FCC PROPOSES NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR UNEs

Comr. Copps said uniform national standards could promote more efficiency, allow benchmarking and “reduce the administrative burdens of myriad different requirements.” However, FCC will have to work closely with states to make that work, he said. FCC Chmn. Powell said NPRM was example of how Commission was moving into “more mature stage” of regulation by recognizing that “more is not necessarily better with respect to the number and scope of our requirements.” He said that “rather than piling on a panoply of duplicative regulations,” notice sought comment “on a few key requirements with the hope that these will become a model by which performance requirements used at the state and federal levels may be streamlined.” Idea of performance measures is good because it enables carriers to know ahead of time what’s required of them, Powell said. He also emphasized again that NPRM was targeted to facilities-based competition that’s “most likely to foster… competition, deregulation and innovation.”

Action at FCC’s agenda meeting was victory for competitors such as Covad that had been lobbying for national measurements and more enforcement. Plan would set enforcement mechanism that would include ILEC reporting requirements and “self-effectuating remedies” such as monetary penalties that would be required automatically if ILECs didn’t meet standards. FCC said it expected metric system to create more certainty by offering “bright line guidance” on what it expected of ILECs in UNE process as well as interconnection and colocation.

Twelve metrics would measure ILEC’s performance through its entire UNE relationship with CLECs, from speed of ILEC’s preordering systems to how well ILEC handled requests for maintenance and repair. Measurements include: (1) Whether ILEC’s operations support system (OSS) offers “reasonably prompt response times” to queries by CLECs. (2) How quickly ILEC computer system, once order is placed, sends notice to CLEC confirming order placement and indicating date when service will be provisioned. (3) How much time elapses between order completion and notice to CLEC that order was filled. (4) What is percent of “advanced jeopardy notices,” meaning how often does ILEC have to inform CLECs that it can’t meet due date. (5) What percent of orders is completed on or before scheduled due date. (6) What was average amount of time ILEC was behind on meeting installation due dates. (7) What was quality of installation, meaning what percent of completed orders resulted in trouble reports’ being filed in first 30 days. (8) How many times ILEC installer missed appointments for CLEC customers. (9) What percent of circuits were past the due date at end of each reporting period. (10) What was percent of loops with troubles reported within certain time period. (11) What was percent of repeat trouble tickets. (12) How long did it take for ILEC to restore services after competitor filed trouble ticket.

In another victory for competitive carriers, agency plans to issue another notice soon to look at performance measurements for ILEC provision of special access services. CLECs had lobbied hard for inclusion of special access metrics with Thurs.’s UNE measurement proposal. Agency chose not to do that -- and some in CLEC industry admitted it was long shot -- but Copps revealed in statement that agency would address issue in separate NPRM “in the near future.” Copps said he would have liked to have special access included with UNE NPRM because same facilities were used for both so it would “logical” to combine them. He also noted that some state regulators had asked FCC to set metrics for special access because they weren’t sure they had authority to do so. Comr. Abernathy also mentioned special access NPRM, saying she knew some were disappointed that it wasn’t folded into UNE performance measurement proposal. However, she said, agency is planning “parallel proceeding to ask some of the same questions” about special access provision. Asked later why special access wasn’t included, Common Carrier Bureau Chief Dorothy Attwood said proceeding had been developed for UNEs, which are governed under different Telecom Act rules than special access.

Competitors quickly praised FCC’s actions in both UNE and special access. Covad called UNE proposal “the most significant procompetitive action” FCC has taken since line- sharing decision 2 years ago. Covad said metrics plan would “ensure that facilities-based CLECs such as Covad have timely access to local loops provisioned by the incumbent telephone companies.” CompTel “applauded” FCC for initiating UNE proposal but said special access metrics also would be needed to “protect America’s largest facilities-based carriers… backbone providers that carry much of the nation’s data traffic.” ALTS said it was “extremely encouraged” by FCC action. “The single biggest impediment to the growth of competition has been the failure of the incumbent phone companies to connect our customers to our networks,” ALTS Pres. John Windhausen said. “Today’s action could be the last piece of the puzzle needed for local competition to become a long-lasting reality.” WorldCom said setting metrics for special access provision would “prevent the discrimination against competitors” that has “hurt economic recovery.”

ILEC representatives were more cautious, saying fewer performance measurements would be good as long as FCC’s action didn’t end up adding to the list. “If there is a way that the industry can agree on a limited set of performance measures and standards to be consistently applied, it would be a significant step forward,” USTA Gen. Counsel Lawrence Sarjeant said. “However, the FCC must be careful not to add to the list of measures already imposed upon ILECs by the states and thereby unnecessarily increase the regulatory burden,” he said. BellSouth Vp Robert Blau said he hoped proposal would lead to fewer measurements “that will focus more on things that are truly important” instead of “scatter- shot review of 2,200 measures” that BellSouth faced in states. However, “if this proceeding leads to an overlay of new federal measurements on top of state measurements of minutia, then the effort will be a step back into the darker ages of heavy-handed regulation.”