Background
On October 9, 1997, the Commission instituted this formal rulemaking proceeding and investigation to achieve several goals regarding Pacific Bell's (Pacific) and Verizon California, Inc.'s (Verizon CA) 1 OSS infrastructure. One objective of this docket (the OSS OII/OIR) is to assess the best and fastest method of ensuring compliance if the respective OSS of the ILECs do not show improvement in implementation or meet determined standards of performance. Another related objective is to provide appropriate compliance incentives under Section 271 of TA96, which applies solely to Pacific2, for the prompt achievement of OSS improvements.
To further these specific objectives, the ILECs and a number of interested CLECs participated in a series of meetings jointly conducted through the OSS OII/OIR proceeding and the 271 collaborative process3. In October 1998, a group of the interested parties filed joint comments setting forth their various positions on the issues discussed during the meetings. Following a pre-workshop conference in January 1999, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Telecommunications Division staff (staff) convened a 7-day technical workshop4 on the respective performance incentive plans of Pacific and the participating CLECs. Pacific and the CLECs filed concurrent opening briefs on March 22, 1999, and concurrent reply briefs on April 5, 1999.
Pursuant to ALJ Ruling, Verizon CA filed its proposal on incentives for compliance with performance measures on May 3, 1999. The CLECs responded to the proposal on May 11, 1999. On July 12-14, 1999, the ALJ and staff convened a technical workshop on Verizon CA's performance incentive plan in relation to the CLECs' plan5. The parties filed concurrent opening briefs on July 28, 1999, and concurrent reply briefs on August 4, 1999. On August 12, 1999, Verizon CA petitioned to have submission set aside and supplemental comments accepted. The CLECs responded to the petition on August 27, 1999.
On November 22, 1999, the assigned Commissioner noted in a ruling (the ACR) that staff and its technical consultants had advised him that the performance incentive plans that the parties had submitted were significantly flawed. The ACR set forth the framework of a performance remedies plan that it encouraged Pacific, Verizon CA and the CLECs to analyze and comment upon with the overall goal of developing a common and acceptable approach to implementing the performance plan. The parties filed opening comments on the ACR on January 7, 2000. Pacific and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates6 (ORA) included new performance incentive plan proposals with their initial comments. The parties filed reply comments on January 28, 2000.
On March 27, March 28 and March 30, 2000, the ALJ, assisted by staff, convened a facilitated workshop that focused exclusively on the performance assessment part of three performance remedies proposals: (1) the ACR-proposed plan; (2) the new Pacific plan, and (3) the ORA plan. The parties submitted opening and closing briefs on April 28 and May 5, 2000, respectively.
1 Verizon CA was previously named GTE California Incorporated. Hereafter, Pacific and Verizon CA will be referred to collectively, as the ILECs. 2 As a Bell Operating Company (BOC), Section 271 specifically applies to Pacific. 3 From July through mid-August 1998, Pacific, AT&T Communications of California Inc. (AT&T), MCI WorldCom (MCI W), Sprint Communications, Electric Lightwave, Inc., ICG Telecom Group, Inc., Covad Communications (Covad), MediaOne Telecommunications of California, Inc., Cox California Telecom, LLC, Northpoint Communications, California Cable Television Association, and staff entered into a collaborative process and jointly worked on developing solutions to the flaws in Pacific's 1998 draft 271 application. Verizon CA observed one collaborative meeting on penalties, but otherwise did not participate. (Verizon CA Response to Motion to Accept Joint Comments regarding Report on Performance Incentives, footnote 2 at 2 (October 20, 1998)). 4 February 5, 8-11, and 23-24, 1999. 5 The CLECs submitted their plan in both the Pacific and Verizon CA portions of the proceeding. 6 ORA had monitored this phase of the OSS OII prior to its January 7th submission.
