5. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of the Arbitrator and ALJ in this matter was mailed to parties on June 30, 2000, in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on _____ (July 20, 2000), and reply comments were filed on _____ (July 25, 2000).

Findings of Fact

1. By ruling dated February 25, 2000, a procedure was established for interim arbitration of unresolved line sharing issues, with interim line sharing arbitration awards to become effective by June 6, 2000, to be followed by further proceedings to set final rates, and resolve other line sharing issues.

2. Requests for arbitration were filed on March 27, 2000.

3. The FAR was filed and served on May 26, 2000, resolving all issues presented for arbitration.

4. Pacific's Appendix DSL, GTE's Line Sharing Amendment, and signed appendices and amendments effective June 6, 2000, were filed by Pacific and GTE in compliance with, and as modified to conform with final decisions in, the FAR.

5. No party or member of the public alleges that any negotiated portion of the appendices and amendments must be rejected.

6. CLCs consider the zero monthly rate for access to the high frequency portion of GTE's loop a negotiated item in the GTE amendments.

7. With the possible exception of the monthly rate for access to the high frequency portion of GTE's loop, no negotiated portion of the appendices and amendments results in discrimination against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the appendix or amendment; is inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity; or fails to meet CPUC rules, regulations or orders, including service quality standards.

8. For the purpose of establishing an interim rate subject to later true-up adjustment, the TELRIC for access to the loop, and the TELRIC for other line sharing services, is not zero.

9. A zero monthly rate for access to the high frequency portion of GTE's loop is not in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

10. Adoption of any rate or rates other than zero is not discriminatory against CLCs, given tracking of revenues from interim rates in memoranda accounts, with true-up adjustments ensuring nondiscriminatory treatment between ILECs and CLCs.

11. Interim rates adopted in the FAR are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.

12. The rate for access to the high frequency portion of an ILEC's loop was an issue presented for arbitration in this multi-party proceeding.

13. ILECs are not required to own and provision splitters.

14. The interim, limited restriction on Pacific and GTE decommissioning copper local loop facilities is a pro-competitive requirement consistent with the goal of promoting the availability of xDSL services.

15. Pacific decommissions copper local loops only occasionally.

16. The results reached in the FAR are reasonable, including, but not limited to, establishment of interim rates, identification of arbitrated issues, decisions regarding deadlines, adoption of a complete Appendix DSL, treatment of line sharing with respect to the UNE-P, and the limited restriction on the decommissioning of copper local loop plant.

17. No arbitrated portion of the appendices and amendments fails to meet the requirements of § 251 of the Act, including FCC regulations pursuant to § 251, or the standards of § 252(d) of the Act.

18. No provision of the appendices and amendments conflicts with State law, including compliance with telecommunications service quality standards, or requirements of the CPUC.

Conclusions of Law

1. Pacific's Appendix DSL, GTE's Line Sharing Amendment, and the appendices and amendments filed June 2, 2000, which were effective June 6, 2000, should be approved.

2. A higher and inappropriate burden of proof was not applied to CLCs compared to ILECs in the interim arbitration.

3. This order should be effective today because it is the public interest to implement national telecommunications policy as accomplished through these appendices and amendments as soon as possible, and to permit interim arbitration appendices and amendments to be approved without delay.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. We affirm the results reached in the May 26, 2000, Final Arbitrator's Report and, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Resolution ALJ-178, we approve:

2. The line sharing phase of this proceeding remains open to determine:

3. This order is effective today.

Dated ____________, at San Francisco, California.

ATTACHMENT A

AVERAGE RATES THAT

COMPETIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS (CLCs)

WILL PAY INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS (ILECs)

FOR LINE SHARING

LINE NO.

ITEM

PACIFIC

GTE

1

RECURRING (per line per month)

   

2

CLC-owned splitter

$7.34

$7.20

3

ILEC-owned splitter

$9.88

$10.10

4

NON-RECURRING (per line)

   

5

CLC-owned splitter

   

6

Fully mechanized OSS

$16.54

NA

7

Semi-mechanized OSS

$31.34

$54.53

8

Manual OSS

$45.15

$81.21

9

ILEC-owned splitter

   

10

Fully mechanized OSS

$20.15

NA

11

Semi-mechanized OSS

$34.96

$58.14

12

Manual OSS

$48.76

$84.82

Notes:

1. Source: Exhibit 3251, with adopted rates for monthly access and operational support systems (OSS).

2. Lines that must be conditioned will be assessed an additional fee:

(a) Pacific: $18.55 (non-recurring)

(b) GTE: $1.50 (per line per month)

3. GTE's recurring monthly rates will be less if the CLC's existing interconnection agreement (ICA) has a tie cable rate less than $2.10 per jumper. If so, the ICA tie cable rate will be used in the interim, subject to later true-up adjustment.

(END OF ATTACHMENT A)

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First PageNext Page