Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of ALJ Jacqueline Reed in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. There were no comments filed in response to the draft.
Findings of Fact
1. Pacific and the CLECs active in this proceeding have agreed that the changes to Performance Measures 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 23 as listed in Appendix A to this decision should be made.
2. The changes to Performance Measures 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 23 as listed in Appendix A to this decision convert unworkable standards to reasonable workable standards.
3. There is no substantive difference between using the term "Standard Interval" versus a specific number of days.
4. The changes requested in Pacific's advice letter of May 31, 2002, are essentially the same as if the PIP itself was changed.
5. The changes requested in Pacific's advice letter of May 31, 2002, look and function like elements of the PIP by measuring monthly OSS performance as the PIP does; assessing that performance as the PIP does; and generating monthly incentive amounts as the PIP does.
6. The net effect of the changes requested in Pacific's advice letter of May 31, 2002, is essentially the same as if the PIP itself was changed.
7. The changes requested in Pacific's advice letter of May 31, 2002 effectively change the provisions of a Commission decision.
8. No party opposes these requested changes.
9. The requested changes correct measurement problems in the JPSA, and further the purposes of the PIP.
Conclusions of Law
1. The changes to Performance Measures 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 23 as listed in Appendix A to this decision further the purposes of the Commission's PIP.
2. The changes to Performance Measures 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 23 as listed in Appendix A to this decision are reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.
3. The Commission has established the number of days for the "Standard Interval" in D.00-09-074, Appendix DSL.
4. Making these 2-wire digital loop - xDSL capable OSS performance measures workable is important for enabling local competition, and should not be delayed.
5. Elements such as the 2-wire digital loop - xDSL capable performance sub-measures with workable standards should be integrated in the PIP.
6. Changes like those proposed in Pacific's May 31, 2002, advice letter should not be made through the advice letter process.
7. Parties should request changes like those proposed in Pacific's May 31, 2002, advice letter through a motion to modify the decisions which established the PIP or previously modified the PIP.
8. Performance incentives like those proposed in Pacific's May 31, 2002, advice letter should be integrated in the PIP.
9. So that these changes may take effect immediately, this decision should be effective today.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Decision (D.) 01-05-087 shall be amended to change 2-wire digital loop - xDSL capable sub-measure standards in Performance Measures 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 23 as documented in Appendix A to this decision, for all competitive local exchange carriers.
2. The Commission's Performance Incentives Plan set forth in D.02-03-023 shall use the amended D.01-05-087 performance measurements documented in Appendix A beginning with performance for the calendar month of September 2002.
3. In the event parity comparisons become possible for 2-wire digital loop - xDSL capable service, the standards converted in this decision shall revert to the parity standards existing prior to this decision.
This order is effective today.
Dated August 22, 2002, at San Francisco, California.
LORETTA M. LYNCH
President
HENRY M. DUQUE
CARL W. WOOD
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
Commissioners
Appendix A
New Performance Standards for
2-wire digital loop - xDSL capable Sub-measures in
Performance Measures 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 23
Performance Measure |
Standard |
5 - % Orders Jeopardized |
5% |
7 - Average Completion Interval - Non-Conditioned |
95% within Standard interval |
7 - Average Completion Interval - Conditioned |
95% within Standard interval |
8 - % Completed within Standard Interval - Conditioned |
95% within Standard Interval |
8 - % Completed within Standard Interval - Non-Conditioned |
95% within Standard Interval |
11 - % Due Dates Missed |
5% |
12 - % Due Dates Missed (Lack of Facilities) |
5% |
13 - Delay Order Interval |
Average - 14 calendar days |
14 - Held Order Interval |
Average - 14 calendar days |
16 - % Troubles in 30 Days |
8% |
19 - Customer Trouble Report Rate |
2% |
20 - % of Customer Trouble Not Resolved within Estimated Time |
Parity with Linesharing provided to ASI |
21 - Average Time to Restore |
Parity with Linesharing provided to ASI |
23 - Frequency of Repeat Troubles in 30 Day Period |
Parity with Linesharing provided to ASI |
(END OF APPENDIX A)
