IX. Reporting Service Quality Results to the Commission

A. Reporting Frequency

As stated above, in addition to incumbent carriers, IECs and CLECs are currently subject to G.O. 133-B service quality measures and standards. Even though G.O. 133-B applies to all telephone utilities in California, staff reports that only ILECs and one IEC/CLEC have ever reported any service quality results to the Commission.

The Commission recognizes that G.O. 133-B currently requires carriers to file reports with the Commission only when carriers fail to meet minimum service quality standards during a reporting period (i.e., "exception reporting"). However, because generally only incumbent carriers have ever reported any service quality results to the Commission, we are concerned that some carriers may not be complying with their G.O. 133-B reporting obligations.

Importantly, exception reporting deprives the Commission of continuous and useful service quality information, and requires the Commission to assume that "everything must be alright, otherwise we should be receiving carrier reports." As pointed out in the Commission's decision addressing CUCC's NRF, G.O. 133-B's exception reporting "...essentially expects utilities to operate on the honor system, but non-reporting does not always mean compliance."⁹⁴ As mentioned above, certain carriers are required to regularly report (i.e., "positive report") various service quality measures under the FCC's ARMIS and MCOT requirements. We also discussed why the limitations of those reports prevent us from relying on them to satisfy our service quality information needs.

We are aware that there are also times when carriers fail to accurately report information as required. For example, our consumer protection rules require billing telephone companies to report complaints received each month for each service provider and billing agent. However, as acknowledged by Pacific in the Presiding Officer's recently adopted DSL settlement, Pacific reported fewer than 50 complaints it received concerning DSL service for which it billed on behalf of its affiliates during 2001 and 2002, even though it and its affiliate received over 5,000 complaints and the Commission received 853 complaints during that same period.

Nevertheless, we believe when uniform procedures are in place for the measures the Commission deems important to assessing service quality, ongoing periodic reports will provide the Commission with far more useful information than is currently available under G.O. 133-B's exception reporting framework.

Therefore, we propose to require quarterly reporting of actual monthly service quality performance measures, whether or not carriers exceed minimum service quality standards. Because carriers are already obligated to gather data for the purpose of monitoring service quality, the additional step of filing ongoing service quality reports should not place a significant additional burden on carriers.

Further, we propose to enforce our reporting requirements with fines and other penalties. That is, we propose to establish specific penalties for failure to report and will, via Commission Resolution or other Commission action, fine and/or, suspend and, if necessary, revoke the operating authority of carriers that fail to comply with our service quality reporting requirements.

We seek comment on whether there are circumstances where carriers should be exempt from positive reporting. We seek comment on whether quarterly reporting of actual monthly service quality performance measures is sufficient, whether more frequent (monthly) reporting is necessary, or whether less frequent reporting is adequate.

B. Means and Format of Reporting

In addition to paper ("hard copy") reports, we propose to require electronic reporting of service quality measures in an IBM-compatible electronic (compact disk or 3.5" floppy diskette, or electronically/Internet transmitted) format with text information in MS Word and numeric information in MS Excel or MS Access. We believe this reporting method will be more efficient and cost effective for carriers, and will facilitate the Commission's analysis of service quality information. We propose to specifically prohibit reporting of service quality information in PDF format, because this format limits Commission's ability to analyze service quality data.

We seek comment on whether these proposed methods and format of reporting are adequate.