5. Appeals

The POD was mailed June 9, 2004. Telscape and SBC-CA each filed appeals on July 9, 2004. SBC-CA filed a response to Telscape's appeal on July 26, 2004. Telscape filed a response to SBC-CA's appeal on July 26, 2004. MCI and AT&T filed a joint response to SBC-CA's appeal on July 26, 2004.

Telscape contends that the POD did not go far enough in requiring changes to SBC-CA's OSS and billing practices. It argues that the evidence supported all of its original claims. Telscape also wants the relief expanded to include requirements that SBC-CA automatically provide necessary refunds or credits to CLECs without the need for settlement agreements, and that SBC-CA stop assessing semi-mechanized charges for any electronically submitted LSR.

In most regards, we adhere to the POD. Telscape notes that the POD failed to order refunds for improper billings of semi-mechanized charges due to failure to fill out the WSOP exception fields in the order form; we correct that oversight. The main import of Telscape's appeal, however, is that the record in this proceeding suggests that SBC-CA may be systematically overcharging CLECs for some UNEs, may be dragging its feet on making improvements in its ordering system (especially with respect to flow-through), and may be using its bargaining power to obtain settlements of disputes on terms unfavorable to CLECs. Telscape urges us to order sweeping changes in SBC-CA's processes as a result. We agree with Telscape that the record shows a number of problematic practices by SBC-CA, but conclude that it does not provide sufficient basis to order large-scale changes in SBC-CA's processes. We do, however, add a requirement that SBC-CA inform CLECs of the requirements of this order by posting them on its CLEC web site.

SBC-CA contests the POD's conclusions on the issue of the treatment of LSRs for local voice migrations. In its appeal, SBC-CA altered its presentation of its LSR system from that made in the EH and in briefing prior to the POD. This change in SBC-CA's explanatory emphasis has led us to understand that SBC-CA's interference in the ordering process is more extensive than stated in the POD. We do not change our conclusion that SBC-CA is in some circumstances unlawfully preventing the processing of requests to migrate a customer's local voice service to a CLEC using UNE-P. We do, however, rework our discussion of this issue in §§ 3.3 and 4.1 above, and rephrase our findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. We also reduce from 90 to 60 days the time for SBC-CA's compliance, because SBC-CA's current explanation of its system leads us to believe that changing its order system will be easier than appeared in the POD.

SBC-CA also contests the POD's conclusion that the semi-mechanized billing of partial migration orders is improper. We adhere to the POD's analysis and conclusions on this issue because the record does not support the characterization of the partial migration ordering process that SBC-CA argues in its appeal.

We provide the clarifications requested by SBC-CA to the portions of our order related to billing for migrations of ULTS customers and the timing of credits appearing on CLEC's bills.