6. Assignment of Proceeding

Geoffrey F. Brown is the Assigned Commissioner and Anne E. Simon is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.

1. Telscape provides facilities-based local voice service in California, using its own switches and unbundled network elements (UNEs) leased from SBC-CA; this arrangement is often referred to as UNE-Loop (UNE-L).

2. Telscape also provides local voice service in California using the "UNE platform" (UNE-P), which consists of leasing from SBC-CA all the elements needed for service to the end user customer.

3. AT&T provides local voice service in California using UNE-P.

4. MCI provides local voice service in California using UNE-P.

5. SBC-CA is an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) that provides local and long distance services. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC).

6. In California, as of the end of 2002, about 49% of high-speed internet connections were via DSL.

7. Through a joint marketing and sales agreement with SBC IS, SBC-CA markets to mass market customers the retail product SBC Yahoo! DSL, which consists of DSL transport provided by ASI through UNEs leased from SBC-CA; ISP services provided by SBC IS; and content provided by Yahoo!, Inc.

8. In California, SBC Yahoo! DSL is available only to local voice service customers of SBC-CA.

9. If a CLEC using UNE-P presents an otherwise complete and accurate LSR to SBC-CA for the migration of the local voice service of an SBC-CA mass market customer to the CLEC, SBC-CA will automatically reject the migration request if the customer currently has SBC Yahoo! DSL or other retail DSL service and the CLEC does not specify on the LSR how DSL service will be provided after the migration.

10. If a CLEC using UNE-P presents an otherwise complete and accurate LSR to SBC-CA for the migration of the local voice service of an SBC-CA mass market customer to the CLEC, there are no technical reasons that require SBC-CA to reject the migration request if the customer also has SBC Yahoo! DSL or other retail DSL service, even if the CLEC does not specify on the LSR how DSL service will be provided after the migration.

11. If a CLEC using UNE-P presents an otherwise complete and accurate LSR to SBC-CA for the migration of the local voice service of an SBC-CA mass market customer to the CLEC, there are no operational considerations that require SBC-CA to reject the migration request if the customer also has SBC Yahoo! DSL or other retail DSL service, even if the CLEC does not specify on the LSR how DSL service will be provided after the migration.

12. The record does not support any conclusions about whether SBC-CA is or is not justified in rejecting the migration request if a CLEC using UNE-L presents a complete and accurate LSR to SBC-CA for the migration to the CLEC of the local voice service of an SBC-CA mass market customer who also has SBC Yahoo! DSL or other retail DSL service.

13. SBC-CA winback personnel receive information about former residential local voice customers no less than two days after its order system shows the LSR as "complete."

14. SBC-CA's winback efforts include letters and telephone calls to former customers, which may offer special deals to former customers.

15. SBC-CA's winback efforts may include the suggestion, made without adequate inquiry as to its basis, that the former customer has been slammed.

16. SBC-CA's third-party verification process does not apply to allegations of slamming for residential local voice service.

17. Telscape did not file comments on the Settlement.

18. The Settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record.

19. The Settlement is in the public interest.

20. SBC-CA's OSS allow CLECs non-discriminatory access to the functions of pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing.

21. SBC-CA is authorized to impose non-recurring service order charges when a CLEC places an order for UNEs, or requests a change in configuration or disconnection of UNEs, to cover SBC-CA's costs for the ordering process.

22. SBC-CA is not authorized to impose charges for UNEs when SBC-CA's costs are attributable to its retail services.

23. An electronically-submitted order to migrate one of two telephone lines that do not hunt of an SBC-CA customer to a CLEC using UNE-P falls out of flow-through so that LSC may create documentation for SBC-CA to use in properly billing the SBC-CA line remaining to the customer.

24. An electronically submitted UNE-P order with more than one UNE, one of which requires LSC intervention to be processed, falls out of flow-through. In that case, all parts of the order are treated on a semi-mechanized basis.

25. An electronically submitted UNE-P order for new service falls out of flow-through if the CLEC does not put a code in the field of the order intended to check for working service on premises (WSOP).

26. An electronically-submitted order to migrate a customer who is eligible for Universal Lifeline Telephone Service (ULTS) to UNE-P or UNE-L with number portability falls out of flow-through so that LSC personnel may check the ULTS certification status in order to allow SBC-CA to rebill the customer for the difference between ULTS rates and regular retail rates if the customer did not meet the requirements for ULTS.

27. In 2002, SBC-CA agreed to charge fully-mechanized rates for electronically submitted orders to migrate a ULTS customer to UNE-P or UNE-L with number portability.

28. SBC-CA currently bills electronically submitted orders to migrate a ULTS customer at semi-mechanized rates, which are changed by LSC personnel to mechanized rates. SBC-CA issues credits for overcharges after a CLEC identifies and disputes the semi-mechanized charges.

29. SBC-CA's OSS does not currently allow all orders that are potentially able to flow through to do so. SBC-CA adds to the list of flow-through eligible orders at various times.

30. An expanded interconnection service cross-connect (EISCC) connects SBC-CA's intermediate distribution frame to a CLEC's collocation facility in SBC-CA's central office.

31. SBC-CA made "tech-to-tech" testing generally available to CLECs in April 2002, for, among other things, identifying EISCC problems.

32. A change in "connecting facility assignment" (CFA) is a change in the relevant EISCC cable pair.

33. The Telscape-SBC-CA interconnection agreement does not establish a charge for a CFA change.

34. SBC-CA imposes non-recurring charges of $84.85 for a CFA change, consisting of service order connect charge ($30.43); channel connect charge ($18.87); service order disconnect charge ($21.38); channel disconnect charge ($8.71); EISCC cable connect charge ($2.11) ; and EISCC cable disconnect charge ($3.35).

35. Although SBC-CA has a goal of resolving billing disputes with CLECs within 30 days, many disputes are not resolved within that time period.

36. After a billing dispute with a CLEC has been resolved, there is no specified period of time within which SBC-CA provides credit to the CLEC for the agreed amount.

37. SBC-CA has negotiated settlements of CLECs' claims for overcharges in which the CLEC agreed to waive performance remedies.

38. When SBC-CA and a CLEC enter into a settlement in which the CLEC agrees to waive performance remedies, SBC-CA does not report the issue in its performance measure reporting to the Commission and does not pay performance remedies for the benefit of ratepayers.

39. It is in the public interest for SBC-CA to provide information about the changes to its systems required by this order to all CLECs in California.

Conclusions of Law

1. SBC-CA's rejection of otherwise complete and accurate requests to migrate a mass-market customer from SBC-CA local voice service to the local voice service of a CLEC using UNE-P to provide such service, solely on the basis that the customer subscribes to SBC Yahoo! DSL or other retail DSL service and the CLEC does not specify on the LSR how DSL service will be provided, is not just and reasonable and therefore violates Sec. 451.

2. SBC-CA's rejection of otherwise complete and accurate requests to migrate a mass-market customer from SBC-CA local voice service to the local voice service of a CLEC using UNE-P to provide such service, solely on the basis that the customer subscribes to SBC Yahoo! DSL or other retail DSL service and the CLEC does not specify on the LSR how DSL service will be provided, subjects its customers with SBC Yahoo! DSL or other retail DSL service to disadvantage and therefore violates Sec. 453(a).

3. SBC-CA should cease its practice of rejecting otherwise complete and accurate requests to migrate a mass-market customer from SBC-CA local voice service to the local voice service of a CLEC using UNE-P to provide such service, solely on the basis that the customer subscribes to SBC Yahoo! DSL or other retail DSL service and the CLEC does not specify on the LSR how DSL service will be provided.

4. In order to minimize disruption to customers, CLECs, and SBC-CA, SBC-CA should be given 60 days from the effective date of this order to adjust its systems to end the rejection of otherwise complete and accurate CLEC orders to migrate a mass-market customer from SBC-CA local voice service to the local voice service of a CLEC using UNE-P to provide such service, solely on the basis that the customer subscribes to SBC Yahoo! DSL or other retail DSL service and the CLEC does not specify on the LSR how DSL service will be provided.

5. The Settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.

6. In order to reduce the possibility of inaccurate allegations of slamming in residential local voice service, SBC-CA should include residential local voice service in its third-party verification process.

7. SBC-CA's imposition of semi-mechanized rates for an electronically-submitted order to migrate one of two telephone lines of an SBC-CA customer to a CLEC using UNE-P is attributable to SBC-CA's retail operations and is therefore not just and reasonable and violates Sec. 451.

8. SBC-CA should cease charging semi-mechanized rates for an electronically-submitted order to migrate one of two telephone lines that do not hunt of an SBC-CA customer to a CLEC using UNE-P and should refund to Telscape the difference between the semi-mechanized and fully mechanized rate for any semi-mechanized order charges billed to Telscape that are attributable to this exception.

9. SBC-CA's continued billing at semi-mechanized rates of electronically submitted orders to migrate a ULTS customer to UNE-P or UNE-L with number portability, giving credits for overcharges to the CLEC later, is not just and reasonable.

10. SBC-CA should revise its OSS processes to ensure that bills for ULTS migrations are generated at the proper rate in the first instance, either by allowing ULTS migration orders to flow through or by making any other changes needed to have ULTS migrations billed at mechanized rates without the need for intervention by SBC-CA personnel to generate a bill at the mechanized rate.

11. The current misleading instructions for how a CLEC should treat the WSOP field for an electronically submitted order for UNE-P service are inconsistent with CLECs' rights to nondiscriminatory access to OSS and result in service order charges that are not just and reasonable.

12. SBC-CA should revise the instructions for the WSOP field to eliminate the misleading implication of the current instructions and should refund to Telscape the difference between the semi-mechanized and fully mechanized rate for any semi-mechanized order charges billed to Telscape that are attributable to this exception.

13. SBC-CA's imposition of semi-mechanized charges for an entire order when one UNE causes the order to fall out of flow-through does not violate SBC-CA's obligations under our UNE pricing decisions or other applicable law.

14. In the absence of a charge set for a change to a connecting facilities assignment (CFA) in the interconnection agreement between SBC-CA and Telscape, SBC-CA's imposition of non-recurring charges for a CFA change based on service order connect and disconnect, channel connect and disconnect, and EISCC cable connect and disconnect charges does not violate SBC-CA's obligations under our UNE pricing decisions or other applicable law.

15. By failing to promptly return proper credits to CLECs after a billing dispute has been resolved, SBC-CA imposes a charge that is not just and reasonable and therefore violates Sec. 451.

16. SBC-CA should review its OSS policies and systems and make any changes that are needed to ensure that CLECs are correctly credited not later than the second bill issued after a billing dispute is resolved.

17. SBC-CA's negotiation of settlement agreements with CLECs in which the CLEC agrees to waive performance remedies violates our orders related to SBC-CA's Performance Incentive Plan if SBC-CA does not pay remedies for the benefit of ratepayers and report the performance failure to the Commission.

18. All motions that have not been decided should be denied.

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Within 60 days of the effective date of this order, Pacific Bell Telephone Company (SBC-CA) must cease rejecting otherwise complete and accurate requests to migrate a mass-market customer from SBC-CA local voice service to the local voice service of a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) using the unbundled network element platform (UNE-P) to provide such service, solely on the basis that the customer subscribes to SBC Yahoo! DSL (or to any additional or subsequent retail digital subscriber line (DSL) product marketed by SBC-CA) or other retail DSL service and the CLEC does not specify on the LSR how DSL service will be provided.

2. The Settlement Among SBC California (Pacific Bell Telephone Company), AT&T Communications of California, Inc. and WorldCom, Inc. (MCI) of Slamming and Winback Issues Designated for Hearing by the Administrative Law Judge and Assigned Commissioner in Case 02-11-011, submitted for approval on December 5, 2003, is approved.

3. Within 30 days of the effective date of this order, SBC-CA shall include residential local voice service in the services subject to its third-party verification process for allegations of slamming.

4. Within 60 days of the effective date of this order, SBC-CA shall cease charging semi-mechanized rates for an electronically-submitted order to migrate one of two telephone lines that do not hunt of an SBC-CA customer to a CLEC using UNE-P and shall refund to Telscape the difference between the semi-mechanized and fully mechanized rate for any semi-mechanized order charges billed to Telscape that are attributable to this exception.

5. Within 60 days of the effective date of this order, SBC-CA shall revise its OSS processes to ensure that bills for migrating a Universal Lifeline Telephone Service (ULTS) customer to UNE-P or UNE-Loop with number portability are generated at the proper fully-mechanized rate in the first instance, either by allowing ULTS migration orders to flow through or by making any other changes needed to have ULTS migrations billed at mechanized rates without the need for intervention by SBC-CA personnel to generate a bill at the mechanized rate.

6. Within 60 days of the effective date of this order, SBC-CA shall revise the instructions for the working service on premises field of its Local Service Request (LSR) form to eliminate the misleading implication of the current instructions that it is permissible to leave the field blank and still have the LSR processed at fully-mechanized rates and shall refund to Telscape the difference between the semi-mechanized and fully mechanized rate for any semi-mechanized order charges billed to Telscape that are attributable to this exception.

7. Within 60 days of the effective date of this order, SBC-CA shall make any changes to its operational support systems policies and systems that are needed to ensure that CLECs are correctly credited, not later than the second bill issued after a billing dispute is resolved, for amounts agreed to be due them after the billing dispute is resolved.

8. Within 15 days of the effective date of this order, SBC-CA shall inform CLECs, by appropriate posting on SBC-CA's CLEC web site, of the requirements of this order.

9. Within 15 days of the effective date of this order, SBC-CA shall pay performance remedies for the benefit of ratepayers and make the reports for all performance problems for which Telscape has previously agreed in settlements with SBC-CA to waive performance remedies.

10. All motions that have not been decided are denied.

11. This proceeding is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated _____________________, at San Francisco, California.

APPENDIX A

TABLE OF ACRONYMS

ASI SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc.

CFA Connecting facility assignment

CLEC Competitive local exchange carrier

DSL Digital subscriber line (broadband service that relies on the traditional copper telephone wire to transmit broadband data to and from the service customer's location)

EISCC Expanded interconnection service cross-connect (between intermediate distribution frame and collocation facility)

FCC Federal Communications Commission

HFPL High frequency portion of the [copper wire] loop

ISP Internet service provider

LFPL Low frequency portion of the [copper wire] loop

ILEC Incumbent local exchange carrier

LSC Local Service Center [of SBC-CA]

LSR Local Service Request

OANAD Open Access and Network Architecture Development of Dominant Carrier Networks proceeding

OSS Operational support systems

SBC IS SBC Internet Services

ULTS Universal Lifeline Telephone Service

UNE unbundled network element

UNE-L UNE-Loop (facilities-based services, using CLEC's switches and UNEs leased from ILEC)

UNE-P unbundled network element platform (services provided by leasing from ILEC all elements needed for service to the end-user customer)

(END OF APPENDIX A)

APPENDIX B

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page