUL PERFORMCE CREDIT PROVISIONS WORK?
15 A.Performance credits would only be earned where
16 statistical analyses showed the performance to be
17 significantly better than standard -- as a mirror image, so
18 to speak, of the process by which payment increments are
19 generated for performance that is worse than standard.As I
20 have testified,the thresholds for incurring a payment
21 increment or earning a performance credit are based on the
22 same statistical thresholds for determining significance as
23 used in the current QPAP.Further, performance credit
24 amounts are calculated using the same dollar increments and
25 escalation rules as the payment increments.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-31-
1 Q.WOUL PERFRMCE CREDITS BE APPLIED ACROSS THE BOAR
2 AGAINST ALL PAYMNT INCRETS?
3 A.No.Qwest proposes to divide the process into three
4 categories: "Analog," "Oigital," and "CLEC."Performance
5 credits would be made against payment increments only among
6 metrics, services, and elements wi thin the same category and
7 for the same CLEC.Thus, a performance "success" in the
8 "Analog"ca tegory would not be allowed to offset a
9 performance "failure" in the "Oigital" category or in the
10 "CLEC" category.
11 Q.PLESE DESCRIBE THE ANALOG CATEGORY IN MORE DETAIL.
12 A.The Analog category consists of provisioning and repair
13 measurements for services and elements that use or are
14 typically associated with services on analog-capable lines,
15 or equivalent.
16 Specifically,the Analog category addresses the
17 following services and elements:
18 · Resale residential single line service
19 · Resale business single line service
20 · Resale non-residential services (including Centrex,
21 Centrex 21, and PBX9 trunks)
22 . Line Splitting and Sub-loop Unbundling
23 Q.PLESE DESCRIBE THE DIGITAL CATEGORY IN MORE DETAIL.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-32-
1 A.The Oigital category consists of provisioning and repair
2 measurements for services and elements that use digital
3 technology or are designed to be capable of supporting
4 specified digital service.
5 Specifically,the Oigi tal category addresses the
6 following services and elements:
7 · Resale digital services (including Basic ISON, Primary
8 IS0N, OSO, OS1, and Frame Relay)
9 · Unbundled digital-capable Loops (2- & 4-wire non-
10 loaded, IS0N-capable, AOSL-capable, xOSL-l capable)
11 · Unbundled OS1-capable Loops
12 · Enhanced Extended Loops (both OSO and OS1 levels)
13 . Unbundled Oedicated Interoffice Transport-OS1
14 (UOIT-OS1 )
15 Q.WHT is COMMON BETWEN THE ANALOG AN DIGITAL CATEGORIES
16 AN HOW DOES THAT CONTRAST WITH THE CLEC CATEGORY?
17 A.The Analog and Oigi tal categories contain metrics for
18 performance that can most directly affect end-user customers.
19 In contrast,the "CLEC" category addresses performance
20 dimensions that could be considered to be "back office" items
21 that do not typically have direct impact on end-user
22 customers but may have impact on CLEC internal operations.
23 Further,the CLEC category is not defined by product
9 "PBX" stands for "Private Braneh Exehange" and refers to trunks that
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-33-
1 listings, but rather by specified measurements.
2 Thus while the Analog and Oigi tal categories contain the
3 provisioning and repair measurements,the CLEC category
4 contains all other payment- or credit-triggering metrics
5 including the performance dimensions of pre-order, billing,
6 and collocation.
7 Q.WOUL EVERY MESURNT WITH PERFORMCE ABOVE STANAR
8 CRETE A PERFRMCE CREDIT?
9 A.No,only those measurements where performance is
10 significantly better than standard, statistically, would be
11 eligible for a performance credit.Those PIOs where
12 performance substantially meets the standard (i. e., neither
13 nonconforming nor superior) are considered in the range of
14 statistically "equal"performance where no payment is
15 incurred and no performance credit earned.
16 Q.HOW WILL THE PERFRMCE CREDITS BE IMLETED AGAINST
17 THE PAYMNT INCRENTS?
18 A.Each month,every payment-eligible measurement will
19 trigger a payment increment, a performance credit, or neither
20 (where performance levels are not significantly different).
21 These determinations will be based on the same rules that
22 exist in the current QPAP for Tier 1 measurements, with the
23 added provision that performance credits will be determined
provide aeeess for private, on-premises switehes to the publie switehed
telephone network (PSTN).
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-34-
1 by applying the rules "in reverse." Within each of the three
2 categories on a per-CLEC basis, the payment increments will
3 be sumed, and the performance credits will be summed.This
4 will be repeated each month throughout the calendar year.
5 Then, at the end of the year, the sum of all the months'
6 performance credits will be subtracted from the sum of all
7 the months' payment increments,and a net amount thus
8 determined for each category for each CLEC. Where the year's
9 sum of payment increments is greater than the year's sum of
10 performance credits wi thin a given category, a payment credit
11 will be payable to the CLEC for that category.Where the
12 reverse is true, no payment will be due for the category.
13 Q.HOW WILL AN NET PAYMNTS DUE BE MAE TO CLECS?
14 A.Payments will be credited to CLECs using the same
15 methods and procedures as under the current QPAP, except that
16 they will be made annually, rather than monthly.The reason
17 for annual versus monthly payments is to allow for the
18 netting of payment increments and performance credits
19 throughout the year.
20 Q.DOES QPAP II'S MODIFIED PAYMNT STRUCTU AMLIORATE
21 QWEST'S SECOND CONCERN REGARING PAYM LELS?
22 A.Yes. Qwest s second concern arises from the fact that
23 over the life of the QPAP since 2003 on a region-wide basis
24 Qwest has paid many millions of dollars in payments - even
25 though the proportion of PI0s triggering the payments was
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-35-
1 less than 3 percent and even though there was not even so
2 much as a claim of systemic discrimination or backsliding
3 from section 271 standards of market openness. This is
4 evidence of the one-sided nature of the QPAP, as I have
5 explained.In short, such excellent overall performance
6 should not have triggered such high payments.
7 However, Qwest believes that by modifying the QPAP to
8 consider Qwest' s whole performance picture, the resulting
9 Plan will fairly determine the payment consequences, even
10 with the existing payment increments and escalation
11 provisions that pertain to Tier 1 payments.
12 Tier 2 and Mini.um Paymnts
13 Q.WILL MINIMU PAYMS OR TIER 2 PAYMNTS APPLY?
14 A.No.QPAP II only retains the performance-based Tier 1
15 provisions of the current QPAP and eliminates the "minimum"
16 payments provisions that were originally included in the PAP
17 for very small and start-up competitors in order to let the
18 market mature.
19 Q.WHY IS IT APPROPRIATE TO NOT RETAIN TIER 2 AN MINIM
20 PAYMTS?
21 A.Provisions for Tier 2 payments and minimum payments are
22 no longer needed.Originally, they were put in place as an
23 additional incentive over and above what would be paid to
24 CLECs and for developing markets.Now, seven years after
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-36-
1 QPAP originally became effective,the markets are
2 irreversibly open and mature.There is no longer a basis to
3 seek to increase QPAP payments to provide a greater incentive
4 to maintain the level of market openness attained in 2003;
5 the industry has moved well beyond that need.This is
6 particularly true in light of what I have said about how very
7 few PI0s experienced nonconf orming performance.Where
8 nonconforming performance occurred, affected CLECs received
9 Tier 1 payments and the incentive created by those penalties
10 will continue under QPAP II.
11 Q.OTHER THA POTENTIALY REUCING THE AMOUNT THAT QWST
12 MAY HAVE TO PAY TO CLECS, HOW DO THESE CHAGES IMROVE THE
13 QPAP?
14 A.These changed allow QPAP II to reward superior service,
15 thus providing a new economic incentive.In so doing it
16 ameliorates one of Qwest' s key concerns through balancing the
17 way payments are ultimately determined, taking into account
18 both nonconforming and superior service. In addition, this
19 change is consistent with what I have witnessed in terms of
20 CLECs being more interest in receiving good service than in
21 recei ving payments.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-37-
1 Measurement Streamining
2 Q.WITH REGA TO QWEST' S THIRD CONCERN AS TO THE
3 UNCESSARY COMPLEXITY AN VOLUM OF PID MESURNTS, HOW
4 DOES QPAP II STRINE THE MESURNTS?
5 A.Overall,QPAP II streamlines both the PIOs and
6 service/element categories.It streamlines PI0s by combining
7 what have proven to be unnecessary disaggregations into a
8 single PIO and removing PIOs that are either in the current
9 Exhibit B list but are not included among PIOs that are
10 allowed to trigger payments in the current QPAP, or are no
11 longer material to the purpose of QPAP.QPAP I I also moves
12 some PI0s into the "reinstatement/removal process" and
13 converts others to diagnostic measures because, historically,
14 they have not produced payments to any significant degree.
15 Finally, QPAP II streamlines product categories by combining
16 the reporting for similar products or processes into one
17 product category and removing products that have very low
18 acti vi ty levels - particularly those already removed from the
19 QPAP payment process by other prior changes.
20 Several of these proposals are consistent with
21 recommendations made in the Liberty Report and/or are of a
22 nature that Qwest believes should be acceptable to CLECs.
23 Q.WHT IS THE OVERAL EXTNT OF STREINING ACHIEVE BY
24 QPAP II?
25 A.In the current QPAP, there are over 350 PI0s at the
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-38-
1 lowest levels of disaggregation that can generate payments
2 each month in Idaho and that are showing activity (based on
3 Oecember 2009).Under QPAP II, this would reduce to about
4 170 PIOs a reduction of approximately 53 percent.The
5 large majority (about three-quarters) of this reduction comes
6 from combining products into fewer reporting categories and
7 reducing the number of PI0 disaggregations.This means the
8 vast majority of services,elements,and performance
9 dimensions continue to be addressed in QPAP II.
10 Q.PLESE DESCRIBE IN MORE DETAIL HOW QPAP II PROPOSES TO
11 ELIMINATE UNCESSARY DISAGGGATIONS FROM MESURTS.
12 A.Provisioning and repair measurements that address
13 timeliness for performance are currently disaggregated into
14 sub-categories for geographic differences (i. e., MSA/Non-MSA
15 or Zone 1/Zone 2) 10 and for dispatched/non-dispatched status
16 (which latter distinctions apply only to the MSA and Non-MSA
17 categories). Thus, the provisioning and repair timeliness
18 measurements each currently have five geographic-related
19 disaggregations.Under these disaggregation schemes, all
20 services or elements either fit under the MSA/Non-
21 MSA/ Oi spa tch/Non-di spa tch disaggregations or under the
22 Zone 1/ Zone 2 disaggrega tions.Such disaggregations were
23 originally instituted, because the parties participating in
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-39-
1 negotiations that developed the PIOs did not know whether or
2 to what extent such dimensions as dispatch/non-dispatch or
3 urban/rural (as might be represented by MSA/Non-MSA or
4 Zone 1/Zone 2) would distort the parity comparisons required
5 in most PIO standards.In the seven years since the PI0s
6 began,these distinctions have not been found to be
7 significant.
8 Q.AR THERE STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAK, MATHETICALY OR
9 STATISTICALY,TO ASSUR THAT THE COMBINING OF THESE
10 DISAGGREGATIONS OR SUB-MESURS DOES NOT INJECT ERORS INTO
11 THE RESULTS?
12 A.Yes,Qwest proposes to combine these multiple
13 disaggregations into fewer measurements by statistically
14 "weighting" their individual contribution to the streamlined
15 resul ts.Accordingly, in the QPAP II's Attachment 1 PIOs
16 (Qwest Exhibit 1,Attachment 1) ,the concept of
17 "statistically weighted" is reflected in the descriptions of
18 standards in the affected parity PIOs.Using this approach,
19 streamlining simplicity is obtained and nothing is lost in
20 terms of accuracy.
21 Q.PLESE IDENTIFY THE PIDS THAT AR MODIFIED AS PART OF
22 QPAP II'S STREINING.
23 A.QPAP II combines all of the geographic/dispatch/non-
10 ~MSA"stands for ~Metropolitan Statistieal Area." ~Zone 1" and ~Zone 2"
represent geographie designations that were supposed to roughly
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-40-
1 dispatch dimensions into one measurement for each
2 provisioning and repair measurement as applied to each
3 product category.Table 4 below summarizes these
4 modifications:
5 Table 4 - PID Reporting Streamining
PID Current QPAP PID Disaggregations QPAP"
(Streamlined)
OP-3: Installation OP-3A: Dispatches within MSAs OP-3D: Zone 1
Commitments Met OP-3B: Dispatches outside MSAs OP-3E: Zone 2 OP-3
OP-3C: Non-dispatched
OP-4: Installation Interval OP-4A: Dispatches within MSAs OP-4D: Zone 1
OP-4B: Dispatches outside MSAs OP-4E: Zone 2 OP-4
OP-4C: Non-dispatched
OP-6: Delayed Days OP-6-1: Dispatches within MSAs OP-6-4: Zone 1
OP-6-2: Dispatches outside MSAs OP-6-S: Zone 2 OP-6
OP-6-3: Non-dispatched
MR-3: Out of Service Cleared MR-3A: Dispatches within MSAs MR-3D: Zone 1
within 24 Hours; and MR-3B: Dispatches outside MSAs MR-3E: Zone 2
MR-S: Troubles Cleared MR-3C: Non-dispatched MR-3/Swithin 4 Hoursl1 MR-SA: Dispatches within MSAs MR-SD: Zone 1
MR-SB: Dispatches outside MSAs MR-SE: Zone 2
MR-SC: Non-dispatched
MR-4: All Troubles Cleared MR-4A: Dispatches within MSAs MR-4D: Zone 1
within 48 Hours MR-4B: Dispatches outside MSAs MR-4E: Zone 2 MR-4
MR-4C: Non-dispatched
MR-6: Mean Time to Restore MR-6A: Dispatches within MSAs MR-6D: Zone 1
MR-6B: Dispatches outside MSAs MR-6E: Zone 2 MR-6
MR-6C: Non-dispatched
MR-7: Repair Repeat Reports MR-7A: Dispatches within MSAs MR-7D: Zone 1
MR-7B: Dispatches outside MSAs MR-7E: Zone 2 MR-7
MR-7C: Non-dispatched
6
7 Q.WHT IMPACTS WILL THE PROPOSED COMBINATIONS OF PID
8 DISAGGREGATIONS HAVE?
9 A.These streamlining proposals will have no adverse impact
10 on CLECs and some advantages.CLECs will continue to have
approximate urban and rural areas, respeetively.11 The MR-4 proposal also ineludes ehanging the title of the measurement
to foeus only on troubles that are not out of serviee, but that are
"serviee affeeting" (sueh as statie on the line). This is eonsistent with
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-41-
1 visibility to all the PIO information they need about
2 services and elements they order. All the orders and trouble
3 tickets that were counted under the previous disaggregations
4 will continue to be measured. Advantages will arise from the
5 fact that, in some cases where retail analogue volumes were
6 too small to create a good statistical comparison, the
7 combined disaggregations will allow for more volumes.
8 Q.HOW DO THESE RECOMMNDATIONS FOR CHAGES TO THE PIDS
9 COMPAR WITH THOSE MAE BY LIBERTY CONSULTING IN ITS REPORT?
10 A.Overall, in streamlining PIOs and products, QPAP II
11 adopts portions of fi ve of the eight Idaho-applicable
12 recommendations made by Liberty Consulting Group ("Liberty")
13 in its Report12 of June 30, 2009, and reports the streamlined
14 measurements for the life of the plan.These Liberty
15 recommenda tions include portions or aspects of
16 Recommendations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7.13 These proposals are
17 described in more detail below.
18 Q.IN DOING THIS, IS QWEST WITHDRAWING ITS PRIOR OPPOSITION
19 TO THE LIBERTY REPORT?
20 A.No.Qwest continues to obj ect to the basis upon which
21 the Liberty Report was conducted and takes serious issue with
22 the relevance and basis of many of the findings and
Liberty Report Reeommendation 5 (pages 6 and 88), the portion dealing with
MR-4.12 Analysis of Qwest' s Performance Assurance Plans - Final Report, June
30, 2009, The Liberty Consulting Group (hereinafter, "Liberty Report") .13 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-42-
1 conclusions.However,the modifications we propose in
2 QPAP II make it possible for Qwest to accept some of the
3 streamlining outcomes suggested by the Liberty Report.
4 Q.WHT LIBERTY REPORT RECOMMNDATIONS DO YOUR PROPOSALS
S FOR STREINING PIDS ADDRESS?
6 A.The above simplifications address portions of two
7 recommendations from the Liberty Report, numers 1 and S. 14
8 Recommendation number 1 suggests introducing a new
9 aggregation mechanism to minimize low-volume tests in
10 determining payments.The above proposals approach the
11 volume issue by aggregating numerous sub-measurements into
12 one measurement, combining the volumes from those individual
13 sub-measurements.Among other things,Recommendation S
14 suggests changing MR-4 to focus it solely on troubles that
1S are only "service affecting," meaning that the measure would
16 be limited to those troubles, such as static on the line,
1 7 that are reported as a trouble but do not cause the line to
18 be out of service.This removes an overlap between MR-4 and
19 MR-3 (Out of Service Troubles Cleared within 24 hours) and
20 MR-S (Troubles Cleared within 4 hours).
21 Q.PLESE EXPLAIN WHY SOME MESURNTS THAT AR INCLUDED
22 THE PIDS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TRIGGER PAYMTS IN THE CUNT
23 QPAP AN WHY THOSE MESURNTS SHOUL NOW BE REOVED.
14 Liberty Report, Reeommendation 1 (pages 5 and 85) and Reeommendation 5
(pages 6 and 88-89)
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-43-
1 A.Some measurements are reported under the PI0s, but they
2 are not listed in the current QPAP, meaning that they are not
3 subj ect to QPAP payments. These measurements were included in
4 the PI0s, but not in the QPAP, because they did not rise to
5 the same level of attention as other PIOs that were subjected
6 to payment consequences.In some cases, other PIOs were
7 deemed to sufficiently cover the same or similar performance
8 dimensions as these PI0s. They have never had performance
9 problems that generated CLEC complaints.Accordingly, Qwest
10 proposes that these measurements be eliminated from reporting
11 under the PI0s in QPAP II:
12 · LSRs Rejected (Faxed Orders) (PO-4C)
13 · Numer of Oue Oate Changes per Order (PO-15)
14 · Stand-Alone Test Environment Accuracy (PO-19)
15 · Pending Orders Oelayed Past Oue Oate (OP-15)
16 · Repair Appointments Met (MR-9)
17 · Invoices Oelivered within 10 Oays (BI-2)
18 · Oatabase Updates (OB-1 Time to Update Oatabases and
19 OB-2 Accurate Oatabase Updates)
20 · Oirectory Assistance (OA-1 Speed of Answer)
21 · Operator Services (OS-1 Speed of Answer)
22 · Collocation (CP-1 Collocation Completion Interval) 15
15 Other eolloeation PIDs, CP-2 (Colloeations Completed within Seheduled
Intervals) and CP-4 (Colloeation Feasibility Study Commitments Met) will
eontinue to be reported.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-44-
1 Q.WHT AR QWEST' S PROPOSALS REGAING PIDS THAT AR
2 ALY IN THE REINSTATEMNT/REVA PROCESS?
3 A.The following measurements are currently in the
4 "reinstatement/removal" process. 16 In the more than two years
5 since they were placed in that process, they have never
6 required reinstatement.Qwest proposes to permanently remove
7 these from the PI0s and QPAP II: 17
8 · Resolution of Outages following Software Releases (GA-
9 7): In addition to the fact that this PI0 has never
10 required reinstatement, the impacts of the performance
11 it measures is monitored by GA-1 (Gateway
12 Availability) results.
13 · Billing Completeness (BI-4): In addition to the fact
14 that this PIO has never required reinstatement, the
15 performance it measures is covered by the Billing
16 Accuracy metric (BI-3).
17 · LSR Rejection Notice Interval (Faxed Orders) (PO-3C) :
18 This PIO has never required reinstatement and is a
19 minor sub-measurement of PO-3 that focuses only on
20 faxed orders, which do not constitute a significant
16 PIDs in the ~reinstatement removal proeess," pursuant to seetion 3.2 of
the eurrent QPAP, ~are not subjeet to the payment meehanisms of the PAP;"
however, they may be reinstated if they do not eonform to the standards
for three eonseeuti ve months.17 Qwest also notes that the Liberty Report, in Seetion IV.C.1, ~Review of
Measures on the Reinstatement/Removal List," does not inelude these PIDs
among those it believes should eontinue to be in the PAP via the
Reinstatement/Removal proeess.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-45-
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
1S
19 Q.
avenue for CLECs to submit local service requests. 18
· Firm Order Confirmations On Time (Manual) (PO-SC): The
vast maj ori ty of LSRs are not manually processed. This
sub-measurement has never generated a payment in the
history of QPAP in Idaho.
· Jeopardy Notice Interval-UNE-P (POTS) (PO-SO) and Timely
Jeopardy Notices-UNE-P (POTS) (PO-90): UNE-P (POTS) is no
longer a service under section 2S1 or 271 of the Act.
· Timely Release Notifications (PO-16): This measurement
has never generated a payment in the history of QPAP
in Idaho.
· NXX Code Activation (NP-1): This measurement has never
generated a payment in the history of QPAP in Idaho.
· Oisconnect Timeliness for LNP Orders (for untimely
requests) (OP-17B): This is a diagnostic sub-metric of
the OP-17 measurement that focuses on performance
relative to disconnect requests that were not timely
submi tted by CLECs.
AR THERE PIDS THAT QWEST PROPOSES ADDING TO THE
20 "REINSTATEMNT/REOVAL PROCESS"?
21 A.Yes. Qwest proposes that the following PI0s be removed
22 from QPAP II payment provisions and made subject to the
23 Reinstatement/Removal process.These were also recommended
18 The proposal regarding PO-3C and faxed orders does not ehange or reduee
CLECs ability to submit LSRs via fax. Rather, this proposal only
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-46-
1 in the Liberty Report19 for this treatment, as noted below:
2 · Timely Jeopardy Notices (PO-9): Since the beginning,
3 this PI0 has generated only $ 9 in payments in Idaho.
4 · Manual Service Order Accuracy (PO-20): Since 200S,
S after Qwest put in place automated service order
6 verification procedures, this PIO has generated only
7 $ 7 S in payments in Idaho.Placing it in the
s Reinstatement/Removal process will maintain visibility
9 to performance and if it is needed, this PI0, like all
10 that are placed in this category, may be reinstated.
11 · Collocations Completed within Scheduled Intervals (CP-
12 2) and Collocation Feasibility Study Commitments Met
13 (CP-4): These have never triggered payments.
14 Q.DOES QPAP II PROPOSE ADDING PIDS TO THE "DIAGNOSTIC"
1 S CATEGORY?
16 A.Yes.Qwest proposes that the following PI0s be
17 designated as "diagnostic." If there exists a basis for
1S addressing these dimensions (and Qwest believes there is
19 not) ,they should be addressed in separate reciprocal
20 agreements between CLEC and Qwest and not in QPAP, as I
21 explain later in my testimony:
22 · Numer Portability Timeliness (OP-S)
23 · Oisconnect Timeliness for LNp20 Orders (OP-17)
reeognizes that this partieular dimension of serviee performanee is not
suffieiently signifieant to justify eontinued PID monitoring.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-47-
1 · LNP Trouble Reports Cleared Timely (MR-11)
2 Q.AR THERE OTHE PIDS THAT QWEST PROPOSES TO EXCLUDE FROM
3 QPAP II?
4 A.Yes. The Pre-Order/Order Response Times (PO-1) PIO is
5 based on test transactions, not on actual transactions. It
6 has never generated QPAP payments. Systems necessary to
7 support this performance dimension have long been in
8 operation successfully.Going forward,the performance
9 reported by gateway availability results (GA-1) monitors the
10 relevant performance.
11 Service/Element Streamining
12 Q.HOW is QWEST PROPOSING TO STREIN THE REPORTING OF
13 SERVICES AN ELES UNER QPAP II?
14 A.Qwest proposes to combine services and elements that are
15 presently individually reported into combined categories and
16 to remove services and elements with very low acti vi ty
17 levels.
18 Q.PLESE DESCRIBE THE PROPOSAL FOR COMBINING SIMLA
19 SERVICES/ELENTS OR PROCESSES INTO FER CATEGORIES.
20 A.Presently , individual services made available to CLECs
21 are each reported separately in both the provisioning and
22 repair measurements.In QPAP II, Qwest proposes reporting
23 them in four categories:
19 Liberty Report, Reeommendation 2 pages 5 and 86.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-48-
1 · Resale residential single line service
2 . Resale business single line service
3 · Other Resale non-residential services (consisting of
4 Centrex, Centrex 21, and PBX)
5 . Resale digital services (including Basic ISN, Primary
6 IS0N, OSO, OS1, and Frame Relay)
7 In addition, Qwest proposes combining product categories
S measured by the jeopardy notification PIOs (PO-S and PO-9)
9 into fewer categories.Jeopardy notifications are issued
10 when Qwest is able to determine that circumstances may
11 prevent fulfillment of the due date (i. e., the due date is
12 "in jeopardy" of not being met) and notifies the CLEC.
13 Specifically, PO-S and PO-9 currently report four product
14 categories:Non-Oesigned Services,Unbundled Loops,LIS
15 Trunks, and UNE-P (POTS).The first two, Non-Oesigned
16 Services and Unbundled Loops,use similar notification
17 processes,so Qwest proposes to combine them into one
1S category.For LIS Trunks, Qwest proposes a diagnostic
19 standard, for reasons I explain later.The latter category,
20 UNE-P (POTS), is no longer in the QPAP, so Qwest proposes
21 eliminating this category.
22 Q.PLESE DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL TO REVE PRODUCTS WITH
23 VERY LOW ACTIVITY LEVELS.
20 Loeal Numer Portability.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-49-
1 A.QPAP II proposes removing the following services and
2 elements from the PI0s and QPAP:
3 · Unbundled Oedicated Interoffice Transport Above the OS1
4 level (UOIT Above OS1): Only eight were in service as of
5 April 2010.
6 · Line Sharing: Only one has been in service for the 12
7 months ending with April 2010.
8 · Loop Splitting: No products have ever been purchased by
9 CLECs in Idaho.
10 · Unbundled Loops-OS3 and Above (UBL-OS3): None have been
11 in service for the 12 months ending in April 2010.
12 · Oark Fiber Loops and Interoffice (10F): No Oark Fiber
13 Loops are in service as of April 2010, and there are
14 only two Oark Fiber Interoffice Facilities (IOF) in
15 service.
16 Q.WHT SERVICE CATEGORY DOES QWEST PROPOSE REOVING FROM
1 7 THE PIDS AN QPAP II?
18 A.Qwest proposes removing Unbundled Network Element-
19 Platform (POTS) ("UNE-P (POTS)"). When the FCC removed the
20 unbundled switching (an essential piece of UNE-P) Qwest was
21 no longer required to offer UNE-P (POTS) under sections 251
22 and 271 of the Act.Accordingly, these services were moved
23 to commercial agreements with CLECs, separate from their
24 interconnection agreements.However, sixteen (16) remain in
QWE-T-08-04
Jul y 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-50-
1 service under the QPAP, which are the residue of lines in
2 service before the above changes were made by the FCC.
3 Q.DO QWEST'S PROPOSALS FOR REVING CERTAIN SERVICES AN
4 ELETS FROM THE QPAP AFFECT THEIR AVAILAILITY TO CLECS?
5 A.No.Although these services have very low volumes
6 (except for UNE-P), if a CLEC wishes to order them, their
7 continued availability will be unaffected by the QPAP II
8 taking effect.Furthermore, if a product is removed from the
9 PAP, CLECs and Qwest can negotiate a commercial agreement
10 that provides targets and monitoring for Qwest' s performance,
11 similar to what is currently done for UNE-P.
12 LNP and LIS Trunks
13 Q.DOES QPAP II PROPOSE A CHAGE FOR THE TRTMNT OF LOCA
14 NUER PORTABILITY (LNP) AN LOCA INTERCONNCTION SERVICE
15 (LIS) TRUNS?
16 A.Yes. Under QPAP II, measurements that pertain to these
17 two products will be treated as diagnostic and will not
18 ei ther trigger payment increments or service credits.
19 Q.WHY DOES QPAP II MA THIS PROPOSAL?
20 A.Local Number Portability (LNP) and Local Interconnection
21 Service (LIS) trunks, by their very nature, are not suited
22 for inclusion in a QPAP because they involve mutual or
23 reciprocal obligations and impacts on both Qwest and CLECs
24 that neither the current QPAP nor QPAP II is designed to
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-51-
1 address.The Qwest's performance assurance plans are
2 designed to address only Qwest obligations.Further, this
3 reciprocal nature produces sufficient incentives for both
4 Qwest and CLECs to perform well for LNP and LIS Trunks.
5 Q.PLESE DESCRIBE THE MUTUAL/RECIPROCA OBLIGATIONS AN
6 IMACTS ASSOCIATED WITH LNP.
7 A.LNP is the function of transferring an end-user
8 customer's telephone numer from one carrier to another.
9 This would happen when customers choose to disconnect service
10 from, say, Qwest and begin receiving their telephone service
11 from a CLEC while keeping the same telephone numer they had
12 with Qwest.The reverse can also occur where customers with
13 service from a CLEC choose to change their service to Qwest
14 and keep the same telephone numers.
15 As an example of mutual obligations and impacts,
16 industry practice calls for transmitting a firm order
17 confirmation (FOC) 21 to the co-carrier in a timely, accurate
18 manner. CLEC performance can affect Qwest's ability to meet
19 the standard, however, if the CLEC merely posts the FOC on a
20 website and expects the co-carrier to "fish" for it or if the
21 CLEC later post changes without notice. It is not feasible
22 for the carrier requesting the number porting (Qwest, in this
23 example)to know when such an FOC has been posted,
21 An FOC is a notiee sent from the earrier reeei ving the LNP request to
the one sending the request, eonfirming that a due date has been assigned.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-52-
1 particularly when it represents a change. As a result, Qwest
2 will not be able to respond at the correct time with its side
3 of the numer porting, and the customer may be adversely
4 affected or even put out of service.This is contrary to
5 industry practice and, while Qwest follows the industry
6 practice, some CLECs do not.
7 In addition,accurate information is essential to
8 correctly port a customer's number.Failing to provide
9 accurate information could result in port delay or an early
10 disconnection that takes a customer out of service entirely.
11 Both Qwest and the CLEC must provide accurate information.
12 However the QPAPs are not designed to hold both Qwest and
13 CLECs responsible, and so CLECs are not held to an accuracy
14 standard for LNP.
15 Similarly,LNP triggers must be set timely;the
16 disconnection from the former carrier must happen later than
17 the port completion, or a customer may be out of service.
18 However, CLECs are not held to a timeliness standard for LNP.
19 Q.PLESE DESCRIBE THE MUAL/RECIPROCA OBLIGATIONS AN
20 IMACTS ASSOCIATED WITH LIS.
21 A.Interconnection is inherently a joint responsibility of
22 carriers, because it constitutes the joining of two carriers'
23 networks with facilities that permit the exchange of
24 communications between customers of one network and customers
25 of the other network. Joint forecasting is essential to the
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-53-
1 timely planning capacity augmentations , cooperative ordering
2 is important to avoid delays and unnecessary costs, and
3 timely installation and turn-up are necessary to avoid
4 dropped calls.
5 Again, the QPAP focuses only on Qwest' s responsibilities
6 and ignores the joint responsibili ty inherent in
7 interconnection.QPAP does not require CLECs to produce
8 measurements, although CLECs have operational support systems
9 needed to conduct business and could produce data if
10 necessary.
11 Because QPAP focuses only on Qwest performance, QPAP
12 standards and payment consequences do not apply to CLECs,
13 even though the CLECs' performance is as important to an
14 effective competitive market and end user satisfaction as
15 Qwest performance.Accordingly,a QPAP is not the
16 appropriate tool for assuring performance for products
1 7 involving j oint carrier responsibilities and impacts.
18 Q.PLESE EXPLAIN IN MORE DETAIL.
19 A.LIS Trunk forecasts address trunk needs that impact the
20 switch capacity and facilities of both Qwest and CLECs.
21 (Putting this into context, switch capacity growth requiring
22 the addition of new switching modules can require six months
23 to order and install, plus planning and budgeting time.)
24 Accordingly,to timely provide capacity,including
25 engineering,ordering,installation,and make-ready
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-54-
1 activities, CLECs must provide forecasting information to
2 Qwest about orders that they will submit six to forty-eight
3 months into the future.Then Qwest and CLECs must
4 participate in joint planning meetings at either quarterly or
5 semi-annual intervals per a specified schedule.
6 Failure of Qwest or CLECs to perform their
7 responsibilities impacts the ability of both carriers to
8 serve their customers well and to avoid incomplete calls.
9 Thus, there exists not only a mutual impact and obligation,
10 but also mutual incentives, via inherent consequences, to do
11 this welL.
12 Q.HOW DOES QWEST PROPOSE FOR THESE MUAL OBLIGATIONS TO
13 BE APPROPRIATELY HALED?
14 A.Qwest believes there already exist sufficient
15 incentives, in the form of the mutual/reciprocal obligations
16 and impacts, to adequately address LNP and LIS Trunks without
17 being addressed in the QPAP or in other ways.Nevertheless,
18 Qwest believes that if there are to be performance standards
19 with consequences pertaining to these kinds of services, they
20 should apply to both Qwest and CLECs. However, since the
21 QPAPs are not designed to operate with consequences for both
22 Qwest and CLECs, these services should be addressed, if at
23 all, in provisions that are mutual and reciprocal.
24 Q.WHT IS QWEST'S PERFORMCE RECORD WITH LNP AN LIS
25 TRUNS?
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-55-
1 A.Qwest s performance has been excellent, generating no
2 payments in Idaho since 200S and less than $2,000 prior to
3 that.Qwest is not concerned about its performance levels,
4 only about the fairness of not also holding CLECs
S responsible,if there are to be any self-executing
6 consequences associated with these services.Again, Qwest
7 does not believe any self-executing consequences are called
S for.
9 Q.WILL QWEST'S PERFRMCE FOR LNP AN LIS TRUNS, IN THE
10 VAIOUS PIDS THAT MESUR THE, CONTIN TO BE REPORTED UNER
11 QPAP II.
12 A.Yes.The only change is that the standards would be
13 moved into the "diagnostic" category under QPAP II. This will
14 allow the CLECs and the Commission to monitor Qwest's side of
1S the service for these products.
16 Other PID Proposals
17 Q.WHT OTHER PID CHAGES DOES QWEST PROPOSE FOR QPAP II?
1S A.There are a few additional changes and refinements Qwest
19 proposes in QPAP II, some of which are consistent with
20 recommendations in the Liberty Report and one of which
21 proposes an approach used in Colorado with regard to MR-S.
22 These proposals include the following:
23 · Creating and modifying PI0s affected by the change
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-56-
1 from the EOI interface to XML interface. 22 This
2 implements Recommendation 723 of the Liberty Report in
3 the same manner as implemented in other states where
4 this has been done, and it involves:
s · Oefining a new PI0, GA-S, to measure XML gateway
6 availabili ty (as defined in the GA-S PIO in
7 Attachment 1 to QPAP II), and
S · Modifying and, in some cases, simplifying, the
9 following PI0s to replace references to EOl with
10 PO-2 (Electronic Flow-through) ,XML:PO-3 (LSR
11 Rejection Notice Interval), PO-4 (LSRs Rejected),
12 PO-S (Firm Order Confirmations on Time), PO-6 (Work
13 Completion Notification Timeliness), PO-7 (Billing
14 Completion Notification Timeliness) ,and PO-20
1S (Manual Service Order Accuracy) .
16 · Refining the standards in the provisioning (OP-n) and
17 Repair (MR-n)PI0s to resolve issues of retail
1S analogues that do not have sufficient volumes and to
19 support the previously-described combining of products
20 into categories.
21 "ISON-BRi,,24 has been the retail· Specifically,
22 analogue specified for 2-wire Non-loaded loops,
22 EDI (Eleetronie Data Interehange) and XML (Extensible Markup Language)
refer to eomputer-to-eomputer interfaees through whieh CLECs submit LSRs.
Over the last few years, EDI has been replaeed by XML.23 Liberty Report, pages 6 and 89.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-57-
1 ISON-capable and AOSL-qualifiedLoops,Loops.
2 However, it currently has very low volumes of
3 activity,month to month.This si tuation was
4 addressed in Liberty Report Recommendation 3.25
5 · Accordingly, in QPAP II Qwest proposes to use "Res
6 and Bus POTS" as the retail analogue in the
7 affected provisioning and repair PIOs, since these
S are 2-wire services and have sufficient volumes.
9 · In MR-S, various instances of disparity have been
10 triggered in the past, particularly in states with
11 higher volumes (such as Colorado, Minnesota,and
12 Arizona) ,for reasons that were not related to
13 discrimination. A workable solution to this issue,
14 applying a mix of benchmark and parity standards, was
15 reached via settlement in Colorado. Qwest proposes
16 this solution for the Idaho QPAP II to avoid straining
17 over meaningless differences while continuing to
1S produce payment increments when differences between
19 wholesale and retail performance are material. Qwest
20 also proposes to apply the new retail analogue
21 replacing IS0N-BRl in this MR-S standard.
24 ~Integrated Serviees Digital Network - Basie Rate Interfaee."
25 Liberty Report, pages 5 and 87.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-58-
1 REOVING QPAP FROM THE SGAT
2 Q.WHY DOES QWEST DESIRE TO REOVE THE CURNT QPAP FROM
3 THE SGAT, WHILE MODIFYING IT IN EXISTING INTERCONNCTION
4 AGREMNTS?
5 A.With regard to the SGAT,this is simply an
6 administrati ve clarification.Since the Commission approved
7 the elimination of the SGAT earlier in this docket, there
8 remains no SGAT for Exhibits Band K (the PI0s and QPAP) to
9 be associated with.i would note that, just as the removal
10 of the SGAT did not mean the elimination of interconnection
11 agreements, neither would removing the PIOs and PAP from
12 being associated with an SGAT mean the end of wholesale
13 performance assurance plans.As I have explained, Qwest is
14 willing to continue to provide wholesale performance
15 assurance,by means of QPAP I I.QPAP II's proposed
16 modifications resolve the most serious shortcomings of the
1 7 cur~ent QPAP and allow performance assurance to proceed on a
18 more reasonable and fair basis.It is on this basis that
19 Qwest is willing to continue providing wholesale performance
20 assurance.
21 Q.IF THE QPAP WERE NO LONGER A FETUR OF AN SGAT, WHRE
22 WOUL IT HAVE ITS CONTINUATION?
23 A.Instead of being "in the SGAT," QPAP II would reside in
24 interconnection agreements of CLECs who opt for it, as QPAP
25 does today, as well as in Qwest's Wholesale Negotiations
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-59-
1 Template for those CLECs who opt for QPAP II in the future.
2 Q.HOW WOULD QPAP II AFFECT EXISTING AGREEMS?
3 A.Existing interconnection agreements should be modified
4 by operation of law to replace the current QPAP with QPAP II.
5 Qwest proposes that this be accomplished through a Commission
6 order pursuant to section 16.3 of the current QPAP.Qwest
7 also will include QPAP II in its Wholesale Negotiations
8 Template for the duration of the term of the Plan. Qwest
9 Exhibit 1 contains the QPAP II document, which includes as
10 Attachment 1 the streamlined PI0s that would, when fully
11 implemented, replace the current PIOs (which have been known
12 as Exhibit B in existing interconnection agreements).
13 CONCLUSION
14 Q.IN SUMY, TO WHT EX DOES QPAP II CONTINU TO
15 PROVIDE VISIBILITY TO QWEST'S WHOLESAL SERVICE PERFRMCE
16 LELS THAT AR ADDRESSED BY THE CURT QPAP?
17 A.QPAP II retains visibility, through continued reporting
18 of PIO results, to nearly all the performance dimensions
19 addressed by the current QPAP.The relatively few PIOs that
20 QPAP II does not include are, as I have explained, no longer
21 needed, either due to the fact that they are not in the
22 current QPAP (i. e., not listed for triggering payments) or
23 they have stayed in the reinstatement/removal process for
24 some time and have never required reinstatement.Thus, in
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-60-
1 terms of PIOs with activity or payment history, QPAP II
2 continues to provide visibility to over 99 percent of the
3 performance items.
4 Q.WHT ABOUT THE STREINING OF PID REPORTING DIMSIONS
5 AN COMBINATIONS OF SERVICES AN ELENTS INO FEWER
6 CATEGORIES? DOES THIS CAUSE LESS PERFRMCE TO BE COVERED?
7 A.No. The combined measurements and categories of services
8 and elements continue to cover the same performance areas,
9 services, and elements that were covered when they were
10 separate.The method of aggregating the reporting and the
11 services/elements categories is done in a manner that gives
12 weight to each combined item according to their volumes
13 previous to the combinations.Thus, accuracy is preserved in
14 the parity comparisons and the evaluations or performance
15 against benchmarks.
16 Q.WHY SHOUL THE COMMSSION APPROVE QWEST'S PETITION TO
1 7 REOVE QPAP FROM THE SGAT AN TO REPLACE EXISTING AN FU
18 QPAPS WITH QPAP II?
19 A.First, there are already sufficient incentives in place
20 to assure continued wholesale service quality. Qwest has
21 demonstrated that we are committed to wholesale service
22 quality. Qwest has both a legal obligation and a business
23 reason to do so. Wholesale customers are an important source
24 of revenue for Qwest, as it increasingly competes with cable,
25 wireless and other technologies that may not use our network.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-61-
1 The evidence I have provided indicates that much larger
2 incentives are at work. The data is irrefutable that Qwest
3 has consistently demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate,
4 its ability to provide excellent service to our CLEC
5 customers.In addition, the conditions of the marketplace
6 dictate that it is in Qwest s own best interest to continue
7 to provide excellent service to CLECs, as opposed to poor
8 service that may result in the ultimate consumers and their
9 revenue streams leaving the Qwest network and migrating to
10 cable, wireless or other technologies.No government-imposed
11 structure is needed to force Qwest to do something that is
12 inherently in its own best interest.
13 Second, the current QPAP has fulfilled its purpose.The
14 QPAP was a mechanism put in place as a safety net at a time
15 when there was uncertainty as to both Qwest's willingness and
16 ability to deliver wholesale services on par with our retail
17 services.At the same time, by its own provisions, the QPAP
18 was never intended to be permanent.It was meant to provide
19 a measure of certainty (financial penal ties) in the event of
20 Qwest's failure to deliver during this uncertain period.
21 Third, conditions have changed dramatically over the
22 past seven years of the QPAP's operation.The market it was
23 designed to help keep open is irreversibly open.The former
24 uncertainty no longer exists.
25 Fourth,Qwest is willing to continue to provide
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest .Corporation
-62-
1 wholesale service assurance to our CLEC customers. Our intent
2 is to do this through negotiated interconnection agreements.
3 Qwest s template wholesale agreement is the basis for the
4 beginning of those negotiations.In addition, the QPAP II,
5 as outlined herein, will become an addition to that template
6 agreement.Qwest has committed to keep the QPAP II in this
7 form until Oecember 31, 2013, at a minimum.
8 Fifth, in crafting its proposals, Qwest has applied
9 lessons learned from several years of operation under the
10 existing QPAP.These updates will streamline the plan while
11 maintaining measurements that continue to represent the vast
12 maj ori ty of products and services purchased by CLECs.The
13 addition of performance credits will not only provide a fair
14 balance to the plan, but also an even greater incentive than
15 the original plan for Qwest to provide service to CLECs at or
16 above benchmark or retail levels.
17 Q.DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
18 A.Yes.
QWE-T-08-04
July 30, 2010
Williams, M (01)
Qwest Corporation
-63-
Exhibit K
QWEST PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE PLAN II - IDAHO
("QPAP II")
1.0 INTRODUCTION, PLAN STRUCTURE, AND APPLICABILITY
1.1 Qwest and CLEC voluntarily agree to the terms of the following Qwest
Penormance Assurance Plan II ("QPAP II" or "Plan"), which modifies the Qwest
Penormance Assurance Plan ("QPAP" or "PAP") that originally became effective in
2003 in connection with Qwests application for approval under Section 271 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act") to offer in-region long distance service.
Accordingly, QPAP II continues to focus on Section 271-related obligations of
providing service to CLECs that is nondiscriminatory in comparison to services Qwest
provides to itself or its retail customers and provides an incentive for Qwest to
continue to deliver nondiscriminatory service.
1.2 QPAP II consists of penormance indicator definitions ("PIDs", which are
streamlined versions of the PIDs of the former QPAP), standards, reporting, and
payment provisions that represent a continuation of PID-based "Tier 1,,1 payment
provisions of the former QPAP, along with new provisions defining "penormance
credits." Together, payment increments and penormance credits combine to define
QPAP II payments payable to the CLEC.
1.3 QPAP II provisions apply to service penormance dimensions, as specified
herein, in connection with services and elements, also as specified herein, that
Qwest provides to CLEC. CLEC is eligible for QPAP II payments to the extent that
(1) CLEC provides local exchange services as defined in state statutes or regulations
to customers located in the state, and (2) such local exchange services utilize
services and elements provided to CLEC by Qwest pursuant to an interconnection
agreement (ICA) which has been approved by the State Commission pursuant to
Section 252 of the Act.
2.0 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND REPORTING
2.1 Penormance measurements are as defined in Attachment 1 - Penormance
Indicator Definitions.
2.2 Qwest will report CLEC PID results through website postings as described
below, in accordance with the Attachment 1 definitions, on a monthly basis, by the
first business day of the second calendar month following the reported month.
1 Tier 1 payments of the former QPAP were paid to individual CLEes, as contrasted with Tier 2 payments that
were paid into a special statewide fund.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 1 of 21
Exhibit K
2.2.1 Statewide, combined-CLEC PID results (i.e., all CLECs' results aggregated)
wil be posted on a public Qwest website.
2.2.2 Individual, CLEC-specific, statewide PID results will be posted on a password-
protected, Qwest website through which CLEC wil have access to Qwest reports of
said CLEC's individual penormance results.
2.3 Upon QPAP II becoming effective and upon the Attachment 1 PIDs becoming
fully implemented in Qwests measurement systems, the Attachment 1 PIDs shall
supersede and replace the PIDs in Exhibit B of the interconnection agreement.Any
PIDs not yet fully implemented in accordance with Attachment 1 wil be reported and
treated under QPAP II provisions in accordance with the corresponding PIDs in
Exhibit B. When all measurements in Attachment 1 are fully implemented, Exhibit B
will be retired and no longer a part of the interconnection agreement.
2.4 PIDs governed by QPAP II are those contained in Attachment 1 and section
3.5.3 herein (or in Exhibit B of the interconnection agreement until their counterparts
in Attachment 1 are fully implemented) and either (1) subject to QPAP II
mechanisms, or (2) not subject to QPAP II mechanisms but subject to the
Reinstatement/Removal Process set forth in section 2.5 below.
2.4.1 The following measures, which are listed in Attachment 1 or section 3.5.3
below, are not subject to the payment increment or penormance credit mechanisms
of QPAP II; however, they are subject to the PID Reinstatement/Removal Process.
All other measures listed in Attachment 1 are subject to QPAP II mechanisms, but
they are not subject to the PID Reinstatement/Removal Process.
. PO-3
. PO-7
. PO-8
. PO-20
. BI-4
. NI-1
· CP-2
. CP-4
LSR Rejection Notice Interval
Biling Completion Notification Timeliness
Jeopardy Notice Interval
Manual Service Order Accuracy
Billng Completeness
Trunk Blocking
Collocations Completed within Scheduled Intervals
Collocation Feasibilty Study
2.4.2 PID Reinstatement/Removal Process: If Qwests penormance of the PIDs (at
the lowest level of disaggregation - i.e., sub-measure or service/element level) listed
in section 2.4.1 above does not conform to the established PID standard as set forth
in the PIDs or QPAP II for three consecutive months, that PID will be reinstated (i.e.,
and be again subject to QPAP " mechanisms) subject to the retroactive payment
increment provision of section 2.4.2.2 and subject to QPAP II payment increment or
penormance credit mechanisms effective in the first month following the three
consecutive months. The determination of whether a PID is reinstated is made no
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 2 of 21
Exhibit K
later than at the end of the second month following the third consecutive month of
nonconforming performance. The PID wil remain subject to QPAP II payment
increment/performance credit mechanisms until Qwests performance for that PID
satisfies the established standards for three consecutive months. Effective the first
month following such conforming performance, the PID wil no longer be subject to
QPAP Ii payment increment/performance credit mechanisms but wil continue to be
subject to the PID Reinstatement/Removal Process. The determination of whether a
PID is removed from being subject to QPAP II mechanisms shall be made no later
than the end of the second month following the third consecutive month of
conforming performance. Where applicable elsewhere in QPAP 11, this PID
Reinstatement/Removal Process modifies other provisions and operates as follows:
2.4.2.1 Disaggregation and Reporting Levels: Performance wil be evaluated at
the lowest level of disaggregation defined in the Attachment 1 PIDs on a CLEC-
aggregated or other-aggregated basis such that performance is evaluated for the
purposes of administering the Reinstatement/Removal Process on a statewide or
regionwide level, as applicable per the PID.
2.4.2.2 Retroactive payment increments: To calculate retroactive payment
increments for the PIDs reinstated, QPAP II payment increment mechanisms wil be
applied to the three consecutive months in which the standard was missed, which
triggered reinstatement. These retroactive payment increments wil be generated
effective in the month in which the PID is considered reinstated, which is the month
following the one in which the service performance triggered reinstatement.
Accordingly, in the annual process of netting payment increments and performance
credits to determine the extent to which payments are due, retroactive payment
increments associated with reinstatement of a PID will be netted with other payment
increments and performance credits in the calendar year in which the PID is
considered reinstated.
2.4.2.2.1 Accounting for Payments: In support of retroactive payment increments
(section 2.4.2.2 above), Qwest will account separately for QPAP II payment
increments that would have been applied to CLEC for a PID as though it had been
subject to QPAP II payment increment mechanisms.
2.4.2.2.2 Interest: In the case of automatic reinstatement, retroactive payments
will include interest calculated at the prime rate as reported in the Wall Street Journal
from the date the payment would have been made (had the PID not been in
"removed" status during the retroactive three-month period) to the date the payment
is actually made (following the PID's reinstatement).
2.4.2.2.3 Tracking: At least quarterly, Qwest wil track and report monthly PID
and payment results for PIDs in "removed" status, including retroactive payment
increments and also, for the period of "removed" status, avoided payment increments
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 3 of 21
Exhibit K
and unused performance credits on PID-specific, CLEC-specific and statewide
aggregate bases.
2.4.2.3 Public Website: Qwest wil maintain a public website showing the
reinstatement status (Le., reinstated or removed) of each PID with respect to the
applicability of QPAP II mechanisms, updated at least quarterly. This procedure
eliminates any requirement to make filings with the Commission to modify QPAP II to
reflect changes occasioned by application of the PID Reinstatement/Removal
Process.
3.0 PAYMENT INCREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE CREDITS
3.1 Overview
3.1.1 QPAP II payments are determined annually by considering both (1) payment
increments generated by "nonconforming" performance relative to PID standards and
(2) "performance credits" (based conceptually on a reverse application of the same
rules that initiate payment increments as further specified herein) generated by
"superior" performance relative to PID standards.
3.1.1.1 The "net" of the payment increments minus the performance credits,
applied on an individual CLEC basis annually in each of the three market categories,
then summed together, constitutes the QPAP II payment that shall be made to CLEC.
If this net amount is equal to or less than zero in a category, the QPAP II payment
shall be zero for that category in that calendar year.
3.1.1.2 The calculation of payment increments, performance credits, and the
resulting net QPAP II payments wil be implemented on a quarterly basis (to provide
interim indications of potential payment levels) and on an annual, calendar-year basis
(to determine the QPAP II payment due). Both the quarterly interim calculations and
the annual calculations wil be made for each of the three categories of "Analog,"
"Digital," and "CLEC," as these categories are further defined herein, using the step-
by-step procedures set forth in section 4.0 below.
3.2 Categories of Payment Increments and Penormance Credits
3.2.1 QPAP II payments wil be determined separately for each of three categories:
Analog, Digital, and CLEC.
3.2.1.1 The Analog category consists of provisioning and repair PIDs for
services and elements that use analog technology or the equivalent. This category
includes the following services and elements as measured in the non-diagnostic
repair and provisioning PIDs of Attachment 1:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 4 of 21
Exhibit K
. Resale residential single-line service
· Resale business single line service
· Line Splitting
· Analog Unbundled Loop
3.2.1.2 The Digital category consists of provisioning and repair PIDs for
services and elements that use digital technology. This category includes the
following services and elements as measured in the non-diagnostic repair and
provisioning PIDs of Attachment 1:
· Resale DS1
. Unbundled Digital-capable Loops (inc!. 2-Wire Non-loaded, 4-Wire
Non-loaded, ISDN-capable, xDSL-1 capable & ADSL-qualified
Loops)
· Unbundled DS1-capable Loop
· Enhanced Extended Loops (EELs) - DS1 level
· UDIT - DS1 level
3.2.1.3 The CLEC category consists of services and elements that primarily
address performance dimensions that may affect CLEC operations, but that typically
do not directly affect the end-user customers of CLECs. This category includes the
non-diagnostic Pre-Order, Biling, and Collocation PIDs of Attachment 1.
3.3 Determining Payment Increments and Performance Credits
3.3.1 Payment increments and performance credits are generated when Qwests
performance is, respectively, "nonconforming" or "superior" relative to standards
defined in payment-eligible PIDs. There are two types of standards: parity standards
and benchmark standards.
3.3.1.1 For parity standards, statistical procedures defined herein are used to
determine whether performance is nonconforming or superior.
3.3.1.1.1 If the number of data points for both CLEC and retail analogue results is
each greater than 30 for a given PID, the statistical procedures to be applied for
identifying nonconforming and superior performance for PIDs with parity standards
shall be the "modified z-test."
3.3.1.1.2 Where the number of data points is 30 or less (for either the CLEC or
retail analogue results), a permutation test (for interval PIDs) or a proportions test (for
percentage PIDs) shall be used for identifying nonconforming and superior
performance for PIDs with parity standards. Hereafter, the term, "modified z-test,"
shall refer to either the modified z-test or to the permutation or proportions tests, as
applicable.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T- OS - 04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 5 of 21
Exhibit K
3.3.1.1.3 The modified z-test shall evaluate the difference between two means
(e.g., Qwests performance for retail-analogue versus CLEC service or repairintervals) or between two percentages (e.g., Qwests performance, expressed as
percentages or proportions, for retail-analogue versus for CLEC service or repair).
The purpose for this statistical evaluation is to determine statistically whether the
results for retail analogue and CLEC performance are significantly worse for CLEC
(i.e., nonconforming) or significantly better for CLEC (i.e., superior).
3.3.1.2 For benchmark standards, (1) nonconforming performance is
determined on a "stare and compare" basis, i.e., performance levels that are not
equal to or better than the established benchmark constitute nonconforming
performance, and (2) superior performance is determined on a statistical basis, using
the same statistical procedures defined herein that apply to parity standards, except
that, in the absence of a retail analogue, the variance used shall be the aggregate
CLEC variance for the performance dimension being measured.
3.3.1.2.1 For benchmark standards, to identify superior performance, the
modified z-test shall evaluate the difference between a CLEC result and a benchmark
(e.g., Qwests service or repair interval performance for CLEC compared to the
benchmark).
3.3.1.2.2 The purpose for the statistical evaluation is to determine statistically
whether Qwests performance for CLEC is significantly better for CLEC (i.e.,
"superiot'). (As specified above, nonconforming performance is identified on the
basis of "stare and compare.")
3.3.1.3 For any PID result with a non-interval benchmark or with a parity
standard, one allowable miss shall be applied if 100% performance would be
required before the performance could be considered as other than nonconforming if,
at the CLEC-aggregate level, (1) the performance standard is met, or (2) the CLEC-
aggregate performance is conforming after applying one allowable miss to the
aggregate result. For OP-5B, this provision for one allowable miss shall apply only if
the number of orders with trouble in OP-5A is no more than one.
3.3.2 PIDs with Parity Standards
3.3.2.1 Payment increments shall be generated when the monthly performance
results for PIDs with parity standards (whether the PIDs are reported in the form of
means, percents, or proportions), at the equivalent level of disaggregation for both
the CLEC results and the retail analogue results, are such that the calculated z-test
statistics (hereafter "z-scores") are equal to or greater than the applicable critical-z
values as listed in Table 1 below.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 6 of 21
Exhibit K
3.3.2.2 Penormance credits shall be generated when the monthly penormance
results for PIDs with parity standards (whether the PIDs are reported in the form of
means, percents, or proportions), at the equivalent level of disaggregation for both
the CLEC results and the retail analogue results, are such that the z-scores are less
than (Le., more negative than) the applicable critical-z values as listed in Table 1
below.
3.3.2.3 The formula for determining the z-score ("z") using the modified z-test is
as follows:
z = DI FF / crDIFF
Where:
· DIFF = MRetailAnalogue - MCLEC
· MRetaii Analogue = Retail Analogue average or proportion
· MCLEC = CLEC average or proportion
· crDIFF = square root (cr2RetaiiAnalOQue (1/ n CLEC + 1/ n Retail Anaiogue))
· c;2Retaii Analogue = calculated variance for Retail Analogue
· nRetaii Analogue = number of observations or samples used in Retail
Analogue PID result
· nCLEC = number of observations or samples used in CLEC PID result
3.3.2.3.1 In calculating the difference between Retail Analogue and CLEC
penormance, the above formula applies when a larger Retail Analogue value
indicates a better level of penormance.
3.3.2.3.2 In cases where a smaller Retail Analogue value indicates a better level
of penormance, the DIFF portion of the above formula is reversed, Le., MCLEC - MRetaii
Analogue.
3.3.2.4 Where a permutation test is applicable to be the statistical test, the
following steps (or the equivalent, where accuracy is not adversely affected) wil be
used:
Step 1: Combine CLEC and Retail Analogue data into one set of pooled
data.
Step 2: Using the modified z-test, calculate the z-score for the actual pooled
arrangement of CLEC and Retail Analogue data (ZA). If ZA cannot
be calculated, e.g., due to zero variance in the data, calculate
instead the difference between the CLEC and Retail Analogue result
(Le., DIFFA as defined under the modified z-test formula above).
Step 3: Penorm the following 1,000 times:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 7 of 21
Exhibit K
a. 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, (which is equal to the size of
the original Retail Analogue data set, i.e., nRetaii Anaiogue).
b. For this (each) sample, calculate and store the z-score (Zs) or
the DIFF (DIFFs, for the sample).
Step 4: Count the number of times that Zs or DIFFs (as applicable) among
all the permutations of the data (i.e., the above 1,000 samples) was
greater than ZA or DIFFA (as applicable) for the actual pooled
arrangement of CLEC and Retail Analogue data.
Step 5: Compute the fraction of permutations for which Zs or DIFFs (as
applicable) among all the permutations of the data was greater than
ZA or DIFFA (as applicable) for the actual pooled arrangement of
CLEC and Retail Analogue data.
Step 6: Convert the Step 5 fraction into a z-score for the permutation test
(Zp) using a conversion function (such as NORMSINV in Microsoft
Excel).
3.3.2.4.1 For payment increments, if Zp is equal to or greater than the applicable
critical-z value from Table 1 below, a payment increment is generated, subject to
other applicable rules herein (e.g., one allowable miss provisions). If Zp is less than
the applicable critical-z value from Table 1, no payment increment is generated.
3.3.2.4.2 For penormance credits, if Zp is equal to or less than (i.e., at least or
more negative than) the applicable critical-z value from Table 1, a penormance credit
is generated. If Zp is greater than (i.e., less negative than) the applicable critical-z
value from Table 1, no penormance credit is generated.
3.3.2.5 Where a proportions test is applicable to be the statistical test, the
following steps (or their equivalent, where accuracy is not adversely affected) wil be
used:
Step 1: Calculate the p-value using the following formula:
p-value = HYPGEOMDIST(a,b,c,d)
Where:
· HYPGEOMDIST = a hyper-geometric distribution callable
function
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T- 08 - 04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 8 of 21
Exhibit K
· a = count of CLEC "successes" (i.e., standards met)
· b = CLEC denominator
· c = Count of CLEC and retail "successes" (i.e., standards met)
. d = sum of retail and CLEC denominator
. The count of "successes" is equal to the PID numerator when the
PID is such that "higher is better," and equal to the denominator
minus the numerator when "lower is better."
Step 2: Convert the p-value into a z-score for the proportions test (Zp) using
a statistical conversion function (such as "NORMSINV" in Microsoft
Excel).
3.3.2.5.1 For payment increments, if Zp is equal to or greater than the applicable
critical-z value from Table 1 below, a payment increment is generated, subject to
other applicable rules herein (e.g., one allowable miss provisions). If Zp is less than
the applicable critical-z value from Table 1, no payment increment is generated.
3.3.2.5.2 For performance credits, if Zp is equal to or less than (i.e., at least or
more negative than) the applicable critical-z value from Table 1, a performance credit
is generated. If Zp is greater than (i.e., less negative than) the applicable critical-z
value from Table 1, no performance credit is generated.
3.3.3 PIDs with Benchmark Standards
3.3.3.1 Payment increments shall be generated when the monthly performance
results for PIDs with benchmark standards do not equal or exceed the benchmarks, if
a higher value means better performance, and when the monthly performance results
do not equal or are not less than the benchmark, if a lower value means better
performance.
3.3.3.2 Performance credits shall be generated when monthly performance
results for PIDs with benchmark standards equals or exceeds the "Inverse
benchmarks." The Inverse Benchmark is defined as the critical-z value (based on a
95 percent confidence interval) that is complementary to the benchmark (i.e., on the
opposite "side" of Z = 0 from the benchmark specified in the Attachment 1 PID).
Specifically, the magnitude of the Inverse Benchmark is equal to two times the
statistical critical-z value (based on a 95 percent confidence interval for a one-tailed
test) multiplied by the Standard Error of the CLEC data (OCLEc), as set forth the
following formula:
Inverse Benchmark = Benchmark +/- 2 * critical-z value * OCLEC
Where:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T- 08 - 04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 9 of 21
Exhibit K
. Benchmark = the existing benchmark for the service or element as
set forth in the Attachment 1 PID
. "+1-" = "+" if "higher is bettet' and "-" if "lower is better"
. Gritical-z value = 1 .645
. OCLEC = aggregate GLEG standard deviation 1 (square root of the
GLEG denominator)
3.4 Applicable Critical-Z values
3.4.1 The following table sets forth the critical-z values that apply to QPAP II
statistical analyses, except as noted in the next sub-paragraph. The critical-z values
are based on the monthly business volume of GLEG ("GLEG Volume" in Table 1) for
the particular PID for which statistic testing is being performed. The monthly
business volume of GLEG is equal to the GLEG denominator of the PID.
TABLE 1: APPLICABLE CRITICAL-Z VALUES
For Payment Increments For Performance Credits
UOIT-OS1,UOIT-OS1,
CLECVolume Resale OSl,Resale OSl,
(sample size)and UBL-OS1 All Other and UBL-OS1 All Other
1-10 1.04 *1.645 -1.04 *-1.645
11-150 1.645 1.645 -1.645 -1.645
151-300 2.0 2.0 -2.0 -2.0
301-600 2.7 2.7 -2.7 -2.7
601-3000 3.7 3.7 -3.7 -3.7
3001 and above 4.3 4.3 -4.3 -4.3. .* The 1.04 applies for individual month testing for PIDs involving UDIT DS1,
Resale DS1, or Unbundled DS1-capable Loops. The PIDs are OP-3, OP-4,
OP-5, OP-6, MR-3/5, MR-7, and MR-8.
3.4.2 For purposes of determining consecutive month misses, 1.645 shall be used.
3.5 Dollar Levels, Escalations, and Caps
3.5.1 Table 2 below sets forth the dollar levels and per-PID caps for payment
increments and performance credits. Also indicated are escalations in the dollar
levels for consecutive months of nonconforming or superior performance.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 10 of 21
Exhibit K
3.5.1.1 The dollar levels applied in calculating payment increments and
performance credits vary according to (1) the designation of PID as High, Medium,
and Low as set forth in Attachment 2, and (2) the duration in months of the
nonconforming or superior performance condition.
3.5.1.2 The effect of the duration of nonconforming or superior months of
performance is reflected in two "escalation indicators," one indicator for payment
increments and one indicator for performance credits, operating in parallel and both
affected by each month's performance status of nonconforming, conforming, or
superior.
3.5.1.2.1 Payment Increments Escalation Indicator: Each consecutive month of
nonconforming performance increases the escalation indicator level for payment
increments by one level (e.g., Month 1 to Month 2). Each month of conforming
performance (including superior performance) decreases the escalation indicator
level for performance credits by one level (e.g., Month 2 to Month 1). Month 1 is the
lowest leveL. In months of nonconforming performance, payment increments wil be
generated at the per-occurrence dollar level indicated in Table 2 for the applicable
escalation month (e.g., Month 1, Month 2, or ..., etc.).
3.5.1.2.2 Performance Credits Escalation Indicator: Each consecutive month of
superior performance increases the escalation indicator level for performance credits
by one level (e.g., Month 1 to Month 2). Each month of non-superior performance
(including both conforming and nonconforming performance) decreases the
escalation indicator level for performance credits by one level (e.g., Month 2 to Month
1). Month 1 is the lowest leveL. In months of superior performance, performance
credits wil be generated at the per-occurrence dollar level indicated in Table 2 for the
applicable escalation month (e.g., Month 1, Month 2, or ..., etc.).
3.5.1.2.3 Months with Conforming Performance: In any month in which
performance is solely conforming for a given PID (Le., performance that is neither
nonconforming nor superior), no payment increment or performance credit shall be
generated for that month.
3.5.1.3 Per-PID Caps. Payment increments or performance credits generated
for a single month shall not each exceed the amount listed in Table 2 below under
"Per-PID Caps." If any PIDs are added to the following list at a later time, payment
increments or performance credits generated in any given month shall be each
capped at the amount set forth in Table 2 below under "Per-PID Caps." PIDs subject
to per-PID caps are the following:
BI-1 Time to Provide Recorded Usage Records
BI-3 Biling Accuracy - Adjustments for Errors
(except BI-3A, addressed in Table 2A below)
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T- 08 - 04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 11 of 21
Exhibit K
BI-4 Billing Completeness
TABLE 2: DOLLAR LEVELS AND CAPS
Table 2 Per-occurrence Dollar Levels
Measurement Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Each
Group following
month after
Month 6 add
Hiqh $150 $250 $500 $600 $700 $800 $100
Medium $ 75 $150 $300 $400 $500 $600 $100
Low $ 25 $ 50 $100 $200 $300 $400 $100
Table 2 Per-PID Caps
Measurement Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Each
Group following
month after
Month 6 add
Hioh $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $25,000
Medium $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $ 40,000 $ 50,000 $ 60,000 $10,000
Low $ 5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $ 20,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 $ 5,000
3.5.2 For the BI-3A PID, the dollar levels for nonconforming or superior penormance
vary depending upon the Total Bil Adjustment Amount for CLEC. The applicable
payment increment or penormance credit is calculated using Table 2A below by
multiplying the per occurrence dollar level times the number of occurrences based on
the Total Bill Adjustment Amount,2 capped at the amount shown in the table for that
Total Bil Adjustment Amount. Accordingly, the escalation of payments for
consecutive months as stated in Table 2 above does not apply to BI-3A.
TABLE 2A: PAYMENTS INCREMENTS FOR BI-3A
Total Bill Adjustment Per Occurrence
Amount Dollar Level Cap
$0 - $0.99 $0 $0
$1 - $199.99 $1 $200
$200 - $999.99 $10 $5,000
$1,000 - $9,999.99 $10 $10,000
$10,000 - $49,999.99 $15 $15,000
$50,000 - $99,999.99 $20 $20,000
$100,000 and over $25 $25,000
3.5.3 For collocation, CP-2 and CP-4 PIDs shall be relied upon for delineation of
collocation business rules in defining the situations eligible for payment increments
2 Total Bill Adjustment Amount is determined by subtracting the BI-3A numerator from the BI-3A denominator
as defined in the BI-3 PID formula.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 12 of 21
Exhibit K
and performance credits. For purposes of calculating payment increments and
performance credits, collocation jobs and collocation feasibility studies that are
completed later than the due date shall have a per-day payment increment or
performance credit applied according to Table 3 below.
3.5.3.1 The per-day amount wil be applied as a payment increment for any
collocation job in which the feasibilty study is provided or the collocation installation
is completed later than the scheduled date.
3.5.3.1 Correspondingly, the per-day amount will be applied as a performance
credit for any collocation job in which the feasibilty study is provided or the
collocation installation is completed before (but not on) the scheduled due date.
3.5.3.3 The calculation of the payment increment or performance credit shall be
performed by applying the per-day dollar increments as specified in Table 3. Thus,
for days 1 through 10 late or early, respectively, the payment increment or
performance credit is $150 per day. For days 11 through 20, the payment increment
or performance credit is $300 per day and so on.
3.5.3.4 The dollar amount escalations set forth in Table 2 above do not apply to
collocation performance or PIDs.
TABLE 3: COLLOCATION DOLLAR INCREMENTS
Days Late or Early Completion Date Feasibilty 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 $1,000/day $300/day
4.0 STEP-BY-STEP CALCULATIONS
4.1 Payment increments
4.1.1 Nonconforming performance is identified in accordance with the above
QPAP II sections and generates payment increments for the month in which the
performance is reported pursuant to the Attachment 1 PIDs. Payment increments
are calculated as described below and are summed within the three categories
defined above (Analog, Digital, and CLEC), both quarterly (as a sub-total) and
annually (to determine whether payments are due in each category and, if so, in what
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T- OS - 04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 13 of 21
Exhibit K
amount). PIDs with conforming or superior penormance do not generate payment
increments in the reporting months in which such penormance exists.
4.1.2 PIDs Reported as Averages or Means - for each nonconforming PID:
Step 1: Determine the effective standard as follows:
Calculate the average or the mean that would yield the applicable
critical-z value (per section 3.4 above). The same denominator as
the one used in calculating the z-score for the PID shall be used.
(For PIDs with benchmarks, the benchmark value is the effective
standard.)
Step 2: Determine the percentage difference ("% diff') between the PID-
reported average or mean and the Step 1 effective standard, via the
following formula:
% diff = Absolute Value of ((CLEC PID result minus Effective
Standard) / (Effective Standard))
Note: "% diff' shall be capped 100%.
Step 3: Determine the payment increment generated as follows:
Payment Increment = Total number of data points (CLEC
denominator) times the "% diff' and times the applicable per-
occurrence dollar level from the Table 2 above.
4.1.3 PIDs Reported as Percentages, Ratios, or Proportions - for each
nonconforming PID:
Step 1 : Determine the effective standard as follows:
Calculate the percentage that would yield the applicable critical-z
value (per section 3.4 above). The same denominator as the one
used in calculating the z-score for the PID shall be used. (For PIDs
with benchmarks, the benchmark value is the effective standard.)
Step 2: Determine the percentage difference ("% diff) between the PID-
reported percentage result and the effective standard percentage
via the following formula:
% diff = Absolute Value of ((Effective Standard minus CLEC PID
result)/(Effective Standard))
Note: "% diff' shall be capped 100%.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 14 of 21
Exhibit K
Step 3: Determine the payment increment generated as follows:
Payment Increment = Total number of data points (CLEC
denominator) times the "% diff' and times the applicable per-
occurrence dollar level from Table 2 above. r
4.2 Performance credits
4.2.1 Superior performance is identified in accordance with the above QPAP II
sections and generates performance credits for the month in which the performance
is reported pursuant to the Attachment 1 PIDs. Performance credits are calculated
as described below and are summed within the three categories defined above
(Analog, Digital, and CLEC), both quarterly (as sub-totals for each PID and category)
and annually (to determine whether payments are due in each category and, if so, in
what amount). PIDs with conforming or nonconforming performance do not generate
performance credits in the reporting months in which such performance exists.
4.2.2 PIDs Reported as Averages or Means - for each superior performance PID:
Step 1: Determine the effective superior performance threshold as follows:
Calculate the average or the mean that would yield the applicable
critical-z value (per section 3.4 above) for superior performance.
The same denominator as the one used in calculating the z-score
for the PID shall be used. (For PIDs with benchmarks, the
benchmark value is the effective standard.)
Step 2: Determine the percentage difference ("% diff') between the PID-
reported average or mean and the Step 1 effective superior
performance threshold ("Superior Threshold"), via the following
formula:
% diff = Absolute Value of ((Superior Threshold minus CLEC PID
result)/(Superior Threshold))
Note: "% diff shall be capped 1 00%.
Step 3: Determine the performance credit generated as follows:
Performance Credit = Total number of data points (CLEC
denominator) times the "% diff' and times the applicable per-
occurrence dollar level from the Table 2 above.
4.2.3 PIDs Reported as Percentages, Ratios, or Proportions - for each superior
performance PID:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T- 08 - 04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 15 of 21
Exhibit K
Step 1: Determine the effective superior performance threshold as follows:
Calculate the percentage that would yield the applicable critical-z
value (per section 3.4 above) for superior performance. The same
denominator as the one used in calculating the z-score for the PID
shall be used. (For PIDs with benchmarks, the benchmark value is
the effective standard.)
Step 2: Determine the percentage difference ("% diff') between the PID-
reported percentage result and the superior threshold percentage
% diff = Absolute Value of ((Superior Threshold Percentage minus
CLEC PID result)/(Superior Threshold Percentage))
Note: "% diff' shall be capped 100%.
Step 3: Determine the performance credit generated as follows:
Performance Credit = Total number of data points (CLEC
denominator) times the "% diff' and times the applicable per-
occurrence dollar level from Table 2 above.
4.3 Annual Payment Calculations
4.3.1 Annually, within each of the categories of Analog, Digital, and CLEC, payment
increments and performance credits shall be each summed and then netted against
each other, payment increments minus performance credits, to determine the
QPAP II payments payable to CLEC for each category. The following process or the
equivalent wil be used:
Step 1: For each of the three categories, sum the payment increments from
all of the months in the calendar year.
Step 2: For each of the three categories, sum the performance credits from
all of the months in the calendar year.
Step 3: For each of the three categories, subtract the sum of the
performance credits from the sum of the payment increments. If the
result is zero or negative in a given category, no payment is payable
for that category. Otherwise, the result of this step is the payment
payable to CLEC for the category.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 16 of 21
Exhibit K
Step 4: Sum the payments that were determined in Step 3 to be payable for
the three categories. This represents the total payment payable to
CLEC for all three categories for the calendar year.
5.0 PAYMENTS
5.1 Payments payable to CLEC shall be made annually, one month following the
due date of the PID report for the final month in the calendar year for which payment
is being made. Owest wil pay interest on any late payment or underpayment at the
prime rate as reported in the Wall Street Journal. On any overpayment, Owest is
allowed to offset future payments by the amount of the overpayment plus interest at
the prime rate.
5.2 Payment to CLEC shall be made via bil credits. Bil credits shall be identified
on a summary format substantially similar to that used under the prior OPAP. To the
extent that a payment owed to CLEC under OPAP II exceeds the amount owed to
Owest by CLEC on a monthly bill, Owest wil issue a check or wire transfer to CLEC
in the amount of the overage.
5.3 Owest shall not be liable for bil credits to CLEC until the state regulatory
Commission has approved an interconnection agreement between CLEC and Owest
that adopts the provisions of this OPAP 11.
5.4 For any month in which CLEC is past-due in paying undisputed or disputed
Owest amounts that exceed OPAP II payments payable under this Plan, Owest may
withhold bill credits under this Plan up to the level of CLEC past-due amount, without
accumulating interest, until undisputed CLEC payments owed to Owest are fully paid
up to date or until disputed CLEC payments owed to Owest are resolved and the
appropriate amounts paid.
5.5 If for any reason Owest has inadvertently or erroneously overpaid via bill
credits to CLEC, Owest may recover said overpayment either by reducing future bill
credits by the amount of overpayment or by adjusting OPAP or OPAP II bill credits
due for CLEC in any state(s) in which CLEC has an interconnection agreement.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
6.1 Owests agreement to implement this Plan - including without limitation its PID
reporting - shall not be considered as an admission against interest or an admission
of liability in any legal, regulatory, or other proceeding relating in whole or in part to
the same performance.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 17 of 21
Exhibit K
6.2 By accepting QPAP ", GLEG agrees that Qwests performance with respect to
this Plan may not be used as an admission of liability or culpability for violation(s) of
any state or federal law or regulation. GLEG may not use: a) the existence of this
Plan; or b) Qwests data shared in good faith under provisions of this Plan as
evidence that Qwest has discriminated in the provision of any facilities or services
under Sections 251 or 252. Qwests conduct underlying its performance measures,
however, is not rendered inadmissible solely by application of these terms.
6.2.1
penalties.
Payments made pursuant to QPAP II are not intended to constitute
6.2.2 Application of the QPAP II payments provided for herein is not intended
to foreclose other non-contractual legal and non-contractual regulatory claims and
remedies, if any, that may be available to GLEG for service performance issues other
than those addressed under QPAP II.
6.3 To elect QPAP II, GLEG must adopt the Plan in its entirety, in its
interconnection agreement with Qwest, recognizing QPAP II as the sole agreement
between Qwest and GLEG governing service performance assurance for the services
or elements and service dimensions addressed by the Plan.
6.4 Qwest shall not be obligated to make payments for any PID if and to the extent
that nonconformance for that PID standard was the result of any of the following: 1)
with respect to PIDs with a benchmark standard, a Force Majeure event as defined in
the interconnection agreement. Qwest wil 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 GLEG 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 GLEG that is in bad
faith (where 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, trouble reports, 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 interconnection agreement); 3) problems
associated with third-part systems or equipment, which could not have been
avoided by Qwest in the exercise of reasonable diligence, provided, however, that
this third part 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 Qwests ability to timely perform an activity subject to a PID
that is measured as an interval, the applicable timeframe in which Qwests
compliance with the parity or benchmark criterion is measured wil be extended on an
hour-for-hour or day-for-day basis, as applicable, equal to the duration of the
excusing event.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 1S of 21
Exhibit K
6.4.1 Qwest wil not be excused payments for any reason except as described in
QPAP II and its attachments. Qwest wil have the burden of demonstrating that its
nonconformance with the PID standard was excused on one of the grounds
described in this QPAP II. A part may petition the Commission to require Qwest to
deposit disputed payments into an escrow account when the requesting part can
show cause, such as grounds provided in the Uniform Commercial Code for cases of
commercial uncertainty.
6.4.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of this QPAP II, Qwest shall not be
excused for failng 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.
6.5 QPAP II contains a comprehensive set of PIDs, payment provisions, and bil
credit mechanisms that are designed to function together, and only together, as an
integrated whole, applying the same Plan provisions for all CLECs that adopt
QPAP II in the state. To elect QPAP II, CLEC must adopt QPAP II in its entirety, in
its interconnection agreement with Qwest. By electing payment under QPAP II,
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 non-contractual claim, theory, or
cause of action).
6.6 If for any reason CLEC is awarded compensation for the same harm for which
it received payment under QPAP II (hereafter, "duplicate payment", Qwest may
adjust future payments under QPAP II to reverse the duplicate payment, unless the
court or other adjudicatory body hearing such a claim offsets the damages resulting
from such claim with QPAP II payments made for the same harm.
7.0 VOLUNTARY PLAN, PLAN TERM, PLAN REVIEW, AND ONGOING
WHOLESALE SERVICE QUALITY ASSURANCE
7.1 Voluntary Offer: This Plan represents Qwests voluntary offer to provide
wholesale service quality performance assurance. Nothing in QPAP II or in any
appearance or conclusion of nonconformance of Qwests service performance with
the standards defined in the Plan shall be construed to be, of itself, nonconformance
with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "Act") or any other expressed
or implied regulation, requirement, or standard.
7.2 Plan Term: Qwests voluntary offer to incorporate this QPAP II in
interconnection agreements extends through December 31, 2013 (the "Plan Term").
QPAP II shall remain in effect throughout the Plan Term as part of the
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T- 08 - 04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 19 of 21
Exhibit K
interconnection agreement. Qwest may voluntarily extend the Plan Term beyond
December 31, 2013.
7.3 Plan Review: No more than nine months and no less than three months
before the end of the Plan Term, unless Qwest voluntarily agrees to extend the Plan
Term beyond December 31, 2013, Qwest wil notify the Commission of its intention to
terminate or modify the Plan, and the Commission may conduct a review to evaluate
the future of penormance assurance for the wholesale marketplace in the state.
7.3.1 Said review may be initiated after notification from Qwest (pursuant to 9.3
above) and before the end of the Plan Term. The review shall include Qwest and the
Commission, and may include any interested CLEC providing local exchange
services in Idaho under terms of an approved interconnection agreement with Qwest.
7.3.2 Said review may consider (a) Qwests penormance under QPAP II, addressing
whether Qwests overall penormance has deteriorated from the penormance levels in
existence at the time the FCC granted Section 271 authority to Qwest, and (b) market
openness as determined by available indicators of whether Qwest continues to
satisfy Section 271 requirements under current law at the time of the review. Nothing
in this section is intended to alter, impinge or encroach on the FCC's exclusive
jurisdiction over Section 271 issues including continuing enforcement of Section 271
obligations.
7.4 Ongoing Wholesale Service Quality Assurance: Upon the expiration of the
Plan Term, or later date if voluntarily extended by Qwest, Qwest wil incorporate
commercially-reasonable wholesale service quality assurance provisions in its
Negotiations Template Agreement for wholesale services. Nothing in this section
limits the rights of the parties under then current law, and based on the applicable
jurisdiction, to seek arbitration of any related dispute, or relief from the FCC, with
regard to specific terms and conditions.
8.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
For the purpose of resolving disputes over the meaning of the provisions of QPAP II
and how they should be applied, the following provisions shall apply:
8.1 The Parties wil attempt in good faith to resolve through negotiation any
dispute, claim or controversy arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement. Either
Part may give written notice to the other Part of any dispute not resolved in the
normal course of business. Each Party wil within seven (7) Days after delivery of the
written notice of dispute, designate a vice-president level employee or a
representative with authority to make commitments to review, meet, and negotiate, in
good faith, to resolve the dispute. The Parties intend that these negotiations be
conducted by non-lawyer, business representatives, and the locations, format,
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T- 08 - 04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 20 of 21
Exhibit K
frequency, duration, and conclusions of these discussions wil be at the discretion of
the representatives. By mutual agreement, the representatives may use other
procedures to assist in these negotiations. The discussions and correspondence
among the representatives for the purposes of these negotiations wil be treated as
Confidential Information (Confidential Information) developed for purposes of
settlement, and wil be exempt from discovery and production, and not be admissible
in any subsequent proceedings without the concurrence of both Parties.
8.2 If the designated representatives have not reached a resolution of the dispute
within fifteen (15) Days after the written notice (or such longer period as agreed to in
writing by the Parties), then either Part may commence an action which wil be
brought before the Commission or the FCC based on the appropriate jurisdiction. If
the claims are not within the jurisdiction or the scope of the statutory authority of the
Commission or the FCC, or if the Party commencing the action seeks a judgment for
money damages, including, but not limited to, payment of amounts biled, any action
wil be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado if it has
subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and if not, in the Denver District Court for
the State of Colorado. The Parties agree that such courts have personal jurisdiction
over them. Nothing in this section is intended to alter, impinge or encroach upon the
exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC in regard to issues fallng under the purview of
Section 271 of the Act.
8.3 Waiver of Jury Trial and Class Action. Each Part, to the extent permitted by
law, knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally waives its right to a trial by jury and any
right to pursue any claim or action arising out of or relating to this Agreement on a
class or consolidated basis or in a representative capacity.
8.4 No cause of action, including disputes raised pursuant to Section 5.4.4,
regardless of the form, arising out of or relating to this Agreement, and in the
absence of a statutorily-designated limitations period, may be brought by either Partmore than two (2) years after the cause of action arises.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
p. 21 of 21
Exhibit K
ATTACHMENT 1: QPAP 11- PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS (PIDS)
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................1
ELECTRONIC GATEWAY AVAILABILITY ...........................................................................3
GA-1- Gateway Availability -IMA-GUI.............................................................................................................................3
GA-3 - Gateway Availability- EB-TA.................................................................................................................................4
GA-4 - System Availabilty - EXACT .................................................................. ..................... ....... ....... .............................. 5
GA-6 - Gateway Availabilty - GUI-Repair ......................................................................................................................... 6
GA-8 - Gateway Availabilty - IMA-XML............................................................................................................................ 7
PRE-ORDER/ORDER ............................................................................................................8
PO-2 - Electronic Flow-through.........................................................................................................................................8
PO-3 - LSR Rejection Notice Interval.................................................................................................................................9
PO-4 - LSRs Rejected......................... ....... ............. ..................... ...................... ...... ........... ....................................... ....... 10
PO-5 - Firm Order Confirmations (FOCs) On Time .......................................................................................................... 11
PO-6 - Work Completion Notification Timeliness ........................................................................................................... 14
PO-7 - Biling Completion Notification Timeliness .......................................................................................................... 15
PO-8 - Jeopardy Notice Interval.... .............................................................. ............................................................. ....... 16
PO-9 - Timely Jeopardy Notices ......................................................................................................................................17
PO-20 - Manual Service Order Accuracy ......................................................................................................................... 18
ORDERING AND PROVISIONING ......................................................................................24
OP-2 - Calls Answered within Twenty Seconds -Interconnect Provisioning Center ......................................................24
OP-3 -Installation Commitments Met............................................................................................................................25
OP-4 - Installation Interval............................................................................................................................... ............... 26
OP-5 - New Service Quality ............................................................................................................................... ..............28
OP-6 - Delayed Days........................................................................................................................................................ 32
OP-7 - Coordinated "Hot Cut" Interval- Unbundled Loop .............................................................................................34
OP-8 - Number Portability Timeliness............................................................................................................................. 35
OP-13 - Coordinated Cuts On Time - Unbundled Loop ..................................................................................................36
OP-13 - Coordinated Cuts On Time - Unbundled Loop (continued)............................................................................... 37
OP-17 - Timeliness of Disconnects associated with LNP Orders..................................................................................... 38
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ...........................................................................................39
MR-2 - Calls Answered within 20 Seconds -Interconnect Repair Center ...................................................................... 39
MR-3/5 - Out-of-Service Troubles Cleared within Specified Intervals (24 or 4 Hours) ................................................... 40
MR-4 - Service-Affecting Troubles Cleared within 48 hours...........................................................................................42
MR-6 - Mean Time to Restore........................................................................................................................ .................43
MR-7 - Repair Repeat Report Rate..................................................................................................................................45
MR-8 - Trouble Rate........................................................................................................................................................47
MR-lO - Customer and Non-Qwest Related Trouble Report ........................................................................................ 49
MR-ll- LNP Trouble Reports Cleared within Specified Timeframes ............................................................................. 50
BILLING...............................................................................................................................51
BI-1- Time to Provide Recorded Usage Records ............................................................................................................ 51
BI-3 - Billng Accuracy - Adjustments for Errors ............................................................................................................. 52
NETWORK PERFORMANCE..............................................................................................53
NI-1- Trunk Blocking....................................................................................................................................................... 53
COLLOCATION ...................................................................................................................55
CP-1- Collocation Completion Interval...........................................................................................................................55
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 1 of 69
Exhibit K
CP-2 - Collocations Completed within Scheduled Intervals ............................................................................................ 57
CP-3 - Collocation Feasibility Study Interval ................................................................................................................... 59
CP-4 - Collocation Feasibility Study Commitments Met .................................................................................................60
DEFINITION OF TERMS .....................................................................................................61
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................64
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................66
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 2 of 69
ELECTRONIC GATEWAY AVAILABILITY
GA-1 - Gateway Availabilty - IMA-GUI
Purpose:
Evaluates the quality of CLEC access to the IMA-GUI electronic gateway and one associated system, focusing on the
extent they are actually available to CLECs.
Description:
GA-1A:Measures the availability of the IMA-GUI (Interconnect Mediated Access-Graphical User Interface), and
reports the percentage of Scheduled Availability Time the IMA-GUI interface is available for view and/or
input.
GA-1D:Measures the availabilty of the SIA system, which facilitates access for the IMA-GUI interface and the
IMA-XML interface (see GA-8), and report the percentage of scheduled time the SIA system is available.
Scheduled availability times wil be no less than the same hours as listed for IMA-GUI and IMA-XML..Time Gateway is Available to CLECs is equal to Scheduled Availabilty Time minus Outage Time..Scheduled Availability Time is equal to Scheduled Up Time minus Scheduled Down TIme..Scheduled Up Time hours for preorder, order, and provisioning transactions are based on the currently
published hours of availabilty found on the following website:
http://www.gwest.com/wholesale/cmp/ossHours.html..Scheduled Down Time is time identified and communicated that the interface is not available due to
maintenance and/or upgrade work. Notification of Scheduled Down Time for routine maintenance and/or
upgrade work will be provided no less than 48 hours in advance.
.An outage is a critical or serious loss of functionality, attributable to the specified gateway or component (Le.,
IMA-GUI, SIA), affecting Qwests ability to serve its customers. An outage is determined by Qwest technicians
through the use of verifiable data, collected from the affected customer(s) and/or from mechanized event
management systems.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate results Disaggregation Reporting: Region-wide leveL.
Results wil be reported as follows:.GA-1A IMA Graphical User Interface Gateway.GA-1D SIAsystem
Formula:
((Number of Hours and Minutes Gateway is Available to CLECs During Reporting Period) + (Number of Hours and
Minutes of Scheduled Availabilty Time During Reporting Period)) x 100
Exclusions: None
Services and Elements Reporting: None
I Standard:
99.25 percent
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 3 of 69
GA-3 - Gateway Availabilty - EB-TA
Purpose:
Evaluates the quality of CLEC access to the EB-TA interface, focusing on the extent the gateway is actually
available to CLECs.
Description:
Measures the availability of EB- TA (Electronic Bonding - Trouble Administration) interface and reports the
percentage of scheduled availability time the EB-TA Interface is available..Scheduled Up Time hours are based on the currently published hours of availabilty found on the following
website: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/ossHours.html ..Time Gateway is Available to CLECs is equal to Scheduled Availability Time minus Outage Time..Scheduled Availabilty Time is equal to Scheduled Up Time minus Scheduled Down Time..Scheduled Down Time is time identified and communicated that the interface is not available due to
maintenance and/or upgrade work. Notification of Scheduled Down Time for routine maintenance and/or
upgrade work will be provided no less than 48 hours in advance..An outage is a critical or serious loss of functionality, attributable to the specified gateway or component
(Le., EB-TA), affecting Qwests ability to serve its customers. An outage is determined by Qwest
technicians through the use of verifiable data, collected from the affected customer(s) and/or from
mechanized event management systems.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate results Disaggregation Reporting: Region-wide leveL.
Formula:
((Number of Hours and Minutes Gateway is Available to CLECs During Reporting Period) + (Number of Hours
and Minutes of Scheduled Availability During Reporting Period)) x 100
Exclusions: None
Services and Elements Reporting: None Standard:99.25 percent
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 4 of 69
GA-4 - System Availabilty - EXACT
Purpose:
Evaluates the quality of CLEC batch access to the EXACT electronic access service request system, focusing on
the extent the system is actually available to ClECs.
Description:
Measures the availability of EXACT system and reports the percentage of scheduled availability time the EXACT
system is available..Scheduled Up Time hours are based on the currently published hours of availability found on the following
website: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/ossHours.html..Time System is Available to CLECs is equal to Scheduled Availabilty Time minus Outage Time..Scheduled Availabilty Time is equal to Scheduled Up Time minus Scheduled Down Time..Scheduled Down Time is time identified and communicated that the system is not available due to
maintenance and/or upgrade work. Notification of Scheduled Down Time for routine maintenance and/or
upgrade work wil be provided no less than 48 hours in advance..An outage is a critical or serious loss of functionality, attributable to the specified gateway or component
(Le., EXACT), affecting Qwests ability to serve its customers. An outage is determined by Qwest
technicians through the use of verifiable data, collected from the affected customer(s) and/or from
mechanized event management systems.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate results Disaggregation Reporting: Region-wide leveL.
Formula:
((Number of Hours and Minutes EXACT is Available to CLECs During Reporting Period) + (Number of Hours and
Minutes of Scheduled Availability During Reporting Period)) x 100
Exclusions: None
Services and Elements Reporting: None Standard:Diagnostic
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 5 of 69
GA-6 - Gateway Availabilty - GUI-Repair
Purpose:
Evaluates the quality of CLEC access to the GUI Repair electronic gateway, focusing on the extent the gateway
is actually available to CLECs.
Description:
Measures the availabilty of the GUI (Graphical User Interface) repair electronic interface and reports the
percentage of scheduled availabilty time the interface is available for view and/or input. All times during
which the interface is scheduled to be operating during the reporting period are measured..Scheduled Up Time" hours are based on the currently published hours of availability found on the
following website: http://www.gwest.com/wholesale/cmp/ossHours.html ..Time Gateway is Available to CLECs is equal to Scheduled Availability Time minus Outage Time..Scheduled Availability Time is equal to Scheduled Up Time minus Scheduled Down Time..Scheduled Down Time is time identified and communicated that the interface is not available due to
maintenance and/or upgrade work. Notification of Scheduled Down Time for routine maintenance and/or
upgrade work wil be provided no less than 48 hours in advance..An outage is a critical or serious loss of functionality, attributable to the specified gateway or component
(Le., GUI-Repair), affecting Qwests ability to serve its customers. An outage is determined by Qwest
technicians through the use of verifiable data, collected from the affected customer(s) and/or from
mechanized event management systems.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate Disaggregation Reporting: Region-wide leveL.
results
Formula:
(Number of Hours and Minutes Gateway is Available to CLECs During Reporting Period + Number of Hours and
Minutes of Scheduled Availability Time During Reporting Period) x 100
Exclusions: None
Services and Elements Reporting: None
I Standard:
99.25 percent
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 6 of 69
GA-8 - Gateway Availabilty -IMA-XML
Purpose:
Evaluates the quality of CLEC access to the IMA-XML electronic gateway, focusing on the extent the gateway is
actually available to CLEes.
Description:
Measures the availabilty of IMA-XML (Interconnect Mediated Access - Extensible Markup Language) interface
and reports the percentage of scheduled availability time the IMA-XML Interface is available for view and/or
input. All times during which the interface is scheduled to be operating during the reporting period are
measured..Scheduled Up Time hours for IMA-XML based on the currently published hours of availabilty found on the
following website: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/ossHours.html. Time Gateway is Available to
CLECs is equal to Scheduled Availability Time minus Outage Time..Scheduled Availability Time is equal to Scheduled Up Time minus Scheduled Down Time..Scheduled Down Time is time identified and communicated that the interface is not available due to
maintenance and/or upgrade work. Notification of Scheduled Down Time for routine maintenance and/or
upgrade work will be provided no less than 48 hours in advance..An outage is a critical or serious loss of functionality, attributable to the specified gateway or component
(i.e., IMA-XML), affecting Qwests abilty to serve its customers. An outage is determined by Qwest
technicians through the use of verifiable data, collected from the affected customer(s) and/or from
mechanized event management systems.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate Disaggregation Reporting: Region-wide leveL.
results (See GA-1D for reporting of SIA system availability.)
Formula:
((Number of Hours and Minutes Gateway is Available to CLECs During Reporting Period) + (Number of Hours
and Minutes of Scheduled Availability Time During Reporting Period) ) x 100
Exclusions: None
Services and Elements Reporting: None
I Standard:
99.25 percent
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 7 of 69
PRE-ORDER/ORDER
PO-2 - Electronic Flow-through
Purpose:
Monitors the extent to which Qwests processing of CLEC Local Service Requests (LSRs) is completely
electronic, focusing on the degree that electronically-transmitted LSRs flow directly to the service order
processor without human intervention or without manual retyping.
Description:
PO-2A - Measures the percentage of all electronic LSRs that flow from the specified electronic gateway
interface to the Service Order Processor (SOP) without any human intervention.
.Includes allLSRs that are submitted electronically during the reporting period, subject to exclusions
specified below.
PO-2B - Measures the percentage of all flow-through-eligible LSRs NOTE 1 that flow from the specified
electronic gateway interface to the SOP without any human intervention..Includes all flow-through-eligible LSRs that are submitted electronically during the reporting period,
subject to exclusions specified below.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate,Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level (per multi-state
individual CLEC system serving the state).
Formula:
PO-2A =((Number of Electronic LSRs that pass from the Gateway Interface to the SOP without human
intervention) + (Total Number of Electronic LSRs that pass through the Gateway Interface)) x 100
PO-2B =((Number of flow-through-eligible Electronic LSRs that actually pass from the Gateway Interface to
the SOP without human intervention) + (Number of flow-through-eligible Electronic LSRs received
through the Gateway Interface)) x 100
Exclusions:.Rejected LSRs and LSRs containing CLEe-caused non-fatal errors.
.Non-electronic LSRs (e.g., via fax or courier)..Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement..Duplicate LSR numbers. (Exclusion to be eliminated upon implementation of IMA capability to disallow
duplicate LSR #'s.).Invalid start/stop dates/times.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale Po-2A: Diagnostic.Unbundled Loops (with or Po-2B:
without Local Number Portabilty)Resale:95%.Local Number Portability Unbundled Loops:85%
LNP:95%
Notes:
1.The list of LSR types classified as eligible for flow through is contained in the "LSRs Eligible for Flow
Through" matrix. This matrix also includes availabilty for enhancements to flow through. Matrix wil be
distributed through the CMP process.
2.Existing gateways are GUI and XML. Future gateways will be reported after a (TBD) trial period.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 8 of 69
PO-3 - LSR Rejection Notice Interval
Purpose:
Monitors the timeliness with which Qwest notifies ClECs that electronic and manual LSRs were rejected.
Description:
Measures the interval between the receipt of a Local Service Request (LSR) and the rejection of the LSR for
standard categories of errors/reasons.
.Includes all LSRs submitted through the specified interface that are rejected during the reporting period..Standard reasons for rejections are: missing/incomplete/mismatchingfunintelligible information, duplicate
request or LSR/PON (purchase order number), no separate LSR for each account telephone number
affected, no valid contract, no valid end user verification, account not working in Qwest territory, service-
affecting order pending, request is outside established parameters for service, and lack of CLEC response
to Qwest question for clarification about the LSR..Included in the interval is time required for efforts by Qwest to work with CLEC to avoid the necessity of
rejecting the LSR..With hours: minutes reporting, hours counted are business hours for manual rejects. Business hours are
defined as time during normal business hours of the Wholesale Delivery Service Centers.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure:
Hrs: Mins
Reporting Comparisons:Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide
CLEC aggregate and
individual CLEC results PO-3X: LSRs received electronically via IMA-GUI or IMA-XML and rejected
manually
Formula:
I: ((Date and time of Rejection Notice) - (Date and time of LSR receipt)) + (Total number of LSR Rejection
Notifications)
Exclusions:.Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
.Duplicate LSR numbers. (Exclusion to be eliminated upon implementation of IMA capability to disallow
duplicate LSR #'s.)
.Invalid start/stop dates/times.
Services and Elements Reporting: Not applicable Standards:
PO-3X:.. 12 business hours
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 9 of 69
PO-4 - LSRs Rejected
Purpose:
Monitors the extent LSRs are rejected as a percentage of all LSRs to provide information to help address
potential issues that might be raised by the indicator of LSR rejection notice intervals.
Description:
Measures the percentage of LSRs rejected (returned to CLEe) for standard categories of errors/reasons..Includes all LSRs submitted through the specified interface that are rejected or FOC'd during the reporting
period..Standard reasons for rejections are: missing/incomplete/mismatchingfunintelligible information; duplicate
request or LSR/PON (purchase order number); no separate LSR for each account telephone number
affected; no valid contract; no valid end user verification; account not working in Qwest territory; service-
affecting order pending; request is outside established parameters for service; and lack of CLEC response
to Qwest question for clarification about the LSR.
Reporting Period: One month
I Unit of Measure: Percent of LSRs
Reporting Comparisons:Disaggregation Reporting:
CLEC aggregate and Results for this indicator are reported according to the gateway interface used
individual CLEC results to submit the LSR:.PO-4A-l LSRs received via IMA-GUI and rejected manually - Region wide.PO-4A-2 LSRs received via IMA-GUI and auto-rejected - Region wide.PO-4X-L LSRs received via IMA-XML and rejected manually - Region wide.PO-4X-2 LSRs received via IMA-XML and auto-rejected - Region wide
Formula:
((Total number of LSRs rejected via the specified method in the reporting period) + (Total of all LSRs that are
received via the specified interface that were rejected or FOC'd in the reporting period)) x 100
Exclusions:
.Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
.Duplicate LSR numbers. (Exclusion to be eliminated upon implementation of IMA capability to disallow
duplicate LSR #'s.)
.Invalid start/stop dates/times.
Services and Elements Reporting: Not applicable
I Standard: Diagnostic(reported by ordering interface).
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 10 of 69
PO-5 - Firm Order Confirmations (FOCs) On Time
Purpose:
Monitors the timeliness with which Qwest returns Firm Order eonfirmations (FOes) to eLEes in response to LSRs
received from eLEes, focusing on the degree to which FOes are provided within specified intervals.
Description:
Measures the percentage of Firm Order eonfirmations (FOes) that are provided to eLEes within the intervals
specified under "Standards" below for FOe notifications.
. Includes all LSRs that are submitted through the specified interface that receive an FOe during the reporting
period, subject to exclusions specified below. (Acknowledgments sent separately from an FOe are not
included.)
· For PO-SA, the interval measured is the period between the LSR received date/time (based on scheduled up
time) and Qwests response with a FOe notification (notification date and time).
· For PO-SB, and 50, the interval measured is the period between the application date and time, as defined
herein, and Qwests response with a Foe notification (notification date and time).
. "Fully electronic" LSRs are those (1) that are received via IMA-GUI or IMA-XML, (2) that involve no manual
intervention, and (3) for which FOes are provided mechanically to eLEe. NOTE 2
· "Electronic/manual" LSRs are received electronically via IMA-GUI or IMA-XML and involve manual
processing.
. LSRs wil be evaluated according to the Foe interval categories shown in the "Standards" section below,
based on the number of lines/services requested on the LSR or, where multiple LSRs from the same eLEe
are related, based on the combined number of lines/services requested on the related LSRs.
Reporting Period: One month I Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level (per multi-state system serving the
eLEe aggregate and state).
individual eLEe results Results for this indicator are reported as follows:
. PO-SA:* FOes provided for fully electronic LSRs
. PO-SB:* FOes provided for electronic/manualLSRs
* Each of the PO-SA, PO-SB measurements listed above wil be further
disaggregated as follows:
(a) FOes provided for Resale services
(b) FOes provided for Unbundled Loops & specified UNEs
Formula:
PO-SA = Heount of LSRs for which the original FOC's "(FOe Notification Date & Time) - (LSR received date/time
(based on scheduled up time)) is within 20 minutes) + (Total Number of original FOe Notifications
transmitted for the service category in the reporting periodH x 100
PO-SB = Heount of LSRs for which the original FOC's "(FOe Notification Date & Time) - (Application Date &
Time)" is within the intervals specified for the service category involved) + (Total Number of original
FOe Notifications transmitted for the service category in the reporting periodH x 100
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 11 of 69
PO-5 - Firm Order Confirmations (FOCs) On Time (continued)
Exclusions:.LSRs involving individual case basis (lCB) handling based on quantities of lines, as specified in the
"Standards" section below, or service/request types, deemed to be projects..Hours on Weekends and holidays (except for PO-SA which only excludes hours outside the scheduled up
time)..LSRs with CLEC-requested FOC arrangements different from standard FOC arrangements..Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement..Duplicate LSR numbers. (Exclusion to be eliminated upon implementation of IMA capability to disallow
duplicate LSR #'s.).Invalid start/stop dates/times.
Services and Elements Standards:
Reporting:
For PO-SA & PO-sB:.For PO-SA (all):95% within 20 minutes NOTE 2
(a) Resale services .For PO-sB (all):90% within standard FOC intervals (specified
(b) Unbundled Loops and below)specified UNE
Standard Foe Intervals for PO-58
Services & Elements Groups NOTE 1 FOe Interval
Resale
Residence and Business POTS lto 39 lines
ISDN-Basic-Conversion As Is-Adding/Changing features 1 to 10 lines-Add primary directory listing to established loop 24 hours-Add call appearance
Centrex Non-Design with no Common Block Configuration 1 to 19 lines
Centrex line feature changes/adds/removal (all)
Unbundled Loops
1 to 24 loops 2/4 Wire analog
Sub-loop
1 to 24 loops (included in Services and Elements Reporting group (b), UNEs)
Resale
ISDN-Basic-Conversion As Specified 1 to 10 lines-New Installs-Address Changes-Change to add Loop
ISDN-PRI (Facility)lt03 48 hours
PBX 1 to 24 trunks
DSO or Voice Grade Equivalent 1 to 24
DS1 (Facility)1 to 24
Enhanced Extended Loops - OSl (EELs-OS1)1 to 24(included in Services and Elements Reporting group (b))
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 12 of 69
PO-5 - Firm Order Confirmations (FOCs) On Time (continued)
Standard FOC Intervals for PO-58
Services & Elements Groups NOTE 1 FOC Interval
Resale
Centrex (including Centrex 21, Non-design, Centrex 21 Basic
ISDN, Centrex-Plus, Centron, Centrex Primes)-With Common Block Configuration required-Initial establishment of Centrex CMS services-Tie lines or NARs activity 1 to 10 lines-Subsequent to initial Comrron Block-Station lines-Automatic Route Selection 72 hours-Uniform Call Distribution-Additional numbers
Unbundled Loops with Facilty Check(NOTE 2)
2/4 wire Non-loaded
ADSL compatible
1 to 24 loops ISDN capable
XDSL-I capable
DS1 capable
Resale 1 to 12 trunks 96 hoursISDN-PRI (Trunks)
Notes:
1.LSRs with quantities above the highest number specified for each service or element type are considered
ICB.
2.Unbundled Loop with Facility Check can be processed electronically; however, because this category always
carries a 72-hour FOe interval the FOC results for this element wil appear in PO-5B if received
electronically.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 13 of 69
PO-6 - Work Completion Notification Timeliness
Purpose:
To evaluate the timeliness of Qwest issuing electronic notification at an LSR level to CLECs that provisioning
work on all service orders that comprise CLEC LSR have been completed in the Service Order Processor and the
service is available to the customer.
Description:.Includes all orders completed in the Qwest Service Order Processor that generate completion notifications
in the reporting period, subject to exclusions shown below..The start time is the date/time when the last of the service orders that comprise CLEC LSR is posted as
completed in the Service Order Processor..The end time is when the electronic order completion notice is made available NOTE 1 to CLEC via the
ordering interface used to place the local service request. The notification is made available at an LSR level
when all service orders that comprise CLEC LSR are complete..With hours: minutes reporting, hours counted are during the published Gateway Availability hours.
Gateway Availability hours are based on the currently published hours of availabilty found on the
following website: http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/ossHours.html.
Reporting Period:
I Unit of Measure:One month Hrs:Mins
Reporting Comparisons:Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
CLEC aggregate and
individual CLEC results.
Formula:
L((Date and Time Completion Notification made available) - (Date and Time the last of the service orders that
comprise CLEC LSR is completed in the Service Order Processor)) + (Number of completion notifications made
available in reporting period)
Exclusions:
.Records with invalid completion dates..LSRs submitted manually (e.g., via facsimile)..ASRS submitted via EXACT
Services and Elements Reporting:Standard:
Not applicable 6 hours
Notes:
1.The time a notice is "made available" via the IMA-GUI is the time Qwest stores a status update related to
the completion notice in the IMA Status Updates database. When this occurs, the notice can be
immediately viewed by CLEC using the Status Updates window or by using the LSR Notice Inquiry function.
The time a notice is "made available" via the IMA-XML is the time Qwest makes the completion notice
available for XML transmission (push) or retrieval (pull). When this occurs, the notice can be immediately
transmitted by Qwest or retrieved by CLEe.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 14 of 69
PO-7 - Biling Completion Notification Timeliness
Purpose:
To evaluate the timeliness with which electronic billing completion notifications are made available to CLECs,
focusing on the percentage of notifications that are made available (for CLECs) or posted in the biling system
(for Qwest retail) within five business davs.
Description:
PO-7X:
.This measurement includes all orders posted in the CRIS billng system for which billng completion notices
are made available in the reporting period, subject to exclusions shown below.
.Intervals used in this measurement are from the time a service order is completed in the SOP to the time
billing completion for the order is made available to CLEe.-The time a notice is "made available" via the IMA-GUI consists of the time Qwest stores the
completion notice in the IMA Status Updates database. When this occurs, the notice can be
immediately viewed by CLEC using the Status Updates window.-The time a notice is "made available" via the IMA-XML is the time Qwest makes the completion notice
available for XML transmission (push) or retrieval (pull). When this occurs, the notice can be
immediately transmitted by Qwest or retrieved by CLEe. Applicable only to those CLECs who are certified
and setup to receive the notices via IMA-XML..The start time is when the completion of the service order is posted in the Qwest SOP. The end time is
when, confirming that the order has been posted in the CRIS billing system, the electronic biling completion
notice is made available to CLEC via the same ordering interface as used to submit the LSR.
.Intervals counted in the numerator of this measurement are those that are five business days or less.
PO-7C:.This measurement includes all retail orders posted in the CRIS Billing system in the reporting period, subject
to exclusions shown below..Intervals used in this measurement are from the time an order is completed in the SOP to the time it is
posted in the CRIS billing system..The start time is when the completion of the order is posted in the SOP. The end time is when the order is
posted in the CRIS billing system..Intervals counted in the numerator of this measurement are those that are five business days or less.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons:Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
PO-7X: CLEC aggregate and individual CLEC results..PO-7X Notices made available via IMA
PO-7C: Qwest retail results..PO-7C Billng system postings for Qwest Retail
Formula:
For wholesale service orders Qwest generates for LSRs received via IMA:
PO-7X =(Number of electronic billing completion notices in the reporting period made available within
five business days of posting complete in the SOP) + (Total Number of electronic billing
completion notices made available during the reporting period)
For service orders Qwest generates for retail customers (i.e.. the retail analogue for PO-7X):
PO-7C=(Total number of retail service orders posted in the CRIS billng system in the reporting period
that were posted within five business days) + (Total number of retail service orders posted in
the CRrs billng system in the reporting period)
Exclusions:
PO-7X & 7C.Services that are not biled through CRIS, e.g. Resale Frame Relay.Records with invalid completion dates
PO-7X.LSRs submitted manually and/or ASRS submitted via EXACT
Services and Elements Reporting: Not applicable I Standard: PO-7X: Parity with PO-7C
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 15 of 69
PO-8 - Jeopardy Notice Interval
Purpose:
Evaluates the timeliness of jeopardy notifications, focusing on how far in advance of original due dates
jeopardy notifications are provided to CLECs (regardless of whether the due date was actually missed).
Description:
Measures the average time lapsed between the date the customer is first notified of an order jeopardy event ani
the original due date of the order..Includes all orders completed in the reporting period that received jeopardy notifications.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Average Business days NOTE i
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate,Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
individual CLEC and Qwest Retail results (This measure is reported by jeopardy notification process as
used for the categories shown under Services and Elements
Reporting.)
Formula:
¿(Date of the original due date of orders completed in the reporting period that received jeopardy notification
- Date of the first jeopardy notification) + (Total orders completed in the reporting period that received
jeopardy notification)
Exclusions:.Jeopardy notices sent after the original due date is past..Records involving official company services..Records with invalid due dates or application dates..Records with invalid completion dates..Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:
.Non-designed Services and Unbundled Loops,.Parity with Retail POTS
aggregated (with or without Number Portability).LIS Trunks .Diagnostic
Notes:
1. Saturday is counted as a business day for all non-dispatched orders for Resale Residence and Resale
Business, as well as for the retail analogues specified above as standards. For dispatched orders for Resale
Residence, Resale Business and for unbundled loops, Saturday is counted as a business day when the service
order is due on Saturday.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 16 of 69
PO-9 - Timely Jeopardy Notices
Purpose:
When original due dates are missed, measures the extent to which Qwest notifies customers in advance of
jeopardized due dates.
Description:
Measures the percentage of late orders for which advance jeopardy notification is provided..Includes all inward orders (Change, New, and Transfer order types) assigned a due date by Qwest and
which are completed/closed in the reporting period that missed the original due date. Change order types
included in this measurement consist of all C orders representing inward activity..Missed due date orders with jeopardy notifications provided on or after the original due date is past wil be
counted in the denominator of the formula but wil not be counted in the numerator.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
aggregate, individual CLEC and Qwest (This measure is reported by jeopardy notification process as used
Retail results for the categories shown under Services and Elements Reporting.)
Formula:
((Total missed due date orders completed in the reporting period that received jeopardy notification in
advance of original due date) + (Total number of missed due date orders completed in the reporting period)) x
100
Exclusions:.Orders missed for customer reasons.
.Records with invalid service/element (product) codes.
.Records involving official company services..Records with invalid due dates or application dates..Records with invalid completion dates..Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Non-designed Services and Unbundled Loops,.Parity with Retail POTS
aggregated (with or without Number Portabilty).LIS Trunks .Diagnostic
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 17 of 69
PO.20 - Manual Service Order Accuracy
Purpose:
Evaluates the degree to which Qwest accurately processes CLECs' Local Service Requests (LSRs), which are
electronically-submitted and manually processed by Qwest, into Qwest Service Orders, based on mechanized
comparisons of specified LSR-Service Order fields and focusing on the percentage of manually-processed Service
Orders that are accurate/error-free.
Description:
Measures the percentage of manually-processed Qwest Service Orders that are populated correctly, in specified data
fields, with information obtained from CLEC LSRs.
. Includes only Service Orders created from CLEC LSRs that Qwest receives NOTE 1 electronically (viaIMA-GUI or IMA-
XML) and manually processes in the creation of Service Orders, regardless of flow through eligibility, subject to
exclusions specified below.
· Includes only Service Orders, from the Services and Elements Reporting categories specified below, that request
inward line or feature activity (Change, New, and Transfer order types), are assigned a due date by Qwest, and are
completed/closed in the reporting period. Change Service Order types included in this measurement consist of all
C orders with "I" and 'T' action-coded line or feature USOCs.
. All Service Orders satisfying the above criteria are evaluated in this measurement. NOTE 2
· An inward line Service Order will be classified as "accurate" and thus counted in the numerator in the formula
below when the mechanized comparisons of this measurement determine that the fields specified in the Service
Order Fields Evaluated section below (when the source fields have been properly populated on the LSR) are all
accurate on the Service Order. An inward feature Service Order wil be classified as "accurate" if the fields
specified in the Service Order Fields Evaluated section below (when the source fields have been properly
populated on the LSR) are all accurate on the Service Order and if no CLEC notifications to the call center have
generated call center tickets coded to LSR/SO mismatch for that order.
- Service Orders will be counted as being accurate if the contents of the relevant fields, as recorded in the
completed Service Orders involved in provisioning the service, properly match or correspond to the
information from the specified fields as provided in the latest version of associated LSRs.
- Service orders generated from LSRs receiving a PIA (Provider Initiated Activity value wil be counted as being
accurate if each and every mismatch has a correct and corresponding PIA value.
- Service Orders, including those otherwise considered accurate under the above-described mechanized field
comparison, wil not be counted as accurate if Qwest corrects errors in its Service Order(s) as a result of
contacts received from CLECs no earlier than one business day prior to the original due date.
Reporting Period: One month, reported in arrears (i.e., Unit of Measure: Percent
results first appear in reports one month later than
results for measurements that are not reported in
arrears), in order to exclude Service Orders that are the
subject of call center tickets counted in OP-SB and OP-
ST, as having new service problems attributed to
Service Order errors.
Reporting Comparisons:
CLEC Aggregate and individual CLEC
Disaggregation Reporting:
Statewide level
Formula:
((Number of accurate, evaluated Service Orders) + (Number of evaluated Service Orders completed in the
reporting period)) x 100
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 18 of 69
PO-20 - Manual Service Order Accuracy (continued)
Exclusions:
.Service Orders that are the subject of call center tickets counted in OP-5B and OP-5T as having new service
problems attributed to Service Order errors.
.Cancelled Service Orders..Service Orders that cannot be matched to a corresponding LSR.Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standard:.Resale (POTS and Centrex 21)95%.Unbundled Loops (Analog and Non-Loaded 2/4-wire, DS1
Capable, ADSL Compatible, XDSL-I Capable, ISDN-BRI Capable)
Notes:
1.To be included in the measurement, Service Orders created from CLEC LSRs must be received and completed in
the same version of IMA-GUI or IMA-XML.
2.Consists of all manually-processed, qualifying Service Orders per Services and Elements Reporting category
specified above, from throughout Qwests 14-state local service region.
LSR-Service Order Fields Evaluated
Mechanized comparison of the fields from the Service Order to the LSR:
LSR Field LSR Field Name Remarks/Service Order Field:Form Code
CCNA Customer Carrier CCNA field of LSR form compared to the RSID/ZClD field identifier in
Name Abbreviation the Extended ID section of the Service Order.
PON Purchase Order PON field of LSR form compared to the PON field in Bil Section of
Number the Service Order.
D/TSENT Date and time sent The D/TSENT field of LSR form from the Firm Order Manager, using
applied business day cut-off rules and business typing rules, and
compare to the APP (Application Date) used on the Service Order.
CHC Coordinated Hot Applies only to Unbundled Loop.
Cut Requested Validate that the installation USOC used on the Service Order
matches the Coordinated Cut request. (Evaluated in conjunction
with the TEST field to determine correct USOc.
LSR TEST Testing required Applies only to Unbundled Loop.
Validate that the installation USOC used on the Service Order
matches the TEST request. (Evaluated in conjunction with the CHC
field to determine correct USOc.
NC Network Channel Applies only to Unbundled Loop. NC field on the LSR form
Code compared to provisioning USOC for CKL1 on the Service Order.
NCI Network Channel Applies only to Unbundled Loop NCI field on the LSR form
Interface Code compared to provisioning USOC for CKL1 on the Service Order.
SECNCI Secondary Applies only to Unbundled Loop orders.
Network Channel SECNCI field on the LSR form compared to the provisioning USOC
Interface Code for CKL2 on the Service Order.
PiC InterLATA Pre-PiC field on Resale or Centrex form compared to PIC populated on
Resale or subscription the "1" or "T" action lines in the Service and Equipment section of
Centrex Indicator Code the Service Order.
Note:
LSR PIC = None; S.O. PIC = None
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 19 of 69
PO-20 - Manual Service Order Accuracy (continued)
LSR-Service Order Fields Evaluated
Mechanized comparison of the fields from the Service Order to the LSR:
LSR Field LSR Field Name Remarks/Service Order Field:Form Code
LPIC IntraLATA Pre-LPIC field on Resale or Centrex form compared to LPIC populated on
subscription the "I" or "T" action lines in the Service and Equipment section of
Indicator Code the Service Order.
Note:
LSR LPIC = None; S.O. LPIC = 9199
LSR LPIC = DFLT; S.O. LPIC = 5123
TNS Telephone Validate that all telephone numbers in the TNS fields in the Service
Numbers Details section on the Resale or Centrex form requiring inward
activity are addressed on the Service Order.
FA!Feature When the FA = N, T, V
FEATURE Activity/Feature Validate line and feature USOCs provided in the FEATURE field on
Codes the Resale or Centrex form are addressed with "i" and/or "T" action
Resale or lines on the Service Order.
Centrex Note: Comparison will be based on the USOCs associated with line
and feature activity listed in the PO-20 USOC List posted on Qwests
public website, on the web page containing the current
performance results www.qwest.com/wholesale/results). Qwest
may add USOCS to the list, delete grand-fathered/ discontinued or
obsolete USOCs, or update USOCs assigned to listed descriptions by
providing notice in the monthly Summary of Notes and updating
the list.
LS ECCKT Exchange Company Applies to LSRs with ACT = C (only when NC code has not changed,
Circuit ID M,orT.
ECCKT field on the LS form compared to the CLS field in the Service
and Equipment section of the Service Order.
LS/CFA Connecting Facility CFA field on the LS or LSNP forms compared to the CFA field used in
LSNP Assignment CKL1 of the Service Order. (Verbal acceptance of CFA changes wil
be FOC'd and PIA'd, which wil account for the mismatch and
eliminate it as an error in the PO-20 calculation.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 20 of 69
PO-20 - Manual Service Order Accuracy (continued)
LSR-Service Order Fields Evaluated
Mechanized comparison of the fields from the Service Order to the LSR:
LSR Field NameForm
LSR Field
Code
lTV listing Type
~c''¡
E.!!.. -io C- .-el IIti ~
.5 -.. II
:: ~=- -i.. ..
.9 .Eu =-QI -.. cÕ 0I 't
-i ofo II::j~
TOA Type of Account
DMl
NOSl
Direct Mail list
No Solicitation
Indicator
TelemarketingTMKT
lNlN and
lNFN
ADI
listed Name
Address Indicator
Remarks/Service Order Field:
lTV = 1 (listed - appears in DA and the directory.) Validate that
there is a IN in the list section of the Service Order.
lTV = 2 (Non listed - appears only in DA.) Validate that there is non
listing instructions in the IN field in the list section of the Service
Order.
Central/Western Region: Validate that the left handed field is NlST
and (NON-LIST) is contained in the NLST data field in the list section
of the Service order.
Eastern Region: Validate that the left handed field is Nl and (NON
LIST) is contained in the Nl data field in the list section of the
Service Order.
lTV = 3 (Non Pub - does not appear in the directory and telephone
number does not appear in DA.) Validate that there is non
published instructions in the IN field in the list section of the
Service Order.
Central/Western Regions: Validate that the left handed field is NP
and (NON-PUB) is contained in the NP data field in the list section
of the Service Order.
Eastern Region: Validate that the left handed field is NP and (NP
lODA) or (NP NODA) is contained in the NP data field in the list
section of the Service Order.
Validate TOA entries (only reviewed when BRO field on Dl form is
not populated):
TOA valid entries are B or RP
Validate that there is a semi colon (;) within the IN in the list
section of the Service Order.
TOA valid entries are R or BP
Validate that there is a comma (,) within the IN in the list section of
the Service Order.
Exception: When LSR-TOS = 3, TOA review is Not Applicable.
Handled by Complex listing Group. This may be done on an existing
service order or a separate service order.
DMl field = 0 on Dl form; Service Order IN contains (OCLS).
Arizona Only
NOSl field = Y on Dl form; Service Order IN contains (NSOl) (OCLS).
Colorado Only
TMKT field = 0 on Dl form; Service Order IN contains (OATD).
When both the DMl and the TMKT fields are populated, DMl
validation applies.
lNlN and lNFN fields on Dl form compared to the IN field in the
list section of the Service Order.
ADI = 0 on Dl form; Service Order LA contains (OAD).
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 21 of 69
PO-20 - Manual Service Order Accuracy (continued)
LSR-Service Order Fields Evaluated
Mechanized comparison of the fields from the Service Order to the LSR:
LSR Field LSR Field Name Remarks/Service Order Field:Form Code
LAPR Listed Address LAPR field of the Listing form compared to LA in the List section of
Number Prefix the Service Order.
LANO Listed Address LANO field of the Listing form compared to LA in the List section of
Number the Service Order.
LASF Listed Address LASF field of the Listing form compared to LA in the List section of
Number Suffix the Service Order.
LASD Listed Address LAD field of the Listing form compared to LA in the List section of
Street Directional the Service Order.
LASN Listed Address LASN field of the Listing form compared to LA in the List section of
Street Name the Service Order.
LATH Listed Address LATH field of the Listing form compared to LA in the List section of
Street Type the Service Order.
LASS Listed Address LASS field of the Listing form compared to LA in the List section of
Street Directional the Service Order.
Suffix
LALOC Listed Address LALOC field of the Listing form compared to LA in the List section of
Locality the Service Order.
LSR DSPTCH Dispatch Limited to Unbundled Loops where ACT = Z or V only.
If DSPTCH field on the LSR form = Y, validate dispatch USOC in the
Service and Equipment section of the Service Order.
LTC Line Treatment Applies only to Centrex 21
Code LTC field numeric value on the Centrex form compared to the data
Centrex following the CAT field for the Line USOC on the Service Order.
COS Class of Service -Applies only to Centrex 21.
Qwest Specific COS field of the Centrex form compared to the CS field in the ID
section of the Service Order.
Resale or FEATURE Feature Details As specified in Appendix A.
Centrex DETAILS Comparison would be based on the fields associated with the USOC
list referenced under Feature Activity above.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 22 of 69
PO-20 - Manual Service Order Accuracy (continued)
LSR-Service Order Fields Evaluated
Mechanized comparison of the fields from the Service Order to the LSR:
LSR Field LSR Field Name Remarks/Service Order Field:Form Code
Resale or BLOCK Blocking Type For each LNUM provided in the Service Detail section of the Resale
Centrex or Centrex form when BA = E:
Note: The BLOCK field may have one or more alpha and/or numeric
values per LNUM. This review wil only validate based on BA/BLOCK
fields and wil not address blocking information provided in the
"Remark" section on the LSR or the Feature Detail section of the
LSR. The values listed below wil be considered as follows:
If BLOCK contains A, validate FlO TBE A is present on the service
order floated behind line USOC associated with the TNS for that
LNUM.
If BLOCK contains B, validate FlO TBE B is present on the service
order floated behind line USOC associated with the TNS for that
LNUM.
If BLOCK contains C, validate FlO TBE C is present on the service
order floated behind line USOC associated with the TNS for that
LNUM.
If BLOCK contains H, validate FlO BLKD is present on the service
order floated behind line USOC associated with the TNS for that
LNUM.
DFDT Desired Frame Due Applicable only to orders for Resale
Time DFDT field on the LSR form compared to the FDT field in the
Extended 10 section of the Service Order.
DOD Desired Due Date DOD field from the last FOed LSR compared to the original or last
LSR subsequent due date in the Extended 10 section on the Service
Order when no CFLAG/PIA is present on the FOe. (i.e. Evaluation
includes recognition of valid differences between DOD and Service
Order based on population of the CFLAG/PIA field on the LSRC
(FOC))c LTN Listed Telephone For Resale):E ïil5 ~Number LTN field on the Listing form compared to the Main Account- -Number of the Service Order.VI ni1l uC 0._ ..
1; .. íñ For Unbundled Loop: LTN field on the Listing form compared to the.- 0 1l
.. - C;: ;:.-TN floated after the LN in the Listing section of the Service Order... -...s s ::
li .".~ QIo'l LNPL Letter Name LNPL field on the Listing form = L, validate that LN on the Servicei::..¡¡Placement Order follows letter placement versus word placement.o ::~
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 23 of 69
ORDERING AND PROVISIONING
OP-2 - Calls Answered within Twenty Seconds - Interconnect Provisioning Center
Purpose:
Evaluates the timeliness of ClEC access to Qwests interconnection provisioning center(s), focusing on the extent calls
are answered within 20 seconds.
Description:
Measures the percentage of (Interconnection Provisioning Center calls that are answered by an agent within 20
seconds of the first ring..Includes all calls to the Interconnect Provisioning Center during the reporting period, subject to exclusions
specified below..Abandoned calls and busy calls are counted as calls not answered within 20 seconds..First ring is defined as when the customer's call is first placed in queue by the ACD (Automatic Call Distributor)..Answer is defined as when the call is first picked up by the Qwest agent.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: ClEC aggregate Disaggregation Reporting: Region-wide level
Formula:
((Total Calls Answered by Center within 20 seconds) .. (Total Calls received by Center)) x 100
Exclusions: Time spent in the VRU Voice Response Unit is not counted.
Services and Elements Reporting: Not applicable Standard: Diagnostic
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 24 of 69
OP-3 - Installation Commitments Met
Purpose:
Evaluates the extent to which Qwest installs services for Customers by the scheduled due date.
Description:.Measures the percentage of orders for which the scheduled due date is met..All inward orders (Change, New, and Transfer order types) assigned a due date by Qwest and which are
completed/closed during the reporting period are measured, subject to exclusions specified below. Change order
types included in this measurement consist of all C orders representing inward activity. Also included are orders
with customer-requested due dates longer than the standard intervaL..Completion date on or before the Applicable Due Date recorded by Qwest is counted as a met due date. The
Applicable Due Date is the original due date or, if changed or delayed by the customer, the most recently revised
due date, subject to the following: If Qwest changes a due date for Qwest reasons, the Applicable Due Date is the
customer-initiated due date, if any, that is (a) subsequent to the original due date and (b) prior to a Qwest-
initiated, changed due date, if any.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate,Disaggregation Reporting:Statewide level
individual CLEC and Qwest Retail results
Formula:
((Total Orders completed in the reporting period on or before the Applicable Due Date) + (Total Orders Completed in
the Reporting Period)) x 100
Exclusions:.Disconnect, From (another form of disconnect) and Record order types..Due dates missed for standard categories of customer and non-Qwest reasons. Standard categories of customer
reasons are: previous service at the location did not have a customer-requested disconnect order issued, no access
to customer premises, and customer hold for payment. Standard categories of non-Qwest reasons are: Weather,
Disaster, and Work Stoppage..Records involving official company services..Records with invalid due dates or application dates, completion dates, or service/element (product) codes.
.Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale Residential single line service Parity with retail Res POTS,
.Resale Business single line service Parity with retail Bus POTS.Other Resale Non-residential services (incl. Centrex,Diagnostic Parity with like retail service, (statistically
Centrex 21, and PBX)weighted).Resale DSl Service Parity with retail DSl Private Line.Other Resale Digital Services (incl. Basic ISDN, Primary Diagnostic Parity with like retail service, (statistically
ISDN, DSO, and Frame Relay)weighted).Line Splitting 95%
.Sub-Loop Unbundling Diagnostic
.UDIT-DSllevel Parity with retail DSl Private Line.Unbundled Analog Loop 90%.Unbundled Digital-capable Loop (incl. Non-loaded 2-wire 90%
& 4-wire, xDSL-1 capable, ISDN capable, & ADSL-qualified)
.Loops with Conditioning Diagnostic (Target: 90%).Unbundled DS1-capable Loop Parity with retail DSl Private Line.EEL - (DSO level)Diagnostic.EEL - (DSllevel)90%
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 25 of 69
OP-4 - Installation Interval
Purpose:
Evaluates the timeliness of Qwests installation of services for customers, focusing on the average time to install
service.
Description:
Measures the average interval (in business days) NOTE 1 between the application date and the completion date for
service orders accepted and implemented..Includes all inward orders (Change, New, and Transfer order types) assigned a due date by Qwest and which are
completed/closed during the reporting period, subject to exclusions specified below. Change order types for
additional lines consist of all C orders representing inward activity.
.Intervals for each measured event are counted in whole days: the application date is day zero (0); the day
following the application date is day one (1).
.The Applicable Due Date is the original due date or, if changed or delayed by the customer, the most recently
revised due date, subject to the following: If Qwest changes a due date for Qwest reasons, the Applicable Due
Date is the customer-initiated due date, if any, that is (a) subsequent to the original due date and (b) prior to a
Qwest-initiated, changed due date, if any. NOTE 2.Time intervals associated with customer-initiated due date changes or delays occurring after the Applicable Due
Date, as applied in the formula below, are calculated by subtracting the latest Qwest-initiated due date, if any,
following the Applicable Due Date, from the subsequent customer-initiated due date, if any. NOTE 2
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Average Business Days
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual Disaggregation Reporting:Statewide level
CLEC and Qwest Retail results
Formula:
L((Order Completion Date) - (Order Application Date) - (Time interval between the Original Due Date and the
Applicable Date) - (Time intervals associated with customer-initiated due date changes or delays occurring after the
Applicable Due Date)) + Total Number of Orders Completed in the reporting period
Explanation: The average installation interval is derived by dividing the sum of installation intervals for all orders (in
business days) NOTE 1 by total number of service orders completed in the reporting period.
Exclusions:.Orders with customer requested due dates greater than the current standard intervaL..Disconnect, From (another form of disconnect) and Record order types..Records involving official company services..Records with invalid due dates, application dates, completion dates, or service/element (product) codes.
.Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale Residential single line service Parity with retail Res POTS
.Resale Business single line service Parity with retail Bus POTS
.Other Resale Non-residential services (incl. Centrex,Diagnostic Parity with like retail service, (statistically
Centrex 21, and PBX)weighted)
.Resale DS1 Service Parity with retail DS1 Private Line
.Other Resale Digital Services (incl. Basic ISDN, Primary Diagnostic Parity with like retail service, (statistically
ISDN, DSO, and Frame Relay)weighted).Line Splitting 3.3 days
.Sub-Loop Unbundling Diagnostic
.UDIT-DS1 level Parity with DS1 Private Line Service.Unbundled Analog Loop 6 days
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 26 of 69
OP-4 -Installation Interval (continued)
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Unbundled Digital-capable loop (incl. Non-loaded 2-wire 6 days
& 4-wire, xDSl-1 capable, ISDN capable, & ADSl-qualified).loops with Conditioning Diagnostic (Target: 15 days).Unbundled DS1-capable loop Parity with DS1 Private line Service.EEl- (DSO level)Diagnostic.EEl- (DS1Ievel)6 days
Notes:
1.For resale residence, resale non-residence, Saturday is counted as a business day for a non-dispatched orders. For
all other non-dispatched and dispatched orders, Saturday is counted as a business day when the service order is
due or completed on a Saturday.
2.According to this definition, the Applicable Due Date can change, per successive customer-initiated due date
changes or delays, up to the point when a Qwest-initiated due date change occurs. At that point, the Applicable
Due Date becomes fixed (i.e., with no further changes) as the date on which it was set prior to the first Qwest-
initiated due date change, if any. Following the first Qwest-initiated due date change, any further customer-
initiated due date changes or delays are measured as time intervals that are subtracted as indicated in the
formula. These delay time intervals are calculated as stated in the description. (Though infrequent, in cases
where multiple Qwest-initiated due date changes occur, the stated method for calculating delay intervals is
applied to each pair of Qwest-initiated due date change and subsequent customer-initiated due date change or
delay. The intervals thus calculated from each pairing of Qwest and customer-initiated due dates are summed and
then subtracted as indicated in the formula.) The result of this approach is that Qwest-initiated impact on
intervals are counted in the reported interval, and customer-initiated impacts on intervals are not counted in the
reported intervaL.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 27 of 69
OP-5 - New Service Quality
Purpose:
Evaluates the quality of ordering and installng new services (inward line service orders), focusing on the percentage of
newly-installed service orders that are free of CLEC/customer-initiated trouble reports during the provisioning process
and within 30 calendar days following installation completion, and focusing on the quality of Qwests resolution of such
conditions with respect to multiple report.
Description:
Measures two components of new service provisioning quality (OP-5A and -5B) and also reports a combined result (OP-
5T), as described below, each as a percentage of all inward line service orders completed in the reporting period that
are free of CLEC/customer-reported provisioning and repair trouble report, as described below. Also measures the
percentage of all provisioning and repair trouble reports that constitute multiple trouble reports for the affected
service orders. (OP-5R)
· Orders for new services considered in calculating all components of this performance indicator are all inward line
service orders completed in the reporting period, including Change (C-type) orders for additional lines/circuits,
subject to exclusions shown below. Change order types considered in these measurements consist of all Corders
representing inward activity. NOTE 1
· Orders for new service installations include conversions (Retail to CLEC, CLEC to CLEC, and same CLEC converting
between services & elements).
· Provisioning or repair trouble reports include both out of service and other service affecting conditions, such as
features on a line that are missing or do not function properly upon conversion, subject to exclusions shown
below.
OP-SA: New Service Installation Quality Reported to Repair
· Measures the percentage of inward line service orders that are free of repair trouble reports NOTE 2 within 30
calendar days of installation completion, subject to exclusions below.
· Repair trouble reports are defined as CLEC/customer notifications to Qwest of out-of-service and other service
affecting conditions for which Qwest opens repair tickets in its maintenance and repair management and
tracking systems NOTE 3 that are closed in the reporting period or the following month, NOTE 4 subject to
exclusions shown below. NOTES
· Qwest is able to open repair tickets for repair trouble reports received from CLECs/customers once the service
order is completed in Qwests systems.
OP-SB: New Service Provisioning Quality
· Measures the percentage of inward line service orders that are free of provisioning trouble reports during the
provisioning process and within 30 calendar days of installation completion, subject to exclusions shown
below.
· Provisioning trouble reports are defined as CLEC notifications to Qwest of out of service or other service
affecting conditions that are attributable to provisioning activities, including but not limited to LSR/service
order mismatches and conversion outages. For provisioning trouble reports, Qwest creates call center tickets
in its call center database. Subject to exclusions shown below, call center tickets closed in the reporting
period or the following month NOTE 4 are captured in this measurement. Call center tickets closed to Network
reasons wil not be counted in OP-5B when a repair trouble report for that order is captured in OP-5A. NOTE 5, 6
OP-ST: New Service Installation Quality Total
· Measures the percentage of inward line service orders that are free of repair or provisioning trouble reports
during the provisioning process and within 30 calendar days of installation completion, subject to exclusion
shown below.
OP-SR: New Service Quality Multiple Report Rate
· Evaluates the quality of Qwests responses to repair and provisioning trouble reports for inward line service
orders completed in the reporting period. This measurement reports, for those service orders that were not
free of repair or provisioning trouble report in OP-5A or OP-5B, the percentage of trouble reports affecting
the same service orders that were followed by additional repair and provisioning trouble reports, as specified
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 28 of 69
op- 5 - New Service Quality (continued)
below.
· Measures the percentage of all repair and provisioning trouble reports considered in OP-SA and OP-SB that
are additional repair or provisioning trouble reports received by Qwest for the same service order during the
provisioning process or within 30 calendar days following installation completion.
· Additional repair or provisioning trouble reports are defined as all such reports that are received following the
first report (whether the first report is represented by a call center ticket or a repair ticket) relating to the
same service order during the provisioning process or within 30 calendar days following installation
completion. In all cases, the trouble reports counted are those that are defined for OP-SA and OP-SB above.
NOTE 7
Reporting Period: One month, reported in arrears (Le., results first appear in
reports one month later than results for measurements that are not reported in
arrears), in order to cover the 30-day period following installation.
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual I Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
CLEC and Qwest Retail results
Formulas:
OP-SA = (Number inward line service orders completed in the reporting period - Number of inward line service
orders with any repair trouble reports as specified above) + (Number of inward line service orders
completed in the reporting period) x 100
Unit of Measure:
Percent
OP-SB = (Number of inward line service orders completed in the reporting period - Number of inward line service
orders with any provisioning trouble reports as specified above) + (Number of inward line service orders
completed in the reporting period) x 100
OP-ST = ((Number of inward line service orders completed in the reporting period) - (Number of inward line service
orders with repair or provisioning trouble reports as defined above under OP-SA or OP-SB, as applicable)) +
(Number of inward line service orders completed in the reporting period) x 100
OP-SR = (Number of all repair and provisioning trouble reports, relating to inward line service orders closed in the
reporting period as defined above under OP-SA or OP-SB, that constitute additional repair and provisioning
trouble reports, within 30 calendar days following the installation date + Number of all repair and
provisioning trouble reports relating to inward line service orders closed In the reporting period, as defined
above under OP-SA or OP-SB) x 100
Exclusions:
Applicable to OP-SA, OP-ST and OP-SR:
· Repair trouble reports attributable to CLEC or coded to non-Qwest reasons as follows:
- For services & elements measured from MTAS data, repair trouble reports coded to disposition codes for:
Customer Action; Non-Telco Plant; Trouble Beyond the Network Interface; and Miscellaneous - Non-
Dispatch, non-Qwest (includes CPE, Customer Instruction, Carrier, Alternate Provider); and Report from
other than CLEC/customer that result in a charge if dispatched.
- For services & elements measured from WFA (Workforce Administration) data, repair reports coded to codes
for:
Carrier Action (lEe); Customer Provided Equipment (CPE); Commercial power failure; Customer requested
service order activity; and Other non-Qwest.
- Repair trouble reports associated with orders where the CLEC accepted the order completion without prior
testing, where such is offered..
- Repair reports coded to disposition codes for referral to another department (Le., for non-repair ticket
resolutions of non-installation-related problems, except cable cuts, which are not excluded).
Applicable to OP-SB, OP-ST and OP-SR only:
· Provisioning trouble reports attributable to (LEC or non-Qwest causes.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 29 of 69
op- 5 - New Service Quality (continued)
Exclusions:.Call center tickets relating to activities that occur as part of the normal process of conversion (Le., while Qwest is
actively and properly engaged in process of converting or installng the service). Provisioning trouble reports
involving service orders that, at the time of the calls, have fallen out for manual handling and been disassociated
from the related service order, as applicable, wil be considered as not in the normal process of conversion and will
not be excluded.
Applicable to OP-5A, OP-5B, OP-5T and OP-5R:.Repair or provisioning trouble reports related to service orders captured as misses under measurements OP-13
(Coordinated Cuts Timeliness) or OP-17 (lNP Timeliness)..Subsequent repair or provisioning trouble reports of any trouble on the installed service before the original repair
or provisioning trouble report is closed..Service orders closed in the reporting period with App Dates earlier than eight months prior to the beginning of
the reporting period..Information tickets generated for internal Qwest system/network monitoring purposes..Disconnect, From (another form of disconnect) and Record order types. When out of service or service affecting
problems are reported to the call center on conversion and move requests, the resulting call center ticket will be
included in the calculation of the numerator in association with the related inward order type even when the call
center ticket reflects the problem was caused by the Disconnect or From order..Records involving official Qwest company services.
.Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement as defined herein.
Services and Elements Reporting Standards:
Categories:OP-SA:Parity with retail service (as further specified below).As specified below - one OP-SB:96.5%
percentage result reported for OP-ST:Diagnostic
each bulleted category under OP-SR:Diagnostic
the sub-measurements shown.(Where parity comparisons involve multiple service varieties in a
services/elements category, weighting based on the retail analogue volumes
may be used if necessary to create a statistically-accurate comparison.)
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:
OP-ST&
Reported under OP-SA, OP-SB, OP-ST and OP-SR:OP-SA OP-SB OP-SR.Resale Residential single line service Parity with retail Res POTS 96.5%Diagnostic.Resale Business single line service Parity with retail Bus POTS 96.5%Diagnostic.Other Resale Non-residential services (incl.Diagnostic Parity with like retail 96.5%Diagnostic
Centrex, Centrex 21, and PBX)service, (statistically weighted).Resale DS1 Service Parity with retail DS1 Private line 96.5%Diagnostic.Other Resale Digital Services (incl. Basic ISDN,Diagnostic Parity with like retail 96.5%Diagnostic
Primary ISDN, DSO, and Frame Relay)service (statistically weighted).line Splitting Parity with retail Res & Bus POTS 96.5%Diagnostic.Sub-loop Unbundling Diagnostic Diagnostic Diagnostic.Unbundled Analog loop Parity with retail Res & Bus POTS with 96.5%Diagnostic
dispatch.Unbundled Digital-capable loop (incl. Non-Parity with retail Res & Bus POTS (for 96.5%Diagnostic
loaded 2-wire & 4-wire, xDSl-1 capable, ISDN 2- & 4-wire), DS1 Private line (for
capable, & ADSl-qualified)xDSl-l, ISDN, & ADSl) (statistically
weighted)
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 30 of 69
op- 5 - New Service Quality (continued)
Exclusions:
.Unbundled DS1-capable loop Parity with retail DS1 Private line 96.S%Diagnostic.EEl- (DSO level)Diagnostic 96.S%Diagnostic.EEl- (DS1 level)Parity with retail DS1 Private line 96.S%Diagnostic
Reported under OP-SA and under OP-SR (per OP-SA specifications):OP-SA OP-SR.UDIT-DS1 Parity with Retail Private Diagnostic
lines (DS1)
Notes:
1.The specified Change order types representing inward activity exclude Change orders that do not involve
installation of lines (in both wholesale and retail results). Specifically this measurement does not include changes
to existing lines, such as number changes and PiC changes.
2.Including consideration of repeat repair trouble reports (Le., additional reports of trouble related to the same
newly-installed line/circuit that are received after the preceding repair report is closed and within 30 days
following installation completion) to complete the determination of whether the newly-installed line/circuit was
trouble free within 30 days of installation.
3.Qwests repair management and tracking systems consist of WFA (Workforce Administration), MTAS
(Maintenance Tracking and Administration System), and successor repair systems, if any, as applicable to obtain
the repair report data for this measurement. Not included are Call Center Database systems supporting call
centers in logging calls from customers regarding problems or other inquiries (see OP-SB and OP-ST).
4.The "following month" includes also the period of a few business days (typically four or five) afterward, up to the
time when Qwest pulls the repair data to begin processing results for this measurement.
S.Includes repair and provisioning trouble reports generated by new processes that supersede or supplement
existing processes for submitting repair and provisioning trouble reports as specified in Qwests documented or
agreed upon procedures.
6.For purposes of calculating OP-SB, a call center ticket for multiple orders with provisioning trouble reports wil
result in all orders reporting trouble counting as a miss in OP-SB. If a repair trouble report(s) is received for the
same orders, the number of orders counted as a miss in OP-SB for Network reasons wil be reduced by the number
of orders with repair troubles counted as a miss in OP-SA.
7.OP-SR wil be counted on a per ticket basis.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 31 of 69
OP-6 - Delayed Days
Purpose:
Evaluates the extent Qwest is late in installing services for customers, focusing on the average number of days that late
orders are completed beyond the committed due date.
Description:
OP-6A Measures the average number of business days NOTE 1 that service is delayed beyond the Applicable Due Date
for non-facilitv reasons attributed to Qwest..Includes all inward orders (Change, New, and Transfer order types) that are completed/closed during the
reporting period, later, due to non-facility reasons, than the Applicable Due Date recorded by Qwest,
subject to exclusions specified below.
OP-6B Measures the average number of business days NOTE 1 that service is delayed beyond the Applicable Due Date
for facilty reasons attributed to Qwest.
.Includes all inward orders (Change, New, and Transfer order types) that are completed/closed during the
reporting period later due to facility reasons than the original due date recorded by Qwest, subject to
exclusions specified below.
For both OP-6A and OP-6B:.Change order types for additional lines consist of "(" orders representing inward activity..The Applicable Due Date is the original due date or, if changed or delayed by the customer, the most recently
revised due date, subject to the following: If Qwest changes a due date for Qwest reasons, the Applicable Due
Date is the customer-initiated due date, if any, that is (a) subsequent to the original due date and (b) prior to a
Qwest-initiated, changed due date, if any. NOTE
2
.Time intervals associated with customer-initiated due date changes or delays occurring after the Applicable Due
Date, as applied in the formula below, are calculated by subtracting the latest Qwest-initiated due date, if any,
following the Applicable Due Date, from the subsequent customer-initiated due date, if any. NOTE 2
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure:Business days
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
CLEC and Qwest Retail results
Formula:
OP-6A =¿((Actual Completion Date of late order for non-facility reasons) - (Applicable Due Date of late order) -
(Time intervals associated with customer-initiated due date changes or delays occurring after the Applicable
Due Date)) -; (Total Number of Late Orders for non-facility reasons completed in the reporting period)
OP-6B =¿((Actual Completion Date of late order for facility reasons) - (Applicable Due Date of late order)) - (Time
intervals associated with customer-initiated due date changes or delays occurring after the Applicable Due
Date) -; (Total Number of Late Orders for facility reasons completed in the reporting period)
Exclusions:
.Orders affected only by delays that are solely for customer and/or CLEC reasons..Disconnect, From (another form of disconnect) and Record order types..Records involving official company services..Records with invalid due dates, application dates, completion dates, or service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale Residential single line service Parity with retail Res POTS
.Resale Business single line service Parity with retail Bus POTS.Other Resale Non-residential services (incl. Centrex,Diagnostic Parity with like retail service, (statistically
Centrex 21, and PBX)weighted).Resale DS1 Service Parity with retail DS1 Private Line
.Other Resale Digital Services (incl. Basic ISDN,Diagnostic Parity with like retail service, (statistically
Primary ISDN, DSO, and Frame Relay)weighted)
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 32 of 69
op- 6 - Delayed Days (continued)
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Line Splitting Parity with retail Res and Bus POTS
.Sub-loop Unbundling Diagnostic.UDIT-DSllevel Parity with DSl Private Line Service.Unbundled Analog loop Parity with retail Res and Bus POTS.Unbundled Digital-capable loop (incl. Non-loaded Parity with retail Res & Bus POTS (for 2- & 4-wire), DSl
2-wire & 4-wire, xDSl-1 capable, ISDN capable, &Private Line (for xDSl-l, ISDN, & ADSl) (statistically
ADSl-qualified)weighted).Unbundled DS1-capable loop Parity with retail DSl Private Line.EEl- (DSO level)Diagnostic.EEl- (DSllevel)OP-6A: Parity with retail DSl Private Line
OP-6B: Diagnostic
Notes:
1.For non-dispatched orders/LSRs, Saturday is counted as a business day for all orders for Resale Residence and
Resale Business as well as for the retail analogues specified above as standards. For non-dispatched orders/lSRs
for all other services & elements, and for all services & elements, Saturday is counted as a business day when the
service order is due or completed on Saturday.
2.According to this definition, the Applicable Due Date can change, per successive customer-initiated due date
changes or delays, up to the point when a Qwest-initiated due date change occurs. At that point, the Applicable
Due Date becomes fixed (i.e., with no further changes) as the date on which it was set prior to the first Qwest-
initiated due date change, if any. Following the first Qwest-initiated due date change, any further customer-
initiated due date changes or delays are measured as time intervals that are subtracted as indicated in the
formula. These delay time intervals are calculated as stated in the description. (Though infrequent, in cases
where multiple Qwest-initiated due date changes occur, the stated method for calculating delay intervals is
applied to each pair of Qwest-initiated due date change and subsequent customer-initiated due date change or
delay. The intervals thus calculated from each pairing of Qwest and customer-initiated due dates are summed
and then subtracted as indicated in the formula.) The result of this approach is that Qwest-initiated impacts on
intervals are counted in the reported interval, and customer-initiated impacts on intervals are not counted in the
reported intervaL.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 33 of 69
OP-7 - Coordinated "Hot Cut" Interval - Unbundled Loop
Purpose:
Evaluates the duration of completing coordinated "hot cuts" of unbundled loops, focusing on the time actually
involved in disconnecting the loop from the Qwest network and connecting/testing the loop.
Description:
Measures the average time to complete coordinated "hot cuts" for unbundled loops, based on intervals beginning with
the "Iift' time and ending with the completion time of Qwests applicable tests for the loop..Includes all coordinated hot cuts of unbundled loops that are completed/closed during the reporting period,
subject to exclusions specified below.."Hot cut' refers to moving the service of existing customers from Qwests switch/frames to CLEe's equipment, via
unbundled loops, that will serve the customers.."Lift" time is defined as when Qwest disconnects the existing loop.."Completion time" is defined as when Qwest completes the applicable tests after connecting the loop to CLEe.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Hours and Minutes
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate and Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
individual CLEC results
Formula:
¿(Completion time - Lift time) + (Total Number of unbundled loops with coordinated cutovers completed in the
reporting period)
Exclusions:.Time intervals associated with CLEC-caused delays..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement..Invalid start/stop dates/times or invalid scheduled date/times.
Services and Elements Reporting: Coordinated Standard:
Unbundled Loops - Reported separately for:Diagnostic.Analog Loops.All other Loop Types
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 34 of 69
OP-8 - Number Portbilty Timeliness
Purpose:
Evaluates the timeliness of cutovers of local number portability (LNP).
Description:
OP-8B-LNP Timeliness with Loop Coordination (percentl: Measures the percentage of coordinated LNP triggers set
prior to the scheduled start time for the loop..All orders for LNP coordinated with unbundled loops that are completed/closed during the reporting
period are measured, subject to exclusions specified below.
OP-8C-LNP Timeliness without Loop Coordination (percent): Measures the percentage of LNP triggers set prior to
the Frame Due Time or scheduled start time for the LNP cutover as applicable.
.All orders for LNP for which coordination with a loop was not requested that are completed/closed
during the reporting period are measured (including standalone LNP coordinated with other than
Qwest-provided Unbundled Loops and non-coordinated, standalone LNP), subject to exclusions
specified below..For purposes of this measurement, "trigger" refers to the "lO-digit unconditional trigger" or Line Side Attribute
(LSA) that is set or translated by Qwest.."Scheduled start time" is defined as the confirmed appointment time (as stated on the FOC), or a newly negotiated
time. In the case of LNP cutovers coordinated with loops, the scheduled time used in this measurement wil be no
later than the "Iay" time for the loop.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent of triggers set on time
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate and Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
individual CLEC results
Formula:
OP-8B = ((Number of LNP triggers set before the scheduled time for the coordinated loop cutover) + (Total Number of
LNP activations coordinated with unbundled loops completed)) x 100
OP-8C = ((Number of LNP triggers set before the Frame Due Time or Scheduled Start Time) + (Total Number of LNP
activations without loop cutovers completed)) x 100
Exclusions:.CLEC-caused delays in trigger setting..LNP requests that do not involve automatic triggers (e.g., DID lines without separate, unique telephone numbers
and Centrex 21)..LNP requests for which the records used as sources of data for these measurements have the following types of
errors:-Records with no PON (purchase order number) or STATE.-Records where triggers cannot be set due to switch capabilities.-Records with invalid due dates, application dates, start dates, or completion dates.-Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.-Invalid start/stop dates/times or invalid frame due or scheduled date/times.
Services and Elements Reporting: None
I Standard:
Diagnostic
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhìbì t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Wìllìams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 35 of 69
OP-13 - Coordinated Cuts On Time - Unbundled Loop
Purpose:
Evaluates the percentage of coordinated cuts of unbundled loops that are completed on time, focusing on cuts
completed within one hour of the committed order due time and the percent that were started without CLEC
approvaL.
Description:
· Includes all LSRs for coordinated cuts of unbundled loops that are completed/closed during the reporting
period, subject to exclusions specified below.
· OP-13A - Measures the percentage of LSRs (CLEC orders) for all coordinated cuts of unbundled loops that
are started and completed on time. For coordinated loop cuts to be counted as "on time" in this
measurement, the CLEC must agree to the start time, and Qwest must (1) receive verbal CLEC approval
before starting the cut or lifting the loop, (2) complete the physical work and appropriate tests, (3)
complete the Qwest portion of any associated LNP orders and (4) call the CLEC with completion
information, all within one hour of the time interval defined by the committed order due time.
· OP-13B - Measures the percentage of allLSRs for coordinated cuts of unbundled loops that are actually
started without CLEC approvaL.
· "Scheduled start time" is defined as the confirmed appointment time (as stated on the FOC), or a newly
negotiated appointment time.
· The "committed order due time" is based on the number and type of loops involved in the cut and is
calculated by adding the applicable time interval from the following list to the scheduled start time:
- Analog unbundled loops:
1 to 16 lines: 1 Hour
17 to 24 lines: 2 Hours25+ lines: Project'"
- All other unbundled loops:
1 to 5 lines: 1 Hour
6 to 8 lines: 2 Hours
9 to 11 lines: 3 Hours
12 to 24 lines: 4 Hours25+ lines: Project'"
"'For Projects scheduled due dates and scheduled start times will be negotiated between CLEC and Qwest,
but no committed order due time is established. Therefore, projects are not included in OP-13A (see
exclusion below).
· "Stop" time is defined as when Qwest notifies the CLEC that the Qwest physical work and the appropriate
tests have been successfully accomplished, including the Qwest portion of any coordinated LNP orders.
· Time intervals following the scheduled start time or during the cutover process associated with customer-
caused delays are subtracted from the actual cutover duration.
· Where Qwests records of completed coordinated cut transactions are missing evidence of CLEC approval
of the cutover, the cut will be counted as a miss under both OP-13A and OP-13B.
Reporting Period: One month T Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: ClEC Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide leveL.
aggregate and individual CLEC results Results for this measurement will be reported according to:
OP-13A Cuts Completed On Time
OP-13B Cuts Started Without CLEC Approval
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 36 of 69
OP-13 - Coordinated Cuts On Time - Unbundled Loop (continued)
Formula:
OP-13A =((Count of LSRs for Coordinated Unbundled Loop cuts completed "On Time") + (Total Number of
LSRs for Coordinated Unbundled Loop Cuts completed in the reporting period)) x 100
OP-13B =((Count of LSRs for Coordinated Unbundled Loop cuts whose actual start time occurs without CLEC
approval) + (Total Number of LSRs for Coordinated Unbundled Loop Cuts completed in the
reporting period)) x 100
Exclusions:
Applicable to OP-13A:
· Loop cuts that involve CLEe-requested non-standard methodologies, processes, or timelines.
OP-13A & OP-13B:
· Records with invalid completion dates.
· Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement per the PID which are not otherwise
designated to be "counted as a miss".
· Invalid start/stop dates/times or invalid scheduled date/times.
· Projects involving 25 or more lines.
Product Reporting: Coordinated Unbundled Loops -
Reported separately for:
· Analog Loops
. All Other Loops
Standards:
OP-13A:
AZ: 90 Percent or more
All Other States: 95 Percent or more
OP-13B: Diagnostic
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 37 of 69
OP-17 - Timeliness of Disconnects associated with LNP Orders
Purpose:
Evaluates the quality of Qwest completing LNP telephone number porting, focusing on the degree to which porting
occurs without implementing associated disconnects before the scheduled time/date.
Description:.Measures the percentage of allLNP telephone numbers (TNs), both stand alone and associated with loops, that
are ported without the incidence of disconnects being made by Qwest before the scheduled time/date, as
identified by associated qualifying trouble reports.-Focuses on disconnections associated with timely ClEC requests for delaying the disconnections or no
requests for delays.-The scheduled time/date is defined as 11:59 p.m. on (1) the due date of the LNP order recorded by Qwest or
(2) the delayed disconnect date requested by CLEC, where CLEC submits a timely request for delay of
disconnection.-A CLEC request for delay of disconnection is considered timely if received by Qwest before 8:00 p.m. MT on
the current due date of the LNP order recorded by Qwest.
.Disconnects are defined as the removal of switch translations, including the 10-digit trigger..Disconnects that are implemented early, and thus counted as a "miss" under this measurement, are those that
CLEC identifies as such to Qwest via trouble reports, within four calendar days of the actual disconnect date, that
are confirmed to be caused by disconnects being made before the scheduled time..Includes all ClEC orders for LNP TNs completed in the reporting period, subject to exclusions specified below.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure:Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC Aggregate and Individual CLEC Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide
Formula:
((Total number of LNP TNs ported pursuant to orders completed in the reporting period - Number ofTNs with
qualifying trouble reports notifying Qwest that disconnection before the scheduled time has occurred) + Total Number
of LNP TNs ported pursuant to orders completed in the reporting period) x 100
Exclusions:.Trouble reports notifying Qwest of early disconnects associated with situations for which CLEC has failed to submit
timely requests to have disconnects held for later implementation..Trouble reports not related to valid requests (LSRs) for LNP and associated disconnections..LNP requests not involving automatic triggers (e.g., DID lines without separate, unique TNs, & Centrex 21)..Records with invalid trouble receipt, cleared, closed or due dates..Records with invalid service/element (product) codes.
.Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
Services and Elements Reporting: LN P Standards:
Diagnostic
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 38 of 69
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
MR-2 - Calls Answered within 20 Seconds - Interconnect Repair Center
Purpose:
Evaluates Customer access to Qwests Interconnection and/or Retail Repair Center(s), focusing on the number of calls
answered within 20 seconds.
Description:
Measures the percentage of Interconnection and/or Retail Repair Center calls answered within 20 seconds of the first
ring..Includes all calls to the Interconnect Repair Center during the reporting period, subject to exclusions specified
below..First ring is defined as when the customer's call is first placed in queue by the ACD (Automatic Call Distributor)..Answer is defined as when the call is first picked up by the Qwest agent..Abandoned calls and busy calls are counted as calls which are not answered within 20 seconds.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate and Qwest Disaggregation Reporting: Region-wide leveL.
Retail levels.
Formula:
((Total Calls Answered by Center within 20 seconds) + (Total Calls received by Center)) x 100
Exclusions: Time spent in the VRU (Voice Response Unit) is not counted.
Services and Elements Reporting:Not applicable Standard:Diagnostic
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 39 of 69
MR-3/5 - Out-of-Service Troubles Cleared within Specified Intervals (24 or 4 Hours)
Purpose:
Evaluates timeliness of repair for specified services and elements, focusing on trouble reports where the out-of-service
trouble reports were cleared within specified intervals (24 hours or 4 hours, as specified below).
Description:
Measures the percentage of out of service trouble reports, involving specified services and elements, which are cleared
within 24 or 4 hours, as applicable, from the date/time the trouble reports were received from CLECs or, for the retail
analogue, from retail customers.
· Includes all trouble reports, closed during the reporting period, which involve a specified service or element that is
out-of-service (i.e., unable to place or receive calls or to transmit data), subject to exclusions specified below.
· Time measured is from date and time that Qwest is first notified of the trouble by CLEC to date and time trouble is
cleared.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
CLEC and Qwest Retail results
Formula:
((Number of applicable Trouble Reports closed in the reporting period that are cleared within 24 hours) + (Total
Number of applicable Trouble Report closed in the reporting period)) x 100
Exclusions:
· Trouble reports coded as follows:
- For services & elements measured from MTAS data (non-designed services & elements), trouble reports
coded to disposition codes for: Customer Action; Non-Telco Plant; Trouble Beyond the Network Interface;
and Miscellaneous - Non-Dispatch, non-Qwest (includes CPE, Customer Instruction, Carrier, Alternate
Provider).
- For services & elements measured from WFA (Workforce Administration) data (designed services & elements)
trouble reports coded to trouble codes for Carrier Action (lEe) and Customer Provided Equipment (CPE).
· Subsequent trouble reports of any trouble before the original trouble report is closed.
· Information tickets generated for internal Qwest system/network monitoring purposes.
· Time delays due to "no access" are excluded from repair time for designed services & elements.
· For services & elements measured from MTAS data (non-designed services & elements), trouble reports involving
a "no access" delay.
· Trouble reports on the day of installation before the installation work is reported by the technician/installer as
complete.
· Records involving official company services.
· Records with invalid trouble receipt, cleared or closed dates.
· Records with invalid service/element (product) codes.
· Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
· Non Qwest caused trouble (cable cuts, weather, natural disaster, etc.)
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 40 of 69
MR-3/S - Out of Service Cleared within Specified Intervals (Continued)
Services and Elements Reporting (and Specified Standards:
Repair Interval):
.Resale Residential single line service (24 hours)Parity with retail Res POTS (statistically weighted by CLEC
proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).Resale Business single line service (24 hours)Parity with retail Bus POTS (statistically weighted by CLEC
proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).Other Resale Non-residential services (incl.Diagnostic Parity with like retail service (statistically weighted)
Centrex, Centrex 21, and PBX) (24 hours)
.Resale DS1 Service (4 hours)Parity with retail DS1 Private Line
.Other Resale Digital Services (reported as one Diagnostic Parity with like retail service (statistically weighted)
combined result) including the following services
and specified repair intervals:
- Basic ISDN (24 hours)
- Primary ISDN, DSO, & Frame Relay (4 hours).Line Splitting (24 hours)Parity with retail Res and Bus POTS (statistically weighted by
CLEC proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).Sub-Loop Unbundling (24 hours)Diagnostic
.UDIT-DS1 level (4 hours)Parity with retail DS1 private line.Unbundled Analog Loop (24 hours)Parity with Res and Bus POTS (statistically weighted by CLEC
proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).Unbundled Digital-capable Loop Parity with retail Res & Bus POTS (for 2- & 4-wire), DS1 Private
- Non-loaded 2-wire, & ISDN capable (24 hours)Line (for xDSL-I, ISDN, & ADSL) (statistically weighted)
- Non-loaded 4-wire, xDSL-1 capable, & ADSL-
qualified (4 hours)
.Unbundled DS1-capable Loop (4 hours)Parity with retail DS1 private line (statistically weighted by
CLEC proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).EEL-DSO (4 hours)Diagnostic.EEL-DS1 (4 hours)Parity with retail DS1 private line (statistically weighted by
CLEC proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs)
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 41 of 69
MR-4 - Service-Affecting Troubles Cleared within 48 hours
Purpose:
Evaluates timeliness of repair for specified services and elements, focusing on trouble reports that are "service
affecting" but not out of service, and on the number of such trouble reports cleared within the standard estimate for
specified services and elements (i.e., 48 hours for trouble conditions that are only service affecting).
Description:
Measures the percentage of trouble reports, for specified services and elements, which are cleared within 48 hours of
receipt of trouble reports from CLECs or from retail customers..Includes all trouble reports, closed during the reporting period, which involve a specified service, subject to
exclusions specified below..Time measured is from date and time that Qwest is first notified of the trouble by CLEC to date and time trouble is
cleared.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure:Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual CLEC Disaggregation Reporting:Statewide level
Formula:
((Total service-affecting-only trouble reports closed in the reporting period that are cleared within 48 hours) + (Total
trouble reports closed in the reporting period)) x 100
Exclusions:.Trouble reports coded as follows:-For services & elements measured from MTAS data (non-designed services & elements), trouble reports
coded to disposition codes for: Customer Action; Non-Telco Plant; Trouble Beyond the Network Interface;
and Miscellaneous - Non-Dispatch, non-Qwest (includes CPE, Customer Instruction, Carrier, Alternate
Provider).-For services & elements measured from WFA (Workforce Administration) data (designed services & elements)
trouble reports coded to trouble codes for Carrier Action (lEe) and Customer Provided Equipment (CPE)..Subsequent trouble reports of any trouble before the original trouble report is closed.
.Information tickets generated for internal Qwest system/network monitoring purposes.
.Time delays due to "no access" are excluded from repair time for designed services & elements..For services & elements measured from MTAS data (non-designed services & elements), trouble reports involving
a "no access" delay..Trouble reports on the day of installation before the installation work is reported by the technician/installer as
complete..Records involving official company services..Records with invalid trouble receipt, cleared or closed dates..Records with invalid product codes and records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement..Non Qwest caused trouble (cable cuts, weather, natural disaster, etc.)
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale Residential single line service Diagnostic.Resale Business single line service Diagnostic
.Resale Non-residential services (incl. Centrex, Centrex 21, and PBX)Diagnostic
.Line Splitting Diagnostic
.Sub-Loop Unbundling Diagnostic
.Unbundled Analog Loop Diagnostic
.Unbundled Digital-capable Loop (incl. Non-loaded 2-wire & 4-wire,Diagnostic
xDSL-1 capable, ISDN capable, & ADSL-qualified)
Notes:
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 42 of 69
MR-6 - Mean Time to Restore
Purpose:
Evaluates timeliness of repair, focusing how long it takes to restore services and elements to proper operation.
Description:
Measures the time taken to clear trouble reports..Includes all trouble reports closed during the reporting period, subject to exclusions specified below..Includes customer direct reports, customer-relayed reports, and test assist reports that result in a trouble report..Time measured is from date and time that Qwest is first notified of the trouble by CLEC to date and time trouble is
cleared.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Hours and Minutes
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
CLEC and Qwest Retail results
Formula:
¿((Date & Time Trouble Report Cleared) - (Date & Time Trouble Report Opened)) + (Total number ofTrouble Report
closed in the reporting period)
Exclusions:
.Trouble reports coded as follows:-For services & elements measured from MTAS data (non-designed services & elements), trouble reports coded
to disposition codes for: Customer Action; Non-Telco Plant; Trouble Beyond the Network Interface; and
Miscellaneous - Non-Dispatch, non-Qwest (includes CPE, Customer Instruction, Carrier, Alternate Provider).-For services & elements measured from WFA (Workforce Administration) data (designed services & elements)
trouble reports coded to trouble codes for Carrier Action (IEC) and Customer Provided Equipment (CPE)..Subsequent trouble reports of any trouble before the original trouble report is closed..Trouble reports from MTAS or WFA that are coded as No Trouble Found or Test Okay and with durations of less
than or equal to 1 hour..Information tickets generated for internal Qwest system/network monitoring purposes..Time delays due to "no access" are excluded from repair time for designed services & elements..For services & elements measured from MTAS data (non-designed services & elements), trouble reports involving
a "no access" delay..Trouble reports on the day of installation before the installation work is reported by the technician/installer as
complete..Records involving official company services.
.Records with invalid trouble receipt, cleared or closed dates.
.Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement..Non Qwest caused trouble (cable cuts, weather, natural disaster, etc.)
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale Residential single line service Parity with retail Res POTS (statistically weighted by CLEC
proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).Resale Business single line service Parity with retail Bus POTS (statistically weighted by CLEC
proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).Other Resale Non-residential services (incl.Diagnostic Parity with like retail service (statistically
Centrex, Centrex 21, and PBX)weighted).Resale DS1 Service Parity with retail DS1 Private Line (statistically weighted by
CLEC proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs)
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 43 of 69
MR-6 - Mean Time to Restore (Continued)
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Other Resale Digital Services (including Basic ISDN,Diagnostic Parity with like retail service (statistically
DSO, Primary ISDN, and Frame Relay)weighted).Line Splitting Parity with retail RES and BUS POTS (statistically weighted
by CLEe proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched
repairs).Sub-Loop Unbundling Diagnostic.UDIT-DSl level Parity with retail DSl private line (statistically weighted by
CLEC proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).Unbundled Analog Loop Parity with Res and Bus POTS (statistically weighted by CLEC
proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).Unbundled Digital-capable Loop (incl. Non-loaded Parity with retail Res & Bus POTS (for 2- & 4-wire), DSl
2-wire & 4-wire, xDSL-1 capable, ISDN capable, &Private Line (for xDSL-I, ISDN, & ADSL) (statistically weighted)
ADSL-qualified)
.Unbundled DS1-capable Loop Parity with retail DSl private line (statistically weighted by
CLEC proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs).EEL-DSO Diagnostic.EEL-DSl Parity with retail DSl private line (statistically weighted by
CLEC proportions of dispatched and non-dispatched repairs)
Notes:
1.Reporting will begin at the time CLECs order the Loop Splitting, in any quantity, for three consecutive months.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 44 of 69
MR-7 - Repair Repeat Report Rate
Purpose:
Evaluates the accuracy of repair actions, focusing on the number of repeated trouble reports received for the same
line/circuit within a specified period (30 calendar days).
Description:
Measures the percentage of trouble reports that are repeated within 30 days on end user lines and circuits..Includes all trouble report closed during the reporting period that have a repeated trouble report received within
thirty (30) days of the initial trouble report for the same service (regardless of whether the report is about the
same type of trouble for that service), subject to exclusions specified below..In determining same service Qwest wil compare the end user telephone number or circuit access code of the
initial trouble reports closed during the reporting period with reports received within 30 days of when the initial
trouble report closed.
.Includes reports due to Qwest network or system causes, customer-direct and customer-relayed reports..The 30-day period applied in the numerator of the formula below is from the date and time that the initial trouble
report is closed to the date and time that the next, or "repeat" trouble report is received (Le., opened).
Reporting Period: One month, reported in arrears (Le., results first appear in reports one Unit of Measure:
month later than results for measurements that are not reported in arrears), in order to Percent
cover the 30-day period following the initial trouble report.
Reporting Comparisons: ClEC aggregate, individual CLEC and Qwest Retail results Disaggregation Reporting:
Statewide level
Formula:
((Total trouble reports closed within the reporting period that had a repeated trouble report received within 30
calendar days of when the initial trouble report closed) + (Total number of Trouble Report Closed in the reporting
period)) x 100
Exclusions:.Trouble report coded as follows:-For services & elements measured from MTAS data (non-designed services & elements), trouble reports coded
to disposition codes for: Customer Action; Non-Telco Plant; Trouble Beyond the Network Interface; and
Miscellaneous - Non-Dispatch, non-Qwest (includes CPE, Customer Instruction, Carrier, Alternate Provider).-For services & elements measured from WFA (Workforce Administration) data (designed services & elements)
trouble reports coded to trouble codes for Carrier Action (lEe) and Customer Provided Equipment (CPE)..Subsequent trouble reports of any trouble before the original trouble report is closed..Information tickets generated for internal Qwest system/network monitoring purposes..Trouble reports on the day of installation before the installation work is reported by the technician/installer as
complete.
.Records involving official company services.
.Records with invalid trouble receipt, cleared or closed dates..Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement..Non Qwest caused trouble (cable cuts, weather, natural disaster, etc.) Repair trouble reports associated with
orders where the CLEC accepted the order completion without prior testing, where such is offered
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale Residential single line service Parity with retail Res POTS.Resale Business single line service Parity with retail Bus POTS.Other Resale Non-residential services (incl. Business Diagnostic Parity with like retail service (statistically
Single Line, Centrex, Centrex 21, and PBX)weighted)
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 45 of 69
MR-7 - Repair Repeat Report Rate (Continued)
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale DSl Service Parity with retail DSl Private Line.Other Resale Digital Services (including Basic ISDN, DSO,Diagnostic Parity with like retail service (statistically
Primary ISDN, and Frame Relay)weighted).Line Splitting Parity with retail RES and BUS POTS.Sub-Loop Unbundling Diagnostic.UDIT-DSllevel Parity with retail DSl private line.Unbundled Analog Loop Parity with Res and Bus POTS.Unbundled Digital-capable Loop (incl. Non-loaded 2-Parity with retail Res & Bus POTS (for 2- & 4-wire), DSl
wire & 4-wire, xDSL-1 capable, ISDN capable, & ADSL-Private Line (for xDSL-I, ISDN, & ADSL) (statistically
qualified)weighted).Unbundled DSl-capable Loop Parity with retail DSl private line.EEL-DSO Diagnostic.EEL-DSl Parity with retail DSl private line
Notes:
1.Reporting wil begin at the time CLECs order the Loop Splitting, in any quantity, for three consecutive months.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 46 of 69
MR-8 - Trouble Rate
Purpose:
Evaluates the overall rate of trouble reports as a percentage of the total installed base of the service or element.
Description:
Measures trouble reports by service or element and compares them to the number of lines in service..Includes all trouble reports closed during the reporting period, subject to exclusions specified below..Includes all applicable trouble reports, including those that are out of service and those that are only service-
affecting.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual CLEC and Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
Qwest Retail results
Formula:
((Total number of trouble report closed in the reporting period involving the specified service or element
grouping) + (Total number of the specified services or elements that are in service in the reporting period)) x 100
Exclusions:.Trouble reports coded as follows:-For services & elements measured from MTAS data, trouble report coded to disposition codes for: Customer
Action; Non-Telco Plant; Trouble Beyond the Network Interface; and Miscellaneous - Non-Dispatch, non-Qwest
(includes CPE, Customer Instruction, Carrier, Alternate Provider).-For services & elements measured from WFA data trouble reports coded to trouble codes for Carrier Action
(lEe) and Customer Provided Equipment (CPE)..Subsequent trouble reports of any trouble before the original trouble report is closed..Information tickets generated for internal Qwest system/network monitoring purposes.
.Trouble reports on the day of installation before the installation work is reported by the technician/installer as
complete..Records involving official company services..Records with invalid trouble receipt, cleared or closed dates..Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement..Non Qwest caused trouble (cable cuts, weather, natural disaster, etc.).Installation reports ("1 Reports") within 90 days past installation date.Repeat reports ("R Reports") within 30 days past the receipt date of the original trouble report
.Repair trouble reports associated with orders where the CLEC accepted the order completion without prior
testing, where such is offered
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale Residential single line service Parity with retail Res POTS.Resale Business single line service Parity with retail Bus POTS.Other Resale Non-residential services (incl.Diagnostic Parity with like retail service (statistically weighted)
Centrex, Centrex 21, & PBX).Resale DS1 Service Parity with retail DS1 Private Line.Other Resale Digital Services (including Diagnostic Parity with like retail service (statistically weighted)
Basic ISDN, DSO, Primary ISDN, and Frame
Relay)
.Line Splitting Parity with retail RES and BUS POTS.Sub-Loop Unbundling Diagnostic.Unbundled Analog Loop Parity with Res and Bus POTS
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 47 of 69
MR-8 - Trouble Rate (Continued)
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Unbundled Digital-capable Loop (incl. Non-1) :: 3% for 3-month rollng average CLEC-aggregate result, OR
loaded 2-wire & 4-wire, xDSL-1 capable,2) If ~ 3% for 3-month rolling average CLEC-aggregate result:
ISDN capable, & ADSL-qualified)a):: 1% for difference between the 3-month rollng average.Unbundled DS1-capable Loop of CLEC-aggregate result and the 3-month rollng average.UDfT-DS1 of the Retail result, or
.EEL-DS1 b)Parity with retail Res & Bus POTS (for 2- & 4-wire), DS1
Private Line (for xDSL-I, ISDN, & ADSL) for reporting
month's CLEC-aggregate result (statistically weighted).EEL-DSO Diagnostic
Notes:
Reporting wil begin at the time CLECs order the Loop Splitting, in any quantity, for three consecutive months.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 48 of 69
MR-10 - Customer and Non-Qwest Related Trouble Report
Purpose:
Evaluates the extent that trouble reports were customer related, and provides diagnostic information to help address
potential issues that might be raised by the core maintenance and repair performance indicators.
Description:
Measures the percentage of all trouble report that are attributed to the customer as a percentage of all trouble
reports resolved during the reporting period, subject to exclusions specified below.
Includes trouble reports closed during the reporting period coded as follows:.For services & elements measured from MTAS data, trouble reports coded to disposition codes for: Customer
Action; Non-Telco Plant, Trouble Beyond the Network Interface; and Miscellaneous - Non-Dispatch, non-Qwest
(includes CPE, Customer Instruction, Carrier, Alternate Provider) and trouble reports involving a "no access" delay..For services & elements measured from WFA (Workforce Administration) data trouble reports coded to trouble
codes for Carrier Action (lEe) and Customer Provided Equipment (CPE).
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
CLEC and Qwest Retail results
Formula:
((Number of Trouble Reports coded to disposition codes specified above) + (Total Number of Trouble Reports
Closed in the Reporting Period)) x 100
Exclusions:.Subsequent trouble report of any trouble before the original trouble report is closed.Information tickets generated for internal Qwest system/network monitoring purposes.
.Records involving official company services..Records with invalid trouble receipt, cleared or closed dates..Records with invalid service/element (product) codes..Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement per the PID.
.Trouble reports on the day of installation before the installation work is reported by the technician/installer as
complete.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale Residential single line service Diagnostic.Resale Business single line service Diagnostic.Other Resale Non-residential services (incl. Centrex, Centrex 21, and Diagnostic
PBX).Resale DS1 Service Diagnostic.Other Resale Digital Services (including Basic ISDN, DSO, Primary Diagnostic
ISDN, and Frame Relay)
.UDIT-DS1Ievel Diagnostic.Unbundled Analog Loop Diagnostic.Unbundled Digital Loop (incl. Non-loaded 2-wire & 4-wire, xDSL-1 Diagnostic
capable, ISDN capable, & ADSL-qualified)
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 49 of 69
MR-11 - LNP Trouble Report Cleared within Specified Timeframes
Purpose:
Evaluates timeliness of clearing LNP trouble reports, focusing on the degree to which residence and business,
disconnect-related, out-of-service trouble reports are cleared within four business hours and all LNP-related trouble
reports are cleared within 48 hours.
Description:
MR-llA: Measures the percentage of specified LNP-only (i.e., not unbundled-loop), residence and business, out-of-
service trouble reports that are cleared within four business hours of Qwest receiving these trouble reports
from CLECs.
· Includes only trouble reports that are received on or before the currently-scheduled due date of the
actual LNP-related disconnect time/date, or the next business day. that are confirmed to be caused by
disconnects being made before the scheduled time, and that are closed during the reporting period,
subject to exclusions specified below.
MR-llB: Measures the percentage of specified LNP-only trouble reports that are cleared within 48 hours of Qwest
receiving these trouble reports from CLECs.
· Includes all LNP-only trouble reports, received within four calendar days of the actual LNP-related
disconnect date and closed during the reporting period.
· The "currently-scheduled due date/time" is the original due date/time established by Qwest in response to
CLEC/customer request for disconnection of service ported via LNP or, if CLEC submits to Qwest a timely or
untimely request for delay of disconnection, it is CLEC/customer-requested later date/time.
· A request for delay of disconnection is considered timely if received by Qwest before 8:00 p.m. MT On the due
date that Qwest has on record at the time of the request.
· A request for delay of disconnection is considered untimely if received by Qwest after 8:00 p.m. MT on the due
date and before 12:00 p.m. MT (noon) on the day after the due date
· Time measured is from date/time Qwest receives the trouble report to the date and time trouble is cleared.
Reporting Period: One month I Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC Aggregate and Individual CLEC I Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
Formula:
MR-llA = ((Number of specified out-of-service LNP-only Trouble Report, for LNP-related troubles confirmed to
be caused by disconnects, that Qwest executed before the currently-scheduled due date/time, that were
closed in the reporting period and cleared within four business hours) + (Total Number of specified out of
service LNP-only Trouble Reports for LNP-related troubles confirmed to be caused by disconnects that
Qwest executed before the currently-scheduled due date/time, that were closed in the reporting period)) x
100
MR-llB = ((Number of specified LNP-only Trouble Reports closed in reporting period and cleared within 48 hours)
+ (Total Number of specified LNP-only Trouble Reports closed in reporting period)) x 100
Exclusions:
· Trouble reports attributed to customer or non-Qwest reasons
· Trouble reports not related to valid requests (LSRs) for LNP and associated disconnects.
· Subsequent trouble reports of LNP trouble before the original trouble report is closed.
· For MR-llB only: Trouble reports involving a "no access" delay.
· Information tickets generated for internal Qwest system/network monitoring purposes.
. Records involving official company services.
· Records with invalid trouble receipt dates.
. Records with invalid cleared or closed dates.
· Records with invalid service/element (product) codes.
· Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
Services and Elements Reporting: LNP I Standards: Diagnostic
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. SO of 69
BILLING
BI-1 - Time to Provide Recorded Usage Records
Purpose:
Evaluates the timeliness with which Qwest provides recorded daily usage records to CLECs.
Description:
Measures the average time interval from date of recorded daily usage to date usage records are transmitted or made
available to CLECs as applicable.
BI-1A - Measures recorded daily usage for Resale and includes industry standard electronically transmitted usage
records for feature group switched access, NOTE 1 local measured usage, local message usage, toll usage, and
local exchange service components priced on a per-use basis, subject to exclusions specified below.
BI-1B -Measures the percent of recorded daily usage for Jointly provided switched access provided within four days.
This includes usage created by CLEC and Qwest or IXC providing access, usually via 2-way Feature Group X
trunk groups for Feature Group A, Feature Group B, Feature Group D, Phone to Phone IP Telephony, 8XX
access, and 900 access and their successors or similar Switched Access services.
BI-1C-Provides separate reporting for two elements captured in BI-1A above, as follows:.BI-1C-1 - Measures recorded daily usage for Resale and includes industry standard electronically
transmitted usage records for feature group switched access, NOTE 1 subject to exclusions specified below..BI-1C-2 - Measures recorded daily usage for Resale and includes industry standard electronically
transmitted usage records for local measured usage, local message usage, toll usage, and local exchange
service components priced on a per-use basis, subject to exclusions specified below.
Reporting Period:One month Unit of Measure:
BI-1A, BI-1C-1, BI-1C-2:Business Days
BI-1B:Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual Disaggregation Reporting: State leveL.
CLECs, and Qwest Retail results
Formula:
BI-1A, BI-1C-1, BI-1C-2 (for specified services & elements & records) = ¿(Date Record Transmitted or made available-
Date Usage Recorded) + (Total number of records)
BI-1B = ((# of daily usage records for Jointly provided switched access sent within four days) + (Total daily usage
records for Jointly provided switched access in the report period)) x 100
Exclusions:.Instances where CLEC requests other than daily usage transmission or availability..Duplicate records.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.Resale BI-1A: Parity with Qwest retaiL..Jointly-provided Switched Access BI-1B: 95% within 4 business days
BI-1C-1, BI-1C-2: Diagnostic
Notes:
1."Feature group switched access" includes all type llOXXX detail records for Feature Groups A, B, C, and D.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 51 of 69
BI-3 - Billng Accuracy - Adjustments for Errors
Purpose:
Evaluates the accuracy with which Qwest bils CLECs, focusing on percentage of biled revenue adjusted due to errors.
Description:
Measures the billed revenue minus amounts adjusted off bils due to errors, as a percentage of total biled revenue..Both the billed revenue and amounts adjusted off bills due to error are calculated from bills rendered in the
reporting period.."Amounts adjusted off bils due to errors" is the sum of all bil adjustments made in the reporting period that
involve, either in part or in total, adjustment codes related to billng errors. (Each adjustment thus qualifying is
added to the sum in its entirety.)
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate, individual CLECs Disaggregation Reporting: State leveL.
Formula:
¡¿(Total Billed Revenue Billed in Reporting Period - Amounts Adjusted Off Bils Due to Errors) + (Total Billed
Revenue biled in Reporting Period)) x 100
Exclusions:.BI-3A - Resale - None.BI-3B - Reciprocal Compensation Minutes of Use - Biling adjustments as a result of CLEC-caused errors in return of
minutes of use
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:.BI-3A - Resale, Unbundled Loops and EEls .BI-3A - Resale, Unbundled Loops and EELs: 98%.BI-3B - Reciprocal Compensation Minutes of Use (MOU).BI-3B - Reciprocal Compensation (MOU): 95%
Notes:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
At tachment i, p. 52 of 69
NETWORK PERFORMANCE
NI-1 - Trunk Blocking
Purpose:
Evaluates factors affecting completion of calls from Qwest end offices to CLEC end offices, compared with the
completion of calls from Qwest end offices to other Qwest end offices, focusing on average busy-hour blocking
percentages in interconnection or interoffice final trunks.
Description:
Measures the percentage of trunks blocking in interconnection and interoffice final trunks.
· Includes blocking percentages on all direct final and alternate final interconnection and interoffice trunk groups
that are in service during the reporting period, subject to exclusions specified below.
Reporting Period: One month I Unit of Measure: Percent Blockage
Reporting Comparisons: Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
CLEC aggregate, individual Reports the percentage of trunks blocking in interconnection final trunks, reported by:
CLEC, and Qwest Interoffice NI-IA Interconnection (LIS) trunks to Qwest tandem offices, with TGSR-related
trunk blocking results. exclusions applied as specified below;
NI-IB LIS trunks to Qwest end offices, with TGSR-related exclusions applied as
specified below;
NI-IC LIS trunks to Qwest tandem offices, without TGSR-related exclusions;
NI-ID LIS trunks to other Qwest end offices, without TGSR-related exclusions.
Formula:
U'L(Blockage in Final Trunk Group of Specified Type)x(Number of Circuits in Trunk Group)) + (Total Number of Final
Trunk Circuits in all Final Trunk Groups)) x 100
Explanation: Actual average percentage of trunk blockage is calculated by dividing the equivalent average number of
trunk circuits blocking by the total number of trunk circuits in final trunks of the type being measured.
Exclusions:
For NI-IA and NI-IB only:
· Trunk groups, blocking in excess of one percent in the reporting period, for which:
- A Trunk Group Service Request (TGSR) NOTES 1 & 2 has been issued in the reporting period; or
- CLECs do not submit, within 20 calendar days of receiving a TGSR:
a) Responsive ASRs (or have ASRs pending that are delayed for CLEC reasons NOTE 3);
b) Trouble Reports; or
c) Notification of traffc re-routing (as described in Note 1 below).
For NI-IA, NI-IB, NI-IC, and NI-ID:
· Trunk groups, blocking in excess of one percent in the reporting period, for which Qwest can identify, in time to
incorporate in the regular reporting of this measurement, the cause as being attributable to:
- Trunk group out-of-service conditions arising from cable cuts, severe weather, or force majeure circumstances;
- CLEC placing trunks in a "busy" condition;
- Lack of interconnection facilities to fulfil LIS requests for which CLEC did not provide a timely forecast to
Qwest. (This portion of the exclusion is limited to being applied in (a) the month the LIS requests could not be
fulfilled, due to lack of facilities, and (b) each month thereafter up to the month following facilty availabilty OR
up to five months after the month the LIS requests could not be fulfiled, whichever is sooner NOTE 4); or
- Isolated incidences of blocking, about which Qwest provides notification to CLEC, that (a) are not recurring or
persistent (affecting the same trunk groups), (b) do not warrant corrective action by CLEC or Qwest, and (c)
thus, do not require an actionable TGSR.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 53 of 69
NI-1 - Trunk Blocking (Continued)
· Trunk groups recently activated that have not been in service for a full "20-high-day, busy hour' review period.
· Toll trunks, non-final trunks, and trunks that are not connected to the public switched network.
. One-way trunks originating at CLEC end offices.
· Qwest official services trunks, local interoffce operator and directory assistance trunks, and local interoffice
911/E911 trunks.
. Records with invalid service/element (product) codes.
· Records missing data essential to the calculation of the measurement.
Services and Elements Reporting: I Standards:LIS Trunks Diagnostic
Notes:
1. Qwest uses TGSRs to notify CLECs when trunk blocking exceeds standard thresholds or is determined to be
persistent. To respond properly to TGSRs, CLEC must (a) submit within 20 days ASRs to provide necessary trunk
augmentations to avoid further blocking, (b) notify Qwest within 20 days that it is initiating a Trouble Report where
Qwest traffic routing problems are causing the blocking referenced by the TGSR, or (c) notify Qwest that CLEC wil
undertake its own re-routing of traffic within 20 days to alleviate the blocking.
2. The TGSR-related exclusion is applied in the month in which the TGSR is issued and in the month in which the
above-specified 20-day response period ends. Thus, any trunk group excluded in one month wil not be excluded in
the next month, unless there is (a) a 20-day period following a TGSR ends in that month, (b) there is another TGSR
applicable to the next month for the same trunk group or (c) an exception documented, in lieu of issuing a
subsequent TGSR, where CLEC's response to the previous TGSR indicated that, for its own reasons, it plans to take
no action at any time to augment the trunk group.
3. CLEC delays are reflected by CLEC-initiated order supplements that move the due date later.
a) Qwest-initiated due date delays, including supplements made pursuant to Qwest requests to delay due dates,
shall not be counted as CLEC delays in this measurement.
b) Qwest-initiated due date changes to earlier dates that CLEC does not meet shall not be counted as a CLEC delay
in this measurement unless the earlier dates were mutually agreed-upon.
c) CLEC delays (e.g., "customer not ready" in advance of a due date) that do not contribute to a Qwest-established
due date being missed shall not be counted as a CLEC delay in this measurement.
4. The limitation on part (3) of this exclusion is intended to bound its applicabilty to a period of time that treats the
un-forecasted ASR as if it were, in effect, the first forecast for the facilities needed.
a) Given that forecast advance intervals are currently six months, this provision allows the exclusion to apply for no
longer than that period of time.
b) Nevertheless, this limitation to the exclusion also recognizes that facilities may become available sooner and, if
so, reduces the limitation accordingly. In that context, this limitation recognizes that, absent a CLEC forecast,
Qwest still retains a responsibilty to provide facilities for the ASR, although in a longer timeframe than for ASRs
covered by forecasts. NI-1C and NI-1D wil be reported for information purposes only, with no standard to be
applied.
c) This limitation may change depending on the outcome of separate workshops dealing with issues of
interconnection forecasting.
5. NI-1C and NI-1D will be reported for information purposes only, with no standard to be applied.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 54 of 69
COLLOCATION
CP-1 - Collocation Completion Interval
Purpose:
Evaluates timeliness of Qwests installation of collocation arrangements, focusing on average time to complete.
Description:
Measures interval between Collocation Application Date and Qwests completion ofthe collocation installation.
· Includes all collocations of types specified herein that are assigned a Ready for Service (RFS) date by Qwest and
completed during the reporting period, subject to exclusions specified below.
· Collocation types included are: physical cageless, physical caged, shared physical caged, physical-line sharing,
cageless line sharing, and virtuaL. NOTE 1
· The Collocation Application Date is the date Qwest receives from CLEC a complete and valid application for
collocation. In cases where CLEC's collocation application is received by Qwest on a weekend or holiday, the
Collocation Application Date is the next business day following the weekend or holiday.
. Major Infrastructure Modifications include conditioning the collocation space, obtaining permits, and installng DC
power plant, standby generators, heating, venting or air conditioning equipment.
· Completion of the collocation installation is the date on which the requested collocation arrangement is "Ready
For Service" as defined in the Definition of Terms section herein.
· RFS Dates: RFS dates are established according to intervals specified in interconnection agreements. Where
interconnection agreement does not specify intervals, or where CLEC requests, RFS dates are as follows:
. Collocation Applications with Timely Quote Acceptance and, for Virtual Collocations, also with Timely
Equipment Ready - for collocation applications where CLEC accepts the quote in seven or fewer calendar days
after the quote date and, for virtual collocations, where CLEC provides equipment to be collocated to Qwest
53 calendar days or less after the Collocation Application Date, the RFS date is:
Forecasted Collocations: 90 calendar days after Collocation Application Date for collocations where CLEC
provides complete forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of Application Date.
Non-forecasted Collocations: 120 calendar days after Collocation Application Date for collocations where
CLEC does not provide forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of application.
· Collocation Applications with Late Quote Acceptance and, for Virtual Collocations, also with Timely
Equipment Ready - for collocation applications where CLEC accepts the quote in eight or more calendar days
after the quote date and, for virtual collocations, where CLEC provides equipment to be collocated to Qwest
53 calendar days or less after the Collocation Application Date, the RFS date is:
Forecasted Collocations: 90 calendar days after the quote acceptance date for collocations for which
CLEC provides a complete forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of application.
Non-forecasted Collocations: 120 calendar days after quote acceptance date for collocations for which
CLEC does not provide a forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of application.
· Virtual Collocation Applications with Timely Quote Acceptance and Late Equipment Ready - for virtual
collocation applications where CLEC (1) accepts the quote in seven or fewer calendar days after the quote
date and (2) provides equipment to be collocated to Qwest more than 53 calendar days after the Collocation
Application Date, the RFS date is:
Forecasted Collocations: 45 calendar days after equipment is provided to Qwest, for collocations for
which CLEC provides complete forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of application.
Non-forecasted Collocations: 75 calendar days after equipment is provided to Qwest, for collocations for
which CLEC does not provide forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days before application.
. Virtual Collocation Applications with Late Quote Acceptance and Late Equipment Ready - for virtual
collocation applications where CLEC (1) accepts the quote in eight or more calendar days after the quote date
and (2) provides equipment to be collocated to Qwest more than 53 calendar days after the Collocation
Application Date, the RFS date shall be:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 55 of 69
CP-l- Collocation Completion Interval (continued)
-Forecasted Collocations: 45 calendar days after equipment is provided to Qwest, for collocations for which
CLEC provides a complete forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of the Collocation
Application Date.-Non-forecasted Collocations: 75 calendar days after equipment is provided to Qwest, for collocations for
which CLEC does not provide a forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of the Collocation
Application Date..All Collocations (phYSical, virtual, forecasted, or non-forecasted) reauiring Major Infrastructure
Modifications: the later of (1) up to 150 calendar days (as specified in the quote) after the Collocation
Application Date, or (2) for virtual collocations, 45 days following the date equipment to be collocated is
provided to Qwest for collocations in which Major Infrastructure Modifications are required. Qwest wil
provide to CLEC, as part of the quotation, the need for, and the duration of, such extended intervals.
.When CLEC submits six (6) or more Collocation applications in a one-week period in any state, completion
intervals wil be individually negotiated. These collocation arrangements wil be included in CP-1A, -lB, or -lC
according to the interval criteria specified below for these measurements.
.Where there is CLEC-caused delay, the RFS Date is rescheduled.RFS dates may be extended beyond the above intervals for CLEC reasons, or for reasons beyond Qwests control,
but not for Qwest reasons..Where CLECs do not accept quote within thirt days of the quote date, the application is considered expired.
CP-1A Measures collocation installations for which the scheduled interval from Collocation Application Date to
RFS date is 90 calendar days or less.
CP-1B Measures collocation installations for which the scheduled interval from Collocation Application Date to
RFS date is 91 to 120 calendar days.
CP-1C Measures collocation installations for which the scheduled interval from Collocation Application Date to
RFS date is 121 to 150 calendar days.
Reporting Period: One month I Unit of Measure: Calendar Days
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate and individual CLEC results I Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide.
Formula: (for CP-1A, CP-1B and CP-1e¡
¿((Collocation Completion Date) - (Application Date)) + (Total Number of Collocations Completed in Reporting Period)
Exclusions:
.CP-1A: CLEC collocation applications with RFS dates yielding scheduled intervals longer than 90 calendar days from
Collocation Application Date to RFS date.
.CP-1B: CLEC collocation applications with RFS dates yielding scheduled intervals shorter than 91 calendar days or
longer than 120 calendar days from Collocation Application Date to RFS date.
.CP-1e: CLEC collocation applications with RFS dates yielding scheduled intervals shorter than 121 calendar days or
longer than 150 calendar days from Collocation Application Date to RFS date.
.Cancelled or expired applications.
Services and Elements Reporting:Standards:
CP-1A:90 calendar days
Not applicable CP-1B:120 calendar days
CP-1e:150 calendar days
Notes:
1. Collocations covered by this measurement are central offce related. As additional types of central office
collocation are defined and offered, they wil be included in this measurement. Non-central office-based types of
collocation (such as remote collocation and field connection points) wil be considered for either inclusion in this
measurement, or in new, separate measurements, after the terms, conditions, and processes for such collocation
types become finalized, accepted, mature (Le., six months of experience from first installations), and ordered in
volumes warranting reporting (Le., consistently more than two per month in any state).
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 56 of 69
CP-2 - Collocations Completed within Scheduled Intervals
Purpose:
Evaluates extent to which Qwest completes collocation arrangements within standard intervals.
Description:
Measures percentage of collocation applications completed within standard intervals, including intervals set forth in
interconnection agreements.
. Includes all collocations of types specified herein that are assigned a Ready for Service Date RFS date by Qwest and
that are completed within the reporting period, including those with CLEC-requested RFS dates longer than the
standard interval and those with extended RFS dates negotiated with CLEC (including supplemented collocation
orders that extend the RFS date) subject to exclusions specified below. Collocation types included are: physical
cageless, physical caged, shared physical caged, physical-line sharing, cageless-line sharing, and virtuaL. NOTE 1
· The Collocation Application Date is the date Qwest receives from CLEC a complete and valid application for
collocation. In cases where CLEC's collocation application is received by Qwest on a weekend or holiday, the
Collocation Application Date is the next business day following the weekend or holiday.
· Major Infrastructure Modifications are defined as conditioning the collocation space, obtaining permits, and
installng DC power plant, standby generators, heating, venting or air conditioning equipment.
. A collocation arrangement is counted as met under this measurement if its RFS date is met.
. Establishment of RFS Dates: RFS dates are established as follows, except where interconnection agreements
require different intervals, in which case the intervals specified in the interconnection agreements apply:
. Collocation Applications with Timely Quote Acceptance and, for Virtual Collocations, also with Timely
Equipment Ready - for collocation applications where CLEC accepts the quote in seven or fewer calendar days
after the quote date and, for virtual collocations, where CLEC provides equipment to be collocated to Qwest
53 calendar days or less after the Collocation Application Date, the RFS date shall be:
- Forecasted Collocations: 90 calendar days after Collocation Application Date for physical collocations for
which CLEC provides complete forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of Application Date.
- Non-forecasted Collocations: 120 calendar days after Collocation Application Date for physical collocations
where CLEC does not provide forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of Application Date.
. Collocation Applications with Late Quote Acceptance and, for Virtual Collocations, also with Timely
Equipment Ready - for collocation applications where CLEC accepts the quote in eight or more calendar days
after the quote date and, for virtual collocations, where CLEC provides equipment to be collocated to Qwest
53 calendar days or less after the Collocation Application Date, the RFS date shall be:
- Forecasted Collocations: 90 calendar days after quote acceptance date for collocations for which CLEC
provides complete forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of Collocation Application Date.
- Non-forecasted Collocations: 120 calendar days after quote acceptance date for collocations for which
CLEC does not provide forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of Collocation Application
Date.
. Virtual Collocation Applications with Timely Quote Acceptance and Late Equipment Ready - for virtual
collocation applications where CLEC (1) accepts the quote in seven or fewer calendar days after the quote
date and (2) provides equipment to be collocated to Qwest more than 53 calendar days after the Collocation
Application Date, the RFS date shall be:
- Forecasted Collocations: 45 calendar days after equipment is provided to Qwest, for collocations for which
CLEC provides a complete forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of the Collocation
Application Date.
- Non-forecasted Collocations: 75 calendar days after equipment is provided to Qwest, for collocations for
which CLEC does not provide a forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of the Collocation
Application Date.
. Virtual Collocation Applications with Late Quote Acceptance and Late Equipment Ready - for virtual
collocation applications where CLEC (1) accepts the quote in eight or more calendar days after the quote date
and (2) provides equipment to be collocated to Qwest more than 53 calendar days after the Collocation
Application Date, the RFS date shall be:
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 57 of 69
CP-2 - Collocations Completed within Scheduled Intervals (continued)
-Forecasted Collocations: 45 calendar days after equipment is provided to Qwest, for collocations for which
CLEC provides a complete forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of the Collocation
Application Date.-Non-forecasted Collocations: 75 calendar days after equipment is provided to Qwest, for collocations for
which CLEC does not provide a forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of the Collocation
Application Date.
.All Collocations (physical. virtuaL, forecasted. or non-forecasted) requiring Major Infrastructure
Modifications: the later of (1) up to 150 calendar days (as specified in the quote) after the Collocation
Application Date, or (2) for virtual collocations, 45 calendar days following the date equipment to be
collocated is provided to Qwest for collocations in which Major Infrastructure Modifications are required.
Qwest wil provide to CLEC, as part of the quotation, the need for, and the duration of, such extended
intervals.
.When CLEC submits six (6) or more Collocation applications in a one-week period in any state, completion
intervals will be individually negotiated. These collocation arrangements wil be included in CP-2A, -28, or -2C
according to the criteria specified below for these measurements.
.Where there is CLEC-caused delay, the RFS Date is rescheduled.
.Where CLECs do not accept the quote within thirt calendar days of quote date, application is considered expired.
CP-2A Forecasted Collocations: Measures collocation installations for which CLEC provides a forecast to Qwest 60 or
more calendar days in advance of the Collocation Application Date.
CP-2B Non-Forecasted and Late Forecasted Collocations: Measures collocation installations for which CLEC does not
provide a forecast to Qwest 60 or more calendar days in advance of the Collocation Application Date.
CP-2C All Collocations requiring Major Infrastructure Modifications and Collocations with intervals longer than 120
days: Measures all collocation installations requiring Major Infrastructure Modifications and collocations for
which the RFS date is more than 120 calendar days after the Collocation Application Date.
Reporting Period: One month I Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate and individual CLEC results I Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
Formula: (for CP-2A, CP-28 and CP-2C)
((Count of Collocations for which the RFS is met) + (Total Number of Collocations Completed in the Reporting
Period)) x 100
Exclusions:.RFS dates missed for reasons beyond Qwests control..Cancelled or expired requests.
Services and Elements Reporting: None Standards:
CP-2A & -28:90%
CP-2C: 90%
Notes:
i.Collocations covered by this measurement are central office related. As additional types of central offce
collocation are defined and offered, they will be included in this measurement. Non-central office-based types of
collocation (such as remote collocation and field connection points) will be considered for either inclusion in this
measurement, or in new, separate measurements, after the terms, conditions, and processes for such collocation
types become finalized, accepted, mature (i.e., six months of experience from first installations), and ordered in
volumes warranting reporting (i.e., consistently more than two per month in any state).
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 58 of 69
CP-3 - Collocation Feasibilty Study Interval
Purpose:
Evaluates the timeliness of the Qwest sub-process function of providing a collocation feasibilty study to CLEe.
Description:
Measures average interval to respond to collocation studies for feasibility of installation.
.Includes feasibilty studies, for collocations of types specified herein that are completed in the reporting period,
subject to exclusions specified below. Collocation types included are: physical cageless, physical caged, shared
physical caged, physical-line sharing, cageless-line sharing, and virtuaL. NOTE 1.Interval begins with the Collocation Application Date and ends with the date Qwest completes the Feasibilty Study
and provides it to CLEe..The Collocation Application Date is the date Qwest receives from CLEC a complete application for collocation.In
cases where ClEe's application for collocation is received by Qwest on a weekend or holiday, the Collocation
Application Date is the next business day following the weekend or holiday.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Calendar Days
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate and individual CLEC Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
results
Formula:
¿((Date Feasibility Study provided to ClEe) - (Date Qwest receives ClEC request for Feasibilty Study)) + (Total
Feasibilty Studies Completed in the Reporting Period)
Exclusions:.ClEC-caused delays of, or CLEC requests for feasibilty study completions resulting in greater than ten calendar
days from Collocation Application Date to scheduled feasibility study completion date.
Services and Elements Reporting: None
I Standard:
10 calendar days or less
Notes:
1.Collocations covered by this measurement are central office related. As additional types of central office
collocation are defined and offered, they will be included in this measurement. Non-central offce-based types of
collocation (such as remote collocation and field connection points) wil be considered for either inclusion in this
measurement, or in new, separate measurements, after the terms, conditions, and processes for such collocation
types become finalized, accepted, mature (Le., six months of experience from first installations), and ordered in
volumes warranting reporting (Le., consistently more than two per month in any state).
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 59 of 69
CP-4 - Collocation Feasibilty Study Commitments Met
Purpose:
Evaluates the degree that Qwest completes the sub-process function of providing a collocation feasibilty study to CLEC
as committed.
Description:
Measures the percentage of collocation feasibility studies for installations that are completed within the Scheduled
Interval.The Scheduled Interval is ten calendar days from the Collocation Application Date or, if interconnection
agreements call for different intervals, within intervals specified in the agreements, or if otherwise delayed by
CLEC, the interval resulting from the delay..Includes all feasibilty studies for collocations of types specified herein, that are completed in the reporting period.
Collocation types included are: physical cage less, physical caged, shared physical caged, physical-line sharing,
cageless-Iine sharing, and virtuaL. NOTE
1
.Considers the interval from the Collocation Application Date to the date Qwest completes the Feasibilty Study and
provides it to CLEe..The Collocation Application Date is the date Qwest receives from CLEC a complete application for collocation. In
cases where CLEC's application for collocation is received by Qwest on a weekend or holiday, the Collocation
Application Date is the next business day following the weekend or holiday..Subject to superseding terms in CLEC's interconnection agreement, when CLEC submits six (6) or more Collocation
applications in a one-week period in any state, feasibility study intervals will be individually negotiated and the
resulting intervals used instead of ten calendar days in this measurement.
Reporting Period: One month Unit of Measure: Percent
Reporting Comparisons: CLEC aggregate and Disaggregation Reporting: Statewide level
individual CLEC results
Formula:
((Total Applicable Collocation Feasibility studies completed within Scheduled Intervals) + (Total applicable Collocation
Feasibility studies completed in the reporting period)) x 100
Exclusions: None
Services and Elements Reporting: None I Standard:90 percent or more
Notes:
1.Collocations covered by this measurement are central offce related. As additional types of central offce
collocation are defined and offered, they wil be included in this measurement. Non-central office-based types of
collocation (such as remote collocation and field connection points) wil be considered for either inclusion in this
measurement, or in new, separate measurements, after the terms, conditions, and processes for such collocation
types become finalized, accepted, mature (Le., six months of experience from first installations), and ordered in
volumes warranting reporting (Le., consistently more than two per month in any state).
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 60 of 69
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Application Date (and Time) - The date (and time) on which Qwest receives from CLEC a complete and accurate local
service request (LSR) or access service request (ASR) or retail order, subject to the following:
· For the following types of requests/orders, the application date (and time) is the start of the next business day:
(1) LSRs and ASRs received after 3:00PM MT for designed services and elements and Local Number Portability
(except non-designed, flow-through LNP).
(2) Retail orders received after 3:00 PM local time for designed services.
(3) LSRs received after 7:00PM MT for POTS Resale (Residence and Business), Non-Design Resale Centrex,
Unbundled Loops, and non-designed, flow-through LNP.
(4) Retail orders for comparable non-designed services cannot be received after closing time, so the cutoff time
is essentially the business office closing time.
· For all types of orders that are received from Friday at 7:00 PM MT through Sunday, or on holidays, and do not
flow through, the application date (and time) is the next, non-weekend business day.
Automatic Location Information (All) - The feature of E911 that displays at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)
the street address of the callng telephone number. This feature requires a data storage and retrieval system for
translating telephone numbers to the associated address. All may include Emergency Service Number (ESN), street
address, room or floor, and names of the enforcement, fire and medical agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for
the address. The Management System (E911) database is used to update the Automatic E911Location Information
databases.
Bil Date - The date shown at top of the bil, representing the date on which Qwest begins to close the bilL.
Blocking - Condition on a telecommunications network where, due to a maintenance problem or an traffic volumes
exceeding trunking capacity in a part of the network, some or all originating or terminating calls cannot reach their
final destinations. Depending on the condition and the part of the network affected, the network may make
subsequent attempts to complete the call or the call may be completely blocked. If the call is completely blocked, the
callng part will have to re-initiate the call attempt.
Business Day - Workdays that Qwest is normally open for business. Business Day = Monday through Friday,
excluding weekends and Qwest published Holidays including New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving and Christmas. Individual measurement definitions may modify (typically expanding) this definition as
described in the Notes section of the measurement definition.
Cleared Trouble Report - A trouble report for which the trouble has been cleared, meaning the customer is "back in
service".
Closed Trouble Report - A trouble report that has been closed out from a maintenance center perspective, meaning
the ticket is closed in the trouble reporting system following repair of the trouble.
Common Channel Signaling System 7 (CCSS7) - A network architecture used to for exchange of signaling information
between telecommunications nodes and networks on an out-of-band basis. Information exchanged provides for call
set-up and supports services and features such as CLASS and database query and response.
Common Transport - Trunk groups between tandem and end office switches that are shared by more than one
carrier, often including the traffic of both the ILEC and several CLECs.
Completion - The time in the order process when the service has been provisioned and service is available.
Completion Notice - A notification the ILEC provides to CLEC to inform CLEC that the requested service order activity
is complete.
Coordinated Customer Conversion -- Orders that have a due date negotiated between the I LEe, CLEC, and the
customer so that work activities can be performed on a coordinated basis under the direction of the receiving carrier.
Customer Requested Due Date - A specific due date requested by the customer which is either shorter or longer
than the standard interval or the interval offered by the ILEe.
Customer Trouble Reports - A report that the carrier providing the underlying service opens when notified that
customer has problem with their service. Once resolved, disposition of the trouble is changed to closed.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 61 of 69
DEFINITION OF TERMS (continued)
Dedicated Transport - A network facility reserved to the exclusive use of a single customer, carrier or pair of carriers
used to exchange switched or special, local exchange, or exchange access traffc.
Delayed Order - An order which has been completed after the scheduled due date and/or time.
Directory Listings - Subscriber information used for DA and/or telephone directory publishing, including name and
telephone number, and optionally, the customer's address.
DS-O - Digital Service Level O. Service provided at a digital signal speed commonly at 64 kbps, but occasionally at 56
kbps.
DS-1- Digital Service LevelL. Service provided at a digital signal speed of 1.544 Mbps.
DS-3 - Digital Service Level 3. Service provided at a digital signal speed of 44.736 Mbps.
Due Date - The date provided on the Firm Order Confirmation (FOe) the ILEC sends CLEC identifying the planned
completion date for the order.
End Ofce Switch - A switch from which an end users' exchange services are directly connected and offered.
Final Trunk Groups - Interconnection and interoffice trunk groups that do not overflow traffic to other trunk groups
when busy.
Firm Order Confirmation (FOe) - Notice the ILEC sends to ClEC to notify CLEC that it has received CLECs service
request, created a service order, and assigned it a due date.
Flow- Through -The term used to describe whether a LSR electronically is passed from the OSS interface system to the
ILEC legacy system to automatically create a service order. LSRs that do not flow through require manual intervention
for the service order to be created in the ILEC legacy system.
Installation - The activity performed to activate a service.
Installation Troubles - A trouble, which is identified after service order activity and installation, has completed on a
customer's line. It is likely attributable to the service activity (within a defined time period).
Interconnection Trunks - A network facilty that is used to interconnect two switches generally of different local
exchange carriers
Inward Activity - Refers to all orders for new or additional lines/circuits. For change order types, additional
lines/circuits consist of all C orders with "i" and "T" action coded line/circuit USOCs that represent new or additional
lines/circuits, including conversions from retail to CLEC and CLEC to CLEe.
Jeopardy - A condition experienced in the service provisioning process which results potentially in the inability of a
carrier to meet the committed due date on a service order
Jeopardy Notice - The actual notice that the ILEC sends to CLEC when a jeopardy has been identified.
lack of Facilties - A shortage of cable facilties identified after a due date has been committed to a customer,
including CLEe. The facilties shortage may be identified during the inventory assignment process or during the
service installation process, and typically triggers a jeopardy.
Local Exchange Traffc - Traffic originated on the network of a LEC in a local callng area that terminates to another
LEC in a local callng area.
Local Number Portability (formerly defined under Permanent Number Portabilty and also known as - Long Term
Number Portabilty) - A network technology which allows end user customers to retain their telephone number
when moving their service between local service providers. This technology does not employ remote call forwarding,
but actually allows the customer's telephone number to be moved and redefined in the network of the new service
provider. The activity to move the telephone number is called "porting."
Local Service Request (LSR) - Transaction sent from CLEC to the ILEC to order services and elements or to request a
change(s) be made to existing services and elements.
Mechanized BiI- A bil that is delivered via electronic transmission.
Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) - Refers to basic 2-wire, non-complex analog residential and business services.
Can include feature capabilities (e.g., ClAS features).
Projects - Service requests that exceed the line size and/or level of complexity which would allow for the use of
standard ordering and provisioning processes. Generally, due dates for projects are negotiated, coordination of
service installations/changes is required and automated provisioning may not be practicaL.
Query Types - Pre-ordering information that is available to a CLEC that is categorized according to standards issued
by OBF and/or the FCe.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 62 of 69
DEFINITION OF TERMS (continued)
Ready For Service (RFS) - The status achieved in the installation of a collocation arrangement when all "operational"
work has been completed. Operational work consists of the following as applicable to the particular type of
collocation:
. Cage enclosure complete;
· DC power is active (including fuses available, BDFB (Battery Distribution Fuse Board) in place, and cables between
CLEC and power terminated);
. Primary AC outlet in place;
· Cable racking and circuit terminations are complete (e.g. fiber jumpers placed between the Outside Plant Fiber
Distribution Panel and the Central Office Fiber Distribution Panel serving CLEe). and
· The following items complete, subject to CLEC having made required payments to Qwest (e.g., final payment): (If
the required CLEC payments have not been made, the following items are not required for RFS):
Key turnover made available to CLEe.
APOT/CFA complete, as defined/required in CLEe's interconnection agreement and
Basic telephone service and other services and facilities complete, if ordered by CLEC in time to be provided
on the scheduled RFS date (per Qwests published standard installation intervals for such telephone service).
Ready for Service Date (RFS date) - The due date assigned to a collocation order (typically determined by regulatory
rulings, contract terms, or negotiations with CLEe) to indicate when collocation installation is scheduled to be ready
for service, as defined above.
Reject - A status that can occur to a CLEC-submitted local service request (LSR) when it does not meet certain criteria.
There are two types of rejects: (1) syntax, which occur if required fields are not included in the LSR; and (2) content,
which occur if invalid data is provided in a field. A rejected service request must be corrected and re-submitted
before provisioning can begin.
Repeat Report - Any trouble report that is a second (or greater) report on the same telephone number/circuit ID and
at the same premises address within 30 days. The original report can be any category, including excluded reports,
and can carry any disposition code.
Service Group Type - The designation used to identify a category of similar services or elements, e.g., loops.
Service Order - The work order created and distributed in ILEes systems and to ILEC work groups in response to a
complete, valid local service request.
Service Order Type - The designation used to identify the major types of provisioning activities associated with a local
service request.
Standard Interval - The interval that the ILEC publishes as a guideline for establishing due dates for provisioning a
service request. Typically, due dates will not be assigned with intervals shorter than the standard. These intervals are
specified by service type and type of service modification requested. ILECs publish these standard intervals in
documents used by their own service representatives as well as ordering instructions provided to CLECs in the Qwest
Standard Interval Guidelines.
Subsequent Reports - A trouble report that is taken in relation to a previously-reported trouble prior to the date and
time the initial report has a status of "closed."
Tandem Switch - Switch used to connect and switch trunk circuits between and among Central Office switches.
Time to Restore - The time interval from the receipt, by the ILEC, of a trouble report on a customers service to the
time service is fully restored to the customer.
Unbundled Loop - The Unbundled Loop is a transmission path between a Qwest Central Offce Distribution Frame, or
equivalent, and the Loop Demarcation Point at an end user premises. Loop Demarcation Point is defined as the point
where Qwest owned or controlled facilities cease, and CLEC, end user, owner or landlord ownership of facilities
begins.
Usage Data - Data generated in network nodes to identify switched call data on a detailed or summarized basis.
Usage data is used to create customer invoices for the calls.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 63 of 69
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ACRONYM DESCRIPTION
ACD Automatic Call Distributor
ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line
ALI Automatic Line Information (for 911/E911 systems)
ASR Service Request (processed via Exact system)
BRI Basic Rate Interface (type of ISDN service)
CABS Carrier Access Billng System
CKT Circuit
CLEC Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
CO Central Office
CPE Customer Premises Equipment
CRIS Customer Record Information System
CSR Customer Service Record
DSO Digital Service 0
DS1 Digital Service 1
DS3 Digital Service 3
E911 MS E911 Management System
EAS Extended Area Service
EB-TA Electronic Bonding - Trouble Administration
EELS Enhanced Extended Loops
ES Emergency Services (for 911/E911)
FOC Firm Order Confirmation
GUI Graphical User Interface
HDSL High-Bit-Rate Digital Subscriber Line
HICAP High Capacity Digital Service
IEC Interexchange Carrier
ILEC Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
INP Interim Number Portability
10F Interoffice Facilities (refers to trunk facilities located between Qwest central offices)
ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network
IMA Interconnect Mediated Access
LATA Local Access Transport Area
LIS Local Interconnection Service Trunks
LNP Long Term Number Portabilty
LSR Local Service Request
N, T,C Service Order Types - - N (new), T (to or transfer), C (change)
NDM Network Data Mover
NPAC Number Portability Administration Center
OBF Ordering and Billing Forum
OOS Out of service (type of trouble condition)
OSS Operations Support Systems
PBX Private Branch Exchange
PON Purchase Order Number
POTS Plain Old Telephone Service
PRI Primary Rate Interface (type of ISDN service)
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan-Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 64 of 69
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS (continued)
ACRONYM DESCRIPTION
RFS Ready for Service (refers to collocation installations)
SIA SAAFE (Strategic Application Architecture Framework and Environment) Information Access
SOP Service Order Processor
SOT Service Order Type
SS7 Signaling System 7
STP Signaling Transfer Point
TN Telephone Number
UDIT Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport
UNE Unbundled Network Element
VRU Voice Response Unit
WFA Workforce Administration
XDSL-I (x) Digital Subscriber Line. (The "x" prefix refers to DSL generically. An "x" replaced by an "A"
refers to Asymmetric DSL, and by an "H" refers to High-bit-rate DSL.)
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 65 of 69
Exhibit K-QPAP II
APPENDIX A
PO-20 Feature Detail Fields
Resale(POTS and Centrex 21)
CFN
Validate the call forwarding TN
CFNB
Validate the call forwarding TN
CFND
Validate the call forwarding TN
RCYC
FID associated with a call forwarding don't answer USOC that determines how many rings before the call forwards to
the TN provided with the CFN or CFND FlDs.
HLN (HLA Hot Line)
FID associated with the USOC HLA (which is on our USOC list to validate.) The Hot Line feature call forwards
automatically to a pre-programmed number. This TN is provided following the HLN FID. The data provided in the
Feature Detail section on the LSR wil be validated against the HLN FID on the service order to determine whether the
FID is present and the TN provided on the LSR with the FID is correct on the service order.
LINK (HME CALL FORWARDING TO CELLULAR)
FID associated with the USOC HME (which is on our USOC list to validate.) The HME feature call forwards a call from the
land line telephone number to a cellular telephone number. The LINK FID, along with the PCS telephone number
provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR, will be validated against the LINK FID on the service order to
determine whether the FID is present and the telephone number provided on the LSR matches the telephone number
on the service order.
DES on DID MBB
If CLEC requests a DID voice mailbox the DID number will follow the FID DES on the LSR in the Feature Detail section and
on the service order. The DES FID along with the DID telephone number provided in the Feature Detail section on the
LSR wil be validated against the DES FID on the service order to determine whether the FID is present and the DID
telephone number provided on the matches the telephone number on the service order.
TN on Custom Ring USOC (RGGlA etc.)
We currently have 9 custom ring USOCs on our PO-20 USOC list. Along with the custom ring USOC is the TN FID. The TN
FID along with the custom ring telephone number provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR wil be validated
against the TN FID on the service order to determine whether the FID is present and the custom ring telephone
provided on the LSR with the FID is correct on the service order. (The validation would only apply if the USOC and FID
were present in the Feature Detail section of the LSR.)
CAS (If provided on LSR for SEA)
Call Screening Code Assignment is a FID associated with the selective class of call feature (which is on our USOC list to
validate.) Along with the CAS FID is a two-digit number that indicates what type of screening is being requested. The
CAS FID along with a two-digit number is provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review wil
validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature USOC and that the two-digit number matches the
two-digit number provided on the LSR.
WW (if provided on LSR for TFM)
Working With is a FID associated with the transfer mailbox feature (which is on our USOC list to validate.) Along with
the WW FID is a ten-digit number that indicates where the voice mailbox is located. The WW FID along with the ten-
digit number is provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review wil validate that the FID is floated
on the service order behind the feature USOC and that the ten-digit number matches the ten-digit number provided on
the LSR.
MBOA (if provided on LSR for VFN)
Mailbox out-dial notification is a FID associated with the message notification feature (which is on our USOC list to
validate.) Along with the MBOA FID is a two-digit alphanumeric combination that indicates where the notification wil
be sent (Le., identifies pager type.) The MBOA FID along with the two-digit alphanumeric combination is provided in the
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-OS-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 66 of 69
Exhibit K-QPAP II
Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FlO is floated on the service order behind the
feature usoe and that the two-digit alphanumeric matches the two-digit alphanumeric provided on the LSR.
DES on VGT (if provided on LSR)
Description is a FlO associated with the scheduled greeting feature (which is on our usoe list to validate.) Along with
the DES FID is a ten-digit telephone number that reflects the DID mailbox number. The DES FlO along with the ten-digit
telephone number is provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FID is
floated on the service order behind the feature usoe and that the ten-digit telephone number matches the ten-digit
telephone number provided on the LSR.
WLT (WLS Warm Line)
Warm line timeout is a FID associated with the warm line feature. Along with the WLT FID is a one or two numeric value
that indicates the number of seconds that must elapse before the DMS-ioO switch sets up the connection for a warm
line service number. The WLT FID along with the one or two numeric value is provided in the Feature Detail section on
the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature usoe and that
the one or two numeric value matches the one or two numeric value provided on the LSR.
FIDs associated with WFA (800 service line feature - on USOC list to validate):
SIT (if provided on LSR for WFA)
Special identifying telephone number is a FID associated with the 800 service line feature. Along with the SIT FlO is a
ten-digit telephone number that reflects the 800, 888, 877, or 866 service line feature. The SIT FID along with the ten-
digit telephone number is provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FID
is floated on the service order behind the feature usoe and that the ten-digit telephone number matches the ten-digit
telephone number provided on the LSR.
SIS (if provided on LSR for WFA)
Special Identifying Telephone Number Supplemental is a FlO associated with the 800 service line feature. The SiS FID
along with a one-digit number is provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review wil validate that
the FlO is floated on the service order behind the feature usoe and that the one-digit number matches the one-digit
number provided on the LSR.
ELN (if provided on LSR for WFA)
800 Service listed name is a FlO associated with the 800 service line feature. Along with the ELN FID is a listed name,
which follows the format of a business name. The ELN FID along with the name is provided in the Feature Detail section
on the LSR. The PO-20 review wil validate that the FlO is floated on the service order behind the feature usoe and that
the name matches the name provided on the LSR.
ELA (if provided on LSR for WFA)
800 listed address is a FID associated with the 800 service line feature. Along with the ELA FID is an address, which
follows the format of a listed address plus LATA, State, and zip code. The ELA FlO along with the address is provided in
the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FlO is floated on the service order behind
the feature usoe and that the address matches the address provided on the LSR.
AOS (if provided on LSR for WFA)
Area of service is a FID associated with the 800 service line feature. Along with the AOS FID are one to two
alphanumeric characters and three numeric characters which represents LATA and Ae of the address. The AOS FID
along with the additional characters are provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review wil
validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature usoe and that the additional characters match
the additional characters provided on the LSR.
ALe (if provided on LSR for WFA)
Intra LATA carrier is a FID associated with the 800 service line feature. It indicates the IntraLATA carrier for the 800
service. Along with the ALe FID is the three-digit code (OTC) for the IntraLATA carrier. The ALe FID along with the three-
digit code is provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FID is floated on
the service order behind the feature usoe and that the three-digit code matches the three-digit code provided on LSR.
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 67 of 69
Exhibit K-QPAP II
Resale
FIDs associated with S03, S05, SFB, C2TAX (Electronic Business Set USOCs - on USOC list to validate):
KEY (If provided on LSR for Electronic Business set EBS USOCsJ
Key Designation (KEY number) is a FlO associated with the Electronic Business Set feature. Along with the KEY FlO is a
numeric value that indicates the key designated for different features or lines on the EBS. The KEY FID along with the
numeric value is provided in the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review wil validate that the FlO is floated
on the service order behind the feature USOC and that the numeric value matches the numeric value provided on the
LSR.
MADN (If provided on LSR for Electronic Business Set EBS USOCsJ
Multiple Appearance Directory Number Call Arrangement is a FID associated with the Electronic Business Set feature.
Along with the MADN FlO is a set of alpha values that indicate the type, appearance and ring status desired for different
features or lines on the EBS. The KEY FlO along with the alpha values is provided in the Feature Detail section on the
LSR. The PO-20 review wil validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature USOC and that the
alpha values match the alpha values provided on the LSR.
ROL (If provided on LSR for Electronic Business set EBS USOCsJ
Ring On Line is a FID associated with the Electronic Business Set feature. Along with the ROL FID is an alpha value that
indicates if the line will ring (Y or N). The ROL FID along with the alpha value is provided in the Feature Detail section on
the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature USOC and that the
alpha value matches the alpha value provided on the LSR.
TTD (If provided on LSR for C2TAXJ
Terminal Type is a FID associated with the adjunct module feature. Along with the TTD FlO is a 4 character alpha value
based on customer equipment. The TTD FID along with the 4 character alpha value is provided in the Feature Detail
section on the LSR. The PO-20 review wil validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature USOC
and that the 4 character alpha value matches the 4 character alpha value provided on the LSR.
FIDs associated with E3PPK (CALL PICK-UP feature - on USOC list to validate):
CPG (If provided on LSR for E3PPKJ
Call Pickup Group is a FID associated with the CALL PICK-UP feature. Along with the CPG FID is a 1-3 digit numeric value
that identifies the call pickup group. The CPG FlO along with the 1-3 digit numeric value is provided in the Feature Detail
section on the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature USOC
and that the 1-3 digit numeric value matches the 1-3 digit numeric value provided on the LSR.
CPUO (If provided on LSR for E3PPKJ
Call Pickup-Originating is a FlO associated with the CALL PICK-UP feature. Along with the CPUO FID is an alphanumeric
value that identifies the call pickup group. The CPUO FID along with the alphanumeric value is provided in the Feature
Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review wil validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature
USOC and that the alphanumeric value matches alphanumeric value provided on the LSR.
CPUT (If provided on LSR for E3PPKJ
Call Pickup-Terminating is a FID associated with the CALL PICK-UP feature. Along with the CPUT FID is an alphanumeric
value that identifies the call pickup group. The CPUT FID along with the alphanumeric value is provided in the Feature
Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review wil validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature
USOC and that the alphanumeric value matches alphanumeric value provided on the LSR.
FIDs associated with GVJ, EZJ, GVZ, GV2, EVH, GW (Speed caii feature USOCs - on USOC list to validate):
SCG (If provided on LSR for Speed call USOCsJ
Speed Call Group is a FID associated with the Speed call feature. Along with the SCG FID is a 7 digit numeric value that
identifies the controller of the group. The SCG FID along with the 7 digit numeric value is provided in the Feature Detail
section on the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind the feature USOC
and that the 7 digit numeric value matches 7 digit numeric value provided on the LSR.
CSL (If provided on LSR for Speed call USOCsJ
Change Speed Calling Group List is a FID associated with the Speed call feature. Along with the CSL FID is a 2 digit
numeric value that identifies the size of the group list. The SCG FID along with the 7 digit numeric value is provided in
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 1, p. 68 of 69
Exhibit K-QPAP II
the Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FID is floated on the service order behind
the feature USOC and that the 2 digit numeric value matches 2 digit numeric value provided on the LSR.
SCF (If provided on LSR for Speed call USOCs)
Speed Calling Feature Name is a FID associated with the Speed call feature. Along with the SCF FID is an alphanumeric
value that identifies the controller of the shared list. The SCF FID along with the alphanumeric value is provided in the
Feature Detail section on the LSR. The PO-20 review will validate that the FlO is floated on the service order behind the
feature USOC and that the alphanumeric value matches alphanumeric value provided on the LSR.
Owest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (OPAP II)
Attachment 1 - PIDs
Exhibit No. i
Case No. QWE-T-08-04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment i, p. 69 of 69
Exhibit K-QPAP II
Attchment 2: Payment Levels for PIDs Subject to Per Occurrence Payment Increments and
Penormance Credits
Payment Levels
PID Cateaories and Measurements PID#Low Med High
PRE-ORDER I ORDER
LSR Reiection Notice Interval PO-3a X
Firm Order Confirmations On Time PO-5 X
Work Completion Notification Timeliness PO-6"X
Biling Completion Notification Timeliness PO-7D X
Jeopardy Notice Interval PO-8 X
Timely Jeopardy Notices PO-9 X
(Expanded)-Manual Service Order Accuracy PO-20 X
ORDERING AND PROVISIONING
Installation Commitments Met OP-3T X
Installation Intervals OP_4C,T X
New Service Quality OP-5AT, Ba,9 X
Delayed Days OP-6a,X
Coordinated Cuts On Time-Unbundled Loops OP-13A X
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
Out of Service Cleared within 24 hours MR-3T X
All Troubles Cleared within 4 hours MR-5T X
Mean time to Restore MR-6e"X
Repair Repeat Report Rate MR-r X
Trouble Rate MR-8'X
BILLING
Time to Provide Recorded Usage Records BI-1 X
Biling Accuracy-Adiustments for Errors BI-3 X
NEnNORK PERFORMANCE
Trunk Blocking NI-1 X
a. PO-3 is limited to PO-3X.
b. PO-6 is included with PO-7X as one "family." Measurements within that family share a single payment
increment or performance credit opportunity, with only the measurement having the highest payment
being used to generate a payment increment or performance credit.
c. OP-4 is included with OP-6 as one "family." Measurements within each family share a single payment
opportunity, with only the measurement having the highest payment being used to generate a
payment increment or performance credit.
d. For purposes of QPAP II, OP-6A and OP-6B wil be combined and treated as one.
e. Applicable only to xDSL-1 capable loops.
f. Excludes the following service/element disaggregations as applicable to this PID: Resale Centrex,
Resale Centrex 21, Resale DSO (non-designed), Resale DSO (designed), Resale DSO, E911/911
Trunks, Resale Frame Relay, Resale Basic ISDN (non-designed), Resale Basic ISDN (designed),
Resale Basic ISDN, Resale Primary ISDN (non-designed), Resale Primary ISDN (designed), Resale
Primary ISDN, Resale PBX (non-designed), Resale PBX (designed), Resale PBX, Sub-Loop
Unbundling, UNE-P (POTS), UNE-P (Centrex), and UNE-P (Centrex 21).
Qwest Performance Assurance Plan II - Idaho (QPAP II)
Attachment 2 - Payment Levels
Exhibi t No. i
Case No. QWE-T- 08 - 04
M. Williams, Qwest
Attachment 2, p. 1 of i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby cerify that a tre and correct copy of the foregoing Direct Testimony and
Exhibit of Michael G. Wilams was served on the 30th day of July, 2010 on the following
individuals:
Jean D. Jewell
Weldon B. Stutzman
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, il 83702
i j ewell(fuc. state.id. us
Weldon. Stutzman(ipuc.idaho. gov
i Hand Delivery
U. S. Mail
Overnght Delivery
Facsimile
Email
Douglas K, Denney
Integra Telecom, Inc.
1201 Lloyd Blvd., Suite 500
Portland, OR 97232
dkdenney(iintegratelecom.com
Michel Singer Nelson
Associate General Counsel
360networks (USA) Inc.
370 Interlocken Blvd., Suite 600
Broomfeld, CO 80021
mnelson(âl360 .net
Gregory L. Rogers
Senior Corporate Counsel
Level 3 Communcations LLC
1025 Eldorado Boulevard
Broomfeld, CO 80021
greg.rogers(ileve13 .com
Hand DeliveryiU. S. Mail
Overnght Delivery
FacsimileiEmail
Hand DeliveryiU. S. Mail
Overnght Delivery
FacsimileiEmail
Hand Delivery~U. S. Mail
Overnght Delivery
Facsimile~Email
/ÚtV1Jg¡l~
Mary S. Hob on
Attorney for Qwest Corporation