17. Price Schedule

17.1. Price Schedule 24

SBC-CA contends that these trunks do not interconnect with SBC-CA's network "for the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange access" under § 251(c)(2)(A) of the Act. SBC-CA says these trunks are on MCIm's side of the POI, and connect MCIm's network with SBC-CA's Operator Assistance (OA), Directory Assistance (DA) and Busy Line Verification (BLV/I) tandems solely for the benefit of MCIm's customer, providing no functionality whatsoever to SBC-CA's customers. As a result, MCIm is not entitled to TELRIC rates for its OA/DA and BLV/I trunks, according to SBC-CA. Rather, SBC-CA says its proposed market-based rates should be adopted.

MCIm asserts, as also argued under NIM 13, that these trunks are used for § 252(c)(2) interconnection, and that prices must, therefore, be based on TELRIC. MCIm proposes continuation of TELRIC-based prices adopted by the Commission in the 2001 ICA.

Discussion

SBC-CA's proposed rates are adopted.

For the same reasons as discussed in NIM 13, these are not interconnection facilities used for § 251(c)(2) interconnection. The trunks at issue here are on MCIm's side of the POI. They exist only within MCIm's network, and solely to provide services to MCIm's customers. They are not accessible to SBC-CA's customers, and they do not carry traffic to or from SBC-CA's network. Thus, they are not used for § 251(c)(2) interconnection.

Further, as SBC-CA correctly explains, the plain language of §251(c)(2) does not obligate ILECs to provide interconnection facilities at TELRIC rates. It only requires ILECs to provide interconnection at TELRIC rates:

    "each incumbent local exchange carrier has the...duty to provide, for the facilities and equipment of any requesting telecommunications carrier, interconnection with the local exchange carrier's network..." (§ 251(c)(2), emphasis added.)

FCC regulations confirm this fact, declaring that TELRIC rates apply to "interconnection" (as opposed to "interconnection facilities"):

"§ 51.501 Scope.

    (a) The rules in this subpart apply to the pricing of network elements, interconnection, and methods of obtaining access to unbundled elements..." (SBC-CA Reply Brief, page18, citing 47 C.F.R. § 51.501(a); emphasis added.)

This FCC rule says nothing about interconnection facilities. As such, even if MCIm's OA/DA and BLV/I trunks were facilities used to interconnect with SBC-CA's network (which they are not), they still would not qualify for TELRIC pricing because §251(c)(2) of the Act requires interconnection-not interconnection facilities on the CLEC's side of the POI-to be provided at TELRIC rates.

Moreover, an ILEC must make provisions "for the facilities and equipment" of the CLEC, but is neither required to provide the facilities themselves, nor make them available at TELRIC prices. SBC-CA satisfies the requirement to make provisions "for" the facilities and equipment of MCIm.

MCIm argues that rates in the existing ICA should continue. Those rates, however, were adopted "until Pacific provides the custom routing MCIm is requesting." (FAR dated July 16, 2001 in A.01-01-010, page 91.) That in turn was based on the FCC concluding that OS/DA is a UNE until customized routing was available. (2001 FAR, page 32, citing FCC UNE Remand Order, paragraph 463.) The 2001 FAR concluded that: "OS and DA will be treated as UNEs in this ICA as along [sic] as Pacific does not provide the specific form of custom routing MCIm has requested." (2001 FAR, page 33.58) That is, this treatment was limited.

The FCC has now determined that entrance facilities need not be unbundled and priced at TELRIC. (See NIM 13 above, citing from TRRO at ¶¶ 138 and 139.) The same conclusion applies to the pricing of the trunks here.

MCIm makes no claim that the custom routing it previously sought cannot now be obtained. Moreover, custom routing is no longer the controlling concern since OA, DA and BLV/I are not longer UNEs, and OA, DA and BLV/I need not continue to be treated as UNEs, as was the case in the 2001 ICA.

Thus, SBC-CA's proposed rates are adopted.

17.2. Price Schedule 25

SBC-CA says no. Rather, SBC-CA proposes that the rates be incorporated into this ICA by reference to an SBC-CA tariff.

MCIm says yes. MCIm argues that the actual tariffed rates should be stated in the ICA. According to MCIm, this provides contractual certainty, eases ICA administration, and reduces the potential for SBC-CA making unilateral changes.

Discussion

SBC-CA's proposal is adopted.

SBC-CA's proposal is identical to the treatment of this issue in the 2001 ICA. No new fact or law justifies a change. Parties have successfully used this approach for years, and there is no reason to change this practice now.

Moreover, for all the reasons discussed above, it is reasonable and efficient for the 2006 ICA to refer to an appropriate tariff in all cases where it is feasible. On the other hand, MCIm's arguments regarding contract certainty, administrative ease and potential for unilateral change by SBC-CA are not compelling. (See GT&C 10, xDSL 3, xDSL 5, UNE 7, UNE 19, UNE 40, P. Collo 1 and V. Collo 1.)

MCIm also argues here that DCS and/or network reconfiguration service (NRS) may in the future be used as an interconnection facility or function, or part of a routine network modification, that SBC-CA is required to provide at TELRIC prices. While MCIm does not now challenge the prices for these functions as set out in Tariff CPUC 175-T, MCIm is concerned that SBC-CA may seek to propose increases that are unlawful or inequitable. MCIm says the advice letter process does not permit MCIm to test the TELRIC basis of proposed rate increases, that SBC-CA is not required to provide TELRIC studies or other cost support with its advice letter filings, and that there is no upper bound on the rate increase SBC-CA may implement through the advice letter process.

To the contrary, whether or not something "may" in the future be required to be priced based on TELRIC does not conclusively show that it must be priced on that basis now. MCIm states it does not challenge current prices levels. Nonetheless, should MCIm later object, MCIm may file a complaint. Alternatively, if SBC-CA seeks to change prices, MCIm may protest the advice letter. If the complaint or protest has merit, the Commission will provide necessary process, potentially including evidentiary hearing. Through that process, potentially including hearing, MCIm may fully test the cost, or any other basis used, for the rate or rate change. Contrary to MCIm's concern, the Commission does not permit rates, or unlimited rate increases through the advice letter process, which are unlawful or inequitable.

17.3. Price Schedule 26

SBC-CA proposes that the rates be incorporated into this ICA by reference to an SBC-CA tariff.

MCIm proposes that the actual tariffed rates be stated in the ICA. Also, MCIm asserts that diverse routing must be based on TELRIC, since it might be used in the context of interconnection or dedicated transport UNE.

Discussion

SBC-CA's proposal is adopted (as corrected in SBC-CA's Reply Brief to refer to Schedule CAL.P.U.C 175-T, Section 11).

SBC-CA's proposal is identical to the treatment of this issue in the 2001 ICA. No new fact or law justifies a change. Parties have successfully used this approach for years, and there is no reason to change this practice now.

SBC-CA argues that diverse routing is not a UNE. MCIm fails to conclusively show otherwise. For example, MCIm says diverse routing "could be used in the context of" things that are UNEs. (MCIm Opening Brief, page 249). This does not convincingly show that diverse routing is, or must be, used in this context.

Moreover, for all the same reasons stated above, it is reasonable for the price here to refer to the appropriate tariff rather than list the price itself. (See GT&C 10, xDSL 3, xDSL 5, UNE 7, UNE 19, UNE 40, P. Collo 1, V. Collo 1, and Pr Sch 25.)

17.4. Price Schedule 27

SBC-CA proposes rates to recover costs, which include translations, technician time, administrative costs and project management.

MCIm proposes there be no rate, which MCIm says is consistent with both Commission and FCC precedent.

Discussion

MCIm's proposal (no rate) is adopted.

MCIm's proposal is identical to the treatment of this issue in the 2001 ICA. No new fact or law justifies a change.

MCIm points out that this same issue was decided in MCIm's favor by the Commission in the parties' two prior ICA arbitrations. In both cases, the Commission rejected SBC-CA's proposed nonrecurring rates and adopted MCIm's proposal of no rate. For example, in the most recent arbitration, the Commission found that:

    "the rate for NXX migrations should be deleted from the Pricing Appendix. The cost of NXX migrations should be absorbed by all carriers, in the same manner as opening an NXX code by other carriers. This is consistent with the Commission's outcome in the MFSW/Pacific arbitration." (2001 FAR, pages 7-8.)

Pacific complains that this outcome is unreasonable and inequitable. The Commission has found otherwise. The existing treatment should continue in the absence of new fact or law that merits a change.

17.5. Price Schedule 28

SBC-CA proposes including a rate.

MCIm proposes that no rate be included, but parties rely on terms stated in the GT&C.

Discussion

MCIm's proposal is adopted.

SBC-CA seeks to include what it characterizes as the industry standard billing and collection charge of $0.05 per message for alternatively billed service (ABS). SBC-CA contends this rate was included in the 2001 ICA (Appendix ABT (Alternatively Billed Traffic) § 17). SBC-CA says its proposal here is identical, except to place the charge in the Pricing Schedule of the 2006 ICA.

SBC-CA's proposal, however, conflicts with parties' already agreed-upon language in GT&C § 52 of the 2006 ICA. Section 52 deals with ABS, and parties there agree that: "ABS is subject to the terms, conditions and pricing set forth in the 13 State ABS Agreement between the Parties effective January 1, 2004." As MCIm correctly states, it would be unreasonable to introduce prices elsewhere in this ICA that might conflict with the 13 State ABS Agreement, or in any other way create any conflict. SBC-CA neither states any reason why the 13 State Agreement should not control, nor why the agreed-upon language in GT&C § 52 is inadequate.

17.6. Price Schedule 31

This issue is the price issue corollary to Issue NIM 26 and Reciprocal Compensation 18.

SBC-CA believes transit service is not required under §§ 251 and 252 of the Act, is not subject to this arbitration, and may not be arbitrated unless both parties voluntarily consent to the negotiation/arbitration of such items. SBC-CA says it has not consented. Therefore, SBC-CA believes that this ICA should exclude rates, terms, and conditions for transit traffic, and parties should address the matter by private commercial agreement or tariff. If the Commission determines otherwise, SBC-CA offers a separate Transit Traffic Service Appendix, which it says is more comprehensive than that offered by MCIm.

MCIm says transit traffic is an integral part of indirect interconnection, is subject to negotiation and arbitration under that Act, and must be priced at TELRIC rates. MCIm proposes that the rates for transit service approved by the Commission for the 2001 ICA continue in the 2006 replacement ICA.

Discussion

MCIm's proposal is adopted.

As discussed above (see NIM 26 and Reciprocal Compensation 18), transit service is a fundamental component of indirect interconnection. The applicable price standard is TELRIC. MCIm proposes the same transit service rates that were included in the 2001 ICA. SBC-CA does not oppose the transit rates themselves, only their inclusion in the 2006 ICA. No new facts or law, however, merit a change from the approach used in the 2001 ICA. MCIm's proposed language and rates are identical to those in the 2001 ICA, and are adopted here.

17.7. Price Schedule 44

SBC-CA proposes collocation rates from SBC's 13-State generic collocation pricing schedule.

MCIm proposes rates from the currently effective SBC-CA Accessible Letter CLEC00-064 (Acc Ltr 00-064).

Discussion

MCIm's proposal is largely adopted, but rates shall be subject to true-up or change as described below.

In brief summary, the record here shows there was confusion or misunderstanding between parties regarding this item. SBC-CA apparently believed parties were negotiating collocation rates based on a 13-State generic collocation pricing schedule available on SBC's website. MCIm either did not have the same understanding, or believed SBC-CA's May 26, 2005 application to be SBC-CA's exact and specific proposal. SBC-CA's application contained agreed-upon language stating: "The rates and charges for collocation are set forth in the Pricing Schedule." (Physical Collocation Appendix § 20.1.1.59) The application, however, did not contain collocation prices. In its June 20, 2005 response, MCIm proposed continuation of current prices in Acc Ltr 00-064.60 In rebuttal testimony served on September 2, 2005, , SBC-CA attached SBC-CA's proposed 13-State generic collocation pricing schedule, and recommended adoption of those prices here. At hearing in late September, parties further explained the matter and various alternatives.

Parties agree that current collocation charges are from Acc Ltr 00-064. As MCIm explains, these rates are compliant with all applicable law. For example, in part based on rates in Acc Ltr 00-064 being compliant with law, the Commission and the FCC determined that SBC-CA was in compliance with all necessary sections of TA 96. This included just and reasonable interconnection and network element charges pursuant to § 252(d)(1), based on TELRIC where necessary and appropriate. As a result, the checklist for SBC's § 271 application was satisfied, and SBC's § 271 application was approved. As applied in the 2001 ICA, physical collocation rates are, with limited exception, "subject to true-up retroactive to the date of this agreement based on the outcome of the collocation pricing phase of OANAD." (2001 ICA, § 7(b).) As also applied in the 2001 ICA, virtual collocation rates are subject to change based on later Commission order. No new fact or law justifies a change in those rate levels, or that they should be subject to true-up or change based on later Commission order.

SBC-CA argues that its proposed prices are superior, representing "compromise rates that have resulted from negotiations with many CLECs in many SBC jurisdictions." (SBC-CA Opening Brief, page 246.) To the contrary, whether or not negotiated with many CLECs in many jurisdictions, they are not negotiated and agreed to here by MCIm.

SBC-CA further states that:

    "It is significant to note that MCIm has already agreed to these same rates in Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma [footnotes deleted]. The fact that both Parties accepted these rates in other jurisdictions supports the fairness thereof." (SBC-CA Opening Brief, page 246, emphasis in original.)

Again, whether or not MCIm has agreed to these rates elsewhere, MCIm has not agreed to these rates here. Moreover, while agreement elsewhere might support the fairness of SBC-CA's proposed rates here, it does not conclusively determine their fairness. Rather, the determination of the rates here-considering fairness and all relevant factors-must be based on the record in this proceeding, along with experience and precedent in California. It is not necessarily driven by what MCIm might have agreed to elsewhere but opposes here.

SBC-CA argues that Acc Ltr 00-064 rates were adopted as interim rates subject to later true-up based on a subsequent Commission decision, and are now out-of-date. SBC-CA asserts its 13-State generic collocation rates are the best rates available and should be adopted. SBC-CA asserts neither party presented evidence on the TELRIC cost basis for these rates, but the best evidence regarding the reasonableness of SBC-CA's proposed rates is that they have been adopted in many other jurisdictions.

To the contrary, Acc Ltr 00-064 rates are compliant with law. SBC-CA is correct that it presented no evidence here on the cost basis for its rate proposal. Therefore, the best evidence regarding the reasonableness of collocation rates is that current rates are consistent with law, are reasonable and should be continued.

SBC-CA argues that its proposed rates should be adopted because they address the elements provided for in the Physical Collocation and Virtual Collocation appendices, while rates proposed by MCIm do not address many of the elements in those appendices. This is not convincing. Even if true, there is no inconsistency between the terms and conditions in the negotiated 2006 appendices and the existing Acc Ltr 00-064 rates for the services MCIm currently purchases, and says it intends to purchase in the future. The absence of some rates should cause little problem. Moreover, a cure, if necessary, is available.

That is, MCIm points out that any term or condition in the Collocation Appendices for where there is no matching Acc Ltr 00-064 rate may be treated pursuant to § 1.2 of the Pricing Appendix. This is a reasonable approach, and is adopted. That is, given how this issue developed between parties and was presented to the Commission, it is reasonable to find that a rate not included here, but for an element MCIm elects to purchase in the future, has been "inadvertently omitted."61 As such, Pricing Appendix § 1.2 applies, including that parties agree to amend the 2006 ICA to include a Commission-approved rate for the desired element. If no Commission-approved rate exists, parties agree to negotiate an interim rate, subject to later true-up. This reasonably addresses what should be limited cases of MCIm desiring an element for which prices are not in Acc Ltr 00-064.

SBC-CA proposes that the Collocation Appendices presented here be deleted in their entirety if MCIm really prefers to buy collocation from SBC-CA's tariff under Accessible Letter rates. This is rejected. It would be unreasonable to delete these appendices in their entirety with no replacement since at least some terms, conditions and rates are necessary for collocation.

A likely alternative would be to utilize the 2001 agreement language and practice, along with 2001 prices. This is similarly rejected. Large parts of the 2006 ICA Physical and Virtual Collocation Appendices presented here contain negotiated, agreed-upon language. Other parts have been arbitrated here. (See, for example, Chapters 14 and 15 above.) Neither party asserts that this agreed-upon language fails to be an improvement upon the 2001 ICA. There is no compelling reason to abandon parties' considerable work on agreed-to language, and revert to the 2001 language. This is similarly true with the arbitrated portions. There is no compelling reason to negate parties' considerable time and effort arbitrating certain issues, and the Commission's work to resolve these items, and revert to the 2001 language.

One example is the DC Power Amperage Charge. MCIm points to agreed-upon language regarding charging for DC amps over one of two power feeds. (2006 ICA, Appendix Physical Collocation, § 19.2.4.1). This contrasts with the current method of charging for the total combined DC amps capacity over both power feeds. SBC-CA concurs that this is agreed-to language. This is a very important matter for MCIm. (See Reporter's Transcript, Vol 7, pages 710-711.) There is no known reason to abandon the agreed-to language in the 2006 ICA, and revert back to 2001 ICA language and practice.

The one exception to adopting MCIm's proposal is that the Physical Collocation rates adopted here should be subject to later true-up. Similarly, the Virtual Collocation rates should be replaced with later Commission determined rates. This is because, as SBC-CA points out, Acc Ltr 00-064 rates were intended to be interim and temporary, and apply only until the Commission made a final rate determination. SBC-CA reports it expected that determination in September 2000, but none has yet been filed.

To account for this, the 2001 ICA required that adopted Physical Collocation rates, with limited exceptions, be subject to later true-up. (2001 ICA, Appendix Collocation, § 7.1.(b).) The 2001 ICA also required that adopted Virtual Collocation rates be subject to replacement based on later Commission decision. (2001 ICA, Appendix Collocation, § 10.1.) The Commission may or may not later issue final rate determinations. The 2006 ICA should include the same provisions as those in the 2001 ICA for such eventuality.

As such, the 2006 ICA shall contain the same last three sentences that are in the 2001 ICA at Appendix Collocation § 7.1(b) for Physical Collocation. Specifically, the 2006 ICA Appendix Physical Collocation-CA § 20.2 shall be changed from:

    "20.2 The rates and charges for collocation are set forth in the Pricing Schedule."

To:

    "20.2 The rates and charges for collocation are set forth in the Pricing Schedule. With the exceptions noted below, all charges for all forms of Physical Collocation are subject to true-up retroactive to the date of this agreement based on the outcome of the collocation pricing phase of OANAD. Standard cage and shared cage collocation charges are not subject to the aforementioned true up, except for site preparation, conditioning charges, BRF and ICB pricing. Any collocation rates approved by the Commission, for any forms of Physical Collocation, subsequent to the Effective Date of this Agreement shall replace the rates described above prospectively at such time as the Commission decision becomes final and no longer subject to appeal."

Similarly, the 2006 ICA shall contain language much like that in the 2001 ICA at Appendix Collocation § 10.1 for Virtual Collocation. The language for 2006 is modified from the 2001 language only to delete the reference to a closed Commission proceeding (A.96-08-040), delete the reference to "interim" (to promote parallel treatment within the 2006 ICA), and recognize that the Commission may or may not later order retroactive treatment (which will govern any updated rates based on specific Commission order). It also includes other minor wording changes, but no change to the substance. Specifically, the 2006 ICA Appendix Virtual Collocation § 16.3 shall be changed from:

"16.3 Application of Rates and Charges

      Beginning on and after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties agree that the rates and charges for Collocation shall be as set forth in this Appendix and in the Pricing Schedule applicable to collocation ("Collocation Rates"). The Parties agree that the Collocation Rates shall apply, on a prospective basis only, beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement, to all existing CLEC collocation arrangements, including those established before the Effective Date of this Agreement. Because the Collocation Rates will apply on a prospective basis only, neither Party shall have a right to retroactive application of the Collocation Rates to any time period before the Effective Date, and there shall be no retroactive right of true-up for any time period before the Effective Date."

To:

"16.3 Application of Rates and Charges

      Beginning on and after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties agree that the rates and charges for Collocation shall be as set forth in this Appendix and in the Pricing Schedule applicable to collocation ("Collocation Rates"). Collocation rates later determined by the Commission in the OANAD or other appropriate proceeding shall replace these rates. The Parties agree that the Collocation Rates shall apply, on a prospective basis only, beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement, to all existing CLEC collocation arrangements, including those established before the Effective Date of this Agreement, unless later specifically ordered otherwise by the Commission. Because the Collocation Rates will apply on a prospective basis only, neither Party shall have a right to retroactive application of the Collocation Rates to any time period before the Effective Date, and there shall be no retroactive right of true-up for any time period before the Effective Date, unless later specifically ordered otherwise by the Commission."

Thus, MCIm's proposed rates are adopted, subject to later true-up or change as provided above.

17.8. Price Schedule 50

SBC-CA proposes that rates for these elements be incorporated into this ICA by reference to SBC-CA's California Tariff 175-T, and be subject to change as Tariff 175-T may change.

MCIm proposes that the specific rates in SBC-CA's California Tariff 175-T be listed in the ICA for these elements, and they not be subject to change except by amendment to the ICA.

Discussion

SBC-CA's proposal is adopted.

MCIm is satisfied with the rate levels for these elements as currently set out in the 175-T tariff, but is concerned that there is no upper limit to the increase SBC-CA might seek through an advice letter filing. Further, MCIm states that these types of charges "could" be for work requested in connection with interconnection, UNEs or routine network modifications, all of the prices for which must be based on TELRIC, according to MCIm.

To the contrary, it is reasonable to incorporate these prices by reference. Parties agree that the 2001 ICA did not include additional engineering, additional labor and miscellaneous services. Nonetheless, several other items in the 2001 ICA refer to tariffs, no evidence here shows this practice posed any significant problems for either party, and no new fact or law justifies any change.

Moreover, for all the same reasons stated above, it is efficient and reasonable for the prices here to refer to the appropriate SBC-CA tariff. (See GT&C 10, xDSL 3, xDSL 5, UNE 7, UNE 19, UNE 40, P. Collo 1, V. Collo 1, Pr Sch 25 and Pr Sch 26.) For example, no substantial incremental burden is imposed by referencing the appropriate SBC-CA tariff. SBC-CA cannot unilaterally change a tariff that must be approved by either the Commission or the FCC. The price certainty and protection MCIm seeks is provided by the tariff and the regulatory structure. The incremental cost, if any, to reference a tariff is not shown by MCIm to exceed the cost and complexity of negotiating and obtaining approval for an amendment to the ICA. Finally, whether these items "could" be used with elements that are required to be priced at TELRIC levels does not show that these items "must" be used with those elements, or that the prices for these items must be based on TELRIC. MCIm does not now object to the level of the prices for these items but, if SBC-CA proposes an increase to which MCIm objects, MCIm may protest the advice letter and obtain all appropriate and necessary protection at that time.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that, within seven days from today, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, doing business as SBC California (SBC-CA), and MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC (MCIm) shall:

1. Jointly file and serve an entire Interconnection Agreement (ICA), for Commission approval, that conforms to the decisions in this Final Arbitrator's Report.

2. Separately file and serve a statement which:

This order is effective today.

Dated April 19, 2006, at San Francisco, California.

ATTACHMENT A

ISSUES AND OUTCOMES

LINE

NO.

ISSUE

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

OUTCOME

  

SBC

MCI

OTHER

CHAPTER 4 - General Terms and Conditions

1

GT&C 3

One free name change

X

    

2

GT&C 5

Evergreen provision

  

X

  

3

GT&C 6

Deposits

    

X

4

GT&C 7

Failure to pay or dispute bill

X

    

5

GT&C 8

Audit requirements

X

    

6

GT&C 9

Intervening law clause

X

    

7

GT&C 10

MCI purchase from either ICA or tariff

  

X

  

CHAPTER 5 - Definitions

8

Def 3

End User

  

X

  

CHAPTER 6 - Network Interconnection Method (NIM)

9

NIM 4

Definition of Access Tandem

 

X

  

10

NIM 5

Definition of Local Interconnection Trunk Group

X

    

11

NIM 8

Definition of Points of Interconnection

  

X

  

12

NIM 9

Mutual agreement necessary for interconnection

X

    

13

NIM 11

OS/DA, 911, mass calling and meet-point trunk facilities within §251(c)(2)

X

    

14

NIM 12

Single POI

  

X

  

15

NIM 13

Pricing of leased facilities for interconnection

X

    

16

NIM 14

Interconnection limitations/requirements

X

    

17

NIM 15

Commingling local and other traffic

X

    

18

NIM 17

Relative Use Factor

X

    

19

NIM 20

911 interconnection pricing

X

    

20

NIM 21

911 POI

X

    

21

NIM 22

Inward operator assistance interconnection T&C

  

X

  

22

NIM 23

Trunk forecasting detail

X

    

23

NIM 24

Trunk traffic measurement

X

    

24

NIM 25

Trunk augment provisioning interval

X

    

25

NIM 26

Transit traffic

  

X

  

26

NIM 28

Switched traffic that is PSTN-IP-PSTN or IP-PSTN

X

    

LINE

NO.

ISSUE

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

OUTCOME

SBC

MCI

OTHER

CHAPTER 7 - Invoicing (INV)

27

INV 1

Disputed amount payment withholding

X

    

28

INV 2

Amounts disputed into escrow

X

    

29

INV 3

Deadline for dispute documentation

  

X

  

30

INV 4

Contractual stake date limits

  

X

  

CHAPTER 8 - Operational Support Systems (OSS)

31

OSS 1

Unauthorized use indemnity

X

    

32

OSS 3

Inaccurate ordering or usage cost

  

X

  

CHAPTER 9 - Performance Measures (PM)

33

PM1

Reservation of rights to challenge a performance remedy plan

X

    

CHAPTER 10 - Resale (Resale)

34

Resale 1

Resale to 3rd carrier

  

X

  

35

Resale 5

Resale liability & indemnity for 911

X

    

CHAPTER 11 - Digital Subscriber Line and Line Sharing (xDSL)

36

xDSL 2

xDSL liability and indemnity language

X

    

37

xDSL 3

Time & materials charges in ICA or tariff

X

    

38

xDSL 5

Acceptance and Cooperative Testing; Rates in ICA or tariff

X

    

CHAPTER 12 - Reciprocal Compensation (RC)

39

RC 2

NPA NXX used to rate calls

  

X

  

40

RC 4

Intercarrier compensation for FX and FX-like calls

  

X

  

41

RC 5

FX traffic segregation

  

X

  

42

RC 6

Traffic excluded from § 251(b)(5) scope

  

X

  

43

RC 7

Rates for calls without CPN

X

    

44

RC 8

Applicability of tandem interconnection rate

  

X

  

45

RC 9

True-up mechanism for ISP bound traffic

  

X

  

46

RC 13

Termination of intraLATA interexchange traffic

X

    

47

RC 14

Special Access (dedicated private line) terms and conditions

 

X

  

LINE

NO.

ISSUE

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

OUTCOME

SBC

MCI

OTHER

CHAPTER 12 (continued)

48

RC 15

Switched access traffic delivered over local interconnection trunk groups

X

    

49

RC 16

FCC NPRM on intercarrier compensation

  

X

  

50

RC 17

VOIP traffic compensation

X

    

51

RC 18

Transit traffic as part of this agreement

  

X

  

CHAPTER 13 - Unbundled Network Elements (UNE)

52

UNE 1

geographic limitations on providing UNEs

  

X

  

53

UNE 2

Lawful UNE definition

 

X

  

54

UNE 3

Transition when UNEs declassified

  

X

  

55

UNE 5

Separation of UNEs

  

X

  

56

UNE 6

Selling UNEs to other carriers

  

X

  

57

UNE 7

Purchases from tariff/UNE appendix sole vehicle

  

X

  

58

UNE 19

Tariff restrictions

X

    

59

UNE 24

SBC requirement to construct

    

X

60

UNE 40

Network reconfiguration in Appendix or tariff

X

    

CHAPTER 14 - Physical Collocation (Phy Co)

61

Phy Co 1

MCIm purchase from either ICA or tariff

 

X

  

62

Phy Co 2

Limitation of liability

    

X

63

Phy Co 3

Insurance requirement

X

    

64

Phy Co 5

Indemnification provision

X

    

65

Phy Co 6

Power metering

X

    

CHAPTER 15 - Virtual Collocation (Vir Co)

66

Vir Co 1

MCIm purchase from either ICA or tariff

  

X

  

67

Vir Co 3

Indemnification provision

X

    

68

Vir Co 5

Limitation of liability

X

    

69

Vir Co 6

Insurance requirement

X

    

LINE

NO.

ISSUE

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

OUTCOME

SBC

MCI

OTHER

CHAPTER 16 - Pricing Appendix (Pr App)

70

Pr App 2

Language re notice to adopting CLECs

    

X

71

Pr App 4

Products and services not in ICA

X

    

72

Pr App 7

SBC proposals re non recurring charges

  

X

  

CHAPTER 17 - Price Schedule (Pr Sch)

73

Pr Sch 24

NRC for OA/DA & BLV/I Trunk based on TELRIC or market prices

X

    

74

Pr Sch 25

Prices for Digital Cross Connect System and Network Reconfiguration services

X

    

75

Pr Sch 26

Recurring charges for diverse routing

X

    

76

Pr Sch 27

Price for NXX migration

  

X

  

77

Pr Sch 28

Rates for message exchange (ABS)

  

X

  

78

Pr Sch 31

Inclusion of rates for transit and transitting local traffic

  

X

  

79

Pr Sch 44

Collocation elements and rates

  

X

80

Pr Sch 50

Rates for additional engineering, additional labor and misc. services

X

    

Other Category:

Note regarding NIM 4, 8, 12 and Recip Comp 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16: For this arbitration, these items are not ripe or moot. The existing 13-State Amendment shall control, subject to further process July l, 2007. MCIm's proposed language if the issue is resolved here is not adopted.

Note regarding Attachment A: This attachment is intended as a general summary for the assistance of the Commission and parties. If there is any conflict between the text in Final Arbitrator's Report (FAR) and this attachment, the text in the FAR controls the outcome.

(END OF ATTACHMENT A)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by mail this day served the Notice of Availability of the attached Final Arbitrator's Report on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record.

Dated April 19, 2006, at San Francisco, California.

NOTICE

Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Commission's policy is to schedule hearings (meetings, workshops, etc.) in locations that are accessible to people with disabilities. To verify that a particular location is accessible, call: Calendar Clerk (415) 703-1203.

If specialized accommodations for the disabled are needed, e.g., sign language interpreters, those making the arrangements must call the Public Advisor at (415) 703-2074, TTY 1-866-836-7825 or (415) 703-5282 at least three working days in advance of the event.

58 The 2001 FAR treats them as UNEs for the 2001 ICA, but does not specifically name them as UNEs. Rather, the 2001 FAR states: "While a state commission has the authority to name additional UNEs, it must be based on the robust `necessary and impair' analysis described in the FCC's UNE Remand Order. This Commission's determination of which elements constitute UNEs must conform to the process established in the UNE Remand Order." (2001 FAR, page 33.)

59 Similar language is in the Virtual Collocation Appendix, §§ 12.3 and 16.3

60 Even if SBC-CA had put its 13-State generic collocation prices in the Pricing Appendix with its application, MCIm had the right to propose continuation of existing prices in its response.

61 This is regarding an element for which terms and conditions are in the Collocation Appendices, but the rate is not present. If there are also no terms and conditions, § 1.11 of the Pricing Appendix applies, which includes using the Bona Fide Request process, as and where appropriate.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page