IX. Additional Migration Scenarios to be In Included in BHC Processes (47 C.F.R. § 51.319(d)(2)(ii)(A)(2))

Parties disagree concerning the customer migration scenarios that should be accommodated within the BHC process for purposes of this proceeding. SBC and Verizon have only addressed the simplest form of migration scenario in their proposed batch cut processes, involving a customer loop taking basic voice-only service cut over from an ILEC switch to a CLEC switch. The ILEC processes, however, do not address more complex migration scenarios, as discussed below.

SBC states that its exclusion of a given migration scenario from its BHC proposal does not mean that CLECs will be unable to obtain hot cuts or migrations under such scenarios. SBC agrees to continue to make available its current FDT and CHC processes, on their current rates, terms and conditions.¹¹¹ SBC's proposal does not contemplate the withdrawal of any process or service SBC currently offers. To the extent that status quo is to be changed, however, SBC prefers to address such changes through other forums designed to address CLEC-desired process improvements. SBC indicates that it has been actively

working with CLECs on developing the guidelines for CLEC-to-CLEC migrations and line splitting scenarios in separate forums dedicated to those purposes. In addition, SBC has standing CLEC User Forum and Change Management Process meetings that allow CLECs to request modifications to the existing processes.

CLEC parties, as well as ORA and TURN, representing the interests of consumers, all claim that the ILEC systems and processes are deficient in addressing only a limited range of customer migration scenarios. The CLECs claim that the failure to address these additional migration scenarios impedes competition. ORA argues that consumers should not be limited to choosing a CLEC only when their serving arrangements and needs are consistent with the lowest common denominator. Yet, if ILECs are not required to streamline their hot cut processes for other serving scenarios, ORA argues, consumers other than those with only the most basic serving arrangements will effectively be held captive by the ILECs. Mass market customers, in particular, are less likely to risk delays or problems in obtaining services from competitors when similar services can be obtained by the ILEC without such risks.

TURN likewise argues that failing to offer a batch hot cut process for these additional serving arrangements would cause significant problems for customers of competitive carriers, and would continue conditions of impairment that were identified by the FCC.¹¹² If UNE-P is eliminated, TURN argues that over a million customers - the vast majority of customers using competitive services - will likely need to be migrated to a service utilizing UNE-L and yet the ILECs' proposed batch hot cut process will not cover the future migration of such customers.¹¹³

We find that the failure to address these additional batch cut migration scenarios will result in critical deficiencies and limitations and ignoring service quality issues affecting CLEC customers under arrangements other than just the most basic form of voice-only service. As noted by MCI, consumers move frequently between carriers and expect seamless migrations and quality bundled service offerings. Consumers seek to purchase not just local voice service in isolation, but bundles of services, including long distance and features such as Caller ID, call forwarding, and broadband, among others. The requirements for a seamless batch cut process must apply to such customers, as well as those taking only basic voice service. if a competitor is to satisfy such customers' high service quality expectations for migration. We address each of the additional migration scenarios below.

A. IDLC Migrations

MCI argues that the ILEC BHC processes must accommodate migration of loops provisioned on IDLC technology. The purpose of IDLC technology is to aggregate the traffic of a large number of individual customers and then multiplex those individual signals into a single, higher bandwidth signal that can then be transported more efficiently between a remote terminal and the ILEC's central office. Because IDLC requires neither an analog conversion at the central office nor manual wiring at the ILEC's main distribution frame, IDLC allows local loops to be connected to a digital circuit switch more efficiently and cost

effectively compared with earlier technologies. In IDLC-equipped loops, the electrical signal generated by the end user's equipment is converted into a channelized, digital, DS0 format at a remote terminal, and multiplexed into DS1 signals.

Verizon claims that IDLC loops cannot be handled through the Large Job or the proposed batch hot cut processes because there is no technically feasible, practicable means of obtaining access to individual voice-grade loops at the central office when such loops are provisioned over an IDLC system.¹¹⁴ Each of Verizon's three hot cut processes (Basic, Large Job, and Batch), however, is capable of handling large line volumes (i.e., "bulk" orders).¹¹⁵ Thus, although Verizon's process would exclude IDLC lines from large job and batch orders, Verizon would still agree to process orders for IDLC-provisioned lines in large volumes through the Basic process, even if the CLEC does not separate them out.

MCI argues that Verizon should be able to include IDLC loops in its batch cut process because SBC is already doing so. SBC completes the necessary field work in advance of the hot cut date, and then includes the loop that was formerly provisioned on IDLC as part of the normal batch hot cut process. As long as Verizon excludes IDLC loops from its batch cut process, MCI argues, CLECs will be impaired in serving customers whose loops are provisioned on IDLC.

Based on the explanation provided by Verizon, it is apparent that Verizon cannot provision IDLC loops through a batch cut process at the present time.

MCI does not explain how the practical problems identified by Verizon could be overcome, other than to argue that SBC is already able to provide IDLC loops. Without a further record on how the SBC and Verizon systems differ with respect to IDLC constraints, we have no basis to conclude how Verizon would necessarily be able to provision IDLC in the same fashion as SBC. Thus, we conclude that further study is warranted comparing SBC and Verizon's systems to determine if there are some useful lessons that can be learned as to how to overcome Verizon's present IDLC constraints. We shall convene a workshop for this purpose, as a basis to determine the need for further IDLC provisioning by Verizon and potential solutions to overcoming any perceived impediments to Verizon's IDLC implementation.

B. Line Splitting/Line Sharing Migration Scenarios

1. Position of Parties

The BHC processes proposed by the ILECs do not incorporate customer migration scenarios involving line splitting or line sharing. Line splitting occurs when two CLECs use a single unbundled "digital subscriber line" (DSL) loop provided by the ILEC to provide both voice service and DSL service to a single end-user customer on that same loop. In this arrangement, one CLEC provides analog circuit switched voice service and the other CLEC provides DSL-based data service. Under FCC Rule 319(a)(1)(ii)(A), the CLEC providing voice service in a line splitting arrangement may either use its own switch, or, where available, may use unbundled local switching with shared transport (ULS-ST) provided by the ILEC. SBC refers to line splitting arrangements that use SBC-provided
ULS-ST for voice as "UNE Line Splitting" and refers to line splitting arrangements that use CLEC-provided switch facilities as "CLEC-Switched Line Splitting."

In provisioning line splitting over UNE-L arrangement, the loop would first be delivered to the data CLEC's collocation space. From there, the data CLEC would split the voice and data traffic, directing the data traffic to the data CLEC's network (and ultimately the Internet), and directing the voice traffic to the voice CLEC's collocation space to route voice traffic to their switch. Exhibit 99 (Testimony of Casie Murphy for Covad, Appendix KM-1, page 11) reflects this network configuration, as reproduced in Appendix 3 of this order.

SBC and Verizon are unwilling to migrate voice plus data loops in a UNE-P to UNE-L batch process, but will only terminate the customer's loop at the voice provider's collocation arrangement.

Both SBC and Verizon argue that line splitting does not meet the TRO criteria for inclusion as a batch cut migration scenario. Since the activities associated with UNE Line Splitting do not involve a change from one carrier's switch to another carrier's switch, they argue, these line splitting scenarios do not fall within the FCC definition of a batch cut, which is "a process by which the incumbent LEC simultaneously migrates two or more loops from one carrier's local circuit switch to another carrier's local circuit switch."

SBC agrees that it may make sense in the future to develop a batch hot cut process for certain CLEC-Switched Line Splitting migrations (to the extent such migrations entail a change from one local circuit switch to another and would benefit from a batch cut process). SBC, however, does not believe the line splitting scenario should be included in the initial batch cut process. Because it has received few requests for this process to date, SBC sees little or no benefit to developing a batch cut process at this time.

On all line sharing arrangements in California, the ILEC supplies the voice service to the end user and separate carrier provides the data service to the end user. As a result, Verizon argues, elimination of unbundled local circuit switching would not affect the provision of voice (or data) service. The ILEC

would simply continue to provide voice service using its own local circuit switch, with no need for a hot cut. (In addition, the TRO ends the obligation of ILECs to offer new line sharing arrangements after a three-year transition. (See TRO ¶¶ 255-269.)

Verizon points to the OSS "Change Management Process" as the appropriate forum in which to resolve any line splitting issues. Verizon and the CLECs have jointly developed an OSS Change Management Process for managing the life cycle of system changes throughout Verizon's territories. This Commission approved Verizon's nationwide Change Management process in July of 2001.¹¹⁶ The Change Management process includes a framework for prioritizing requested system changes, based on agreed criteria, to change requests affecting CLEC interfaces and business processes. Participants discuss change requests at monthly meetings and vote on priorities. Verizon argues that such a process is more effective in resolving technical and operational issues than a regulatory proceeding, driven primarily by attorneys and regulatory personnel who lack technical expertise.

Covad, MCI, and AT&T claim that the ILEC's proposed BHC process is deficient in failing to provide for migration of voice plus data loops. Covad argues that since line-shared and line-split loops both use circuit switching for the voice portion of the loop, such loops are included within the broad directive in the TRO mandating a BHC process. Covad argues that it is irrelevant that line-shared and line-split loops are ultimately connected to both a circuit switch (for voice traffic) and a packet "switch" (to multiplex data traffic).

Covad Witness Murphy proposed that the following four migration scenarios be addressed as part of the BHC in this proceeding:

1. line-shared loop with ILEC switching to a line splitting arrangement with CLEC switching;

2. line split loop with ILEC switching to a line splitting arrangement with CLEC switching;

3. ILEC retail voice-only loop with ILEC switching to a line splitting arrangement with CLEC switching; and

4. UNE-P loop with ILEC switching to a line splitting arrangement with CLEC switching.

Covad disputes the ILECs' arguments that line-split or line-shared loops do not warrant a separate BHC scenario because volumes are too small. Covad argues that the BHC process is not limited by loop type volume, and that CLECs have only recently begun provisioning line splitting. Thus, the small number of line split loops in service today does not necessarily reflect the larger number that would be in service at such time, if any, that UNE access to local switching is eliminated. Covad claims that the anticompetitive practices of SBC are the reason for the limited number of currently effective line-splitting arrangements.

Because SBC and Verizon do not offer a line-splitting BHC migration scenario, the CLECs must use their own cage-to-cage cabling to transfer the customer's loop from the voice CLEC's collocation arrangement to the data CLEC's collocation arrangement. This means that the DSL data service on the loop must be disconnected while the voice portion of the customer's loop is migrated to a CLEC switch. In order to reconnect the DSL service, however, the loop must be connected to a splitter located in the data CLEC's collocation arrangement. This arrangement results in an extended period during which the data service remains disconnected, thereby disrupting the continuity of the DSL data service feature of the CLEC customer's bundled service.

In order to provide for a more efficient migration of both the voice and data services for CLEC customers, Covad proposes an alternative to cage-to-cage cabling. Covad proposes an approach in which the customer's loop would be transferred to the data CLEC's cage by bringing the loop back to the ILEC's MDF and cross-connecting the loop to the data CLEC's collocation arrangement. Covad argues that this is the most efficient, inexpensive manner to connect the facilities of different CLECs, and won't entail extended disconnection of CLEC customers' DSL services in conjunction with a hot cut of the customers' voice service.

2. Discussion

We agree with the Covad that the ILECs' batch cut process should be augmented to accommodate the four line splitting scenarios listed above. Without an efficient batch cut process to accommodate line-splitting migration scenarios, CLECs will be at a disadvantage in seeking to offer DS0 voice grade service to mass market customers who also want DSL service over the same loop. A CLEC voice customer with DSL data service seeking to migrate to a new voice provider is currently required by the ILEC to disconnect the DSL data service before the customer can be migrated to a new voice provider.¹¹⁷ This would greatly increase the potential for disruption of the data service for thousands of customers and would impose a competitive handicap on those carriers seeking to compete with the ILECs in offering packages of voice and data services. As long as the ILEC is permitted to continue this practice of requiring customer disconnection before migrating their voice service to a new provider, the CLEC will be at a competitive disadvantage. Thus, a hot cut migration scenario is needed in which such data service disconnection is not required.

The need for an efficient process to cut over voice-grade loops from the ILEC switch to the CLEC switch includes loops involving line splitting. SBC witness Chapman argued that the batch cut process does not apply to a line split loop provisioned through a DSL arrangement, and that DSL loops are distinctly different from a DS0 loop. Yet, Verizon witness McGuire testified that most voice grade DS0 loops will support DSL service.¹¹⁸ Thus, while there may be certain operational distinctions between DS0 loops with versus without DSL support, the essential fact remains that DSL loops incorporate voice service. As such, DSL loops meet the definition for a hot cut process.

We acknowledge SBC's point that under current ILEC procedures, a voice plus data loop technically "is already terminated at the data CLEC's collocation arrangement...[Therefore], "the cut-over activity would actually occur within the CLEC's collocation cage" as opposed to the cut-over activity occurring on the applicable SBC distribution frame."¹¹⁹ Thus, SBC does not dispute that a hot cut must be performed in a line-splitting arrangement. The dispute is over whether the ILEC or the CLEC is responsible to perform such hot cuts. SBC does not currently perform the hot cut when a migrating voice-plus-data loop with ILEC switching is migrated to a CLEC switch. Covad points out, however, that the existing arrangement is the result of SBC's refusal to provide cross-connects between two CLECs collocation spaces with a jumper on the applicable SBC distribution frame. Instead, CLECs desiring to interconnect their own facilities must provision their own cage-to-cage cross-connection. For example, if SBC hot cuts a loop carrying voice plus data to an CLEC voice collocation cage, the CLEC would have to use a wire pair in a cage-to-cage cable to haul the voice plus data signal to the CLEC data collocation cage in order to reach the voice/data "splitter," and then use another wire pair in the cage-to-cage cable to haul the voice signal back to the CLEC voice collocation cage so that it could be transported to CLEC's switch.¹²⁰ The schematic diagram in Appendix 4 illustrates the cabling configurations entailed in cutting over a customer's voice and data services in a line-splitting scenario.

Covad disagrees with SBC's assertion that any BHC process for voice-plus-data loops would require cage-to-cage cross connects rather than allowing CLECs to use the frame-to-cage connects already provisioned. Covad proposes provisioning line splitting over a UNE-L arrangement using the ILEC's current practice of cross connecting facilities at the applicable distribution frame. Covad argues that requiring CLECs to obtain cage-to-cage cross connects for line splitting over an unbundled loop would be inefficient, costly, and would strand existing cross-connect capacity.

Moreover, a hot cut process is needed for voice-plus-data loops in order to provide a seamless migration between a CLEC and an ILEC that offer service packages of voice plus data over a single loop.

Moreover, once the data portion of the loop has been disconnected, the remaining voice-grade portion of the line is then capable of being hot cut just like any other UNE-P voice-grade line. Thus, the migration of customers subject to a line-splitting arrangement entails a DS0 voice-grade line cutover, and on that basis, such lines warrant inclusion within a hot cut migration scenario.

We agree with Covad that the migration process could be made more efficient for CLEC customers subject to a line splitting arrangement would be for the ILEC to provide for cross connects on its main distribution frame that would allow voice-providing CLECs and data-providing CLECs to provide service economically. In this way, the data-providing CLEC would not be required to provision cage-to-cage cabling from its collocation to the new voice CLEC's collocation. We accordingly adopt Covad's proposal. Covad's proposed approach is illustrated in the diagrams in Appendix 3 of this order, as excerpted from Exhibit 99 (Testimony of Casie Murphy) Appendix Exhibit KM-1, p.10. Before such a migration scenario can be implemented, however, the associated TELRIC costs would need to be determined.

In its comments on the PD, SBC claims that requiring the ILEC to provide cross-connection to its Main Distribution Frame is contrary to FCC rules (CFR 51.323(h)(1), stating that the incumbent is to provide cross connection "except to the extent the incumbent LEC permits the collocating parties to provide the requested connection for themselves." SBC argues that it meets this obligation by permitting CLECs to connect their collocation arrangements via cage-to-cage cabling. In reply comments, however, Covad argues that SBC likely fails to permit CLECs to provide the requested cross connects at all because SBC has not authorized CLECs to self-provision their own cross connects in SBC's central offices. In any event, we find no conflict with FCC rules by requiring SBC to provide cross connection to its Main Distribution Frame. Such requirement is necessary to enable the CLECs to cross connect in an efficient manner.

In comments to the PD, Verizon claims that it has already agreed to include Line-Splitting and CLEC-to-CLEC Migration Scenarios pursuant to the OSS Interface Change Management Proceedings. To the extent Verizon can verify during the initial workshop process that its implementation of such scenarios comports with orders of this Commission, the need for additional workshop implementation may prove to be moot. To the extent Verizon cannot document that it is already complying with Commission directives, however, workshop collaboratives will then still be required, as directed in this order.

We recognize that collaborative forums, such as Change Management, serve a useful role in building consensus on the technical details of implementing line splitting solutions once the policy issue is decided concerning the merits of developing a batch cut option to address line splitting. Such collaborative forums are not particularly useful, however, as a means of deciding policy issues on which parties are entrenched in disagreement. Such is the case here. Accordingly, we direct that line splitting migration scenarios must be developed as part of the batch hot cut process in order to develop a truly seamless migration process. We leave it to the collaborative workshop process to address the technical details concerning the most efficient and least-cost way to implement the four line-splitting migration scenarios proposed by Covad. We conclude that such workshops should remain under this docket, but should be coordinated, as appropriate, with the Change Management collaborative and any related forums where line splitting is being addressed.

Accordingly, we direct the ALJ to schedule workshops to conduct further analysis to implement line splitting arrangements covering the four migration scenarios outlined by Covad as noted above. These arrangements should incorporate a plan for the ILEC to provide for cross connects on its main distribution frame that would allow voice-providing CLECs and data-providing CLECs to provide service, as proposed by Covad. The ILECs should also develop a TELRIC-based price analysis associated with such line-splitting migration scenarios. SBC also states that it would have to develop substantial changes to its electronic systems and new ordering and provisioning processes, resulting in substantial additional costs. SBC will the opportunity to document its claims concerning valid recoverable incremental costs associated with implementation of line-splitting migration scenarios as part of further price analysis proceedings.

C. CLEC-to-CLEC UNE-L Migrations

The batch cut processes proposed by SBC and Verizon do not take into account customer migration scenarios from one CLEC to another utilizing
UNE-L. The ILECs argue that such CLEC-to-CLEC UNE-L migration scenario entail communications between CLECs that are not subject to control by the ILEC. In a CLEC-to-CLEC loop migration, the "winning" CLEC, porting the telephone number from the "losing" CLEC, must submit a request to the losing CLEC to port the number. Consequently, SBC argues, this required interaction between the two CLECs is not within SBC's control, and is not accounted for in SBC's proposed batch processes. Similarly, Verizon does not want to be involved in CLEC disputes related to submission of number porting information and authorizations in connection with a CLEC-to-CLEC customer migration. Because it would not be able to determine whether the porting order had in fact been submitted and the port was ready to be activated, Verizon claims that customers could be left without service. As a result, to ensure that CLEC-to-CLEC UNE-L migrations do not undermine continuity of service, Verizon declines to include these migrations in its BHC process.

SBC further argues that there currently are not large volumes of
CLEC-to-CLEC migrations (Ex. 12 (Chapman), at 37); and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that CLECs will be placing orders to migrate significant numbers of customers of other CLECs to their switches in the foreseeable future.

Verizon believes that CLEC to CLEC UNE-L migrations can be handled, however, via either the existing Basic or Large Job processes, where Verizon is not responsible for placing the porting trigger order to NPAC.

AT&T and MCI, however, claim that the ILEC batch cut proposals are deficient in their failure to address CLEC-to-CLEC migration scenarios, thereby creating a serious competitive disadvantage for CLECs. They argue that without a CLEC-to-CLEC migration scenario, CLECs would have no efficient or workable way to transition the loop serving those customers to its switch, even if the customer had already chosen to use the CLEC's services.

We conclude that the ILEC's batch cut proposals are deficient in excluding CLEC-to-CLEC migrations. The FCC states that "competition in the absence of unbundled local circuit switching requires seamless and timely migration not only to and from the incumbent's facilities, but also to and from the facilities of competitive carriers."¹²¹ Thus, we conclude that CLEC-to-CLEC migrations are a necessary part of the batch cut process required under the TRO. The exclusion of CLEC to CLEC migrations from ILEC batch hot cut process violates the TRO requirement for a seamless migration process "to and from the facilities of competitive carriers."

Any time the CLEC would issue an order for an ILEC hot cut to acquire a UNE-L customer, the order would be rejected if the ILEC processes do not accommodate the type of UNE-L to UNE-L cutover that would be required.¹²² MCI argues that in that situation, it would have no efficient or workable way to transition the loop serving other carriers' customers to its switch, even if the customer had already chosen to use MCI's services. A lack of coordination could result in errors in the customer records, the loss of customer data and loss of dial tone.¹²³

If CLEC access to UNE switching were eliminated, the current base of approximately 1.3 million UNE-P customers would need to be migrated to other platforms. MCI estimates that the number of UNE-L to UNE-L hot cut requests 12 months after a Commission decision of "no impairment" could be nearly 70,000 per month (each of which would be rejected under the ILECs' current proposals).¹²⁴ MCI further estimates that thirty-three months after a Commission decision, the number of UNE-L to UNE-L hot cut requests could exceed 200,000 per month using current CLEC market penetration and churn assumptions.¹²⁵

The ILEC doesn't require the multi-party coordination that UNE-L to UNE-L hot cut processes would entail. The ILEC could "hot cut" the loop back to its own network via its internal "winback" process without complication.¹²⁶ In order to ensure a seamless migration process, a CLEC-to-CLEC migration scenario needs to be included in the ILEC processes.

CLECs and the ILECs continue to work collaboratively to develop CLEC-to-CLEC migration procedures, but a standardized process for exchanging customer service records (CSR) and obtaining circuit ID information is not yet in place. SBC and CLECs are in the early stages of developing a CLEC-to-CLEC migration process but have reached no agreements on how this process should be managed.¹²⁷ Currently, carriers can forward CSR information using their own transmission method, but no quality assurance processes exist for whatever method the carrier chooses.¹²⁸ A process needs to be developed for exchanging CSR information so that customers will not be stranded after their migration to UNE-L because other carriers have no means to obtain the information necessary to migrate the customer to another carrier.¹²⁹

We agree with MCI that a system must be developed for the exchange of CSR information as part of a CLEC-to-CLEC migration process. The exchange of the following information, as enumerated by MCI, should be required as a minimum starting point: billing telephone number; working telephone number; billing name and address; directory listing information (including listing type); complete service address; current PICs (for both inter and intraLATA, including freeze status); local freeze status, if applicable; all vertical features; options (such as toll blocking and remote call forwarding); tracking or transaction number; service configuration information (i.e., whether customer is served via resale, UNE-P, UNE-L, etc.); the identification of the network service provider, and the identification of any line sharing or line splitting on the line.¹³⁰ MCI further argues that in order to have an efficient, seamless customer migration, at least three additional categories of information must be included in any standardized CSR exchange process, as follows: (1) the ILEC feature name and Universal Service Order Code for vertical features and blocking options so that CLECs can understand each other's CSRs; (2) circuit identification; and (3) identification of line sharing/line splitting providers.¹³¹ In addition, MCI asks that CLECs be required to provide a contact from whom the winning CLEC can request CSR information and the providing CLEC be required to forward such CSR information within specific timeframes. MCI is currently experiencing difficulties in retrieving CSRs from CLECs based in California and expects this problem to grow as more CLEC CSR information is required.¹³²

One potential solution for housing and exchanging CSR information proposed by MCI is the establishment of a distributed CSR database, shared and maintained by CLECs and ILECs alike, that would act as a clearinghouse for customer information.¹³³ Such clearinghouse would enable all carriers to launch inquiries for CSR information using a common data communications protocol. CLECs would be required to maintain CSRs in a standard format, and should be required to adhere to standard delivery methods and time frames.¹³⁴ Companies that did not want to maintain their own CSRs or could not develop the software necessary to electronically transmit that information to other carriers could contract with third-party clearinghouses to support this process. We shall direct the ALJ to schedule a collaborative workshop for carriers to develop consensus on procedures for exchanging this information. Until such a distributed method is developed, the ILEC should continue providing access to the information they have about customers on their network as well as the information remaining after a customer leaves the network.¹³⁵

AT&T proposes a remedy to address Verizon's objection to performing CLEC-to-CLEC migrations based on the required involvement of a third-party CLEC in the number porting process. AT&T proposes that Verizon simply allow CLECs to port the number after a hot cut and after Verizon notifies the CLEC of the hot cut completion. AT&T argues that this change would relieve Verizon of the need to do a number port, and would resolve the service integrity concerns associated with Verizon's performing the number port. We find AT&T's proposal to be reasonable, and accordingly adopt it.

D. Extended Enhanced Loop (EEL) Migration Scenarios

AT&T and MCI argue that the BHC process must include a provision to cut to an Enhanced Extended Loop (EEL). An EEL affords a CLEC the ability to

deliver loops to its switch without collocation in every central office and to reduce collocation costs by aggregating loops at fewer collocations and then transporting traffic to their own switches.¹³⁶ EEL facility used to connect the customer to the carrier's switch using collocated equipment in a distant central office. Without access to EELs, MCI argues that CLECs that are not collocated in wire centers in which they have UNE-P customers would have little choice but to abandon those customers.¹³⁷

SBC did not include conversions involving EELs in its proposed BHC process, arguing that the FCC rule neither states nor implies that the batch cut process must include all migrations that it could possibly include. SBC also claims that no other party presented a viable proposal for including EELs in the batch cut process.

SBC expresses a willingness to consider the development of a batch cut process for EELs as an enhancement to the bulk project offering after the initial process roll-out, but argues that its current proposal could not readily be modified to incorporate EELs. SBC believes it would jeopardize the effectiveness or efficiency of the proposed processes by attempting to incorporate a new process for EELs now. (Id. at 38.)

Verizon argues that EELs have never been subject to hot cuts because there is no way to "hot cut" an EEL. Hot cuts have always been available only for ordinary two-wire loops, as the FCC was no doubt aware when it issued the TRO. EELs, by contrast, are "designed" circuits providing "special" services

over a combination of a loop plus interoffice transport. In addition, Verizon claims that the ILEC cannot identify the local loop portion of an EEL in order to transfer it from one carrier to another because the circuit identification is for the entire EEL rather than the loop alone. Verizon further argues that because EELs are very rare in the mass market, there is clearly no need to have any type of "batch" or "bulk" process for migrating EEL-served customers.

If UNE-P becomes unavailable to competitors in a significant portion of the state, EEL arrangements would be necessary for competitors to reach customers in central offices where a competitor was not collocated. The EEL arrangements would be required until that competitor was able to obtain collocation in a given central office, assuming it was economical to do so. CalTel witness Compton testified that although collocation space is essential in any central office to be served by UNE-L, there are ILEC central offices where collocation space is unavailable or is very close to being full.¹³⁸ Moreover, in those central offices where space is available, the installation interval for collocation space is 90 days in the SBC region and 120 days in the Verizon region.

TURN argues that the process of obtaining collocation in all of the affected central offices will take years, and EELs will play a pivotal role in the ability of competitors to serve mass market customers, and that exclusion of this arrangement from the ILECs' batch hot cut process thus poses a significant barrier to competition.¹³⁹

We recognize that further development will be required before a batch cut scenario could be implemented to accommodate the provision of EELs. Nonetheless, without the provision of such a migration scenario, CLECs remain unable to provide switch-based service via UNE-L in those wire centers where they are not collocated and cannot arrange to hot cut to an EEL facility connecting the customer to the carrier's switch using collocated equipment in a distant central office.

Accordingly, we shall schedule a workshop to develop a further record on what additional measures would be required to develop and implement a hot cut migration scenario involving EEL facilities, including the associated costs that would be entailed in such implementation. Following the results of the workshop, we shall consider what further actions may be appropriate with respect to implementing this migration option.

Workshop Coordination and Prioritization

In its comments on the PD, MCI et al asks that the Commission take steps to prioritize the order of workshops ordered to be held pursuant to this order. We agree that prioritization of workshops is warranted in the interests of efficiency. We shall schedule a prehearing conference to be convened within 10 business days after the issuance of this order to consider the appropriate prioritization of workshop activities. MCI et al also argue that a speedy and efficient dispute resolution process needs to be incorporated into the workshop process to overcome barriers to progress caused by parties' unwillingness or inability to reach consensus on how to proceed, or even whether to proceed to implement the improvements ordered in the PD. At the PHC, we shall also provide parties an opportunity to provide input concerning the need for and development of a dispute resolution process to be incorporated into the workshop framework, and direct the ALJ to develop appropriate dispute resolution processes for use during workshop sessions.

¹¹¹ See Jan. 30, 2004, Tr. at 8377-78 (Chapman).

¹¹² AT&T Ex. 154C (Van de Water Direct Testimony 1/15/04) pp. 25-26.

¹¹³ MCI Ex. 143C (Lichtenberg/Starkey Joint Reply Testimony) pp. 43-44; AT&T Ex. 154C (Van de Water Direct Testimony 1/15/04) pp. 29-30.

¹¹⁴ See Verizon Panel Direct on Batch Hot Cuts at 10-12.

¹¹⁵ See Verizon Panel Direct on Batch Hot Cuts Process and Scalability at Part II.

¹¹⁶ Administrative Law Judge's Ruling on the May 24, 2001 Joint Motion, R.97-10-016/
I.97-10-017 (July 2, 2001).

¹¹⁷ RT 54, 8466:3-6.

¹¹⁸ RT 55; McGuire Cross-Examination, 8478:14-22.

¹¹⁹ Ex. 12, Chapman Direct Testimony at 42 and 44.

¹²⁰ Ex. 143 (Lichtenberg/Starkey 1/15 Reply), at 43.

¹²¹ TRO § 478, emphasis added.

¹²² Ex. 143 (Lichtenberg/Starkey 1/15 Reply), at 44.

¹²³ Ex. 141 (Lichtenberg 12/15 Direct), at 52.

¹²⁴ Ex. 143 (Lichtenberg/Starkey 1/15 Reply), at 45.

¹²⁵ Id.

¹²⁶ Ex. 143 (Lichtenberg/Starkey 1/15 Reply), at 46.

¹²⁷ Ex. 141 (Lichtenberg 12/15 Direct), at 39.

¹²⁸ Id.

¹²⁹ Id.

¹³⁰ Ex. 141 (Lichtenberg 12/15 Direct), at 40.

¹³¹ Id.

¹³² Ex. 141 (Lichtenberg 12/15 Direct), at 41.

¹³³ Id.

¹³⁴ Ex. 141 (Lichtenberg 12/15 Direct), at 41.

¹³⁵ Id.

¹³⁶ Ex. 154C Van de Water Testimony, p. 31.

¹³⁷ Ex. 143, Lichtenberg/Starkey Testimony, p. 23-25.

¹³⁸ Ex. 180 at 14 (Direct Testimony of Compton).

¹³⁹ MCI Ex. 143 (Lichtenberg/Starkey Joint Reply) pp. 46-47; AT&T Ex. 154C (Van de Water Opening) pp. 26, 31.