XV. Ex Parte Communications

This proceeding is subject to Rule 7, which specifies standards for engaging in ex parte communications and the reporting of such communications. Because this proceeding is preliminarily categorized as quasi-legislative, pursuant to Rule 7(a)(4), there are no restrictions on ex parte communications and they need not be reported, consistent with Rule 7(d). Following the assigned Commissioner's appealable determination of category, the applicable ex parte communication and reporting requirements shall depend on such determination unless and until the determination is modified by the Commission pursuant to Rule 6.4 or 6.5.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A rulemaking is initiated to adopt service quality measures, procedures, standards and quality assurance mechanisms applicable to telecommunications carriers.

2. All certificated and registered telecommunications carriers are respondents.

3. The issues to be considered in this proceeding are listed and described in Attachment 1 of this order. These issues constitute the general scope of this proceeding. The exact scope of this proceeding will be determined in one or more scooping rulings issued by the assigned Commissioner.

4. The preliminary schedule for conducting this proceeding is set forth in Attachment 2. The assigned Commissioner and the assigned ALJ may revise the schedule of this proceeding.

5. Parties seeking to participate in this proceeding shall mail a notice of participation to the Commission's Process Office no later than two weeks from the mailed date of this order. The address of the Process Office is Room 2000, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The notice must include all of the information identified in Section XIII of this order.

6. The Process Office shall create an initial service list based on notices of participation received by the Process Office on or before four weeks from the mailed date of this order. Parties may obtain the service list from the Commission's web site ( www.cpuc.ca.gov) or by contacting the Process Office [(415) 703-2021].

7. The assigned Commissioner and the assigned ALJ shall have ongoing oversight regarding the procedures governing participation in this proceeding. They may revise these procedures as necessary. The assigned Commissioner and the assigned ALJ shall also have ongoing oversight of the service list. They may revise the service list or the procedures governing the list as necessary.

8. Any party listed in the "Appearances" category on the service list that provides an email address shall serve and receive all pleadings by e-mail in Microsoft Word format. There is no need to serve hard copies of the pleadings on any party listed in the Appearances and State Service categories on the service list if that party has provided an e-mail address.

9. All documents filed at the Commission must be tendered in paper form as described in Rule 2 et seq.

10. Opening and reply comments as described in this order shall be filed with the Commission and served on all parties in accordance with the schedule attached to this order. In addition, as required by Rule 6(c)(2), parties shall include in their opening comments any objections they may have regarding (i) the categorization of this proceeding as "quasi-legislative," (ii) the preliminary determination that evidentiary hearings are not required, and (iii) the preliminary scope and schedule for this proceeding.

11. Any party who believes an evidentiary hearing is required shall file a motion requesting such a hearing within 15 days after the deadline established for filing reply comments. Replies to motions requesting hearings shall be filed and served within 10 days after the filing of a motion requesting an evidentiary hearing. A motion requesting an evidentiary hearing shall identify and describe (i) the material issues of fact, (ii) the evidence the party proposes to introduce at the requested hearing, and (iii) the schedule for conducting the hearing. Any right that a party may otherwise have to an evidentiary hearing will be waived if the party does not submit a timely motion requesting an evidentiary hearing.

12. This proceeding is preliminarily determined to be a quasi-legislative proceeding and no hearings are required.

13. This order shall be served on the service list for R.98-06-029 (Rulemaking on service quality standards), R.95-04-043/I.95-04-044 (Rulemaking and investigation into local competition), R.00-02-004 (Rulemaking establishing rules governing telecommunications consumer protection) and R.93-04-003/I.93-04-002 (Rulemaking and investigation into Open Access and Network Architecture Development).

14. This order shall be served on all certificated and registered carriers (Respondents).

This order is effective today.

Dated December 5, 2002 in San Francisco, California.

HENRY M. DUQUE
CARL W. WOOD
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
Commissioners

President Loretta M. Lynch, being

necessarily absent, did not participate.

Questions for Comment

Uniformity of Service Quality Data

Exhibit A to this Attachment summarizes the measures proposed for adoption and the services proposed to be tracked for each of the measurements. We do not intend to apply all proposed measures, standards and quality assurance mechanisms to each and every telecommunications service. The Commission solicits comments on the adequacy of our proposal. If a carrier recommends adding or removing measures or services to the matrix, please provide details as to the necessity of that addition. We also encourage parties to comment on service quality issues not addressed by our proposal.

1. Please address whether the methods proposed in the rulemaking accurately quantify each of the measures we propose to adopt. If the proposed methods do not reflect the carrier-specific details of the process being measured, please provide specific step-by-step procedures that reflect your carrier's processes.

2. Some services we propose to be measured are provided by a carrier's affiliates. Please explain how this might impact the accuracy of reports or the ability of a carrier to provide reports.

3. The terms "primary" and "additional" or "secondary" lines are used in the proposed rules. For example, we propose that carriers distinguish between primary and additional lines, reporting that data separately. This issue may be addressed in an upcoming decision in R.01-09-001/I.01-09-002. If any party did not state a position in that docket, they may briefly state their position in their response to this rulemaking.

4. When and how should carriers inform the Commission of changes to business arrangements or processes affecting the composition of the raw data underlying service quality measures?

Service Quality Assurance Mechanisms and Service Performance Guarantees

5. Are the proposed Service Quality Assurance Mechanisms (SQAMs) sufficient to maintain service quality. We invite parties to identify what they believe are the best practices in place for service quality measures in other jurisdictions that should be adopted in California.

6. Under what circumstances, if any, should proposed penalties be reduced or waived? How would this be carried out?

7. Are call abandonment rates an indicator of service quality? If so, are standards needed?

8. What SQAMs should be adopted to ensure that busy call rates and call abandonment rates are minimized?

Rules Applicable to Automated Response Units (ARUs)

9. Do the proposed rules for ARUs ensure that callers receive prompt and timely responses? If the proposed rules are inadequate, please provide specific changes to the proposed rules that would ensure callers receive prompt and timely responses from business and repair office representatives.

BOAT to uniformly address billing inquiries

10. Is a separate and distinct measure and standard for BOAT billing inquiries appropriate, or should billing inquiries instead be included with other business office calls for the purpose of measuring BOAT? Carriers should state whether billing inquiries and non-billing-related calls are routed to the same pool of service representatives or to distinct pools.

11. If billing inquiries should be separately measured, are the proposed rules sufficiently explicit to eliminate confusion as to which types of calls should be included in each BOAT measure?

Methods For Measuring Applicable Standards

12. Will the proposed methods and procedures ensure accurate and consistent TOAT, DAOAT, TRSAT and BOAT results? If the proposed methods are inadequate, please provide specific step-by- step procedures that you believe would achieve accurate and consistent information.

Service Quality Data Produced, Retained or Controlled by Carrier's Parents, Subsidiaries, Affiliates or Unregulated Third Parties

13. Are there circumstances under which carriers should be exempt from some or all service quality rules when affiliated or unaffiliated third parties perform activities affecting a telephone carrier's service quality? If so, please explain.

Applicability of G.O. 133-B Service Quality Measures and Standards

14. Are the measures and standards identified as applicable to CMRS providers comprehensive, or are additional measures and standards applicable?

15. Do the measures and standards for CMRS providers include any measures and standards that are not applicable to CMRS services?

Reporting Requirements

16. Are there circumstances where carriers should be exempt from affirmative reporting?

17. Is quarterly reporting of actual monthly service quality performance measures sufficient? Is more frequent (e.g., monthly) reporting necessary, or is less frequent reporting (e.g., annual) is adequate? If so, please explain.

Means and Format of Reporting

18. Are the proposed methods and format of reporting adequate?

Record Retention Requirements

19. Will the record retention requirements ensure that service quality data is available for audit and review purposes?

General Order Review Committee

20. Should the Review Committee be discontinued? If not, please explain.

EXHIBIT A