Issue 4: Conversions

The parties dispute the terms and conditions that should apply to conversions of a wholesale service to a UNE.

XO proposes language negotiated by the parties in Illinois. (Section 3.15.) XO contends that its language is superior to SBC's proposed language, which would limit or burden XO's ability to convert wholesale service to UNEs and provide SBC with too much unilateral power to convert UNEs back to wholesale services if SBC believes XO has not met eligibility requirements. XO maintains the TRO provides no authority for this language. In addition, XO opposes SBC's proposed charge for conversions, claiming that the FCC rejected such charges in paragraph 587 of the TRO. XO notes that if any charge is allowed, it should be limited to a service order processing charge, as permitted in the Illinois Amendment.

During the arbitration hearing, SBC stated it accepts most of XO's proposed language on the issue of cost recovery for conversions. (Tr. At 52.) The remaining dispute appears primarily limited to the conversion ordering process described in Section 3.15.3, and other minor wording differences.

Overall, I find XO's proposed language for conversions captures the essence of requirements in the FCC's TRO and does so simply and concisely. XO's language should be adopted rather than SBC's language, which adds references to USTA II that are unnecessary. Further, XO's language regarding what happens if XO fails to meet eligibility criteria for a particular conversion is preferable to SBC's because it discusses a 60-day deadline and process for discontinuing the conversion and transferring to another appropriate service. With regard to the ordering process for conversions, I find XO's proposal in Section 3.15.3 superior to SBC's because it provides specificity and a deadline for order processing, with allowances for the parties to mutually agree to different terms. SBC's proposed language regarding use of the "change management" process where conversion processes are not in place is too open-ended, leaving the door open for further disputes. Therefore, the amended agreement should include XO's proposed language for Section 3.15.