4.2.1.2 Tie Cables, Jumpers, OSS Modifications, Conditioning

Joint Petitioners support the adoption of Pacific's proposed tie cable rate, but reject the adoption of GTE's proposed rate, arguing that the GTE rate is not TELRIC compliant. We are not persuaded to adopt a different outcome.

The Arbitrator declined to adopt the CLCs' proposal to use Pacific's rate for GTE. We agree there is insufficient justification to use Pacific's rate for GTE. Rather, the Arbitrator adopted the CLCs' alternate proposal that GTE's rate, if used, be subject to refund. We are not persuaded by any evidence presented by CLCs of GTE's TELRIC for tie cables. In the absence of better evidence, we adopt the CLC's alternate recommendation to use GTE's proposed rate, subject to true-up adjustment.

Joint Petitioners also contend that the interim arbitration adopts an excessive number of tie cables in determining the rate for tie cables and jumpers. The Arbitrator found that ILECs presented sufficient evidence to justify more than one tie cable in the interim, but adopted Covad's recommendation that this ultimately be determined in the final phase. We are not persuaded to disturb this outcome.

Covad argues that the adopted monthly charge for a Pacific-owned splitter is inconsistent with TELRIC, and must be rejected. To the contrary, CLCs and ILECs used the same bases for their estimates, but applied different adjustment factors. CLCs failed to present convincing evidence and argument that ILECs overstate their estimates and, for the reasons stated in the FAR, the ILEC estimates are reasonable with respect to disputed factors (e.g., number of cables and jumpers, fill factor, annual operating expense factor).

Further, Pacific is not required to provide the splitter, the splitter is not a UNE, and whether or not a voluntarily provided splitter must be priced based on a TELRIC calculation is not determined in this interim arbitration. Nonetheless, the Pacific-owned splitter rate is based on total service long run incremental cost (TSLRIC). TSLRIC is consistent with our adopted cost principles in this OANAD proceeding. No evidence here shows that the TSLRIC calculation is materially different than a calculation based on TELRIC. Parties may address this further in the final portion of this line sharing phase.

Covad asserts that the adopted charge for Pacific's OSS modifications is not TELRIC based, and must be rejected. To the contrary, Pacific's OSS modification charge is based on a price quote from a vendor to upgrade OSS to accommodate line sharing. This is an incremental cost.

Covad states that the adopted Pacific conditioning charge in addition to the channel connection charge is excessive. To the contrary, Pacific reasonably shows that the conditioning cost can be in addition to channel connection cost. This is adopted for the interim, subject to true-up adjustment if CLCs demonstrate otherwise in the final portion of the line sharing phase.