XII. Batch Hot Cut Testing Requirements (47 C.F.R. § 51.319(d)(2)(ii)(A)(2))
A. Parties' Positions
SBC argues that because there are so few changes to the hot cut migration process, existing internal testing procedures and the Change Management Processes are adequate to support the Commission's evaluation of the new proposed batch cut process without third-party testing. SBC states that performance data for all such orders will be tracked and reported in the performance measures that currently assess pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning and system update activities for the UNE loop product. The data, however, should not be disaggregated into separate submeasures, with a few limited exceptions SBC claims that it should not be required to conduct third-party testing on any of the systems or process changes it is proposing for its batch hot cut process.223 Rather, SBC urges the Commission to adopt a "Managed Introduction Plan," which SBC describes as a process for cooperative monitoring of its new batch hot cut process.224
Verizon opposes "volume testing" requirements as part of an approved BHC process, and interprets the TRO not to contemplate volume testing of an ILEC's batch hot cut processes.225 Verizon does not believe the Commission has the option of delaying approval of the process while volume testing takes place. (See 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(d)(2)(ii).)
Verizon also claims that hot cut volume testing would be costly, difficult to manage and coordinate, and ultimately of minimal practical benefit either to Verizon, the CLECs, or the Commission. Verizon believes a test would be most reliable and effective when the testing environment is as close to "real life" as possible and the test participants do not know that the test is being conducted. Verizon, however, does intend to conduct a trial of the one step of the BHC process that will be relatively new, that is, its capability to activate the line ports on behalf of the CLECs.
Verizon expresses confidence that given the experience gained during the trial period and the scrutiny that is being given to the process in various state proceedings, all important aspects of the process will work properly. Furthermore, Verizon agrees to make ongoing modifications to the BHC process that may be needed.
MCI argues that testing should be done at commercial volumes for a period after the ILECs' proposed batch hot cut processes have been implemented and operational,226 and that the review of proposed batch hot cut process should not be left solely to the ILEC's internal testing procedures or the change management process.
AT&T likewise argues that the ILECs have not provided proof that its batch hot cut process is scalable without some form of testing. AT&T proposes that, as a prerequisite to approval of ILECs' batch cut processes, the Commission require testing of the process and a report on the results of such testing.227 AT&T agrees, however, that alternatives to third-party testing might be adequate, but proposes that each ILEC submit to the Commission its own plan for testing its process. AT&T witness Falcone suggests, for example, that Verizon could test the migration of a group of its own customers from a direct connection of the customer's line to the Verizon switch over to another Verizon switch connected via collocated transport equipment located in the original central office, with a report on the results.228
SBC suggested use of a "Managed Introduction Plan" for the first time in its Opening Brief, and provided only a broad description of it.229 As described by SBC, the purpose of the MIP would be to closely monitor early batch hot cut commercial use and to quickly react to any implementation issues. The MIP would be jointly developed by SBC and CLECs, and performed by teams consisting of SBC and CLEC representatives. SBC's representatives would be assigned from the LSC, LOC, LFO-In and OSS organizations. These teams would be responsible for closely monitoring the progress of early commercial use of the batch hot cut option, and working through any issues that might arise during early commercial use to develop corrective action plans and implement any necessary process changes. SBC also proposes that the team furnish the Commission with monthly reports describing any batch hot cut problems detected, explaining the cause; identifying steps taken or proposed to achieve resolution; and reporting the status of the corrective action and the results to date.
Other parties had no opportunity to inquire about details of SBC's plan, and were unable to comment on, or to test the sufficiency of SBC's proposal through cross examination. MCI argues it would thus be legal error for the Commission to rely on SBC's Managed Introduction Plan under such circumstances. MCI proposes that SBC, as a precondition for approval of its batch hot cut process, be required to submit a detailed technical plan for third party testing of its batch hot cut process at commercial volumes. If SBC wants the Commission to consider its Managed Introduction Plan, MCI proposes that SBC submit the details of that plan for consideration at that time.
B. Discussion
Given the critical importance of a successful hot cut process to providing a seamless migration between service providers and in view of the potential risks of problems in completing necessary hot cut volumes in a timely and efficient manner as outlined above, we conclude that some process is warranted to provide validation that the ILECs' processes are working as intended. We recognize that a balance is needed. Excessive and unnecessary testing would be inefficient and lead to added costs that would not be conducive to a competitive marketplace. On the other hand, without any means of validating new hot cut processes to ensure that they are working as intended, we would not be meeting our responsibility to implement hot cut processes that provide for a seamless migration between service providers.
Parties' differences on the issue of testing narrowed somewhat as the proceeding progressed. SBC's suggestion for a MIP indicates some positive movement in the direction of consensus on a way to provide feedback and validation that hot cut processes are working as intended. Because SBC's proposal was received after the conclusion of hearings, however, there was no opportunity to develop a complete record on the potential merits of the proposal and its relationship to other proposals for testing. We therefore direct the ALJ to provide opportunity for parties to be heard concerning the merits of SBC's MIP process as a means of providing the necessary assurances that SBC's hot cut processes are working as intended.
We also conclude that some validation process should be used for Verizon, as well. We recognize that the needs and requirements of any validation processes for Verizon may be somewhat different than for SBC. We agree in any case that third party testing of Verizon's processes is not necessary, but that a process similar to the MIP approach as discussed above for SBC for monitoring and quick reaction to resolve implementation issues is likewise warranted for Verizon. In conjunction with the process for further comment and review of SBC's MIP proposal, the ALJ shall also direct that comments be taken concerning the development of a similar process for monitoring and feedback with respect to Verizon's hot cut process implementation. We direct the ALJ to schedule a further process for parties to build consensus on the details of limited testing process for Verizon along the lines outline by witness Falcone.
Following completion of the record on these issues, we shall make a further determination concerning implementation of necessary processes to ensure validation of that the hot cut processes are working as intended.
223 SBC Opening Brief, at 75.
224 SBC Opening Brief, at 75, 125, 135-136.
225 See Verizon Supplemental Panel Testimony on Batch Hot Cuts at Part III.
226 MCI Opening Brief, at 289-293 (citing TRO, ¶ 423, 459, 460, 464 n. 1435, 466-467, 469, 471, 489, 562; Ex. 143, (Lichtenberg/Starkey 1/15 Reply), at 5-6, 58-60); MCI statements at March 22, 2004 performance measure collaborative.
227 Ex. 154C, Van de Water Testimony, p. 24.
228 Ex. 155C, Falcone Testimony, 1/15/04, Attachment RVF-3, pp. 72-73.
229 SBC Opening Brief, at 135-136.
