I. Procedural Background

On October 9, 1997, the Commission initiated this rulemaking proceeding as a procedural vehicle to accomplish the following three goals:

a. to determine reasonable standards of performance for Pacific and Verizon in their OSS;

b. to develop a mechanism that will allow the Commission to monitor improvements in the performance of OSS; and

c. to assess the best and fastest method of ensuring compliance if standards are not met or improvement is not shown.

In 1997, when the Commission initiated this proceeding, it recognized that it lacked the standards that it would need to evaluate Pacific's and Verizon's compliance with the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TA 96) and the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) rules implementing TA 96. TA 96 requires incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to provide competitors nondiscriminatory access to their operations support systems (OSS).³

The Commission also noted that this proceeding will prove critical to the Commission's ability to make an informed review of Pacific's OSS system under the § 271 application process of TA 96.⁴ In August 1997, the FCC ruled that, with regard to those OSS subfunctions with retail analogs, a BOC must offer OSS subfunctions to CLECs that are on par with their own; they "must provide access to competing carriers that is equal to the level of access that the BOC provides to itself, its customers, or its affiliates, in terms of quality, accuracy, and timeliness."⁵

A "retail analog" exists when a BOC offers a retail service comparable to the one offered by a CLEC. When the BOC offers no comparable retail service, no retail analog exists. For those OSS sub-functions without retail analogs, a BOC must offer access sufficient to allow an efficient competitor "a meaningful opportunity to compete."⁶ The task of measuring progress towards these goals falls largely on state commissions.

On August 5, 1999 in D.99-08-020, the Commission adopted a comprehensive framework for OSS performance measurements and standards. In large part, the framework was the result of collaborative work among Pacific, Verizon, CLECs, and our Telecommunications Division staff. The Commission also adopted the parties' recommendation that the measurements and standards be reviewed and refined after six months. The "Joint Partial Settlement Agreement" (JPSA), the terms of which the Commission adopts today, grew out of this review process.

On March 24, 2000, pursuant to Rule 51.1(b) of the Commission's "Rules of Practice and Procedure," Pacific gave written notice to all parties of this proceeding that it would convene a settlement conference regarding the review of OSS performance measurements and standards. Following the initial settlement conference, interested parties met frequently over a six-month period to discuss revisions to the forty-four OSS measurements, and the many submeasures, standards, and business rules contained in the existing JPSA.

On July 18, 2000, the Settling Parties filed a "Joint Motion for Adoption of Partial Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Article 13.5 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. On July 31, 2000, Verizon and Pacific filed separate motions in which they argued the merits of their positions on the "open" issues that remained among the Settling Parties. The CLEC members of the Settling Parties also filed a joint motion arguing that the Commission should adopt their collective positions regarding the open issues.

On July 31, 2000, NorthPoint Communications, Inc. (NorthPoint) and Rhythm Links, Inc. (Rhythms), neither of which joined the Settling Parties in the JPSA, filed comments on the settlement, the review process, and their position on open issues. In addition to presenting their position on open issues in these comments, NorthPoint and Rhythms argue that the review process is too long and burdensome for smaller competitors, particularly the data CLECs (DLECs); they recommend the Commission limit future reviews to one month.

On August 8, 2000, parties filed replies to the motions and comments. NorthPoint and Rhythms elected to forgo a reply brief and, instead, joined the CLECs in their reply brief. However, NorthPoint and Rhythms did not withdraw their proposal that the Commission limit the review process to a one month period and, therefore, did not join the CLECs' reply on that issue.

On August 17, 2000, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) filed, pursuant to Rule 51.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, comments in opposition to portions of the JPSA, recommending that proposed benchmarks for 16 measurements be established as parity measures before the Commission adopts the proposed settlement. In addition, ORA raised its concerns regarding the timeliness of its receipt of data.

On September 15, 2000, ORA filed a motion to withdraw its August 17^th comments in exchange for the Settling Parties agreeing to give consideration to its concerns in the review. The Settling Parties filed a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that memorializes their agreement with ORA on September 20, 2000.

In addition, on November 6, 2000, the Settling Parties filed by motion a revised JPSA that expanded their July JPSA by adding aproximately 60 additional agreements. Finally, on February 13, 2001, Verizon, and three participating CLECs⁷ filed a joint motion for approval of changes to Measurement 9. Verizon and the CLECs assert that their agreement resolves the disputed issue concerning Measurement 9.