*Pages 1--98 from  Microsoft Word - FINAL ORDER.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide 
 In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Arizona 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  WC  Docket  No.  03  -194 
 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  December  3,  2003  Released:  December  3,  2003 
 By  the  Commission:  Commissioner  Abernathy  issuing  a  separate  statement,  and  Commissioners  Copps  and  Adelstein  issuing  a  joint  statement. 


 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Paragraph 
 I.  INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................  1 
 II.  BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................  4 
 III.  PRIMARY  ISSUES  IN  DISPUTE.....................................................................................  10  A.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  2    UNBUNDLED  NETWORK  ELEMENTS..................................................  12 


 1.  Operations  Support  Systems  .........................................................................................  13  B.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  4    UNBUNDLED  LOCAL  LOOPS..............................................................  26 


 IV.  OTHER  CHECKLIST  ITEMS  .........................................................................................  30  A.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  2.............................................................................................................  30 
 1.  Other  OSS  Issues  ..........................................................................................................  30  2.  Pricing  Unbundled  Network  Elements  .........................................................................  33 
 B.  REMAINING  CHECKLIST  ITEMS  (1,  3,  AND  5-  14)  ................................................................  40 
 V.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  SECTION  271(  c)(  1)(  A)..............................................................  41 
 VI.  SECTION  272  COMPLIANCE.........................................................................................  43 
 VII.  PUBLIC  INTEREST  ANALYSIS.....................................................................................  47  A.  ASSURANCE  OF  FUTURE  COMPLIANCE...............................................................................  51 


 B.  UNFILED  INTERCONNECTION  AGREEMENTS.......................................................................  55 
 VIII.  SECTION  271(  d)(  6)  ENFORCEMENT  AUTHORITY..............................................  58 
 IX.  CONCLUSION  ...............................................................................................................  61 
 X.  ORDERING  CLAUSES.....................................................................................................  62 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 2 
 APPENDIX  A    LIST  OFCOMMENTERS  APPENDIX  B    ARIZONA  PERFORMANCE  DATA 
 APPENDIX  C    STATUTORY  REQUIREMENTS 


 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  On  September  4,  2003,  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.  (Qwest)  filed  an  application  pursuant  to  section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  1  for 


 authority  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services  originating  in  the  state  of  Arizona.  2  We  grant  Qwests  application  in  this  Order  based  on  our  conclusion  that  it  has  taken  the  statutorily 
 required  steps  to  open  its  local  exchange  market  in  Arizona  to  competition. 
 2.  This  Order  marks  the  culmination  of  years  of  extraordinary  work  by  the  state  commissions.  We  take  this  opportunity  here,  in  the  Commissions  last  section  271  application, 


 to  commend  all  the  state  commissions  for  their  work  in  this  area  since  passage  of  the  1996  Act.  Today,  we  are  reviewing  a  Bell  operating  companys  (BOCs)  performance  that  has  been  shaped 
 and  refined  by  the  Arizona  Corporation  Commission  (Arizona  Commission).  The  Arizona  Commission  and  its  staff  performed  an  exhaustive  review  of  Qwests  compliance  with  its  section 
 271  obligations  spanning  four  years  and  resulting  in  several  dozen  orders.  Their  efforts  facilitated  an  almost  complete  transformation  of  Qwests  systems  and  processes  from  one  that 
 was  not  conducive  to  local  competition  to  one  that  .  .  .  will  foster  local  competition.  3  In  addition  to  supervising  its  own  third-  party  test  of  Qwests  operations  support  systems  (OSS),  the 
 Arizona  Commission  oversaw  the  development  of  a  comprehensive  set  of  performance  measurements  known  as  performance  indicator  definitions  (PIDs),  reexamined  Qwests 
 wholesale  pricing,  rewrote  Qwests  Statement  of  Generally  Available  Terms  and  Conditions  (SGAT),  and  opened  enforcement  dockets  to  review  issues  concerning  agreements  between 
 Qwest  and  certain  competitors  that  were  not  filed  as  interconnection  agreements  with  the  Arizona  Commission  for  its  approval.  4  Moreover,  the  Arizona  Commission  developed  and 
 adopted  its  own  Performance  Assurance  Plan  (PAP)  to  ensure  that  Qwest  will  continue  to  adhere  to  its  performance  obligations  after  it  receives  section  271  authority.  5 


 1  We  refer  to  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  by  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996  and  other 
 statutes,  as  the  Communications  Act  or  the  Act.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    151  et  seq.  We  refer  to  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996  as  the  1996  Act.  See  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  104,  110  Stat.  56  (1996). 


 2  See  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region, 
 InterLATA  Services  in  Arizona,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  (filed  Sept.  4,  2003)  (Qwest  Application). 
 3  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  5. 


 4  Id.  at  3-  5.  See  also  id.  at  5  (noting  that  Arizona  will  participate  in  a  Qwest  region-  wide  PID  collaborative  to 
 modify  PIDs,  as  necessary,  on  a  going-  forward  basis). 
 5  Id.  at  5. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 3 
 3.  The  Arizona  Commissions  outstanding  work  in  conjunction  with  Qwests  extensive  efforts  has  resulted  in  competitive  entry  in  Arizona.  As  of  May  31,  2003,  Qwest 
 estimates  that  competitive  local  exchange  carriers  (LECs)  served  approximately  20  percent  of  all  lines  in  Arizona,  including  37,719  stand-  alone  loops  and  62,713  unbundled  network  element 
 (UNE)-  Platform  loops.  6  We  are  confident  that  the  Arizona  Commissions  and  Qwests  hard  work  to  open  the  local  exchange  market  in  Arizona  to  competition  will  benefit  consumers  by 
 making  increased  competition  in  all  telecommunications  service  markets  possible  in  this  state.  Finally,  we  are  also  confident  that  the  Arizona  Commission  will  be  vigilant  in  ensuring  that 
 Qwest  continues  to  meet  its  statutory  obligations. 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 4.  In  the  1996  amendments  to  the  Communications  Act,  Congress  required  that  the  BOCs  demonstrate  compliance  with  certain  market-  opening  requirements  contained  in  section 


 271  of  the  Act  before  providing  in-  region,  interLATA  long  distance  service.  7  Congress  provided  for  Commission  review  of  BOC  applications  to  provide  such  service  in  consultation  with  the 
 relevant  state  commission  and  the  U.  S.  Attorney  General.  8  In  our  examination  of  this  application,  we  rely  heavily  on  the  work  completed  by  the  Arizona  Commission.  We  summarize 
 the  Arizona  state  proceeding  below. 
 5.  On  February  8,  1999,  Qwest  served  notice  on  the  Arizona  Commission  of  its  intention  to  seek  section  271  authority  in  that  state.  9  Shortly  thereafter,  the  Arizona  Commission 


 directed  Qwest  to  supplement  its  filing  and  established  a  procedural  framework  to  examine  Qwests  request.  10  Later  that  year,  the  Arizona  Commission  bifurcated  the  OSS-  related  checklist 
 items  from  the  non-  OSS-  related  items  and  instituted  a  series  of  workshops  and  meetings  to  evaluate  Qwests  performance  in  both  areas.  11  Also  in  late  1999,  the  Arizona  Commission 


 6  See  Qwest  Application  at  2;  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  2,  Declaration  of  David  L.  Teitzel  (Qwest  Teitzel 
 Decl.)  at  para.  15. 
 7  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271. 


 8  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  2)(  A),  (B).  The  Commission  has  summarized  the  relevant  statutory  framework  in  prior 
 orders.  See,  e.  g.,  Joint  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Southwestern  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  and  Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc.,  d/  b/  a  Southwestern  Bell  Long  Distance  for  Provision  of  In-  Region,  InterLATA 


 Services  in  Kansas  and  Oklahoma,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  217,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  6237,  6241-  42,  paras.  7-  10  (2001)  (SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order),  affd  in  part,  remanded  in  part  sub  nom.  Sprint 
 Communications  Co.  v.  FCC,  274  F.  3d  549  (D.  C.  Cir.  2001)  (Sprint  v.  FCC);  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Southwestern  Bell  Tel.  Co.  and  Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc.,  d/  b/  a  Southwestern  Bell 
 Long  Distance  pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Texas,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  65,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  18354,  18359-  61,  paras. 
 8-  11  (2000)  (SWBT  Texas  Order). 
 9  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  6. 


 10  Id.  at  7. 
 11  See  id.;  Qwest  Application  at  2  (stating  that  the  Arizona  Commission  held  40  workshops  that  totaled  more  than 
 100  days  of  hearings). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 4 
 retained  Cap  Gemini  Ernst  &  Young  (CGE&  Y)  to  serve  as  the  OSS  third-  party  tester.  12  CGE&  Y  filed  its  Final  Test  Report  on  March  30,  2002,  13  and  on  August  21,  2003,  the  Arizona 
 Commission  determined  that  Qwest  satisfied  checklist  item  2  with  respect  to  OSS.  14  Meanwhile,  in  a  series  of  orders  issued  between  2000  and  2002,  the  Arizona  Commission  concluded  that 
 Qwest  satisfied  the  other  checklist  items.  15  Finally,  on  September  29,  2003,  the  Arizona  Commission  released  an  order  finding  that  Qwests  section  271  application  was  in  the  public 
 interest.  16 
 6.  The  U.  S.  Department  of  Justice  recommends  approval  of  this  application  after  determining  that  Qwest  has  generally  succeeded  in  opening  its  local  markets  in  Arizona  to 


 competition.  17  The  Department  of  Justice  concludes  that  opportunities  are  available  to  competitive  carriers  serving  residential  and  business  customers.  18 


 7.  Compliance  with  Unbundling  Rules.  As  part  of  the  required  showing  in  this  proceeding,  as  explained  in  more  detail  below,  the  applicant  must  demonstrate  that  it  satisfies  the 
 Commissions  rules  governing  UNEs.  It  is  necessary  to  clarify,  for  the  purpose  of  evaluating  this  application,  which  network  elements  we  expect  Qwest  to  demonstrate  that  it  provides  on  an 
 unbundled  basis,  pursuant  to  section  251(  c)(  3)  and  checklist  item  2.  In  the  UNE  Remand  and  Line  Sharing  Orders,  the  Commission  established  the  following  list  of  UNEs  that  incumbent 
 LECs  were  obliged  to  provide:  (1)  local  loops  and  subloops;  (2)  network  interface  devices;  (3)  switching  capability;  (4)  interoffice  transmission  facilities;  (5)  signaling  networks  and  call-related 
 databases;  (6)  OSS;  and  (7)  the  high  frequency  portion  of  the  loop.  19  However,  the  U.  S. 
 12  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  3;  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  30,  Declaration  of  Lynn  M.  V. 
 Notarianni  and  Loretta  A.  Huff  (Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.)  at  para.  22. 
 13  See  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  7.  See  also  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  77  n.  106  (explaining 
 that  CGE&  Y  filed  a  corrected  version  in  May  2002). 
 14  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  11,  23;  Qwest  Application  at  76. 


 15  See  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  8-  18;  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  1,  Declaration  of  Patrick  Quinn 
 at  paras.  23-  24,  28-  29,  32,  40,  43,  50,  56-  57,  62,  67,  74,  78-  79,  87. 
 16  See  Letter  from  Hance  Haney,  Executive  Director    Federal  Relations,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194,  Attach.  (filed  Oct.  1A,  2003)  (Arizona  Commission  Sept.  29  Order).  We  note  that  one  commissioner  dissented.  See  Arizona  Commission  Sept.  29  Order  at  35.  In 


 order  to  distinguish  ex  parte  filings  that  might  be  made  with  the  Commission  on  the  same  day,  Qwest  assigns  a  letter  to  the  date  on  which  it  submits  its  filing  (e.  g.,  Oct.  1A,  2003).  We  will  use  Qwests  filing  system  when  citing 
 to  its  ex  parte  letters. 
 17  See  Department  of  Justice  Evaluation  at  2.  The  Department  of  Justice  states  that  the  Commission  should 
 consider  whether  Qwests  regionwide  change  management  process  (CMP),  as  well  as  Qwests  compliance  with  the  CMP,  continue  to  be  adequate.  Id.  at  6  n.  20. 


 18  Id.  at  6. 
 19  See  47  C.  F.  R.    51.319;  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of 
 1996,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  98,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Fourth  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  15  FCC  Rcd  3696  (1999)  (UNE  Remand  Order);  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications 


 (continued.) 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 5 
 Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District  of  Columbia  Circuit  vacated  these  orders  in  2002  and  instructed  the  Commission  to  reevaluate  the  network  elements  subject  to  the  unbundling  requirement.  20 
 The  courts  mandate  was  stayed  first  until  January  3,  2003  and  then  until  February  20,  2003.  On  February  20,  2003,  the  Commission  adopted  new  unbundling  rules  as  part  of  our  Triennial 
 Review  proceeding.  21  These  rules  became  effective  on  October  2,  2003.  22 
 8.  Although  the  former  unbundling  rules  vacated  by  the  D.  C.  Circuit  were  not  in  force  at  the  time  Qwest  filed  its  application  in  this  proceeding,  Qwest  states  that  it  continues  to 


 provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  these  network  elements.  23  As  the  Commission  found  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  believe  that  using  the  network  elements  identified  in  the 
 former  unbundling  rules  as  a  standard  in  evaluating  Qwests  application,  filed  during  the  interim  period  between  the  time  the  rules  were  vacated  by  the  D.  C.  Circuit  and  the  effective  date  of  the 
 new  rules,  is  a  reasonable  way  to  ensure  that  the  application  complies  with  the  checklist  requirements.  24  We  find  it  significant  that  no  commenter  disputes  that  Qwest  should  be  required 
 to  demonstrate  that  it  provides  these  network  elements  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  Accordingly,  for  the  purposes  of  this  application,  we  will  evaluate  whether  Qwest  provides 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  network  elements  identified  under  the  former  unbundling  rules. 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  Capability;  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC 
 Docket  Nos.  98-  147,  96-  98,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  20912  (1999)  (Line  Sharing  Order). 


 20  See  United  States  Telecom  Assn  v.  FCC,  290  F.  3d  415  (D.  C.  Cir.  2002),  cert.  denied,  123  S.  Ct.  1571  (2003). 
 21  See  Review  of  the  Section  251  Unbundling  Obligations  of  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers; 
 Implementation  of  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996;  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability,  CC  Docket  Nos.  01-  338,  96-  98,  98-  147,  Report  and 


 Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  18  FCC  Rcd  16978  (2003)  (Triennial  Review  Order),  corrected  by  Errata,  18  FCC  Rcd  19020  (2003),  petitions  for  review  pending,  United  States  Telecom  Assn  v.  FCC,  D.  C.  Cir. 
 No.  00-  1012  (and  consolidated  cases). 
 22  See  68  FR  52307  (Sept.  2,  2003). 


 23  See  Qwest  Application  at  24-  25;  see  also  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.,  for 
 Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Minnesota,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  13323,  13326-  28,  paras.  8-  9  (2003)  (Qwest  Minnesota  Order). 


 24  See  Application  by  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  for  Authorization  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  to 
 Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  New  York,  CC  Docket  No.  99-  295,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  3953,  3966-  67,  para.  30  (1999)  (Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order),  affd,  AT&  T  Corp  v.  FCC,  220 


 F.  3d  607  (D.  C.  Cir.  2000).  A  similar  procedural  situation  was  presented  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  proceeding  after  the  Commissions  original  unbundling  rules  had  been  vacated  by  the  Supreme  Court.  Bell  Atlantic  filed  its 
 application  for  section  271  authorization  in  New  York  after  the  original  unbundling  rules  had  been  vacated  but  before  the  UNE  Remand  Order  had  taken  effect  and,  thus,  at  a  time  when  no  binding  unbundling  rules  were  in 
 effect.  Bell  Atlantic  suggested,  and  the  Commission  agreed,  that  it  would  be  reasonable  for  the  Commission  to  use  the  original  seven  network  elements  identified  in  the  former  unbundling  rules  in  evaluating  compliance  with 
 checklist  item  2  of  the  application.  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3966-  67,  paras.  29-  31. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 6 
 9.  We  also  note  that  the  Triennial  Review  Order  introduced  new  rules  which  became  binding  after  Qwest  filed  its  section  271  application  for  Arizona  on  September  4,  2003.  While 
 we  require  Qwest  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  in  compliance  with  the  former  rules,  we  do  not  require  Qwest  to  demonstrate  as  of  the  date  of  its  section  271  filing  that  it  complies  with  rules  that 
 became  effective  during  the  pendency  of  its  application.  Although  Qwest,  like  all  other  incumbent  LECs,  was  required  to  comply  with  the  new  rules  at  the  time  they  became  effective, 
 we  believe  it  would  be  unfair  to  require  Qwest,  in  its  application,  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  rules  that  become  effective  after  it  files  an  application  for  section  271  authorization,  in 
 advance  of  the  effective  date  for  other  incumbent  LECs.  This  approach  is  reasonable  and  consistent  with  our  analysis  in  the  SWBT  Texas  Order.  25  We  emphasize  that,  on  an  ongoing 
 basis,  Qwest  must  comply  with  all  of  the  Commissions  rules  implementing  the  requirements  of  sections  251  and  252  upon  the  dates  specified  by  those  rules,  including  the  new  unbundling 
 rules.  26 
 III.  PRIMARY  ISSUES  IN  DISPUTE 
 10.  As  in  recent  section  271  orders,  we  do  not  repeat  here  the  analytical  framework  and  particular  legal  showing  required  to  establish  compliance  with  every  checklist  item.  Rather, 


 we  rely  upon  the  legal  and  analytical  precedent  established  in  prior  section  271  orders,  27  and  we  attach  comprehensive  appendices  containing  performance  data  and  the  statutory  framework  for 
 approving  section  271  applications.  28  Our  conclusions  in  this  Order  are  based  on  performance  data  as  reported  in  carrier-  to-  carrier  reports  reflecting  Qwests  service  for  the  following  five-month 
 period:  April  2003  through  August  2003. 
 11.  After  providing  some  background  on  Qwests  OSS  and  CGE&  Ys  test,  we  focus  in  this  section  on  the  issues  in  controversy  in  the  record.  Accordingly,  we  begin  by  addressing 


 Qwests  compliance  with  checklist  item  2.  Specifically,  we  address  whether  Qwest  has  an  adequate  CMP  in  place  to  accommodate  changes  to  its  systems.  Although  we  provide  an 
 overview  of  OSS  in  this  section,  including  Qwests  region-  wide  OSS,  and  a  discussion  of  the  third-  party  test  in  Arizona,  we  note  that  only  one  aspect  of  Qwests  OSS    change  management   
 was  contested.  We  also  address  issues  concerning  checklist  item  4,  which  evaluates  access  to  unbundled  local  loops.  29 


 25  See  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18367-  70,  paras.  28-  33  (declining  to  require  the  applicant  to 
 demonstrate  compliance  with  the  parts  of  the  new  unbundling  rules  that  became  effective  while  the  proceeding  was  pending). 


 26  See  id.  at  18368,  para.  29;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3967,  para.  31. 
 27  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13328,  para.  10;  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC 
 Rcd  at  6241-  42,  paras.  7-  10;  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18359-  61,  paras.  8-  11;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3961-  63,  paras.  17-  20;  see  also  App.  C  (Statutory  Requirements). 


 28  See  generally  Appendices  B  (Performance  Data)  and  C  (Statutory  Requirements). 
 29  See  infra  Section  III.  B. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 7 
 A.  Checklist  Item  2    Unbundled  Network  Elements 
 12.  Checklist  item  2  of  section  271  states  that  a  BOC  must  provide  [  n]  ondiscriminatory  access  to  network  elements  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  sections 


 251(  c)(  3)  and  252(  d)(  1)  of  the  Act.  30  Based  on  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  has  satisfied  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  2.  In  this  section,  we  address  the  one  aspect  of  this  checklist  item 
   OSS    that  raised  significant  issues  concerning  whether  Qwests  performance  demonstrates  compliance  with  the  Act.  Aside  from  OSS,  other  UNEs  that  Qwest  must  make  available  under 
 section  251(  c)(  3)  are  also  listed  as  separate  items  on  the  competitive  checklist,  and  are  addressed  below  in  separate  sections  for  various  checklist  items,  as  are  any  provisioning  issues  that  may  be 
 in  dispute.  31 
 1.  Operations  Support  Systems 
 13.  Under  checklist  item  2,  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  five  OSS  functions:  (1)  pre-  ordering;  (2)  ordering;  (3) 


 provisioning;  (4)  maintenance  and  repair;  and  (5)  billing.  32  In  addition,  a  BOC  must  show  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  UNEs  and  that  it  has  an  adequate  CMP  in  place  to 
 accommodate  changes  made  to  its  systems.  33  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find,  as  did  the  Arizona  Commission,  that  Qwest  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS.  34 
 Consistent  with  prior  Commission  orders,  we  do  not  address  each  OSS  element  in  detail  where  our  review  of  the  record  satisfies  us  that  there  is  little  or  no  dispute  that  Qwest  meets  the 
 nondiscrimination  requirements.  35  For  instance,  Qwest  met  the  applicable  performance  standards  for  both  pre-  ordering  and  maintenance  and  repair,  and  no  party  contests  these  parts  of  Qwests 
 OSS  in  this  proceeding.  Therefore,  we  focus  our  discussion  on  those  issues  in  controversy, 
 30  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii). 
 31  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B).  For  example,  unbundled  loops,  transport,  and  switching  are  listed  separately  in 
 the  statute  as  checklist  items  iv,  v,  and  vi. 
 32  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3989,  para.  82.  The  Commission  has  defined  OSS  as  the  various 
 systems,  databases,  and  personnel  used  by  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  service  to  their  customers.  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18396-  97,  para.  92. 


 33  See  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International,  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region, 
 InterLATA  Services  in  the  States  of  Colorado,  Idaho,  Iowa,  Montana,  Nebraska,  North  Dakota,  Utah,  Washington,  and  Wyoming,  WC  Docket  No.  02-  134,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  26303,  26320,  para.  34 


 (2002)  (Qwest  9-  State  Order);  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3999,  para.  102  &  n.  280. 
 34  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  11. 


 35  See  Application  of  Verizon  New  York  Inc.,  Verizon  Long  Distance,  Verizon  Enterprise  Solutions,  Verizon 
 Global  Networks  Inc.  and  Verizon  Select  Services,  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Connecticut,  16  FCC  Rcd  14147,  14151-  52,  para.  9  (2001)  (Verizon  Connecticut  Order).  Although  Qwests 


 ordering,  provisioning,  and  billing  processes  received  little  or  no  attention  from  the  commenting  parties,  we  discuss  these  domains  briefly  below  because  of  Qwests  performance  with  respect  to  one  or  two  metrics  in  each  of  these 
 domains.  See  infra  Section  IV.  A.  1. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 8 
 which  in  this  instance  involves  certain  elements  of  Qwests  change  management  systems  and  processes.  36 
 14.  In  reaching  our  conclusion  that  Qwest  has  demonstrated  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS,  we  rely  on  detailed  evidence  provided  by  Qwest  in  this 
 proceeding.  We  base  this  determination  generally  on  Qwests  actual  commercial  performance  in  the  state  of  Arizona.  Consistent  with  our  past  practice,  we  note  that  in  the  course  of  our  review, 
 we  look  for  patterns  of  systemic  performance  disparities  that  have  resulted  in  competitive  harm  or  that  have  denied  new  entrants  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  37  Isolated  cases  of 
 performance  disparity,  especially  when  the  margin  of  disparity  is  small,  generally  will  not  result  in  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance.  38 


 a.  Independent  Third-  Party  Testing 
 15.  As  the  Commission  has  held  in  prior  section  271  proceedings,  the  persuasiveness  of  a  third-  party  OSS  review  depends  upon  the  conditions  and  scope  of  the  review.  39  Based  on 


 36  On  September  22,  2003,  Eschelon  submitted  an  ex  parte  filing  in  this  proceeding,  which  it  later  re-  filed  with 
 consecutive  page  numbers.  See  Letter  from  Kim  K.  Wagner,  Senior  Legal  Secretary,  Eschelon,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  (filed  Sept.  22,  2003);  Ex  Parte 


 Filing  by  Eschelon  (filed  Oct.  8,  2003).  In  its  filing,  Eschelon  includes  copies  of,  among  other  things,  numerous  e-mails  to  Qwest  and  the  Department  of  Justice,  pleadings  made  with  the  Arizona  Commission  in  that  states  section 
 271  proceeding,  and  complaints  filed  in  a  federal  district  court  in  Seattle  and  with  the  Minnesota  Public  Utilities  Commission.  We  exercise  our  authority  to  decline  to  consider  this  Eschelon  filing.  As  clearly  stated  in  the  Public 
 Notice  released  on  the  date  that  Qwest  filed  its  application,  participants  in  a  section  271  proceeding  have  an  obligation  to  present  their  position  in  a  clear  and  concise  manner.  See  Comments  Requested  on  the  Application  by 
 Qwest  Communications  International,  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  the  State  of  Arizona,  DA  03-  2799  (Sept.  4,  2003),  Attach.  at  4  (Updated  Filing  Requirements  for  the  Bell  Operating 
 Company  Applications  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act,  DA  01-  734,  Public  Notice,  16  FCC  Rcd  20948  (2001)  (March  23  Public  Notice)).  Specifically,  the  Commission  has  made  clear  that,  because  it  is 
 burdensome  and  time-  consuming  in  the  context  of  a  statutorily-  imposed  90-  day  proceeding  to  attempt  to  determine  a  partys  position  by  culling  through  the  supporting  material,  participants  are  required  to  make  all  substantive  legal 
 and  policy  arguments  in  a  legal  brief.  Id.  Moreover,  as  noted  by  the  United  States  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District  of  Columbia  Circuit,  the  Commission  need  not  sift  pleadings  and  documents  to  identify  arguments  that  are  not 
 stated  with  clarity.  Id.  at  n.  7  (citing  WAIT  Radio  v.  FCC,  418  F.  2d  1153  (D.  C.  Cir.  1969),  cert.  denied,  409  U.  S.  1027  (1972)).  It  is  the  burden  of  the  petitioner  to  clarify  its  position  before  the  agency  and  Eschelon  fails  to  meet 
 this  burden.  See  March  23  Public  Notice  at  n.  7  (citing  Northside  Sanitary  Landfill,  Inc.  v.  Thomas,  849  F.  2d  1516,  1519  (D.  C.  Cir.  1988),  cert.  denied,  489  U.  S.  1078  (1989)). 


 37  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26321-  22,  para.  37. 
 38  Id. 
 39  See,  e.  g.,  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3993,  para.  89;  Application  by  SBC  Communications 
 Inc.,  Pacific  Bell  Telephone  Company,  and  Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc.,  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  California,  WC  Docket  No.  02-  306,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order, 


 17  FCC  Rcd  25650,  25685,  para.  73  (2002)  (SBC  California  Order);  Application  of  Ameritech  Michigan  Pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in 
 Michigan,  CC  Docket  No.  97-  137,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  20543,  20659,  para.  216  (1997)  (Ameritech  Michigan  Order). 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 9 
 our  review  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  describing  the  test  process,  and  the  evaluation  that  the  Arizona  Commission  offered,  we  find  that  the  third-  party  OSS  test  was  broad  and  objective,  and 
 provides  meaningful  evidence  that  is  relevant  to  our  analysis  of  Qwests  OSS.  The  results  of  this  test  support  our  finding  that  Qwest  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS. 


 16.  In  late  1999,  the  Arizona  Commission  hired  CGE&  Y  to  conduct  a  third-  party  test  of  Qwests  OSS.  40  The  Arizona  Commission  also  hired  Hewlett  Packard  Company  (HP)  to  serve 
 as  a  pseudo-  competitive  LEC  in  the  test  process.  41  CGE&  Y  and  the  Arizona  Commission  established  the  Technical  Advisory  Group  (TAG)  to  serve  as  an  open  and  collaborative  forum  to 
 work  through  and  resolve  all  test-  related  issues.  42  The  members  of  TAG  included  the  Arizona  Commission,  CGE&  Y,  competitive  LECs,  Qwest,  and  test  vendors  as  well  as  other  interested 
 parties.  43  As  part  of  this  process,  TAG  members  worked  together  to  develop  the  PIDs,  a  Master  Test  Plan  and  a  Test  Standards  Document  that  governed  the  third-  party  test.  44  The  CGE&  Y 
 review  included  five  primary  components  designed  to  evaluate  Qwests  OSS:  (1)  Performance  Measurement  Audit  (PMA);  (2)  Functionality  Test;  (3)  Retail  Parity  Evaluation;  (4)  Capacity 
 Test;  and  (5)  Relationship  Management  Evaluation.  45  CGE&  Y  conducted  the  PMA  to  ensure  that  Qwest  adequately  measures  and  reports  the  commercial  data  for  the  reports,  and  it  used  a 
 military-  style,  test-  until-  pass  methodology  to  test  the  remaining  four  test  components.  46  In  order  to  verify  the  integrity  of  Qwest  commercial  data,  the  Arizona  Commission  also  retained  Liberty 
 Consulting  to  perform  a  data  reconciliation  between  Qwest  and  competing  carriers.  47  Throughout  the  course  of  the  third-  party  test,  CGE&  Y  prepared  and  monitored  test  schedules, 
 collected  test  status  reports  from  parties,  submitted  status  reports  to  the  Arizona  Commission,  and  analyzed  test  results.  48  In  performing  the  third-  party  OSS  test,  CGE&  Y  took  precautions  to 


 40  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  3;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  22. 
 41  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  3;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  23. 
 42  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  3;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  24. 
 43  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  9;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  24. 
 44  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  9;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  28.  The  TAG  initially  drafted  the 
 Arizona  Commission  PIDs  in  1999  while  the  other  13  state  commissions  in  Qwests  incumbent  LEC  region  were  working  together  through  the  multi-  agency  organization  called  the  Regional  Oversight  Committee  (ROC)  to  test 


 Qwests  OSS.  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  17.  With  some  modifications,  these  PIDs  formed  the  basis  for  the  ROCs  performance  measurement  evaluation  and  OSS  testing  process.  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  3. 
 The  Arizona  TAG  ultimately  adopted  the  PID  definitions  in  the  ROC  PID  version  5.0  subject  to  specific  Arizona  standards.  Qwest  Application  at  9-  10.  Thereafter,  Qwest  created  a  14-  state  PID  version  5.0  to  combine  the  separate 
 Arizona  PIDs  with  the  13-  state  ROC  PIDs.  Id.  at  10. 
 45  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  9-  10;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  33. 


 46  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  paras.  34-  36.  See  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3998, 
 para.  98  (describing  a  military-  style  testing  process). 
 47  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  10;  Qwest  Application  at  13-  14. 


 48  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  22. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 10 
 maintain,  to  the  extent  possible,  the  blindness  and  independence  of  the  testing  process.  For  example,  CGE&  Y  ensured  that  Qwest  was  not  aware  of  HPs  identity  during  tests.  49  As 
 explained  above,  competitive  LECs  participated  in  the  design  of  the  CGE&  Y  test  and  played  an  important  role  in  the  test  process.  50 


 17.  CGE&  Y  filed  its  final  update  on  its  Arizona  OSS  operational  tests  on  March  30,  2002.  51  In  all,  in  the  course  of  testing,  399  issues  were  documented  and  addressed 
 collaboratively  through  TAG.  52  At  the  conclusion  of  the  test,  the  Arizona  Commission  stated  that,  Qwests  OSS  meets  the  performance  standards  envisioned  by  the  Act  .  .  .  [and]  the 
 Performance  Measurements  have  been  evaluated  and  found  to  be  timely  and  accurate.  53  We  conclude  that  the  CGE&  Y  third-  party  test  demonstrates  that  Qwests  reported  data  are  reliable, 
 and  that  the  results  provide  important  evidence  that  Qwest  is  providing  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS.  We  note  that  no  competitive  LEC  challenges  the  integrity  of  CGE&  Ys  test  or  the 
 reliability  of  Qwests  performance  measurement  data. 
 b.  Relevance  of  Qwests  Regionwide  OSS 
 18.  Consistent  with  our  precedent,  54  Qwest  also  relies  in  this  application  on  evidence  concerning  its  regionwide  OSS.  55  Although  Arizona  did  not  participate  in  the  ROC  third-  party 


 test,  Qwest  asserts  that  the  tests  findings  apply  equally  to  Arizona  because  Qwest  uses  the  same  OSS  in  Arizona  as  in  several  of  the  states  that  participated  in  the  ROC  test.  56  As  discussed  in  the 
 prior  Qwest  271  orders,  to  support  its  claim  that  its  OSS  are  the  same  across  all  states,  Qwest  relies  on  the  comprehensive  BearingPoint  test.  57  BearingPoint,  in  addition  to  administering  the 
 overall  test,  performed  a  regional  differences  assessment  (RDA),  which  showed  that  Qwests 


 49  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  3;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  23. 
 50  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  4  (noting  that  several  competitive  LECs  provided  facilities  and  expertise  to 
 CGE&  Y  during  the  OSS  test);  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  paras.  24,  29. 
 51  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  10. 


 52  Letter  from  Hance  Haney,  Executive  Director    Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  at  3  (filed  Oct.  23A,  2003)  (Qwest  Oct.  23A  Ex  Parte  Letter);  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  paras.  73-  78. 


 53  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  11. 
 54  See,  e.  g.,  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6254,  para.  36. 
 55  Qwest  Application  at  75-  76. 
 56  Id.  at  76  (citing  Colorado,  New  Mexico,  and  Utah). 
 57  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26321,  para.  36;  Application  by  Qwest  Communications 
 International,  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  New  Mexico,  Oregon,  and  South  Dakota,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  11,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  7325,  7344-  45,  paras.  36-  37  (2003) 


 (Qwest  3-  State  Order);  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13331,  paras.  16-  17. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 11 
 ordering,  provisioning,  maintenance  and  repair,  and  competitive  LEC  relationship  management  and  infrastructure  are  materially  consistent  across  Qwests  operating  territory.  58 
 19.  Where  Qwest  provides  evidence  that  a  particular  system  used  in  Arizona  is  the  same  as  the  one  that  the  Commission  reviewed  and  approved  in  one  of  the  13  states  where  Qwest 
 received  section  271  approval,  59  our  review  will  be  informed  by  our  previous  findings  in  the  relevant  Qwest  order.  60  We  find  that  Qwest,  through  the  BearingPoint  test  and  its  declarations, 
 provides  sufficient  evidence  that  its  OSS  in  Arizona  are  generally  the  same  as  in  the  13  states. 
 c.  Change  Management 
 20.  We  agree  with  the  Arizona  Commission  that  Qwests  CMP  and  Qwests  pattern  of  compliance  with  the  CMP  satisfy  this  aspect  of  checklist  item  2.  61  In  previous  section  271 


 orders,  the  Commission  has  explained  that  it  must  review  the  BOCs  change  management  procedures  to  determine  whether  they  provide  sufficient  access  to  the  BOCs  OSS  and  thus 
 afford  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  62  In  evaluating  a  BOCs  change  management  plan,  we  first  assess  whether  the  plan  is  adequate  by  determining  whether 
 the  evidence  demonstrates:  (1)  that  information  relating  to  the  CMP  is  clearly  organized  and  readily  accessible  to  competing  carriers;  (2)  that  competing  carriers  had  substantial  input  in  the 
 design  and  continued  operation  of  the  CMP;  (3)  that  the  CMP  defines  a  procedure  for  the  timely  resolution  of  change  management  disputes;  (4)  the  availability  of  a  stable  testing  environment 
 that  mirrors  production;  and  (5)  the  efficacy  of  the  documentation  the  BOC  makes  available  for  the  purpose  of  building  an  electronic  gateway.  63  After  determining  that  the  BOCs  change 


 58  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13331,  para.  16.  BearingPoint  investigated  whether  there 
 were  any  differences  in  systems  and  processes  throughout  Qwests  operating  territory.  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  97  &  Ex.  LN-  OSS-  4.  BearingPoint  reviewed  the  following  Qwest  regions:  1)  western  region 


 covering  Washington  and  Oregon;  2)  central  region  covering  Arizona,  Colorado,  Idaho,  Montana,  New  Mexico,  Utah,  and  Wyoming;  and  3)  eastern  region  covering  Iowa,  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  North  Dakota,  and  South  Dakota. 
 Id.  at  paras.  96-  99  &  Ex.  LN-  OSS-  4. 
 59  Qwest  Application  at  75-  76. 


 60  E.  g.,  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  and  the  Qwest  3-  State  Order.  See  SWBT 
 Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6253-  54,  para.  35.  Indeed,  to  the  extent  that  certain  issues  have  been  previously  briefed,  reviewed  and  resolved  in  a  prior  section  271  proceeding,  and  absent  new  evidence  or  changed 


 circumstances,  an  application  for  a  related  state  should  not  be  a  forum  for  relitigating  and  reconsidering  those  issues.  Id. 


 61  Letter  from  Hance  Haney,  Executive  Director    Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  (filed  Sept.  24A,  2003)  (Qwest  Sept.  24A  Ex  Parte  Letter),  Attach.  2  at  21-  22  (Arizona  Commission  Aug.  28  Order). 


 62  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3999-  4000,  paras.  102-  03;  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at 
 18403-  04,  paras.  106-  08. 
 63  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18404,  para.  108. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 12 
 management  plan  is  adequate,  we  evaluate  whether  the  BOC  has  demonstrated  a  pattern  of  compliance  with  this  plan.  64 
 21.  At  the  outset,  we  note  that  Qwests  CMP  applies  to  its  entire  14-  state  region,  and  the  Commission  previously  has  found  that  Qwest  complied  with  this  part  of  the  checklist  in  the 
 13  states  for  which  Qwest  has  been  granted  section  271  approval  to  date.  65  Nevertheless,  where  a  CMP  has  changed,  we  must  examine  whether  the  new  CMP  remains  compliant.  66  In  addition, 
 we  agree  with  the  Department  of  Justice  that  the  CMP  is  a  dynamic  process,  and  that  we  must  consider  whether  Qwest  has  continued  to  comply  with  the  CMP.  67  Commenters  change 
 management  allegations  fall  into  two  categories:  (1)  Qwests  CMP  documentation  is  insufficient  because  it  does  not  include  deadlines  by  which  Qwest  must  repair  software  defects  and  (2) 
 Qwest  violated  the  CMP  when  it  decided  to  charge  competitive  LECs  for  DS1  loop  conditioning. 
 22.  Software  Defects.  AT&  T  and  MCI  argue  that  the  CMP  should  include  deadlines  for  Qwest  to  repair  software  defects,  according  to  their  severity.  68  AT&  T  and  MCI  complain  that 


 Qwest  vetoed  MCIs  change  management  proposal  that  such  requirements  be  incorporated  into  the  CMP.  69  In  previous  orders,  the  Commission  has  noted  the  importance  of  reducing  the 


 64  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3999,  4004-  05,  paras.  101,  112. 
 65  See  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  6,  Declaration  of  Judith  M.  Schultz  (Qwest  Schultz  Decl.)  at  para.  3  (  the 
 change  management  process  is  the  same  in  all  14  Qwest  states);  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26384-  96,  paras.  132-  52;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  7355-  61,  paras.  54-  62;  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at 


 13342,  para.  39. 
 66  We  have  noted  previously  that  we  are  open  to  consideration  of  change  management  plans  that  differ  from  those 
 already  found  to  be  compliant  with  the  requirements  of  section  271.  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4004,  para.  111;  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18404,  para.  109. 


 67  Department  of  Justice  Evaluation  at  6  n.  20  (  The  Department  urges  the  Commission  to  consider  whether 
 Qwests  CMP,  as  well  as  its  compliance  with  that  process,  continues  to  be  adequate.). 
 68  AT&  T  Comments  at  27;  MCI  Comments  at  1-  2. 


 69  AT&  T  Comments  at  27-  28;  MCI  Comments  at  1-  2.  AT&  T  also  contends  that,  instead  of  conceding  a  software 
 defect,  Qwest  argues  under  the  current  CMP  that  the  software  has  not  been  properly  documented  and  that  a  fix  to  the  documentation  will  permit  the  competitive  LECs  to  use  the  software  as  Qwest  intended.  AT&  T  Comments  at 


 26-  28.  We  find  no  basis  in  the  record  to  conclude  that  Qwests  classification  of  errors  as  ones  of  documentation  is  designed  to  be  anticompetitive  or  is  done  in  bad  faith.  Moreover,  in  previous  Qwest  section  271  orders,  we  rejected 
 arguments  that  Qwests  OSS  requirements  were  inadequately  documented.  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26391-  92,  para.  144  (finding  that  the  documentation  Qwest  supplies  to  competitive  LECs  is  robust).  See  also 
 Qwest  3-  State  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  7355-  57,  paras.  55-  57;  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13342,  para.  39. 


 In  addition,  MCI  contends  that  Qwest  should  include  all  software  trouble  reports  in  a  single  document.  MCI  Comments  at  2.  The  Commission  has  never  mandated  such  a  requirement  in  a  section  271  proceeding,  and  we  will 
 not  do  so  in  the  instant  Order.  Qwest  has  a  process  in  place  for  notifying  competitive  LECs  of  software  trouble  reports  that  the  Commission  has  previously  considered  and  approved.  Moreover,  according  to  Qwest,  this 
 competitive  LEC  change  request  remains  under  discussion  in  the  CMP,  which,  as  the  Arizona  Commission  and  its  staff  found,  is  the  appropriate  forum  to  address  such  issues.  See  Qwest  Reply,  Attach.  B,  Reply  Declaration  of 
 (continued.) 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 13 
 number  of  [software]  coding  defects  that  require  competing  carriers  to  modify  electronic  processes.  70  The  Commission  has  also  noted  that  [  w]  hile  a  change  management  process  must 
 include  assurances  that  changes  to  existing  OSS  interfaces  will  not  disrupt  competing  carriers  use  of  the  BOCs  OSS,  the  Commission  has  not  required  any  particular  safeguard.  71 


 23.  The  Commission  has  never  mandated  that  a  CMP  contain  deadlines  to  repair  software  defects,  and  we  decline  to  impose  such  a  requirement  here.  We  agree  with  the  Arizona 
 Commission  that  the  CMP  is  the  appropriate  and  adequate  forum  for  MCI  and  AT&  T  to  raise  these  complaints,  the  parties  are  in  fact  using  the  CMP  process  to  resolve  them,  and  Qwests 
 current  management  of  software  defects  does  not  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance.  72  The  record  reflects  that  Qwest  has  been  actively  engaged  in  working  with  AT&  T  and  MCI  to 
 resolve  software  defect  management  issues  through  the  CMP.  While  Qwest  objected  to  firm  timeframes,  contending  that  it  is  impossible  to  predict  how  long  every  software  repair  will  take, 
 we  find  that  Qwest  offered  the  competitive  LECs  a  good  faith  compromise.  73  Qwest  proposed  to  set  deadlines  for  correcting  software  defects,  according  to  their  level  of  severity,  in  the  CMP  but, 
 in  recognition  that  some  software  corrections  might  require  additional  time,  Qwest  also  sought  flexibility  to  notify  competitive  LECs  that  the  software  would  be  corrected  by  a  later  date 
 certain,  if  necessary.  74  In  addition,  we  find  that  the  Arizona  Commission  has  taken  appropriate  steps  to  ensure  that  Qwests  CMP  performance  does  not  create  competitive  problems,  and  there 
 is  no  indication  at  this  time  that  Qwest  would  be  able  to  abuse  any  deadline  flexibility  that  it  may  be  given. 


 24.  Pattern  of  Compliance  with  the  CMP.  We  reject  AT&  Ts  complaint  that  Qwest  does  not  comply  with  the  CMP  based  on  action  Qwest  took  concerning  DS1  loop  conditioning. 
 (Continued  from  previous  page)  Lynn  M.  V.  Notarianni  and  Loretta  A.  Huff  (Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Reply  Decl.)  at  paras.  22-  23.  See  also  id.,  Ex. 
 LN-  3  (Transcript  of  Sept.  8,  2003  Arizona  Commission  Open  Meeting). 
 70  See  Joint  Application  by  BellSouth  Corporation,  BellSouth  Telecommunications,  Inc.,  and  BellSouth  Long 
 Distance,  Inc.  for  Provision  of  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Georgia  and  Louisiana,  CC  Docket  No.  02-  35,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  9018,  9129-  30,  para.  195  (2002)  (BellSouth  Georgia/  Louisiana 


 Order). 
 71  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26389,  para.  140  n.  523  (citing  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd 
 at  4004-  05,  para.  110;  SWBT  Texas  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18406,  para.  112). 
 72  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  3-  4  &  Ex.  LN-  3.  The  Commission  has  previously  found  that  the 
 Qwest  CMP  contains  adequate  processes  to  detect  software  defects  and  implement  fixes.  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26323,  para.  39  n.  104  (finding  that  Qwest  uses  an  extensive  help-  desk  ticket  and  notification  process 


 to  handle  errors  that  may  occur  when  implementing  new  software).  See  also  id.  at  26389-  90,  para.  140  (finding  that  the  Qwest  CMP  gave  the  competitive  LECs  sufficient  time  to  test  new  software  versions  prior  to  their  release).  The 
 Qwest  CMP  sets  priorities  for  repair  of  software  defects  according  to  four  severity  levels,  with  the  highest  ones  requiring  that  trouble  tickets  be  implemented  immediately.  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  para.  10  &  n.  11 
 (quoting  section  12  of  the  Qwest  CMP). 
 73  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  13. 


 74  Id.  at  para.  13. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 14 
 According  to  AT&  T,  Qwest  reversed  its  previous  loop  provisioning  policy  by  imposing  on  competitive  LECs  loop  conditioning  charges  for  DS1-  capable  loops  and,  in  doing  so,  Qwest 
 failed  to  comply  with  the  CMP  when  it  announced  this  policy  change  to  competitive  LECs.  75  Specifically,  AT&  T  argues  that  Qwest  misclassified  its  revisions  as  a  Level  3  (or  moderate) 
 change  instead  of  Level  4  (or  severe)  and  unilaterally  imposed  loop  conditioning  charges  on  competitive  LECs  not  required  by  the  terms  of  their  interconnection  agreements  with  Qwest.  76 


 25.  We  disagree  that  this  one-  time  occurrence  demonstrates  a  pattern  of  noncompliance  with  the  CMP.  77  Even  if  Qwest  erroneously  classified  the  DS1  loop  conditioning 
 change  as  Level  3,  we  conclude  that  such  a  misclassification  does  not  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance.  78  Furthermore,  as  noted  above,  the  Arizona  Commission  has 
 committed  to  overseeing  Qwests  ongoing  compliance  with  the  CMP  and  has  required  Qwest  to  continue  reporting  on  its  CMP  compliance.  79 


 B.  Checklist  Item  4    Unbundled  Local  Loops 
 26.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iv)  of  the  Act  requires  that  a  BOC  provide  [  l]  ocal  loop  transmission  from  the  central  office  to  the  customers  premises,  unbundled  from  local  switching 


 or  other  services.  80  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude,  as  did  the  Arizona  Commission,  81  that  Qwest  provides  unbundled  local  loops  in  accordance  with  the  requirements 


 75  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  6. 
 76  Id.  at  15-  17  (explaining  that  in  the  event  of  a  conflict  between  the  CMP  and  the  interconnection  agreement,  the 
 latter  prevails). 
 77  We  note  that  the  Arizona  Commission  reviewed  Qwests  revised  DS1  loop  conditioning  rate  change  and 
 expressed  concern  that  Qwest  did  not  seek  prior  Arizona  Commission  approval.  See  Qwest  Sept.  24A  Ex  Parte  Letter,  Attach.  3  at  29-  31  (Arizona  Commission  Sept.  16  Order)  (directing  Qwest  to  reinstitute  its  prior  policy  and 


 to  provide  refunds  to  any  competitive  LECs  relating  to  these  unauthorized  charges).  The  Arizona  Commission  also  noted  that  loop  conditioning  charges  are  the  proper  subject  of  Phase  III  of  its  cost  docket.  Id.  at  31.  The  Arizona 
 Commission  did  not,  however,  render  any  findings  concerning  Qwests  adherence  to  the  CMP.  Finally,  because  competitive  LECs  may  raise  their  objections  to  any  rate  change  before  the  Arizona  Commission,  we  reject  AT&  Ts 
 assertion  that  Qwest  must  affirm  that  it  will  not  seek  approval  for  a  change  in  its  loop  conditioning  policy  in  order  for  the  Commission  to  find  checklist  compliance.  See  AT&  T  Reply  at  6-  7. 


 78  During  an  August  21,  2003,  open  meeting  before  the  Arizona  Commission,  Qwest  indicated  that,  in  a  meeting 
 with  competitive  LECs  a  week  earlier,  it  agreed  on  a  prospective  basis  to  work  its  DS1  loop  conditioning  issue  as  a  Level  4  change.  See  Qwest  Application,  App.  P,  Vol.  1,  Tab  12,  Transcript  of  Aug.  21,  2003,  Special  Open 


 Meeting  at  41.  See  also  Qwest  Schultz  Decl.  at  paras.  33-  34  (describing  the  similarities  and  differences  between  Level  3  and  Level  4).  Moreover,  in  response  to  AT&  Ts  interconnection  agreement  complaint,  we  find  that  the 
 dispute  resolution  mechanism  contained  in  the  parties  interconnection  agreements,  and  not  a  section  271  proceeding,  sets  forth  the  appropriate  forum  to  resolve  an  interconnection  agreement  dispute. 


 79  Arizona  Commission  Aug.  28  Order  at  22. 
 80  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iv);  see  also  App.  C,  paras.  48-  52  (regarding  requirements  under  checklist  item  4). 
 81  See  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  13-  14. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 15 
 of  section  271  and  our  rules.  82  Our  conclusion  is  based  on  our  review  of  Qwests  performance  for  all  loop  types    which  include,  as  in  past  section  271  orders,  voice  grade  loops,  digital 
 subscriber  line  (xDSL)-  capable  loops,  and  high  capacity  loops    as  well  as  hot  cut  provisioning,  and  Qwests  processes  for  line  sharing  and  line  splitting.  83  As  of  May  31,  2003,  competitors 
 have  acquired  from  Qwest  and  placed  into  use  approximately  37,719  stand-  alone  unbundled  loops  in  Arizona.  84 


 27.  Conditioned  Loops.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  demonstrates  that  it  provides  conditioned  loops  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  85  Although 
 Qwest  does  not  achieve  parity  for  one  metric  concerning  installation  timeliness  for  conditioned  loops  in  Arizona,  86  Qwest  explains  that  its  performance  results  on  this  metric  were  negatively 
 affected  by  human  input  errors,  a  reporting  system  issue,  and  coding  errors  related  to  a  process  change.  87  Qwest  states  that,  adjusted  for  these  errors,  its  average  performance  for  the  five-month 
 period  would  have  exceeded  90  percent.  88  We  find  that  Qwests  explanation  is  persuasive  and  note  that  it  has  implemented  programming  enhancements  to  address  the 
 reporting  system  issue  and  employee  instruction  to  avoid  coding  errors  related  to  the  process  change.  89  We  also  note  that  no  commenter  raised  issues  related  to  this  metric.  Therefore,  we  do 
 not  find  that  these  performance  disparities  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance. 
 28.  High  Capacity  Loops.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  demonstrates  that  it  provides  high  capacity  loops  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  90  Qwest, 


 82  See  Qwest  Application  at  36-  46.  See  generally  App.  B. 
 83  Our  review  encompasses  Qwests  performance  and  processes  for  all  loop  types,  but  our  discussion  does  not 
 address  every  aspect  of  Qwests  loop  performance  where  our  review  of  the  record  satisfies  us  that  Qwests  performance  is  in  compliance  with  the  applicable  parity  and  benchmark  measures. 


 84  See  Qwest  Application  at  37.  In  Arizona,  as  of  May  31,  2003,  competitive  LECs  had  in  service  30,253 
 unbundled  voice  grade  analog  loops,  5,578  xDSL-  capable  loops,  1,888  high  capacity  loops,  and  3,654  unbundled  shared  loops.  See  id.  at  37,  45. 


 85  See  id.  at  40;  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  13-  14. 
 86  See  OP-  3  (Installation  Commitments  Met)  for  conditioned  loops  showing  (82.76%,  86.05%,  82.76%,  84.25%, 
 86.96%)  for  competitive  LECs  versus  Qwests  90%  benchmark  for  April  to  August  2003. 
 87  See  Qwest  Application  at  40;  Qwest  Application  App.  A,  Tab  26,  Declaration  of  Dean  Buhler  (Qwest  Buhler 
 Decl.)  at  para.  180  &  n.  248;  Qwest  Reply,  Attach.  A  at  6. 
 88  See  Qwest  Application  at  40;  Qwest  Buhler  Decl.  at  para.  180  &  n.  248:  Qwest  Reply,  Attach.  A  at  6;  Letter 
 from  Hance  Haney,  Executive  Director    Federal  Relations,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  at  1-  2  (filed  Oct.  24A,  2003). 


 89  See  Qwest  Application  at  40;  Qwest  Buhler  Decl.  at  para.  180  &  n.  248. 
 90  See  Qwest  Application  at  40-  41. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 16 
 however,  does  not  achieve  parity  under  certain  metrics  for  DS1-  capable  loops.  91  Qwest  explains  that,  in  October  2002,  it  launched  a  program  to  analyze  provisioning  and  repair  performance  for 
 unbundled  DS1-  capable  loops  and  to  identify  areas  for  improvement.  92  According  to  Qwest,  this  analysis  did  not  uncover  systemic  reasons  for  the  disparity  between  wholesale  and  retail 
 performance.  93  However,  in  response  to  identified  problems  related  to  high-  capacity  facilities,  and  provisioning  and  repair  processes,  Qwest  has  implemented  a  number  of  initiatives  to 
 improve  provisioning  and  repair  performance  for  high-  capacity  loops  in  general.  94  Further,  we  note  that  no  commenter  raised  issues  related  to  DS1-  capable  loop  metrics.  Recognizing  that 
 high  capacity  loops  make  up  a  small  percentage  of  overall  loop  orders  in  Arizona,  95  we  find  that  Qwests  performance  with  respect  to  high  capacity  loops  does  not  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist 
 non-  compliance.  96  If  Qwests  performance  deteriorates  after  approval,  we  will  not  hesitate  to  take  appropriate  enforcement  action  pursuant  to  section  271(  d)(  6). 


 29.  Other  issues.  AT&  T  and  Eschelon  object  to  recent  changes  in  Qwests  policy  on  construction  of  new  facilities  related  to  provisioning  of  high-  capacity  unbundled  loops.  97 
 Specifically,  these  commenters  explain  that  Qwest,  since  June,  has  changed  its  documentation  so  that  competitive  LECs,  for  the  first  time,  must  place  construction  orders  and  pay  construction 
 charges  for  line  conditioning  that  was  previously  included  within  the  category  of  incremental 


 91  See  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  DS1-  capable  loops,  indicating  a  disparity  in  April,  May,  June,  July,  and  August 
 with  competitive  LEC  results  of  5.  02%,  5.  09%,  5.  33%,  6.  93%,  and  8.  37%,  compared  to  Qwest  results  of  2.  33%,  2.18%,  2.48%,  3.43%,  and  3.91%  respectively;  MR-  5  (All  Troubles  Cleared  within  4  Hours)  for  DS1-  capable 


 loops,  indicating  a  disparity  in  June,  July,  and  August  with  competitive  LEC  results  of  59.81%,  48.65%,  and  50.81%,  compared  to  Qwest  results  of  68.39%,  66.57%,  and  63.01%  respectively;  MR-  6  (Mean  Time  to  Restore) 
 for  DS1-  capable  loops,  indicating  a  disparity  in  June,  July,  and  August  with  competitive  LEC  results  of  4:  35,  5:  28,  and  5:  36,  compared  to  Qwest  results  of  3:  42,  3:  52,  and  4:  32  respectively;  OP-  5  (New  Service  Installation  Quality) 
 for  DS1-  capable  loops,  indicating  a  disparity  in  May,  June,  and  August  with  competitive  LEC  results  of  90.00%,  86.03%,  and  86.81%,  compared  to  Qwest  results  of  94.36%,  93.95%,  and  92.65%  respectively. 


 92  See  Letter  from  Hance  Haney,  Executive  Director    Federal  Relations,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  at  1  (filed  Sept.  22A,  2003). 
 93  See  id. 


 94  See  id.  at  1-  2. 
 95  Qwest  states  that  high-  capacity  loops  represent  5.2%  of  the  total  loops  Qwest  has  in  service  for  competitive 
 LECs  in  Arizona.  See  Qwest  Application  at  40;  see  also  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26489-  91,  para.  341  &  n.  1244. 


 96  Qwests  average  results  on  the  trouble  rate  metric  for  DS1-  capable  loops  for  the  relevant  period  in  Arizona  are 
 comparable  to  its  average  performance  on  the  same  metric  reviewed  by  the  Commission  in  the  Colorado  application.  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26489,  para.  341  &  n.  1240  (summarizing  Qwests  results  for 


 MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  DS1-  capable  loops  in  Colorado). 
 97  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  3-  25;  AT&  T  Reply  at  1-  7;  Letter  from  Karen  L.  Clauson,  Senior  Director  of 
 Interconnection,  Eschelon,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  at  2-  3  (filed  Oct.  14,  2003)  (Eschelon  Oct.  14  Ex  Parte  Letter). 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 17 
 facility  work,  which  requires  no  special  orders  or  charges.  98  They  contend  that,  as  a  result  of  this  policy  change,  Qwest  is  violating  section  251(  c)(  3)  and  discriminating  in  favor  of  its  retail 
 operations.  99  In  response,  Qwest  states  that,  on  August  20,  2003,  it  notified  competitive  LECs  that  it  would  not  adhere  to  the  changes  that  became  effective  on  June  16  and,  as  a  result, 
 Qwests  current  DS1  loop  construction  policy  is  materially  the  same  as  the  policy  that  had  been  applied  to  competitive  LECs  before  June  16.  100  We  note  that  the  Arizona  Commission  has  since 
 adopted  a  staff  recommendation  ordering  Qwest  to  suspend  its  new  policy  and  reinstate  the  original  policy  until  construction  rates  are  approved  by  the  Arizona  Commission.  101  Absent 
 additional  information,  we  are  not  convinced  that  Qwests  policy  has  denied  competitive  LECs  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete  to  date.  102  We  also  note  that,  although  the  Triennial  Review 
 Order  was  not  effective  at  the  time  that  Qwest  filed  the  instant  application,  103  that  order  clarifies  incumbent  LECs  obligations  with  regard  to  routine  network  modifications  to  existing 
 facilities.  104  Accordingly,  we  decline  to  find  that  this  allegation  warrants  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance. 


 98  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  14;  Eschelon  Oct.  14  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2-  3. 
 99  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  10,  12;  see  also  Eschelon  Oct.  14  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2-  3.  In  addition,  we  reject 
 AT&  Ts  argument  that,  in  changing  its  facilities  construction  policy  through  the  CMP,  Qwest  violated  its  obligation  to  provide  a  change  management  process  that  allows  competitors  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  See  supra 


 Section  III.  A.  1.  c. 
 100  Letter  from  Hance  Haney,  Executive  Director    Federal  Relations,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  at  1-  2  (filed  Sept.  29C,  2003)  (Qwest  Sept.  29C  Ex  Parte  Letter);  see  Qwest  Reply  at  8.  We  reject  AT&  T's  request  that  the  Commission  require  Qwest  to  state  in 


 writing  again  that  it  has  reinstated  the  pre-  June  16  policy  because  we  find  Qwest's  assurances  in  this  regard  to  be  adequate.  See  Letter  from  Amy  L.  Alvarez,  District  Manager    Federal  Government  Affairs,  AT&  T,  to  Marlene  H. 
 Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  at  1  (filed  Oct.  29,  2003)  (AT&  T  Oct.  29  Ex  Parte  Letter). 


 101  See  Arizona  Commission  Sept.  16  Order  at  30-  31.  Qwest  explains  that  it  reinstated  the  pre-  June  16  policy  in 
 response  to  competitive  LECs  concerns  before  the  Arizona  Commissions  order.  See  Qwest  Sept.  29C  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1.  We  note  that  the  Department  of  Justice  did  not  address  this  issue  in  its  evaluation.  See  generally 


 Department  of  Justice  Evaluation.  We  also  note  that  competitive  LECs  that  filed  a  petition  with  the  Commission  concerning  this  issue  have  subsequently  withdrawn  it.  See  Letter  from  Patrick  J.  Donovan,  Counsel  for  Cbeyond 
 Communications,  Eschelon  Telecom,  Focal  Communications  Corporation,  and  New  Edge  Networks,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  02-  314  (filed  Oct.  16,  2003). 


 102  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26496-  97,  para.  349  (rejecting  AT&  T  arguments  that  Qwests 
 original  pre-  June  16  policy  on  construction  of  new  facilities  was  discriminatory). 
 103  See  supra  Section  II. 


 104  See  Triennial  Review  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  17371-  78,  paras.  632-  41.  We  also  reject  AT&  Ts  request  that  the 
 Commission  require  Qwest  to  commit  that  it  will  not  alter  the  pre-  June  16  policy  without  the  consent  of  competitive  LECs  and  the  approval  of  the  state  commissions  in  its  region.  See  AT&  T  Oct.  29  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1.  As  noted 


 above,  Qwest  is  currently  obligated  to  comply  with  our  new  routine  network  modification  rules  and  state  commissions  have  processes  in  place  to  address  proposed  rate  increases,  such  as  that  sought  by  Qwest  in  Arizona. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 18 
 IV.  OTHER  CHECKLIST  ITEMS 
 A.  Checklist  Item  2 
 1.  Other  OSS  Issues 
 30.  Ordering.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  demonstrates  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  ordering  systems  and  processes  and  generally 


 satisfies  the  performance  standards  governing  the  relevant  performance  measurements.  105  Although  some  commenters  express  concern  with  Qwests  rejection  rates,  106  we  find  that  for  the 
 relevant  five-  month  period,  Qwests  performance  has  generally  improved,  107  and  its  rejection 


 105  See,  e.  g.,  PO-  3  (LSR  Rejection  Notice  Interval);  PO-  5  (Firm  Order  Confirmations  on  Time).  Although  Qwest 
 failed  to  reach  the  benchmark  with  respect  to  one  electronic  flow-  through  metric  in  Arizona  during  the  relevant  months,  we  do  not  find  that  this  warrants  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance.  See  PO-  2B-  2  (Electronic  Flow-through 


 for  all  Eligible  LSRs  Received  via  EDI,  LNP%)  showing  an  average  of  88.2%  compared  to  a  95%  benchmark  from  April  to  August  2003).  Qwests  overall  performance  with  respect  to  electronic  flow-  through  in 
 Arizona  is  better  than  the  flow-  through  demonstrated  during  prior  Qwest  271  proceedings.  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  Appendices  B-  J;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  Appendices  B-  E;  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  App.  B.  Moreover, 
 Qwests  flow-  through  rates  are  comparable  to  those  of  other  BOCs  that  the  Commission  has  previously  approved.  See,  e.  g.,  Application  by  Verizon  New  England  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic  Communications,  Inc.  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Long 
 Distance),  NYNEX  Long  Distance  Company  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Enterprise  Solutions),  Verizon  Global  Networks,  Inc.,  and  Verizon  Select  Services  Inc.,  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Maine,  CC  Docket 
 No.  02-  61,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  11659,  11703-  30,  App.  B  (2002)  (Verizon  Maine  Order);  Application  by  Verizon  New  Jersey  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic  Communications,  Inc.  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Long  Distance), 
 NYNEX  Long  Distance  Company  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Enterprise  Solutions),  Verizon  Global  Networks  Inc.,  and  Verizon  Select  Services  Inc.,  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  New  Jersey,  WC  Docket  No.  02- 
 67,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  12275,  12372-  402,  App.  B  (2002)  (Verizon  New  Jersey  Order).  Finally,  no  competitive  LEC  contests  Qwests  performance  in  this  regard. 


 106  MCI  Comments  at  1.  Additionally,  AT&  T  argues  that,  as  a  result  of  Qwests  change  in  its  loop  conditioning 
 policy,  approximately  20%  of  competitive  LEC  high-  capacity  loops  were  rejected.  AT&  T  Comments  at  2,  7;  AT&  T  Reply  at  2.  AT&  T  does  not  allege,  however,  that  the  increase  in  rejection  rates  for  high-  capacity  loop  orders 


 is  the  result  of  any  underlying  OSS  problem.  See  supra  Section  III.  B. 
 107  Qwests  commercial  performance  for  April  to  August  shows  that  an  average  of  31%  of  local  service  requests 
 (LSRs)  submitted  over  Qwests  Graphical  User  Interface  (GUI)  and  an  average  of  32%  of  LSRs  submitted  over  Qwests  Electronic  Data  Interchange  (EDI)  were  automatically  rejected.  See  PO-  4A-  2  (LSRs  received  via  GUI  and 


 auto-  rejected)  and  PO-  4B-  2  (LSRs  received  via  EDI  and  auto-  rejected).  For  manual  rejects,  Qwests  commercial  data  show  that  from  April  to  August,  an  average  of  3%  of  LSRs  submitted  over  the  GUI  and  5%  of  LSRs  submitted 
 over  EDI  were  manually  rejected.  See  PO-  4A-  1  (LSRs  received  via  GUI  and  manually  rejected)  and  PO-  4B-  1  (LSRs  received  via  EDI  and  manually  rejected).  We  note  that  Qwests  performance  in  July  was  28.69%  while  its 
 August  performance  improved  to  25.38%.  See  PO-  4B-  2  (LSRs  received  via  EDI  and  auto-  rejected).  See  also  Qwest  Reply  at  17.  Additionally,  a  number  of  competing  LECs  experience  low  rejection  rates  (ranging  from  1%  to 
 11%)  during  the  month  of  August  for  LSRs  submitted  over  EDI  (PO-  4B-  2).  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Reply  Decl.,  Ex.  LN-  13  (Chart  of  CLEC-  Specific  Flow-  Through  and  Reject  Rates  Under  PO-  2  and  PO-  4,  Updated  with  Data 
 from  August  2003)  (citing  confidential  information).  See  also  Qwest  Reply  at  17;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  27. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 19 
 rates  are  well  within  the  range  that  the  Commission  has  previously  found  to  be  acceptable.  108  At  any  rate,  the  Commission  does  not  perform  a  parity  or  direct  benchmark  analysis  of  a  carriers 
 rejection  rate,  in  part  because  a  high  rejection  rate  for  one  carrier  does  not  necessarily  indicate  flaws  in  the  BOCs  OSS  systems  or  processes,  but  instead  could  be  attributable  to  the 
 competitive  LECs  own  errors.  109 
 31.  Provisioning.  We  conclude,  as  did  the  Arizona  Commission,  that  Qwest  satisfies  checklist  item  2  with  regard  to  provisioning  in  Arizona.  110  The  record  demonstrates  that  Qwest 


 provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  provisioning  systems  and  processes  and  consistently  satisfies  the  performance  standards  for  the  relevant  performance  measurements.  111  Moreover,  the 


 108  See,  e.  g.,  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4044,  para.  175  n.  552  (reporting  rejection  rates 
 between  28%  and  34%  during  the  relevant  months  of  its  New  York  section  271  application);  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26357,  para.  89  n.  314  (Qwests  commercial  performance  for  June  to  September  2002  showed  that  an 


 average  of  31%  of  LSRs  submitted  over  the  GUI  and  an  average  of  22%  of  LSRs  submitted  over  EDI  were  automatically  rejected);  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13335,  para.  25  n.  72  (noting  that  Qwests 
 recalculated  rejection  rates  ranged  from  19.5%  to  38%). 
 109  See,  e.  g.,  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Michigan  Bell  Telephone  Company,  and  Southwestern 
 Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Michigan,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  138,  FCC  03-  228,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  at  para.  67  (rel.  Sept.  17,  2003)  (SBC  Michigan 


 II  Order);  SBC  California  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  25691-  92,  para.  83;  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18442,  para.  176.  For  example,  in  the  SWBT  Texas  Order,  the  Commission  noted  that  the  order  rejections  varied  widely  by 
 individual  carrier,  from  10.8%  to  higher  than  60%,  but  concluded  that  these  overall  rejection  rates  did  not  appear  to  indicate  a  systemic  flaw  in  the  BOCs  OSS. 


 110  See,  e.  g.,  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  11  (citing  CGE&  Ys  findings). 
 111  Qwests  wholesale  performance  reflects  few  missed  benchmarks,  with  the  few  misses  generally  occurring  in 
 low  volume  categories.  See  OP-  3  (Installation  Commitments  Met),  OP-  4  (Installation  Interval),  OP-  5  (New  Service  Installation  Quality),  OP-  6A  (Delayed  Days  for  Non-  Facility  Reasons),  and  OP-  6B  (Delayed  Days  for 


 Facility  Reasons)  for  resale,  UNE-  platform,  UNE-  platform  Centrex  orders,  and  UNE  combos.  Although  Qwest  missed  the  benchmark  for  EELs  installation  commitments  for  three  of  the  five  months,  we  find  that  the  performance 
 disparities  do  not  appear  to  be  competitively  significant.  With  a  benchmark  of  90%,  Qwests  performance  in  Arizona  for  OP-  3  (Installation  Commitments  Met,  EELs)  is  94.23%,  89.80%,  85.71%,  89.29%,  and  90.74%  with 
 volumes  of  52,  49,  56,  28,  and  54,  respectively  from  April  through  August  2003.  According  to  Qwest,  facility  problems  caused  the  misses  in  May  and  June  (i.  e.,  the  DS1  service  could  not  be  provisioned  as  engineered  due  to 
 the  actual  make-  up  of  the  line).  Qwest  Reply,  Attach.  A  at  7.  Moreover,  as  we  stated  in  the  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  we  find  it  difficult  to  draw  strong  conclusions  regarding  this  data  given  the  comparatively  low  volumes  and 
 the  lack  of  complaints  regarding  EELs  provisioning.  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13343,  para.  40.  Qwest  also  missed  the  OP-  4  metric  (Installation  Interval)  in  April,  June,  July,  and  August  for  Qwest  xDSL  service. 
 See  OP-  4  (Installation  Interval,  Qwest  xDSL)  showing  5.25,  4.86,  5.29,  5.47,  and  5.12  days  versus  4.99,  4.9,  4.88,  4.87,  and  4.9  days  for  Qwest  retail  customers  during  the  relevant  months.  However,  the  competing  LEC  volumes 
 for  Qwest  xDSL  resale  service  in  Arizona  were  less  than  20  each  month  and  the  performance  disparities  are  not  competitively  significant.  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  Oct.  23A  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3  (noting  that  the  difference  in  August  was 
 less  than  half  a  day).  Moreover,  as  we  have  mentioned  in  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  we  do  not  rely  on  Qwests  performance  under  the  average  completed  interval  metric  as  a  measure  of  Qwests  timeliness  in  provisioning  Qwest 
 xDSL  service.  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26402,  para.  163.  Instead,  we  conclude,  as  we  have  in  prior  section  271  orders,  that  the  missed  appointment  metric  (or  installation  commitments  met  metric,  as  it  is  called  in  the 
 Qwest  territory),  which  Qwest  passed  in  most  months  in  Arizona,  is  a  more  reliable  indicator  of  provisioning  (continued.) 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 20 
 third-  party  test  conclusions  generally  support  our  findings  in  this  regard.  112  We  note  that  no  commenter  raises  any  new  issues  in  this  proceeding  relating  to  Qwests  provisioning  capabilities. 
 32.  Billing.  We  find,  as  did  the  Arizona  Commission,  that  Qwest  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  billing  functions.  113  Qwests  billing  systems  are  the  same  as 
 those  reviewed  in  previous  Qwest  section  271  applications,  and  Qwests  commercial  performance  data  demonstrate  that  it  generally  satisfies  the  parity  or  benchmark  standards.  114 


 2.  Pricing  Unbundled  Network  Elements 
 a.  Introduction 
 33.  Checklist  item  2  of  section  271  states  that  a  BOC  must  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  network  elements  in  accordance  with  sections  251(  c)(  3)  and 


 252(  d)(  1)  of  the  Act.  115  Section  251(  c)(  3)  requires  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  network  elements  on  an  unbundled  basis  at  any  technically  feasible 
 point  on  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory.  116  Section  252(  d)(  1)  provides  that  a  state  commissions  determination  of  the  just  and  reasonable  rates  for 
 network  elements  must  be  nondiscriminatory  and  based  on  the  cost  of  providing  the  network  elements,  and  may  include  a  reasonable  profit.  117  Pursuant  to  this  statutory  mandate,  the 
 Commission  has  determined  that  prices  for  UNEs  must  be  based  on  the  total  element  long  run  incremental  cost  (TELRIC)  of  providing  those  elements.  118 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  timeliness.  Id.;  OP-  3  (Installation  Commitments  Met,  Qwest  xDSL).  Therefore,  we  find  that  Qwest  meets  it 
 obligations  with  respect  to  provisioning. 
 112  See  Qwest  Notarianni/  Huff  Decl.  at  paras.  420-  50. 


 113  See  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  11  (citing  CGE&  Ys  findings). 
 114  Qwest  missed  parity  for  three  of  five  months  on  BI-  3A  (Billing  Accuracy    Adjustments  for  Errors,  UNEs  and 
 Resale  Aggr%).  In  May,  July,  and  August  2003,  the  competitive  LEC  percentages  were  91.49,  96.65,  and  92.08  respectively,  and,  during  the  same  period  of  time,  Qwests  retail  percentages  were  99.08,  99.36,  and  99.05. 


 However,  we  note  that  the  difference,  weighted  for  volumes,  in  performance  between  competitive  LECs  and  Qwest  for  this  five-  month  period  was  only  3.  72%  and  find  that  this  difference  is  not  competitively  significant. 


 115  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii). 
 116  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  3). 
 117  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  d)(  1). 
 118  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  in  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No. 
 96-  98,  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  15499,  15844-  47,  paras.  674-  79  (1996)  (Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order)  (subsequent  history  omitted);  47  C.  F.  R.    51.501-  51.515  (2001).  Last  year,  the  Supreme  Court 


 upheld  the  Commissions  forward-  looking  pricing  methodology  for  determining  the  costs  of  UNEs.  Verizon  Communications,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  535  U.  S.  467,  523  (2002). 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 21 
 34.  In  applying  the  Commissions  TELRIC  pricing  principles  in  this  application,  we  do  not  conduct  a  de  novo  review  of  a  states  pricing  determinations.  119  We  will,  however,  reject 
 an  application  if  basic  TELRIC  principles  are  violated  or  the  state  commission  makes  clear  errors  in  factual  findings  on  matters  so  substantial  that  the  end  result  falls  outside  the  range  that 
 the  reasonable  application  of  TELRIC  principles  would  produce.  120  We  note  that  different  states  may  reach  different  results  that  are  each  within  the  range  of  what  a  reasonable  application  of 
 TELRIC  principles  would  produce.  Accordingly,  an  input  rejected  elsewhere  might  be  reasonable  under  the  specific  circumstances  here. 


 35.  In  its  application,  Qwest  states  that  the  UNE  rates  (recurring  and  non-  recurring)  adopted  by  the  Arizona  Commission  comply  with  our  TELRIC  pricing  rules.  121  Should  the 
 Commission  decline  to  rely  on  cost  proceedings  conducted  by  the  Arizona  Commission  to  find  Qwests  rates  consistent  with  the  Act,  Qwest  also  submitted  a  benchmark  comparison  to  its  UNE 
 rates  in  Colorado  that  it  claims  demonstrates  its  UNE  rates  in  Arizona  fall  within  the  range  that  a  reasonable  application  of  TELRIC  principles  would  produce.  122 


 b.  Background 
 36.  UNE  Cost  Proceedings.  During  the  course  of  the  initial  interconnection  agreement  arbitrations  in  Arizona,  the  Arizona  Commission  established  interim  UNE  rates  in 


 119  Application  of  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Inc.,  Verizon  Long  Distance,  Verizon  Enterprise  Solutions,  Verizon 
 Global  Networks  Inc.,  and  Verizon  Select  Services  Inc.  for  Authorization  To  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Pennsylvania,  CC  Docket  No.  01-  338,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  17419,  17453,  para.  55 


 (2001)  (subsequent  history  omitted)  (Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order).  See  also  Sprint  v.  FCC,  274  F.  3d  at  556  (  When  the  Commission  adjudicates    271  applications,  it  does  not    and  cannot    conduct  de  novo  review  of  state 
 rate-  setting  determinations.  Instead,  it  makes  a  general  assessment  of  compliance  with  TELRIC  principles.). 
 120  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17453,  para.  55. 


 121  Qwest  Application  at  103;  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  24,  Declaration  of  Jerrold  L.  Thompson  (Qwest 
 Thompson  Decl.)  at  paras.  2,  13,  44. 
 122  Qwest  Application  at  103-  04;  Qwest  Thompson  Decl.  at  paras.  2,  44-  49,  Exs.  2-  6.  The  Commission  has  stated 
 that,  when  a  state  commission  has  not  applied  TELRIC  principles  or  has  done  so  improperly,  then  the  Commission  will  look  to  rates  in  other  section  271-  approved  states  to  see  if  the  rates  under  review  nonetheless  fall  within  the 


 range  that  a  reasonable  application  of  TELRIC  principles  would  produce.  In  comparing  the  rates,  the  Commission  has  used  its  universal  service  cost  model  to  take  into  account  the  differences  in  the  underlying  costs  between  the 
 applicant  state  and  the  comparison  (i.  e.,  benchmark)  state  for  which  the  Commission  has  already  found  the  rates  to  be  reasonable.  For  recurring  charges,  if  the  percentage  difference  between  the  applicant  states  rates  and  the 
 benchmark  states  rates  does  not  exceed  the  percentage  difference  between  the  applicant  states  costs  and  the  benchmark  states  costs,  as  determined  by  the  universal  service  cost  model,  then  the  Commission  will  find  that  the 
 applicant  has  met  its  burden  to  show  that  its  rates  are  TELRIC-  compliant.  See,  e.  g.,  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17456-  58,  paras.  63-  65. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 22 
 August  1996  based  on  the  FCC  proxy  rates.  123  Permanent  UNE  rates  were  established  in  January  1998.  124  In  July  2000,  the  Arizona  Commission  developed  deaveraged  loop  rates.  125 
 37.  The  Arizona  Commission  subsequently  re-  examined  rates,  establishing  new  UNE  rates  for  all  elements  except  switching  in  June  2002.  126  In  adopting  new  UNE  rates,  the  Arizona 
 Commission  relied  on  the  HAI  model  sponsored  by  AT&  T,  WorldCom,  and  XO  to  set  recurring  rates  and  on  the  competitive  LECs  non-  recurring  cost  model  to  set  non-  recurring  rates.  127  The 
 Arizona  Commission  established  new  unbundled  switching  rates  in  December  2002.  128  The  parties,  however,  were  unable  to  agree  on  the  analog  line  side  port  rate  that  resulted  from  the 
 Arizona  2002  Generic  Pricing  Order.  129  On  October  6,  2003,  the  Arizona  Commission  adopted  a  rate  for  this  switching  element  and  revised  the  rate  for  unbundled  transport.  130 


 c.  Discussion 
 38.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwests  UNE  rates  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory  as  required  by  section  251(  c)(  3),  and  are  based  on  cost  plus  a 


 reasonable  profit  as  required  by  section  252(  d)(  1).  Thus,  Qwests  UNE  rates  satisfy  checklist  item  2. 


 39.  The  Arizona  Commission,  as  explained  above,  conducted  extensive  pricing  proceedings  to  establish  wholesale  rates  for  UNEs.  It  established  recurring  rates  by  using  an 
 Arizona-  specific  version  of  the  HAI  model  advocated  by  AT&  T,  WorldCom,  and  XO,  as  well  as  many  inputs  to  that  model  that  were  advocated  by  competitive  LECs.  131  The  Arizona 


 123  Qwest  Application,  App.  I,  Vol.  1,  Tab  1,  Arizona  Commission  Aug.  30,  1996  Procedural  Order. 
 124  Qwest  Application,  App.  I,  Vol.  1,  Tab  211,  Arizona  Commission  Jan.  30,  1998  Opinion  and  Order,  affd  in 
 part  and  revd  in  part,  US  West  Communications,  Inc.  v.  Jennings,  46  F.  Supp.  2d  1004  (D.  Ariz.  1999),  affd  in  part  and  revd  in  part,  304  F.  3d  950  (9  th  Cir.  2002). 


 125  Qwest  Application,  App.  I,  Vol.  3,  Tab  57,  Arizona  Commission  July  25,  2000  Phase  I  Opinion  and  Order. 
 126  Qwest  Application,  App.  I,  Vol.  3,  Tab  504,  Arizona  Commission  June  12,  2002  Phase  II  Opinion  and  Order 
 (Arizona  2002  Generic  Pricing  Order),  appeal  pending  sub  nom.  Qwest  Corp.  v.  Ariz.  Corp.  Commn,  Case  No.  CIV  02-  1626  (PHX-  SRB)  (D.  Ariz.). 


 127  Arizona  2002  Generic  Pricing  Order,  at  10-  11,  33-  34. 
 128  Qwest  Application,  App.  I,  Vol.  3,  Tab  528,  Arizona  Commission  Dec.  12,  2002  Phase  IIA  Opinion  and 
 Order. 
 129  See  Letter  from  Maureen  A.  Scott,  Attorney,  Arizona  Commission,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal 
 Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194,  Attach.  at  2  (Arizona  Commission  Oct.  6,  2003  Phase  II  and  IIA  Supplemental  Opinion  and  Order  Regarding  Transport  and  Analog  Port  Rate  Issues)  (filed  Oct.  8,  2003). 


 130  Id.,  Attach.  at  1-  15. 
 131  Arizona  2002  Generic  Pricing  Order  at  10-  11.  For  example,  the  Arizona  Commission  adopted  the 
 competitive  LECs  inputs  for  placement  costs,  fill  factors,  and  overhead  costs.  Id.  at  11-  12,  15-  17,  20-  21. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 23 
 Commission  also  established  non-  recurring  rates  by  using  the  non-  recurring  cost  model  advocated  by  AT&  T,  WorldCom,  and  XO.  132  The  Arizona  Commission  concluded  that  Qwests 
 UNE  rates  comply  with  the  TELRIC  methodology  and  satisfy  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  2.  133  No  commenter  alleges  that  Qwests  rates  are  inconsistent  with  TELRIC,  or  that  the  Arizona 
 Commission  committed  TELRIC  errors  in  establishing  those  rates.  Based  on  this  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  has  met  its  burden  to  show  that  its  prices  for  UNEs  satisfy  the  statutory  mandate.  134 


 B.  Remaining  Checklist  Items  (1,  3,  and  5-  14) 
 40.  In  addition  to  showing  compliance  with  the  statutory  requirements  discussed  above,  an  applicant  for  section  271  authority  must  demonstrate  that  it  complies  with  checklist 


 item  1  (interconnection),  135  item  3  (access  to  poles,  ducts,  and  conduits),  136  item  5  (unbundled  transport),  137  item  6  (unbundled  local  switching),  138  item  7  (911/  E911  access  and  directory 
 assistance/  operator  services),  139  item  8  (white  pages  directory  listings),  140  item  9  (numbering  administration),  141  item  10  (databases  and  associated  signaling),  142  item  11  (number  portability),  143 
 item  12  (local  dialing  parity),  144  item  13  (reciprocal  compensation),  145  and  item  14  (resale).  146  Based  on  the  evidence  in  this  record,  we  conclude,  as  did  the  Arizona  Commission,  147  that  Qwest 


 132  Id.  at  33-  34. 
 133  See  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  paras.  35,  58,  65,  68,  and  71. 
 134  Because  we  find  that  Qwest  has  satisfied  its  burden  based  on  our  review  of  the  record  before  us  and  on  the 
 UNE  cost  proceedings  before  the  Arizona  Commission,  we  find  it  unnecessary  to  rely  on  Qwests  benchmark  analysis. 


 135  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  i). 
 136  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iii). 
 137  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  v). 
 138  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vi). 
 139  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii). 
 140  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  viii). 
 141  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ix). 
 142  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  x). 
 143  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xi). 
 144  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xii). 
 145  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiii). 
 146  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiv). 
 147  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  8-  18. 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 24 
 complies  with  the  requirements  of  all  of  these  checklist  items.  148  None  of  the  commenting  parties  challenges  Qwests  compliance  with  these  items. 
 V.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  SECTION  271(  c)(  1)(  A) 
 41.  In  order  for  the  Commission  to  approve  a  BOCs  application  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services,  the  BOC  must  first  demonstrate  that  it  satisfies  the  requirements  of  either 


 section  271(  c)(  1)(  A)  (Track  A)  or  section  271(  c)(  1)(  B)  (Track  B).  149  To  meet  the  requirements  of  Track  A,  a  BOC  must  have  interconnection  agreements  with  one  or  more  competing  providers 
 of  telephone  exchange  service  .  .  .  to  residential  and  business  subscribers.  150  In  addition,  the  Act  states  that  such  telephone  service  may  be  offered  .  .  .  either  exclusively  over  [the 
 competitors]  own  telephone  exchange  service  facilities  or  predominantly  over  [the  competitors]  own  telephone  exchange  facilities  in  combination  with  the  resale  of  the  telecommunications 
 services  of  another  carrier.  151  The  Commission  has  concluded  that  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A)  is  satisfied  if  one  or  more  competing  providers  collectively  serve  residential  and  business 
 subscribers,  152  and  that  UNEs  are  a  competing  providers  own  telephone  exchange  service  facilities  for  purposes  of  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A).  153  The  Commission  has  further  held  that  a  BOC 
 must  show  that  at  least  one  competing  provider  constitutes  an  actual  commercial  alternative  to  the  BOC,  154  which  a  BOC  can  do  by  demonstrating  that  the  provider  serves  more  than  a  de 
 minimis  number  of  subscribers.  155  The  Commission  has  held  that  Track  A  does  not  require  any 


 148  See  Qwest  Application  at  14-  24  (checklist  item  1),  33-  35  (checklist  item  3),  46-  51  (checklist  item  5),  51-  52 
 (checklist  item  6),  52-  56  (checklist  item  7),  56-  58  (checklist  item  8),  58-  60  (checklist  item  9),  60-  62  (checklist  item  10),  63-  65  (checklist  item  11),  65-  66  (checklist  item  12),  66-  70  (checklist  item  13),  70-  74  (checklist  item  14). 


 We  also  find  that  Qwest  complies  with  its  UNE  combinations  obligations  set  forth  in  checklist  item  2.  See  id.  at  27-  33. 


 149  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  1). 
 150  Id. 
 151  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  A). 
 152  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20585,  para.  85;  see  also  Application  of  BellSouth  Corporation, 
 BellSouth  Telecommunications,  Inc.,  and  BellSouth  Long  Distance,  Inc.  for  Provision  of  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  In  Louisiana,  CC  Docket  No.  98-  121,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  20599,  20633-  35, 


 paras.  46-  48  (1998)  (BellSouth  Second  Louisiana  Order). 
 153  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20598,  para.  101. 


 154  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as 
 amended,  To  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Oklahoma,  CC  Docket  No.  97-  121,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  8685,  8695,  para.  14  (1997). 


 155  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6257,  para.  42;  see  also  Ameritech  Michigan  Order  12  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20585,  para.  78. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 25 
 particular  level  of  market  penetration,  and  the  D.  C.  Circuit  has  affirmed  that  the  Act  imposes  no  volume  requirements  for  satisfaction  of  Track  A.  156 
 42.  We  agree  with  the  Arizona  Commission  that  Qwest  satisfies  the  requirements  of  Track  A.  157  We  find  that  each  of  the  following  four  carriers    AT&  T,  Cox,  MCI,  and  Time 
 Warner    serves  more  than  a  de  minimis  number  of  residential  and/  or  business  end  users  over  its  own  facilities,  and  each  represents  an  actual  facilities-  based  competitor  to  Qwest  in  Arizona.  158 
 Specifically,  AT&  T  provides  telephone  exchange  service  to  business  subscribers  predominantly  over  its  own  facilities,  UNE-  Loops,  and  the  UNE-  Platform.  159  Cox  provides  telephone  exchange 
 service  to  residential  and  business  subscribers  over  its  own  facilities.  160  MCI  provides  telephone  exchange  service  to  business  and  residential  subscribers  predominantly  through  its  own  facilities 
 and  the  UNE-  Platform.  161  Time  Warner  provides  telephone  exchange  service  to  residential  and  business  customers  over  its  own  facilities.  162 


 VI.  SECTION  272  COMPLIANCE 
 43.  Section  271(  d)(  3)(  B)  requires  that  the  Commission  shall  not  approve  a  BOCs  application  to  provide  interLATA  services  unless  the  BOC  demonstrates  that  the  requested 


 authorization  will  be  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  272.  163  The  Commission  set  standards  for  compliance  with  section  272  in  the  Accounting  Safeguards  Order 


 156  Sprint  v.  FCC,  274  F.  3d  at  553-  54;  see  also  SBC  Communications  Inc.  v.  FCC,  138  F.  3d  410,  416  (D.  C.  Cir. 
 1998)  (  Track  A  does  not  indicate  just  how  much  competition  a  provider  must  offer  in  either  the  business  or  residential  markets  before  it  is  deemed  a  competing  provider.). 


 157  Arizona  Commission  Sept.  29  Order  at  2-  7. 
 158  Qwest  Teitzel  Decl.  at  para.  30  &  Ex.  DLT-  Track  A/  PI-  AZ-  1  at  3-  4  (citing  confidential  information).  We 
 reject  again  Sprints  contention  that  because  Qwests  estimation  of  Sprints  customers  is  allegedly  incorrect,  Qwests  overall  showing  on  the  number  of  competitive  LEC  customers  in  Arizona  is  insufficient  for  a  finding  of 


 Track  A  compliance.  See  Sprint  Comments  at  8-  10;  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13356,  para.  61  n.  229  (rejecting  Sprints  argument  in  that  proceeding).  Given  the  large  number  of  competitive  access  lines  estimated  to  be 
 in  Arizona,  and  given  that  Qwest  used  the  same  methods  to  estimate  access  lines  in  prior  section  271  applications  that  the  Commission  approved,  we  find  that  Sprints  concerns  do  not  undermine  the  evidence  that  competitive  LECs 
 are  serving,  over  their  own  facilities,  more  that  a  de  minimis  number  of  business  and  residential  customers.  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13356,  para.  61  n.  229;  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26318-  19,  para.  32 
 (approving  Qwests  Track  A  estimation  of  lines  served  using  the  E-  911  database). 
 159  Qwest  Teitzel  Decl.,  Ex.  DLT-  Track  A/  PI-  AZ-  1  at  3. 


 160  Id. 
 161  Id. 
 162  Id.  at  4. 
 163  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  B);  see  also  App.  C. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 26 
 and  the  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order.  164  Together,  these  safeguards  discourage,  and  facilitate  the  detection  of,  improper  cost  allocation  and  cross-  subsidization  between  the  BOC  and 
 its  section  272  affiliate.  165  In  addition,  these  safeguards  ensure  that  BOCs  do  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  their  section  272  affiliates.  166  As  the  Commission  has  stated  in  prior  section  271  orders, 
 compliance  with  section  272  is  of  crucial  importance  because  the  structural,  transactional,  and  nondiscrimination  safeguards  of  section  272  seek  to  ensure  that  BOCs  compete  on  a  level 
 playing  field.  167 
 44.  Qwest  Corporation  (QC),  which  is  Qwests  BOC,  demonstrates  that  two  of  its  affiliates    Qwest  LD  Corp.  (QLDC),  and  Qwest  Communications  Corporation  (QCC)    comply 


 with  the  requirements  of  section  272.  168  In  its  application,  Qwest  stated  that  it  would  designate  QCC  as  an  active  section  272  affiliate  as  soon  as  it  was  able  to  certify  QCIIs  financial 
 statements,  which  were  in  the  process  of  being  restated.  169  Qwest  completed  those  restatements  on  October  16,  2003,  when  it  filed  its  revised  10-  K  financial  statements  for  QCII  for  2000  to 
 2002  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission.  170  As  a  result,  Qwest  asserts  that  the 


 164  See  Implementation  of  the  Accounting  Safeguards  under  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No. 
 96-  150,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  17539  (1996)  (Accounting  Safeguards  Order),  Second  Order  On  Reconsideration,  15  FCC  Rcd  1161  (2000);  Implementation  of  the  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  of  Sections  271  and 


 272  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  149,  First  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd  21905  (1996)  (Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order),  First  Order  on 
 Reconsideration,  12  FCC  Rcd  2297  (1997),  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration,  12  FCC  Rcd  8653  (1997),  affd  sub  nom.  Bell  Atlantic  Tel.  Cos.  v.  FCC,  131  F.  3d  1044  (D.  C.  Cir.  1997),  Third  Order  on  Reconsideration,  14  FCC  Rcd 
 16299  (1999). 
 165  See  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21914,  para.  15;  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11 
 FCC  Rcd  at  17550,  para.  24;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20725,  para.  346. 
 166  See  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21914,  paras.  15-  16;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12 
 FCC  Rcd  at  20725,  para.  346. 
 167  See,  e.  g.,  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20725,  para.  346;  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at 
 18549,  para.  395. 
 168  QCC  is  a  facilities-  based  carrier,  and  QLDC  is  a  switchless  reseller,  both  of  which  are  wholly-  owned 
 subsidiaries  of  Qwest  Services  Corporation,  which  in  turn  is  a  wholly  owned  subsidiary  of  Qwest.  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  27,  Declaration  of  Ford  B.  Fay  at  paras.  14-  15;  Qwest  Application  App.  A,  Tab  28, 


 Declaration  of  Marie  E.  Schwartz  (Qwest  Schwartz  Decl.)  at  para.  31.  QLDC  was  formed  in  2002  in  the  face  of  a  number  of  accounting  difficulties  that  prevented  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.  (QCII)  from  certifying 
 whether  certain  of  its  financial  statements  were  in  compliance  with  generally  accepted  accounting  principles  (GAAP). 


 169  Qwest  Application  at  106. 
 170  See  Letter  from  R.  William  Johnston,  Vice  President    Assistant  Controller,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch, 
 Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  at  1  (filed  Oct.  31,  2003)  (Qwest  Oct.  31  Ex  Parte  Letter). 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 27 
 books,  records  and  accounts  of  QCC  are  being  maintained  in  accordance  with  GAAP  consistent  with  FCC  requirements  for  a  separate  affiliate  under  Section  272.  171 
 45.  Based  on  the  record,  we  conclude  that  QC  and  its  section  272  affiliates  have  demonstrated  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  section  272.  In  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  the 
 Commission  noted  that  its  judgment  about  Qwests  compliance  with  section  272  is  a  predictive  one,  as  required  by  section  271(  d)(  3)(  B)  of  the  Act.  172  Specifically,  our  task  is  to  determine 
 whether  Qwests  section  272  affiliates,  QLDC  and  QCC,  will  be  complying  with  this  requirement  on  the  date  of  authorization,  and  thereafter.  173  We  conclude  that  Qwest  has 
 adequately  demonstrated  that  QLDC  and  QCC  will  be  the  entities  providing  in-  region,  interLATA  service  originating  in  Arizona,  and  both  affiliates  will  comply  with  the  requirements 
 set  forth  in  section  272.  174  We  note  that  no  party  challenges  Qwests  section  272  showing. 
 46.  The  Commission  has  determined  that  QLDC  satisfied  the  requirements  set  forth  in  section  272  in  the  13  Qwest  applications  it  has  previously  considered,  and  we  make  the  same 


 findings  of  QLDC  in  the  instant  proceeding.  Thus,  we  focus  our  review  here  on  QCC.  Specifically,  we  determine  that  QCC  provides  evidence  that  it  satisfies  the  separate  affiliate 
 requirements  of  section  272(  a),  complies  with  the  structural  and  transactional  requirements  of  section  272(  b)(  1)-(  5),  and  is  prepared  to  follow  the  joint  marketing  rules  of  section  272(  g).  175 
 Importantly,  as  noted  above,  Qwest  represents  that  QCC  maintains  its  books,  records,  and  accounts  in  accordance  with  GAAP,  which  is  a  Commission  requirement  to  demonstrate 
 compliance  with  section  272(  b)(  2).  176  We  also  conclude  that  QC  will  comply  with  section 


 171  Id.  at  2. 
 172  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26516-  17,  para.  384  &  n.  1417. 
 173  See  id.  at  26516-  17,  para.  384.  In  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  the  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  and  the  Qwest 
 Minnesota  Order,  we  found  that  Qwest  was  in  compliance  with  the  section  272  affiliate  safeguards.  In  particular,  as  in  the  instant  case,  we  approved  Qwests  use  of  QLDC  as  its  section  272  affiliate.  Id.  at  26517-  27,  paras.  385-  405; 


 Qwest  3-  State  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  7390-  92,  paras.  113-  15,  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13357-  59,  paras.  62-  65. 


 174  Cf.  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  U  S  WEST  Corp.,  13  FCC  Rcd  21438,  21465-  66,  para.  37  (Qwest  Teaming  Order),  affd 
 sub  nom.  U.  S.  West  Communications,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  177  F.  3d  1057  (D.  C.  Cir.  1999),  cert.  denied,  528  U.  S.  1188  (2000).  In  the  Qwest  Teaming  Order,  the  Commission  considered  the  totality  of  the  circumstances,  rather  than 


 focusing  on  any  one  particular  activity,  in  assessing  whether  the  BOC  was  providing  interLATA  service  within  the  meaning  of  section  271.  Id.  In  making  its  determination,  the  Commission  considered  several  factors,  including 
 whether  the  BOC  was  effectively  holding  itself  out  as  a  provider  of  long  distance  service,  and  whether  the  BOC  was  performing  activities  and  functions  that  were  typically  performed  by  those  who  are  legally  or  contractually 
 responsible  for  providing  interLATA  service  to  the  public.  Id.  Similarly,  we  consider,  for  purposes  of  this  section  271  application,  the  totality  of  the  circumstances  in  determining  whether  QLDC  and  QCC  are  entities  that  will  be 
 providing  originating  in-  region,  interLATA  service. 
 175  Qwest  Application  App.  A,  Tab  29,  Declaration  of  Jerome  R.  Mueller  at  paras.  18-  46. 


 176  See  Qwest  Oct.  31  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2.  See  also  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  17617,  para. 
 170. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 28 
 272(  c),  which  requires  that  all  transactions  with  affiliates  be  accounted  for  in  accordance  with  accounting  principles  designated  by  the  Commission  and  which  prohibits  a  BOC  from 
 discriminating  in  favor  of  its  section  272  affiliates.  177  In  addition,  we  conclude  that  QC  will  satisfy  section  272(  d)  by  obtaining  and  paying  for  a  biennial  audit.  178  Moreover,  QC 
 demonstrates  that  it  will  comply  with  section  272(  e),  which  requires  Qwest  to  fulfill  certain  requests  for,  among  other  things,  telephone  exchange  and  exchange  access  services  from 
 unaffiliated  entities  within  the  same  time  period  Qwest  fulfills  such  requests  for  its  own  retail  operations.  179  Finally,  in  the  event  that  Qwest  no  longer  utilizes  QLDC  as  a  section  272  affiliate 
 in  the  future,  Qwest  must,  of  course  continue  to  comply  with  all  of  the  Commissions  rules.  180 
 VII.  PUBLIC  INTEREST  ANALYSIS 
 47.  In  addition  to  determining  whether  a  BOC  satisfies  the  competitive  checklist  and  will  comply  with  section  272,  Congress  directed  the  Commission  to  assess  whether  the  requested 


 authorization  would  be  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  convenience,  and  necessity.  181  At  the  same  time,  section  271(  d)(  4)  of  the  Act  states  that  [  t]  he  Commission  may  not,  by  rule  or 
 otherwise,  limit  or  extend  the  terms  used  in  the  competitive  checklist  set  forth  in  subsection  (c)(  2)(  B).  182  Accordingly,  although  the  Commission  must  make  a  separate  determination  that 
 approval  of  a  section  271  application  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  convenience,  and  necessity,  it  may  neither  limit  nor  extend  the  terms  of  the  competitive  checklist  of  section 
 271(  c)(  2)(  B).  Thus,  the  Commission  views  the  public  interest  requirement  as  an  opportunity  to  review  the  circumstances  presented  by  the  application  to  ensure  that  no  other  relevant  factors 
 exist  that  would  frustrate  the  congressional  intent  that  markets  be  open,  as  required  by  the  competitive  checklist,  and  that  entry  will  serve  the  public  interest  as  Congress  expected.  183 


 48.  We  conclude  that  approval  of  this  application  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest.  Following  an  extensive  review  of  the  competitive  checklist,  we  find  that  the  record 
 confirms  the  Commissions  view  that  BOC  entry  into  the  long  distance  market  will  benefit  consumers  and  competition  because  barriers  to  competitive  entry  in  Arizonas  local  exchange 
 market  have  been  removed,  and  the  local  exchange  market  is  open  to  competition. 


 177  Qwest  Schwartz  Decl.  at  paras.  71-  78. 
 178  Id.  at  paras.  79-  82.  We  remind  Qwest  that  under  sections  220(  c)  and  272(  d)(  3)  of  the  Act,  it  must  provide  the 
 Commission,  and  the  independent  auditors,  with  requested  information  in  connection  with  the  section  272(  d)  audit  in  a  timely  and  complete  manner.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    220(  c),  272(  d)(  3). 


 179  Qwest  Schwartz  Decl.  at  paras.  83-  85. 
 180  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13359,  para.  65. 
 181  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  C);  App.  C,  paras.  70-  71. 
 182  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  4). 
 183  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20745-  47,  para.  386-  90. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 29 
 49.  We  disagree  with  Sprints  assertions  that  we  must,  under  our  public  interest  standard,  consider  a  variety  of  other  factors  as  evidence  that  the  local  market  is  not  yet  truly  open 
 to  competition,  despite  checklist  compliance.  184  We  note  that  Congress  specifically  declined  to  adopt  a  market  share  or  other  similar  test  for  BOC  entry  into  long  distance.  185  Additionally,  we 
 note  that,  according  to  Qwest,  competitive  LECs  serve  approximately  20  percent  of  the  local  market.  186  Given  an  affirmative  showing  that  the  competitive  checklist  has  been  satisfied,  low 
 customer  volumes  or  the  failure  of  any  number  of  companies  to  enter  the  market  in  and  of  themselves  do  not  necessarily  undermine  that  showing.  As  the  Commission  has  stated  in 
 previous  section  271  orders,  factors  beyond  the  control  of  the  BOC  can  explain  low  levels  of  residential  competition.  187 


 50.  We  also  reject  commenters  allegations  that  Qwests  application  is  not  in  the  public  interest  due  to  winback  marketing  campaigns  employed  by  Qwest.  188  The  Commission 
 has  previously  concluded  that  winback  campaigns  are  consistent  with  section  222(  c)(  1)  of  the  Act  and  are  not  anticompetitive,  and  that  retention  marketing  campaigns  may  be  permissible 


 184  Those  factors  include  the  level  of  competitive  LEC  market  share,  the  financial  strength  of  competitive  LECs, 
 and  the  failure  of  other  BOCs  to  enter  the  market  in  the  application  states.  Specifically,  Sprint  argues  that  competitive  LECs  have  difficulty  obtaining  capital  to  expand  their  facilities,  thus  restricting  their  ability  to  remain 


 competitive.  Sprint  also  alleges  that  the  uncertainty  of  available  UNEs  following  the  recent  appeals  of  the  Triennial  Review  Order  will  cause  further  financial  pressures.  Additionally,  Sprint  claims  that  low  levels  of  residential 
 competitive  LEC  entry  in  Arizona  are  indicative  of  competitors  unwilling  or  unable  to  invest  in  the  market,  and  granting  the  current  section  271  application  is  not  in  the  public  interest.  Sprint  Comments  at  4-  8.  Finally,  Sprint 
 infers  that  Qwests  methodology  improperly  inflates  competitive  LECs  line  estimates  and,  therefore,  the  true  market  share  of  competitive  carriers  in  Arizona  is  unknown.  Id.  at  9-  10. 


 185  See,  e.  g.,  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20585,  para.  77;  Sprint  v.  FCC,  274  F.  3d  at  553-  54. 
 186  Qwest  Teitzel  Decl.  at  paras.  39-  41,  nn.  45-  48. 
 187  See  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17487,  para.  126.  The  Commission  recently  released  an 
 order  finding  that  allegations  of  a  price  squeeze  are  relevant  to  the  Commissions  consideration  of  whether  an  applicant  has  met  its  section  271  public  interest  requirements.  See  Joint  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc., 


 Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company,  and  Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Southwestern  Bell  Long  Distance  for  Provision  of  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Kansas  and  Oklahoma,  CC  Docket  No.  00- 
 217,  Order  on  Remand,  FCC  03-  285  (rel.  Nov.  12,  2003)  (SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Remand  Order).  In  its  comments,  Sprint  argues  that  low  volumes  of  residential  customers  served  by  competitors  and  the  BOCs  pricing, 
 which  does  not  provide  enough  margin  to  make  competition  profitable,  are  evidence  of  a  price  squeeze.  Sprint  Comments  at  3.  While  we  have  determined  that  evidence  of  a  price  squeeze  (i.  e.,  where  the  margin  between  UNE 
 rates  and  retail  rates  precludes  efficient  competitors  from  entering  a  market)  is  relevant  to  our  public  interest  review,  Sprint  fails  to  state  a  specific  claim  supported  by  pricing  or  other  evidence  to  establish  such  a  violation  in  Arizona. 
 See  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Remand  Order  at  para.  13.  Indeed,  as  mentioned  above,  no  party  raises  any  pricing  issue  in  this  proceeding.  See  supra  Section  IV.  A.  2. 


 188  Commenters  state  that  Qwest  has  commenced  a  series  of  anticompetitive  advertising  campaigns  that  violate 
 competitive  principles  generally  and  Qwests  SGATs  specifically.  Eschelon  Oct.  14  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  4-  5.  Letter  from  Jonathan  Askin,  General  Counsel,  Association  for  Local  Telecommunications  Services,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch, 


 Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  at  1-  2  (filed  Oct.  17,  2003). 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 30 
 assuming  they  do  not  violate  the  provisions  of  section  222(  b)  of  the  Act.  189  We  find,  as  we  did  in  the  BellSouth  Georgia/  Louisiana  Order  that,  absent  a  formal  complaint  to  the  Commission  that 
 Qwest  has  failed  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  section  222(  b),  these  allegations  should  be  referred  to  the  appropriate  state  commission  for  disposition.  190  Finally,  we  also  determine  that 
 Qwests  premature  marketing  does  not  warrant  a  denial  of  this  application.  On  November  14,  2003,  Qwest  voluntarily  informed  the  Commission  that  one  of  its  telemarketing  vendors 
 inappropriately  contacted  353  Arizona  residents  about  Qwests  long  distance  service.  191  According  to  Qwest,  no  sales  to  Arizona  residents  occurred  and  the  Arizona  telemarketing 
 efforts  were  halted  after  one  day.  192  Based  on  the  evidence  in  this  proceeding,  we  find  that  this  is  an  isolated  occurrence  for  which  we  should  not  deny  this  application  under  the  public  interest 
 standard.  193  Moreover,  the  Commissions  Enforcement  Bureau  is  considering  this  matter. 
 A.  Assurance  of  Future  Compliance 
 51.  As  set  forth  below,  we  find  that  Arizonas  Performance  Assurance  Plan  (PAP)  provides  assurance  that  the  local  market  will  remain  open  after  Qwest  receives  section  271 


 authorization  in  this  state.  194  We  find  that  this  plan  will  likely  provide  sufficient  incentives  to  foster  post-  entry  checklist  compliance.  In  previous  orders,  the  Commission  has  explained  that 
 one  factor  it  may  consider  as  part  of  its  public  interest  analysis  is  whether  a  BOC  would  have  adequate  incentives  to  continue  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  section  271  after  entering  the  long 
 distance  market.  195  Although  it  is  not  a  requirement  for  section  271  authority  that  a  BOC  be 
 189  47  U.  S.  C.    222(  b).  Section  222(  b)  of  the  Act  prohibits  a  carrier  from  using  carrier  proprietary  information  to 
 retain  soon-  to-  be-  former  customers  when  the  carrier  gains  notice  of  a  customers  imminent  cancellation  of  service  through  the  provision  of  carrier  to  carrier  service. 


 190  See  BellSouth  Georgia/  Louisiana  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  9186-  88,  paras.  301-  03.  Eschelon  also  argues  that 
 another  Qwest  advertising  campaign  violates  sections  of  the  Arizona  SGAT  because  Qwest  refers  to  itself  as  the  underlying  provider  of  an  unidentified  competitive  LEC's  service  to  an  end  user.  Eschelon  Oct.  14  Ex  Parte  Letter 


 at  3-  4.  While  Qwest  disagrees  with  Eschelons  interpretation  of  the  SGAT,  we  find  that  an  alleged  SGAT  violation  is  best  handled  by  the  appropriate  state  commission.  See  Qwest  Oct.  23A  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3.  Finally,  we 
 determine  that  Qwests  alleged  conduct  does  not  warrant  a  finding  that  Qwests  application  is  not  in  the  public  interest. 


 191  See  Letter  from  Hance  Haney,  Executive  Director    Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch, 
 Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  (filed  Nov.  14,  2003)  (attaching  a  November  13,  2003  letter  filed  with  the  Enforcement  Bureau). 


 192  Id.,  Attach.  at  2. 
 193  We  note  that  our  finding  is  consistent  with  Commission  precedent.  See,  e.  g.,  SBC  Michigan  II  Order  at  para. 
 186  (citing  Application  by  Verizon  New  England  Inc.,  Verizon  Delaware  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic  Communications,  Inc.  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Long  Distance),  NYNEX  Long  Distance  Company  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Enterprise  Solutions),  Verizon 


 Global  Networks  Inc.,  and  Verizon  Select  Services  Inc.,  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  New  Hampshire  and  Delaware,  WC  Docket  No.  02-  157,  Memorandum  Opinion  &  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  18660, 
 18751-  55,  paras.  163-  68  (2002);  Verizon  New  Jersey  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  12367-  68,  paras.  188-  90). 
 194  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  24. 


 195  See,  e.  g.,  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17487-  88,  para.  127. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 31 
 subject  to  such  performance  assurance  mechanisms,  the  Commission  has  stated  previously  that  the  existence  of  a  satisfactory  performance  monitoring  and  enforcement  mechanism  would  be 
 probative  evidence  that  the  BOC  will  continue  to  meet  its  section  271  obligations  after  a  grant  of  such  authority.  196  The  PAP,  coupled  with  the  Arizona  Commissions  active  oversight  of  it,  and 
 provisions  for  comprehensive  review  every  six  months  to  determine  whether  modifications  are  necessary,  provide  additional  assurance  that  the  local  market  in  Arizona  will  remain  open. 


 52.  The  Arizona  PAP  closely  resembles  the  PAPs  the  Commission  reviewed  in  the  recently  approved  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  and  Qwest  Minnesota  Order.  197 
 The  Arizona  PAP  was  developed  through  a  review  process  involving  the  Arizona  Commission  and  competitive  LECs  operating  in  Arizona,  and  incorporates  the  key  elements  that  the 
 Commission  has  previously  concluded  should  be  included  in  an  adequate  post-  entry  PAP  with  respect  to  Qwest.  198  Following  an  open  proceeding,  on  June  5,  2002,  the  Arizona  Commission 
 deemed  the  Qwest  PAP  to  be  compliant  with  the  requirements  of  the  Act.  199 
 53.  We  conclude  that  the  Arizona  PAP  provides  incentives  to  foster  post-  entry  checklist  compliance.  As  in  prior  section  271  orders,  our  conclusions  are  based  on  a  review  of 


 several  key  elements  in  the  performance  remedy  plan:  total  liability  at  risk  in  the  plan,  performance  measurement  and  standards  definitions,  structure  of  the  plan,  self-  executing  nature 
 of  remedies  in  the  plan,  data  validation  and  audit  procedures  in  the  plan,  and  accounting  requirements.  200  The  structure  of  these  plans  is  similar  to  tiered  plans  that  the  Commission 
 approved  in  previous  section  271  orders.  201  The  PAP  places  at  risk  about  44  percent  of  Qwests  Arizona  local  operating  service  net  income,  which  puts  it  in  line  with  those  that  the  Commission 
 has  previously  considered.  202  Also,  as  mentioned  above,  the  PAP  includes  provisions  for  continuing  PAP  review  by  the  Arizona  Commission.  203 


 196  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20748-  50,  paras.  393-  98.  We  note  that  in  all  of  the  previous 
 applications  that  the  Commission  has  granted  to  date,  the  applicant  was  subject  to  an  enforcement  plan  administered  by  the  relevant  state  commission  to  protect  against  backsliding  after  BOC  entry  into  the  long  distance  market. 


 These  mechanisms  are  administered  by  the  state  commissions  and  derive  from  authority  the  states  have  under  state  law  or  under  the  federal  Act.  As  such,  these  mechanisms  can  serve  as  critical  complements  to  the  Commissions 
 authority  to  preserve  checklist  compliance  pursuant  to  section  271(  d)(  6). 
 197  Qwest  Application  at  118;  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26546-  48,  para.  442;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  18 
 FCC  Rcd  at  7394-  95,  paras.  120-  21;  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13361,  para.  70. 
 198  Qwest  Application  at  118. 


 199  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  24. 
 200  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26546-  48,  para.  442. 
 201  See,  e.  g.,  id. 
 202  Qwest  Application  at  119. 
 203  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  24. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 32 
 54.  As  the  Commission  has  stated  in  prior  orders,  the  PAP  is  not  the  only  means  of  ensuring  that  a  BOC  continues  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  service  to  competing  carriers.  204 
 We  are  cognizant  that  in  addition  to  the  monetary  payments  at  stake  under  the  plan,  Qwest  faces  other  consequences  if  it  fails  to  sustain  an  acceptable  level  of  service  to  competing  carriers, 
 including  enforcement  provisions  in  interconnection  agreements,  federal  enforcement  action  pursuant  to  section  271(  d)(  6),  and  remedies  associated  with  other  legal  actions. 


 B.  Unfiled  Interconnection  Agreements 
 55.  In  light  of  its  present  compliance  and  all  other  circumstances  discussed  in  this  section,  we  conclude  that  Qwests  past  conduct  with  respect  to  unfiled  interconnection 


 agreements  does  not  warrant  denial  of  this  application  on  public  interest  grounds.  Although  no  party  comments  on  this  issue,  we  find,  as  we  did  in  prior  Qwest  orders,  that  concerns  about  any 
 potential  ongoing  checklist  violation  (or  discrimination)  are  met  by  Qwests  submission  of  agreements  to  the  Arizona  Commission  pursuant  to  section  252  and  the  Arizona  Commissions 
 approval  of  those  agreements.  205 
 56.  The  Arizona  Commission  has  conducted  several  proceedings  regarding  unfiled  interconnection  agreements  between  Qwest  and  competitive  LECs.  On  July  25,  2003,  the 


 Arizona  Commission  staff  and  Qwest  reached  a  settlement  agreement  concerning  all  issues  raised  in  the  Arizona  Commissions  unfiled  agreements  docket.  206  While  the  Arizona 
 Commission  has  not  yet  approved  this  settlement  agreement,  consistent  with  our  precedent,  we  do  not  require  this  phase  of  a  state  proceeding  to  be  completed  before  we  can  find  no 
 discrimination  on  a  forward-  looking  basis.  207 
 57.  In  the  future,  parties  remain  free  to  present  other  evidence  of  ongoing  discrimination,  for  example,  through  state  commission  enforcement  processes  or  to  this 


 Commission  in  the  context  of  a  section  208  complaint  proceeding.  208  Further,  to  the  extent  past 


 204  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4165,  para.  430;  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18560, 
 para.  421;  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17489,  para.  130. 
 205  Qwest  Application  at  123-  24  (indicating  that  it  submitted  for  approval  all  previously  unfiled  agreements  to  the 
 Arizona  Commission  in  September  2002  and  May  2003,  and  the  Arizona  Commission  approved  all  of  these  agreements  by  operation  of  law).  As  we  noted  in  the  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  state  commission  approval  of  these 


 previously  unfiled  agreements  eliminates  the  possibility  of  noncompliance  with  section  252  as  competitive  LECs  are  able  to  opt-  in  to  these  agreements  pursuant  to  section  252(  i).  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13365-  66, 
 para.  80.  See  also  id.,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13367,  para.  83;  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26553-  54,  para.  453;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  7325,  paras.  124-  42. 


 206  Arizona  Commission  Comments  at  20.  See  also  Qwest  Application,  App.  K,  Tab  1652,  July  25,  2003  Notice 
 of  Filing  Settlement  Agreement  and  Request  for  an  Expedited  Procedural  Conference  (providing  for,  among  other  things,  cash  payments  and  discount  credits). 


 207  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  Minnesota  Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13367,  para.  83. 
 208  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26554,  para.  453. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 33 
 discrimination  existed,  we  anticipate  that  any  violations  of  the  statute  or  our  rules  will  be  addressed  expeditiously  through  federal  and  state  complaint  and  investigation  proceedings.  209 
 VIII.  SECTION  271(  d)(  6)  ENFORCEMENT  AUTHORITY 
 58.  Section  271(  d)(  6)  of  the  Act  requires  Qwest  to  continue  to  satisfy  the  conditions  required  for  .  .  .  approval  of  its  section  271  application  after  the  Commission  approves  its 


 application.  210  Thus,  the  Commission  has  a  responsibility  not  only  to  ensure  that  Qwest  is  in  compliance  with  section  271  today,  but  also  that  it  remains  in  compliance  in  the  future.  As  the 
 Commission  has  already  described  the  post-  approval  enforcement  framework  and  its  section  271(  d)(  6)  enforcement  powers  in  detail  in  prior  orders,  it  is  unnecessary  to  do  so  again  here.  211 


 59.  Working  in  concert  with  the  Arizona  Commission,  we  intend  to  monitor  closely  Qwests  post-  approval  compliance  for  Arizona  to  ensure  that  Qwest  does  not  cease[]  to  meet 
 any  of  the  conditions  required  for  [section  271]  approval.  212  We  stand  ready  to  exercise  our  various  statutory  enforcement  powers  quickly  and  decisively  in  appropriate  circumstances  to 
 ensure  that  the  local  market  remains  open  in  Arizona.  We  are  prepared  to  use  our  authority  under  section  271(  d)(  6)  if  evidence  shows  market  opening  conditions  have  not  been  maintained. 


 60.  Consistent  with  prior  section  271  orders,  we  require  Qwest  to  report  to  the  Commission  all  Arizona  carrier-  to-  carrier  performance  measurement  results  and  PAP  monthly 
 reports  beginning  with  the  first  full  month  after  the  effective  date  of  this  Order,  and  for  each  month  thereafter  for  one  year  unless  extended  by  the  Commission.  These  results  and  reports  will 
 allow  us  to  review,  on  an  ongoing  basis,  Qwests  performance  to  ensure  continued  compliance  with  the  statutory  requirements.  We  are  confident  that  cooperative  state  and  federal  oversight 
 and  enforcement  can  address  any  backsliding  that  may  arise  with  respect  to  Qwests  entry  into  the  long  distance  market  in  Arizona.  213 


 209  Id.  We  are  seriously  troubled  by  Qwests  decision  to  delay  filing  twelve  interconnection  agreements  with  the 
 Arizona  Commission  until  May  23,  2003.  We  note  that  the  issue  of  Qwests  unfiled  agreements  has  already  been  referred  to  the  Enforcement  Bureau  for  investigation  and  appropriate  enforcement  action.  See  Qwest  Minnesota 


 Order,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  13371,  para.  93. 
 210  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6). 


 211  See,  e.  g.,  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6382-  84,  paras.  283-  85;  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15 
 FCC  Rcd  at  18567-  68,  paras.  434-  36;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4174,  paras.  446-  53. 
 212  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6)(  A). 


 213  See,  e.  g.,  Bell  Atlantic-  New  York,  Authorization  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  to  Provide  In-Region, 
 InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  New  York,  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  5413,  5413-  23  (2000)  (adopting  consent  decree  between  the  Commission  and  Bell  Atlantic  that  included  provisions  for  Bell  Atlantic  to  make  a  voluntary 


 payment  of  $3,000,000  to  the  United  States  Treasury,  with  additional  payments  if  Bell  Atlantic  failed  to  meet  specific  performance  standards  and  weekly  reporting  requirements  to  gauge  Bell  Atlantics  performance  in 
 correcting  the  problems  associated  with  its  electronic  ordering  systems). 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 34 
 IX.  CONCLUSION 
 61.  For  the  reasons  discussed  above,  we  grant  Qwests  application  for  authorization  under  section  271  of  the  Act  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services  in  Arizona. 


 X.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 62.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  sections  4(  i),  4(  j),  and  271  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  154(  j),  and  271,  Qwests 


 application  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  service  in  the  state  of  Arizona,  filed  on  September  4,  2003,  IS  GRANTED. 


 63.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  this  Order  SHALL  BECOME  EFFECTIVE  December  15,  2003. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 Appendix  A 
 WC  Docket  No.  03-  194  Qwest    Arizona 


 Commenters 
 1.  Arizona  Corporation  Commission  (Arizona  Commission)  2.  AT&  T  Corp.  (AT&  T) 
 3.  MCI  4.  Sprint  Communications  Company  L.  P.  (Sprint) 


 Reply  Commenter 
 AT&  T 
35
 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 FCC 
 03-  309 


 A 
 ppendix 


 B 


 Arizona 
 Performance 


 Metrics 


 The 
 data 


 in 
 this 


 appendix 


 are 
 taken 


 from 
 the 
 Arizona 


 commercial 


 performance 


 data 
 provided 


 to 
 the 
 Commission. 


 This 
 table 


 is 
 provided 


 as 
 a 


 reference 
 tool 
 for 
 the 
 convenience 


 of 
 the 


 reader. 


 No 
 conclusions 


 are 
 to 
 be 
 drawn 


 from 
 the 
 raw 


 data 
 contained 


 in 
 this 


 table. 


 Our 
 analysis 


 is 


 based 
 on 
 the 
 totality 


 of 
 the 
 circumstances, 


 such 
 that 
 we 
 may 


 use 
 non-  metric 


 evidence, 
 and 
 may 


 rely 
 more 


 heavily 


 on 
 some 


 metrics 


 than 


 others, 
 in 
 making 


 our 
 determination. 


 The 
 inclusion 


 of 
 these 


 particular 


 metrics 
 in 
 this 


 table 


 does 
 not 
 necessarily 


 mean 
 that 
 we 
 relied 


 on 
 all 
 of 


 these 
 metrics 


 or 
 that 


 other 


 metrics 


 may 
 not 
 also 


 be 
 important 


 in 
 our 


 analysis. 


 Some 
 metrics 


 that 
 we 
 have 


 relied 


 on 
 in 
 the 


 past 


 and 
 may 


 rely 


 on 
 for 


 a 
 future 


 application 


 were 
 not 
 included 


 here 
 because 


 there 
 was 
 no 
 data 


 provided 


 for 
 them 


 (usually 


 either 
 because 


 there 
 was 
 no 
 activity, 


 or 
 because 


 the 
 metrics 


 are 
 still 


 under 


 development). 


 Metrics 
 with 
 no 
 retail 


 analog 


 provided 


 are 
 usually 


 compared 


 with 
 a 
 benchmark. 


 Note 


 that 
 for 
 some 


 metrics 


 during 
 the 
 period 


 provided, 


 there 
 may 
 be 
 changes 


 in 
 the 


 metric 


 definition, 


 or 
 changes 


 in 
 the 


 retail 


 analog 


 applied, 


 makin  g 
 it 
 difficult 


 to 
 compare 


 the 
 data 


 over 
 time. 
36
 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 


 Name 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 


 Name 


 Billing 
 Network 
 Performance 


 BI-  1 
 Time 
 to 
 Provide 


 Recorded 


 Usage 
 Records 


 NI-  1 
 Trunk 
 Blocking 


 BI-  2 
 Invoices 
 Delivered 


 within 
 10 
 Days 


 NP-  1 
 NXX 
 Code 
 Activation 


 BI-  3 
 Billing 
 Accuracy 


 - 
 Adjustments 


 for 
 Errors 


 Order 
 Accuracy 


 BI-  4 
 Billing 
 Completeness 


 OA-  1 
 Order 
 Accuracy, 


 Default 
 % 


 BI-  5 
 Billing 
 Accuracy 


 & 
 Claims 


 Processing 


 Ordering 
 and 
 Provisioning 


 Collocation 
 OP-  2 
 Calls 
 Answered 


 within 
 20 
 Seconds 


 - 
 Interconnect 


 Provisioning 
 Center 


 CP-  1 
 Collocation 


 Completion 
 Interval 


 OP-  3 
 Installation 
 Commitments 


 Met 


 CP-  2 
 Collocations 


 Completed 
 within 
 Scheduled 


 Intervals 


 OP-  4 
 Installation 
 Interval 


 CP-  3 
 Collocation 


 Feasibility 
 Study 
 Interval 


 OP-  5 
 New 
 Service 


 Installation 


 Quality 


 CP-  4 
 Collocation 


 Feasibility 
 Study 
 Commitments 


 Met 


 OP-  6A 
 Delayed 
 Days 
 for 
 Non-  Facility 


 Reasons 


 Directory 
 Assistance 


 OP-  6B 
 Delayed 
 Days 
 for 
 Facility 


 Reasons 


 DA-  1 
 Speed 
 of 
 Answer 


 - 
 Directory 


 Assistance 


 OP-  7 
 Coordinated 


 "Hot 
 Cut" 
 Interval 


 - 
 Unbundled 


 Loop 


 Database 
 Updates 


 OP-  8 
 Number 
 Portability 


 Timeliness 


 DB-  1 
 Time 
 to 
 Update 


 Databases 


 OP-  13 
 Coordinated 


 Cuts 
 - 
 Unbundled 


 Loop 


 DB-  2 
 Accurate 
 Database 
 Updates 


 OP-  15A 
 Interval 
 for 
 Pending 


 Orders 
 Delayed 


 Electronic 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 OP-  15B 
 Number 
 of 
 Pending 


 Orders 
 Delayed 


 for 
 Facility 


 Reasons 


 GA-  1 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 IMA-  GUI 


 OP-  17 
 Timeliness 
 of 
 Disconnects 


 Associated 
 with 
 LNP 
 Orders 


 GA-  2 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 IMA-  EDI 


 Operator 
 Services 


 GA-  3 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 EB-  TA 


 OS-  1 
 Speed 
 of 
 Answer 


 - 
 Operator 


 Services 


 GA-  4 
 System 
 Availability 


 - 
 EXACT 


 Pre-  Order/ 
 Order 


 GA-  6 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 GUI 


 - 
 Repair 


 PO-  1 
 Pre-  Order/ 
 Order 
 Response 


 Times 


 GA-  7 
 Timely 
 Outage 
 Resolution 


 Following 
 Software 
 Releases 


 PO-  2 
 Electronic 
 Flow-  through 


 Maintenance 
 and 
 Repair 


 PO-  3 
 LSR 
 Rejection 


 Notice 
 Interval 


 MR-  2 
 Calls 
 Answered 


 within 
 20 
 Seconds 


 - 
 Interconnect 


 Repair 
 Center 


 PO-  4 
 LSRs 
 Rejected 


 MR-  3 
 Out 
 of 
 Service 


 Cleared 
 within 
 24 
 Hours 


 PO-  5 
 Firm 
 Order 
 Confirmations 


 (FOCs) 
 On 
 Time 


 MR-  4 
 All 
 Troubles 


 Cleared 
 within 
 48 
 Hours 


 PO-  6 
 Work 
 Completion 


 Notification 
 Timeliness 


 MR-  5 
 All 
 Troubles 


 Cleared 
 within 
 4 
 Hours 


 PO-  7 
 Billing 
 Completion 


 Notification 
 Timeliness 


 MR-  6 
 Mean 
 Time 
 to 
 Restore 


 PO-  8 
 Jeopardy 
 Notice 
 Interval 


 MR-  7 
 Repair 
 Repeat 
 Report 
 Rate 


 PO-  9 
 Timely 
 Jeopardy 


 Notices 


 MR-  8 
 Trouble 
 Rate 


 PO-  10 
 LSR 
 Accountability 


 MR-  9 
 Repair 
 Appointments 


 Met 


 PO-  15 
 Number 
 of 
 Due 


 Date 
 Changes 


 per 
 Order 


 MR-  10 
 Customer 


 and 
 Non-  Qwest 


 Related 
 Trouble 
 Reports 


 PO-  16 
 Timely 
 Release 
 Notifications 


 MR-  11 
 LNP 
 Trouble 


 Reports 
 Cleared 
 within 
 24 
 Hours 


 PO-  19 
 Stand-  Alone 


 Test 
 Environment 


 (SATE) 
 Accuracy 


 PO-  20 
 Manual 
 Service 
 Order 
 Accuracy 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 FCC 
 03-  309 


 B-  2 
37
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 BILLING  BI-  1 
 Time 
 to 
 Provide 


 Recorded 


 Usage 
 Records 


 BI-  1A 
 UNEs 
 and 
 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 1.38 
 3.84 
 1.45 
 3.70 
 1.40 
 3.77 
 1.54 
 4.13 
 1.26 
 3.75 


 BI-  1B 
 Jointly-  provided 


 Switched 
 Access, 
 % 


 99.99% 
 99.86% 
 99.97% 
 99.95% 
 99.99% 


 BI-  2 
 Invoices 
 Delivered 


 within 
 10 
 Days 


 BI-  2 
 All, 
 % 


 99.98% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.76% 


 99.69% 


 BI-  3 
 Billing 
 Accuracy 


 - 
 Adjustments 


 for 
 Errors 


 BI-  3A 
 UNEs 
 and 
 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 99.22% 
 99.19% 
 91.49% 
 99.08% 
 98.71% 
 97.71% 
 96.65% 
 99.36% 
 92.08% 
 99.05% 


 BI-  3B 
 Reciprocal 
 Compensation, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 BI-  4 
 Billing 
 Completeness 


 BI-  4A 
 UNEs 
 and 
 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 99.86% 
 99.59% 
 99.76% 
 99.65% 
 99.84% 
 99.56% 
 99.89% 
 99.61% 
 99.73% 
 99.36% 


 BI-  4B 
 Reciprocal 
 Compensation, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 BI-  5 
 Billing 
 Accuracy 


 & 
 Claims 


 Processing 


 BI-  5A 
 Acknowledgment, 


 All, 
 % 


 99.66% 
 98.66% 
 99.72% 
 99.21% 


 100% 


 BI-  5B 
 Resolution, 
 All, 
 % 


 97.74% 
 98.96% 
 97.65% 
 97.64% 
 99.57% 


 COLLOCATION  CP-  1  Collocation 
 Completion 
 Interval 
 when 
 Scheduled 


 Interval 
 is 


 CP-  1A 
 90 
 Calendar 


 Days 
 or 
 Less, 


 All, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 69.00 


 63.00 
 50.50 
 62.43 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 CP-  1B 
 91 
 to 
 120 


 Calendar 


 Days, 
 All, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 86.33 
 90.29 
 112.00 


 87.38 
 81.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 CP-  1C 
 121 
 to 
 150 


 Calendar 


 Days, 
 All, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 76.00 


 130.00 
 107.20 
 113.67 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 CP-  2 
 Collocations 
 Completed 
 within 
 Scheduled 


 Intervals 


 CP-  2B 
 Non-  Forecasted 


 & 
 Late 


 Forecasted, 


 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 e 


 CP-  2C 
 with 
 Intervs 


 Longer 
 than 
 120 
 Days, 


 All, 
 % 


 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 CP-  3 
 Collocation 
 Feasibility 
 Study 
 Interval 


 CP-  3 
 All, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 8.00 
 7.65 
 4.00 
 9.50 
 7.62 
 a 
 c 
 d 


 CP-  4 
 Collocation 
 Feasibility 
 Study 
 Commitments 


 Met 


 CP-  4 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 DIRECTORY 
 ASSISTANCE 
 DA-  1 
 Speed 
 of 
 Answer 


 - 
 Directory 


 Assistance 


 DA-  1 
 All, 
 Avg 


 Sec 


 7.55 
 8.23 
 7.14 
 7.52 
 7.48 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 DATABASE 
 UPDATES 
 DB-  1 


 Time 
 to 
 Update 


 Databases 


 DB-  1A 
 E911, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 1:  49 
 2:  27 
 1:  45 
 0:  34 
 0:  50 


 DB-  1B 
 LIDB, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.03 
 1.03 
 1.02 
 1.02 
 1.02 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003  B-  3 
38
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 DB-  1C- 
 1 
 Directory 


 Listing, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.20 
 0.15 
 0.14 
 0.16 
 0.18 


 DB-  2 
 Accurate 
 Database 
 Updates 


 DB-  2C- 
 1 
 Directory 


 Listing, 
 % 


 99.44% 
 99.39% 
 99.38% 
 98.67% 
 99.00% 


 ELECTRONIC 
 GATEWAY 
 AVAILABILITY 


 GA-  1 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 IMA-  GUI 


 GA-  1A 
 IMA-  GUI, 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.85% 


 GA-  1B 
 IMA-  GUI, 
 Fetch-  n- 
 Stuff, 
 % 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 GA-  1C 
 IMA-  GUI, 
 Data 
 Arbiter, 


 % 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 GA-  1D 
 IMA-  GUI, 
 SIA, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 GA-  2 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 IMA-  EDI 


 GA-  2 
 IMA-  EDI, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 GA-  3 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 EB-  TA 


 GA-  3 
 EB-  TA, 
 % 


 99.95% 
 99.88% 
 99.74% 


 100% 
 100% 


 GA-  4 
 System 
 Availability 


 - 
 EXACT 


 GA-  4 
 EXACT, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 GA-  6 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 GUI 


 - 
 Repair 


 GA-  6 
 GUI 
 - 
 Repair, 


 % 


 100% 
 99.97% 


 99.99% 


 100% 
 100% 


 GA-  7 
 Timely 
 Outage 
 Resolution 


 following 
 Software 
 Releases 


 GA-  7 
 All, 
 % 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MAINTENANCE 
 AND 
 REPAIR 


 MR-  2 
 Calls 
 Answered 


 within 
 Twenty 


 Seconds 


 - 
 Interconnect 


 Repair 
 Center 


 MR-  2 
 All, 
 % 


 89.51% 
 86.92% 
 88.18% 
 84.70% 
 86.91% 
 81.89% 
 86.89% 
 81.72% 
 86.16% 
 83.14% 


 MR-  3 
 Out 
 of 
 Service 


 Cleared 


 within 
 24 
 Hours 


 MR-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 97.87% 


 96.40% 
 97.40% 
 97.25% 
 94.90% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 94.34% 


 100% 
 94.40% 


 85.71% 
 94.75% 


 100% 
 91.18% 


 73.33% 
 81.74% 


 b 
 c 


 MR-  3 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.50% 


 100% 
 95.25% 


 99.06% 
 97.44% 
 100% 
 89.85% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 95.21% 


 100% 
 95.20% 


 94.53% 
 100% 
 91.43% 


 100% 
 82.64% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 99.35% 
 100% 
 97.39% 


 98.37% 
 96.94% 
 100% 
 88.48% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 98.18% 


 91.23% 
 92.19% 
 92.86% 
 76.04% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 55.56% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 67.86% 


 93.27% 
 84.21% 
 92.54% 
 95.45% 
 93.23% 
 83.72% 
 90.24% 
 86.00% 
 77.43% 


 MR-  3 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 98.44% 


 85.71% 
 96.28% 


 100% 
 96.62% 


 100% 
 96.86% 


 88.89% 
 89.29% 


 b 
 c 


 MR-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 88.89% 
 100% 
 93.75% 


 100% 
 98.46% 


 98.59% 
 100% 
 85.15% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  4 
39
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 MR-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 98.91% 


 100% 
 99.16% 


 98.37% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 100% 
 93.26% 


 100% 
 95.63% 


 100% 
 94.27% 


 91.82% 
 92.61% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 97.26% 


 93.12% 
 98.11% 
 92.31% 
 96.97% 
 93.05% 
 95.45% 
 90.12% 
 95.31% 
 76.92% 


 MR-  3 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 98.26% 


 100% 
 96.44% 


 90.91% 
 96.26% 


 100% 
 96.78% 


 83.33% 
 89.20% 


 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 100% 
 99.16% 


 100% 
 98.18% 


 100% 
 99.01% 


 96.77% 
 98.81% 


 100% 
 97.49% 


 a 


 MR-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 93.26% 
 95.63% 
 94.27% 
 100% 
 91.82% 


 92.61% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 100% 
 93.88% 


 100% 
 92.96% 


 99.63% 
 93.58% 
 96.83% 
 91.00% 
 96.17% 
 78.66% 


 MR-  3 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 100% 
 99.15% 


 100% 
 98.17% 


 95.00% 
 99.01% 


 100% 
 98.81% 


 100% 
 97.79% 


 MR-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 D 
 95.16% 


 93.27% 
 97.70% 
 92.54% 
 96.05% 
 93.23% 
 94.95% 
 90.24% 
 91.28% 
 77.43% 


 MR-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 98.44% 


 98.15% 
 96.28% 


 100% 
 96.62% 


 95.37% 
 96.86% 
 89.78% 
 89.29% 


 MR-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 D 
 93.33% 


 95.21% 


 100% 
 95.20% 


 100% 
 94.53% 


 91.67% 
 91.43% 


 100% 
 82.64% 


 c 


 MR-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.35% 


 100% 
 97.39% 


 100% 
 98.37% 


 100% 
 96.94% 


 80.00% 
 88.48% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 98.18% 


 91.23% 
 92.19% 
 92.86% 
 76.04% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 55.56% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 All 
 Troubles 


 Cleared 
 within 
 48 
 Hours 


 MR-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 100% 
 99.10% 


 100% 
 98.20% 


 98.09% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 98.77% 


 100% 
 98.75% 


 100% 
 99.09% 


 100% 
 98.57% 


 94.12% 
 96.46% 


 MR-  4 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.87% 


 100% 
 99.39% 


 100% 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 96.51% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 98.66% 


 100% 
 98.27% 


 98.65% 
 100% 
 98.80% 


 100% 
 96.17% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 95.76% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 98.55% 


 96.92% 
 98.63% 


 100% 
 94.83% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 95.24% 


 100% 
 93.33% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 93.10% 


 98.92% 
 94.74% 
 99.04% 
 95.45% 
 99.20% 
 97.67% 
 98.71% 
 96.08% 
 96.28% 


 MR-  4 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.84% 


 100% 
 99.71% 


 100% 
 99.32% 


 100% 
 99.72% 


 100% 
 96.96% 


 b 
 c 


 MR-  4 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 97.44% 
 100% 
 98.59% 


 100% 
 98.59% 


 98.80% 
 100% 
 96.40% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 100% 
 97.62% 


 100% 
 99.09% 


 100% 
 98.27% 


 100% 
 98.35% 


 85.71% 
 98.05% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 98.94% 


 100% 
 99.07% 


 100% 
 99.22% 


 100% 
 98.73% 


 100% 
 96.26% 


 MR-  4 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.84% 


 100% 
 99.76% 


 100% 
 99.21% 


 100% 
 99.68% 


 88.89% 
 97.04% 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.55% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.22% 


 100% 
 99.06% 


 MR-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 97.62% 
 99.09% 
 98.27% 
 100% 
 98.35% 


 98.05% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 100% 
 99.07% 


 100% 
 99.15% 


 100% 
 99.22% 


 99.80% 
 98.86% 
 99.80% 
 96.38% 


 MR-  4 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.54% 


 97.96% 


 100% 
 100% 
 99.21% 


 100% 
 99.05% 


 B-  5 
40
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 MR-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 D 
 99.12% 


 98.92% 
 99.26% 
 99.04% 
 99.56% 
 99.20% 
 99.30% 
 98.71% 
 99.31% 
 96.28% 


 MR-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.84% 


 100% 
 99.71% 


 100% 
 99.32% 


 98.22% 
 99.72% 
 97.17% 
 96.96% 


 MR-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 D 
 95.00% 


 98.66% 


 100% 
 98.27% 


 100% 
 98.65% 


 92.31% 
 98.80% 


 100% 
 96.17% 


 MR-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 95.76% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 98.55% 


 96.92% 
 98.63% 


 100% 
 94.83% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 95.24% 


 100% 
 93.33% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 All 
 Troubles 


 Cleared 
 within 
 4 
 Hours 


 MR-  5 
 DS0, 
 % 


 74.02% 
 77.56% 
 79.25% 
 75.36% 
 100% 
 74.26% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 DS1, 
 % 


 66.67% 
 70.62% 


 100% 
 73.48% 


 100% 
 68.39% 


 69.23% 
 66.57% 
 57.14% 
 63.01% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 e 


 MR-  5 
 DS3, 
 % 


 68.42% 
 94.74% 
 94.44% 
 93.33% 
 95.65% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 E911, 
 % 


 100% 
 0.00% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 79.90% 
 74.14% 
 80.93% 
 75.63% 
 71.62% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 100% 
 92.16% 


 100% 
 94.44% 


 97.52% 
 87.67% 
 86.15% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 94.74% 
 84.62% 
 90.48% 
 90.91% 
 86.67% 


 100% 
 91.67% 


 100% 
 87.50% 


 100% 


 MR-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 70.62% 
 73.48% 
 68.39% 
 66.57% 
 63.01% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 64.84% 
 70.62% 
 67.35% 
 73.48% 
 59.81% 
 68.39% 
 48.65% 
 66.57% 
 50.81% 
 63.01% 


 MR-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 68.42% 
 94.74% 
 94.44% 
 93.33% 
 95.65% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 50.00% 
 68.42% 


 100% 
 94.74% 


 94.44% 
 100% 
 93.33% 


 95.65% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 100% 
 70.62% 


 100% 
 73.48% 


 100% 
 68.39% 


 87.50% 
 66.57% 
 77.78% 
 63.01% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Mean 
 Time 
 to 
 Restore 


 MR-  6 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 4:  55 


 5:  20 
 5:  05 
 6:  06 
 7:  51 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 1:  05 


 1:  03 
 0:  59 
 1:  04 
 1:  05 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Business, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 9:  37 
 10:  06 


 10:  42 


 9:  56 
 11:  03 


 9:  01 
 11:  00 


 11:  02 
 18:  30 
 15:  29 


 MR-  6 
 Business, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 1:  12 


 2:  34 
 1:  29 
 3:  43 
 0:  48 
 2:  44 


 3:  57 
 3:  50 
 6:  46 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 20:  04 


 9:  51 
 2:  09 
 10:  06 


 9:  02 
 13:  40 


 10:  51 


 3:  10 
 15:  24 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 3:  24 
 0:  49 
 3:  17 


 2:  48 
 3:  43 
 7:  58 
 6:  53 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Centrex, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 8:  50 
 13:  10 


 12:  16 
 10:  24 
 16:  54 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Centrex, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 3:  51 


 1:  32 
 8:  39 
 2:  06 
 11:  32 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 DS0, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 2:  58 
 3:  24 
 3:  07 
 3:  16 
 2:  25 
 3:  28 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 DS1, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 2:  58 
 3:  23 
 2:  07 
 3:  22 
 1:  43 
 3:  42 
 3:  53 
 3:  52 
 3:  46 
 4:  32 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 e 


 MR-  6 
 DS3, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  49 
 2:  19 
 1:  14 
 1:  20 
 0:  51 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 E911, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  23 
 6:  50 


 1:  40 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 2:  40 
 3:  17 
 2:  55 
 3:  00 
 3:  41 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  41 
 1:  43 
 0:  11 
 1:  31 


 0:  47 
 1:  49 
 2:  11 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  6 
41
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 MR-  6 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 22:  05 


 12:  14 
 12:  31 
 12:  25 
 11:  45 
 12:  02 
 14:  21 
 13:  18 
 13:  16 
 18:  03 


 MR-  6 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 6:  20 


 4:  41 
 7:  33 
 4:  47 
 3:  31 
 4:  56 
 7:  20 
 5:  21 
 6:  12 
 7:  51 
 b 
 c 


 MR-  6 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 1:  04 
 1:  44 
 2:  03 
 1:  51 
 1:  12 
 1:  00 
 2:  26 
 1:  18 
 1:  50 
 0:  56 


 MR-  6 
 PBX, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 9:  34 
 20:  33 


 8:  32 
 1:  41 
 8:  30 


 9:  44 
 18:  36 


 13:  42 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 PBX, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 0:  02 


 1:  49 


 1:  27 
 0:  18 
 1:  41 
 0:  24 
 2:  53 


 2:  41 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 15:  57 
 7:  22 
 0:  52 
 5:  57 
 4:  34 
 8:  03 
 1:  17 
 6:  27 
 14:  50 


 7:  58 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Residence, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 7:  36 
 12:  31 


 6:  28 
 12:  42 


 7:  39 
 12:  22 


 9:  10 
 13:  35 


 10:  25 
 18:  20 


 MR-  6 
 Residence, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 1:  41 


 5:  04 
 4:  30 
 4:  57 
 5:  17 
 5:  16 
 3:  29 
 5:  33 
 7:  25 
 8:  03 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  51 
 2:  36 
 3:  13 
 3:  12 
 3:  09 
 2:  33 
 4:  40 
 3:  15 
 4:  22 
 4:  24 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  23 
 3:  22 
 3:  42 
 3:  52 
 4:  32 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 7:  22 
 5:  57 
 8:  03 
 2:  41 
 6:  27 


 7:  58 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  43 
 3:  23 
 3:  50 
 3:  22 
 4:  35 
 3:  42 
 5:  28 
 3:  52 
 5:  36 
 4:  32 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  49 
 2:  19 
 1:  14 
 1:  20 
 0:  51 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 2:  50 
 10:  59 


 3:  21 
 11:  12 


 4:  36 
 10:  58 


 7:  03 
 12:  07 


 6:  02 
 16:  39 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  35 
 2:  34 
 3:  17 
 3:  09 
 5:  38 
 2:  26 
 4:  24 
 3:  12 
 4:  29 
 4:  20 


 MR-  6 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 5:  40 
 3:  49 
 0:  11 
 2:  19 


 1:  14 
 0:  16 
 1:  20 


 0:  51 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 1:  21 
 3:  23 
 2:  01 
 3:  22 
 2:  43 
 3:  42 
 2:  14 
 3:  52 
 2:  34 
 4:  32 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 11:  11 


 12:  14 


 9:  25 
 12:  25 


 9:  46 
 12:  02 


 11:  10 
 13:  18 
 12:  18 
 18:  03 


 MR-  6 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 2:  30 


 4:  41 
 2:  37 
 4:  47 
 2:  09 
 4:  56 
 7:  14 
 5:  21 
 6:  02 
 7:  51 


 MR-  6 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 10:  55 


 9:  51 
 5:  29 
 10:  06 


 6:  40 
 9:  02 
 22:  50 


 10:  51 


 8:  37 
 15:  24 


 MR-  6 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 0:  53 


 3:  24 
 0:  53 
 3:  17 
 3:  16 
 2:  48 
 1:  29 
 3:  43 
 8:  22 
 6:  53 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 8:  50 
 13:  10 


 12:  16 
 10:  24 
 16:  54 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 3:  51 


 1:  32 
 8:  39 
 2:  06 
 11:  32 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Repair 
 Repeat 
 Report 
 Rate 


 MR-  7 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 12.77% 


 17.12% 


 8.86% 
 11.71% 


 10.19% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 12.50% 


 9.91% 
 12.60% 


 11.72% 
 14.72% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 8.33% 


 13.09% 


 23.08% 
 14.27% 
 16.67% 
 12.69% 
 22.22% 
 13.94% 


 0.00% 
 16.49% 


 MR-  7 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 40.00% 


 11.94% 


 0.00% 
 12.20% 


 0.00% 
 11.73% 


 12.73% 
 0.00% 
 12.39% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 0.00% 


 10.90% 


 66.67% 
 11.86% 


 13.02% 
 0.00% 
 12.76% 


 0.00% 
 14.81% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 11.37% 
 0.00% 
 11.11% 


 10.30% 


 8.10% 
 0.00% 
 11.86% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 11.43% 


 8.96% 
 10.81% 


 10.42% 
 20.49% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 3.85% 


 9.09% 
 19.05% 


 21.74% 
 13.33% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 DS0, 
 % 


 13.30% 
 14.90% 
 14.22% 
 15.61% 
 0.00% 
 16.17% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 DS1, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 15.66% 


 33.33% 
 17.92% 


 0.00% 
 19.03% 


 15.38% 
 16.75% 
 42.86% 
 23.21% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 e 


 B-  7 
42
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 MR-  7 
 DS3, 
 % 


 10.53% 
 15.79% 
 16.67% 
 13.33% 


 4.35% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 E911, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 0.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 EELs, 
 % 


 8.70% 
 33.33% 


 25.00% 


 9.38% 
 34.00% 


 MR-  7 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 18.18% 
 17.24% 
 14.41% 
 19.30% 
 20.81% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 5.88% 
 0.00% 
 3.70% 


 3.31% 
 5.48% 
 9.23% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 43.75% 


 25.90% 
 38.10% 
 24.89% 
 14.81% 
 22.86% 
 17.78% 
 23.63% 
 21.05% 
 22.24% 


 MR-  7 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 38.10% 


 17.97% 
 22.22% 
 18.55% 
 40.00% 
 17.97% 
 26.67% 
 19.53% 
 30.00% 
 20.68% 


 b 
 c 


 MR-  7 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 21.05% 
 7.69% 
 4.76% 
 0.00% 
 6.67% 
 0.00% 
 25.00% 


 0.00% 
 6.25% 
 16.67% 


 MR-  7 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 5.00% 
 0.00% 
 4.23% 


 100% 
 16.22% 


 10.84% 
 0.00% 
 13.51% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 0.00% 


 7.27% 


 3.90% 
 0.00% 
 11.22% 


 0.00% 
 5.43% 


 16.41% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 33.33% 
 20.07% 
 50.00% 
 20.15% 
 28.57% 
 19.55% 


 0.00% 
 20.54% 


 14.29% 
 21.23% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 7.59% 


 12.70% 


 4.76% 
 12.98% 


 9.59% 
 13.92% 


 16.44% 
 14.54% 


 9.09% 
 16.93% 


 MR-  7 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 21.43% 


 10.84% 
 25.00% 
 10.74% 
 22.22% 
 13.19% 
 19.05% 
 10.31% 
 11.11% 
 12.93% 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 6.67% 
 12.61% 


 7.41% 
 13.51% 


 4.76% 
 11.17% 


 14.63% 
 11.72% 
 20.00% 
 12.50% 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 15.66% 
 17.92% 
 19.03% 
 16.75% 
 23.21% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 20.07% 
 20.15% 
 19.55% 
 0.00% 
 20.54% 


 21.23% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 18.68% 
 15.66% 
 23.47% 
 17.92% 
 16.82% 
 19.03% 
 16.89% 
 16.75% 
 23.24% 
 23.21% 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 10.53% 
 15.79% 
 16.67% 
 13.33% 


 4.35% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 8.04% 
 12.46% 


 8.72% 
 12.78% 


 9.15% 
 13.67% 


 10.73% 
 13.91% 


 9.49% 
 16.35% 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 21.74% 
 12.71% 
 21.88% 
 13.76% 
 14.29% 
 11.39% 
 22.22% 
 11.86% 
 21.05% 
 12.62% 


 MR-  7 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 10.53% 


 50.00% 
 15.79% 


 16.67% 
 0.00% 
 13.33% 


 4.35% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 15.66% 


 0.00% 
 17.92% 


 0.00% 
 19.03% 


 0.00% 
 16.75% 


 11.11% 
 23.21% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 D 
 12.25% 


 12.75% 


 9.38% 
 13.12% 


 10.23% 
 13.79% 
 10.93% 
 14.48% 
 13.68% 
 16.89% 


 MR-  7 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 ND 
 11.86% 


 11.01% 


 8.94% 
 10.93% 


 9.52% 
 12.99% 


 9.33% 
 10.63% 


 18.66% 
 12.85% 


 MR-  7 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 D 
 20.00% 


 10.90% 
 10.53% 
 11.86% 
 22.22% 
 13.02% 


 7.69% 
 12.76% 


 14.29% 
 14.81% 


 MR-  7 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 20.00% 


 11.37% 
 14.29% 
 11.11% 
 16.67% 
 10.30% 
 20.00% 


 8.10% 
 0.00% 
 11.86% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 11.43% 


 8.96% 
 10.81% 


 10.42% 
 20.49% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 3.85% 


 9.09% 
 19.05% 


 21.74% 
 13.33% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 13.75% 


 15.31% 
 10.45% 


 9.52% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 7.27% 


 14.63% 


 14.71% 
 10.87% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 8.33% 


 12.94% 


 16.67% 
 13.97% 
 10.00% 
 12.91% 
 21.43% 
 14.23% 


 c 
 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 40.00% 


 14.55% 


 0.00% 
 14.50% 


 0.00% 
 14.18% 


 13.83% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 0.00% 


 10.53% 


 66.67% 
 12.10% 


 13.46% 
 0.00% 
 12.13% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 11.92% 


 13.01% 
 12.41% 


 6.50% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  8 
43
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 MR-  7* 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 9.84% 


 9.43% 
 8.96% 
 9.41% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 0.00% 


 6.25% 
 18.18% 


 25.00% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 DS0, 
 % 


 12.27% 
 15.12% 
 12.95% 
 15.21% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 DS1, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 15.60% 


 100% 
 18.95% 


 0.00% 
 20.34% 


 22.22% 
 17.33% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 DS3, 
 % 


 7.14% 
 13.33% 


 25.00% 
 19.05% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 E911, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 EELs, 
 % 


 8.70% 
 30.00% 


 30.77% 
 11.11% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 17.79% 
 18.18% 
 14.44% 
 20.00% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 3.23% 
 4.00% 
 6.45% 
 5.26% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 38.46% 


 26.43% 
 40.00% 
 27.63% 
 14.29% 
 24.19% 
 12.82% 
 24.83% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 30.00% 


 17.79% 
 33.33% 
 19.91% 
 50.00% 
 19.82% 


 0.00% 
 20.33% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 26.67% 
 10.00% 


 5.26% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 21.43% 


 0.00% 


 c 
 e 


 MR-  7* 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 6.15% 


 4.84% 
 15.25% 


 10.96% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 0.00% 


 9.62% 


 4.17% 
 14.29% 
 0.00% 
 5.13% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 50.00% 
 20.10% 
 40.00% 
 21.85% 
 33.33% 
 21.22% 


 0.00% 
 21.42% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 7.69% 


 12.45% 


 4.84% 
 12.83% 


 10.00% 
 13.79% 
 16.90% 
 14.34% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 14.29% 


 11.34% 
 14.29% 
 11.15% 
 21.43% 
 14.80% 
 25.00% 
 10.17% 


 a 
 b 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 7.14% 
 11.11% 


 11.11% 
 15.11% 


 7.14% 
 11.88% 


 8.57% 
 9.93% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 15.60% 
 18.95% 
 20.34% 
 17.33% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 20.10% 
 21.85% 
 21.22% 
 0.00% 
 21.42% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 19.74% 
 15.60% 
 25.00% 
 18.95% 
 18.39% 
 20.34% 
 18.90% 
 17.33% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 7.14% 
 13.33% 


 25.00% 
 19.05% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 6.57% 
 12.44% 


 9.50% 
 12.82% 


 9.24% 
 13.79% 


 11.80% 
 13.98% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 20.00% 
 11.19% 
 20.69% 
 15.44% 
 15.79% 
 12.37% 
 24.39% 
 10.14% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 7.14% 
 50.00% 


 13.33% 


 25.00% 
 19.05% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 15.60% 


 0.00% 
 18.95% 


 0.00% 
 20.34% 


 0.00% 
 17.33% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 D 
 12.77% 


 12.50% 


 8.75% 
 12.95% 


 9.82% 
 13.70% 


 10.98% 
 14.33% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 ND 
 10.45% 


 11.91% 
 10.00% 
 11.66% 


 8.33% 
 14.70% 


 8.33% 
 10.71% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 D 
 20.00% 


 10.53% 


 6.25% 
 12.10% 


 22.22% 
 13.46% 


 9.09% 
 12.13% 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 0.00% 


 11.92% 


 25.00% 
 13.01% 
 25.00% 
 12.41% 
 25.00% 


 6.50% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 9.84% 


 9.43% 
 8.96% 
 9.41% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 0.00% 


 6.25% 
 18.18% 


 25.00% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 Trouble 
 Rate 


 MR-  8 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 1.04% 
 0.00% 
 0.98% 
 0.00% 
 0.92% 
 0.00% 
 1.16% 
 0.00% 
 1.46% 


 B-  9 
44
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 MR-  8 
 Business, 
 % 


 0.59% 
 0.92% 
 0.59% 
 0.86% 
 0.53% 
 0.89% 
 0.63% 
 1.20% 
 0.72% 
 1.41% 


 MR-  8 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 0.53% 
 0.74% 
 2.01% 
 0.71% 
 0.00% 
 0.73% 
 0.53% 
 1.00% 
 1.60% 
 1.12% 


 MR-  8 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 0.30% 
 0.00% 
 0.28% 
 0.00% 
 0.30% 
 0.00% 
 0.38% 
 0.00% 
 0.44% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 DS0, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 0.51% 
 0.00% 
 0.50% 
 0.00% 
 0.55% 
 0.00% 
 0.71% 
 1.09% 
 0.76% 


 MR-  8 
 DS1, 
 % 


 2.56% 
 2.33% 
 2.54% 
 2.18% 
 1.69% 
 2.48% 
 11.40% 


 3.43% 
 6.36% 
 3.91% 


 MR-  8 
 DS3, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 0.54% 
 0.00% 
 0.53% 
 0.00% 
 0.51% 
 0.00% 
 0.83% 
 0.00% 
 0.65% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 E911, 
 % 


 0.73% 
 0.10% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.09% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 MR-  8 
 EELs, 
 % 


 7.23% 
 5.79% 
 3.82% 
 7.32% 
 10.25% 


 MR-  8 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 1.91% 
 0.00% 
 1.60% 
 0.00% 
 2.20% 
 0.00% 
 2.95% 
 0.00% 
 3.46% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 0.24% 
 0.04% 
 0.24% 
 0.05% 
 0.00% 
 0.12% 
 0.00% 
 0.07% 
 0.00% 
 0.06% 


 MR-  8 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 1.72% 
 1.40% 
 0.89% 
 1.44% 
 0.96% 
 1.52% 
 1.39% 
 2.04% 
 1.68% 
 2.51% 


 MR-  8 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 


 MR-  8 
 PBX, 
 % 


 0.14% 
 0.19% 
 0.07% 
 0.16% 
 0.15% 
 0.19% 
 0.08% 
 0.24% 
 0.08% 
 0.27% 


 MR-  8 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 2.14% 
 3.22% 
 4.48% 
 3.02% 
 5.00% 
 2.86% 
 1.42% 
 4.17% 
 3.89% 
 3.10% 


 MR-  8 
 Residence, 
 % 


 1.31% 
 1.51% 
 1.13% 
 1.58% 
 1.79% 
 1.67% 
 2.07% 
 2.23% 
 2.39% 
 2.77% 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 0.55% 
 1.04% 
 1.00% 
 0.98% 
 0.77% 
 0.92% 
 1.50% 
 1.16% 
 1.46% 
 1.46% 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 2.33% 
 2.18% 
 2.48% 
 3.43% 
 3.91% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 3.22% 
 0.00% 
 3.02% 
 0.00% 
 2.86% 
 22.22% 


 4.17% 
 0.00% 
 3.10% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 5.02% 
 2.33% 
 5.09% 
 2.18% 
 5.33% 
 2.48% 
 6.93% 
 3.43% 
 8.37% 
 3.91% 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 0.54% 
 0.53% 
 0.51% 
 0.83% 
 0.65% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 0.94% 
 1.40% 
 0.97% 
 1.44% 
 1.02% 
 1.52% 
 1.56% 
 2.04% 
 1.56% 
 2.51% 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 0.93% 
 1.94% 
 1.28% 
 1.81% 
 1.94% 
 1.70% 
 1.77% 
 2.16% 
 2.25% 
 2.72% 


 MR-  8 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 1.82% 
 0.54% 
 1.80% 
 0.53% 
 0.00% 
 0.51% 
 0.92% 
 0.83% 
 0.00% 
 0.65% 


 MR-  8 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 0.39% 
 2.33% 
 0.38% 
 2.18% 
 0.36% 
 2.48% 
 0.68% 
 3.43% 
 0.75% 
 3.91% 


 MR-  8 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 1.11% 
 1.40% 
 1.12% 
 1.44% 
 1.15% 
 1.52% 
 1.54% 
 2.04% 
 2.02% 
 2.51% 


 MR-  8 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 0.90% 
 0.74% 
 0.96% 
 0.71% 
 0.90% 
 0.73% 
 0.92% 
 1.00% 
 1.24% 
 1.12% 


 MR-  8 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 0.30% 
 0.28% 
 0.30% 
 0.00% 
 0.38% 
 0.00% 
 0.44% 
 a 
 b 


 c 


 MR-  9 
 Repair 
 Appointments 


 Met 


 MR-  9 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 0.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 92.17% 


 84.62% 
 92.43% 
 91.67% 
 92.33% 


 100% 
 88.29% 


 88.24% 
 89.76% 


 MR-  9 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 98.56% 


 100% 
 97.56% 


 100% 
 99.70% 


 97.66% 
 100% 
 95.49% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 92.20% 


 100% 
 91.92% 


 91.32% 
 100% 
 84.91% 


 100% 
 88.30% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 97.99% 
 100% 
 97.33% 


 98.28% 
 97.51% 
 100% 
 95.76% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  10 
45
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 MR-  9 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 94.29% 


 85.07% 
 93.24% 
 80.21% 
 78.33% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 95.45% 


 90.48% 


 100% 
 92.86% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 85.11% 
 100% 
 91.30% 


 92.59% 
 80.00% 
 100% 
 89.16% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 97.47% 


 95.08% 
 98.41% 
 94.96% 
 98.63% 
 95.35% 
 97.26% 
 94.89% 
 94.81% 
 92.82% 


 MR-  9 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 98.91% 


 100% 
 98.83% 


 94.44% 
 98.60% 
 95.24% 
 98.17% 
 88.89% 
 97.52% 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 D 
 92.02% 


 94.74% 
 94.71% 
 94.68% 
 93.53% 
 95.03% 
 91.33% 
 94.18% 
 95.02% 
 92.51% 


 MR-  9 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 ND 
 97.46% 


 98.85% 
 98.37% 
 98.66% 
 99.32% 
 98.75% 
 95.56% 
 98.11% 
 96.13% 
 97.22% 


 MR-  11 
 LNP 
 Trouble 


 Reports 
 Cleared 


 MR-  11B 
 w/  in 
 48 
 Hrs 


 - 
 All 


 Volumes, 


 LNP, 
 % 


 99.84% 
 99.71% 
 100% 
 99.32% 


 100% 
 99.72% 


 100% 
 96.96% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 NETWORK 
 PERFORMANCE  NI-  1  Trunk  Blocking  NI-  1A  Qwest  Tandem  Offices, 


 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 0.04% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.01% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.07% 
 0.05% 
 0.00% 


 NI-  1B 
 Qwest 
 End 
 Offices, 


 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.05% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.04% 
 0.01% 
 0.00% 


 NI-  1C 
 Qwest 
 Tandem 


 Offices, 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.12% 
 0.04% 
 0.02% 
 0.00% 
 0.01% 
 0.00% 
 0.48% 
 0.07% 
 0.07% 
 0.00% 


 NI-  1D 
 Qwest 
 End 
 Offices, 


 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.11% 
 0.00% 
 0.05% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.27% 
 0.04% 
 0.01% 
 0.00% 


 NP-  1 
 NXX 
 Code 
 Activation 


 NP-  1A 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 ORDER 
 ACCURACY  OA-  1  All,  % 


 99.74% 
 99.39% 
 99.63% 
 99.71% 
 99.85% 


 ORDERING 
 AND 
 PROVISIONING 


 OP-  2 
 Calls 
 Answered 


 within 
 Twent 
 y 
 Seconds 


 - 
 Interconnect 


 Provisioning 
 Center 


 OP-  2 
 All, 
 % 


 94.48% 
 82.35% 
 83.91% 
 72.90% 
 96.80% 
 71.50% 
 91.92% 
 68.83% 
 96.12% 
 64.47% 


 OP-  3 
 Installation 
 Commitments 


 Met 


 OP-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 100% 
 75.00% 


 33.33% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 89.47% 
 83.61% 
 100% 
 87.04% 


 82.19% 
 87.21% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 95.85% 


 93.33% 
 96.12% 


 100% 
 95.82% 


 94.44% 
 96.14% 


 100% 
 95.45% 


 OP-  3 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 98.40% 


 100% 
 98.34% 


 100% 
 98.00% 


 100% 
 97.36% 


 100% 
 98.16% 


 a 


 OP-  3 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 93.54% 
 100% 
 95.41% 


 91.99% 
 94.43% 
 100% 
 93.65% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 98.10% 


 98.90% 
 95.27% 
 97.93% 
 97.98% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 91.49% 


 87.50% 
 90.91% 
 89.58% 
 79.41% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 87.50% 


 66.67% 
 50.00% 
 52.94% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 DS0, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 


 0.00% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  11 
46
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 OP-  3 
 DS0, 
 % 


 ND 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 DS0, 
 % 


 100% 
 71.43% 


 86.44% 
 85.84% 
 64.71% 
 83.78% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 DS1, 
 % 


 86.03% 
 100% 
 89.33% 


 90.76% 
 90.32% 
 87.64% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 DS3, 
 % 


 86.00% 
 97.06% 
 95.35% 
 87.30% 
 92.86% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 E911, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 EELs, 
 % 


 94.23% 
 89.80% 
 85.71% 
 89.29% 
 90.74% 


 OP-  3 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 83.82% 
 69.32% 
 84.91% 
 80.54% 
 82.52% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 D 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 ND 
 66.67% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 58.49% 


 54.11% 
 79.21% 
 82.61% 
 69.19% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 97.09% 


 97.61% 
 97.98% 
 97.57% 
 96.96% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.48% 


 99.63% 
 99.61% 
 99.72% 
 99.66% 
 99.58% 
 99.66% 
 99.28% 
 99.56% 


 OP-  3 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 96.77% 


 100% 
 95.45% 


 100% 
 97.92% 


 95.00% 


 100% 
 87.50% 


 OP-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 91.67% 


 85.71% 
 94.44% 
 92.86% 
 91.67% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 73.81% 
 64.86% 
 78.43% 
 62.22% 
 75.68% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 D 
 97.89% 


 97.71% 
 100% 
 97.37% 


 100% 
 97.72% 


 100% 
 97.96% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 ND 
 80.00% 


 99.53% 


 100% 
 99.37% 


 100% 
 99.64% 


 100% 
 99.71% 


 100% 
 99.82% 


 a 
 b 


 c 


 OP-  3 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 92.31% 
 84.62% 
 91.67% 
 95.24% 
 84.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 99.54% 


 97.40% 
 99.46% 
 97.93% 
 99.49% 
 98.45% 


 100% 
 97.90% 


 98.84% 
 97.29% 


 OP-  3 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 99.64% 


 99.50% 


 100% 
 99.64% 


 100% 
 99.71% 


 100% 
 99.73% 


 100% 
 99.59% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 100% 
 89.62% 


 100% 
 83.47% 


 100% 
 86.23% 


 100% 
 82.19% 


 100% 
 87.21% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 86.03% 
 89.33% 
 90.76% 
 90.32% 
 87.64% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 97.67% 
 97.72% 
 97.37% 
 97.73% 
 97.77% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 98.44% 
 86.03% 
 95.80% 
 89.33% 
 99.19% 
 90.76% 
 99.35% 
 90.32% 
 96.15% 
 87.64% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 86.00% 
 97.06% 
 95.35% 
 87.30% 
 92.86% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 98.96% 
 97.09% 
 99.29% 
 97.61% 
 97.42% 
 97.98% 
 99.66% 
 97.57% 
 99.28% 
 96.96% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 Conditioned, 


 % 


 82.76% 
 86.05% 
 82.76% 
 84.25% 
 86.96% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 100% 
 89.86% 


 98.98% 
 83.61% 
 96.33% 
 87.04% 
 98.06% 
 82.19% 


 100% 
 87.21% 


 OP-  3 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 100% 
 86.00% 


 100% 
 97.06% 


 100% 
 95.35% 


 100% 
 87.30% 


 92.86% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 100% 
 86.03% 


 100% 
 89.33% 


 98.57% 
 90.76% 


 100% 
 90.32% 


 100% 
 87.64% 


 OP-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 D 
 97.27% 


 97.09% 
 99.71% 
 97.61% 
 98.04% 
 97.98% 
 99.25% 
 97.57% 
 97.93% 
 96.96% 


 OP-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 ND 
 99.96% 


 99.48% 
 99.97% 
 99.61% 
 99.91% 
 99.66% 
 99.96% 
 99.66% 
 99.97% 
 99.56% 


 OP-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 93.54% 


 100% 
 95.41% 


 100% 
 91.99% 


 100% 
 94.43% 


 100% 
 93.65% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  12 
47
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 OP-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 98.10% 


 98.90% 
 100% 
 95.27% 


 96.88% 
 97.93% 


 100% 
 97.98% 


 a 
 b 


 OP-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 91.49% 


 87.50% 
 90.91% 
 89.58% 
 79.41% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 87.50% 


 66.67% 
 50.00% 
 52.94% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Installation 
 Interval 


 OP-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 2.00 


 5.50 
 8.00 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 2.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 8.41 
 7.51 
 4.33 
 7.31 


 11.83 


 11.17 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 8.80 


 5.64 
 4.63 
 5.80 
 3.43 
 5.54 
 4.00 
 6.27 
 3.14 
 5.91 


 OP-  4 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 4.00 


 3.17 
 0.75 
 2.96 
 2.29 
 3.05 
 2.55 
 3.48 
 1.40 
 3.21 
 a 
 b 


 c 


 OP-  4 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 7.79 
 3.00 
 7.42 


 6.93 
 6.11 
 5.00 
 8.23 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 
 3.59 


 3.60 
 3.51 
 3.03 
 3.32 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.75 


 7.45 
 5.27 
 5.20 
 6.62 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.50 


 3.00 
 4.00 
 5.57 
 5.86 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 1.50 


 5.00 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 0.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 4.00 
 8.18 


 12.20 


 8.41 
 9.16 
 6.92 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 12.84 
 4.67 
 12.03 


 13.24 
 13.63 
 12.83 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS3, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 9.64 
 9.01 
 10.00 


 13.72 
 13.48 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 E911, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 24.75 
 25.67 
 33.00 
 30.67 
 12.00 


 11.00 
 17.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 EELs, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 5.38 
 5.55 
 5.93 
 5.40 
 6.06 


 OP-  4 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 14.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.33 


 9.00 
 3.00 
 2.67 
 9.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 16.80 
 17.91 
 15.25 
 12.27 
 18.86 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.38 


 5.57 
 5.43 
 5.36 
 5.58 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.99 


 3.45 
 2.99 
 3.35 
 3.01 
 3.34 
 3.01 
 3.34 
 2.99 
 3.31 


 OP-  4 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 11.41 
 15.33 
 14.11 
 15.10 
 12.98 
 17.63 
 12.86 
 21.96 
 10.13 
 19.47 


 OP-  4 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.17 


 6.71 
 4.39 
 3.79 
 7.08 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.90 


 2.67 
 2.40 
 2.33 
 0.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 11.22 
 13.95 
 13.26 
 16.13 
 12.46 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.41 


 5.37 
 5.00 
 5.24 
 5.00 
 5.39 
 5.88 
 5.24 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 5.25 


 4.99 
 4.86 
 4.90 
 5.29 
 4.88 
 5.47 
 4.87 
 5.12 
 4.90 
 a 
 b 


 c 


 OP-  4 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 4.50 
 5.25 
 6.42 
 4.90 
 5.82 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 2.98 


 5.32 
 3.08 
 5.52 
 2.98 
 5.40 
 3.14 
 5.15 
 3.17 
 5.51 


 B-  13 
48
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 OP-  4 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.04 


 3.45 
 2.02 
 3.36 
 1.85 
 3.35 
 2.11 
 3.34 
 2.61 
 3.31 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 2.99 
 8.32 
 2.90 
 7.48 
 3.30 
 7.25 
 3.13 
 11.83 


 3.11 
 11.17 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 12.84 
 12.03 
 13.24 
 13.63 
 12.83 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5.39 
 5.36 
 5.24 
 5.38 
 5.26 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 4.38 
 12.84 


 5.03 
 12.03 


 4.65 
 13.24 


 4.71 
 13.63 


 5.41 
 12.83 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 9.64 
 9.01 
 10.00 


 13.72 
 13.48 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 4.94 
 5.38 
 4.80 
 5.57 
 5.19 
 5.43 
 4.98 
 5.36 
 4.65 
 5.58 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 Conditioned, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5.48 
 6.40 
 4.41 
 4.54 
 4.78 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 3.05 
 8.43 
 3.76 
 7.51 
 3.96 
 7.31 
 3.63 
 11.83 


 3.44 
 11.17 


 OP-  4 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 15.00 
 9.64 
 5.33 
 9.01 
 10.00 


 10.00 


 7.50 
 13.72 


 14.00 
 13.48 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 7.85 
 12.84 


 5.34 
 12.03 


 6.07 
 13.24 


 6.60 
 13.63 


 4.78 
 12.83 


 OP-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 4.07 


 5.38 
 3.82 
 5.57 
 3.85 
 5.43 
 3.52 
 5.36 
 3.48 
 5.58 


 OP-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.96 


 3.45 
 2.90 
 3.35 
 2.83 
 3.34 
 2.87 
 3.34 
 2.92 
 3.31 


 OP-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 4.75 


 7.79 
 4.50 
 7.42 
 5.00 
 6.93 
 5.00 
 6.11 
 8.67 
 8.23 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 
 3.59 


 3.60 
 2.73 
 3.51 
 3.71 
 3.03 
 3.00 
 3.32 
 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 OP-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.75 


 7.45 
 5.27 
 5.20 
 6.62 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.50 


 3.00 
 4.00 
 5.57 
 5.86 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 New 
 Service 


 Installation 


 Quality 


 OP-  5 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 90.29% 
 93.22% 
 100% 
 93.93% 


 100% 
 92.93% 


 92.12% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 Business, 
 % 


 94.74% 
 89.16% 
 96.30% 
 90.22% 


 100% 
 89.76% 


 100% 
 89.61% 


 100% 
 89.04% 


 OP-  5 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 87.19% 
 0.00% 
 86.07% 


 100% 
 87.79% 


 82.99% 
 100% 
 82.88% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 98.11% 
 88.24% 
 93.75% 
 85.25% 
 87.72% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 DS0, 
 % 


 100% 
 97.56% 


 100% 
 84.75% 


 97.80% 
 84.42% 
 87.80% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 DS1, 
 % 


 93.18% 
 100% 
 94.36% 


 100% 
 93.95% 


 92.60% 
 92.65% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 DS3, 
 % 


 98.94% 
 100% 
 98.33% 


 100% 
 95.24% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 E911, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 EELs, 
 % 


 83.93% 
 90.74% 
 94.44% 
 88.89% 
 91.11% 


 OP-  5 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 93.13% 
 96.61% 
 95.49% 
 91.07% 
 93.63% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 100% 
 96.04% 


 100% 
 95.56% 


 95.16% 
 94.00% 
 96.63% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 92.33% 
 88.04% 
 96.43% 
 88.39% 
 97.40% 
 88.02% 
 96.07% 
 87.71% 
 96.53% 
 86.10% 


 OP-  5 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 100% 
 97.67% 


 100% 
 100% 
 97.56% 


 100% 
 100% 
 98.28% 


 94.12% 


 100% 


 OP-  5 
 PBX, 
 % 


 97.26% 
 91.43% 
 94.81% 
 85.00% 
 87.30% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 100% 
 99.97% 


 100% 
 99.97% 


 100% 
 99.97% 


 100% 
 99.92% 


 100% 
 99.98% 


 a 
 b 


 c 


 OP-  5 
 Residence, 
 % 


 96.86% 
 87.92% 
 92.86% 
 88.21% 
 90.83% 
 87.86% 
 92.41% 
 87.52% 
 90.35% 
 85.82% 


 B-  14 
49
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 98.18% 
 90.29% 
 94.90% 
 93.22% 
 95.37% 
 93.93% 
 92.66% 
 92.93% 
 97.20% 
 92.12% 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 93.18% 
 94.36% 
 93.95% 
 92.60% 
 92.65% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 99.87% 
 99.87% 
 99.87% 
 99.63% 
 99.89% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 91.03% 
 93.18% 
 90.00% 
 94.36% 
 86.03% 
 93.95% 
 89.29% 
 92.60% 
 86.81% 
 92.65% 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 98.94% 
 100% 
 98.33% 


 100% 
 95.24% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 98.02% 
 69.66% 
 95.87% 
 69.51% 
 95.73% 
 68.78% 
 95.19% 
 67.79% 
 96.62% 
 62.76% 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 95.10% 
 90.00% 
 97.03% 
 93.10% 
 97.14% 
 93.81% 
 97.20% 
 92.82% 
 90.91% 
 92.12% 


 OP-  5 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 100% 
 98.94% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.33% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 95.24% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 100% 
 93.18% 


 100% 
 94.36% 


 98.04% 
 93.95% 
 98.48% 
 92.60% 
 97.67% 
 92.65% 


 OP-  5 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 97.70% 
 88.04% 
 98.11% 
 88.39% 
 98.03% 
 88.02% 
 97.12% 
 87.71% 
 96.84% 
 86.10% 


 OP-  5 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 100% 
 87.19% 


 42.86% 
 86.07% 
 96.15% 
 87.79% 
 90.48% 
 82.99% 
 93.55% 
 82.88% 


 a 
 b 


 OP-  5 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 98.11% 
 88.24% 
 93.75% 
 85.25% 
 87.72% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Delayed 
 Days 
 for 
 Non-  Facility 


 Reasons 


 OP-  6A 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 15.00 
 4.50 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 15.50 
 7.42 
 4.73 
 11.50 


 5.82 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 13.67 


 10.31 


 8.50 
 10.54 


 9.02 
 6.56 
 6.61 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 15.90 


 6.00 
 31.33 


 8.09 
 4.13 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 8.81 


 7.00 
 8.37 
 5.00 
 3.05 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 
 2.75 
 11.50 


 3.67 
 4.00 
 9.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.20 
 18.50 


 2.50 
 1.75 
 1.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 31.00 


 3.00 
 31.00 


 17.33 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 2.00 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 5.30 
 18.00 


 2.92 
 8.56 
 14.40 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 18.83 
 14.59 
 10.64 
 18.91 
 10.48 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 DS3, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 7.83 
 14.00 


 7.00 
 3.71 
 5.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 EELs, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 10.00 
 3.00 
 15.50 


 20.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 15.82 
 11.94 
 12.59 
 15.94 
 13.20 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 1.00 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 3.00 
 11.14 


 12.09 
 11.57 
 12.06 
 10.75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 7.26 
 2.00 
 7.13 
 2.00 
 7.12 
 2.20 
 5.46 
 3.00 
 5.01 
 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 7.50 


 4.73 
 5.00 
 5.09 
 4.50 
 8.79 
 3.33 
 4.88 
 1.33 
 3.21 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 6.00 
 2.00 
 3.00 
 2.33 


 52.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 9.00 
 15.50 


 3.00 
 1.00 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  15 
50
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 OP-  6A 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 9.08 
 12.81 


 11.50 
 15.60 
 22.38 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 2.28 


 3.14 
 1.89 
 4.80 
 2.16 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 3.00 
 15.29 


 3.88 
 3.73 
 1.75 
 3.57 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 3.50 
 2.50 
 3.00 
 2.00 
 4.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 1.00 


 5.99 
 6.00 
 5.22 


 5.94 
 6.00 
 4.82 
 7.00 
 4.27 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 3.67 


 4.93 
 4.20 
 3.58 
 3.12 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 15.50 
 7.80 
 4.69 
 11.50 


 5.82 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 18.83 
 14.59 
 10.64 
 18.91 
 10.48 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 2.40 
 3.14 
 1.89 
 4.80 
 2.14 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 2.50 
 18.83 


 6.33 
 14.59 


 10.64 
 18.91 
 1.50 
 10.48 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 7.83 
 14.00 


 7.00 
 3.71 
 5.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 16.00 
 7.26 
 10.25 


 7.13 
 6.83 
 7.12 
 3.33 
 5.46 
 5.50 
 5.01 
 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 20.33 
 6.00 
 7.42 
 2.33 
 4.73 
 2.50 
 11.50 


 5.82 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 7.83 
 14.00 


 7.00 
 3.71 
 5.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 18.83 
 14.59 
 2.00 
 10.64 


 18.91 
 10.48 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 4.33 


 7.26 
 14.67 


 7.13 
 9.86 
 7.12 
 3.80 
 5.46 
 4.20 
 5.01 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 1.00 


 4.73 
 3.00 
 5.09 
 2.44 
 8.79 
 2.20 
 4.88 
 2.00 
 3.21 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 8.81 


 7.00 
 8.37 
 5.00 
 3.05 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 
 2.75 
 11.50 


 3.67 
 2.00 
 4.00 


 9.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.20 
 18.50 


 2.50 
 1.75 
 1.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 31.00 


 3.00 
 31.00 


 17.33 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Delayed 
 Days 
 for 
 Facility 


 Reasons 


 OP-  6B 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 24.67 
 9.70 
 10.58 


 15.26 
 15.67 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 7.50 


 8.38 
 7.95 
 4.00 
 4.10 


 5.04 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 1.00 


 4.00 
 4.20 
 5.50 
 3.60 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 6.40 
 12.20 


 5.22 
 1.50 
 3.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 


 1.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 17.00 
 2.50 
 1.00 
 8.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 31.00 


 32.00 
 20.00 
 57.00 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 15.40 
 4.00 
 22.50 


 13.00 
 13.67 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 14.67 
 15.28 
 13.35 
 13.47 
 15.06 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 DS3, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 9.50 
 75.00 


 4.00 
 8.50 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 EELs, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 2.50 
 4.00 
 3.00 
 40.33 


 4.67 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  16 
51
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 OP-  6B 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 23.00 
 24.80 
 18.09 
 20.47 
 13.60 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 12.31 
 18.77 
 11.67 


 5.10 
 14.77 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 9.00 


 6.83 
 4.00 
 6.35 
 2.00 
 6.46 
 5.71 
 4.97 
 4.33 
 4.54 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 5.00 
 17.43 


 9.00 
 1.91 
 2.00 
 3.09 
 4.71 
 3.15 
 6.00 
 2.78 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 6.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 14.67 
 19.00 
 17.00 
 12.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.00 
 10.33 


 7.00 
 3.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 1.00 


 4.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 6.55 


 5.74 
 1.00 
 5.64 


 5.27 
 6.00 
 4.37 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 1.00 
 19.16 


 1.78 
 2.89 
 2.83 
 2.64 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 24.67 
 9.70 
 10.58 


 15.26 
 15.67 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 14.67 
 15.28 
 13.35 
 13.47 
 15.06 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5.00 
 10.33 


 7.00 
 3.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 14.67 
 3.00 
 15.28 


 9.00 
 13.35 


 7.00 
 13.47 


 12.33 
 15.06 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 9.50 
 75.00 


 4.00 
 8.50 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 16.00 
 6.83 


 6.35 
 11.25 


 6.46 
 21.00 


 4.97 


 4.54 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 24.67 
 9.70 
 6.00 
 10.58 


 9.00 
 15.26 


 15.67 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 9.50 
 75.00 


 4.00 
 8.50 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 14.67 
 15.28 
 13.35 
 13.47 
 15.06 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 14.00 


 6.83 


 6.35 
 7.67 
 6.46 
 1.00 
 4.97 
 3.33 
 4.54 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 1.00 
 17.43 


 1.91 
 1.00 
 3.09 


 3.15 
 1.50 
 2.78 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 6.40 
 12.20 


 5.22 
 1.50 
 3.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 


 1.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 17.00 
 2.50 
 1.00 
 8.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 31.00 


 32.00 
 20.00 
 57.00 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  7 
 Coordinated 
 "Hot 
 Cut" 
 Interval 


 - 
 Unbundled 


 Loop 


 OP-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 Analog, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  03 
 0:  03 
 0:  03 
 0:  03 
 0:  03 


 OP-  8 
 Number 
 Portability 


 Timeliness 


 OP-  8B 
 LNP 
 Timeliness, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 99.56% 


 100% 
 100% 


 OP-  8C 
 % 
 LNP 


 Triggers 


 Set 
 Prior 


 to 
 the 


 Frame 


 Due 
 Time 


 1.00 
 1.00 
 1.00 
 0.99 
 1.00 


 OP-  13 
 Coordinated 
 Cuts 
 - 
 Unbundled 


 Loop 


 OP-  13A 
 Completed 
 on 
 Time, 


 UBL 
 - 
 Analog, 


 % 


 99.44% 
 99.17% 
 98.50% 


 100% 
 100% 


 B-  17 
52
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 OP-  13A 
 Completed 
 on 
 Time, 


 UBL 
 Other, 


 % 


 100% 
 97.62% 


 100% 
 100% 
 98.39% 


 OP-  13B 
 Started 
 Without 


 CLEC 
 Approval, 


 UBL 
 - 
 Analog, 


 % 


 0.00% 


 0.00% 
 0.50% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 OP-  13B 
 Started 
 Without 


 CLEC 
 Approval, 


 UBL 
 Other, 


 % 


 0.00% 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 OP-  15A 
 Interval 
 for 
 Pending 


 Orders 
 Delayed 


 Past 
 Due 
 Date 


 OP-  15A 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 138.12 
 143.63 


 44.23 
 50.57 
 32.72 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 319.00 
 158.27 
 345.00 
 159.03 
 370.00 
 184.13 
 396.00 
 167.99 
 422.00 
 162.85 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 114.49 
 130.68 
 147.25 
 129.90 
 155.04 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 242.92 
 279.42 
 283.39 
 201.89 
 235.18 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 222.88 
 216.81 


 87.33 
 175.33 


 115.60 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 42.68 
 46.56 
 49.35 
 35.05 
 30.69 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 DS3, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 24.75 
 11.50 
 10.50 


 5.50 
 4.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 EELs, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 0.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 182.18 
 179.32 
 117.31 


 94.02 
 109.24 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 8.58 
 13.31 


 22.05 
 13.72 
 14.90 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 7.40 
 2.43 
 2.57 
 6.50 
 6.45 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 OP-  15A 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 24.00 
 34.00 
 89.00 


 8.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 179.00 
 160.70 
 139.90 
 169.29 
 137.35 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 236.19 
 284.54 
 262.83 
 6.00 
 294.90 


 287.98 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 187.33 
 248.95 
 158.50 
 259.58 
 319.00 
 267.26 
 230.00 
 266.92 
 251.00 
 249.13 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 9.00 
 138.12 


 9.00 
 143.63 


 18.67 
 44.23 


 8.67 
 50.57 


 12.50 
 32.72 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 42.68 
 46.56 
 49.35 
 35.05 
 30.69 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 0.00 
 42.68 


 8.00 
 46.56 


 3.60 
 49.35 


 12.75 
 35.05 


 9.50 
 30.69 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 24.75 
 11.50 
 10.50 


 5.50 
 4.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 10.00 
 211.97 


 10.50 
 225.79 


 3.80 
 254.82 


 21.20 
 254.54 


 10.67 
 211.68 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 51.50 
 33.81 
 20.73 
 1.50 
 22.67 


 11.00 
 33.35 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 24.75 
 11.50 
 10.50 


 5.50 
 4.00 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 42.68 
 46.56 
 49.35 
 35.05 
 30.69 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 54.38 
 226.35 


 31.47 
 233.82 


 50.00 
 248.35 


 43.53 
 243.27 


 41.56 
 226.91 


 a 


 OP-  15A 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 114.49 
 130.68 
 1.00 
 147.25 


 129.90 
 155.04 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 242.92 
 279.42 
 283.39 
 201.89 
 235.18 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Pending 
 Orders 
 Delayed 


 for 
 Facilities 


 Reasons 


 OP-  15B 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN 


 6 
 4 
 11 


 11 


 8 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Business 


 0 
 64 


 0 
 79 


 0 
 54 


 0 
 62 


 0 
 75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Centrex 


 5 
 5 
 3 
 2 
 1a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  18 
53
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 OP-  15B 
 Centrex 
 21 


 6 
 7 
 4 
 2 
 4a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 DS0 


 10 
 13 


 3 
 2 
 4 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 DS1 


 42 
 53 
 31 
 88 
 112 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 DS3 


 1 
 0 
 0 
 0 
 0a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 EELs 


 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Frame 
 Relay 


 19 
 15 
 20 
 25 
 21 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 ISDN 
 Primary 


 7 
 5 
 4 
 17 


 20 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Line 
 Sharing 


 4 
 3 
 5 
 7 
 8a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 LIS 
 Trunk 


 1 
 1 
 1 


 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 PBX 


 5 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 3a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Qwest 
 DSL 


 0 
 1 
 1 
 0 
 0 


 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Residence 


 1 
 140 


 1 
 152 


 1 
 129 


 1 
 135 


 1 
 149 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire 


 4 
 6 
 3 
 4 
 01151118a 


 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire 


 42 
 53 
 31 
 88 
 112 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable 


 1 
 42 


 1 
 53 


 4 
 31 


 4 
 88 


 4 
 112 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable 


 1 
 0 
 0 
 0 
 0a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 Analog 


 3 
 112 


 5 
 125 


 3 
 105 


 5 
 101 


 3 
 108 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 ISDN 


 Capable 


 6 
 4 
 11 
 2 
 11 


 1 
 8 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level 


 1 
 0 
 0 
 0 
 0a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UDIT 
 DS1 


 42 
 53 
 31 
 88 
 112 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS 


 1 
 204 


 5 
 231 


 1 
 183 


 3 
 197 


 2 
 224 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 5 
 5 
 3 
 2 
 1a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21 


 6 
 7 
 1 
 4 


 2 
 4 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  17 
 Timeliness 
 of 
 Disconnects 


 associated 
 with 
 LNP 
 Orders 


 OP-  17A 
 LNP, 
 % 


 100% 
 99.62% 


 99.97% 
 99.98% 


 100% 


 OPERATOR 
 SERVICES 
 OS-  1 


 Speed 
 of 
 Answer 


 - 
 Operator 


 Services 


 OS-  1 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.77 
 8.50 
 8.55 
 7.93 
 7.67 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PRE-  ORDER/ 
 ORDER 
 PO-  1 
 Pre-  Order/ 
 Order 
 Response 


 Times 


 PO-  1A- 
 1(  a) 
 Appt. 
 Sched, 


 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.35 
 0.45 
 0.33 
 0.29 
 0.29 


 PO-  1A- 
 1(  b- 
 c) 
 Appt. 


 Sched, 


 GUI 
 Resp/  Accept, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.31 
 1.13 
 1.00 
 0.99 
 0.98 


 PO-  1A- 
 10(  a) 
 Meet 
 Point 
 Inquiry, 


 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.31 
 0.35 
 0.34 
 0.28 
 0.28 


 PO-  1A- 
 10(  b) 
 Meet 
 Point 
 Inquiry, 


 GUI 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 4.85 
 5.00 
 4.94 
 4.91 
 4.86 


 B-  19 
54
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 PO-  1A- 
 10TotalMeet 


 Point 
 Inquiry, 


 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.16 
 5.35 
 5.27 
 5.19 
 5.14 


 PO-  1A- 
 1Total 
 Appt. 
 Sched, 


 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.66 
 1.58 
 1.33 
 1.28 
 1.27 


 PO-  1A- 
 2(  a) 
 Service 
 Avail, 
 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.42 
 0.79 
 0.43 
 0.29 
 0.29 


 PO-  1A- 
 2(  b) 
 Service 
 Avail, 
 GUI 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 9.03 
 8.75 
 9.06 
 9.98 
 8.01 


 PO-  1A- 
 2Total 
 Service 
 Avail, 
 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 9.45 
 9.55 
 9.49 
 10.27 


 8.30 


 PO-  1A- 
 3(  a) 
 Facility 
 Check, 
 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.53 
 1.00 
 0.45 
 0.32 
 0.28 


 PO-  1A- 
 3(  b) 
 Facility 
 Check, 
 GUI 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.69 
 7.38 
 7.67 
 7.68 
 8.11 


 PO-  1A- 
 3Total 
 Facility 
 Check, 
 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.22 
 8.38 
 8.12 
 8.00 
 8.39 


 PO-  1A- 
 4(  a) 
 Address 
 Validation, 


 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.87 
 1.10 
 0.91 
 0.80 
 0.79 


 PO-  1A- 
 4(  b) 
 Address 
 Validation, 


 GUI 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 3.80 
 4.13 
 3.84 
 3.76 
 4.29 


 PO-  1A- 
 4Total 
 Address 
 Validation, 


 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 4.67 
 5.22 
 4.75 
 4.56 
 5.08 


 PO-  1A- 
 5(  a) 
 Get 
 CSR, 


 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.76 
 1.94 
 0.56 
 0.37 
 0.28 


 PO-  1A- 
 5(  b) 
 Get 
 CSR, 


 GUI 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.57 
 7.76 
 6.46 
 6.46 
 6.29 


 PO-  1A- 
 5Total 
 Get 
 CSR, 


 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.34 
 9.71 
 7.02 
 6.83 
 6.58 


 PO-  1A- 
 6(  a) 
 TN 
 Reserv, 


 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.30 
 0.48 
 0.34 
 0.28 
 0.28 


 PO-  1A- 
 6(  b) 
 TN 
 Reserv, 


 GUI 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 4.92 
 4.63 
 4.68 
 4.47 
 4.59 


 PO-  1A- 
 6(  c) 
 TN 
 Reserv, 


 GUI 
 Accept, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.73 
 0.76 
 0.73 
 0.79 
 0.77 


 PO-  1A- 
 6Total 
 TN 
 Reserv, 


 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.95 
 5.87 
 5.75 
 5.54 
 5.64 


 PO-  1A- 
 7(  a) 
 Loop 
 Qual 
 Tools, 


 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.75 
 0.86 
 0.78 
 0.61 
 0.63 


 PO-  1A- 
 7(  b) 
 Loop 
 Qual 
 Tools, 


 GUI 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.83 
 7.31 
 7.12 
 9.11 
 10.04 


 PO-  1A- 
 7Total 
 Loop 
 Qual 
 Tools, 


 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.58 
 8.17 
 7.90 
 9.72 
 10.67 


 PO-  1A- 
 8(  a) 
 Resale 
 of 
 Qwest 


 DSL 
 Qual, 


 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.69 
 1.27 
 1.04 
 0.32 
 0.28 


 PO-  1A- 
 8(  b) 
 Resale 
 of 
 Qwest 


 DSL 
 Qual, 


 GUI 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.93 
 6.13 
 6.04 
 5.87 
 7.04 


 PO-  1A- 
 8Total 
 Resale 
 of 
 Qwest 


 DSL 
 Qual, 


 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.62 


 7.40 
 7.08 
 6.19 
 7.32 


 PO-  1A- 
 9(  a) 
 Connecting 


 Facility 
 Assign, 
 GUI 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.30 
 0.29 
 0.29 
 0.28 
 0.28 


 PO-  1A- 
 9(  b) 
 Connecting 


 Facility 
 Assign, 
 GUI 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 8.19 
 8.51 
 8.59 
 8.95 
 8.97 


 PO-  1A- 
 9Total 
 Connecting 


 Facility 
 Assign, 
 GUI 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 8.49 


 8.80 
 8.88 
 9.23 
 9.25 


 PO-  1B- 
 1 
 Appt. 
 Sched, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 3.78 
 3.39 
 3.50 
 3.37 
 3.42 


 PO-  1B- 
 10 
 Meet 
 Point 
 Inquiry, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.03 
 5.65 
 5.66 
 5.52 
 5.72 


 PO-  1B- 
 2 
 Service 
 Avail, 
 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 9.40 
 8.68 
 9.25 
 9.83 
 7.90 


 PO-  1B- 
 3 
 Facility 
 Check, 
 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.56 
 6.64 
 7.39 
 7.69 
 7.60 


 PO-  1B- 
 4 
 Address 
 Validation, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 2.99 
 2.83 
 2.84 
 2.81 
 3.61 


 PO-  1B- 
 5 
 Get 
 CSR, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 3.53 
 3.44 
 3.47 
 3.33 
 3.51 


 PO-  1B- 
 6 
 TN 
 Reserv, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.76 
 5.31 
 5.62 
 5.18 
 5.34 


 B-  20 
55
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 PO-  1B- 
 7 
 Loop 
 Qual 
 Tools, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 8.80 
 9.71 
 11.96 


 11.53 
 11.13 


 PO-  1B- 
 8 
 Resale 
 of 
 Qwest 


 DSL 
 Qual, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.22 


 4.63 
 4.98 
 5.74 
 7.03 


 PO-  1B- 
 9 
 Connecting 


 Facility 
 Assign, 
 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 8.47 


 8.47 
 8.75 
 8.86 
 9.09 


 PO-  1C- 
 1 
 Timeout, 


 GUI 
 Total, 


 % 


 0.19% 
 0.39% 
 0.06% 
 0.10% 
 0.04% 


 PO-  1C- 
 2 
 Timeout, 


 EDI 
 Total, 


 % 


 0.27% 
 0.08% 
 0.32% 
 0.09% 
 0.31% 


 PO-  1D- 
 1 
 Rejected 


 Query, 
 GUI 
 Total, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.32 
 1.33 
 1.35 
 1.35 
 1.32 


 PO-  1D- 
 2 
 Rejected 


 Query, 
 EDI 
 Total, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 2.34 
 2.35 
 2.42 
 2.37 
 2.48 


 PO-  2 
 Electronic 
 Flow-  through 


 PO-  2A- 
 1 
 GUI, 
 LNP, 


 % 


 80.71% 
 78.25% 
 75.57% 
 74.30% 
 82.34% 


 PO-  2A- 
 1 
 GUI, 
 Resale 


 Aggregate 


 w/  o 
 UNE-  P- 


 POTS, 
 % 


 58.77% 
 59.57% 
 75.22% 
 82.17% 
 84.38% 


 PO-  2A- 
 1 
 GUI, 
 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 36.48% 
 28.78% 
 29.37% 
 29.72% 
 32.06% 


 PO-  2A- 
 1 
 GUI, 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 54.62% 
 49.75% 
 53.53% 
 60.40% 
 58.71% 


 PO-  2A- 
 2 
 EDI, 
 LNP, 


 % 


 20.10% 
 22.86% 
 29.29% 
 45.50% 
 45.42% 


 PO-  2A- 
 2 
 EDI, 
 Resale 


 Aggregate 


 w/  o 
 UNE-  P- 


 POTS, 
 % 


 84.24% 
 82.17% 
 85.98% 
 89.37% 
 83.61% 


 PO-  2A- 
 2 
 EDI, 
 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 52.10% 
 45.86% 
 51.21% 
 51.44% 
 49.29% 


 PO-  2A- 
 2 
 EDI, 
 UNE 


 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 87.84% 
 77.81% 
 82.57% 
 78.55% 
 87.19% 


 PO-  2B- 
 1 
 All 
 Elig 


 LSRs, 


 GUI, 
 LNP, 


 % 


 99.01% 
 98.83% 
 98.56% 
 98.81% 
 99.21% 


 PO-  2B- 
 1 
 All 
 Elig 


 LSRs, 


 GUI, 
 Resale 


 Agg. 
 w/  o 
 UNE-  P- 


 POTS, 
 % 


 97.91% 


 98.60% 
 98.72% 
 98.07% 
 99.20% 


 PO-  2B- 
 1 
 All 
 Elig 


 LSRs, 


 GUI, 
 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 93.55% 
 91.67% 
 89.52% 
 97.90% 
 94.37% 


 PO-  2B- 
 1 
 All 
 Elig 


 LSRs, 


 GUI, 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 93.76% 
 95.68% 
 92.20% 
 96.06% 
 95.97% 


 PO-  2B- 
 2 
 All 
 Elig 


 LSRs, 


 EDI, 
 LNP, 


 % 


 86.67% 
 78.43% 
 85.29% 
 91.43% 
 91.54% 


 PO-  2B- 
 2 
 All 
 Elig 


 LSRs, 


 EDI, 
 Resale 


 Agg. 
 w/  o 
 UNE-  P- 


 POTS, 
 % 


 98.84% 


 98.95% 
 98.70% 
 98.93% 
 98.08% 


 PO-  2B- 
 2 
 All 
 Elig 


 LSRs, 


 EDI, 
 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 91.37% 
 94.90% 
 94.40% 
 96.81% 
 96.35% 


 PO-  2B- 
 2 
 All 
 Elig 


 LSRs, 


 EDI, 
 UNE 


 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 98.50% 
 96.05% 
 95.43% 
 96.71% 
 98.01% 


 PO-  3 
 LSR 
 Rejection 


 Notice 
 Interval 


 PO-  3A- 
 1 
 GUI 
 - 
 Rejected 


 Manually, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 4:  18 
 5:  59 
 4:  08 
 3:  34 
 3:  25 


 PO-  3A- 
 2 
 GUI 
 - 
 Auto-  Rejected, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 Min:  Sec 


 0:  03 
 0:  03 
 0:  03 
 0:  03 
 0:  04 


 PO-  3B- 
 1 
 EDI 
 - 
 Rejected 


 Manually, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  30 
 4:  06 
 3:  26 
 3:  24 
 2:  28 


 PO-  3B- 
 2 
 EDI 
 - 
 Auto-  Rejected, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 Min:  Sec 


 0:  02 
 0:  02 
 0:  03 
 0:  04 
 0:  04 


 PO-  3C 
 Manual 
 and 
 IIS, 
 Product 


 Aggregate, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 4:  34 
 5:  25 
 1:  59 
 4:  53 
 7:  06 


 PO-  4 
 LSRs 
 Rejected 


 PO-  4A- 
 1 
 GUI 
 - 
 Rejected 


 Manually, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 3.72% 


 3.32% 
 2.70% 
 2.91% 
 3.09% 


 PO-  4A- 
 2 
 GUI 
 - 
 Auto-  Rejected, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 30.97% 
 32.79% 
 33.11% 
 28.61% 
 31.10% 


 PO-  4B- 
 1 
 EDI 
 - 
 Rejected 


 Manually, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 3.56% 


 4.33% 
 4.55% 
 5.25% 
 5.01% 


 B-  21 
56
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 PO-  4B- 
 2 
 EDI 
 - 
 Auto-  Rejected, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 38.01% 
 34.32% 
 35.74% 
 28.69% 
 25.38% 


 PO-  4C 
 Facsimile 
 , 
 Product 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 40.98% 
 45.65% 
 46.95% 
 30.84% 
 22.01% 


 PO-  5 
 Firm 
 Order 
 Confirmations 


 (FOCs) 
 On 
 Time 


 PO-  5A- 
 1(  a) 
 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 GUI, 


 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 100% 


 99.84% 


 100% 
 99.94% 


 99.77% 


 PO-  5A- 
 1(  b) 
 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 GUI, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  5A- 
 1(  c) 
 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 GUI, 


 LNP, 


 % 


 100% 
 99.96% 


 100% 
 100% 
 99.92% 


 PO-  5A- 
 2(  a) 
 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 100% 


 99.61% 


 99.97% 
 99.94% 


 100% 


 PO-  5A- 
 2(  b) 
 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 100% 


 99.43% 


 100% 
 99.80% 


 100% 


 PO-  5A- 
 2(  c) 
 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 LNP, 


 % 


 100% 
 96.97% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  5B- 
 1(  a) 
 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 GUI, 


 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 
 98.46% 


 98.65% 
 98.17% 
 95.75% 
 97.82% 


 PO-  5B- 
 1(  b) 
 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 GUI, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 
 96.95% 


 92.70% 
 98.25% 
 98.34% 
 97.75% 


 PO-  5B- 
 1(  c) 
 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 GUI, 


 LNP, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 99.93% 


 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  5B- 
 2(  a) 
 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 
 99.82% 


 98.68% 
 99.67% 
 99.47% 
 98.72% 


 PO-  5B- 
 2(  b) 
 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 
 99.30% 


 99.35% 
 99.55% 
 99.56% 
 99.39% 


 PO-  5B- 
 2(  c) 
 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 LNP, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  5C-( 
 a) 
 Manual, 


 Resale 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 100% 
 97.20% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  5C-( 
 b) 
 Manual, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 97.44% 


 b 
 c 
 d 


 PO-  5C-( 
 c) 
 Manual, 


 LNP, 
 % 


 100% 
 96.30% 


 100% 
 98.21% 


 100% 


 PO-  5D 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 98.78% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  6 
 Work 
 Completion 


 Notification 
 Timeliness 


 PO-  6A 
 GUI, 
 All, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 1:  21 
 0:  30 
 0:  36 
 0:  38 
 0:  20 


 PO-  6B 
 EDI, 
 All, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  43 
 0:  48 
 0:  37 
 0:  46 
 0:  50 


 PO-  7 
 Billing 
 Completion 


 Notification 
 Timeliness 


 PO-  7A- 
 C 
 GUI 
 / 
 Billing 


 System 
 Posting 
 Completions, 


 All, 
 % 


 99.84% 
 99.52% 
 99.99% 
 99.48% 
 99.97% 
 99.31% 
 99.97% 
 99.30% 
 99.97% 
 99.47% 


 PO-  7B- 
 C 
 EDI 
 / 
 Billing 


 System 
 Posting 
 Completions, 


 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 99.52% 


 100% 
 99.48% 


 98.92% 
 99.31% 


 100% 
 99.30% 


 99.93% 
 99.47% 


 PO-  8 
 Jeopardy 
 Notice 
 Interval 


 PO-  8A 
 Non-  Designed 
 Services, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 6.43 
 7.52 
 2.60 
 7.94 
 1.00 
 5.03 
 1.25 
 3.54 
 2.20 
 3.57 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  8B 
 UBLs 
 and 
 LNP, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 6.07 
 7.52 
 4.70 
 7.94 
 4.93 
 5.03 
 3.82 
 3.54 
 3.89 
 3.57 


 PO-  8C 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 11.00 
 23.00 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  8D 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 3.33 
 7.52 
 8.57 
 7.94 
 1.17 
 5.03 
 4.00 
 3.54 
 2.84 
 3.57 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 PO-  9 
 Timely 
 Jeopardy 


 Notices 


 PO-  9A 
 Non-  Designed 
 Services, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 2.16% 


 1.79% 
 0.00% 
 2.25% 
 0.00% 
 3.97% 


 100% 
 5.68% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  9B 
 UBLs 
 and 
 LNP, 


 % 


 66.67% 
 2.16% 
 25.00% 


 1.79% 
 28.57% 


 2.25% 
 0.00% 
 3.97% 
 35.29% 


 5.68% 


 d 


 PO-  9C 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 100% 
 100% 


 0.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  22 
57
 FCC 
 03-  309 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 Notes 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 ARIZONA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA  MAY  2003 


 JUN 
 2003 


 JUL 
 2003 


 AUG 
 2003 


 Metric  Numbe 
 r 
 Metric 
 Description 


 DR 
 APR 
 2003 


 PO-  9D 
 UNE 
 P, 
 POTS, 


 % 


 27.27% 
 2.16% 
 0.00% 
 1.79% 
 5.56% 
 2.25% 
 0.00% 
 3.97% 
 19.05% 


 5.68% 
 b 
 d 


 PO-  10 
 LSR 
 Accountability 


 PO-  10 
 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  15 
 Number 
 of 
 Due 


 Date 
 Changes 


 per 
 Order 


 PO-  15 
 All, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 0.04 
 0.02 
 0.05 
 0.02 
 0.05 
 0.02 
 0.04 
 0.02 
 0.02 
 0.02 


 PO-  16 
 Timely 
 Release 
 Notifications 


 PO-  16 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  19 
 Stand-  Alone 
 Test 
 Environment 


 (SATE) 
 Accuracy 


 PO-  19 
 All, 
 % 


 99.62% 
 99.74% 
 99.10% 
 98.75% 
 99.21% 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 10.0, 


 % 


 99.49% 
 100% 
 98.48% 


 d 
 e 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 11.0, 


 % 


 99.55% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.55% 


 100% 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 12.0, 


 % 


 99.58% 
 100% 
 99.58% 


 99.58% 


 100% 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 8.0, 
 % 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 9.0, 
 % 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 VICKI, 


 % 


 100% 
 98.36% 


 97.54% 
 96.82% 
 96.84% 


 PO-  19B 
 All, 
 % 


 97.80% 


 95.94% 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 PO-  20 
 Manual 
 Service 
 Order 
 Accuracy 


 PO-  20 
 Resale 
 POTS 
 and 
 UNE-  P, 


 POTS, 
 % 


 96.15% 
 97.50% 
 99.20% 
 98.46% 
 99.42% 


 PO-  20 
 UBLs, 
 Analog 


 & 
 NL 


 2-  wire, 


 % 


 97.27% 
 97.86% 
 97.86% 
 98.18% 
 98.33% 


 Metric 
 Number:  *  =  Metrics  recalculated 


 after 
 NTF 
 tickets 


 are 
 excluded. 


 These 
 metrics 


 have 
 not 
 been 


 audited 


 by 
 a 
 third 


 party. 


 DR: 
 Disaggregation 


 Reporting 


 D 
 = 
 Dispatch 


 (both 
 within 


 MSAs 
 and 
 outside 


 MSAs) 


 ND 
 = 
 No 


 Dispatch 


 blank 
 = 
 State 


 or 
 Regional 


 Level 


 Notes:  a  =  Sample 
 size 
 less 
 than 


 or 
 equal 


 to 
 10 


 in 
 April 


 2003 


 b 
 = 
 Sample 


 size 
 less 
 than 


 or 
 equal 


 to 
 10 


 in 
 May 


 2003 


 c 
 = 
 Sample 


 size 
 less 
 than 


 or 
 equal 


 to 
 10 


 in 
 June 


 2003 


 d 
 = 
 Sample 


 size 
 less 
 than 


 or 
 equal 


 to 
 10 


 in 
 July 


 2003 


 e 
 = 
 Sample 


 size 
 less 
 than 


 or 
 equal 


 to 
 10 


 in 
 August 


 2003 


 B-  23 
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 Appendix  C  Statutory  Requirements 
 I.  STATUTORY  FRAMEWORK 
 1.  The  1996  Act  conditions  BOC  entry  into  the  market  for  provision  of  in-  region  interLATA  services  on  compliance  with  certain  provisions  of  section  271.  1  BOCs  must  apply  to 


 the  Federal  Communications  Commission  (Commission  or  FCC)  for  authorization  to  provide  interLATA  services  originating  in  any  in-  region  state.  2  The  Commission  must  issue  a  written 
 determination  on  each  application  no  later  than  90  days  after  receiving  such  application.  3  Section  271(  d)(  2)(  A)  requires  the  Commission  to  consult  with  the  Attorney  General  before 
 making  any  determination  approving  or  denying  a  section  271  application.  The  Attorney  General  is  entitled  to  evaluate  the  application  using  any  standard  the  Attorney  General 
 considers  appropriate,  and  the  Commission  is  required  to  give  substantial  weight  to  the  Attorney  Generals  evaluation.  4 


 2.  In  addition,  the  Commission  must  consult  with  the  relevant  state  commission  to  verify  that  the  BOC  has  one  or  more  state-  approved  interconnection  agreements  with  a  facilities-based 
 competitor,  or  a  Statement  of  Generally  Available  Terms  and  Conditions  (SGAT),  and  that  either  the  agreement(  s)  or  general  statement  satisfy  the  competitive  checklist.  5  Because  the 
 Act  does  not  prescribe  any  standard  for  the  consideration  of  a  state  commissions  verification  under  section  271(  d)(  2)(  B),  the  Commission  has  discretion  in  each  section  271  proceeding  to 


 1  For  purposes  of  section  271  proceedings,  the  Commission  uses  the  definition  of  the  term  Bell  Operating 
 Company  contained  in  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  4). 
 2  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  1).  For  purposes  of  section  271  proceedings,  the  Commission  utilizes  the  definition  of  the 
 term  in-  region  state  that  is  contained  in  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  i)(  1).  Section  271(  j)  provides  that  a  BOCs  in-  region  services  include  800  service,  private  line  service,  or  their  equivalents  that  terminate  in  an  in-  region  state  of  that 


 BOC  and  that  allow  the  called  party  to  determine  the  interLATA  carrier,  even  if  such  services  originate  out-  of-region.  Id.    271(  j).  The  1996  Act  defines  interLATA  services  as  telecommunications  between  a  point  located 
 in  a  local  access  and  transport  area  and  a  point  located  outside  such  area.  Id.    153(  21).  Under  the  1996  Act,  a  local  access  and  transport  area  (LATA)  is  a  contiguous  geographic  area  (A)  established  before  the  date  of 
 enactment  of  the  [1996  Act]  by  a  [BOC]  such  that  no  exchange  area  includes  points  within  more  than  1  metropolitan  statistical  area,  consolidated  metropolitan  statistical  area,  or  State,  except  as  expressly  permitted  under 
 the  AT&  T  Consent  Decree;  or  (B)  established  or  modified  by  a  [BOC]  after  such  date  of  enactment  and  approved  by  the  Commission.  Id.    153(  25).  LATAs  were  created  as  part  of  the  Modification  of  Final  Judgments  (MFJ) 
 plan  of  reorganization.  United  States  v.  Western  Elec.  Co.,  569  F.  Supp.  1057  (D.  D.  C.  1983),  affd  sub  nom.  California  v.  United  States,  464  U.  S.  1013  (1983).  Pursuant  to  the  MFJ,  all  [BOC]  territory  in  the  continental 
 United  States  [was]  divided  into  LATAs,  generally  centering  upon  a  city  or  other  identifiable  community  of  interest.  United  States  v.  Western  Elec.  Co.,  569  F.  Supp.  990,  993-  94  (D.  D.  C.  1983). 


 3  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3). 
 4  Id.    271(  d)(  2)(  A). 
 5  Id.    271(  d)(  2)(  B). 
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  2 
 determine  the  amount  of  weight  to  accord  the  state  commissions  verification.  6  The  Commission  has  held  that,  although  it  will  consider  carefully  state  determinations  of  fact  that  are  supported  by 
 a  detailed  and  extensive  record,  it  is  the  FCCs  role  to  determine  whether  the  factual  record  supports  the  conclusion  that  particular  requirements  of  section  271  have  been  met.  7 


 3.  Section  271  requires  the  Commission  to  make  various  findings  before  approving  BOC  entry.  In  order  for  the  Commission  to  approve  a  BOCs  application  to  provide  in-  region, 
 interLATA  services,  a  BOC  must  first  demonstrate,  with  respect  to  each  state  for  which  it  seeks  authorization,  that  it  satisfies  the  requirements  of  either  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A)  (Track  A)  or 
 271(  c)(  1)(  B)  (Track  B).  8  In  order  to  obtain  authorization  under  section  271,  the  BOC  must  also  show  that:  (1)  it  has  fully  implemented  the  competitive  checklist  contained  in  section 
 271(  c)(  2)(  B);  9  (2)  the  requested  authorization  will  be  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  272;  10  and  (3)  the  BOCs  entry  into  the  in-  region  interLATA  market  is 
 consistent  with  the  public  interest,  convenience,  and  necessity.  11  The  statute  specifies  that,  unless  the  Commission  finds  that  these  criteria  have  been  satisfied,  the  Commission  shall  not 
 approve  the  requested  authorization.  12 
 II.  PROCEDURAL  AND  ANALYTICAL  FRAMEWORK 
 4.  To  determine  whether  a  BOC  applicant  has  met  the  prerequisites  for  entry  into  the  long  distance  market,  the  Commission  evaluates  its  compliance  with  the  competitive  checklist, 


 6  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3962,  para.  20;  Application  of  Ameritech  Michigan  Pursuant  to 
 Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  CC  Docket  No.  97-  137,  12  FCC  Rcd  20543,  20559-  60  (1997)  (Ameritech  Michigan  Order).  As  the  D.  C.  Circuit  has  held,  [  a]  lthough  the  Commission  must  consult 


 with  the  state  commissions,  the  statute  does  not  require  the  Commission  to  give  State  Commissions  views  any  particular  weight.  SBC  Communications  Inc.  v.  FCC,  138  F.  3d  410,  416  (D.  C.  Cir.  1998). 


 7  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20560;  SBC  Communications  v.  FCC,  138  F.  3d  at  416-  17. 
 8  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  A).  See  Section  III,  infra,  for  a  complete  discussion  of  Track  A  and  Track  B 
 requirements. 
 9  Id.    271(  c)(  2)(  B),  271(  d)(  3)(  A)(  i). 


 10  Id.    272;  see  Implementation  of  the  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  of  Sections  271  and  272  of  the 
 Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  149,  First  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd  21905  (1996)  (Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order),  recon.,  Order  on 


 Reconsideration,  12  FCC  Rcd  2297  (1997),  review  pending  sub  nom.,  SBC  Communications  v.  FCC,  No.  97-  1118  (D.  C.  Cir.,  filed  Mar.  6,  1997)  (held  in  abeyance  pursuant  to  court  order  filed  May  7,  1997),  remanded  in  part  sub 
 nom.,  Bell  Atlantic  Telephone  Companies  v.  FCC,  No.  97-  1067  (D.  C.  Cir.,  filed  Mar.  31,  1997),  on  remand,  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration,  FCC  97-  222  (rel.  June  24,  1997),  petition  for  review  denied  sub  nom.  Bell  Atlantic 
 Telephone  Companies  v.  FCC,  113  F.  3d  1044  (D.  C.  Cir.  1997);  Implementation  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996;  Accounting  Safeguards  Under  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  17539 
 (1996). 
 11  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  C). 


 12  Id.    271(  d)(  3);  see  SBC  Communications,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  138  F.  3d  at  416. 
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  3 
 as  developed  in  the  FCCs  local  competition  rules  and  orders  in  effect  at  the  time  the  application  was  filed.  Despite  the  comprehensiveness  of  these  rules,  there  will  inevitably  be,  in  any  section 
 271  proceeding,  disputes  over  an  incumbent  LECs  precise  obligations  to  its  competitors  that  FCC  rules  have  not  addressed  and  that  do  not  involve  per  se  violations  of  self-  executing 
 requirements  of  the  Act.  As  explained  in  prior  orders,  the  section  271  process  simply  could  not  function  as  Congress  intended  if  the  Commission  were  required  to  resolve  all  such  disputes  as  a 
 precondition  to  granting  a  section  271  application.  13  In  the  context  of  section  271s  adjudicatory  framework,  the  Commission  has  established  certain  procedural  rules  governing  BOC  section  271 
 applications.  14  The  Commission  has  explained  in  prior  orders  the  procedural  rules  it  has  developed  to  facilitate  the  review  process.  15  Here  we  describe  how  the  Commission  considers 
 the  evidence  of  compliance  that  the  BOC  presents  in  its  application. 
 5.  As  part  of  the  determination  that  a  BOC  has  satisfied  the  requirements  of  section  271,  the  Commission  considers  whether  the  BOC  has  fully  implemented  the  competitive 


 checklist  in  subsection  (c)(  2)(  B).  The  BOC  at  all  times  bears  the  burden  of  proof  of  compliance  with  section  271,  even  if  no  party  challenges  its  compliance  with  a  particular  requirement.  16  In 
 demonstrating  its  compliance,  a  BOC  must  show  that  it  has  a  concrete  and  specific  legal  obligation  to  furnish  the  item  upon  request  pursuant  to  state-  approved  interconnection 
 agreements  that  set  forth  prices  and  other  terms  and  conditions  for  each  checklist  item,  and  that  it  is  currently  furnishing,  or  is  ready  to  furnish,  the  checklist  items  in  quantities  that  competitors 
 may  reasonably  demand  and  at  an  acceptable  level  of  quality.  17  In  particular,  the  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  is  offering  interconnection  and  access  to  network  elements  on  a 
 nondiscriminatory  basis.  18  Previous  Commission  orders  addressing  section  271  applications 


 13  See  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6246,  para.  19;  see  also  American  Tel.  &  Tel.  Co.  v.  FCC, 
 220  F.  3d  607,  631  (D.  C.  Cir.  2000). 
 14  See  Procedures  for  Bell  Operating  Company  Applications  Under  New  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act, 
 Public  Notice,  11  FCC  Rcd  19708,  19711  (1996);  Revised  Comment  Schedule  For  Ameritech  Michigan  Application,  as  amended,  for  Authorization  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA 


 Services  in  the  State  of  Michigan,  Public  Notice,  DA  97-  127  (rel.  Jan.  17,  1997);  Revised  Procedures  for  Bell  Operating  Company  Applications  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act,  Public  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  17457 
 (1997);  Updated  Filing  Requirements  for  Bell  Operating  Company  Applications  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act,  Public  Notice,  DA  99-  1994  (rel.  Sept.  28,  1999);  Updated  Filing  Requirements  for  Bell 
 Operating  Company  Applications  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act,  Public  Notice,  DA  01-  734  (CCB  rel.  Mar.  23,  2001)  (collectively  271  Procedural  Public  Notices). 


 15  See,  e.  g.,  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6247-  50,  paras.  21-  27;  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC 
 Rcd  at  18370-  73,  paras.  34-  42;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3968-  71,  paras.  32-  42. 
 16  See  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18374,  para.  46;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3972, 
 para.  46. 
 17  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3973-  74,  para.  52. 


 18  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  i),  (ii). 
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  4 
 have  elaborated  on  this  statutory  standard.  19  First,  for  those  functions  the  BOC  provides  to  competing  carriers  that  are  analogous  to  the  functions  a  BOC  provides  to  itself  in  connection 
 with  its  own  retail  service  offerings,  the  BOC  must  provide  access  to  competing  carriers  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  provides  to  itself.  20  Thus,  where  a  retail  analogue 
 exists,  a  BOC  must  provide  access  that  is  equal  to  (i.  e.,  substantially  the  same  as)  the  level  of  access  that  the  BOC  provides  itself,  its  customers,  or  its  affiliates,  in  terms  of  quality,  accuracy, 
 and  timeliness.  21  For  those  functions  that  have  no  retail  analogue,  the  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  the  access  it  provides  to  competing  carriers  would  offer  an  efficient  carrier  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete.  22 
 6.  The  determination  of  whether  the  statutory  standard  is  met  is  ultimately  a  judgment  the  Commission  must  make  based  on  its  expertise  in  promoting  competition  in  local 


 markets  and  in  telecommunications  regulation  generally.  23  The  Commission  has  not  established,  nor  does  it  believe  it  appropriate  to  establish,  specific  objective  criteria  for  what  constitutes 
 substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  or  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  24  Whether  this  legal  standard  is  met  can  only  be  decided  based  on  an  analysis  of  specific  facts  and 
 circumstances.  Therefore,  the  Commission  looks  at  each  application  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis  and  considers  the  totality  of  the  circumstances,  including  the  origin  and  quality  of  the  information  in 
 the  record,  to  determine  whether  the  nondiscrimination  requirements  of  the  Act  are  met. 
 A.  Performance  Data 
 7.  As  established  in  prior  section  271  orders,  the  Commission  has  found  that  performance  measurements  provide  valuable  evidence  regarding  a  BOCs  compliance  or 


 noncompliance  with  individual  checklist  items.  The  Commission  expects  that,  in  its  prima  facie  case  in  the  initial  application,  a  BOC  relying  on  performance  data  will: 


 a)  provide  sufficient  performance  data  to  support  its  contention  that  the  statutory  requirements  are  satisfied; 
 b)  identify  the  facial  disparities  between  the  applicants  performance  for  itself  and  its  performance  for  competitors; 
 19  See  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6250-  51,  paras.  28-  29;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15 
 FCC  Rcd  at  3971-  72,  paras.  44-  46. 
 20  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18373,  para.  44;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3971,  para. 
 44. 
 21  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3971,  para.  44;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20618-  19. 
 22  Id. 


 23  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18374,  para.  46;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3972,  para. 
 46. 
 24  Id. 
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  5 
 c)  explain  why  those  facial  disparities  are  anomalous,  caused  by  forces  beyond  the  applicants  control  (e.  g.,  competing  carrier-  caused  errors),  or  have  no  meaningful  adverse  impact  on  a 
 competing  carriers  ability  to  obtain  and  serve  customers;  and 
 d)  provide  the  underlying  data,  analysis,  and  methodologies  necessary  to  enable  the  Commission  and  commenters  meaningfully  to  evaluate  and  contest  the  validity  of  the 


 applicants  explanations  for  performance  disparities,  including,  for  example,  carrier  specific  carrier-  to-  carrier  performance  data. 


 8.  The  Commission  has  explained  in  prior  orders  that  parity  and  benchmark  standards  established  by  state  commissions  do  not  represent  absolute  maximum  or  minimum 
 levels  of  performance  necessary  to  satisfy  the  competitive  checklist.  Rather,  where  these  standards  are  developed  through  open  proceedings  with  input  from  both  the  incumbent  and 
 competing  carriers,  these  standards  can  represent  informed  and  reliable  attempts  to  objectively  approximate  whether  competing  carriers  are  being  served  by  the  incumbent  in  substantially  the 
 same  time  and  manner,  or  in  a  way  that  provides  them  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  25  Thus,  to  the  extent  there  is  no  statistically  significant  difference  between  a  BOCs  provision  of 
 service  to  competing  carriers  and  its  own  retail  customers,  the  Commission  generally  need  not  look  any  further.  Likewise,  if  a  BOCs  provision  of  service  to  competing  carriers  satisfies  the 
 performance  benchmark,  the  analysis  is  usually  done.  Otherwise,  the  Commission  will  examine  the  evidence  further  to  make  a  determination  whether  the  statutory  nondiscrimination 
 requirements  are  met.  26  Thus,  the  Commission  will  examine  the  explanations  that  a  BOC  and  others  provide  about  whether  these  data  accurately  depict  the  quality  of  the  BOCs  performance. 
 The  Commission  also  may  examine  how  many  months  a  variation  in  performance  has  existed  and  what  the  recent  trend  has  been.  The  Commission  may  find  that  statistically  significant 
 differences  exist,  but  conclude  that  such  differences  have  little  or  no  competitive  significance  in  the  marketplace.  In  such  cases,  the  Commission  may  conclude  that  the  differences  are  not 
 meaningful  in  terms  of  statutory  compliance.  Ultimately,  the  determination  of  whether  a  BOCs  performance  meets  the  statutory  requirements  necessarily  is  a  contextual  decision  based  on  the 
 totality  of  the  circumstances  and  information  before  the  Commission. 
 9.  Where  there  are  multiple  performance  measures  associated  with  a  particular  checklist  item,  the  Commission  would  consider  the  performance  demonstrated  by  all  the 


 measurements  as  a  whole.  Accordingly,  a  disparity  in  performance  for  one  measure,  by  itself,  may  not  provide  a  basis  for  finding  noncompliance  with  the  checklist.  The  Commission  may 
 also  find  that  the  reported  performance  data  are  affected  by  factors  beyond  a  BOCs  control,  a  finding  that  would  make  it  less  likely  to  hold  the  BOC  wholly  accountable  for  the  disparity.  This 
 is  not  to  say,  however,  that  performance  discrepancies  on  a  single  performance  metric  are  unimportant.  Indeed,  under  certain  circumstances,  disparity  with  respect  to  one  performance 
 measurement  may  support  a  finding  of  statutory  noncompliance,  particularly  if  the  disparity  is 


 25  See  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6252,  para.  31;  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18377, 
 para.  55  &  n.  102. 
 26  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3970,  para.  59. 
63
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  6 
 substantial  or  has  endured  for  a  long  time,  or  if  it  is  accompanied  by  other  evidence  of  discriminatory  conduct  or  evidence  that  competing  carriers  have  been  denied  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete. 
 10.  In  sum,  the  Commission  does  not  use  performance  measurements  as  a  substitute  for  the  14-  point  competitive  checklist.  Rather,  it  uses  performance  measurements  as  valuable 


 evidence  with  which  to  inform  the  judgment  as  to  whether  a  BOC  has  complied  with  the  checklist  requirements.  Although  performance  measurements  add  necessary  objectivity  and 
 predictability  to  the  review,  they  cannot  wholly  replace  the  Commissions  own  judgment  as  to  whether  a  BOC  has  complied  with  the  competitive  checklist. 


 B.  Relevance  of  Previous  Section  271  Approvals 
 11.  In  some  section  271  applications,  the  volumes  of  the  BOCs  commercial  orders  may  be  significantly  lower  than  they  were  in  prior  proceedings.  In  certain  instances,  volumes 


 may  be  so  low  as  to  render  the  performance  data  inconsistent  and  inconclusive.  27  Performance  data  based  on  low  volumes  of  orders  or  other  transactions  are  not  as  reliable  an  indicator  of 
 checklist  compliance  as  performance  based  on  larger  numbers  of  observations.  Indeed,  where  performance  data  are  based  on  a  low  number  of  observations,  small  variations  in  performance 
 may  produce  wide  swings  in  the  reported  performance  data.  It  is  thus  not  possible  to  place  the  same  evidentiary  weight  upon    and  to  draw  the  same  types  of  conclusions  from    performance 
 data  where  volumes  are  low,  as  for  data  based  on  more  robust  activity. 
 12.  In  such  cases,  findings  in  prior,  related  section  271  proceedings  may  be  a  relevant  factor  in  the  Commissions  analysis.  Where  a  BOC  provides  evidence  that  a  particular  system 


 reviewed  and  approved  in  a  prior  section  271  proceeding  is  also  used  in  the  proceeding  at  hand,  the  Commissions  review  of  the  same  system  in  the  current  proceeding  will  be  informed  by  the 
 findings  in  the  prior  one.  Indeed,  to  the  extent  that  issues  have  already  been  briefed,  reviewed  and  resolved  in  a  prior  section  271  proceeding,  and  absent  new  evidence  or  changed 
 circumstances,  an  application  for  a  related  state  should  not  be  a  forum  for  re-  litigating  and  reconsidering  those  issues.  Appropriately  employed,  such  a  practice  can  give  us  a  fuller  picture 
 of  the  BOCs  compliance  with  the  section  271  requirements  while  avoiding,  for  all  parties  involved  in  the  section  271  process,  the  delay  and  expense  associated  with  redundant  and 
 unnecessary  proceedings  and  submissions. 
 13.  However,  the  statute  requires  the  Commission  to  make  a  separate  determination  of  checklist  compliance  for  each  state  and,  accordingly,  we  do  not  consider  any  finding  from 


 previous  section  271  orders  to  be  dispositive  of  checklist  compliance  in  current  proceedings.  While  the  Commissions  review  may  be  informed  by  prior  findings,  the  Commission  will 


 27  The  Commission  has  never  required,  however,  an  applicant  to  demonstrate  that  it  processes  and  provisions  a 
 substantial  commercial  volume  of  orders,  or  has  achieved  a  specific  market  share  in  its  service  area,  as  a  prerequisite  for  satisfying  the  competitive  checklist.  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20585,  para. 


 77  (explaining  that  Congress  had  considered  and  rejected  language  that  would  have  imposed  a  market  share  requirement  in  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A)). 
64
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  7 
 consider  all  relevant  evidence  in  the  record,  including  state-  specific  factors  identified  by  commenting  parties,  the  states,  the  Department  of  Justice.  However,  the  Commission  has  always 
 held  that  an  applicants  performance  towards  competing  carriers  in  an  actual  commercial  environment  is  the  best  evidence  of  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  and  other  network 
 elements.  28  Thus,  the  BOCs  actual  performance  in  the  applicant  state  may  be  relevant  to  the  analysis  and  determinations  with  respect  to  the  14  checklist  items.  Evidence  of  satisfactory 
 performance  in  another  state  cannot  trump  convincing  evidence  that  an  applicant  fails  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  a  network  element  in  the  applicant  state. 


 14.  Moreover,  because  the  Commissions  review  of  a  section  271  application  must  be  based  on  a  snapshot  of  a  BOCs  recent  performance  at  the  time  an  application  is  filed,  the 
 Commission  cannot  simply  rely  on  findings  relating  to  an  applicants  performance  in  an  anchor  state  at  the  time  it  issued  the  determination  for  that  state.  The  performance  in  that  state  could 
 change  due  to  a  multitude  of  factors,  such  as  increased  order  volumes  or  shifts  in  the  mix  of  the  types  of  services  or  UNEs  requested  by  competing  carriers.  Thus,  even  when  the  applicant 
 makes  a  convincing  showing  of  the  relevance  of  anchor  state  data,  the  Commission  must  examine  how  recent  performance  in  that  state  compares  to  performance  at  the  time  it  approved 
 that  states  section  271  application,  in  order  to  determine  if  the  systems  and  processes  continue  to  perform  at  acceptable  levels. 


 III.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  ENTRY  REQUIREMENTS    SECTIONS  271(  c)(  1)(  A)  &  271(  c)(  1)(  B) 
 15.  As  noted  above,  in  order  for  the  Commission  to  approve  a  BOCs  application  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services,  a  BOC  must  first  demonstrate  that  it  satisfies  the 
 requirements  of  either  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A)  (Track  A)  or  271(  c)(  1)(  B)  (Track  B).  29  To  qualify  for  Track  A,  a  BOC  must  have  interconnection  agreements  with  one  or  more  competing 
 providers  of  telephone  exchange  service  .  .  .  to  residential  and  business  subscribers.  30  The  Act  states  that  such  telephone  service  may  be  offered  .  .  .  either  exclusively  over  [the  competitors] 
 own  telephone  exchange  service  facilities  or  predominantly  over  [the  competitors]  own  telephone  exchange  facilities  in  combination  with  the  resale  of  the  telecommunications  services 
 of  another  carrier.  31  The  Commission  concluded  in  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order  that  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A)  is  satisfied  if  one  or  more  competing  providers  collectively  serve  residential  and 
 business  subscribers.  32 


 28  See  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18376,  para.  53;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3974, 
 para.  53. 
 29  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  A). 


 30  Id. 
 31  Id. 
 32  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20589,  para.  85;  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order, 
 13  FCC  Rcd  at  20633-  35,  paras.  46-  48. 
65
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  8 
 16.  As  an  alternative  to  Track  A,  Section  271(  c)(  1)(  B)  permits  BOCs  to  obtain  authority  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services  if,  after  10  months  from  the  date  of 
 enactment,  no  facilities-  based  provider,  as  described  in  subparagraph  (A),  has  requested  the  access  and  interconnection  arrangements  described  therein  (referencing  one  or  more  binding 
 agreements  approved  under  Section  252),  but  the  state  has  approved  an  SGAT  that  satisfies  the  competitive  checklist  of  subsection  (c)(  2)(  B).  Under  section  271(  d)(  3)(  A)(  ii),  the  Commission 
 shall  not  approve  such  a  request  for  in-  region,  interLATA  service  unless  the  BOC  demonstrates  that,  with  respect  to  access  and  interconnection  generally  offered  pursuant  to  [an  SGAT],  such 
 statement  offers  all  of  the  items  included  in  the  competitive  checklist.  33  Track  B,  however,  is  not  available  to  a  BOC  if  it  has  already  received  a  request  for  access  and  interconnection  from  a 
 prospective  competing  provider  of  telephone  exchange  service.  34 
 IV.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  COMPETITIVE  CHECKLIST    SECTION  271(  c)(  2)(  B) 


 A.  Checklist  Item  1    Interconnection 
 17.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  i)  of  the  Act  requires  a  section  271  applicant  to  provide  [  i]  nterconnection  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  sections  251(  c)(  2)  and  252(  d)(  1).  35 


 Section  251(  c)(  2)  imposes  a  duty  on  incumbent  LECs  to  provide,  for  the  facilities  and  equipment  of  any  requesting  telecommunications  carrier,  interconnection  with  the  local 
 exchange  carriers  network  .  .  .  for  the  transmission  and  routing  of  telephone  exchange  service  and  exchange  access.  36  In  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission 
 concluded  that  interconnection  referred  only  to  the  physical  linking  of  two  networks  for  the  mutual  exchange  of  traffic.  37  Section  251  contains  three  requirements  for  the  provision  of 
 interconnection.  First,  an  incumbent  LEC  must  provide  interconnection  at  any  technically  feasible  point  within  the  carriers  network.  38  Second,  an  incumbent  LEC  must  provide 
 interconnection  that  is  at  least  equal  in  quality  to  that  provided  by  the  local  exchange  carrier  to 
 33  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  A)(  ii). 
 34  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20561-  62,  para.  34.  Nevertheless,  the  above-  mentioned 
 foreclosure  of  Track  B  as  an  option  is  subject  to  limited  exceptions.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  1)(  B);  see  also  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20563-  64,  paras.  37-  38. 


 35  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  i);  see  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3977-  78,  para.  63;  Second 
 BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20640,  para.  61;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20662,  para.  222. 


 36  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  2)(  A). 
 37  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  in  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  First  Report  and 
 Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  15499,  15590,  para.  176  (1996)  (Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order).  Transport  and  termination  of  traffic  are  therefore  excluded  from  the  Commissions  definition  of  interconnection.  See  id. 


 38  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  2)(  B).  In  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  identified  a 
 minimum  set  of  technically  feasible  points  of  interconnection.  See  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15607-  09,  paras.  204-  11. 
66
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  9 
 itself.  39  Finally,  the  incumbent  LEC  must  provide  interconnection  on  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the 
 agreement  and  the  requirements  of  [section  251]  and  section  252.  40 
 18.  To  implement  the  equal-  in-  quality  requirement  in  section  251,  the  Commissions  rules  require  an  incumbent  LEC  to  design  and  operate  its  interconnection  facilities  to  meet  the 


 same  technical  criteria  and  service  standards  that  are  used  for  the  interoffice  trunks  within  the  incumbent  LECs  network.  41  In  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission 
 identified  trunk  group  blockage  and  transmission  standards  as  indicators  of  an  incumbent  LECs  technical  criteria  and  service  standards.  42  In  prior  section  271  applications,  the  Commission 
 concluded  that  disparities  in  trunk  group  blockage  indicated  a  failure  to  provide  interconnection  to  competing  carriers  equal-  in-  quality  to  the  interconnection  the  BOC  provided  to  its  own  retail 
 operations.  43 
 19.  In  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  requirement  to  provide  interconnection  on  terms  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable, 


 and  nondiscriminatory  means  that  an  incumbent  LEC  must  provide  interconnection  to  a  competitor  in  a  manner  no  less  efficient  than  the  way  in  which  the  incumbent  LEC  provides  the 
 comparable  function  to  its  own  retail  operations.  44  The  Commissions  rules  interpret  this  obligation  to  include,  among  other  things,  the  incumbent  LECs  installation  time  for 
 interconnection  service  45  and  its  provisioning  of  two-  way  trunking  arrangements.  46  Similarly,  repair  time  for  troubles  affecting  interconnection  trunks  is  useful  for  determining  whether  a  BOC 


 39  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  2)(  C). 
 40  Id.    251(  c)(  2)(  D). 
 41  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15613-  15,  paras.  221-  225;  see  Bell  Atlantic  New 
 York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3978,  para.  64;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20641-  42,  paras.  63-  64. 


 42  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15614-  15,  paras.  224-  25. 
 43  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3978,  para.  64;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20648-  50,  paras.  74-  77;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20671-  74,  paras.  240-  45.  The  Commission  has  relied  on  trunk  blockage  data  to  evaluate  a  BOCs  interconnection  performance.  Trunk  group 


 blockage  indicates  that  end  users  are  experiencing  difficulty  completing  or  receiving  calls,  which  may  have  a  direct  impact  on  the  customers  perception  of  a  competitive  LECs  service  quality. 


 44  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15612,  para.  218;  see  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York 
 Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3978,  para.  65;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20642,  para.  65. 
 45  47  C.  F.  R.    51.305(  a)(  5). 


 46  The  Commissions  rules  require  an  incumbent  LEC  to  provide  two-  way  trunking  upon  request,  wherever  two-way 
 trunking  arrangements  are  technically  feasible.  47  C.  F.  R.    51.305(  f);  see  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3978-  79,  para.  65;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20642,  para.  65;  Local 


 Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  15612-  13,  paras.  219-  20. 
67
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  10 
 provides  interconnection  service  under  terms  and  conditions  that  are  no  less  favorable  than  the  terms  and  conditions  the  BOC  provides  to  its  own  retail  operations.  47 
 20.  Competing  carriers  may  choose  any  method  of  technically  feasible  interconnection  at  a  particular  point  on  the  incumbent  LECs  network.  48  Incumbent  LEC 
 provision  of  interconnection  trunking  is  one  common  means  of  interconnection.  Technically  feasible  methods  also  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  physical  and  virtual  collocation  and  meet 
 point  arrangements.  49  The  provision  of  collocation  is  an  essential  prerequisite  to  demonstrating  compliance  with  item  1  of  the  competitive  checklist.  50  In  the  Advanced  Services  First  Report 
 and  Order,  the  Commission  revised  its  collocation  rules  to  require  incumbent  LECs  to  include  shared  cage  and  cageless  collocation  arrangements  as  part  of  their  physical  collocation 
 offerings.  51  In  response  to  a  remand  from  the  D.  C.  Circuit,  the  Commission  adopted  the  Collocation  Remand  Order,  establishing  revised  criteria  for  equipment  for  which  incumbent 
 LECs  must  permit  collocation,  requiring  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  cross-  connects  between  collocated  carriers,  and  establishing  principles  for  physical  collocation  space  and  configuration.  52 
 To  show  compliance  with  its  collocation  obligations,  a  BOC  must  have  processes  and  procedures  in  place  to  ensure  that  all  applicable  collocation  arrangements  are  available  on  terms  and 
 conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory  in  accordance  with  section  251(  c)(  6)  and  the  FCCs  implementing  rules.  53  Data  showing  the  quality  of  procedures  for 
 processing  applications  for  collocation  space,  as  well  as  the  timeliness  and  efficiency  of 


 47  47  C.  F.  R.    51.305(  a)(  5). 
 48  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15779,  paras.  549-  50;  see  Bell  Atlantic  New  York 
 Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3979,  para.  66;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20640-  41,  para.  61. 
 49  47  C.  F.  R.    51.321(  b);  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15779-  82,  paras.  549-  50; 
 see  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3979,  para.  66;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20640-  41,  para.  62. 


 50  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6)  (requiring  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  physical  collocation);  Bell  Atlantic  New  York 
 Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3979,  para.  66;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20640-  41,  paras.  61-  62. 
 51  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability,  First  Report  and  Order 
 and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  14  FCC  Rcd  4761,  4784-  86,  paras.  41-  43  (1999),  affd  in  part  and  vacated  and  remanded  in  part  sub  nom.  GTE  Service  Corp.  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  416  (D.  C.  Cir.  2000),  on  recon., 


 Collocation  Reconsideration  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  17806  (2000);  on  remand,  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability,  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  15435  (2001) 
 (Collocation  Remand  Order),  affd  sub  nom.  Verizon  Telephone  Cos.  v.  FCC,  292  F.  3d  903  (D.  C.  Cir.  2002),  on  recon.  Collocation  Remand  Reconsideration  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  16960  (2002). 


 52  See  Collocation  Remand  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  15441-  42,  para.  12. 
 53  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3979,  para.  66;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd 
 at  20643,  para.  66;  BellSouth  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  649-  51,  para.  62. 
68
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  11 
 provisioning  collocation  space,  help  the  Commission  evaluate  a  BOCs  compliance  with  its  collocation  obligations.  54 
 21.  As  stated  above,  checklist  item  1  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  interconnection  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  sections  251(  c)(  2)  and  252(  d)(  1).  55  Section  252(  d)(  1) 
 requires  state  determinations  regarding  the  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  of  interconnection  to  be  based  on  cost  and  to  be  nondiscriminatory,  and  allows  the  rates  to  include  a  reasonable  profit.  56 
 The  Commissions  pricing  rules  require,  among  other  things,  that  in  order  to  comply  with  its  collocation  obligations,  an  incumbent  LEC  provide  collocation  based  on  TELRIC.  57 


 22.  To  the  extent  pricing  disputes  arise,  the  Commission  will  not  duplicate  the  work  of  the  state  commissions.  As  noted  in  the  SWBT  Texas  Order,  the  Act  authorizes  the  state 
 commissions  to  resolve  specific  carrier-  to-  carrier  disputes  arising  under  the  local  competition  provisions,  and  it  authorizes  the  federal  district  courts  to  ensure  that  the  results  of  the  state 
 arbitration  process  are  consistent  with  federal  law.  58  Although  the  Commission  has  an  independent  statutory  obligation  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  checklist,  section  271  does  not 
 compel  us  to  preempt  the  orderly  disposition  of  intercarrier  disputes  by  the  state  commissions,  particularly  now  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  restored  the  Commissions  pricing  jurisdiction  and 
 has  thereby  directed  the  state  commissions  to  follow  FCC  pricing  rules  in  their  disposition  of  those  disputes.  59 


 23.  Consistent  with  the  Commissions  precedent,  the  mere  presence  of  interim  rates  will  not  generally  threaten  a  section  271  application  so  long  as:  (1)  an  interim  solution  to  a 
 particular  rate  dispute  is  reasonable  under  the  circumstances;  (2)  the  state  commission  has  demonstrated  its  commitment  to  the  Commissions  pricing  rules;  and  (3)  provision  is  made  for 
 refunds  or  true-  ups  once  permanent  rates  are  set.  60  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  determined  that  rates  contained  within  an  approved  section  271  application,  including  those  that  are  interim, 
 are  reasonable  starting  points  for  interim  rates  for  the  same  carrier  in  an  adjoining  state.  61 


 54  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3979,  para.  66;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd 
 at  20640-  41,  paras.  61-  62. 
 55  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  i)  (emphasis  added). 


 56  Id.    252(  d)(  1). 
 57  See  47  C.  F.  R.    51.501-  07,  51.509(  g);  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15812-  16, 
 15844-  61,  15874-  76,  15912,  paras.  618-  29,  674-  712,  743-  51,  826. 
 58  See  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18394,  para.  88;  see  also  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  c),  (e)(  6);  American  Tel.  & 
 Tel  Co.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999)  (AT&  T  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.). 
 59  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18394,  para.  88;  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  at  377-  86. 


 60  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18394,  para.  88;  see  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at 
 4091,  para.  258  (explaining  the  Commissions  case-  by-  case  review  of  interim  prices). 
 61  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6359-  60,  para.  239. 
69
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  12 
 24.  Although  the  Commission  has  been  willing  to  grant  a  section  271  application  with  a  limited  number  of  interim  rates  where  the  above-  mentioned  three-  part  test  is  met,  it  is  clearly 
 preferable  to  analyze  a  section  271  application  on  the  basis  of  rates  derived  from  a  permanent  rate  proceeding.  62  At  some  point,  states  will  have  had  sufficient  time  to  complete  these 
 proceedings.  The  Commission  will,  therefore,  become  more  reluctant  to  continue  approving  section  271  applications  containing  interim  rates.  It  would  not  be  sound  policy  for  interim  rates 
 to  become  a  substitute  for  completing  these  significant  proceedings. 
 B.  Checklist  Item  2    Unbundled  Network  Elements  63 
 1.  Access  to  Operations  Support  Systems 
 25.  Incumbent  LECs  use  a  variety  of  systems,  databases,  and  personnel  (collectively  referred  to  as  OSS)  to  provide  service  to  their  customers.  64  The  Commission  consistently  has 


 found  that  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  development  of  meaningful  local  competition.  65  For  example,  new  entrants  must  have  access  to  the  functions  performed  by 
 the  incumbents  OSS  in  order  to  formulate  and  place  orders  for  network  elements  or  resale 


 62  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4091,  para.  260. 
 63  We  note  that  the  United  States  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District  of  Columbia  Circuit  recently  opined  on  two 
 relevant  Commission  decisions,  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Fourth  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  15  FCC  Rcd  3696  (1999) 


 (UNE  Remand  Order)  and  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability  and  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Third  Report  and 
 Order  in  CC  Doc.  No.  98-  147  and  Fourth  Report  and  Order  in  CC  Doc.  No.  96-  98,  14  FCC  Rcd  20912  (1999)  (Line  Sharing  Order).  USTA  v.  FCC,  290  F.  3d  415  (D.  C.  Cir.  2002),  cert.  denied  sub  nom.  WorldCom,  Inc.,  et  al.  v. 
 United  States  Telecom  Ass'n,  et  al.,  2003  WL  1448388,  71  USLW  3416  (March  24,  2003).  The  court's  decision  addressed  both  our  UNE  rules  and  our  line  sharing  rules.  Further,  the  court  stated  that  the  Line  Sharing  Order 
 must  be  vacated  and  remanded.  USTA  v.  FCC,  290  F.  3d  at  429.  The  court  also  stated  that  it  grant[  ed]  the  petitions  for  review[]  and  remand[  ed]  the  Line  Sharing  Order  and  the  Local  Competition  Order  to  the  Commission 
 for  further  consideration  in  accordance  with  the  principles  outlined.  Id.  at  430.  On  September  4,  2002,  the  D.  C.  Circuit  denied  petitions  for  rehearing  filed  by  the  Commission  and  others.  See  Order,  Nos.  00-  1012  and  00-  1015 
 (D.  C.  Circuit,  filed  Sept.  4,  2002).  On  February  20,  2003,  the  Commission  took  action  to  revise  its  rules  concerning  incumbent  LECs'  obligations  to  make  available  elements  of  their  networks  on  an  unbundled  basis  to  requesting 
 carriers,  and  released  its  Order  on  August  21,  2003.  Review  of  the  Section  251  Unbundling  Obligations  of  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers;  Implementation  of  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications 
 Act  of  1996;  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability,  CC  Docket  Nos.  01-  338,  96-  98,  98-  147,  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  18  FCC  Rcd  16978  (2003) 
 (Triennial  Review  Order),  corrected  by,  Errata,  18  FCC  Rcd  19020  (2003),  petitions  for  review  pending,  United  States  Telecom  Assn  v.  FCC,  D.  C.  Cir.  No.  00-  1012  (and  consolidated  cases).  We  note,  however,  that,  in 
 determining  whether  a  BOC  applicant  has  satisfied  the  requirements  of  section  271,  the  Commission  evaluates  an  applicant's  compliance  with  the  competitive  checklist  as  developed  in  the  Commissions  local  competition  rules  and 
 orders  in  effect  at  the  time  the  application  was  filed. 
 64  Id.  at  3989-  90,  para.  83;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  585. 


 65  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3990,  para.  83;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  at  547-  48,  585;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20653. 
70
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  13 
 services,  to  install  service  to  their  customers,  to  maintain  and  repair  network  facilities,  and  to  bill  customers.  66  The  Commission  has  determined  that  without  nondiscriminatory  access  to  the 
 BOCs  OSS,  a  competing  carrier  will  be  severely  disadvantaged,  if  not  precluded  altogether,  from  fairly  competing  in  the  local  exchange  market.  67 


 26.  Section  271  requires  the  Commission  to  determine  whether  a  BOC  offers  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  functions.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii)  requires  a  BOC  to  provide 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  network  elements  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  sections  251(  c)(  3)  and  252(  d)(  1).  68  The  Commission  has  determined  that  access  to  OSS  functions  falls 
 squarely  within  an  incumbent  LECs  duty  under  section  251(  c)(  3)  to  provide  unbundled  network  elements  (UNEs)  under  terms  and  conditions  that  are  nondiscriminatory  and  just  and  reasonable, 
 and  its  duty  under  section  251(  c)(  4)  to  offer  resale  services  without  imposing  any  limitations  or  conditions  that  are  discriminatory  or  unreasonable.  69  The  Commission  must  therefore  examine  a 
 BOCs  OSS  performance  to  evaluate  compliance  with  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii)  and  (xiv).  70  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  also  concluded  that  the  duty  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access 
 to  OSS  functions  is  embodied  in  other  terms  of  the  competitive  checklist  as  well.  71  Consistent  with  prior  orders,  the  Commission  examines  a  BOCs  OSS  performance  directly  under  checklist 
 items  2  and  14,  as  well  as  other  checklist  terms.  72 
 27.  As  part  of  its  statutory  obligation  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  functions,  a  BOC  must  provide  access  that  sufficiently  supports  each  of  the  three  modes  of 


 competitive  entry  envisioned  by  the  1996  Act    competitor-  owned  facilities,  UNEs,  and  resale.  73  For  OSS  functions  that  are  analogous  to  those  that  a  BOC  provides  to  itself,  its  customers  or  its 
 affiliates,  the  nondiscrimination  standard  requires  the  BOC  to  offer  requesting  carriers  access  that  is  equivalent  in  terms  of  quality,  accuracy,  and  timeliness.  74  The  BOC  must  provide  access 
 that  permits  competing  carriers  to  perform  these  functions  in  substantially  the  same  time  and 


 66  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3990,  para.  83. 
 67  Id. 
 68  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii). 
 69  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3990,  para.  84. 
 70  Id. 
 71  Id.  As  part  of  a  BOCs  demonstration  that  it  is  providing  a  checklist  item  (e.  g.,  unbundled  loops,  unbundled 
 local  switching,  resale  services),  it  must  demonstrate  that  it  is  providing  nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  systems,  information,  and  personnel  that  support  that  element  or  service.  An  examination  of  a  BOCs  OSS  performance  is 


 therefore  integral  to  the  determination  of  whether  a  BOC  is  offering  all  of  the  items  contained  in  the  competitive  checklist.  Id. 


 72  Id.  at  3990-  91,  para.  84. 
 73  Id.  at  3991,  para.  85. 
 74  Id. 
71
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  14 
 manner  as  the  BOC.  75  The  Commission  has  recognized  in  prior  orders  that  there  may  be  situations  in  which  a  BOC  contends  that,  although  equivalent  access  has  not  been  achieved  for 
 an  analogous  function,  the  access  that  it  provides  is  nonetheless  nondiscriminatory  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute.  76 


 28.  For  OSS  functions  that  have  no  retail  analogue,  the  BOC  must  offer  access  sufficient  to  allow  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  77  In  assessing 
 whether  the  quality  of  access  affords  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete,  the  Commission  will  examine,  in  the  first  instance,  whether  specific  performance 
 standards  exist  for  those  functions.  78  In  particular,  the  Commission  will  consider  whether  appropriate  standards  for  measuring  OSS  performance  have  been  adopted  by  the  relevant  state 
 commission  or  agreed  upon  by  the  BOC  in  an  interconnection  agreement  or  during  the  implementation  of  such  an  agreement.  79  If  such  performance  standards  exist,  the  Commission 
 will  evaluate  whether  the  BOCs  performance  is  sufficient  to  allow  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  80 


 29.  The  Commission  analyzes  whether  a  BOC  has  met  the  nondiscrimination  standard  for  each  OSS  function  using  a  two-  step  approach.  First,  the  Commission  determines 
 whether  the  BOC  has  deployed  the  necessary  systems  and  personnel  to  provide  sufficient  access  to  each  of  the  necessary  OSS  functions  and  whether  the  BOC  is  adequately  assisting 
 competing  carriers  to  understand  how  to  implement  and  use  all  of  the  OSS  functions  available  to  them.  81  The  Commission  next  assesses  whether  the  OSS  functions  that  the  BOC  has  deployed 
 are  operationally  ready,  as  a  practical  matter.  82 


 75  Id.  For  example,  the  Commission  would  not  deem  an  incumbent  LEC  to  be  providing  nondiscriminatory 
 access  to  OSS  if  limitations  on  the  processing  of  information  between  the  interface  and  the  back  office  systems  prevented  a  competitor  from  performing  a  specific  function  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  the 


 incumbent  performs  that  function  for  itself. 
 76  See  id. 


 77  Id.  at  3991,  para.  86. 
 78  Id. 
 79  Id.  As  a  general  proposition,  specific  performance  standards  adopted  by  a  state  commission  in  an  arbitration 
 decision  would  be  more  persuasive  evidence  of  commercial  reasonableness  than  a  standard  unilaterally  adopted  by  the  BOC  outside  of  its  interconnection  agreement.  Id.  at  20619-  20. 


 80  See  id.  at  3991-  92,  para.  86. 
 81  Id.  at  3992,  para.  87;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20616;  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana 
 Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20654;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  592-  93.  In  making  this  determination,  the  Commission  consider[  s]  all  of  the  automated  and  manual  processes  a  BOC  has  undertaken  to 


 provide  access  to  OSS  functions,  including  the  interface  (or  gateway)  that  connects  the  competing  carriers  own  operations  support  systems  to  the  BOC;  any  electronic  or  manual  processing  link  between  that  interface  and  the 
 BOCs  OSS  (including  all  necessary  back  office  systems  and  personnel);  and  all  of  the  OSS  that  a  BOC  uses  in  (continued.) 
72
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  15 
 30.  Under  the  first  inquiry,  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  has  developed  sufficient  electronic  (for  functions  that  the  BOC  accesses  electronically)  and  manual  interfaces  to  allow 
 competing  carriers  equivalent  access  to  all  of  the  necessary  OSS  functions.  83  For  example,  a  BOC  must  provide  competing  carriers  with  the  specifications  necessary  for  carriers  to  design  or 
 modify  their  systems  in  a  manner  that  will  enable  them  to  communicate  with  the  BOCs  systems  and  any  relevant  interfaces.  84  In  addition,  a  BOC  must  disclose  to  competing  carriers  any 
 internal  business  rules  85  and  other  formatting  information  necessary  to  ensure  that  a  carriers  requests  and  orders  are  processed  efficiently.  86  Finally,  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  its  OSS  is 
 designed  to  accommodate  both  current  demand  and  projected  demand  for  competing  carriers  access  to  OSS  functions.  87  Although  not  a  prerequisite,  the  Commission  continues  to  encourage 
 the  use  of  industry  standards  as  an  appropriate  means  of  meeting  the  needs  of  a  competitive  local  exchange  market.  88 


 31.  Under  the  second  inquiry,  the  Commission  examines  performance  measurements  and  other  evidence  of  commercial  readiness  to  ascertain  whether  the  BOCs  OSS  is  handling 
 current  demand  and  will  be  able  to  handle  reasonably  foreseeable  future  volumes.  89  The  most  probative  evidence  that  OSS  functions  are  operationally  ready  is  actual  commercial  usage.  90 
 Absent  sufficient  and  reliable  data  on  commercial  usage,  the  Commission  will  consider  the  results  of  carrier-  to-  carrier  testing,  independent  third-  party  testing,  and  internal  testing  in 
 assessing  the  commercial  readiness  of  a  BOCs  OSS.  91  Although  the  Commission  does  not  (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 providing  network  elements  and  resale  services  to  a  competing  carrier.  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20615;  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20654  n.  241. 


 82  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3992,  para.  88. 
 83  Id.  at  3992,  para.  87;  see  also  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20616,  para.  136  (The  Commission 
 determines  whether  the  BOC  has  deployed  the  necessary  systems  and  personnel  to  provide  sufficient  access  to  each  of  the  necessary  OSS  functions  and  whether  the  BOC  is  adequately  assisting  competing  carriers  to  understand 


 how  to  implement  and  use  all  of  the  OSS  functions  available  to  them.).  For  example,  a  BOC  must  provide  competing  carriers  the  specifications  necessary  to  design  their  systems  interfaces  and  business  rules  necessary  to 
 format  orders,  and  demonstrate  that  systems  are  scalable  to  handle  current  and  projected  demand.  Id. 
 84  Id. 


 85  Business  rules  refer  to  the  protocols  that  a  BOC  uses  to  ensure  uniformity  in  the  format  of  orders  and  include 
 information  concerning  ordering  codes  such  as  universal  service  ordering  codes  (USOCs)  and  field  identifiers  (FIDs).  Id.;  see  also  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20617  n.  335. 


 86  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3992,  para.  88. 
 87  Id. 
 88  See  id. 
 89  Id.  at  3993,  para.  89. 
 90  Id. 
 91  Id. 
73
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  16 
 require  OSS  testing,  a  persuasive  test  will  provide  us  with  an  objective  means  by  which  to  evaluate  a  BOCs  OSS  readiness  where  there  is  little  to  no  evidence  of  commercial  usage,  or 
 may  otherwise  strengthen  an  application  where  the  BOCs  evidence  of  actual  commercial  usage  is  weak  or  is  otherwise  challenged  by  competitors.  The  persuasiveness  of  a  third-  party  review, 
 however,  is  dependent  upon  the  qualifications,  experience  and  independence  of  the  third  party  and  the  conditions  and  scope  of  the  review  itself.  92  If  the  review  is  limited  in  scope  or  depth  or  is 
 not  independent  and  blind,  the  Commission  will  give  it  minimal  weight.  As  noted  above,  to  the  extent  the  Commission  reviews  performance  data,  it  looks  at  the  totality  of  the  circumstances  and 
 generally  does  not  view  individual  performance  disparities,  particularly  if  they  are  isolated  and  slight,  as  dispositive  of  whether  a  BOC  has  satisfied  its  checklist  obligations.  93  Individual 
 performance  disparities  may,  nevertheless,  result  in  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance,  particularly  if  the  disparity  is  substantial  or  has  endured  for  a  long  time,  or  if  it  is  accompanied 
 by  other  evidence  of  discriminatory  conduct  or  evidence  that  competing  carriers  have  been  denied  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 


 a.  Relevance  of  a  BOCs  Prior  Section  271  Orders 
 32.  The  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order  specifically  outlined  a  non-  exhaustive  evidentiary  showing  that  must  be  made  in  the  initial  application  when  a  BOC  seeks  to  rely  on 


 evidence  presented  in  another  application.  94  First,  a  BOCs  application  must  explain  the  extent  to  which  the  OSS  are  the  same    that  is,  whether  it  employs  the  shared  use  of  a  single  OSS,  or 
 the  use  of  systems  that  are  identical,  but  separate.  95  To  satisfy  this  inquiry,  the  Commission  looks  to  whether  the  relevant  states  utilize  a  common  set  of  processes,  business  rules,  interfaces, 
 systems  and,  in  many  instances,  even  personnel.  96  The  Commission  will  also  carefully  examine  third  party  reports  that  demonstrate  that  the  BOCs  OSS  are  the  same  in  each  of  the  relevant 
 states.  97  Finally,  where  a  BOC  has  discernibly  separate  OSS,  it  must  demonstrate  that  its  OSS  reasonably  can  be  expected  to  behave  in  the  same  manner.  98  Second,  unless  an  applicant  seeks  to 
 establish  only  that  certain  discrete  components  of  its  OSS  are  the  same,  an  applicant  must  submit 


 92  See  id.;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20659  (emphasizing  that  a  third-  party  review  should 
 encompass  the  entire  obligation  of  the  incumbent  LEC  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access,  and,  where  applicable,  should  consider  the  ability  of  actual  competing  carriers  in  the  market  to  operate  using  the  incumbents  OSS  access). 


 93  See  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6301-  02,  para.  138. 
 94  See  id.  at  6286-  91,  paras.  107-  18 
 95  See  id.  at  6288,  para.  111. 
 96  The  Commission  has  consistently  held  that  a  BOCs  OSS  includes  both  mechanized  systems  and  manual 
 processes,  and  thus  the  OSS  functions  performed  by  BOC  personnel  have  been  part  of  the  FCCs  OSS  functionality  and  commercial  readiness  reviews. 


 97  See  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  id.  at  6287,  para.  108. 
 98  See  id.  at  6288,  para.  111. 
74
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  17 
 evidence  relating  to  all  aspects  of  its  OSS,  including  those  OSS  functions  performed  by  BOC  personnel. 
 b.  Pre-  Ordering 
 33.  A  BOC  must  demonstrate  that:  (i)  it  offers  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  pre-ordering  functions  associated  with  determining  whether  a  loop  is  capable  of  supporting  xDSL 


 advanced  technologies;  (ii)  competing  carriers  successfully  have  built  and  are  using  application-to-  application  interfaces  to  perform  pre-  ordering  functions  and  are  able  to  integrate  pre-  ordering 
 and  ordering  interfaces;  99  and  (iii)  its  pre-  ordering  systems  provide  reasonably  prompt  response  times  and  are  consistently  available  in  a  manner  that  affords  competitors  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete.  100 
 34.  The  pre-  ordering  phase  of  OSS  generally  includes  those  activities  that  a  carrier  undertakes  to  gather  and  verify  the  information  necessary  to  place  an  order.  101  Given  that  pre-ordering 


 represents  the  first  exposure  that  a  prospective  customer  has  to  a  competing  carrier,  it  is  critical  that  a  competing  carrier  is  able  to  accomplish  pre-  ordering  activities  in  a  manner  no  less 
 efficient  and  responsive  than  the  incumbent.  102  Most  of  the  pre-  ordering  activities  that  must  be  undertaken  by  a  competing  carrier  to  order  resale  services  and  UNEs  from  the  incumbent  are 
 analogous  to  the  activities  a  BOC  must  accomplish  to  furnish  service  to  its  own  customers.  For  these  pre-  ordering  functions,  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  provides  requesting  carriers  access 
 that  enables  them  to  perform  pre-  ordering  functions  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  its  retail  operations.  103  For  those  pre-  ordering  functions  that  lack  a  retail  analogue,  a  BOC  must 


 99  In  prior  orders,  the  Commission  has  emphasized  that  providing  pre-  ordering  functionality  through  an 
 application-  to-  application  interface  is  essential  in  enabling  carriers  to  conduct  real-  time  processing  and  to  integrate  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  functions  in  the  same  manner  as  the  BOC.  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18426, 


 para.  148. 
 100  The  Commission  has  held  previously  that  an  interface  that  provides  responses  in  a  prompt  timeframe  and  is 
 stable  and  reliable,  is  necessary  for  competing  carriers  to  market  their  services  and  serve  their  customers  as  efficiently  and  at  the  same  level  of  quality  as  a  BOC  serves  its  own  customers.  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order, 


 15  FCC  Rcd  at  4025  and  4029,  paras.  145  and  154. 
 101  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4014,  para.  129;  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana 
 Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20660,  para.  94  (referring  to  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  collectively  as  the  exchange  of  information  between  telecommunications  carriers  about  current  or  proposed  customer  products  and  services  or 


 unbundled  network  elements  or  some  combination  thereof).  In  prior  orders,  the  Commission  has  identified  the  following  five  pre-  order  functions:  (1)  customer  service  record  (CSR)  information;  (2)  address  validation; 
 (3)  telephone  number  information;  (4)  due  date  information;  (5)  services  and  feature  information.  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4015,  para.  132;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20660,  para. 
 94;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  619,  para.  147. 
 102  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4014,  para.  129. 


 103  Id.;  see  also  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  623-  29  (concluding  that  failure  to  deploy  an 
 application-  to-  application  interface  denies  competing  carriers  equivalent  access  to  pre-  ordering  OSS  functions). 
75
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  18 
 provide  access  that  affords  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  104  In  prior  orders,  the  Commission  has  emphasized  that  providing  pre-  ordering  functionality  through 
 an  application-  to-  application  interface  is  essential  in  enabling  carriers  to  conduct  real-  time  processing  and  to  integrate  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  functions  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
 BOC.  105 
 (i)  Access  to  Loop  Qualification  Information 
 35.  In  accordance  with  the  UNE  Remand  Order,  106  the  Commission  requires  incumbent  carriers  to  provide  competitors  with  access  to  all  of  the  same  detailed  information 


 about  the  loop  that  is  available  to  the  incumbents,  107  and  in  the  same  time  frame,  so  that  a  competing  carrier  can  make  an  independent  judgment  at  the  pre-  ordering  stage  about  whether  an 
 end  user  loop  is  capable  of  supporting  the  advanced  services  equipment  the  competing  carrier  intends  to  install.  108  Under  the  UNE  Remand  Order,  the  relevant  inquiry  is  not  whether  a  BOCs 
 retail  arm  accesses  such  underlying  information  but  whether  such  information  exists  anywhere  in  a  BOCs  back  office  and  can  be  accessed  by  any  of  a  BOCs  personnel.  109  Moreover,  a  BOC 
 may  not  filter  or  digest  the  underlying  information  and  may  not  provide  only  information  that  is  useful  in  provisioning  of  a  particular  type  of  xDSL  that  a  BOC  offers.  110  A  BOC  must  also 
 provide  loop  qualification  information  based,  for  example,  on  an  individual  address  or  zip  code  of  the  end  users  in  a  particular  wire  center,  NXX  code  or  on  any  other  basis  that  the  BOC 
 provides  such  information  to  itself.  Moreover,  a  BOC  must  also  provide  access  for  competing  carriers  to  the  loop  qualifying  information  that  the  BOC  can  itself  access  manually  or 


 104  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4014,  para.  129. 
 105  See  id.  at  4014,  para.  130;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20661-  67,  para.  105. 
 106  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3885,  para.  426  (determining  that  the  pre-  ordering  function  includes 
 access  to  loop  qualification  information). 
 107  See  id.  At  a  minimum,  a  BOC  must  provide  (1)  the  composition  of  the  loop  material,  including  both  fiber  and 
 copper;  (2)  the  existence,  location  and  type  of  any  electronic  or  other  equipment  on  the  loop,  including  but  not  limited  to,  digital  loop  carrier  or  other  remote  concentration  devices,  feeder/  distribution  interfaces,  bridge  taps,  load 


 coils,  pair-  gain  devices,  disturbers  in  the  same  or  adjacent  binder  groups;  (3)  the  loop  length,  including  the  length  and  location  of  each  type  of  transmission  media;  (4)  the  wire  gauge(  s)  of  the  loop;  and  (5)  the  electrical  parameters 
 of  the  loop,  which  may  determine  the  suitability  of  the  loop  for  various  technologies.  Id. 
 108  As  the  Commission  has  explained  in  prior  proceedings,  because  characteristics  of  a  loop,  such  as  its  length  and 
 the  presence  of  various  impediments  to  digital  transmission,  can  hinder  certain  advanced  services  technologies,  carriers  often  seek  to  pre-  qualify  a  loop  by  accessing  basic  loop  makeup  information  that  will  assist  carriers  in 


 ascertaining  whether  the  loop,  either  with  or  without  the  removal  of  the  impediments,  can  support  a  particular  advanced  service.  See  id.,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4021,  para.  140. 


 109  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3885-  3887,  paras.  427-  431  (noting  that  to  the  extent  such  information  is 
 not  normally  provided  to  the  incumbents  retail  personnel,  but  can  be  obtained  by  contacting  back  office  personnel,  it  must  be  provided  to  requesting  carriers  within  the  same  time  frame  that  any  incumbent  personnel  are  able  to 


 obtain  such  information.). 
 110  See  SWBT  Kansas  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6292-  93,  para.  121. 
76
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  19 
 electronically.  Finally,  a  BOC  must  provide  access  to  loop  qualification  information  to  competitors  within  the  same  time  intervals  it  is  provided  to  the  BOCs  retail  operations  or  its 
 advanced  services  affiliate.  111  As  the  Commission  determined  in  the  UNE  Remand  Order,  however,  to  the  extent  such  information  is  not  normally  provided  to  the  incumbents  retail 
 personnel,  but  can  be  obtained  by  contacting  back  office  personnel,  it  must  be  provided  to  requesting  carriers  within  the  same  time  frame  that  any  incumbent  personnel  are  able  to  obtain 
 such  information.  112 
 c.  Ordering 
 36.  Consistent  with  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii),  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  its  ability  to  provide  competing  carriers  with  access  to  the  OSS  functions  necessary  for  placing  wholesale 


 orders.  For  those  functions  of  the  ordering  systems  for  which  there  is  a  retail  analogue,  a  BOC  must  demonstrate,  with  performance  data  and  other  evidence,  that  it  provides  competing  carriers 
 with  access  to  its  OSS  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  provides  to  its  retail  operations.  For  those  ordering  functions  that  lack  a  direct  retail  analogue,  a  BOC  must 
 demonstrate  that  its  systems  and  performance  allow  an  efficient  carrier  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  As  in  prior  section  271  orders,  the  Commission  looks  primarily  at  the  applicants 
 ability  to  return  order  confirmation  notices,  order  reject  notices,  order  completion  notices  and  jeopardies,  and  at  its  order  flow-  through  rate.  113 


 d.  Provisioning 
 37.  A  BOC  must  provision  competing  carriers  orders  for  resale  and  UNE-  P  services  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  provisions  orders  for  its  own  retail  customers.  114 


 Consistent  with  the  approach  in  prior  section  271  orders,  the  Commission  examines  a  BOCs  provisioning  processes,  as  well  as  its  performance  with  respect  to  provisioning  timeliness  (i.  e., 
 missed  due  dates  and  average  installation  intervals)  and  provisioning  quality  (i.  e.,  service  problems  experienced  at  the  provisioning  stage).  115 


 111  Id. 
 112  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3885-  3887,  paras.  427-  31. 
 113  See  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18438,  para.  170;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4035- 
 39,  paras.  163-  66.  The  Commission  examines  (i)  order  flow-  through  rates,  (ii)  jeopardy  notices  and  (iii)  order  completion  notices  using  the  same  time  and  manner  standard.  The  Commission  examines  order  confirmation 


 notices  and  order  rejection  notices  using  the  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete  standard. 
 114  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4058,  para.  196.  For  provisioning  timeliness,  the  Commission 
 looks  to  missed  due  dates  and  average  installation  intervals;  for  provisioning  quality,  the  Commission  looks  to  service  problems  experienced  at  the  provisioning  stage. 


 115  Id. 
77
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  20 
 e.  Maintenance  and  Repair 
 38.  A  competing  carrier  that  provides  service  through  resale  or  UNEs  remains  dependent  upon  the  incumbent  LEC  for  maintenance  and  repair.  Thus,  as  part  of  its  obligation  to 


 provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  functions,  a  BOC  must  provide  requesting  carriers  with  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  maintenance  and  repair  systems.  116  To  the  extent  a  BOC 
 performs  analogous  maintenance  and  repair  functions  for  its  retail  operations,  it  must  provide  competing  carriers  access  that  enables  them  to  perform  maintenance  and  repair  functions  in 
 substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  a  BOC  provides  its  retail  customers.  117  Equivalent  access  ensures  that  competing  carriers  can  assist  customers  experiencing  service  disruptions 
 using  the  same  network  information  and  diagnostic  tools  that  are  available  to  BOC  personnel.  118  Without  equivalent  access,  a  competing  carrier  would  be  placed  at  a  significant  competitive 
 disadvantage,  as  its  customer  would  perceive  a  problem  with  a  BOCs  network  as  a  problem  with  the  competing  carriers  own  network.  119 


 f.  Billing 
 39.  A  BOC  must  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  billing  functions,  which  is  necessary  to  enable  competing  carriers  to  provide  accurate  and  timely  bills  to  their  customers.  120 


 In  making  this  determination,  the  Commission  assesses  a  BOCs  billing  processes  and  systems,  and  its  performance  data.  Consistent  with  prior  section  271  orders,  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that 
 it  provides  competing  carriers  with  complete  and  accurate  reports  on  the  service  usage  of  competing  carriers  customers  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  that  a  BOC  provides 
 such  information  to  itself,  and  with  wholesale  bills  in  a  manner  that  gives  competing  carriers  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  121 


 g.  Change  Management  Process 
 40.  Competing  carriers  need  information  about,  and  specifications  for,  an  incumbents  systems  and  interfaces  to  develop  and  modify  their  systems  and  procedures  to 


 access  the  incumbents  OSS  functions.  122  Thus,  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  providing 
 116  Id.  at  4067,  para.  212;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20692;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order, 
 12  FCC  Rcd  at  20613,  20660-  61. 
 117  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4058,  para.  196;  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13 
 FCC  Rcd  at  20692-  93. 
 118  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4058,  para.  196. 


 119  Id. 
 120  See  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18461,  para.  210. 
 121  See  id.;  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6316-  17,  at  para.  163. 
 122  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3999-  4000,  para.  102;  First  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  at  6279  n.  197;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  625  n.  467;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20617  n.  334;  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19742. 
78
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  21 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS,  a  BOC  must  first  demonstrate  that  it  has  deployed  the  necessary  systems  and  personnel  to  provide  sufficient  access  to  each  of  the  necessary  OSS 
 functions  and  .  .  .  is  adequately  assisting  competing  carriers  to  understand  how  to  implement  and  use  all  of  the  OSS  functions  available  to  them.  123  By  showing  that  it  adequately  assists 
 competing  carriers  to  use  available  OSS  functions,  a  BOC  provides  evidence  that  it  offers  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  124  As  part  of  this  demonstration,  the 
 Commission  will  give  substantial  consideration  to  the  existence  of  an  adequate  change  management  process  and  evidence  that  the  BOC  has  adhered  to  this  process  over  time.  125 


 41.  The  change  management  process  refers  to  the  methods  and  procedures  that  the  BOC  employs  to  communicate  with  competing  carriers  regarding  the  performance  of,  and 
 changes  in,  the  BOCs  OSS.  126  Such  changes  may  include  updates  to  existing  functions  that  impact  competing  carrier  interface(  s)  upon  a  BOCs  release  of  new  interface  software; 
 technology  changes  that  require  competing  carriers  to  meet  new  technical  requirements  upon  a  BOCs  software  release  date;  additional  functionality  changes  that  may  be  used  at  the  competing 
 carriers  option,  on  or  after  a  BOCs  release  date  for  new  interface  software;  and  changes  that  may  be  mandated  by  regulatory  authorities.  127  Without  a  change  management  process  in  place,  a 
 BOC  can  impose  substantial  costs  on  competing  carriers  simply  by  making  changes  to  its  systems  and  interfaces  without  providing  adequate  testing  opportunities  and  accurate  and  timely 
 notice  and  documentation  of  the  changes.  128  Change  management  problems  can  impair  a  competing  carriers  ability  to  obtain  nondiscriminatory  access  to  UNEs,  and  hence  a  BOCs 
 compliance  with  section  271(  2)(  B)(  ii).  129 
 42.  In  evaluating  whether  a  BOCs  change  management  plan  affords  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete,  the  Commission  first  assesses  whether  the  plan 


 is  adequate.  In  making  this  determination,  it  assesses  whether  the  evidence  demonstrates:  (1)  that  information  relating  to  the  change  management  process  is  clearly  organized  and  readily 
 accessible  to  competing  carriers;  130  (2)  that  competing  carriers  had  substantial  input  in  the  design  and  continued  operation  of  the  change  management  process;  131  (3)  that  the  change  management 


 123  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3999,  para.  102. 
 124  Id.  at  3999-  4000,  para.  102 
 125  Id.  at  4000,  para.  102. 
 126  Id.  at  4000,  para.  103. 
 127  Id. 
 128  Id.  at  4000,  para.  103. 
 129  Id. 
 130  Id.  at  4002,  para.  107. 
 131  Id.  at  4000,  para.  104. 
79
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  22 
 plan  defines  a  procedure  for  the  timely  resolution  of  change  management  disputes;  132  (4)  the  availability  of  a  stable  testing  environment  that  mirrors  production;  133  and  (5)  the  efficacy  of  the 
 documentation  the  BOC  makes  available  for  the  purpose  of  building  an  electronic  gateway.  134  After  determining  whether  the  BOCs  change  management  plan  is  adequate,  the  Commission 
 evaluates  whether  the  BOC  has  demonstrated  a  pattern  of  compliance  with  this  plan.  135 
 2.  UNE  Combinations 
 43.  In  order  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  2,  a  BOC  must  show  that  it  is  offering  [  n]  ondiscriminatory  access  to  network  elements  in  accordance  with  the 


 requirements  of  section  251(  c)(  3).  136  Section  251(  c)(  3)  requires  an  incumbent  LEC  to  provide,  to  any  requesting  telecommunications  carrier  .  .  .  nondiscriminatory  access  to  network  elements 
 on  an  unbundled  basis  at  any  technically  feasible  point  on  rates,  terms  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory.  137  Section  251(  c)(  3)  of  the  Act  also  requires  incumbent 
 LECs  to  provide  UNEs  in  a  manner  that  allows  requesting  carriers  to  combine  such  elements  in  order  to  provide  a  telecommunications  service.  138 


 44.  In  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  the  Commission  emphasized  that  the  ability  of  requesting  carriers  to  use  UNEs,  as  well  as  combinations  of  UNEs,  is  integral  to  achieving 
 Congress  objective  of  promoting  competition  in  local  telecommunications  markets.  139  Using  combinations  of  UNEs  provides  a  competitor  with  the  incentive  and  ability  to  package  and 
 market  services  in  ways  that  differ  from  the  BOCs  existing  service  offerings  in  order  to  compete  in  the  local  telecommunications  market.  140  Moreover,  combining  the  incumbents  UNEs  with 
 their  own  facilities  encourages  facilities-  based  competition  and  allows  competing  providers  to  provide  a  wide  array  of  competitive  choices.  141  Because  the  use  of  combinations  of  UNEs  is  an 


 132  Id.  at  4002,  para.  108. 
 133  Id.  at  4002-  03,  paras.  109-  10. 
 134  Id.  at  4003-  04,  para.  110.  In  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  the  Commission  used  these  factors  in 
 determining  whether  Bell  Atlantic  had  an  adequate  change  management  process  in  place.  See  id.  at  4004,  para.  111.  The  Commission  left  open  the  possibility,  however,  that  a  change  management  plan  different  from  the  one 


 implemented  by  Bell  Atlantic  may  be  sufficient  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  section  271.  Id. 


 135  Id.  at  3999,  para.  101,  4004-  05,  para.  112. 
 136  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii). 
 137  Id.    251(  c)(  3). 
 138  Id. 
 139  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20718-  19;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  646. 
 140  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  646;  see  also  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11 
 FCC  Rcd  at  15666-  68. 
 141  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4077-  78,  para.  230. 
80
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  23 
 important  strategy  for  entry  into  the  local  telecommunications  market,  as  well  as  an  obligation  under  the  requirements  of  section  271,  the  Commission  examines  section  271  applications  to 
 determine  whether  competitive  carriers  are  able  to  combine  network  elements  as  required  by  the  Act  and  the  Commissions  regulations.  142 


 3.  Pricing  of  Network  Elements 
 45.  Checklist  item  2  of  section  271  states  that  a  BOC  must  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  network  elements  in  accordance  with  sections  251(  c)(  3)  and 


 252(  d)(  1)  of  the  Act.  143  Section  251(  c)(  3)  requires  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  network  elements  on  an  unbundled  basis  at  any  technically  feasible 
 point  on  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory.  144  Section  252(  d)(  1)  requires  that  a  state  commissions  determination  of  the  just  and  reasonable  rates  for 
 network  elements  shall  be  based  on  the  cost  of  providing  the  network  elements,  shall  be  nondiscriminatory,  and  may  include  a  reasonable  profit.  145  Pursuant  to  this  statutory  mandate, 
 the  Commission  has  determined  that  prices  for  UNEs  must  be  based  on  the  total  element  long  run  incremental  cost  (TELRIC)  of  providing  those  elements.  146  The  Commission  also 
 promulgated  rule  51.315(  b),  which  prohibits  incumbent  LECs  from  separating  already  combined  elements  before  providing  them  to  competing  carriers,  except  on  request.  147  The  Commission  has 
 previously  held  that  it  will  not  conduct  a  de  novo  review  of  a  states  pricing  determinations  and  will  reject  an  application  only  if  basic  TELRIC  principles  are  violated  or  the  state  commission 


 142  Id.  In  Iowa  Utilities  Board  v.  FCC,  219  F.  3d  744  (8th  Cir.  2000),  the  Eighth  Circuit  had  vacated  the 
 Commissions  additional  combinations  rules  (47  C.  F.  R.  Sections  51-  315(  c)-(  f)).  However,  on  May  13,  2002,  the  Supreme  Court  reversed  the  Eighth  Circuit  with  respect  to  those  rules  and  remanded  the  case  to  the  court  of  appeals 


 for  further  proceedings  consistent  with  this  opinion.  Verizon  Communications  Inc.  v.  FCC,  535  U.  S.  467,  539.  See  also  id.  at  1683-  87.  In  response,  the  Eighth  Circuit,  on  August  21,  2002,  vacated  its  prior  opinion  insofar  as  it 
 had  vacated  the  pertinent  combinations  rules  and  denied  the  petitions  for  review  with  respect  to  those  rules.  Iowa  Utilities  Board  v.  FCC,  8th  Circuit  Nos.  96-  3321,  et  al.,  Judgment,  filed  August  21,  2002.).  See  also  Competitive 
 Telecommunications  Association  v.  FCC,  309  F.  3d  8  (2002)  (affirming  the  Commission's  interim  decision  to  limit  the  ability  of  competitive  local  exchange  carriers  to  gain  access  to  a  network  element  combination  known  as  the 
 enhanced  extended  link). 
 143  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii). 


 144  Id.    251(  c)(  3). 
 145  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  d)(  1). 
 146  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15844-  46,  paras.  674-  79;  47  C.  F.  R.    51.501  et 
 seq.;  see  also  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability,  CC  Docket  No.  98-  147,  and  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC 


 Docket  No.  96-  98,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  20912,  20974,  para.  135  (Line  Sharing  Order)  (concluding  that  states  should  set  the  prices  for  line  sharing  as  a  new  network  element  in  the 
 same  manner  as  the  state  sets  prices  for  other  UNEs). 
 147  See  47  C.  F.  R.    51.315(  b). 
81
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  24 
 makes  clear  errors  in  factual  findings  on  matters  so  substantial  that  the  end  result  falls  outside  the  range  that  the  reasonable  application  of  TELRIC  principles  would  produce.  148 
 46.  Although  the  U.  S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Eighth  Circuit  stayed  the  Commissions  pricing  rules  in  1996,  149  the  Supreme  Court  restored  the  Commissions  pricing 
 authority  on  January  25,  1999,  and  remanded  to  the  Eighth  Circuit  for  consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  challenged  rules.  150  On  remand  from  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Eighth  Circuit  concluded  that 
 while  TELRIC  is  an  acceptable  method  for  determining  costs,  certain  specific  requirements  contained  within  the  Commissions  pricing  rules  were  contrary  to  Congressional  intent.  151  The 
 Eighth  Circuit  stayed  the  issuance  of  its  mandate  pending  review  by  the  Supreme  Court.  152  The  Supreme  Court,  on  May  13,  2002,  upheld  the  Commissions  forward-  looking  pricing 
 methodology  in  determining  costs  of  UNEs  and  reverse[  d]  the  Eighth  Circuits  judgment  insofar  as  it  invalidated  TELRIC  as  a  method  for  setting  rates  under  the  Act.  153  Accordingly, 
 the  Commissions  pricing  rules  remain  in  effect. 
 C.  Checklist  Item  3    Poles,  Ducts,  Conduits  and  Rights  of  Way 
 47.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iii)  requires  BOCs  to  provide  [  n]  ondiscriminatory  access  to  the  poles,  ducts,  conduits,  and  rights-  of-  way  owned  or  controlled  by  the  [BOC]  at  just  and 


 reasonable  rates  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  224.  154  Section  224(  f)(  1)  states 


 148  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4084,  para.  244;  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd 
 at  6266,  para.  59. 
 149  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.  v.  FCC,  120  F.  3d  753,  800,  804,  805-  06  (8  th  Cir.  1997). 


 150  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999).  In  reaching  its  decision,  the  Court  acknowledged  that 
 section  201(  b)  explicitly  grants  the  FCC  jurisdiction  to  make  rules  governing  matters  to  which  the  1996  Act  applies.  Id.  at  380.  Furthermore,  the  Court  determined  that  section  251(  d)  also  provides  evidence  of  an  express 


 jurisdictional  grant  by  requiring  that  the  Commission  [shall]  complete  all  actions  necessary  to  establish  regulations  to  implement  the  requirements  of  this  section.  Id.  at  382.  The  Court  also  held  that  the  pricing  provisions 
 implemented  under  the  Commissions  rulemaking  authority  do  not  inhibit  the  establishment  of  rates  by  the  states.  The  Court  concluded  that  the  Commission  has  jurisdiction  to  design  a  pricing  methodology  to  facilitate  local 
 competition  under  the  1996  Act,  including  pricing  for  interconnection  and  unbundled  access,  as  it  is  the  States  that  will  apply  those  standards  and  implement  that  methodology,  determining  the  concrete  result.  Id. 


 151  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.  v.  FCC,  219  F.  3d  744  (8  th  Cir.  2000),  petition  for  cert.  granted  sub  nom.  Verizon 
 Communications  v.  FCC,  121  S.  Ct.  877  (2001). 
 152  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.  v.  FCC,  No.  96-  3321  et  al.  (8  th  Cir.  Sept.  25,  2000). 


 153  Verizon  v.  FCC,  535  U.  S.  467,  523.  On  August  21,  2002,  the  Eighth  Circuit  implemented  the  Supreme 
 Courts  mandate  with  respect  to  the  Commissions  TELRIC  pricing  rule  by  vacating  its  prior  opinion  insofar  as  it  had  invalidated  that  rule  and  by  denying  the  petitions  for  review  of  that  rule.  Iowa  Utilities  Board  v.  FCC,  8th 


 Circuit  Nos.  96-  3321,  et  al.,  Judgment,  filed  August  21,  2002. 
 154  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iii).  As  originally  enacted,  section  224  was  intended  to  address  obstacles  that  cable 
 operators  encountered  in  obtaining  access  to  poles,  ducts,  conduits,  or  rights-  of-  way  owned  or  controlled  by  utilities.  The  1996  Act  amended  section  224  in  several  important  respects  to  ensure  that  telecommunications  carriers 


 (continued.) 
82
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  25 
 that  [  a]  utility  shall  provide  a  cable  television  system  or  any  telecommunications  carrier  with  nondiscriminatory  access  to  any  pole,  duct,  conduit,  or  right-  of-  way  owned  or  controlled  by 
 it.  155  Notwithstanding  this  requirement,  section  224(  f)(  2)  permits  a  utility  providing  electric  service  to  deny  access  to  its  poles,  ducts,  conduits,  and  rights-  of-  way,  on  a  nondiscriminatory 
 basis,  where  there  is  insufficient  capacity  and  for  reasons  of  safety,  reliability  and  generally  applicable  engineering  purposes.  156  Section  224  also  contains  two  separate  provisions 
 governing  the  maximum  rates  that  a  utility  may  charge  for  pole  attachments.  157  Section  224(  b)(  1)  states  that  the  Commission  shall  regulate  the  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  governing 
 pole  attachments  to  ensure  that  they  are  just  and  reasonable.  158  Notwithstanding  this  general  grant  of  authority,  section  224(  c)(  1)  states  that  [  n]  othing  in  [section  224]  shall  be  construed  to 
 apply  to,  or  to  give  the  Commission  jurisdiction  with  respect  to  the  rates,  terms,  and  conditions,  or  access  to  poles,  ducts,  conduits  and  rights-  of-  way  as  provided  in  [section  224(  f)],  for  pole 
 attachments  in  any  case  where  such  matters  are  regulated  by  a  State.  159  As  of  1992,  nineteen  states,  including  Connecticut,  had  certified  to  the  Commission  that  they  regulated  the  rates, 
 terms,  and  conditions  for  pole  attachments.  160 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  as  well  as  cable  operators  have  access  to  poles,  ducts,  conduits,  or  rights-  of-  way  owned  or  controlled  by  utility 
 companies,  including  LECs.  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20706,  n.  574. 
 155  47  U.  S.  C.    224(  f)(  1).  Section  224(  a)(  1)  defines  utility  to  include  any  entity,  including  a  LEC,  that  controls 
 poles,  ducts,  conduits,  or  rights-  of-  way  used,  in  whole  or  in  part,  for  any  wire  communications.  47  U.  S.  C.    224(  a)(  1). 


 156  47  U.  S.  C.    224(  f)(  2).  In  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  concluded  that, 
 although  the  statutory  exception  enunciated  in  section  224(  f)(  2)  appears  to  be  limited  to  utilities  providing  electrical  service,  LECs  should  also  be  permitted  to  deny  access  to  their  poles,  ducts,  conduits,  and  rights-  of-  way  because  of 


 insufficient  capacity  and  for  reasons  of  safety,  reliability  and  generally  applicable  engineering  purposes,  provided  the  assessment  of  such  factors  is  done  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order, 
 11  FCC  Rcd  at  16080-  81,  paras.  1175-  77. 
 157  Section  224(  a)(  4)  defines  pole  attachment  as  any  attachment  by  a  cable  television  system  or  provider  of 
 telecommunications  service  to  a  pole,  duct,  conduit,  or  right-  of-  way  owned  or  controlled  by  a  utility.  47  U.  S.  C.    224(  a)(  4). 


 158  47  U.  S.  C.    224(  b)(  1). 
 159  Id.    224(  c)(  1).  The  1996  Act  extended  the  Commissions  authority  to  include  not  just  rates,  terms,  and 
 conditions,  but  also  the  authority  to  regulate  nondiscriminatory  access  to  poles,  ducts,  conduits,  and  rights-  of-  way.  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  16104,  para.  1232;  47  U.  S.  C.    224(  f).  Absent  state 


 regulation  of  terms  and  conditions  of  nondiscriminatory  attachment  access,  the  Commission  retains  jurisdiction.  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  16104,  para.  1232;  47  U.  S.  C.    224(  c)(  1);  see  also  Bell 
 Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4093,  para.  264. 
 160  See  States  That  Have  Certified  That  They  Regulate  Pole  Attachments,  Public  Notice,  7  FCC  Rcd  1498  (1992); 
 47  U.  S.  C.    224(  f). 
83
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  26 
 D.  Checklist  Item  4    Unbundled  Local  Loops 
 48.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iv)  of  the  Act,  item  4  of  the  competitive  checklist,  requires  that  a  BOC  provide  [  l]  ocal  loop  transmission  from  the  central  office  to  the  customers  premises, 


 unbundled  from  local  switching  or  other  services.  161  The  Commission  has  defined  the  loop  as  a  transmission  facility  between  a  distribution  frame,  or  its  equivalent,  in  an  incumbent  LEC  central 
 office,  and  the  demarcation  point  at  the  customer  premises.  This  definition  includes  different  types  of  loops,  including  two-  wire  and  four-  wire  analog  voice-  grade  loops,  and  two-  wire  and 
 four-  wire  loops  that  are  conditioned  to  transmit  the  digital  signals  needed  to  provide  service  such  as  ISDN,  ADSL,  HDSL,  and  DS1-  level  signals.  162 


 49.  In  order  to  establish  that  it  is  providing  unbundled  local  loops  in  compliance  with  checklist  item  4,  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  has  a  concrete  and  specific  legal 
 obligation  to  furnish  loops  and  that  it  is  currently  doing  so  in  the  quantities  that  competitors  demand  and  at  an  acceptable  level  of  quality.  A  BOC  must  also  demonstrate  that  it  provides 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  unbundled  loops.  163  Specifically,  the  BOC  must  provide  access  to  any  functionality  of  the  loop  requested  by  a  competing  carrier  unless  it  is  not  technically  feasible 
 to  condition  the  loop  facility  to  support  the  particular  functionality  requested.  In  order  to  provide  the  requested  loop  functionality,  such  as  the  ability  to  deliver  xDSL  services,  the  BOC 
 may  be  required  to  take  affirmative  steps  to  condition  existing  loop  facilities  to  enable  competing  carriers  to  provide  services  not  currently  provided  over  the  facilities.  The  BOC  must  provide 
 competitors  with  access  to  unbundled  loops  regardless  of  whether  the  BOC  uses  digital  loop  carrier  (DLC)  technology  or  similar  remote  concentration  devices  for  the  particular  loops  sought 
 by  the  competitor. 
 50.  On  December  9,  1999,  the  Commission  released  the  Line  Sharing  Order,  which  introduced  new  rules  requiring  BOCs  to  offer  requesting  carriers  unbundled  access  to  the  high-frequency 


 portion  of  local  loops  (HFPL).  164  HFPL  is  defined  as  the  frequency  above  the  voiceband  on  a  copper  loop  facility  that  is  being  used  to  carry  traditional  POTS  analog  circuit-switched 
 voiceband  transmissions.  This  definition  applies  whether  a  BOCs  voice  customers  are  served  by  cooper  or  by  digital  loop  carrier  equipment.  Competing  carriers  should  have 


 161  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iv). 
 162  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15691,  para.  380;  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC 
 Rcd  at  3772-  73,  paras.  166-  67,  n.  301  (retaining  definition  of  the  local  loop  from  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  but  replacing  the  phrase  network  interconnection  device  with  demarcation  point,  and  making 


 explicit  that  dark  fiber  and  loop  conditioning  are  among  the  features,  functions  and  capabilities  of  the  loop). 
 163  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18481-  81,  para.  248;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4095, 
 para.  269;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20637,  para.  185. 
 164  See  Line  Sharing  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  20924-  27,  paras.  20-  27;  see  also  n.  63  at  C-  12  supra. 
84
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  27 
 access  to  the  HFPL  at  either  a  central  office  or  at  a  remote  terminal.  However,  the  HFPL  network  element  is  only  available  on  a  copper  loop  facility.  165 
 51.  To  determine  whether  a  BOC  makes  line  sharing  available  consistent  with  Commission  rules  set  out  in  the  Line  Sharing  Order,  the  Commission  examines  categories  of 
 performance  measurements  identified  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  and  SWBT  Texas  Orders.  Specifically,  a  successful  BOC  applicant  could  provide  evidence  of  BOC-  caused  missed 
 installation  due  dates,  average  installation  intervals,  trouble  reports  within  30  days  of  installation,  mean  time  to  repair,  trouble  report  rates,  and  repeat  trouble  report  rates.  In  addition, 
 a  successful  BOC  applicant  should  provide  evidence  that  its  central  offices  are  operationally  ready  to  handle  commercial  volumes  of  line  sharing  and  that  it  provides  competing  carriers  with 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  OSS  functions  associated  with  the  provision  of  line  shared  loops,  including  access  to  loop  qualification  information  and  databases. 


 52.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iv)  also  requires  that  a  BOC  demonstrate  that  it  makes  line  splitting  available  to  competing  carriers  so  that  competing  carriers  may  provide  voice  and  data 
 service  over  a  single  loop.  166  In  addition,  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  a  competing  carrier,  either  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  another  carrier,  is  able  to  replace  an  existing  UNE-  P 
 configuration  used  to  provide  voice  service  with  an  arrangement  that  enables  it  to  provide  voice  and  data  service  to  a  customer.  To  make  such  a  showing,  a  BOC  must  show  that  it  has  a  legal 
 obligation  to  provide  line  splitting  through  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  in  interconnection  agreements  and  that  it  offers  competing  carriers  the  ability  to  order  an  unbundled  xDSL-  capable 
 loop  terminated  to  a  collocated  splitter  and  DSLAM  equipment,  and  combine  it  with  unbundled  switching  and  shared  transport.  167 


 E.  Checklist  Item  5    Unbundled  Local  Transport 
 53.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  v)  of  the  competitive  checklist  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  [  l]  ocal  transport  from  the  trunk  side  of  a  wireline  local  exchange  carrier  switch  unbundled  from 


 switching  or  other  services.  168  The  Commission  has  required  that  BOCs  provide  both  dedicated  and  shared  transport  to  requesting  carriers.  169  Dedicated  transport  consists  of  BOC  transmission 


 165  See  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability  and  Implementation 
 of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Third  Report  and  Order  on  Reconsideration  in  CC  Docket  No.  98-  147,  Fourth  Report  and  Order  on  Reconsideration  in  CC  Docket  No.  96-  98, 


 16  FCC  Rcd  2101,  2106-  07,  para.  10  (2001). 
 166  See  generally  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18515-  17,  paras.  323-  329  (describing  line  splitting);  47 
 C.  F.  R.    51.703(  c)  (requiring  that  incumbent  LECs  provide  competing  carriers  with  access  to  unbundled  loops  in  a  manner  that  allows  competing  carriers  to  provide  any  telecommunications  service  that  can  be  offered  by  means  of 


 that  network  element). 
 167  See  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6348,  para.  220. 


 168  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  v). 
 169  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20719,  para.  201. 
85
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  28 
 facilities  dedicated  to  a  particular  customer  or  carrier  that  provide  telecommunications  between  wire  centers  owned  by  BOCs  or  requesting  telecommunications  carriers,  or  between  switches 
 owned  by  BOCs  or  requesting  telecommunications  carriers.  170  Shared  transport  consists  of  transmission  facilities  shared  by  more  than  one  carrier,  including  the  BOC,  between  end  office 
 switches,  between  end  office  switches  and  tandem  switches,  and  between  tandem  switches,  in  the  BOCs  network.  171 


 F.  Checklist  Item  6    Unbundled  Local  Switching 
 54.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vi)  of  the  1996  Act  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  [  l]  ocal  switching  unbundled  from  transport,  local  loop  transmission,  or  other  services.  172  In  the  Second 


 BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  the  Commission  required  BellSouth  to  provide  unbundled  local  switching  that  included  line-  side  and  trunk-  side  facilities,  plus  the  features,  functions,  and 
 capabilities  of  the  switch.  173  The  features,  functions,  and  capabilities  of  the  switch  include  the  basic  switching  function  as  well  as  the  same  basic  capabilities  that  are  available  to  the  incumbent 
 LECs  customers.  174  Additionally,  local  switching  includes  all  vertical  features  that  the  switch  is  capable  of  providing,  as  well  as  any  technically  feasible  customized  routing  functions.  175 


 170  Id.  A  BOC  has  the  following  obligations  with  respect  to  dedicated  transport:  (a)  provide  unbundled  access  to 
 dedicated  transmission  facilities  between  BOC  central  offices  or  between  such  offices  and  serving  wire  centers  (SWCs);  between  SWCs  and  interexchange  carriers  points  of  presence  (POPs);  between  tandem  switches  and 


 SWCs,  end  offices  or  tandems  of  the  BOC,  and  the  wire  centers  of  BOCs  and  requesting  carriers;  (b)  provide  all  technically  feasible  transmission  capabilities  such  as  DS1,  DS3,  and  Optical  Carrier  levels  that  the  competing  carrier 
 could  use  to  provide  telecommunications;  (c)  not  limit  the  facilities  to  which  dedicated  interoffice  transport  facilities  are  connected,  provided  such  interconnections  are  technically  feasible,  or  restrict  the  use  of  unbundled  transport 
 facilities;  and  (d)  to  the  extent  technically  feasible,  provide  requesting  carriers  with  access  to  digital  cross-  connect  system  functionality  in  the  same  manner  that  the  BOC  offers  such  capabilities  to  interexchange  carriers  that 
 purchase  transport  services.  Id.  at  20719. 
 171  Id.  at  20719,  n.  650.  The  Commission  also  found  that  a  BOC  has  the  following  obligations  with  respect  to 
 shared  transport:  (a)  provide  shared  transport  in  a  way  that  enables  the  traffic  of  requesting  carriers  to  be  carried  on  the  same  transport  facilities  that  a  BOC  uses  for  its  own  traffic;  (b)  provide  shared  transport  transmission  facilities 


 between  end  office  switches,  between  its  end  office  and  tandem  switches,  and  between  tandem  switches  in  its  network;  (c)  permit  requesting  carriers  that  purchase  unbundled  shared  transport  and  unbundled  switching  to  use  the 
 same  routing  table  that  is  resident  in  the  BOCs  switch;  and  (d)  permit  requesting  carriers  to  use  shared  (or  dedicated)  transport  as  an  unbundled  element  to  carry  originating  access  traffic  from,  and  terminating  traffic  to, 
 customers  to  whom  the  requesting  carrier  is  also  providing  local  exchange  service.  Id.  at  20720,  n.  652. 
 172  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vi);  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20722.  A  switch 
 connects  end  user  lines  to  other  end  user  lines,  and  connects  end  user  lines  to  trunks  used  for  transporting  a  call  to  another  central  office  or  to  a  long-  distance  carrier.  Switches  can  also  provide  end  users  with  vertical  features  such 


 as  call  waiting,  call  forwarding,  and  caller  ID,  and  can  direct  a  call  to  a  specific  trunk,  such  as  to  a  competing  carriers  operator  services. 


 173  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20722,  para.  207. 
 174  Id. 
 175  Id.  at  20722-  23,  para.  207. 
86
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  29 
 55.  Moreover,  in  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  the  Commission  required  BellSouth  to  permit  competing  carriers  to  purchase  UNEs,  including  unbundled  switching,  in  a 
 manner  that  permits  a  competing  carrier  to  offer,  and  bill  for,  exchange  access  and  the  termination  of  local  traffic.  176  The  Commission  also  stated  that  measuring  daily  customer  usage 
 for  billing  purposes  requires  essentially  the  same  OSS  functions  for  both  competing  carriers  and  incumbent  LECs,  and  that  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  is  providing  equivalent  access  to 
 billing  information.  177  Therefore,  the  ability  of  a  BOC  to  provide  billing  information  necessary  for  a  competitive  LEC  to  bill  for  exchange  access  and  termination  of  local  traffic  is  an  aspect  of 
 unbundled  local  switching.  178  Thus,  there  is  an  overlap  between  the  provision  of  unbundled  local  switching  and  the  provision  of  the  OSS  billing  function.  179 


 56.  To  comply  with  the  requirements  of  unbundled  local  switching,  a  BOC  must  also  make  available  trunk  ports  on  a  shared  basis  and  routing  tables  resident  in  the  BOCs  switch,  as 
 necessary  to  provide  access  to  shared  transport  functionality.  180  In  addition,  a  BOC  may  not  limit  the  ability  of  competitors  to  use  unbundled  local  switching  to  provide  exchange  access  by 
 requiring  competing  carriers  to  purchase  a  dedicated  trunk  from  an  interexchange  carriers  point  of  presence  to  a  dedicated  trunk  port  on  the  local  switch.  181 


 G.  Checklist  Item  7    911/  E911  Access  and  Directory  Assistance/  Operator  Services 
 57.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)  of  the  Act  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  [  n]  ondiscriminatory  access  to    (I)  911  and  E911  services.  182  In  the  Ameritech  Michigan 
 Order,  the  Commission  found  that  section  271  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  competitors  access  to  its  911  and  E911  services  in  the  same  manner  that  a  BOC  obtains  such  access,  i.  e.,  at  parity.  183 
 Specifically,  the  Commission  found  that  a  BOC  must  maintain  the  911  database  entries  for  competing  LECs  with  the  same  accuracy  and  reliability  that  it  maintains  the  database  entries  for 
 its  own  customers.  184  For  facilities-  based  carriers,  the  BOC  must  provide  unbundled  access  to 
 176  Id.  at  20723,  para.  208. 


 177  Id.  at  20723,  para.  208  (citing  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20619,  para.  140). 
 178  Id. 
 179  Id. 
 180  Id.  at  20723,  para.  209  (citing  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20705,  para.  306). 
 181  Id.  (citing  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20714-  15,  paras.  324-  25). 
 182  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii).  911  and  E911  services  transmit  calls  from  end  users  to  emergency  personnel. 
 It  is  critical  that  a  BOC  provide  competing  carriers  with  accurate  and  nondiscriminatory  access  to  911/  E911  services  so  that  these  carriers  customers  are  able  to  reach  emergency  assistance.  Customers  use  directory  assistance  and 


 operator  services  to  obtain  customer  listing  information  and  other  call  completion  services. 
 183  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20679,  para.  256. 


 184  Id. 
87
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  30 
 [its]  911  database  and  911  interconnection,  including  the  provision  of  dedicated  trunks  from  the  requesting  carriers  switching  facilities  to  the  911  control  office  at  parity  with  what  [the  BOC] 
 provides  to  itself.  185  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)(  II)  and  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)(  III)  require  a  BOC  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  directory  assistance  services  to  allow  the  other 
 carriers  customers  to  obtain  telephone  numbers  and  operator  call  completion  services,  respectively.  186  Section  251(  b)(  3)  of  the  Act  imposes  on  each  LEC  the  duty  to  permit  all 
 [competing  providers  of  telephone  exchange  service  and  telephone  toll  service]  to  have  nondiscriminatory  access  to  .  .  .  operator  services,  directory  assistance,  and  directory  listing,  with 
 no  unreasonable  dialing  delays.  187  The  Commission  concluded  in  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order  that  a  BOC  must  be  in  compliance  with  the  regulations  implementing  section 
 251(  b)(  3)  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  sections  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)(  II)  and  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)(  III).  188  In  the  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission 
 held  that  the  phrase  nondiscriminatory  access  to  directory  assistance  and  directory  listings  means  that  the  customers  of  all  telecommunications  service  providers  should  be  able  to  access 
 each  LECs  directory  assistance  service  and  obtain  a  directory  listing  on  a  nondiscriminatory  basis,  notwithstanding:  (1)  the  identity  of  a  requesting  customers  local  telephone  service 
 provider;  or  (2)  the  identity  of  the  telephone  service  provider  for  a  customer  whose  directory 
 185  Id. 
 186  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)(  II),  (III). 
 187  Id.    251(  b)(  3).  The  Commission  implemented  section  251(  b)(  3)  in  the  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and 
 Order.  47  C.  F.  R.    51.217;  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Second  Report  and  Order  and  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  19392  (1996)  (Local 


 Competition  Second  Report  and  Order)  vacated  in  part  sub  nom.  People  of  the  State  of  California  v.  FCC,  124  F.  3d  934  (8th  Cir.  1997),  overruled  in  part,  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999);  see  also 
 Implementation  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996:  Provision  of  Directory  Listings  Information  under  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1934,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  14  FCC  Rcd  15550  (1999)  (Directory  Listings 
 Information  NPRM). 
 188  While  both  sections  251(  b)(  3)  and  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)(  II)  refer  to  nondiscriminatory  access  to  directory 
 assistance,  section  251(  b)(  3)  refers  to  nondiscriminatory  access  to  operator  services,  while  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)(  III)  refers  to  nondiscriminatory  access  to  operator  call  completion  services.  47  U.  S.  C. 


   251(  b)(  3),  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)(  III).  The  term  operator  call  completion  services  is  not  defined  in  the  Act,  nor  has  the  Commission  previously  defined  the  term.  However,  for  section  251(  b)(  3)  purposes,  the  term  operator  services 
 was  defined  as  meaning  any  automatic  or  live  assistance  to  a  consumer  to  arrange  for  billing  or  completion,  or  both,  of  a  telephone  call.  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19448,  para.  110.  In  the 
 same  order  the  Commission  concluded  that  busy  line  verification,  emergency  interrupt,  and  operator-  assisted  directory  assistance  are  forms  of  operator  services,  because  they  assist  customers  in  arranging  for  the  billing  or 
 completion  (or  both)  of  a  telephone  call.  Id.  at  19449,  para.  111.  All  of  these  services  may  be  needed  or  used  to  place  a  call.  For  example,  if  a  customer  tries  to  direct  dial  a  telephone  number  and  constantly  receives  a  busy 
 signal,  the  customer  may  contact  the  operator  to  attempt  to  complete  the  call.  Since  billing  is  a  necessary  part  of  call  completion,  and  busy  line  verification,  emergency  interrupt,  and  operator-  assisted  directory  assistance  can  all  be 
 used  when  an  operator  completes  a  call,  the  Commission  concluded  in  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order  that  for  checklist  compliance  purposes,  operator  call  completion  services  is  a  subset  of  or  equivalent  to  operator 
 service.  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20740,  n.  763.  As  a  result,  the  Commission  uses  the  nondiscriminatory  standards  established  for  operator  services  to  determine  whether  nondiscriminatory  access  is 
 provided. 
88
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  31 
 listing  is  requested.  189  The  Commission  concluded  that  nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  dialing  patterns  of  4-  1-  1  and  5-  5-  5-  1-  2-  1-  2  to  access  directory  assistance  were  technically  feasible,  and 
 would  continue.  190  The  Commission  specifically  held  that  the  phrase  nondiscriminatory  access  to  operator  services  means  that  a  telephone  service  customer,  regardless  of  the  identity  of  his 
 or  her  local  telephone  service  provider,  must  be  able  to  connect  to  a  local  operator  by  dialing  0,    or  0  plus  the  desired  telephone  number.  191 


 58.  Competing  carriers  may  provide  operator  services  and  directory  assistance  by  reselling  the  BOCs  services,  outsourcing  service  provision  to  a  third-  party  provider,  or  using 
 their  own  personnel  and  facilities.  The  Commissions  rules  require  BOCs  to  permit  competitive  LECs  wishing  to  resell  the  BOCs  operator  services  and  directory  assistance  to  request  the  BOC 
 to  brand  their  calls.  192  Competing  carriers  wishing  to  provide  operator  services  or  directory  assistance  using  their  own  or  a  third  party  providers  facilities  and  personnel  must  be  able  to 
 obtain  directory  listings  either  by  obtaining  directory  information  on  a  read  only  or  per  dip  basis  from  the  BOCs  directory  assistance  database,  or  by  creating  their  own  directory  assistance 
 database  by  obtaining  the  subscriber  listing  information  in  the  BOCs  database.  193  Although  the  Commission  originally  concluded  that  BOCs  must  provide  directory  assistance  and  operator 


 189  47  C.  F.  R.    51.217(  c)(  3);  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19456-  58,  paras.  130- 
 35.  The  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Orders  interpretation  of  section  251(  b)(  3)  is  limited  to  access  to  each  LECs  directory  assistance  service.  Id.  at  19456,  para.  135.  However,  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)  is  not  limited 


 to  the  LECs  systems  but  requires  nondiscriminatory  access  to  .  .  .  directory  assistance  to  allow  the  other  carriers  customers  to  obtain  telephone  numbers.  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii).  Combined  with  the  Commissions 
 conclusion  that  incumbent  LECs  must  unbundle  the  facilities  and  functionalities  providing  operator  services  and  directory  assistance  from  resold  services  and  other  unbundled  network  elements  to  the  extent  technically  feasible, 
 Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15772-  73,  paras.  535-  37,  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)  s  requirement  should  be  understood  to  require  the  BOCs  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  directory 
 assistance  service  provider  selected  by  the  customers  local  service  provider,  regardless  of  whether  the  competitor;  provides  such  services  itself;  selects  the  BOC  to  provide  such  services;  or  chooses  a  third  party  to  provide  such 
 services.  See  Directory  Listings  Information  NPRM. 
 190  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19464,  para.  151. 


 191  Id.  at  19464,  para.  151. 
 192  47  C.  F.  R.    51.217(  d);  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19463,  para.  148.  For 
 example,  when  customers  call  the  operator  or  calls  for  directory  assistance,  they  typically  hear  a  message,  such  as  thank  you  for  using  XYZ  Telephone  Company.  Competing  carriers  may  use  the  BOCs  brand,  request  the  BOC 


 to  brand  the  call  with  the  competitive  carriers  name  or  request  that  the  BOC  not  brand  the  call  at  all.  47  C.  F.  R.    51.217(  d). 


 193  47  C.  F.  R.    51.217(  C)(  3)(  ii);  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19460-  61,  paras. 
 141-  44;  Implementation  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996:  Telecommunications  Carriers  Use  of  Customer  Proprietary  Network  Information  and  Other  Customer  Information,  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition 


 Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Provision  of  Directory  Listing  Information  Under  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  Third  Report  and  Order,  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration,  and  Notice 
 of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  14  FCC  Rcd  15550,  15630-  31,  paras.  152-  54  (1999);  Provision  of  Directory  Listing  Information  Under  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  First  Report  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  2736,  2743- 
 51  (2001). 
89
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  32 
 services  on  an  unbundled  basis  pursuant  to  sections  251  and  252,  the  Commission  removed  directory  assistance  and  operator  services  from  the  list  of  required  UNEs  in  the  UNE  Remand 
 Order.  194  Checklist  item  obligations  that  do  not  fall  within  a  BOCs  obligations  under  section  251(  c)(  3)  are  not  subject  to  the  requirements  of  sections  251  and  252  that  rates  be  based  on 
 forward-  looking  economic  costs.  195  Checklist  item  obligations  that  do  not  fall  within  a  BOCs  UNE  obligations,  however,  still  must  be  provided  in  accordance  with  sections  201(  b)  and  202(  a), 
 which  require  that  rates  and  conditions  be  just  and  reasonable,  and  not  unreasonably  discriminatory.  196 


 H.  Checklist  Item  8    White  Pages  Directory  Listings 
 59.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  viii)  of  the  1996  Act  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  [  w]  hite  pages  directory  listings  for  customers  of  the  other  carriers  telephone  exchange  service.  197 


 Section  251(  b)(  3)  of  the  1996  Act  obligates  all  LECs  to  permit  competitive  providers  of  telephone  exchange  service  and  telephone  toll  service  to  have  nondiscriminatory  access  to 
 directory  listing.  198 
 60.  In  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  the  Commission  concluded  that,  consistent  with  the  Commissions  interpretation  of  directory  listing  as  used  in  section 


 251(  b)(  3),  the  term  white  pages  in  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  viii)  refers  to  the  local  alphabetical  directory  that  includes  the  residential  and  business  listings  of  the  customers  of  the  local 
 exchange  provider.  199  The  Commission  further  concluded,  the  term  directory  listing,    as  used  in  this  section,  includes,  at  a  minimum,  the  subscribers  name,  address,  telephone  number,  or  any 
 combination  thereof.  200  The  Commissions  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order  also  held  that  a 


 194  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3891-  92,  paras.  441-  42. 
 195  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3905,  para.  470;  see  generally  47  U.  S.  C.    251-  52;  see  also  47  U.  S.  C.   
 252(  d)(  1)(  A)(  i)  (requiring  UNE  rates  to  be  based  on  the  cost  (determined  without  reference  to  a  rate-  of-  return  or  other  rate-  based  proceeding)  of  providing  the    network  element). 


 196  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3905-  06,  paras.  470-  73;  see  also  47  U.  S.  C.    201(  b),  202(  a). 
 197  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  viii). 
 198  Id.    251(  b)(  3). 
 199  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20748,  para.  255. 
 200  Id.  In  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  the  Commission  stated  that  the  definition  of  directory  listing 
 was  synonymous  with  the  definition  of  subscriber  list  information.  Id.  at  20747  (citing  the  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19458-  59).  However,  the  Commissions  decision  in  a  later  proceeding 


 obviates  this  comparison,  and  supports  the  definition  of  directory  listing  delineated  above.  See  Implementation  of  the  Telecommunications  Carriers  Use  of  Customer  Proprietary  Network  Information  and  Other  Customer 
 Information,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  115,  Third  Report  and  Order;  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  98,  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration;  Provision  of 
 Directory  Listing  Information  under  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1934,  As  Amended,  CC  Docket  No.  99-  273,  FCC  99-  227,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  para.  160  (rel.  Sept.  9,  1999). 
90
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  33 
 BOC  satisfies  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  8  by  demonstrating  that  it:  (1)  provided  nondiscriminatory  appearance  and  integration  of  white  page  directory  listings  to  competitive 
 LECs  customers;  and  (2)  provided  white  page  listings  for  competitors  customers  with  the  same  accuracy  and  reliability  that  it  provides  its  own  customers.  201 


 I.  Checklist  Item  9    Numbering  Administration 
 61.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ix)  of  the  1996  Act  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  telephone  numbers  for  assignment  to  the  other  carriers  telephone 


 exchange  service  customers,  until  the  date  by  which  telecommunications  numbering  administration,  guidelines,  plan,  or  rules  are  established.  202  The  checklist  mandates  compliance 
 with  such  guidelines,  plan,  or  rules  after  they  have  been  established.  203  A  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  adheres  to  industry  numbering  administration  guidelines  and  Commission 
 rules.  204 
 J.  Checklist  Item  10    Databases  and  Associated  Signaling 
 62.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  x)  of  the  1996  Act  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  databases  and  associated  signaling  necessary  for  call  routing  and 


 completion.  205  In  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  the  Commission  required  BellSouth  to  demonstrate  that  it  provided  requesting  carriers  with  nondiscriminatory  access  to:  (  1)  signaling 
 networks,  including  signaling  links  and  signaling  transfer  points;  (2)  certain  call-  related  databases  necessary  for  call  routing  and  completion,  or  in  the  alternative,  a  means  of  physical 
 access  to  the  signaling  transfer  point  linked  to  the  unbundled  database;  and  (3)  Service  Management  Systems  (SMS).  206  The  Commission  also  required  BellSouth  to  design,  create, 
 test,  and  deploy  Advanced  Intelligent  Network  (AIN)  based  services  at  the  SMS  through  a  Service  Creation  Environment  (SCE).  207  In  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  the 
 Commission  defined  call-  related  databases  as  databases,  other  than  operations  support  systems,  that  are  used  in  signaling  networks  for  billing  and  collection  or  the  transmission,  routing,  or 


 201  Id. 
 202  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ix). 
 203  Id. 
 204  See  Second  Bell  South  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20752;  see  also  Numbering  Resource  Optimization, 
 Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  15  FCC  Rcd  7574  (2000);  Numbering  Resource  Optimization,  Second  Report  and  Order,  Order  on  Reconsideration  in  CC  Docket  No.  99-  200  and  Second  Further 


 Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  in  CC  Docket  No.  99-  200,  CC  Docket  Nos.  96-  98;  99-  200  (rel.  Dec.  29,  2000);  Numbering  Resource  Optimization,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration  in  CC  Docket 
 No.  96-  98  and  CC  Docket  No.  99-  200  (rel.  Dec.  28,  2001). 
 205  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  x). 


 206  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20753,  para.  267. 
 207  Id.  at  20755-  56,  para.  272. 
91
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  34 
 other  provision  of  telecommunications  service.  208  At  that  time  the  Commission  required  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  unbundled  access  to  their  call-  related  databases,  including  but  not 
 limited  to:  the  Line  Information  Database  (LIDB),  the  Toll  Free  Calling  database,  the  Local  Number  Portability  database,  and  Advanced  Intelligent  Network  databases.  209  In  the  UNE 
 Remand  Order,  the  Commission  clarified  that  the  definition  of  call-  related  databases  includes,  but  is  not  limited  to,  the  calling  name  (CNAM)  database,  as  well  as  the  911  and  E911 
 databases.  210 
 K.  Checklist  Item  11    Number  Portability 
 63.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)  of  the  1996  Act  requires  a  BOC  to  comply  with  the  number  portability  regulations  adopted  by  the  Commission  pursuant  to  section  251.  211  Section  251(  b)(  2) 


 requires  all  LECs  to  provide,  to  the  extent  technically  feasible,  number  portability  in  accordance  with  requirements  prescribed  by  the  Commission.  212  The  1996  Act  defines  number 
 portability  as  the  ability  of  users  of  telecommunications  services  to  retain,  at  the  same  location,  existing  telecommunications  numbers  without  impairment  of  quality,  reliability,  or  convenience 
 when  switching  from  one  telecommunications  carrier  to  another.  213  In  order  to  prevent  the  cost  of  number  portability  from  thwarting  local  competition,  Congress  enacted  section  251(  e)(  2), 
 which  requires  that  [  t]  he  cost  of  establishing  telecommunications  numbering  administration  arrangements  and  number  portability  shall  be  borne  by  all  telecommunications  carriers  on  a 
 competitively  neutral  basis  as  determined  by  the  Commission.  214  Pursuant  to  these  statutory  provisions,  the  Commission  requires  LECs  to  offer  interim  number  portability  to  the  extent 
 technically  feasible.  215  The  Commission  also  requires  LECs  to  gradually  replace  interim  number  portability  with  permanent  number  portability.  216  The  Commission  has  established 


 208  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15741,  n.  1126;  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd 
 at  3875,  para.  403. 
 209  Id.  at  15741-  42,  para.  484. 


 210  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3875,  para.  403. 
 211  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xii). 
 212  Id.  at    251(  b)(  2). 
 213  Id.  at    153(  30). 
 214  Id.  at    251(  e)(  2);  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20757,  para.  274;  In  the  Matter 
 of  Telephone  Number  Portability,  Third  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  11701,  11702-  04  (1998)  (Third  Number  Portability  Order);  In  the  Matter  of  Telephone  Number  Portability,  Fourth  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on 


 Reconsideration,  15  FCC  Rcd  16459,  16460,  16462-  65,  paras.  1,  6-  9  (1999)  (Fourth  Number  Portability  Order). 
 215  Fourth  Number  Portability  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  16465,  para.  10;  Telephone  Number  Portability,  First 
 Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd  8352,  8409-  12,  paras.  110-  16  (1996)  (First  Number  Portability  Order);  see  also  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  b)(  2). 


 216  See  47  C.  F.  R.    52.3(  b)-(  f);  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20758,  para.  275;  First 
 Number  Portability  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  8355,  8399-  8404,  paras.  3,  91;  Third  Number  Portability  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  11708-  12,  paras.  12-  16. 
92
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  35 
 guidelines  for  states  to  follow  in  mandating  a  competitively  neutral  cost-  recovery  mechanism  for  interim  number  portability,  217  and  created  a  competitively  neural  cost-  recovery  mechanism  for 
 long-  term  number  portability.  218 
 L.  Checklist  Item  12    Local  Dialing  Parity 
 64.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xii)  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  [  n]  ondiscriminatory  access  to  such  services  or  information  as  are  necessary  to  allow  the  requesting  carrier  to  implement 


 local  dialing  parity  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  251(  b)(  3).  219  Section  251(  b)(  3)  imposes  upon  all  LECs  [  t]  he  duty  to  provide  dialing  parity  to  competing  providers  of 
 telephone  exchange  service  and  telephone  toll  service  with  no  unreasonable  dialing  delays.  220  Section  153(  15)  of  the  Act  defines  dialing  parity  as  follows: 


 [A]  person  that  is  not  an  affiliate  of  a  local  exchange  carrier  is  able  to  provide  telecommunications  services  in  such  a  manner  that 
 customers  have  the  ability  to  route  automatically,  without  the  use  of  any  access  code,  their  telecommunications  to  the 
 telecommunications  services  provider  of  the  customers  designation.  221 


 65.  The  rules  implementing  section  251(  b)(  3)  provide  that  customers  of  competing  carriers  must  be  able  to  dial  the  same  number  of  digits  the  BOCs  customers  dial  to  complete  a 
 local  telephone  call.  222  Moreover,  customers  of  competing  carriers  must  not  otherwise  suffer  inferior  quality  service,  such  as  unreasonable  dialing  delays,  compared  to  the  BOCs 
 customers.  223 


 217  See  47  C.  F.  R.    52.29;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20758,  para.  275;  First  Number 
 Portability  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  8417-  24,  paras.  127-  40. 
 218  See  47  C.  F.  R.    52.32,  52.33;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20758,  para.  275;  Third 
 Number  Portability  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  11706-  07,  para.  8;  Fourth  Number  Portability  Order  at  16464-  65,  para.  9. 


 219  Based  on  the  Commissions  view  that  section  251(  b)(  3)  does  not  limit  the  duty  to  provide  dialing  parity  to  any 
 particular  form  of  dialing  parity  (i.  e.,  international,  interstate,  intrastate,  or  local),  the  Commission  adopted  rules  in  August  1996  to  implement  broad  guidelines  and  minimum  nationwide  standards  for  dialing  parity.  Local 


 Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19407;  Interconnection  Between  Local  Exchange  Carriers  and  Commercial  Mobile  Radio  Service  Providers,  CC  Docket  No.  95-  185,  Further  Order  On  Reconsideration,  FCC 
 99-  170  (rel.  July  19,  1999). 
 220  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  b)(  3). 


 221  Id.    153(  15). 
 222  47  C.  F.  R    51.205,  51.207. 
 223  See  47  C.  F.  R.    51.207  (requiring  same  number  of  digits  to  be  dialed);  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and 
 Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19400,  19403. 
93
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  36 
 M.  Checklist  Item  13    Reciprocal  Compensation 
 66.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiii)  of  the  Act  requires  that  a  BOC  enter  into  [  r]  eciprocal  compensation  arrangements  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  252(  d)(  2).  224  In 


 turn,  pursuant  to  section  252(  d)(  2)(  A),  a  state  commission  shall  not  consider  the  terms  and  conditions  for  reciprocal  compensation  to  be  just  and  reasonable  unless  (i)  such  terms  and 
 conditions  provide  for  the  mutual  and  reciprocal  recovery  by  each  carrier  of  costs  associated  with  the  transport  and  termination  on  each  carriers  network  facilities  of  calls  that  originate  on 
 the  network  facilities  of  the  other  carrier;  and  (ii)  such  terms  and  conditions  determine  such  costs  on  the  basis  of  a  reasonable  approximation  of  the  additional  costs  of  terminating  such  calls.  225 


 N.  Checklist  Item  14    Resale 
 67.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiv)  of  the  Act  requires  a  BOC  to  make  telecommunications  services  .  .  .  available  for  resale  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of 


 sections  251(  c)(  4)  and  252(  d)(  3).  226  Section  251(  c)(  4)(  A)  requires  incumbent  LECs  to  offer  for  resale  at  wholesale  rates  any  telecommunications  service  that  the  carrier  provides  at  retail  to 
 subscribers  who  are  not  telecommunications  carriers.  227  Section  252(  d)(  3)  requires  state  commissions  to  determine  wholesale  rates  on  the  basis  of  retail  rates  charged  to  subscribers  for 
 the  telecommunications  service  requested,  excluding  the  portion  thereof  attributable  to  any  marketing,  billing,  collection,  and  other  costs  that  will  be  avoided  by  the  local  exchange 
 carrier.  228  Section  251(  c)(  4)(  B)  prohibits  unreasonable  or  discriminatory  conditions  or  limitations  on  service  resold  under  section  251(  c)(  4)(  A).  229  Consequently,  the  Commission 
 concluded  in  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order  that  resale  restrictions  are  presumed  to  be  unreasonable  unless  the  LEC  proves  to  the  state  commission  that  the  restriction  is 
 reasonable  and  nondiscriminatory.  230  If  an  incumbent  LEC  makes  a  service  available  only  to  a  specific  category  of  retail  subscribers,  however,  a  state  commission  may  prohibit  a  carrier  that 
 obtains  the  service  pursuant  to  section  251(  c)(  4)(  A)  from  offering  the  service  to  a  different  category  of  subscribers.  231  If  a  state  creates  such  a  limitation,  it  must  do  so  consistent  with 


 224  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiii). 
 225  Id.    252(  d)(  2)(  A). 
 226  Id.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiv). 
 227  Id.    251(  c)(  4)(  A). 
 228  Id.    252(  d)(  3). 
 229  Id.    251(  c)(  4)(  B). 
 230  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15966,  para.  939;  47  C.  F.  R.    51.613(  b).  The 
 Eighth  Circuit  acknowledged  the  Commissions  authority  to  promulgate  such  rules,  and  specifically  upheld  the  sections  of  the  Commissions  rules  concerning  resale  of  promotions  and  discounts  in  Iowa  Utilities  Board.  Iowa 


 Utils.  Bd.  v.  FCC,  120  F.  3d  at  818-  19,  affd  in  part  and  remanded  on  other  grounds,  AT&  T  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999).  See  also  47  C.  F.  R.    51.613-  51.617. 


 231  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  4)(  B). 
94
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  37 
 requirements  established  by  the  Federal  Communications  Commission.  232  In  accordance  with  sections  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii)  and  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiv),  a  BOC  must  also  demonstrate  that  it  provides 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  operations  support  systems  for  the  resale  of  its  retail  telecommunications  services.  233  The  obligations  of  section  251(  c)(  4)  apply  to  the  retail 
 telecommunications  services  offered  by  a  BOCs  advanced  services  affiliate.  234 
 V.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  SEPARATE  AFFILIATE  REQUIREMENTS    SECTION  272 


 68.  Section  271(  d)(  3)(  B)  requires  that  the  Commission  shall  not  approve  a  BOCs  application  to  provide  interLATA  services  unless  the  BOC  demonstrates  that  the  requested 
 authorization  will  be  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  272.  235  The  Commission  set  standards  for  compliance  with  section  272  in  the  Accounting  Safeguards  Order 
 and  the  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order.  236  Together,  these  safeguards  discourage  and  facilitate  the  detection  of  improper  cost  allocation  and  cross-  subsidization  between  the  BOC  and 
 its  section  272  affiliate.  237  In  addition,  these  safeguards  ensure  that  BOCs  do  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  their  section  272  affiliates.  238 


 69.  As  the  Commission  stated  in  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  compliance  with  section  272  is  of  crucial  importance  because  the  structural,  transactional,  and 
 nondiscrimination  safeguards  of  section  272  seek  to  ensure  that  BOCs  compete  on  a  level 
 232  Id. 
 233  See,  e.  g.,  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4046-  48,  paras.  178-  81  (Bell  Atlantic  provides 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS  ordering  functions  for  resale  services  and  therefore  provides  efficient  competitors  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete). 


 234  See  Verizon  Connecticut  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  14147,  14160-  63,  paras.  27-  33  (2001);  Association  of 
 Communications  Enterprises  v.  FCC,  235  F.  3d  662  (D.  C.  Cir.  2001). 
 235  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  B). 


 236  See  Implementation  of  the  Accounting  Safeguards  Under  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No. 
 96-  150,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  17539  (1996)  (Accounting  Safeguards  Order),  Second  Order  On  Reconsideration,  FCC  00-  9  (rel.  Jan.  18,  2000);  Implementation  of  the  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  of  Sections  271 


 and  272  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  149,  First  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd  21905  (1996)  (Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order),  petition 
 for  review  pending  sub  nom.  SBC  Communications  v.  FCC,  No.  97-  1118  (filed  D.  C.  Cir.  Mar.  6,  1997)  (held  in  abeyance  May  7,  1997),  First  Order  on  Reconsideration,  12  FCC  Rcd  2297  (1997)  (First  Order  on 
 Reconsideration),  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration,  12  FCC  Rcd  8653  (1997)  (Second  Order  on  Reconsideration),  affd  sub  nom.  Bell  Atlantic  Telephone  Companies  v.  FCC,  131  F.  3d  1044  (D.  C.  Cir.  1997),  Third  Order  on 
 Reconsideration,  FCC  99-  242  (rel.  Oct.  4,  1999)  (Third  Order  on  Reconsideration). 
 237  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21914;  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at 
 17550;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20725. 
 238  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21914,  paras.  15-  16;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20725,  para.  346. 
95
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 C-  38 
 playing  field.  239  The  Commissions  findings  regarding  section  272  compliance  constitute  independent  grounds  for  denying  an  application.  240  Past  and  present  behavior  of  the  BOC 
 applicant  provides  the  best  indicator  of  whether  [the  applicant]  will  carry  out  the  requested  authorization  in  compliance  with  section  272.  241 


 VI.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  PUBLIC  INTEREST    SECTION  271(  D)(  3)(  C) 
 70.  In  addition  to  determining  whether  a  BOC  satisfies  the  competitive  checklist  and  will  comply  with  section  272,  Congress  directed  the  Commission  to  assess  whether  the  requested 


 authorization  would  be  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  convenience,  and  necessity.  242  Compliance  with  the  competitive  checklist  is  itself  a  strong  indicator  that  long  distance  entry  is 
 consistent  with  the  public  interest.  This  approach  reflects  the  Commissions  many  years  of  experience  with  the  consumer  benefits  that  flow  from  competition  in  telecommunications 
 markets. 
 71.  Nonetheless,  the  public  interest  analysis  is  an  independent  element  of  the  statutory  checklist  and,  under  normal  canons  of  statutory  construction,  requires  an  independent 


 determination.  243  Thus,  the  Commission  views  the  public  interest  requirement  as  an  opportunity  to  review  the  circumstances  presented  by  the  application  to  ensure  that  no  other  relevant  factors 
 exist  that  would  frustrate  the  congressional  intent  that  markets  be  open,  as  required  by  the  competitive  checklist,  and  that  entry  will  therefore  serve  the  public  interest  as  Congress 
 expected.  Among  other  things,  the  Commission  may  review  the  local  and  long  distance  markets  to  ensure  that  there  are  not  unusual  circumstances  that  would  make  entry  contrary  to  the  public 
 interest  under  the  particular  circumstances  of  the  application  at  issue.  244  Another  factor  that  could  be  relevant  to  the  analysis  is  whether  the  Commission  has  sufficient  assurance  that  markets 
 will  remain  open  after  grant  of  the  application.  While  no  one  factor  is  dispositive  in  this  analysis,  the  overriding  goal  is  to  ensure  that  nothing  undermines  the  conclusion,  based  on  the 
 Commissions  analysis  of  checklist  compliance,  that  markets  are  open  to  competition. 


 239  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20725,  para.  346;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at 
 4153,  para.  402. 
 240  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20785-  86,  para.  322;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15 
 FCC  Rcd  at  4153,  para.  402. 
 241  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4153,  para.  402. 


 242  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  C). 
 243  In  addition,  Congress  specifically  rejected  an  amendment  that  would  have  stipulated  that  full  implementation 
 of  the  checklist  necessarily  satisfies  the  public  interest  criterion.  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20747  at  para.  360-  66;  see  also  141  Cong.  Rec.  S7971,  S8043  (June.  8,  1995). 


 244  See  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20805-  06,  para.  360  (the  public  interest  analysis  may 
 include  consideration  of  whether  approval  .  .  .  will  foster  competition  in  all  relevant  telecommunications  markets). 
96
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  KATHLEEN  Q.  ABERNATHY 


 Re:  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International,  Inc.  for  Authorization  To  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Arizona,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  194, 
 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order. 
 This  Order,  granting  the  final  section  271  application,  marks  the  end  of  a  long,  transformative  process  that  has  opened  local  telecommunications  markets  and  augmented  long 
 distance  competition  throughout  the  country.  Our  state  colleagues  deserve  much  of  the  credit;  their  comprehensive  workshops  and  hearings  on  OSS  issues,  UNE  pricing,  performance 
 assurance  plans,  and  other  key  issues  laid  the  groundwork  for  all  of  our  decisions  under  section  271.  I  also  want  to  recognize  the  talented  staff  of  the  Wireline  Competition  Bureau  for  providing 
 complex  and  incisive  analysis  under  very  tight  deadlines. 
 While  we  have  authorized  Bell  entry  into  the  long  distance  market  in  every  state,  our  work  is  plainly  not  done.  We  must  intensify  our  focus  on  enforcement,  pursuant  to  section 
 271(  d)(  6),  to  ensure  that  the  local  markets  remain  open  to  competition.  The  Commission  also  must  complete  its  examination  of  the  regulatory  framework  that  applies  to  the  Bell  companies 
 provision  of  long  distance  service.  If  a  BOC  integrates  its  operations  after  the  sunset  of  the  section  272  requirements,  to  what  extent  should  dominant  carrier  regulations  be  retained?  I  look 
 forward  to  working  with  my  colleagues  on  an  answer  to  that  important  question.  I  also  hope  that  the  Commission  promptly  completes  the  pending  rulemaking  concerning  possible  elimination  of 
 the  ban  on  sharing  operation,  installation,  and  maintenance  functions.  Dominant  carrier  regulations,  the  OI&  M  rule,  and  other  legacy  regulations  may  not  be  necessary  in  todays 
 increasingly  competitive  marketplace.  I  do  not  know  at  this  point  precisely  what  level  of  regulatory  oversight  we  do  need,  but  I  urge  the  Commission  to  complete  its  review  so  that  we 
 can  ensure  that  our  rules  are  tailored  to  the  current  environment. 
97
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 JOINT  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONERS  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS  AND  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 


 Re:  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Arizona  (WC  Docket  No.  03-  194) 
 Todays  decision  is  one  for  the  history  books.  By  granting  Qwest  authority  to  provide  in-region,  long-  distance  service  in  Arizona,  we  complete  a  cycle  of  state-  by-  state  review  of  local 
 competition  that  was  set  in  motion  by  Congress  in  the  1996  Act.  We  commend  Qwest  for  its  efforts  and  also  thank  the  Arizona  Corporation  Commission  and  the  Wireline  Competition 
 Bureau.  Without  the  hard  work  of  all  three,  we  would  not  reach  this  milestone  in  the  Section  271  process. 


 But  this  is  in  no  way  the  end  of  the  Section  271  process  at  least  it  shouldnt  be.  The  real  challenge  is  only  beginning.  We  must  put  in  place  a  rigorous  and  sustained  monitoring 
 process  to  ensure  continued  compliance.  Congress  set  up  the  parameters  for  this  process  in  Section  271.  If  at  any  time  the  Commission  determines  that  a  Bell  Operating  Company  has 
 ceased  to  satisfy  the  market-  opening  conditions  required  for  Section  271  approval,  the  statute  compels  us  to  order  corrections,  impose  penalties,  or  suspend  or  revoke  approval.  Competition 
 is  not  guaranteed  forever  by  Section  271  it  is,  at  best,  only  enabled. 
 We  need  to  take  our  enforcement  duty  more  seriously.  We  have  taken  a  step  in  the  right  direction  by  establishing  a  formal  Section  271  Compliance  Review  Program.  Yet  our  practice 
 has  been  little  more  than  requiring  Bell  Operating  Companies  to  provide  the  Commission  with  performance  data  for  the  first  year  following  long-  distance  authorization.  This  strikes  us  as  a  lax 
 way  to  go  about  ensuring  continued  compliance.  A  more  credible  process  would  include  this  kind  of  oversight  beyond  just  the  first  year  following  approval.  Instead,  we  have  stuck  our  head 
 in  the  sand,  willfully  blind  to  the  possibility  that  problems  may  arise  after  the  first  year  of  long-distance  entry.  Competitors  always  are  free  to  file  complaints,  but  we  believe  the  statute 
 compels  us  to  do  more  here  at  the  Commission.  Without  effective  monitoring,  we  may  find  that  the  old  monopoly  forces  that  led  to  the  breakup  of  Ma  Bell  will  just  piece  themselves  back 
 together  again. 
 Through  the  Section  271  process,  we  have  unleashed  a  new  era  of  competition,  choice  and  innovation  for  American  consumers.  For  consumers  to  continue  to  reap  these  benefits,  the 
 Commission  will  need  to  fortify  its  enforcement  process  to  ensure  local  markets  remain  fully  and  irreversibly  open  to  competition.  We  look  forward  to  working  cooperatively  with  our  colleagues 
 and  our  counterparts  in  the  States  to  ensure  that  this  becomes  a  reality. 
98