Joint Motion for Adoption of the Verizon Agreed-to Changes to the JPSA

On May 15, 2006, Verizon and several other telecommunications carriers¹⁴ (collectively, the Verizon Settling Parties) filed a joint motion asking that the November 30, 2004 joint motion regarding Verizon JPSA changes be withdrawn. In its place, the Verizon Settling Parties sought to incorporate the changes to the JPSA requested in the November 2004 motion with one modification, as well as new changes related to the removal of UNEs delisted by the FCC in its Triennial Review Order (TRO) and Triennial Review Remand Order (TRRO).

Pursuant to a notice of settlement distributed by Verizon, the 2005-2006 JPSA Review for Verizon began on October 18, 2005. Following the initial meeting, the parties convened on later occasions to reach the agreement set forth in the May 2006 Joint Motion. First, the Verizon Settling Parties agreed to withdraw the November 30, 2004 motion and sought the approval of one set of changes in their joint motion. Second, the Verizon Settling Parties continued to support and seek approval of the changes submitted in the previous motion (with one modification¹⁵), including the adoption of a separate JPSA applicable only to Verizon. Third, they agreed to remove measurements from the JPSA for UNEs no longer required under the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., and FCC rules (e.g., removal of measures for UNE Platform and UNE line sharing¹⁶). These UNEs were delisted in the TRO and TRRO.

The Verizon Settling Parties declared that one of the most notable changes was the adoption of a Verizon-only JPSA, along with agreement to amend the format of the JPSA, as it applies to Verizon, to match what Verizon uses in many other jurisdictions.¹⁷ This change would allow CLECs to view a consistent document for defining Verizon's performance measures, and to use a common format that many are familiar with in other states. The parties asserted that both the adoption of a Verizon-only JPSA and the changed JPSA format would simplify and improve the measuring and reporting of Verizon's local wholesale performance in California. In addition to these two important changes, the Settling Parties also have agreed on and submitted several wording changes to the JPSA.¹⁸

The Verizon Settling Parties also pointed to the Commission's recognition of the strong public policy of California favoring settlement. They further affirmed the Commission's preference for settlements that "are reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest."¹⁹ The Settling Parties maintained that the amended JPSA²⁰ satisfied these requirements.

The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., and the FCC's implementing rules require Verizon to provide CLECs with a nondiscriminatory quality of service.²¹ The Settling Parties submitted that most metrics had a standard of "Parity with Retail," assuring that CLECs would receive a quality of service equal to that which Verizon provided to its own retail customers. For those local wholesale service functions with no retail analog (i.e. where Verizon does not provide the function to itself), the metrics have an objective benchmark standard²² that will assure a quality of service that is sufficient to allow an efficient competitor "a meaningful opportunity to compete."²³ Thus, we find the Verizon-only JPSA²⁴ to be consistent with the laws governing the quality of local wholesale services that Verizon provides to CLECs. We also find the JPSA to be reasonable in light of the entire record and in the public interest. Accordingly, we approve the new JPSA for Verizon as set forth in Appendix II.

¹⁴ AT&T California, Covad Communications Company, and Time Warner Telecom.

¹⁵ In the November 30, 2004 motion, Metric BI-6 (formerly Measure 31) was changed so that it measured the count of usage charges on the bill that were recorded within the last 45 days, instead of the count of usage charges on the bill that were recorded within the last 30 days. However, Verizon stated that it found that the proposed change could not be implemented in a timely or cost effective manner; therefore, the Settling Parties agreed to restore the original language, so that the metric would remain unchanged and would continue to measure the count of usage charges on the bill that were recorded within the last 30 days.

¹⁶ Covad did not join in that part of the motion related to removal of the measurements for UNE line sharing, although it did not oppose it. However, Covad reserved its right to raise in other jurisdictions any and all positions on the question of the removal of measurements applicable to UNE line sharing, including without limitation, opposition to the removal of such measurements. Verizon also reserved its right to respond fully to any such filing or position taken by Covad. In all other respects, Covad supports the Joint Motion, including, without limitation, removal of the measurements for UNE Platform. 2006 Joint Motion at 2, fn 5.

¹⁷ The revised JPSA format is based on the format of the "Carrier-to Carrier Guidelines Performance Standards and Reports" adopted by the New York Public Service Commission for Verizon New York Inc. in New York PSC Case 97-C-0139. (See, New York PSC web site at http://www.dps.state.ny.us/carrier.htm.) The "Guidelines" adopted by the New York PSC have been adopted, with minor variations, by the regulatory commissions in the jurisdictions served by the Verizon telephone companies in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern portions of the United States.

¹⁸ These changes are incorporated in Appendix II to this decision and shown in redline format in Appendix III (showing changes to the JPSA presented in the November 2004 motion and changes to the JPSA added for the pending Joint Motion.) Appendix IV is the Consensus Issues List explaining each change. In its comments on the decision, Verizon pointed out a technical error in the Appendix II, California JPSA Implementation Schedule. To remedy the error, Verizon submitted a corrected copy of the JPSA Implementation Schedule and set forth new dates that recognize a new schedule for its next update as well as an approaching date for issuance of a final decision.

¹⁹ Re Application of GTE California Inc. for review of the Operations of the Incentive-Based Regulatory Framework Adopted in Decision 89-10-031, D.96-05-037 (slip op.) (FOF 1) (May 8, 1996).

²⁰ Appendix II.

²¹ See, 47 U.S.C. §§ 251 (c)(2)(C) and (3); 47 CFR §§51.305(a)(3), 311(b) and 603(b).

²² For example, 95%.

²³ See, Implementation of the Local Competition Provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15660, ¶315 (1996).

²⁴ Appendix II.