20021003_287.pdf

TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DECISION MEMORANDUM
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
DAVE SCHUNKE
JOE CUSICK
CAROLEE HALL
WAYNE HART
TERRI CARLOCK
LYNN ANDERSON
TONY A CLARK
BEVERLY BARKER
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
WELDON STUTZMAN
OCTOBER 1, 2002
CASE NO. USW-00-3; APPROVAL OF NEW PRO FORMA INDICATOR
DEFINITION IN QWEST'S PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE PLAN.
On August 19, 2002, Qwest filed a request for approval to add a new Performance
Indicator Definition (PID) to its Performance Assurance Plan (QP AP or Plan). The QP
provides specific standards for Qwest's delivery of services to competitor telecommunications
providers and automatic penalties if the standards are not met. The new Pill, identified as PO-
, measures how well Qwest accurately processes local service requests that are submitted
electronically by competitors and processed manually by Qwest into Qwest service orders.
The Commission previously accepted Qwest's Plan as part of the record established
in this case to provide to the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC will review the
QPAP as part of Qwest's Section 271 application for authorization to provide interLATA
telecommunication services. In fact, Qwest in its filing here proposes PO-20 to comply with a
commitment Qwest made to the FCC in its Section 271 case. Qwest states that in an ex parte
DECISION MEMORANDUM
communication with the FCC, it "agreed that it would request that this (Idaho J Commission
accept Qwest's proposed PO-, with a 95% benchmark standard, for inclusion in the QPAP in
the manner described below to be effective coincident with the effective date ofthe QP AP." The
QPAP would be effective on the date the FCC authorizes Qwest to provide interLATA services.
Qwest also notes that "this filing does not eliminate the opportunity to consider changes to PO-
20 in any long-term Pill forum or at the six-month review (as provided for under the PAP).
Written comments were filed regarding Qwest's proposed new Pill by AT&T and
WorldCom on August 29, 2002.AT&T and WorldCom in joint comments object to the
inclusion of the new Pill for several reasons. The parties first object because Qwest did not
provide CLECs an opportunity to develop PO-20 through a collaborative process. AT&T and
World Com also object that the new Pill is too narrow in its measurements, that it ignores many
important service order fields, that Qwest has not clarified some of the terms used in the Pill
that the penalty provisions are too modest and thus do not provide a meaningful and significant
incentive to meet the required benchmarks, that the sample to check for accuracy is too small a
number of service orders, and that the benchmark should be 98% rather than 95%.
Qwest on September 13, 2002, filed a response to the written comments filed by
AT&T and WorldCom. Qwest points out that its decision to include PO-20 in its QPAP
resulted directly from an agreement with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
the course of its review of Qwest's 271 application, rather than from any claimed attempt by
Qwest to engage in 'unilateral PID development' as the CLECs claim." Qwest responded to
each of the concerns raised by AT&T and WorldCom, but also noted that those companies
failed to identify any impediment to the continued discussion to this measurement, including the
ability to raise all the issues covered by their pleadings, in both the long-term Pill administration
forum and at the six-month review...." Qwest points out that the new Pill presents opportunities
for penalty payments to CLECs that did not previously exist, and that, as with other Pills
refinements may be made to PO-20 during the six-month review called for in the QP AP.
According to a supplemental filing by AT&T, the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission denied Qwest's request to include PO-20 Pill in the QPAP. It is clear from the
Colorado Commission order, however, that the commission rejected it because Qwest's proposal
for approving it did not comply with a previous commission order. A Pill for manual service
order accuracy was the subject of an earlier Colorado Commission order directing a specific
DECISION MEMORANDUM
process for development of a PO-20 type PID, clearly preferring development "through a long-
term PID administration process.Because Qwest's request for approval of PO-20 did not
comply with the Colorado commission s earlier directive, the commission denied the request
stating it could "see no reason to deviate from our original decision.
Staff believes it is not necessary for the Commission to respond formally to Qwest's
proposal to add the new Pill PO-20. Qwest apparently is adding the PID as the result of an
agreement with the FCC. AT &T and WorldCom, as well as other potential competitors, will
have an opportunity to present their objections on PO-20 to the FCC. Additionally, the
Commission in its previous QP AP decisions required that the review to occur at six months
allow for changes to Pills so that experience gained after the Plan actually is implemented can
evaluated to improve the Plan.
Staff recommends the Commission not undertake a review of the proposed Pill PO-
20. Staff appreciates that Qwest has included PO-20 at the urging of the FCC, and Staff is aware
that the Pill has not been vigorously examined, as were the other Pills prior to their acceptance.
As does the Colorado Commission, Staff would prefer all new Pills be developed through a
long-term Pill administration process. That process, however, has not yet been established.
Under the circumstances, Staff recommends the Commission take no action and tacitly allow
Qwest to include the PO-20 Pill in its QP AP, subject to review in six months. If after the QP
is effective, AT&T and WorldCom, or other interested CLECs, are unable to obtain adjustments
to PO-, the Commission can consider whether changes are necessary during the six-month
revIew.
Commission Decision
Should the Commission decline to review Qwest's inclusion ofthe PID PO-20 in its
QP AP?i.~
. ./
Weldon Stutzman
Vld/M:USWTOOO3 ws2
DECISION MEMORANDUM