The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090911Reply Comments.pdfriegra TELECOM RECE;\\fEn lßnq St.\' \ \ ~M 9i 04 \0. ti.LlO' PUß'.L'.P.'~,,;\O:-.l,,0 !\"'\t;~\ p Ut\\JtH:S CO¡¡\\'1 v'- Integra Telecom 6160 Golden Hills Drive Golden Valley, MN 55416 ww.integratelecom.com September 10, 2009 Jean D. Jewell, Secreta Idaho Public Utilties Commission 472 West Washington Boise, ID 83702-5983 Via Email: jean.jewell(guc.idaho.gov and Via Overnight Delivery Re: In the matter of the Petition of Qwest corporation Requesting Authorization to Withdraw its Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions Docket No. QWE-T-08-04 Dear Ms. Jewell: Enclosed for filing are the original and seven copies of the Reply Comments of Integra Telecom in connection with the above-referenced matter. Also enclosed is a Certificate of Service. Sincerely,~~K.W~ Legal and Regulatory Administrator Integra Telecom 763-745-8468 (Direct) 763-745-8459 (Dept. Fax) KÍm. Wagner(iintegratelecom.com Enclosures cc: See Attched Certificate of Service CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE R~Cr: \\/i: n,t: t:, .~. inß9 St.\' \ l AM 9i 04 i do hereby certify that a tre and correct copy of the foregoing Reply CommeGtsc1 '\ '" ofIntegra Telecom was served on the 10th day of September, 2009 on the fol.cdlÅMrŠ~i\ONindividuals: UTlU Via E-mail and Overnight Mail Jean D. Jewell Idaho PUC 472 West Washington Street P. O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83702 Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Mar S. Hobson 999 Main, Suite 1103 Boise,ID 83702 Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Adam L. Sherr Corporate Counsel Qwest Corporation 1600 7th Avenue, Room 3206 Seattle, W A 98191 Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Michel Singer-Nelson Associate General Counsel 360networks 867 Coal Creek Circle, Suite 160 Louisvile, CO 80027 Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Greg Rogers Level 3 1025 Eldorado Boulevard Broomfield, CO 80021 Dated: September 10,2009.~~ Legal and Regulatory Administrator BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RECE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF QWEST CORPORATION REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO WITHDRAW ITS STATEMENT OF GENERALY AVAILABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ) ) ) ) ) ) iong SEP " AM 9: 05 CASE NO. QWE-T-08-01DAHO PU~UC,..,. .'; UTILITIES COMMISt1101",REPLY COMMENTS OF INTEGRA TELECOM Integra Telecom of Idaho, Inc.; Electric Lightwave, LLC dba Integra Telecom; and Eschelon Telecom, Inc. dba Integra Telecom (collectively referred to as "Integra")l respectfully submits these comments in reply to Qwest's Comments filed August 14, 2009.i Introduction Integra is a facilities-based competitive local exchange carer ("CLEC") that provides integrated voice and data communications services to small and medium-sized businesses in 13 western states, including Idaho. Integra relies extensively on unbundled network elements ("UNEs") purchased from Qwest. 3 Integra combines these network elements purchased from Qwest with Integra's own facilties in order to serve its end user customers. In almost all cases where Integra purchases unbundled facilties from Qwest, there are no wholesale alternatives to the Qwestnetwork. As a result, the service quality of facilities purchased from Qwest has a direct impact on the service quaity Integra is able to provide to its customers and is therefore essential to Integra's success in the telecommunications market. Qwest is not only Integra's largest wholesale provider of network facilties, but also Qwest is Integra's largest competitor. Qwest's dichotomous role as the predomiate provider of both wholesale and retail services makes service quaity stadards, which in many cases are party with Qwest's retal performance, essential to assure Qwest does not leverage its position to eliminate competitors such as Integra from the market. Qwest's most recent proposal Qwest Performance Assurance Plan - 2 ("QPAP-2") to render wholesale service quality standards meanngless4 is il-timed5 and unacceptable. Qwest's 2 Eletric Lightwave, LLC dba Integr Telecom ("ELI") curently serves customers in Idao and is curently negotiating a new interconnection agreement ("ICA") with Qwest. Comments of Qwest Corporation, In Re Withdrwal of Qwest Coroporation's Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions, Case No. QWE-T-08-04, August 14,2009 ("Qwests PAP Comments"). This is tre of CLECs in general that serve business customers. See, for example, Comments of Colorado Public Utilties Commission, In the Matter of Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance Pusuant to 47 U.S.C. §160(c) in the Denver, Colorado Metropolita Statistical Area, WC Docket No. 07-97, August 31,2007 ("Commission Forbearace Comments"), pp.28-29. Qwests refers to its new proposal as Qwest Performance Assurce Plan - 2 ("QPAP-2"). See Qwests PAP Comments, pp. 28-33 and Attchment B to those comments. Integra uses Qwests term only as a reference device, so common terminology is used. Integr disagrees that Qwests proposal assures performance and, therefore, the proposal should not substatively be considered as a "QPAP." 3 4 September 10, 2009 Page 2 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 proposal eliminates most performance measures, significantly reduces the products considered with each measure, substatially weakens the stadards to which Qwest is held accountable, eviscerates accountabilty in instances when Qwest fails to meet its proposed weakened stadards, and reduces the reporting of substandard behavior from monthly6 to quaerly. 7 Qwests proposed QPAP-2 sets the service quaity bar so low as to essentially eliminate wholesale service quality obligations entirely. The QPAP Continues to be Necessary for a Successful Competitive Market Qwest argues that the Idaho Qwest Performance Assurance Plan ("QP AP" or "PAP") has "fulfilled its purose,"s but provides no evidence that this is the case, instead argues that the QP AP document itself does not contan a stated purose;9 the QP AP was not a requiement of the FCC;IO Qwest voluntaily agreed to the QPAP;ll there is no indication that any pary believed QP AP would be in place indefinitely; 12 and that though PAPs were "pro-competitive measures,,,13 they are no longer necessar since "Qwest and the CLECs are aligned in their competitive battle with cable and wireless competitors. .. ,,14 None of these statements demonstrate that the QP AP is no longer necessar. In fact, Qwests claims are contrar to the recent comments of Commissions in the Qwest region in response to Qwest s request for UNE forbearance. 15 For example, the Colorado Commission recognzed that Qwest has a "virt 5 As Qwest obtains greater deregulation in its retail markets, the importce of Qwest s PAP grows in order to ensure Qwest is not able to leverage its dichotomous role as the predominate provider of both wholesale and retail services. QPAP Documentation, § 14.1. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, § 3.2. Qwest PAP Comments, p. 19. Qwest PAP Comments, p. 18. Qwest PAP Comments, pp. 2-3. Qwest PAP Comments, pp. 4-5. Qwest PAP Comments, p. 3. Qwest PAP Comments, p. 3. Qwest PAP Comments, p. 26. Comments of the Colorado Public Utilties Commission, In the Matter of Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearace Pusuant to 47 U.S.C. §160(c) in the Denver, Colorado, Mineapolis-St. Paul, Minesota, Seattle, Washington and Phoenix, Arzona Metropolita Statistical Areas, WC Docket No. 07-97, August 31, 2007 ("Colorado Commission Forbearance Comments"); Initial comments of the Arna Corporation Commission, In the Matter of Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearce Pursuat to 47 U.S.C. §160(c) in the Denver, Colorado, Mineapolis-St. Paul, Minesota Seattle, Washington and Phoenix, Arizona Metropolita Statistical Areas, WC Docket No. 07-97, August 31, 2007; Comments of the Washington Utilties and Trasporttion Commission, In the Matter of Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearce Pursuat to 47 U.S.C. §160(c) in the Denver, Colorado, Mineapolis- St. Paul, Minesota, Seattle, Washington and Phoenix, Arizona Metropolita Statistical Areas, WC Docket No. 07-97, August 31, 2007; and Ex Pare Comments of the Minnesota Public Utilties Commission, In the Matter of Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance Pusuant to 47 U.S.C. §160(c) in the Denver, Colorado, Mineapolis-St. Paul, Minesota, Seattle, Washington and Phoenix, Arzona Metropolita Statistical Areas, WC Docket No. 07-97, Febru 8, 2008. 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 September 10,2009 Page 3 Case No. QWE- T -08-04 monopoly in the wholesale market,,16 and that barers to entry in the market are as formidable today as they were in 1996. i 7 As a result, the Colorado Commission determined that UNEs are a "necessar cog to cultivate competition,,18 and urged the FCC to tae a granular approach in reviewing Qwest's request,19 a request that Qwest subsequently withdrew. The Colorado Commission concluded that "eliminating the unbundling requirement canot have the effect of increasing competition, but rather may in fact theaten the existence of many of the competitive alternatives available to business customers served by CLECs in the curent environment.,,2o These conclusions are similar to those reached by the other state Commissions where Qwest sought UNE forbearance and are consistent with the conclusion reached in the Liberty Consulting Report, which found that the Pedormance Assurance Plan ("PAP"), a crucial component of UNEs, is essential to telecommunications competition in Idaho and the Qwest region.21 The FCC views "the existence of a satisfactory pedormance monitoring and enforcement mechansm... as probative evidence that the BOC will continue to meet its section 271 obligations afer a grant of such authority.,,22 Furer, the FCC concluded that the QPAP provides "assurance tht the local market will remain open afer Qwest receives section 271 authorization... ,,23 The PAP was designed to address service quality issues; protect CLEC customers; provide mechanisms protecting Qwest s interests while recognzing the benefit to Qwest of gaining 271 authority; and save time and resources of all paries, including the Commssion and Commission staff. In light of the reguatory changes tang place to both the retail and wholesale telecommuncations markets in Idaho, the importce of the QP AP is greater today than ever before. As ths Commission is aware, the FCC's decisions in its trennal review of section 251 unbundling obligations has eliminated obligations of Qwest and other RBOCs to provide certn wholesale servces to CLECs at forward-looking economic COSt.24 These reduced obligations 16 Colorado Commission Forbearance Comments, p. 17. Colorado Commission Forbearance Comments, p. 9. Colorado Commission Forbearance Comments, p. 32. Colorado Commission Forbearance Comments, p. 33. Colorado Commission Forbearance Comments, p. 32. Analysis of Qwests Performance Assurce Plans Final Report Prepared for: The Qwest Regional Oversight Committee, by Libert Consulting Group, June 30, 2009 ("Libert Consulting Report"), p. 4. Memorandum Opinion and Order, In the Matter of Application by Qwest Communications International, Inc. for Authorization To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in the States of Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montaa, Nebraska, Nort Dakota, Uta, Washington and Wyoming, WC Docket No. 02 - 314, Adopted December 20, 2002, ,r 440. ¡d.,r 440 See Report and Order and Order on Remand and Futher Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Review of the Section 25 i Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Cariers; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of i 996; and Deployment of Wireline Services Offerig Advanced Telecommunications Capabilty, CC Docket No. 01-338,96-98 and 98-147, released August 21,2003 ("TRO order") and, Order on Remand, In the Matter of Unbundled Access to Network Elements; and Review of the Section 25 i Unbundling Obligations of 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 September 10, 2009 Page 4 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 include high capacity loops in some Qwest centr offices along with certn dedicated transport routes between Qwest offces. Where a CLEC can no longer purchase or access unbundled facilties from Qwest, Qwest has indicated that the protections of the QP AP surounding these facilties would no longer apply. In addition the FCC's TRRO order eliminated the availability of UNE-P effective March 11, 2006. As a result, most CLECs have opted into Qwests commercial UNE-P replacement offering called QPP. This agreement specifically calls for the elimination of protections provided to CLECs - and the payments paid by Qwest -- under the QPAP relating to UNE-P like services.25 Though signficant protections aforded by the QP AP remain, the plan has clearly weakened in the light of regulatory changes surounding the TRO and TRRO orders by the FCC. This, in combination with regulatory relief on Qwest retal services, increases Qwests incentives to exploit its position as the primar wholesale provider to its competitors in order to gain advantage in the market place. This increased incentive to behave in a competitively unai maner is why the QP AP is even more crucial today than it ever has been. The Colorado Commission staff came to similar conclusions as par of the PAP docket in Colorado where Qwest made similar arguents as it has made in Idaho. The Commission staff noted, ''''Qwests position is sumed up in the first sentence of its initial comments as follows: 'The CP AP has fulfilled its purose, and there remains no basis in law or regulation for this Commission to mandate its continued existence.' Staff s position is prett much the opposite and can be sumed up as follows: The CP AP continues to serve its intended purose and the Commission has the legal authority and reguatory basis upon which to order its continuation. 1126 The PAP and associated Performance Indicator Definitions ("PIDs") are paricularly essential because the expense of fiing a Commission complaint for each individual service quaity problem would greatly exceed the cost of the paricular individual problem, while the cumulative significant adverse affect of poor service quaity would be harfu to CLECs and competition. Therefore, the expense of litigating individual issues deters a CLEC's abilty to obtan a remedy for those Qwest service quaity problems. The self-executing natue of remedies in the plan was one factor that the FCC relied upon to address ths problem and ensure an open local market. 27 25 Incumbent Local Exchange Cariers, WC Docket No. 04-313 and CC Docket No. 01-338, released Februar 4,2005 ("TRRO order"). See Qwests Master Services Agreement for QPP section 4.6, htt://www.qwest.com/wholesale/downloads/2005/050504/0PPMSATemplate V3 042605Final.doc. Sta of the commission's Reply Comments on the Six-Year Review Report, In the Matter of Qwest Corporation's Colorado Performance Assurce Plan, Docket No. 02M-259T, August 24, 2009, ("Colorado Commission Staff Comments"), p. 2. Memorandum Opinion and Order, In the Matter of Application by Qwest Communications International, Inc. for Authorition To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in the States of Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montaa, Nebraska, Nort Dakota, Uta, Washington and Wyoming, WC Docket No. 02 - 314, Adopted December 20,2002, ,r 442 ("FCC 271 Approval Order"). 26 27 September 10, 2009 Page 5 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 The Commission has Authority over the QPAP and Changes to the QP AP Qwest's PAP Comments also argue that there is no legal basis to require the QPAP?S Qwest argues that because the QPAP was put into place as a result of Qwests Section 271 application, that state Commission regulation of the QP AP is tataount to state Commission regulation of Section 271 of the Act, which Qwest claims the cours have prohibited the states from regulating.29 Qwest also suggests that because Qwest voluntarily agreed to the terms of the QP AP in order to gain entr into InterLAT A long distance telephone market, Qwest can now un- volunteer.3o These arguments are wrong. First, it is undisputed that, when CLECs elect to paricipate in the QPAP, it becomes a par of their interconnection agreement.31 Interconnection agreements are clearly under the jurisdiction of, and enforceable by, this Commission. Second, the fact that an agreement may be "voluntar" does not reduce the applicabilty or enforceability of the agreement. Section 252(a)(I) of the Act expressly recognizes that interconnection agreements may be arived at through voluntar negotiations. Third, Qwest cites no cour that has ruled state Commissions do not have authority over performance assurance plans. The only cases cited by Qwest dealt with whether State Commissions had Section 252 arbitration authority over 271 network elements, which is not an issue here. No case dealt with whether Commissions have authority over service quaity standards for 252 unbundled network elements. For example, the cour in the Arizona case cited by Qwest sumed up the case's procedural history, stating: The ACC's order interpreted the Section 252 approval process as authorizing it to require that Section 271 elements be placed in arbitrated interconnection agreements. The ACC also held it had "jurisdiction to impose unbundling requirements under Arizona law that the (FCC's) TRO or (the D.C. Circuit's) USTA II decisions strck down." Finally, the ACC ruled that the previous ACC- approved cost-based rates would remain in effect for Section 271 elements pending a fuher proceeding within 30 days to set "just and reasonable rates consistent with state and federal law. ,,32 The issue before the Commission in this proceeding is whether Section 251 elements that are subject to the QPAP should remain subject to the QPAP. The development of the QPAP in the context of Qwest's request for 271 authority to enter the long distace market has no bearing on whether Section 251 UNEs that are subject to measurement should remain subject to measurement. This proceeding does not deal with unbundling requirements that have been struck down or with what rates may be applied. Consistent with the position that the above- quoted case did not affect its jurisdiction over the PAP, the Arizona Commission continues to oversee the Arizona P Ap33 and was a member of the ROC collaborative34 that hired Liberty Consulting, which resulted in the Liberty Consulting Report. 28 33 Qwest PAP Comments, pp. 9-15. Qwest PAP Comments, pp. 12-15. Qwest PAP Comments, p. 9. Performance Assurance Plan ("PAP Documentation"), Exhibit K, June 26, 2007,§ 13.2. Qwes! v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 567 F.3d 1118, at p. *4 (9th Cir. 2009). For example, at Qwest's request the Commission approved a settlement reach between Qwest and CLECs regarding the PAP and associated PIDs. See Decision No. 70386, In the matter of Qwest Corporation's Performance Assurance Plan, Docket No. T-0105IB-03-0859, June 13,2008. 29 30 31 32 September 10, 2009 Page 6 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Finally, the terms of the QPAP itself -- which Qwest agreed to in its interconnection agreements ("ICAs") with cariers -- detail precisely the Commission's authority to oversee the QPAP, including its expansion. For example, Section 16.0 of the PAP Documentation outlines the mechansm by which changes can be made to the QP AP, and indicates that changes will be . approved by the Commission.35 The first paragraph of the PAP Documentation states: "As set fort in this Agreement, Qwest and CLEC voluntaily agree to the terms of the following Performance Assurance Plan ('PAP'), initially prepared in conjunction with Qwest's application for approval under Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 'Act') to offer in- region long distace service and subsequently modifed in accordance with the Commission's orders and, where applicable, by operation of law.,,36 This express provision of the PAP clearly recognizes the Commission's continued jurisdiction and role in any modifications to the PAP. The PAP, including this language, is par of the Qwest-Integra interconnection agreement ("ICA") in Idaho, which is approved and enforceable by this Commission. Liberty Consulting Report Qwest also argues that the Liberty Consultin~ Report is "compromised,,3? and has "side- tracked" an appropriate review of Qwest's PAP. 8 Qwest argues that because the review performed by Liberty Consulting does not fit within the review contemplated by section 16.3 of the PAP, the Liberty Consulting Report canot be used.39 Agencies, such as ths Commission, have the ability and discretion to evaluate evidence and comments filed in this docket and assign them the weight it deems appropriate. This Commission was one of 11 state Commissions which authorized the Libert Consulting Report.40 This Commission has a long history with Qwest's PAP and is in an excellent position to evaluate the document and determine the weight of information provided in the report. In addition, the Commission has long made decisions in this docket based upon comments by varous paries. The Liberty Consulting Report clearly states the evidence on which it relied and the process it took to arive at its recommendations.41 Paries are free to argue with the report's methodology or conclusions. Qwest argues that the Liberty Consulting Report addresses the wrong question because it doesn't use the explicit words contained in section 16.3 of the PAP. Section 16.3 states: Qwest wil make the PAP available for CLEC interconnection agreements until such time as Qwest eliminates its Section 272 affliate. At that time, the Commission and Qwest shall review the appropriateness of the PAP and 34 39 Libert Consulting Report, p. 8. See, for example, PAP Documentation, § 16.1.3. PAP Documentation, § 1.1. (emphasis added) Qwests PAP Comments, p. 19. Qwests PAP Comments, p. 5. Qwest's PAP Comments, p. 7. Note, Integra does not agree with Qwests claims. Sixth Year Review Report, p. 8. Sixth Year Review Report, pp. 8-9, and 15-23. 35 36 37 38 40 41 September 10, 2009 Page 7 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 whether its continuation is necessary. However, in the event Qwest exits the interLATA market, that State PAP shall be rescinded immediately. 42 However, the Liberty Consulting directly addressed this issue, determining that, "despite the improvement in Qwest's performance and reduction in PAP payments, the PAP incentive continues to be important in helping to ensure that Qwest s performance level does not deteriorate, because Qwest's wholesale services remain critical for the CLECs stil relying on them. ,,43 The report also looked to determine what submeasures, in addition to the Tier lA submeasures, should continue as par of the P Ap44 and made numerous additional recommendations to remove measures from the PAP.45 To make a conclusion that certain measures are no longer needed or that additional measures are waranted, directly answers whether the curent PAP is necessar and appropriate. The Colorado Commission Staff, in reviewing the issue regarding the Liberty Consulting Report agrees that the Liberty Consulting Report is relevant stating, "Qwest s assertion that Liberty lacks standing to assist the Commission in such review by preparing a report is absurd. ,,46 This Commission should consider the Liberty Consulting Report in this docket and give it the weight the Commission deems appropriate. The Commission should not ignore this report created specifically to address Qwest's state PAPs any more than it would ignore the comments of any pary in this case. Qwest's QPAP-2 Proposal is Wholly Inadequate Qwest's proposal reduces 53 performance measures to 6, reduces the products considered with each measure to 4 (from as high as 40), weakens the standards to which Qwest is held accountable, eliminates accountabilty in instances when Qwest fails to meet its proposed weakened stadards, and reduces the reporting from monthly to quarterly. Qwests proposed QPAP-2 sets the service quality stadards so low that, combined with what is effectively no enforcement of the standards, would render wholesale service quality meaningless. The table below sumarizes the comparson of Qwest's new proposal with the curent PAP. Table 1: QP AP and QP AP-2 High Level Comparison Current Qwest PAP Proposed PAP (QPAP)(QPAP-2) Measures 53 6 Products Up to 40 4 42 45 PAP Documentation, § 16.3. Sixth Year Review Report, p. 4. Sixth Year Review Report, p. 90. Sixth Year Review Report, pp. 66-75,78-81,86 and 88. Colorado Commission Staff Comments, pp. 5-6. 43 44 46 September 10, 2009 Page 8 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Reporting Monthly Quaerly Accountabilty $none / Enforcement Qwests proposed QPAP-2 would replace the automatic incentive mechansms associated with the QP AP with 3 response levels that depend on the duration of substadad performance. Because Qwests QPAP-2 proposal changes what is curently reported on a monthly basis to quarerly,47 the earliest Qwest would begin to act on substadard performance is 5 months after substadard performance begins. For example, quaerly reporting in combination with Qwests proposed response level 1 - 3 consecutive months of missed performance 48 -- means that Qwest wil not even begin to address service quaity issues49 until the 5th month afer a problem. Qwest's description of Response Level 1 gives Qwest yet another month to respond to the problem. 50 Qwest's response is described in 21 lines,51 13 of which are dedicated to ways Qwest can show that the missed performance is not Qwest's fault.52 Qwest's response does not commt to resolving the issue by the end of the 5th month, 53 but merely to engage "in a good-faith effort to mitigate or resolve the issue.,,54 Response Level 2 as proposed by Qwest is trggered, in most cases, by 5 consecutive months of substandad performance. 55 Because of quaerly reporting, Qwest may not initiate ths response level until the 7th month. Ths level calls for Qwest to re-evaluate its response under Level 1, check again to determne whether Qwest can claim that poor performance is not the fault of Qwest,56 and "escalate the matter internally to vice president (VP) level for additional attention, priority and support.',57 At ths level, Qwest will also begin to "tae into consideration applicable observations and comments received from CLECs.',58 Response Level 3 as proposed by Qwest is triggered by 7 consecutive months of substandard performance. Again, because of quarerly reporting, Qwest may not initiate ths response level until the 11 th month afer substadard service quaity begins. Ths level, which is the "highest level of attention,,59 again calls for Qwest to look for ways to explain why the 47 Qwests Qwest Proposed QPAP-2, p. 1, § 3.2. Qwest wil post these quarerly results "by the fist business day of the second calendar month in the next calenda quarer." § 3.2. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 4, § 4.3, Table 3. Qwests initial efforts to address servce quality issues is identified as Response LevelL. See § 5.3.1. Qwest Proposed QPAP-2, § 5.3.1. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 5. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 5, §§ 5.3.1.1.1 & 2. Qwest only commits to reporting on the issue by the end of the 5th month. See § 5.3.1. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 5, § 5.3.1.2.2. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 4, § 4.3, Table 3. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 5, § 5.3.2.1. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 5, § 5.3.2.1.2. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 5, § 5.3.2.1.. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 6, § 5.3.3. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 September 10, 2009 Page 9 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 substadard performance is not Qwest's fault.6o It also calls for another "internal Vice President- level review,,,61 and in addition, "Qwest will offer to have a Qwest Vice President... hold a conference call with representatives of the affected/interested CLECs to review the Action Plan, additional steps being taen, and the expected timeframes.,,62 Qwest will also provide "up to bi- weekly... web postings,... emails, or conference calls.,,63 There is no Qwest commitment that any of these communications will result in correction of the service quality problem. There are numerous problems with this proposal. First, Qwest has removed the automatic incentive mechanisms that have been in place and are workig since Qwest s long distance approval. Even Qwest s commercial agreements and UNE replacement products contain some incentives when Qwest fails to meet certain stadards. 64 Second, Qwest has removed all but a handful of performance measures.65 Third, as discussed below, Qwest has eliminated all but 4 products to which these measures apply. Fifth, as discussed below, Qwest has generally weakened the performance standard, making it much more likely that Qwest s performance would pass the stadard. Sixth, Qwest s proposed time frames are longer than those available to CLECs curently for escalation of such issues to Qwest upper management. As par of re-design of Qwest's Change Management Process ("CMP"),66 Qwest committed to allow CLECs to escalate service issues though a service management escalation process that includes Vice President level Qwest employees at any time.67 Although CLECs have had this abilty at least since it was documented in 2002, it did not reduce or eliminate the need for the 60 Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 6, § 5.3.3.1. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 6, § 5.3.3.1. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 6, § 5.3.3.1.2. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 6, § 5.3.3.1.. For example, Interstate Private Line circuits waive installation charges when a installation commitment is missed (FCC #1 5.2.1.C) and refud a portion of the cost of the service when the product is out of service (FCC #1 7.1.2.G). See the discussion below regarding Qwest s six proposed performance indicators. Qwests witness testified in the Colorado Qwest-Eschelon ICA arbitrtion (Docket No. 06B-497T): "The CMP was evaluated as a par of the extensive section 271 investigation." Hrg. Ex. NO.3 (Qwest Ms. Albersheim Direct), p. 5, line 20 (Dec. 15,2006). She indicated the "redesign" ofCMP occured in 2002, id. p. 25, line 20, and acknowledged that Eschelon was an active paricipant in CMP redesign, id p. 21, lines 1-5. A document entitled "Qwest Service Center and Manager Roles in Relation to CMP - Revised 06-06-02" was developed in CMP Redesign (see, e.g., discussion in CMP Redesign minutes from the April 2-4, 2002 meeting regarding Attchment 7). Qwest was required to make this document available on itswebsite. See htt:/ /gwestcommunications.net/wholesale/ downloads/2002/020729/QwestServiceCenterManagerRolesR elationtoCMP06-06-02.doc. The document reflects Qwests commitment in CMP redesign that CLECs may escalate service and compliance issues through the service management escalation process. That process reflects Qwests commitment that CLECs may escalate to Qwests vice president leveL. See htt://www.gwest.comlwholesale/clecs/exescover.html. And, CLECs may go to the VP level at any time. In CMP redesign, when Qwest made commitments to obtain 271 approval, Qwest committed that CLECs may escalate any issue, at any time, for any reason. Qwest documented that commitment on its website, which states: "Escalations can be initiated for any issue, at anytime, and at any escalation point." See htt://www.gwest.comlwholesale/clecs/exescover.html. Therefore, CLECs may curently escalate imediately to the VP level escalation point as needed, in stak contrast to the delays inerent in Qwests QPAP-2 proposaL. 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 September 10, 2009 Page 10 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 QP AP durng that time, just as it does not reduce or eliminate the need for the QP AP today. Protracted discussions at the VP level do not replace automatic enforcement mechanisms. Finally, the time frames in which Qwest will respond to service quality issues is extraordinarly long68 and would have a debiltating effect on CLECs and their end user customers. Not only are Qwests response times extraordinarly long, in Integra's experience, raising an issue to Qwests vice president level hardly guaantees an issue will be addressed. For example, Attachment 1 to these Reply comments describes a service quaity issue, stil unesolved, that Integra first raised with Qwest before October of 2007.69 This issue involved provisioning and repair issues for certain digital loops that Integra purchases from Qwest for the purose of providing advanced services to end user customers. Despite clear languge in the FCC orders and rues,70 provision to Qwest of relevant terms of interconnection agreements, use of Qwests CMP (where Qwest denied Integra's requests), and vice president involvement over a period of years, this issue has not been resolved. Idaho end user customers and competition, in addition to CLECs, are adversely impacted when service quality issues remain unesolved over long periods of time. Description of Six Proposed Measures Below is a description of each of Qwest s six proposed performance measures, and a comparson with the curent measure contaned in the QPAP. FOC - Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) Timeliness Qwests proposed measure FOC compares to PO-5 in the QPAP. PO-5 measures the "timeliness with which Qwest retus Firm Order Confrmations (FOCs) to CLECs in response to LSRs/ASRs received from CLECs.,,71 Whle ths measure includes all orders, FOC is limited to "electronically-received, manually-processed"n FOCs. PO-5 was reported for 4 products, with 3 disaggregations,73 while FOC is reported on a statewide basis with no disaggregations.74 68 Qwest refers to its response as "proactive" (Qwests PAP Comments, p. 4). Attachment A shows that Qwests response is, at best, reactive. Note that Attchment 1 only documents events after Integra's purchase of Eschelon (August 2007). This issue was raised by Integra to Qwest management prior to Integr's purchase of the Eschelon properties. E.g., TRO footnote 1925 to ~ 635 ("Specifically, in the UNE Remand Order, the Commission held that incumbent LECs must remove certain devices, such as bridge taps, low-pass filters, and range extenders, from basic copper loops in order to enable the requesting carrier to offer advanced services. UN Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3775, par. 172.") (emphasis added); FCC TRO at ~ 7, p. 14, 2nd bullet (The ILEC's unbundling obligation includes conditioning loops "for the provision of digital subscriber line (xDSL) services."); TRO ~ 642 ("CLECs are "impaied" without access to unbundled "xDSL- capable stad-alone copper loops"); see also 47 C.F.R. §51.19(a)(l)(ii)(A) (defming line conditioning); 47 C.F.R. §51.19(a)(l)(ii)(C) (ILEC "may not restrict its testing to voice trsmission only"). Service Performance Indicator Defmitions (PID), 14 State 271 PID Version 9.0, Exhbit B, June 26, 2007, ("PID Documentation"), p. 14. Qwest Proposed QPAP-2, p. 8 The disaggegations are fully electronic, electronic/manual, and manual. PID Documentation, p. 14. Qwest Proposed QP AP-2, p. 8. 69 70 71 72 73 74 September 10, 2009 Page 11 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 PO-SB 75 measures the percent of FOCs received withn 24 hours for unbundled loops (2/4 wire analog), FOCs received within 48 hours for DS 1 EELs, and FOCs received within 72 hours for 2/4 wire non-loaded loops and DSI 100ps.76 PO-SB contains a benchmark of 90%.77 Qwest's Proposed QP AP-2 FOC weakens the PO-S standard by measurg the number of FOCs for unbundled loops and DSI EELs received within 72 hours with a benchmark of 90%. Qwests performance over the rast year for PO_SB78 was 99.4% with the lowest month having a performance of 98.7%.7 The table below sumarizes the comparson of the curent stadard to Qwest's proposed stadard. Table 2: Firm Order Confirmation Timeliness Comparison Summary Plan QPAP QPAP-2 Name PO-S FOC Terms All Orders Electronically received, manually processed Products 4 1 Disaggregations 3 1 Measure .analog loops within .analog loops withn 24 24 hours hours.EELs within 48 hours .EELs within 72 hours.non-loaded loops and .non-loaded loops and DS 1 loops withn 72 DS 1 loops within 72 hours hours Benchmark 90%90% Performance $$$None Incentives Actul Average 99.4% Performance (8/09- 7/09) ICOM ~ Installation Commitments Met Qwests proposed measure ICOM compares to OP-3 in the PAP. This measure "evaluates the extent to which Qwest instals services for Customers by the scheduled due date.,,8o OP-3 applies to 40 products81 while ICOM applies to only 4 (Unbundled Loop-Analog, 75 76 The results from this category most closely align with Qwests new measure. Note that PO-5B contains other product categories within its measure besides just loops and EELs. PID Documentation, pp. 15. Loops and EELs are combined in a single measure. Performance Results, Idaho August 2008 - July 2009, August 16, 2009, ("Idao PID Results"), p. 31. PID Documentation, p. 35. PID Documentation, pp. 36-37. 77 78 79 80 81 September 10,2009 Page 12 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Unbundled Loop-2-Wire Non-Loaded, Unbundled Loop-DSI-capable and EEL-DSi).82 The OP-3 contans 5 product disaggregation reports,83 while ICOM is reported only statewide.84 OP- 3 has a 90% benchmark for 2-wire loops and DS 1 EELs, while DS 1 loops are measured at par~ with Qwest's private line service.85 ICOM has a weaker, 80% stadard for all products. 6 Qwests actual average pedormance over the past year for OP-3 was 97.3% for analog loops with a minimum monthy pedormance of 94.3%;8799.7% for non-loaded loops with a monthy minimum of 90.9%;88 97.1 % for DS 1 loops with a minimum monthly of 88.1 %;89 and 95.1 % for DS 1 EELs with a monthly minimum of 66.7%.90 Qwests proposed ICOM measure not only reduced the products to which the measure applies, but significantly reduces the standad to a level so far below Qwest s curent pedormance to render the stadard essentially meanngless. The table below sumarzes the comparson of the curent standard to Qwest s proposed stadard. Table 3: Installation Commitments Met Comparison Summary Plan QPAP QPAP-2 Name OP-3 ICOM Products 40 4 Disaggregations 5 1 Measure .90% benchmark for .80% benchmark for analog loops analog loops.90% benchmark for .80% benchmark for non- non-loaded loops loaded loops.90% benchmark for EEL .80% benchmark for EEL.Retail party measure for .80% benchmark for DS 1 DSI loops loops Pedormance $$$None Incentives Actu Average .Analog loop 97.3% Pedormance (8/09-.Non-loaded loop 99.7% 7/09).EEL 95.1%.DS1 loop 97.1% 82 Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 10. PID Documentation, p. 35. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 10. PID Documentation, pp. 36-37. Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 10. Idao PID Results, pp. 46 and 5 i. Idaho PID Results, pp. 47 and 53. Idao PID Results, pp. 47 and 53. Idao PID Results, pp. 48 and 54. 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 September 10,2009 Page 13 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 INST - Order Installation Interval Qwests proposed measure INST compares to OP-4 in the PAP. Ths measure "evaluates the timeliness of Qwest s instalation services for customers, focusing on the average time to instal service.,,91 OP-4 applies to 40 products92 while INST applies to only 4 (Unbundled Loop- Analog, Unbundled Loop-2-Wire Non-Loaded, Unbundled Loop-DSI-capable and EEL-DSi).93 The OP-4 contans 5 product disaggregation reports,94 while INST is reported only statewide.95 OP-4 has a benchmark of 6 days for analog loops, non-loaded loops, and DSI EELs and a party measure for DSI 100ps.96 INST also has a 6 day benchmark for analog loops, but is measured on parity for the other product categories.97 Qwest's actual average performance over the past year for OP-4 was 5.00 for analog loops with a maximum monthly performance of 5.36;98 2.57 for non-loaded loops with a monthly maximum of 5.00;99 8.69 for DSI loops with a maximum monthly of 10.83; 100 and 4.93 for DS 1 EELs with a monthy maximum of 9.67.101 It is unclear whether Qwests proposed INST measure reduces the performance stadard, as Qwest changes most of these measures to retail party and provides no information regarding retail performance. The table below sumarzes the comparson of the curent stadard to Qwest's proposed standard. 91 PID Documentation, p. 38. 92 PID Documentation, pp. 39-40. 93 Qwest s Proposed QP AP-2, p. 1 i. 94 PID Documentation, p. 38. 95 Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 11. 96 PID Documentation, pp. 39-40. 97 Qwests Proposed QPAP-2, p. 11. 98 Idaho PID Results, pp. 60 and 64. 99 Idao PID Results, pp. 60 and 64. 100 Idao PID Results, pp. 59 and 63. 101 Idaho PID Results, pp. 61 and 65. September 10, 2009 Page 14 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Table 4: Order Installation Interval Comparison Summary Plan QPAP QPAP-2 Name OP-4 INST Products 40 4 Disaggregations 5 1 Measure .6 day benchmark for .6 day benchmark for analog loops analog loops.6 day benchmark for .Retail parity measure non-loaded loops for non-loaded loops.6 day benchmark for .Retail parity measure EEL for EEL .Retail party measure .Retal party measure for DS 1 loops for DS 1 loops Pedormance $$$None Incentives Actul Average .Analog loop 5.00 Pedormance (8/09-.Non-loaded loop 2.57 7/09).EEL 4.93 .DS 1 loop 8.69 TR - Trouble Rate Qwests proposed measure TR compares to MR-8 in the PAP. Ths measure "evaluates the overall rate of trouble reports as a percentage of the total instaled base of the service or element.,,102 Qwest's proposed TR measure changes the description of the purose of the measure to "evaluates the 'health' of the Qwest network serving specified products... ,,103 It is unclear whether ths is a change of any signficance, as Qwest s comments does not explain the change.. MR-8 applies to 34 productslO4 while TR applies to only 4 (Unbundled Loop-Analog, Unbundled Loop-2-Wire Non-Loaded, Unbundled Loop-DSI-capable and EEL_DSl).loS Both MR-8 and TR are reported at a statewide leveL. 106 MR-8 has a party standard with Qwest's retal and private line services,107 while TR has a benchmark of 5%. los Qwest's actua average pedormance over the tcast year for MR-8 was 0.3% for analog loops with a maximum monthly pedormance of 0.5%; 09 0.4% for non-loaded 100lis with a monthly maximum of 0.9%;ii°1.5% for DS 1 loops with a maximum monthly of 2.2%; i I and 0.0% for DS 1 EELs. i 12 102 PID Documentation, p. 71. 103 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 12. 104 PID Documentation, pp. 72-73. 105 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 12. 106 PID Documentation, p. 71 and Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 12. 107 PID Documentation, pp. 72-73. 108 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 12. 109 Idao PID Results, p. 142. September 10,2009 Page 15 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 The curent MR-8 performance is similar to Qwests retail performance. As a result, Qwests proposed TR stadard of 5% for all products effectively results in a significantly weakened stadard - 15 times weaker for analog loops, 12 times weaker for non-loaded loops and 3 times weaker for DS 1 loops. The table below sumarzes the comparson of the curent stadard to Qwest' s proposed stadard. Table 5: Trouble Rate Comparison Summary Plan QPAP QPAP-2 Name MR-8 TR Description Evaluates rate of trouble Evaluates health Products 34 4 Disaggregations 1 1 Measure .Retail party measure .5% benchmark for for analog loops analog loops.Retal party measure .5% benchmark for for non-loaded loops non-loaded loops.Retail party measure .5% benchmark for for EEL EEL.Retail party measure .5% benchmark for for DS 1 loops DSI loops Performance $$$None Incentives Actual Average .Analog loop 0.3% Performance (8/09-.Non-loaded loop 7/09)0.4%.EEL 0.0% .DS 1 loop 1.5% TREI - Troubles Restored within Estimated Intervals Qwest's proposed measure TREI compares to MR-3 (troubles cleared within 24 hours) and MR-5 (troubles cleared with 4 hours) in the QPAP. Ths measure "evaluates timeliness of repair for specific services, focusing on the percentage of specified trouble report tyes that were restored withn specified interval estimates."ll MR-3 and MR-5 apply to a tota of 33 products1l4 while TR applies to only 4 (Unbundled Loop-Analog, Unbundled Loop-2- Wire Non- HO Idao Pil Results, p. 143. HI Idao Pil Results, p. 143. H2 Idaho Pil Results, p. 145. 11 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 13. H4 Pil Documentation, pp. 60 and 64. September 10, 2009 Page 16 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Loaded, Unbundled Loop-DS I-capable and EEL-DS 1). i 15 MR-3 has 5 reporting disaggregations and MR-5 has 2, lI6 while TREI has 2 levels of disaggregation, "troubles with a techncian dispatched" and ''troubles not dispatched."ll MR-3 and MR-5 have a party stadard with Qwests retail and private line services, lIS while TREI has a benchmark of 80% of troubles restored withn 24 hours for analog and non-loaded loops, 80% within 4 hours for DSlloops and DS 1 EELs, without dispatch and 80% withn 8 hours for DS 1 loops and DS 1 EELs with a dispatch. i 19 The 8 hour repair time is twice as long as the 4 hour repair time against which Qwest is measured for MR-5 in the QPAP. The 8 hour proposed repair standad, a full business day, is an exceptionally long time for a business customer purchasing high capacity services to be out of service. Qwest's actual average performance over the past ('ear for MR_3120 was 97.7% for analog loops with a minimum monthy performance of 83.3%;12 and 100.0% for non-loaded 100pS.122 Qwest's performance for MR-5, which includes both dispatched and non-dispatch troubles cleared withn 4 hours was 79.9% for DS 1 loops with a minimum monthly of 60.0%; 123 and 79.7% for DS 1 EELs with a monthly minimum of 62.5%.124 Qwests proposed stadard for analog and non-loaded loops clearly allows for Qwest to lower performance and stil meet the stadard. The results for DSlloops and DSI EELs can't be directly compared to Qwests proposed stadad, since Qwests curent performance results include both dispatched and non-dispatched repairs while Qwest proposed two separate stadards, 8 hours and 4 hours, for these cases. The table below sumarzes the comparson of the curent standard to Qwest s proposed standard. 115 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 13. 116 PID Documentation, pp. 59 and 63. 11 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 13. 11S PID Documentation, pp. 60 and 64. 119 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 13. 120 MR-3 measures the percent of troubles restored within 24 hour for analog loops and non-loaded loops, among other products. This most closely corresponds to Qwests TREI for analog and non-loaded loops. 121 Idao PID Results, pp. 104 and i 05 122 Idaho PID Results, pp. 104 and 105. 123 Idao PID Results, pp. 111 and 115. 124 Idaho PID Results, pp. 113 and 116. September 10,2009 Page 17 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Table 6: Troubles Restored within Estimated Intervals Comparison Summary Plan QPAP QPAP-2 Name MR-3 &MR-5 TREI Products 33 4 Disaggregations 5 2 Measure .Retail party measure .80% within 24 hours for analog loops for analog loops.Retail party measure .80% within 24 hours for non-loaded loops for non-loaded loops.Retal party measure .80% within 4 hours for EEL for EEL without dispatch.80% within 8 hours for EEL with dispatch.Retal party measure .80% within 4 hours for DS 1 loops for DS 1 loop without dispatch.80% within 8 hours for DS 1 loop without dispatch Performance $$$None Incentives Actua Average .Analog loop 97.7% Performance (8/09-.Non-loaded loop 7/09)100.0%.EEL (dispatch and no dispatch) 79.7%.DS 1 loop (dispatch and no dispatch) 79.9% MTR - Mean Time to Restore Qwests proposed measure MTTR compares to MR-6 in the QPAP. This measure "evaluates the timeliness of repair, focusing on how long it taes to restore services to proper operation.,,125 Qwest's proposed QPAP-2 describes the MTTR purose, "evaluates timeliness of repair, focusing on the average interval for restoring reported troubles.,,126 It is unclear what restoring reported troubles" means and how it is different from "proper operation" as contained in the QPAP. Qwests PAP Comments do not explain ths, or any language changes. Integra's 125 PID Documentation, p. 65. (emphasis added) 126 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 14. (emphasis added) September 10, 2009 Page 18 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 recent experience with Qwest, regarding repair of unbundled loops leads Integra to believe that Qwest views restoring reported troubles as different from restoring service to proper operation. Qwest has told Integra that it has no obligation to restore troubles associated with 2-wire digital loops to proper operation, but only to voice parameters. Integra is concerned that Qwest's unexplained language change to the purpose of this measure is intended to excuse Qwest from repairins service. In addition, MTTR restrcts its measure to troubles reported durng business hours, 12 while MR -6 contans no such restrction. Qwest has also changed the languge describing when the clock stas for the repair time from when "Qwest is first notified of the trouble by CLEC,,128 to "time of receipt.,,129 Again this difference is unexplained. MR-6 applies to 35 productsl3O while MTTR applies to only 4 (Unbundled Loop-Anog, Unbundled Loop-2- Wire Non-Loaded, Unbundled Loop-DSI-capable and EEL-DSl).l3 MR-6 contains 5 product disaggregation reports,132 while MTTR contains 2, troubles involving dispatch and troubles not involving dispatch.13 Both the MR-6 and MTTR standard is compared with Qwest retail and private line pedormanceY4 Qwest's actu average performance over the past year for MR-6 was 7:21 for analog loops with a maximum monthl~ pedormance of 10:14;135 3:15 for non- loaded loops with a monthly maximum of 18:22;1 6 3:22 for DSI loops with a maximum monthly of 5.43;137 and 2:56 for DSI EELs with a monthly maximum of 3:32.138 The table below sumarzes the comparison of the curent standard to Qwest s proposed stadard. 127 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 14. 128 PID Documentation, p. 65. 129 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 14. 130 PID Documentation, pp. 66 - 67. 13 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 14. 132 PID Documentation, p. 65. 133 Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 14. 134 PID Documentation, p. 65 and Qwest's Proposed QPAP-2, p. 14.. 135 Idao PID Results, pp. 121 and 125. 136 Idao PID Results, pp. 121 and 125. 13 Idaho PID Results, pp. 121 and 125. 138 Idao PID Results, pp. 123 and 127. September 10, 2009 Page 19 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Table 7: Mean Time to Restore Comparison Summary Plan QPAP QPAP-2 Name MR-6 MTTR Description Restore service to proper Restoring reported operation troubles Observations All troubles Troubles reported during business hours Clock stas When Qwest first notified Time of receipt Products 35 4 Disaggregations 5 2 Measure .Retal party measure .Retal party measure for analog loops for analog loops.Retail party measure .Retail party measure for non-loaded loops for non-loaded loops.Retal party measure .Retail party measure for EEL for EEL .Retail party measure .Retal party measure for DS 1 loops for DS 1 loops Performance $$$None Incentives Actul Average .Anog loop 7 :21 Performance (8/09-.Non-loaded loop 3:15 7/09).EEL (dispatch and no dispatch) 2:56.DS 1 loop (dispatch and no dispatch) 3:22 Conclusion and Recommendations Qwests gain from poor wholesale service performance translates directly to CLEC and end user customer har. The gains to Qwest are wins in the marketplace and a potentially tashed CLEC reputation. By offerig poor wholesale service quaity despite performance payments, Qwest is placing a lower bound on the gains it receives, which are the hars sufered by the CLEC and customers. The end user customer demands reliable service and values when commitments are kept. The end user customer rarely has the patience to tae sides when its service no longer works or when its order is not filled on time -- the customer simply demands reliable service. The end user customer's experience is with its retal service provider regardless of who is providing the underlying network components. Thus, poor wholesale performance by Qwest necessarly negatively impacts the CLEC utilzing these facilties. The PAP today is more crucial than it ever has been. The opportties for Qwest to use poor wholesale service performance to create a competitive advantage in the market place are September 10, 2009 Page 20 Case No. QWE-T-08-04 greater now than ever before, especially as Qwest gains greater regulatory flexibilty in its own retail offerigs. Qwest's proposal to eliminate the PAP and meanngful performance assurance is bad for end user customers and competition. Qwest s proposal should be rejected. Dated ths 10th day of September, 2009. Respectfully submitted, D las K. Denney Director, Costs & Policy i 20 i NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97232 503.453.8285 (Direct) Company Representative, Integra Reply Comments Integra Telecom Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Attchment 1 Page 1 HDSL Summary of Events Attachment 1 xDSL 1 Summary of Key Events Since October 2007 Note: Qwest requires CLECs to order xDSL capable loops, such as HDSL2, as non-loaded loops. October 11, 2007 through June 20, 2008 - Escalation to Qwest Service Management, Including VP Level, Unsuccessful Qwest repair personnel told Integra that Qwest assigns a 24 hour repair commitment time (which is the repair commitment time for the 2 wire analog loop) to a 2 wire non loaded loop, even though the repair commitment time should be 4 hours2 because Qwest repair canot differentiate between a 2 wire non loaded loop (which Qwest requires CLECs to use to order xDSL loops, i.e., digital capabilty) and a 2 wire analog loop (which may be described as a voice grade 100p).3 On October 11,2007, Integra escalated a repair issue to Qwest s service manager regarding this Qwest claim and also told Qwest service management that Qwest repair is not testing to HDSL digital parameters (i.e., Qwest is limiting testing to voice parameters), and Qwest would not remove intedering bridged tap that could allow the circuit to car applicable digital services. For a period of more than eight (8) months, Integra made significant efforts to resolve the issue with Qwest service management via email correspondence and face to face meetings. Integra's Senior Vice President of Engineering and Corporate operations escalated the issue to Brian Stading at Qwest (Qwests Vice President of service management). Responses and correspondence from Qwest generally came from Ken Beck at Qwest (Qwests Regional Vice President of service management). 1 The Colorado SGAT (as well as any CLEC ICAs based on an opt-in of the SGAT), Section 4.0 (Definitions) contains the following definition: ""Digital Subscriber Loop" or "DSL" refers to a set of service-enhancing copper technologies that are designed to provide digital communications services over copper Loops either in addition to or instead of normal analog voice service, sometimes referred to herein as xDSL,including but not limited to the following: ... "HDSL" or "High-Data Rate Digital Subscriber Line" is a synchronous baseband DSL technology operating over one or more copper pairs. HDSL can offer 784 Kbps circuits over a single copper pair, Tl service over 2 copper pairs, or futue El service over 3 copper pairs. "HDSL2" or "High-Data Rate Digital Subscriber Line 2" is a synchronous baseband DSL technology operating over a single pair capable of transporting a bit rate of 1.544 Mbps."2 Per Qwest's own Service Interval Guide (SIG), the repair commitment time for a 2 wie non loaded loop is 4 hours. See page 61 ofQwests SIG which shows that the repair commitment time for a 2 wire non loaded loop is 4 hours http://ww.qwest.com/wholesale/downloads/2009/090413/InterconnSIG PV95.doc3 Although the industr uses certain "NC/NCI" codes to indicate the paricular tye of xDSL capable loop (e.g. HDSL2) (see, e.g., Colorado SGAT §§9.2.6.2 & 9.3.5.1.2), Qwest has inicated that it nonetheless treats the latter ("NCI") codes are as informational only and Qwest does not actually rely on the applicable industr codes when assigning and provisioning facilties (as discussed fuer in the CMP documents discussed below). Reply Comments Integra Telecom Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Attchment 1 Page 2 Qwest service management was unable to resolve the issue at any leveL. On June 20, 2008, Ken Beck referred Integra to the Qwest Change Management Process ("CMP"). August 28, 2008 through April 3, 2009 - CMP Requests Denied On August 28, 2008 Integra submitted a Qwest CMP Change Request (CR) entitled "Design, Provision, Test, and Repair Unbundled Loops to the requirements requested by CLEC, including NCi/SECNCI Code Industr Standards. Qwest indicated in CMP it was moving forward to implement a new Universal Service Ordering Code (USOC) in mid April 2009 that would help ensure that appropriate digitally capable loops were assigned when CLECs ordered xDSL services. Qwest then shifted position and indicated that, although it had said implementation of this USOC would improve its facilities assignent process, Qwest would condition moving forward with implementing the USOC on CLECs (including Integra) agreeing to perform cooperative testing on 100% of the installs. In other words, CLECs with a right to basic installations in their ICAs would no longer be able to order basic installations at Commission-approved rates and instead would have to order a form of testing that requires additional coordination and scheduling of personnel, at a higher rate, for 100% of these instals, even though such additional work may only be needed in a minority of cases. Qwest never justified tying these two things together. Qwest denied Integra's CR. On Febru 4, 2009, Integra submitted a Qwest CMP CR entitled "Qwest will implement the USOC to correct the facility assignent for HDSL" in an effort to get Qwest to move forward with implementing the USOC while discussion of other issues continued. Qwest denied Integra's CR, even though Qwest had previously indicated that implementation of the USOC would help with resolution of the problem. Integra escalated Qwest's denial of both CRs. Qwest denied both escalations. Detail, including copies of Integra's change requests and escalations, and Qwests denials, are available on Qwest's CMP website.4 See CR #PC020409-1EX (Escalation #44); and CR #PC082808-1IGXES (Escalation #45). April 9, 2009 through Present - VP Level Escalations Unsuccessful to Date On April 9, 2009, Integra (Stephen Fisher, VP Corporate Operations) notified Qwest (Waren Mickens, VP Qwest Corporation and Qwest Director of Interconnection) that it was escalating these issues and invoking the dispute resolution process under its interconnection agreements. Counsel for Integra also contacted counsel for Qwest and provided additional authority for Integra's position. Responses from Qwest have, once 4 htt://www.qwest.com/wholesale/cmp/ Reply Comments Integra Telecom Case No. QWE-T-08-04 Attachment 1 Page 3 again, generally come from Ken Beck at Qwest (Qwests Regional Vice President of service management). Qwest submitted a proposal to Integra on May 15,2009, and Integra responded on June 4, 2009. On July 20,2009, Integra contacted Qwest as it had received no response. Qwest responded on July 23,2009, and Integra replied on August 4,2009. On August 21,2009, Qwest submitted questions to Integra about its reply. Although discussions are ongoing, Qwest has not yet provided any proposal that indicates the issue will be resolved. In the meantime, the problem continues.