ALJ/KAJ/jva Mailed 1/27/2006
Decision 06-01-043 January 26, 2006
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a SBC California for Generic Proceeding to Implement Changes in Federal Unbundling Rules Under Sections 251 and 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. |
Application 05-07-024 (Filed July 28, 2005) |
TO EXISTING INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS
DECISION ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO EXISTING INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS 2
I. Summary 2
II. Background 2
III. Disputed Issues 4
A. Issue 1: Section 0.1.1 - Which parties' definition of "building"
should be used in the Amendment? 4
B. Issue 2: Sections 0.1.2, 0.1.3, 0.1.4, and 0.l.5 - (a) is SBC required
to provide FTTH, FTTC and Hybrid Loops on an unbundled basis
for customers that are not defined as "mass market" customers, or,
in the case of multiple-dwelling units (MDUs), MDUs that are not "
predominantly residential"? (b) If so, then how should the amendment
define "mass market"? (c) If so, then how should the amendment define "predominantly residential" MDUs? 6
C. Issue 3: Section 0.1.10 - Should stand-alone UNE loops used to serve
residential customers be counted as "business lines" for purposes of the
wire center non-impairment determinations for high-capacity loops and
transport? Should UNE loops used only to provide non-switched services
be counted as "business lines" for purposes of the wire center
non-impairment determination for high-capacity loops and transport? 9
D. Issue 3A: Section 0.1.10 - How should Centrex and PBX trunks and Centrex extensions be counted for purposes of the "business line" tallies for purposes
of the wire center non-impairment determinations for high capacity loops
and transport? 11
E. Issue 4: Section 0.1.13 - Should an entity that is subject to a binding
agreement that, if consummated, would result in its becoming an affiliate
of SBC be counted as an SBC-affiliated fiber-based collocator for purposes
of the non-impairment determinations for high-capacity loops and transport
prior to the consummation of such an affiliation? 12
F. Issue 5: Section 0.1.16 - Should SBC be required to permit, and to perform
the functions necessary to enable, CLECs to commingle Section 271 elements
with other SBC wholesale facilities and services, including but not limited
to UNEs? 15
Title Page
G. Issue 6: What are the appropriate definitions for seven items: 18
a. Section 0.1.20 - "line splitting" 18
b. Section 0.1.21 - "local loop" 19
c. Section 0.1.22 - "cross connect" 20
d. Section 0.1.23 - "DS0" 22
e. Section 0.1.24 - "hot cut" 22
f. Sections 0.1.25, 5.2 and 5.4 - "applicable law" 22
g. Sections 0.1.26, 2.0, 3.2.3, 4.1, 4.1.1.5, 4.1.1.7, 4.1.3.1, 4.3 and 4.5 - "
relevant transition period" 23
H. Issue 7: Sections 1.1(IX) 1.3.2, 5.8 and 13 -- Should the amendment
include rates and terms for SBC's Section 271 obligations? If so,
what should those rates and terms be? 24
I. Issue 8: Section 1.3.2 and subsections, and Section 4.3 - Under what
circumstances may SBC process disconnect or conversion orders for
high capacity loops, transport, or dark fiber and for loop and/or transport arrangements that are to be transitioned during the FCC transition periods?
When the CLEC transitions to an alternative arrangement prior to the end
of the applicable FCC transition period, what processes should SBC and
CLECs use, and what rate should apply from the date the arrangement is transitioned through the end of the FCC transition period? 30
Issue 15: Sections 2.1.4 and 3.2.3 - Where a CLEC migrates embedded
base ULS/UNE-P and/or affected DS1 and DS3 loop/transport customers
to a functionally equivalent or analogous SBC service prior to the expiration
of the applicable transition period, should the transition rate specified by the FCC in the TRO Remand Order apply for such alternate service until the
end of the transition period-i.e., until March 11, 2006? 30
Issue 25: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 - How should transitions from high
capacity loops and transport be handled and what charges apply? 30
Title Page
J. Issue 9: Sections 1.3.3, 2.1.3.3, and 3.2.2.2 - To what extent may SBC
impose charges on transitioning the embedded base of declassified TRO,
DS-0 local circuit switching, UNE-P and high capacity loops and transport elements? 33
Issue 46: Sections 10.1.2 and subsections, and 10.1.3.1 - What charges
(if any) and procedures should apply to conversion orders? 33
K. The CLECs have proposed language that would require SBC to
assess the rates applicable to fully mechanized service orders, regardless of whether SBC's systems are capable of handling the service orders on such a
basis. SBC disagrees saying that if a CLEC places an order manually, SBC
must be permitted to assess the applicable manual service order charge to
recover the cost of the work required. We agree with SBC. The CLECs
should pay the appropriate non-recurring charge based on how they
submit their service orders. SBC's language in Sections 1.3.3, 2.1.3.3, and
10.1.3.1 is adopted. Issue 10: Sections 1.3.3, 2.1.3.3, 3.2.2.2, and 10.1.3.1 -
With respect to the transition of declassified elements and the conversion
of wholesale services to UNEs and UNEs to wholesale services, must SBC accomplish such transitions and conversions in a seamless manner? 39
L. Issue 11: Sections 1.3.3, 2.1.3.3, 3.2.2.2, 10.1.3.1 - Should these provisions be deemed effective as of March 12, 2005? 41
M. Issue 12: Sections 2.1.1, 3.2.1, and 4.1.3.1 - Which rates for ULS/UNE-P
embedded base should apply during the transition period? 43
N. Issue 13: Section 2.1.1.1 - Should the amendment include a provision that
CLECs can order new ULS/UNE-P for their embedded base until
May 1, 2005? 44
O. Issue 14: Section 2.1.3.4 - What rates should apply to ULS/UNE-P
services if the embedded base ULS/UNE-P customer's service has
not been disconnected or migrated by the deadline to be specified in the amendment? 47
Title Page
P. Issue 16: Section 3.1.1 - Is there an Multi-Tenant Establishment
(MTE) exception to FCC Rule 51.319(a)(6)(i), which rule states that ILECs
are not required to provide requesting carriers with access to dark fiber
loops on an unbundled basis, such that CLECs can have access to MTE
subloops that begin at or near an MTE to provide access to MTE
premises wiring? 48
Q. Issue 17: Section 3.1.4.1 - Should a CLEC be prohibited from obtaining
more than ten unbundled DS1 dedicated transport circuits on each route
where DS3 dedicated transport is available as a UNE? 49
R. Issue 18: Section 4.1 - Where a CLEC has not self-certified for the
initial list of wire centers designated as having met the threshold criteria
for non-impairment for loops and/or transport, the CLEC must transition
off of applicable UNEs within a defined transition period as governed by the attachment to the joint petition [CLEC language] as governed by the
amendment [SBC's language]. The issue here is can the CLEC, with respect
to seeking new UNEs from such wire center(s), provide a self-certification
after the defined transition periods have expired? 51
S. Issue 19: Sections 4.1, 4.1.1.8, and 4.6 - A CLEC may provide a self-certification and SBC may dispute such self-certification through a proceeding at the Commission. The issue here is, in addition to this dispute resolution
procedure, can CLECs request at any time, and is SBC obligated to provide to CLECs, information and supporting documentation on which SBC based
its wire center designation? 52
T. Issue 20: Section 4.1.1.1 - How frequently may SBC update its list
of non-impaired wire centers? 54
Title Page
U. Issue 21: Section 4.1.1.5 - Where a CLEC does not self-certify within
60 days of SBC issuing an Accessible Letter designating that the threshold
has been met in additional wire center(s), the CLEC must transition off of applicable UNEs which were already provisioned at the time the
Accessible Letter was issued. The issue here is how long is this
transition period for CLECs, and during this transition period can the
CLEC order applicable UNEs from the newly designated wire center(s)? 55
V. Issue 22: Sections 4.1.1.6 and 4.8 - Can CLECs, with respect toseeking
new UNEs from newly designated wire center(s), provide a self-certification
more than 60 days after SBC issues the applicable Accessible Letter? If so, is
SBC required to provision new UNEs during the dispute resolution process, including, if applicable, during the applicable transitional period? 57
W. Issue 23: Section 4.1.2 - A CLEC may provide a self-certification and SBC
may dispute such self-certification through a proceeding at the Commission. Where such a dispute is before the Commission, and where the CLEC
withdraws its self-certification before the Commission renders a decision, is
the affected wire center subject to future self-certification? 59
X. Issue 24: Section 4.1.3 - When SBC disputes a CLEC's self-certification, is
SBC required to notify all CLECs of the filing via an Accessible Letter that
includes the case number and directions for accessing the docket on the Commission's website? 61
Y. Issue 26: Section 4.4 - How should affected elements be provided to
a building that is served by both impaired and non-impaired wire centers
and is physically located in the serving area of the impaired wire center? 62
Z. Issue 27: Section 4.6 - Should SBC be required, on a quarterly basis, to post
on its website information advising when it believes a wire center has
reached 90% of the number of business lines needed for the wire center to be classified as a Tier 1 or a Tier 2 wire center, and to specify which wire centers
it considers to have two or three fiber collocators? 62
AA. Issue 28: Section 4.7 - (a) Should the amendment address what termination charges apply for loops and/or transport purchased under SBC's tariff if a
wire center is determined to be non-impaired:(b) If so, what termination
charges should apply to the cancellation of the tariffed transport or
collocation facilities? 64
Title Page
BB. Issue 29: Section 4.9 - Should the amendment include a provision
that allows for the reversion of non-impaired wire centers to
impaired wire centers? If so, what credits (if any) and procedures should
apply in connection with the reversion? 65
CC. Issue 30: Section 5.1 - The parties agree that SBC CA will make
certain commingled arrangements available in California if an SBC ILEC
affiliate voluntarily makes them available in any of its 13 SBC ILEC states.
The issue is whether SBC California should be requiredto provide a
commingled arrangement in CA if an SBC ILEC is ordered to do so by a state commission other than the CPUC? 67
DD. Issue 31: Section 5.1 - What commingling arrangements should
SBC be required to offer to CLECs in this amendment? 67
EE. Issue 32: Section 5.7 - If SBC changes or adds to its access tariffs in a manner
that would restrict or impact the availability of commingled arrangements,
(a) what notice should SBC be required to give to CLECs of such tariff changes
or additions, and (b) should existing commingled arrangements provided
under the agreement be grandfathered? 70
FF. Issue 33, Section 6.1 - Which term, amendment or agreement, should be used
to correctly identify the scope of any conditions or limitations for obtaining
access to EELs or to any other UNE combinations? 73
GG. Issue 34: Section 6.3.6 - Should CLECs be able to provide blanket certification
of eligibility for purchase of EELs in a particular central office? 74
HH. Issue 36: Section 6.3.7.4 - What process should be used if a CLEC
disagrees with the conclusions of the auditor's report? Also, should
CLECs be required to remit payment or permitted to withhold payments pending a dispute? 75
II. Issue 37: Section 6.3.7.5 - To what extent should CLEC reimburse
SBC for the cost of the auditor in the event of an auditor finding of noncompliance? 77
JJ. Issue 47: Section 11.1.3 - What conditions should apply before
SBC can retire a copper loop that CLEC is currently using to provide
service to a customer? 78
KK. Issue 48: Section 11.1.4 - What restrictions, if any, should be placed on SBC's policy, practice, and procedure for the engineering and pricing of local loops, subloops, and hybrid loops? 79
Title Page
LL. Issue 49: Section 11.2.5 -- Where CLEC has requested access to a loop
to a customer premises that SBC serves with an IDLC hybrid loop, under
what conditions can SBC impose nonrecurring charges other than standard
loop order charges and, if applicable, charges for routine network
modifications? 80
MM. Issue 50: Section 11.2 - Should Section 11.2 of the interconnection agreement amendment, which relates to hybrid loops, include language derived from footnote 956 of the TRO? 81
NN. Issue 51: Sections 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, and 14.5 - Is SBC required to provide
entrance facilities to CLECs pursuant to 251(c )(3)? If not, what is the
applicable process for the transition or disconnection of such facilities?
Is SBC required to provide entrance facilities to CLECs for use in
interconnection pursuant to Section 251(c)(2)? If so, what rate should
apply? May CLEC request that entrance facilities or dedicated transport be "reclassified" as an interconnection facility and, if yes, what rate, if any,
should apply? 83
OO. Issue 52: Sections 15 and 1.1(IX) - Should CLECs' proposed Section 15
(Signaling System 7) and other reference to SS7 be included in the
amendment or handled elsewhere? 85
IV. Comments on Draft Decision 87
V. Assignment of Proceeding 87
Findings of Fact 87
Conclusions of Law 92
ORDER 94
DECISION ADOPTING AMENDMENT
TO EXISTING INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS
I. Summary
In this decision, we adopt an amendment to the existing interconnection agreements (ICAs) that various Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) have with SBC California (SBC). This change-of-law proceeding results from changes in federal unbundling obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). The Commission directed SBC to negotiate amendments to its ICAs with CLECs in order to implement the changes in unbundling rules and to initiate a consolidated proceeding to resolve any disputed issues. The purpose of this proceeding is for the Commission to resolve those issues on which parties were unable to come to agreement.
