III. Comments on the JPSA
The Settling Parties submit that the JPSA is reasonable in light of the whole record of competition in the California local exchange market, is consistent with the stated objectives of the Commission in this proceeding, and meets the Commission's public interest test for the approval of settlements. They assert that the measurements and standards of the JPSA are consistent with applicable law because they provide regulators with objective terms with which to measure the compliance of ILECs with TA 96. Furthermore, the JPSA, the Settling Parties observe, strikes a "reasonable compromise" between evaluating the ILECs' delivery of OSS and the administrative burdens of monitoring the ILECs' performance.
The Settling Parties also assert that the JPSA is in the public interest because many of the carriers that would be most directly affected by the standards by which Pacific and Verizon's OSS are provisioned have consented to its adoption. Because the CLECs who joined the Settling Parties will provide many local service options to California consumers, their concurrence in the JPSA, the Settling Parties collectively argue, makes the public's interest in the JPSA even greater.
NorthPoint and Rhythms participated in the February 2000 OSS performance measurement review but did not join the Settling Parties in signing the JPSA. On July 31, 2000, NorthPoint and Rhythms filed comments on the review process, on open issues, and on the proposed JPSA. On August 8, 2000, NorthPoint and Rhythms joined the CLEC members of the Settling Parties in filing a response to Pacific and Verizon on the open issues. Their positions on the open issues are reflected in Appendix B. We discuss here their comments on the review process and adoption of the JPSA.
In their comments on the review process, NorthPoint and Rhythms state that only a very small group of CLECs were able to participate throughout the entire review process and, therefore, the proposed JPSA does not adequately represent the entire CLEC industry, especially the data CLECs' (DLECs)8 interests. NorthPoint participated in the review process for approximately five weeks beginning in late May, and stated that during this period there were three day-long meetings at Pacific's offices in addition to three or more several-hour conference calls each week. During these meetings there were approximately 3-5 CLECs participating regularly and another 1 or 2 CLECs participating occasionally. NorthPoint decided not to sign the proposed JPSA because it was "unable to dedicate the resources needed to adequately address . . .[its]. . .concerns through this process without leaving an expansive list of open issues for the Commission to decide."
NorthPoint and Rhythms assert that most small and mid-sized CLECs do not possess the resources to effectively participate in an "almost 6 month non-stop process for reviewing these measures." They recommend that the Commission impose a review process that lasts no longer than one month in order to encourage broader CLEC participation.
While NorthPoint and Rhythms request the Commission change the review period proposed in the JPSA, they do not object to the Commission adopting all other portions of the JPSA. In their comments, they recognize the JPSA before us here is an improvement over the agreement we adopted in D.99-08-020, stating "the efforts of the CLECs that did participate throughout the entire process led to many improvements in the proposed JPSA."
On August 17, 2000, ORA filed comments pursuant to Rule 51.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. In its comments, ORA objects to adoption of the JPSA because it relies on benchmarks rather than parity standards and because performance measurement data is not readily available to ORA. However, on September 15, 2000, after negotiating with the Settling Parties, ORA withdrew its Comments. In consideration for this, the Settling Parties agreed to undertake the following with respect to OSS performance measures:
· To include the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) staff in discussions about the functionality of the OSS performance measures website and the configuration of the performance data on the website, and
· In the context of the March 2001 annual review of OSS performance measures, to consider amending the standards of at least five performance measures, which are currently benchmark standards, to either a party standard or standard based upon historical data.
