*Pages 1--114 from  Microsoft Word - Merge06-26_FINAL_.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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  Minnesota 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  )  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  June  25,  2003  Released:  June  26,  2003 
 By  the  Commission:  Commissioners  Copps  and  Adelstein  issuing  separate  statements. 
 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Para. 


 I.  INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................  1 
 II.  BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................  4 
 A.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  UNBUNDLING  RULES............................................................................  8 
 III.  PRIMARY  ISSUES  IN  DISPUTE.................................................................................  10 
 A.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  2    UNBUNDLED  NETWORK  ELEMENTS..................................................  12  1.  Operations  Support  Systems  .........................................................................................  15 


 2.  UNE  Combinations.......................................................................................................  40  3.  Pricing  of  Unbundled  Network  Elements  .....................................................................  41 


 IV.  OTHER  ITEMS  ..............................................................................................................  50 
 A.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  1    INTERCONNECTION  ...........................................................................  50  B.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  4    UNBUNDLED  LOCAL  LOOPS..............................................................  53 


 C.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  14    RESALE...........................................................................................  58  D.  REMAINING  CHECKLIST  ITEMS  (3,  5-  13)............................................................................  59 


 V.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  SECTION  271(  c)(  1)(  A)..........................................................  60 
 VI.  SECTION  272  COMPLIANCE.....................................................................................  62 
 VII.  PUBLIC  INTEREST  ANALYSIS.................................................................................  66 
 A.  ASSURANCE  OF  FUTURE  COMPLIANCE...............................................................................  69  B.  UNFILED  INTERCONNECTION  AGREEMENTS.......................................................................  73 


 1.  Background...................................................................................................................  75 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 2 
 2.  Discussion.....................................................................................................................  80 
 VIII.  SECTION  271(  d)(  6)  ENFORCEMENT  AUTHORITY..............................................  94 


 IX.  CONCLUSION  ...............................................................................................................  97 
 X.  ORDERING  CLAUSES.................................................................................................  98 
 APPENDIX  A    LIST  OF  COMMENTERS 
 APPENDIX  B    MINNESOTA  PERFORMANCE  DATA 
 APPENDIX  C    STATUTORY  REQUIREMENTS 


 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  On  March  28,  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  Minnesota.  2  In  this  Order,  we  grant  the  application  based  on  our  conclusion  that  Qwest  has  taken  the  statutorily 
 required  steps  to  open  its  local  exchange  markets  in  Minnesota  to  competition. 
 2.  In  ruling  on  Qwests  application,  we  wish  to  acknowledge  the  effort  and  dedication  of  the  Minnesota  Public  Utilities  Commission  (Minnesota  Commission),  which  has 


 expended  significant  time  and  effort  overseeing  Qwests  implementation  of  the  requirements  of  section  271.  The  Minnesota  Commission,  working  independently  and  with  the  Regional 
 Oversight  Committee  (ROC),  a  cooperative  group  of  state  commissions  in  the  Qwest  region,  conducted  proceedings  to  determine  Qwests  section  271  compliance.  3  In  particular,  the  ROC 
 worked  together  on  the  design  and  execution  of  the  regional  operations  support  systems  (OSS)  testing.  The  Minnesota  Commission  also  conducted  state-  specific  pricing  proceedings,  and 
 adopted  the  performance  measurements  and  standards  developed  through  the  ROC,  including  a  Performance  Assurance  Plan  (PAP)  based  on  Qwests  PAP  in  Colorado.  4  As  the  Commission 
 has  repeatedly  recognized,  state  proceedings  demonstrating  a  commitment  to  advancing  the  pro- 


 1  We  refer  to  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  by  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  as  the 
 Communications  Act  or  the  Act.  47  U.  S.  C.    151  et  seq. 
 2  See  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.  for  Authority  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA 
 Services  in  Minnesota,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  Mar.  28,  2003)  (Qwest  Application). 
 3  See  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  7-  8. 


 4  Id.  at  5-  6;  see  also  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  25,  Declaration  of  Jerrold  L.  Thompson,  paras.  6-  20  (Qwest 
 Thompson  Decl.)  (detailing  pricing  proceedings  and  orders);  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  26,  Declaration  of  Mark  S.  Reynolds  at  paras.  8,  11  (Qwest  Reynolds  Decl.)  (detailing  PAP  and  performance  measurement 


 proceedings). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 3 
 competitive  purposes  of  the  Act  serve  a  vitally  important  role  in  section  271  proceedings.  5  While  the  Minnesota  Commission  was  unable  to  reach  a  collective  determination  on  certain 
 issues,  we  commend  the  state  for  its  enormous  time  and  effort  in  developing  this  application. 
 3.  The  outstanding  work  of  the  Minnesota  Commission  and  Qwests  extensive  efforts  to  open  its  local  exchange  network  to  competition  have  resulted  in  competitive  entry  in 


 Minnesota.  Qwest  estimates  that,  as  of  December  31,  2002,  competitive  LECs  served  approximately  26.7  percent  of  all  lines  in  Minnesota,  including  106,827  UNE-  Loops  and  84,428 
 UNE-  Platform  lines.  6  We  are  confident  that  the  hard  work  of  the  Minnesota  Commission  to  ensure  that  the  local  exchange  market  in  Minnesota  is  open  to  competition  will  benefit 
 consumers  by  making  increased  competition  in  all  telecommunications  service  markets  possible  in  this  state.  We  are  also  confident  that  the  Minnesota  Commission,  as  it  addresses  allegations  of 
 past  violations  of  the  statute  by  Qwest  and  considers  any  future  problems  that  may  develop,  will  continue  to  ensure  that  Qwest  meets  its  statutory  obligations. 


 II.  BACKGROUND 
 4.  In  the  1996  amendments  to  the  Communications  Act,  Congress  required  that  the  Bell  Operating  Companies  (BOCs)  demonstrate  compliance  with  certain  market-  opening 


 requirements  contained  in  section  271  of  the  Act  before  providing  in-  region,  interLATA  long  distance  service.  Under  section  271,  Congress  requires  that  the  Commission  review  BOC 
 applications  to  provide  such  service  in  consultation  with  the  affected  state  and  the  Attorney  General.  7 


 5.  The  Minnesota  Commission  independently  reviewed  the  record  developed  in  the  ROC;  conducted  open  proceedings  with  ample  opportunities  for  participation  by  interested  third 
 parties;  conducted  state-  specific  pricing  procedures  to  establish  initial  rates  for  unbundled  network  elements  (UNEs)  and  interconnection;  and  reviewed,  modified,  and  adopted  a  PAP.  8 
 The  Minnesota  Commission  also  conducted  an  enforcement  proceeding  concerning  unfiled 
 5  See  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-  138,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  17419,  17421,  para.  3 


 (2001)  (Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order),  appeal  pending,  Z-  Tel  Communications  v.  FCC,  No.  01-  1461  (D.  C.  Cir.  filed  Oct.  17,  2001);  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,  CC  Docket  No.  01-  100,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  14147,  14149, 
 para.  3  (2001)  (Verizon  Connecticut  Order);  Application  of  Verizon  New  England  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic  Communications,  Inc.  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Long  Distance),  NYNEX  Long  Distance  Company  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Enterprise 
 Solutions)  and  Verizon  Global  Networks  Inc.,  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Massachusetts,  CC  Docket  No.  01-  9,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  8988,  8990,  para.  2  (2001) 
 (Verizon  Massachusetts  Order)  affd  sub  nom.  WorldCom,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  308  F.  3d  1  (D.  C.  Cir.  2002). 
 6  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  2,  Declaration  of  David  L.  Teitzel  (Qwest  Teitzel  Decl.)  at  para.  15. 


 7  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  2)(  A)-(  B). 
 8  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  2-  6. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 4 
 agreements  between  Qwest  and  certain  competitive  LECs,  in  which  it  found  that  the  interconnection  agreements  should  have  been  filed  pursuant  to  section  252  of  the  Act,  that 
 Qwests  failure  to  do  so  constituted  discrimination  in  favor  of  those  particular  competitive  LECs,  and  that  financial  penalties  were  warranted.  9 


 6.  Although  the  Minnesota  Commission  determined  that  Qwest  has  satisfied  12  of  the  14  checklist  items,  it  did  not  reach  a  collective  determination  with  respect  to  checklist  items 
 2  and  14,  pertaining  to  unbundled  network  elements  (UNEs)  and  resale,  respectively,  and  public  interest  issues.  10  Specifically,  two  out  of  the  four  voting  commissioners  found  that  issues  related 
 to  the  accuracy  of  service  usage  reports  and  wholesale  bills  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance  with  respect  to  item  2.  Additionally,  three  out  of  the  four  voting  commissioners 
 found  that  issues  related  to  unfiled  agreements  indicated  that  Qwest  was  not  in  compliance  with  checklist  item  14  and  the  public  interest  requirement.  11  The  issues  raised  by  the  Minnesota 
 Commission  are  discussed  in  detail  below.  12 
 7.  The  U.  S.  Department  of  Justice  recommends  approval  of  Qwests  application,  although  deferring  to  the  Commissions  prior  decision  regarding  the  relevance  of  discriminatory 


 interconnection  agreements  on  the  section  271  process.  13  The  Department  of  Justice  concludes  opportunities  are  available  to  competing  carriers  serving  business  and  residential  customers.  14 
 Although  only  a  small  portion  of  residential  customers  are  served  via  the  UNE-  Platform,  the  Department  of  Justice  does  not  believe  there  are  any  material  obstacles  to  such  entry  created  by 
 Qwest.  15 
 A.  Compliance  With  Unbundling  Rules 
 8.  One  part  of  the  required  showing,  as  explained  in  more  detail  below,  is  that  the  applicant  satisfies  the  Commissions  rules  governing  unbundled  network  elements.  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 


 9  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  App.  E,  Order  Assessing  Penalties,  Minnesota  Docket  No.  P-  42YC-  02-  197 
 (Feb.  28,  2003)  at  3,  4-  6. 
 10  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  2. 


 11  Id.;  see  also  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Reha  at  25-  30,  Separate 
 Joint  Statement  of  Commissioners  Scott/  Johnson  at  32-  37. 
 12  See  infra  Sections  III.  A.  1  (Operations  Support  Systems),  IV.  C  (Resale),  and  VII.  B  (Unfiled  Interconnection 
 Agreements). 
 13  Department  of  Justice  Evaluation  at  2-  3.  The  Department  of  Justice  also  recommends  that  the  Commission 
 investigate  the  issues  raised  by  commenters  regarding  billing  completion  notifiers  (BCNs)  and  high  reject  rates,  which  we  discuss  in  Section  III.  A.  1  (Operations  Support  Systems)  infra.  Id.  at  2  n.  5,  7  n.  24. 


 14  Id.  at  6-  7. 
 15  Id. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 5 
 251(  c)(  3)  and  checklist  item  2.  In  the  UNE  Remand  and  Line  Sharing  Orders,  the  Commission  established  a  list  of  UNEs  which  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)  operations  support  systems;  and 
 (7)  the  high  frequency  portion  of  the  loop.  16  However,  the  D.  C.  Circuit  vacated  these  orders  and  instructed  the  Commission  to  reevaluate  the  network  elements  subject  to  the  unbundling 
 requirement.  17  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.  18  These  rules,  however,  have  not  yet  become  effective. 
 9.  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.  19  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.  20  We  find  it  significant  that  no  commenter  disputes  that  Qwest  should  be  required 
 to  demonstrate  that  it  provides  these  network  elements  in  a  nondiscriminatory  way.  Accordingly,  for  the  purposes  of  this  application,  we  will  evaluate  whether  Qwest  provides 


 16  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 


 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). 
 17  See  United  States  Telecom  Assn  v.  FCC,  290  F.  3d  415  (D.  C.  Cir.  2002),  cert.  denied,  123  S.  Ct.  1571  (2003). 


 18  See  FCC  Adopts  New  Rules  For  Network  Unbundling  Obligations  Of  Incumbent  Local  Phone  Carriers,  News 
 Release,  (rel.  Feb.  20,  2003)  (announcing  adoption  of  an  Order  on  Remand  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  in  CC  Docket  No.  01-  338,  Review  of  the  Section  251  Unbundling  Obligations  of  Incumbent  Local 


 Exchange  Carriers)  (Triennial  Review  News  Release). 
 19  See  Qwest  Application  at  25. 


 20  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.  Bell  Atlantic  filed  its  application  for  section  271  authorization  in  New  York  after  the  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  for  the  application.  See  id.  at  3966-  67,  paras.  29-  31. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 6 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  network  elements  identified  under  the  former  unbundling  rules.  21  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.  22 
 III.  PRIMARY  ISSUES  IN  DISPUTE 
 10.  As  in  recent  section  271  orders,  we  will  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,  23  and  we  attach  comprehensive  appendices  containing  performance  data  and  the  statutory  framework  for 
 approving  section  271  applications.  24  Our  conclusions  in  this  Order  are  based  on  performance  data  as  reported  in  carrier-  to-  carrier  reports  reflecting  service  in  the  period  from  November  2002 
 through  March  2003. 
 11.  We  focus  in  this  Order  on  the  issues  in  controversy  in  the  record.  Accordingly,  we  begin  by  addressing  issues  concerning  Qwests  compliance  with  checklist  item  number  2, 


 access  to  UNEs.  Next,  we  address  checklist  items  1,  4,  and  14,  which  cover  interconnection,  access  to  unbundled  local  loops,  and  resale,  respectively.  The  remaining  checklist  requirements 
 are  discussed  briefly,  as  they  received  little  or  no  attention  from  commenting  parties,  and  our  own  review  of  the  record  leads  us  to  conclude  that  Qwest  has  satisfied  these  requirements. 
 Finally,  we  discuss  issues  concerning  compliance  with  Track  A,  section  272  and  the  public  interest  requirement. 


 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 


 21  The  new  rules  adopted  in  the  Triennial  Review  proceeding  will  not  take  effect  until  after  release  of  this  Order. 
 Consistent  with  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  will  not  require  Qwest  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  rules  that  have  yet  to  take  effect.  See  id.  at  3967,  para.  31. 


 22  See  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,  18368,  para.  29  (2000)  (SWBT  Texas  Order);  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3967,  para.  3. 


 23  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);  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  Appendix  C  (Statutory  Requirements). 


 24  See  generally  Appendix  B  (Minnesota  Performance  Data),  and  Appendix  C. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 7 
 251(  c)(  3)  and  252(  d)(  1)  of  the  Act.  25  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.  26  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  Qwest  has  satisfied  the  requirements  of  checklist 
 item  2.  27  In  reaching  this  conclusion,  we  recognize  that  the  Minnesota  Commission  did  not  reach  a  collective  determination  with  regard  to  this  checklist  item.  28 


 13.  In  this  section,  we  address  aspects  of  this  checklist  item  that  raised  significant  issues  concerning  whether  Qwests  performance  demonstrates  compliance  with  the  Act:  (1) 
 Operations  Support  Systems  (OSS);  (2)  provisioning  of  UNE  combinations;  and  (3)  UNE  pricing.  Aside  from  OSS,  UNEs  that  Qwest  must  make  available  under  section  251(  c)(  3)  are 
 listed  as  separate  items  on  the  competitive  checklist,  and  are  addressed  below  under  other  checklist  items,  as  are  any  provisioning  issues  that  may  be  in  dispute.  29 


 14.  As  an  initial  matter,  we  note  that  the  Minnesota  Commissions  failure  to  reach  a  collective  decision  on  checklist  item  2  was  in  part  based  on  the  Minnesota  Administrative  Law 
 Judges  (ALJs)  report  finding  that,  for  checklist  item  2,  Qwest  relied  on  UNE-  Star  30  as  its  UNE  product.  31  The  Minnesota  ALJ  concluded  that  Qwests  application  for  approval  should  not  be 


 25  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii). 
 26  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  3). 
 27  See  Qwest  Application  at  25-  31.  See  generally  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  6,  Declaration  of  Lynn  M.  V. 
 Notarianni  and  Christie  L.  Doherty  (Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl.). 
 28  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  9;  see  also  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Statement  of 
 Chairman  Koppendrayer  at  20-  21;  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Reha  at  26;  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Joint  Statement  of  Commissioners  Scott/  Johnson  at  32-  33. 


 29  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B).  For  example,  unbundled  loops,  transport,  and  switching  are  listed  separately  as 
 checklist  items  4,  5,  and  6. 
 30  UNE-  Star  is  a  product,  unique  to  Qwest,  that  combines  elements  of  resale  orders  and  UNE-  Platform  orders. 
 Parties  have  also  referred  to  UNE-  Star  as  UNE-  E  or  UNE-  Eschelon  or  UNE-  McLeod  or  UNE-  M.  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,  26355,  para.  86  n.  300  (2002)  (Qwest  9-  State 
 Order).  Although  AT&  T  argues  that  other  carriers  cannot  order  UNE-  Star  products,  the  record  shows  that  the  Eschelon  and  McLeod  agreements  containing  UNE-  Star  provisions  were  filed  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  and 
 are  available  for  opt-  in  by  other  carriers.  See  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice-  President  -  Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  June 
 23,  2003)  at  1  (Qwest  June  23A  Ex  Parte  Letter);  Letter  from  Robert  W.  Quinn,  AT&  T,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  June  18,  2003)  at  1-  4  (AT&  T  June 
 18  Ex  Parte  Letter);  Letter  from  Robert  W.  Quinn,  AT&  T,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  June  24,  2003)  at  1-  3  (AT&  T  June  24  Ex  Parte  Letter). 


 31  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  9;  see  also  AT&  T  Reply  at  25. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 8 
 granted  until  all  UNE-  Star  lines  are  converted  to  UNE-  Platform.  32  Significantly,  in  the  period  since  the  Minnesota  ALJ  conducted  its  investigation,  Qwest  has  converted  the  vast  majority  of 
 its  UNE-  Star  customers  to  UNE-  Platform.  33  We  note  that  the  decision  to  convert  lines  from  UNE-  Star  to  UNE-  Platform  does  not  lie  solely  with  Qwest.  34  Therefore,  we  do  not  require 
 Qwest  to  convert  all  of  its  UNE-  Star  lines  to  UNE-  Platform  lines  in  order  to  be  checklist  compliant. 


 1.  Operations  Support  Systems 
 15.  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.  35  In  addition,  a  BOC  must  show  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  UNEs  and  that  it  has  an  adequate  change  management 
 process  in  place  to  accommodate  changes  made  to  its  systems.  36  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  in  Minnesota.  37  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.  38  First,  we  discuss  the  relevance  of  Qwests  regionwide  OSS.  Second,  we  focus  our  discussion  on  those  issues  in  controversy,  which  in  this  instance  primarily  involve  certain 
 elements  of  Qwests  pre-  ordering,  ordering,  maintenance  and  repair,  wholesale  billing,  and  change  management  practices. 


 32  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  9. 
 33  Qwest  Reply,  Attach.,  Tab  2,  Reply  Declaration  of  Lynn  M.  V.  Notarianni  and  Christie  L.  Doherty  (Qwest 
 Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.)  at  Ex.  CLD-  3  (showing  that,  as  of  the  end  of  March  2003,  93%  of  POTS  lines  and  69.  4%  of  POTS/  Centrex  lines  were  UNE-  Platform  lines  rather  than  UNE-  Star  lines). 


 34  Most  competitive  LECs  have  converted  their  POTS  lines  from  UNE-  Star  to  UNE-  Platform,  although  several 
 competitive  LECs  still  are  using  Centrex  lines  from  the  UNE-  Star  product  offering.  Id.  Although  AT&  T  argues,  based  on  a  recent  filing  made  by  Eschelon  in  the  Arizona  section  271  proceeding,  that  carriers  will  be  reluctant  to 


 migrate  away  from  UNE-  Star  because  UNE-  Star  provides  access  to  certain  features  not  available  on  the  UNE-Platform,  we  find  that  Qwest  does  provide  access  to  those  features  through  the  UNE-  Platform  in  Minnesota.  See 
 Qwest  June  23A  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2.  Additionally,  we  note  that  the  Minnesota  ALJs  concerns  are  based  on  billing  accuracy  issues  related  to  UNE-  Star,  which  are  discussed  infra,  Section  III.  A.  1.  e  (Billing). 


 35  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26320,  para.  34;  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  services  to  their  customers.  See  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18396-  97,  para.  92. 


 36  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26320,  para.  34;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3999, 
 para.  102  and  n.  280. 
 37  See  Qwest  Application  at  25-  31.  See  generally  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl. 


 38  See  Verizon  Connecticut  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  14151,  para.  9. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 9 
 a.  Relevance  of  Qwests  Regionwide  OSS 
 16.  Consistent  with  our  precedent,  Qwest  relies  in  this  application  on  evidence  concerning  its  regionwide  OSS.  Specifically,  Qwest  asserts  that  its  OSS  in  Minnesota  is  the 


 same  as  its  OSS  in  the  entire  13-  state  region  that  participated  in  the  ROC  test.  39  The  13  participating  states  in  Qwests  local  service  region  initiated  a  collaborative  process  to  design  an 
 overall  plan  for  ensuring  that  Qwests  OSS  and  related  databases  and  personnel  are  available  to  competitive  LECs  in  an  open  and  nondiscriminatory  manner.  40  As  discussed  in  the  Qwest  9- 
 State  Order,  to  support  its  claim  that  its  OSS  is  the  same  across  all  states,  Qwest  relies  on  the  comprehensive  BearingPoint  test.  41  BearingPoint,  in  addition  to  administering  the  overall  test, 
 performed  a  regional  differences  assessment  (RDA),  which  showed  that  Qwests  ordering,  provisioning,  maintenance  and  repair,  and  competitive  LEC  relationship  management  and 
 infrastructure  are  materially  consistent  across  the  region.  42 
 17.  Where  Qwest  provides  evidence  that  a  particular  system  that  was  reviewed  and  approved  in  one  of  the  twelve  states  where  Qwest  received  section  271  approval  is  also  used  in 


 Minnesota,  our  review  will  be  informed  by  our  findings  in  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  the  Qwest  3-  State  Order.  43  We  find  that  Qwest,  through  the  BearingPoint  test  and  its  declarations, 
 provides  sufficient  evidence  that  its  OSS  in  Minnesota  is  the  same  as  in  those  12  states. 
 18.  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.  44  We  base  this  determination  on  Qwests  actual  performance  in  the  state  of  Minnesota.  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.  45  Isolated  cases  of  performance 
 disparity,  especially  when  the  margin  of  disparity  is  small,  generally  will  not  result  in  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance.  46 


 39  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl.,  paras.  18-  55. 
 40  Id.  at  para.  19. 
 41  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26321,  para.  36.  The  third-  party  test  was  conducted  by  Bearing  Point 
 f/  k/  a  KPMG  Consulting,  Inc. 
 42  See  id. 


 43  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. 
 44  See  Qwest  Application  at  25-  31;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl.,  paras.  56-  548;  see  also  Appendix  B. 


 45  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26321-  22,  para.  37. 
 46  See  id. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 10 
 b.  Pre-  ordering 
 19.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  demonstrates  it  provides  carriers  with  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS  pre-  ordering  functions.  We  disagree  with 


 AT&  Ts  allegation  that  deficiencies  in  Qwests  Electronic  Data  Interchange  (EDI)  interface  place  AT&  T  at  a  competitive  disadvantage.  47  Specifically,  AT&  T  states  that  defects  in  Qwests 
 EDI  interface  create  an  impediment  to  AT&  Ts  market  entry  in  Minnesota  by  forcing  AT&  T  to  use  Qwests  Graphical  User  Interface  (GUI),  which  is  not  integratable  with  AT&  Ts  own 
 systems.  48  As  we  found  in  both  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  the  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  other  competitive  LECs  have  been  able  to  successfully  integrate  their  systems  with  Qwests  EDI 
 interfaces.  49  Therefore,  we  do  not  find  that  the  issues  raised  by  AT&  T  regarding  Qwests  EDI  and  GUI  interfaces  rise  to  the  level  of  checklist  noncompliance. 


 c.  Ordering 
 20.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  demonstrates  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  ordering  systems.  50  Specifically,  as  discussed  below,  we 


 conclude  that  Qwest  has  shown  that  it  is  able  to  flow  through  orders  properly,  establish  adequate  processes  and  procedures  for  providing  billing  completion  notices  (BCNs)  to  competitive 
 LECs,  51  and  process  orders  through  its  EDI  interface.  52 


 47  AT&  T  Comments  at  17-  18. 
 48  AT&  T  Comments  at  18;  AT&  T  Comments,  Declaration  of  John  F.  Finnegan,  paras.  7-  9  (AT&  T  Finnegan 
 Decl.)  (stating  that  the  design  of  Qwests  customer  service  record  (CSR)  makes  it  difficult  for  AT&  T  to  auto-populate  information  into  a  local  service  request  (LSR)). 


 49  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26327,  para.  45;  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,  FCC  03-  81,  para.  55  (Qwest  3-  State  Order);  see 


 also  Qwest  Reply  at  9. 
 50  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl.,  paras.  156-  305. 


 51  The  Department  of  Justice  noted  the  critical  importance  to  competitive  LECs  of  timely  and  accurate  BCNs  and 
 mentioned  that  the  Commission  should  review  AT&  Ts  claims  that  Qwest  is  not  adequately  providing  BCNs.  Department  of  Justice  Evaluation  at  7  n.  24. 


 52  We  note  that  other  ordering  issues  related  to  documentation  are  discussed  in  Change  Management,  below. 
 Additionally,  we  conclude  that  MCIs  allegation  that  several  MCI  customers  do  not  appear  to  be  receiving  MCI  branding  when  they  call  directory  or  operator  assistance  does  not  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance. 


 MCI  Reply  at  4.  The  record  shows  that  MCI  alerted  Qwest  of  the  branding  problem  on  May  1,  2003,  and  Qwest  subsequently  resolved  the  issue  on  May  9,  2003.  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President    Federal 
 Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Ms.  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  1-  2  (filed  May  16,  2003)  (Qwest  May  16A  Ex  Parte  Letter).  In  addition,  we  do  not  find  that  MCIs  recent 
 allegations  that  Qwests  business  rules  do  not  clearly  document  how  MCI  should  request  that  Directory  Assistance  Call  Completion  (DACC)  be  blocked  for  MCI  customers  rise  to  the  level  of  checklist  noncompliance.  See  Letter 
 from  Lori  Wright,  Attorney  -  Federal  Advocacy,  MCI,  to  Ms.  Marlene  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  2-  3  (filed  June  13,  2003)  (MCI  June  13  Ex  Parte  Letter).  The  record  shows 
 (continued.) 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 11 
 21.  Order  Flow-  through.  53  As  an  initial  matter,  the  Commission  has  looked  to  order  flow-  through  as  a  potential  indicator  of  a  wide  range  of  problems  that  underlie  a  determination 
 of  whether  a  BOC  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS.  54  The  Commission  has  not  relied  on  flow-  through  rates  as  the  sole  indicator  of  nondiscrimination,  however,  and  thus  has  not 
 limited  its  analysis  of  a  BOCs  ordering  process  to  a  review  of  its  flow-  through  performance  data.  55 


 22.  Although  Qwest  failed  to  reach  benchmarks  with  respect  to  electronic  flow-through  metrics  in  Minnesota,  we  do  not  find  that  this  warrants  a  finding  of  checklist 
 noncompliance.  56  We  note  that  Qwests  overall  performance  with  respect  to  electronic  flow-through  in  Minnesota  is  superior  to  flow-  through  achieved  during  the  pendency  of  both  the 
 Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  the  Qwest  3-  State  Order.  57  Moreover,  Qwests  flow-  through  rates  are  comparable  to  those  of  other  BOCs  that  the  Commission  has  previously  approved.  58  Although 
 we  do  not  rely  on  it,  we  take  comfort  in  Qwests  April  7,  2003  fix  to  address  UNE-  Platform 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  that  Qwest  provides  adequate  documentation  describing  how  to  block  DACC.  See  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman, 
 Vice  President  -  Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  1-  2  (filed  June  18,  2003)  (Qwest  June  18A  Ex  Parte  Letter);  see  also  MCI 
 June  13  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2.  Furthermore,  the  record  shows  that  Qwest  and  MCI  have  reached  an  agreement  that  will  result  in  DACC  blocking  being  implemented  for  all  new  and  existing  MCI  end  users.  Qwest  June  18A  Ex 
 Parte  Letter  at  2. 
 53  Flow-  through  measures  the  percentage  of  orders  that  pass  through  an  incumbents  ordering  systems  without  the 
 need  for  manual  intervention. 
 54  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4035,  para.  162. 


 55  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26369-  70,  para.  106. 
 56  See  PO-  2B-  1  (Electronic  Flow-  through  for  all  Eligible  LSRs  Received  via  IMA,  Resale)  showing  an  average  of 
 93.43%  compared  to  a  95%  benchmark  and  PO-  2B-  1  (Electronic  Flow-  through  for  all  Eligible  LSRs  Received  via  IMA,  UNE-  P,  POTS)  showing  an  average  of  84.37%  compared  to  a  90%  benchmark  from  November  to  December 


 2002  and  a  95%  benchmark  from  January  2003  to  March  2003. 
 57  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26587-  811,  Appendices  B-  J;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  Appendices  B-  E. 


 58  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,  Appendix  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,  Appendix  B  (2002)  (Verizon  New  Jersey  Order). 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 12 
 flow-  through  problems  associated  with  new  connect  LSRs  and  Qwests  May  1,  2003  system  modifications  to  address  minor  flow-  through  problems  with  resale  orders.  59 
 23.  Billing  Completion  Notices.  The  record  shows  that  competitive  LECs  have  nondiscriminatory  access  to  billing  completion  notices.  60  Thus,  we  reject  competitive  LEC 
 allegations  that  Qwest  has  not  established  adequate  processes  and  procedures  for  providing  BCNs  to  competitive  LECs  that  request  them.  61  Specifically,  we  reject  competitive  LEC 
 allegations  that  Qwests  procedure  of  sending  BCNs  at  the  service  order  level  instead  of  the  LSR  level  places  competitive  LECs  at  a  competitive  disadvantage.  62  Even  though  Qwest  is  not 
 providing  BCNs  in  the  format  which  competitive  LECs  would  prefer,  Qwest  is  providing  to  competitive  LECs  all  of  the  information  that  Qwest  is  required  to  provide.  63  Moreover,  to  the 
 extent  that  a  sufficient  number  of  competitive  LECs  would  prefer  a  different  format,  they  may  request  one  through  the  change  management  process.  Indeed,  although  we  do  not  rely  on  it,  we 
 note  that  AT&  T  has  submitted  a  change  request  through  Qwests  change  management  process  to  modify  Qwests  processes  to  provide  only  one  BCN  per  LSR.  64 


 24.  Furthermore,  we  reject  AT&  Ts  argument  that  Qwest  fails  to  provide  competitive  LECs  with  documentation  that  will  allow  competitive  LECs  to  correctly  set  up  their  own  systems 
 in  order  to  receive  BCNs.  65  Qwest  states  that  while  it  did  remove  some  of  the  documentation  regarding  BCNs  from  its  IMA  Release  11.0,  the  removed  information  is  not  needed  by 
 competitive  LECs  to  program  an  EDI  interface  to  receive  BCNs.  66  Additionally,  when  AT&  T  pointed  out  that  Qwest  had  removed  the  information,  Qwest  stated  that  the  same  information 
 could  be  found  in  the  documentation  present  in  IMA  Release  10.0.  67  Furthermore,  once  Qwest  realized  that  the  competitive  LEC  community  was  seeking  the  documentation  in  IMA  Release 


 59  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.,  paras.  22-  23.  In  February  2003,  53  rate  zone  orders  did  not  flow 
 through  because  certain  rate  zone  information  was  not  included  on  new  connect  LSRs.  Id.  Qwest  implemented  a  fix  for  this  rate  zone  issue  on  April  7,  2002,  with  the  release  of  IMA  Release  12.0.  Id. 


 60  Qwest  Reply  at  20-  21. 
 61  AT&  T  Comments  at  19-  21;  AT&  T  Reply  at  18-  20;  MCI  Reply  at  3-  4. 
 62  Id. 
 63  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.,  paras.  64-  65.  For  example,  posting  information  is  available  to 
 competitive  LECs  in  the  same  manner  that  it  is  available  to  Qwest  retail.  Id.  at  para.  64.  Additionally,  unlike  competitive  LECs,  Qwest  retail  does  not  receive  advance  notices  that  service  orders  have  posted  to  the  billing 


 system.  Id.  at  para.  65. 
 64  AT&  T  Comments  at  20-  21.  This  change  has  been  prioritized  as  number  25  by  the  competitive  LEC 
 community  for  possible  inclusion  in  IMA  Release  14.0  in  December  2003.  Qwest  Reply  at  21. 
 65  AT&  T  Comments  at  20. 


 66  Qwest  Reply  at  20;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.,  paras.  59-  61. 
 67  Id. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 13 
 11.0,  Qwest  republished  the  documentation  on  April  24,  2003.  68  We  take  further  comfort  from  Qwests  assurance  that  it  did  include  the  BCN  documentation  in  IMA  Release  12.0.  69  We  find 
 that  Qwests  removal  of  the  documentation  was  a  one-  time  occurrence  which  Qwest  remedied  as  soon  as  it  became  aware  of  its  mistake.  Therefore,  we  find  that  the  issues  related  to  BCNs  do  not 
 rise  to  the  level  of  checklist  noncompliance. 
 25.  Reject  Rates.  We  reject  competitive  LECs  allegations  that  Qwests  high  reject  rates  for  LSRs  submitted  via  EDI  require  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance.  70  Specifically, 


 AT&  T  expresses  concern  about  the  increase  in  the  reject  rates  from  December  2002  through  March  2003.  71  Based  on  the  evidence  before  us,  we  conclude,  however,  that  Qwests  reject  rates 
 do  not  appear  to  indicate  systemic  OSS  problems.  The  record  shows  that  a  recalculation  of  those  rates  by  removing  one  competitive  LEC  for  January  through  March  2003  yields  reject  rates 
 similar  to  rates  found  in  section  271  applications  previously  approved  by  the  Commission.  72  Additionally,  the  record  shows  that  one  competitive  LEC  ordering  migrate-  as-  specified  orders 
 (similar  to  the  orders  submitted  by  the  competitive  LEC  that  had  high  reject  rates  in  February 


 68  See  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President  -  Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch, 
 Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  1  (filed  May  15,  2003)  (Qwest  May  15A  Ex  Parte  Letter). 


 69  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.,  para.  61. 
 70  AT&  T  Reply  at  18-  20;  MCI  Reply  at  1-  3  (rejecting  Qwests  implication  that  MCI  was  to  blame  for  Qwests 
 high  reject  rate  in  January  and  February  and  stating  that  rejects  result  from  Qwests  inadequate  documentation);  Letter  from  Richard  E.  Young,  Counsel  to  AT&  T,  to  Ms.  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications 


 Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  2-  5  (filed  Apr.  29,  2003)  (AT&  T  April  29  Ex  Parte  Letter);  Letter  from  Richard  E.  Young,  Counsel  to  AT&  T,  to  Ms.  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission, 
 WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  2-  3  (filed  Apr.  30,  2003)  (AT&  T  April  30  Ex  Parte  Letter);  MCI  June  13  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2.  Regionwide,  competitive  LECs  using  EDI  experienced  high  reject  rates.  See  PO-  4B-  2  (LSRs  Received  via 
 EDI    Auto-  Rejected)  showing  (27%,  26.3%,  48.5%,  38.1%,  and  49.2%),  PO-  4B-  1  (LSRs  Received  via  EDI    Manually  Rejected)  showing  (3.8%,  4.0%,  3.3%,  3.6%,  3.2%)  for  November  2002  to  March  2003. 


 71  AT&  T  Reply  at  20;  AT&  T  Apr.  29  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2-  3. 
 72  The  recalculated  reject  rates  are  19.5%,  26%,  and  38%  for  January,  February,  and  March,  respectively.  Letter 
 from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President    Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Ms.  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  1  (filed  May  22,  2003)  (Qwest  May  22E  Ex  Parte  Letter). 


 The  high  reject  rate  in  January  was  caused  by  competitive  LEC  error,  which  that  competitive  LEC  has  since  corrected.  See  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President    Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Ms.  Marlene  H. 
 Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  1  (filed  Apr.  22,  2003)  (Qwest  Apr.  22A  Ex  Parte  Letter).  The  high  reject  rates  in  February  and  March  resulted  from  a  different  competitive  LEC. 
 Qwest  May  22E  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1;  see  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President    Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Ms.  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  3-  4, 
 Attach.  D  (citing  confidential  version)  (filed  May  30,  2003)  (Qwest  May  30C  Ex  Parte  Letter);  see  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4044,  para.  175  n.  552  (reporting  reject  rates  between  27%  and  34% 
 during  the  relevant  months  of  its  New  York  section  271  application).  The  wide  variation  in  competing  LECs  individual  reject  rates  suggests  that  the  disparate  reject  rate  may  be  a  function  of  the  competing  carriers  experience 
 using  the  BOCs  system,  rather  than  the  system  itself.  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  6237,  6304-  05,  para.  143. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 14 
 and  March  2003)  experienced  extremely  low  reject  rates  for  the  relevant  five-  month  period.  73  Furthermore,  although  we  do  not  rely  on  it,  we  note  that  Qwest  implemented  migrate-  as-specified 
 and  migrate-  by-  telephone  number  with  EDI  version  12.0  on  April  7,  2003,  which  should  help  lower  competitive  LEC  reject  rates  arising  from  feature  and  address  problems.  74  If 
 reject  rates  deteriorate  past  the  recalculated  levels  that  we  rely  upon  in  this  application,  we  will  not  hesitate  to  take  appropriate  enforcement  action  under  our  section  271(  d)(  6)  authority.  75 


 d.  Maintenance  and  Repair 
 26.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  Qwest  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  maintenance  and  repair  OSS  functions.  76  We  find  that  Qwest  has 


 deployed  the  necessary  interfaces,  systems,  and  personnel  to  enable  requesting  carriers  to  access  the  same  maintenance  and  repair  functions  that  Qwest  provides  to  itself.  77  Below,  we 
 briefly  discuss  how  the  commercial  data  demonstrate  that  Qwests  systems  are  functional  and  provide  service  to  competitive  LECs  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  We  note  that  no 
 commenter  raises  issues  related  to  Qwests  provision  of  maintenance  and  repair  OSS  functions. 
 27.  We  conclude  that  the  commercial  data  demonstrate  that  Qwest  addresses  trouble  complaints  for  competing  carriers  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  that  it  addresses 


 complaints  from  its  own  retail  customers.  78  We  base  our  conclusion  on  the  fact  that,  from  November  2002  to  March  2003,  Qwest  missed  few  parity  performance  measures.  79  Although 
 there  are  minor  problems  with  some  of  Qwests  maintenance  and  repair  quality  metrics,  these  are 


 73  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President    Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Ms.  Marlene  H.  Dortch, 
 Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  Attach.  (citing  confidential  version)  (filed  May  14,  2003)  (Qwest  May  14A  Ex  Parte  Letter).  While  the  Department  of  Justice  remarked  that  Qwest  did 


 not  explain  the  high  reject  rates  experienced  by  competing  LECs,  Qwest  subsequently  submitted  evidence  disaggregating  reject  rates  by  competitive  LEC  for  migrate-  as-  specified  orders.  See  Department  of  Justice 
 Evaluation  at  2  n.  5;  Qwest  May  14A  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  Attach. 
 74  Qwest  Apr.  22A  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2. 


 75  See  n.  72  supra. 
 76  See  Qwest  Application  at  81;  Appendix  B;  see  also  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  9  (explaining  that  the 
 Minnesota  Commission  did  not  reach  a  decision  regarding  checklist  item  2,  but  not  citing  maintenance  and  repair  performance  as  an  outstanding  issue);  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26397-  98,  para.  155;  Qwest  3-  State 


 Order,  para.  49. 
 77  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4067,  para.  211. 


 78  See  Qwest  Application  at  28-  30,  69;  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  27,  Declaration  of  Michael  G.  Williams 
 (Qwest  Williams  Decl.),  paras.  219-  28,  283-  89. 
 79  Qwests  overall  performance  in  promptly  clearing  out-  of-  service  orders,  clearing  troubles  in  a  timely  fashion, 
 responding  to  customer  calls  on  a  timely  basis,  restoring  service,  and  meeting  repair  appointments  indicates  that  Qwest  performs  these  functions  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  for  both  competitive  LECs  and  Qwests 


 retail  customers.  See  generally  Appendix  B. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 15 
 not  significant  enough  to  detract  from  our  conclusion  that  Qwest  provides  nondiscriminatory  OSS  access. 
 28.  First,  Qwest  failed  to  achieve  parity  in  four  of  the  relevant  months  for  the  repair  repeat  report  rate  metric  for  UNE-  Platform  POTS.  80  According  to  Qwest,  its  misses  on  this 
 metric  are  due,  in  part,  to  trouble  reports  for  which  no  troubles  were  found.  81  When  this  metric  is  recalculated  to  exclude  these  trouble  reports,  Qwests  performance  improves,  with  misses  in  only 
 two  of  the  five  relevant  months.  82  Given  Qwests  nondiscriminatory  maintenance  and  repair  performance  for  all  other  types  of  orders  and  that  this  problem  appears  to  be  isolated  to  the 
 repeat  trouble  metric,  we  find  that  Qwests  performance  on  this  metric  does  not  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance.  83 


 29.  Second,  we  also  recognize  that  some  of  Qwests  trouble  rate  performance  results  fail  to  demonstrate  parity.  84  Although  troubles  for  competitive  LECs  were  reported  slightly  more 


 80  See  MR-  7  (Repair  Repeat  Report  Rate)  for  UNE-  P  POTS  (non-  dispatch)  showing  (19.39%,  14.44%,  7.95%, 
 14.  66%,  13.  71%)  for  competitive  LECs  versus  (11.  12%,  8.  49%,  10.  04%,  8.  22%,  8.  96%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers  for  November  2002  to  March  2003;  see  also  Qwest  Application  at  29;  Qwest  Williams  Decl.,  para.  222. 


 81  See  Qwest  Reply,  App.  at  A-  1.  Qwest  has  developed  the  MR-  7*  PID  to  track  this  trend.  See  Qwest  Williams 
 Decl.,  para.  21.  The  MR-  7*  PID  calculates  the  repair  repeat  report  rate  by  excluding  all  trouble  reports  that  were  originally  coded  to  No  Trouble  Found  because  no  trouble  was  found,  and  which  after  the  first  report  was  closed, 


 received  no  other  trouble  report  within  30  days  of  the  original  report.  See  id.  We  note  that  Qwest  has  stated  that,  while  the  ROC  TAG  could  not  reach  agreement  on  adopting  the  *  PID  approach  for  Qwests  modified  versions  of 
 three  PIDs,  OP-  5*,  MR-  7*,  and  MR-  8*,  these  results  are  reported  as  additional  information  to  help  explain  apparent  disparities  and  to  provide  evidence  that  the  apparent  disparities  are  not  due  to  discrimination.  See  id.  at  para.  23. 
 As  in  previous  Qwest  section  271  orders,  we  find  it  appropriate  to  consider  the  adjusted  results  from  the  modified  PIDs  as  part  of  Qwests  performance  data.  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26489-  90,  para.  341; 
 Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  47. 
 82  See  MR-  7*  (Repair  Repeat  Report  Rate)  for  UNE-  P  POTS  (non-  dispatch)  showing  (17.91%,  16.95%,  8.20%, 
 17.  11%,  9.  64%)  for  competitive  LECs  versus  (11.  99%,  9.  11%,  10.  86%,  9.  73%,  9.  78%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers  for  November  2002  to  March  2003. 


 83  We  note  that  Qwest  also  argues  that  this  metric  has  been  adversely  affected  by  switch  feature  incompatibility 
 problems.  It  is  reviewing  the  causes  of  this  problem  and  commits  to  resolve  this  incompatibility  issue.  See  Qwest  Reply,  App.  at  A-  1  (explaining  that  the  combination  of  Hunting  and  Call  Forwarding  features  is  incompatible  with 


 Qwests  DMS-  100  switches  and  that  Qwest  is  using  a  manual  provisioning  process  to  address  this  incompatibility  issue). 


 84  See  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  UNE-  P  Centrex  showing  (0.49%,  0.52%,  0.44%,  0.47%,  0.42%)  for  competitive 
 LECs  versus  (0.13%,  0.08%,  0.11%,  0.10%,  0.11%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers;  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  Centrex  showing  (0.  64%,  0.  87%,  0.  58%,  0.  84%,  0.  22%)  for  competitive  LECs  versus  (0.  13%,  0.  08%,  0.  11%,  0.  10%, 


 0.11%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers;  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  Centrex  21  showing  (0.73%,  0.62%,  0.64%,  0.82%,  1.  12%)  for  competitive  LECs  versus  (0.  40%,  0.  43%,  0.  40%,  0.  48%,  0.  47%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers;  MR-  8 
 (Trouble  Rate)  for  PBX  showing  (0.  15%,  0.13%,  0.22%,  0.20%,  0.17%)  for  competitive  LECs  versus  (0.14%,  0.12%,  0.10%,  0.13%,  0.11%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers;  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  Basic  Rate  ISDN  showing 
 (0.  64%,  0.  13%,  0.  74%,  0.  86%,  1.  31%)  for  competitive  LECs  versus  (0.  30%,  0.  25%,  0.  28%,  0.  28%,  0.  37%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers;  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  ISDN  Primary  showing  (0.10%,  0.00%,  0.09%,  0.35%,  0.12%)  for 
 competitive  LECs  versus  (0.03%,  0.04%,  0.02%,  0.03%,  0.03%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers;  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  (continued.) 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 16 
 often  than  for  Qwests  retail  customers  for  these  services,  we  find  that  these  disparities  are  not  competitively  significant  given  the  low  competitive  LEC  trouble  rates.  85 
 e.  Billing 
 30.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  billing  functions.  86  We  find  that  Qwest  complies  with  its 


 obligation  to  provide  complete,  accurate,  and  timely  service  usage  records  and  wholesale  bills.  Additionally,  we  find  that  Qwests  performance  on  the  relevant  measurements  satisfies  the  parity 
 or  benchmark  standards,  with  few  exceptions.  87  The  Commission  has  established  in  past  section  271  orders  that,  as  part  of  its  OSS  showing,  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  competing  carriers 
 have  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  billing  systems.  88  In  particular,  BOCs  must  provide  two  essential  billing  functions:  (1)  complete,  accurate,  and  timely  reports  on  the  service  usage  of 
 competing  carriers  customers;  and  (2)  complete,  accurate,  and  timely  wholesale  bills.  89  Service  usage  reports  and  wholesale  bills  are  issued  by  incumbent  LECs  to  competitive  LECs  for  two 
 different  purposes.  90  Service-  usage  reports  are  issued  to  competitive  LECs  that  purchase  UNEs,  such  as  unbundled  switching,  and  measure  the  types  and  amounts  of  incumbent  LEC  services 
 used  by  a  competitive  LECs  end  users.  91  Qwest,  using  the  same  process  that  it  uses  for  its  own  (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 for  DS1s  showing  (1.  65%,  1.  84%,  2.  74%,  2.  61%,  2.  23%)  for  competitive  LECs  versus  (1.  22%,  1.  25%,  1.  30%,  1.34%,  1.32%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers  for  November  2002  to  March  2003. 


 85  The  five-  month  averages  for  the  competitive  LEC  trouble  rates  were  0.47%  (UNE-  P  Centrex),  0.64% 
 (Centrex),  0.76%  (Centrex  21),  0.17%  (PBX),  0.72%  (Basic  Rate  ISDN),  0.14%  (ISDN  Primary),  and  2.22%  (DS1).  All  relevant  months  and  the  five-  month  average  for  each  metric  are  below  3%,  which  the  Commission  has 


 found  to  be  acceptable  in  past  section  271  orders.  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26488,  para.  340  n.  1237;  Verizon  Maine  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  11691,  para.  49  n.  209. 


 86  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl.,  paras.  421-  548;  Qwest  Application  at  81-  84;  Qwest  Reply  at  13-  22;  see  also 
 Department  of  Justice  Evaluation  at  8  (finding  that  concerns  regarding  Qwests  billing  processes  reflect  private  disputes  between  parties,  one-  time  errors,  or  de  minimis  misses).  But  see  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  9 


 (stating  that  the  Minnesota  Commission  did  not  reach  a  collective  decision  regarding  checklist  item  2  because  of  concerns  regarding  billing  accuracy). 


 87  In  Minnesota,  competitive  LECs  billing  accuracy  under  BI-  3A  (Adjustments  for  Errors,  UNEs  and  Resale)  is 
 98.06%  versus  99.30%  for  Qwest  retail,  on  average,  from  November  2002  through  March  2003.  We  do  not  find  this  discrepancy  to  be  competitively  significant.  See  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Attach.  3  at  32.  Because 


 of  this  mismatch  between  the  month  the  credit  occurred  and  the  month  that  is  being  billed,  we  have  previously  relied  on  other  billing  metrics,  if  available.  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26382,  para.  126  nn.  470-  71. 
 We  note  that  Qwest  achieved  parity  under  BI-  5A  and  BI-  5B    billing  metrics  which  were  adopted  subsequent  to  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  which  are  patterned  after  the  performance  metrics  adopted  by  Verizon  subsequent  to  the 
 billing  problems  noted  in  our  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order.  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17432-  17436,  paras.  24-  27  (2001). 


 88  See  Verizon  New  Jersey  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  12333,  para.  121. 
 89  See  id. 
 90  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26374,  para.  115. 
 91  See  id. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 17 
 end  users,  collects  competitive  LEC  end-  user  usage  data  via  the  Daily  Usage  File  (DUF).  92  In  contrast,  wholesale  bills  are  issued  by  incumbent  LECs  to  collect  compensation  for  competitive 
 LEC  wholesale  inputs,  such  as  UNEs  used  by  competitive  LECs  to  provide  service  to  their  end  users.  93  These  bills  are  usually  generated  on  a  monthly  basis,  and  allow  competitors  to  monitor 
 the  costs  of  providing  service.  94 
 31.  Daily  Usage  Files.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  complies  with  the  checklist  item  2  standards  for  provision  of  DUF.  95  Our  conclusion  is  based  on 


 commercial  data  as  well  as  BearingPoints  third-  party  audit  of  Qwests  billing  systems,  processes  and  performance.  Notably,  BearingPoint  concluded  that  Qwest  can  create  and 
 distribute  bills  to  competitive  LECs  in  an  accurate  and  timely  fashion.  96 
 32.  Although  we  recognize  that  two  of  the  four  Minnesota  Commissioners  expressed  concern  about  Qwests  ability  to  provide  accurate  DUF  records,  the  Minnesota  ALJs  findings, 


 upon  which  the  two  Commissioners  based  their  conclusions,  are  based  on  evidence  concerning  a  manual  process  for  providing  usage  information  for  UNE-  Star,  which  Qwest  no  longer  uses.  97 
 Qwest  established,  beginning  in  mid-  2001,  the  same  mechanized  process  for  providing  usage  information  for  UNE-  Star  and  UNE-  Platform.  98  Furthermore,  as  the  Commission  found  in  the 
 Qwest  9-  State  Order,  these  concerns  regarding  UNE-  Star  DUF  issues  appear  to  be  disputes  between  the  parties,  and  more  appropriate  for  the  interconnection  dispute  resolution  process.  99 
 As  there  is  no  recent  commercial  evidence  of  deficiencies  in  Qwests  DUF,  we  do  not  find  that  the  concerns  regarding  Qwests  DUF  rise  to  the  level  of  checklist  noncompliance.  100 


 33.  Wholesale  Bills.  We  find  that  Qwests  Customer  Record  and  Information  System  (CRIS)  wholesale  bills  provide  competitive  LECs  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 
 Commenters  raise  the  following  arguments,  which  are  discussed  below,  regarding  Qwests  wholesale  bills:  (1)  Qwests  Billing  Output  Specification-  Billing  Data  Tape  (BOS-  BDT)  bills  are 
 inaccurate;  (2)  Qwests  paper  bills  are  inaccurate;  (3)  Qwest  does  not  properly  provide 


 92  See  id.,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26375,  para.  116. 
 93  See  Verizon  New  Jersey  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  12333,  para.  121. 
 94  See  id. 
 95  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl.,  paras.  498-  511. 
 96  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26384,  para.  131. 
 97  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl.,  para.  509;  Qwest  Reply  at  13,  16. 
 98  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl.,  para.  509. 
 99  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26383-  84,  para.  130  n.  481. 
 100  We  also  reject  competitive  LECs  generalized  claims  that  Qwest  provides  incorrect  DUF  records.  MCI 
 Comments  at  3;  AT&  T  Reply  at  26.  We  note  that  we  addressed  these  specific  complaints  from  MCI  concerning  DUF  information  in  the  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  51  n.  161. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 18 
 information  needed  in  order  for  competitive  LECs  to  bill  Qwest  for  terminating  access  charges;  and  (4)  the  billing  adjustment  performance  metric  is  not  reliable  as  a  result  of  Qwests  UNE-  Star 
 billing  adjustments.  101 
 34.  First,  we  reject  AT&  Ts  argument  that  inaccuracies  in  Qwests  BOS-  BDT  bills  rise  to  the  level  of  checklist  noncompliance.  102  Qwest  produces  two  types  of  electronic  bills, 


 ASCII  bills  and  BOS-  BDT  bills.  103  As  we  found  in  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  Qwests  ASCII  bill  is  an  accurate,  auditable  electronic  bill.  104  We  do  not  need  to  find  that  other  types  of  electronic 
 bills  provided  by  Qwest  are  accurate  and  auditable  for  Qwest  to  be  checklist  compliant.  In  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  we  commended  Qwest  for  making  available  a  BOS-  formatted  bill,  but  we 
 did  not  rely  on  Qwests  provision  of  the  BOS-  formatted  bill  to  support  our  finding  that  Qwest  provides  accurate  and  auditable  electronic  bills.  105  Thus,  we  do  not  find  that  AT&  Ts  allegations 
 about  discrepancies  between  Qwests  BOS-  BDT  bills  and  Qwests  paper  bills  rise  to  the  level  of  checklist  noncompliance.  106 


 35.  Second,  we  do  not  find  that  AT&  Ts  allegations  regarding  inaccuracies  in  Qwests  paper  bills  rise  to  the  level  of  checklist  noncompliance.  107  The  record  shows  that  the 
 improper  pay-  per-  use  charges  about  which  AT&  T  complains  amounted  to  1  percent  or  less  of  AT&  Ts  bill  each  month.  108  The  record  also  shows  that  Qwest  has  removed  the  improper  $.  49 
 service  line  charge  from  AT&  Ts  paper  bill  and  has  taken  measures  to  ensure  this  type  of  charge 


 101  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  9  (citing  Qwest  Application  App.  K,  Vol.  3,  Tab  317,  paras.  310-  24) 
 (Minnesota  ALJ  Recommendation  on  Checklist  Items);  AT&  T  Comments  at  22-  24;  AT&  T  Reply  at  26. 
 102  AT&  T  Comments  at  23;  see  also  AT&  T  Apr.  29  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1-  2;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply 
 Decl.,  paras.  73-  97. 
 103  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl.,  paras.  426-  47. 


 104  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26379-  81,  para.  124;  see  also  Qwest  Reply  at  21-  22. 
 105  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26381,  para.  125. 
 106  AT&  T  Comments  at  23-  24;  see  also  AT&  T  April  29  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1-  2;  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply 
 Decl.,  para  77  (stating  that  every  electronic  BOS  bill  generated  by  Qwest  for  AT&  T  since  November  2002  has  matched  the  paper  bill  at  the  summary  level  for  total  amount  owed).  We  note  that  Qwest  is  working  to  improve  its 


 BOS-  BDT  bill.  Qwest  Reply  at  21.  Qwest  has  made  significant  improvements  to  its  BOS-  BDT  bill  since  its  introduction  in  July  2002,  including  a  fix  to  remove  the  disparity  between  the  BOS-  BDT  bill  and  Qwests  paper  bill 
 if  billing  adjustments  were  made  after  the  final  bill  had  been  generated,  and  correction  of  a  usage  rounding  error.  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.,  paras.  74-  87.  Furthermore,  we  do  not  require  that  Qwests  BOS-  BDT  bill 
 be  generated  from  the  Carrier  Access  Billing  System  (CABS)  rather  than  from  the  Customer  Record  Information  System  (CRIS),  which  Qwest  currently  uses  to  generate  BOS-  BDT  bills.  See  AT&  T  Finnegan  Decl.,  para.  10  n.  10. 


 107  AT&  T  Comments  at  23-  24. 
 108  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.,  para.  100. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 19 
 does  not  improperly  appear  on  competitive  LECs  bills.  109  Therefore,  we  do  not  find  the  issues  raised  by  AT&  T  about  Qwests  paper  bills  to  be  competitively  significant. 
 36.  Third,  we  reject  AT&  Ts  argument  that  Qwest  fails  to  provide  competitive  LECs  with  information  needed  in  order  for  competitive  LECs  to  bill  Qwest  for  terminating  access 
 charges  when  a  Qwest  customers  intraLATA  toll  call  terminates  to  a  competitive  LECs  local  exchange  customer  served  by  a  competitive  LECs  switch.  110  Where  AT&  T  terminates  calls  at 
 one  of  its  own  switches,  AT&  T  can  obtain  usage  information  from  either  its  own  switch  or  from  the  out-  of-  office  band  signaling  stream.  111  The  record  shows  that  for  AT&  T  UNE-  Platform 
 customers,  where  AT&  T  would  not  have  access  to  the  information  in  the  switch  where  the  call  was  terminated,  Qwest  provides  the  information  AT&  T  needs  to  bill  Qwest  for  terminating 
 access.  112  Since  Qwest  provides  the  necessary  information  to  competitive  LECs,  we  do  not  find  that  AT&  Ts  complaints  rise  to  the  level  of  checklist  noncompliance. 


 37.  Finally,  we  conclude  that  the  concerns  raised  in  the  Minnesota  ALJs  recommendation  about  the  billing  adjustment  performance  metric    upon  which  two  of  the  four 
 voting  members  of  the  Minnesota  Commission  relied    are  misplaced.  113  Specifically,  the  Minnesota  ALJ  argues  that  the  billing  adjustment  performance  metric  was  manipulated  as  a 
 result  of  refunds  given  via  bill  adjustments  to  those  competitive  LECs  using  UNE-  Star  and  is,  therefore,  ineffective  at  demonstrating  whether  Qwest  is  providing  accurate  bills  to  competitive 
 LECs  for  UNE-  Platform.  114 
 38.  We  note  that  the  Minnesota  ALJs  finding  was  based  on  a  factual  situation  that  no  longer  existed  at  the  time  this  application  was  filed.  We  find  that  the  volume  of  UNE-  Star  orders 


 has  declined  significantly  and  that  performance  metrics  pertaining  to  our  relevant  5-  month  period  mainly  reflect  UNE-  Platform  orders.  115  Moreover,  this  issue  does  not  appear  to  be  an 
 issue  of  billing  accuracy.  Instead,  the  ALJs  concerns  focused  on  Qwests  provision  of  refunds 


 109  Id.  at  para.  81. 
 110  AT&  T  Comments  at  23;  AT&  T  Reply  at  25-  26. 
 111  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.,  para.  70. 
 112  Id.  at  para.  71. 
 113  Minnesota  ALJ  Recommendation  on  Checklist  Items,  para.  320.  We  note  that  two  out  of  the  four  voting 
 Minnesota  Commissioners  adopted  the  Minnesota  ALJs  recommendation  that  these  billing  concerns  prevent  a  finding  of  compliance  with  checklist  item  2. 


 114  Minnesota  ALJ  Recommendation  on  Checklist  Items,  para.  320.  UNE-  Platform,  priced  at  the  sum  of  prices  of 
 the  network  elements,  is  priced  lower  than  resale  in  Minnesota.  Id.  at  paras.  89-  100.  Qwest  offered  the  two  largest  competitive  LECs  in  Minnesota,  Eschelon  and  McLeod,  an  alternative  to  UNE-  Platform  called  UNE-  Star.  Id. 


 UNE-  Star  was  ordered  by  those  competitive  LECs  as  resale,  billed  as  resale,  and  Qwest  would  make  subsequent  end-  of-  month  adjustments  to  ensure  the  price  of  UNE-  Star  reflected  the  lower  UNE-  Platform  price.  Id. 


 115  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.,  Ex.  CLD-  3. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 20 
 given  only  to  certain  competitive  LECs  using  UNE-  Star  through  unfiled  agreements.  116  As  to  UNE-  Star,  the  evidence  in  the  record  indicates  that  the  billing  adjustments  at  issue  were  an 
 agreed-  upon  mechanism  to  provide  a  true-  up,  and  those  adjustments  do  not  reflect  a  problem  with  billing  accuracy  as  we  have  examined  it  in  past  applications.  The  issue  of  unfiled 
 agreements  is  discussed  fully  in  the  Public  Interest  section,  below.  117  Thus,  we  find  that  the  concerns  raised  by  the  Minnesota  ALJ  do  not  rise  to  the  level  of  checklist  noncompliance. 


 f.  Change  Management 
 39.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  Qwest  provides  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete  by  providing  sufficient  access  to  its  OSS.  118  We 


 reject  competitive  LEC  arguments  that  Qwest  provides  such  poor  documentation  to  competitors  about  its  systems  that  it  must  fail  checklist  item  2.  119  Commenters  have  not  raised  any  arguments 
 relating  to  documentation  that  we  have  not  fully  addressed  in  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  the  Qwest  3-  State  Order.  120  Thus,  we  find  no  reason  to  alter  our  conclusion  in  the  instant 
 application.  121 


 116  Qwest  Reply  at  14-  16. 
 117  See  Section  VII.  B.  (Unfiled  Interconnection  Agreements)  infra. 
 118  See  Qwest  Application  at  25-  31.  See  generally  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Decl. 
 119  MCI  Comments  at  3;  AT&  T  Finnegan  Decl.,  para.  8;  AT&  T  Reply  at  17. 
 120  AT&  T  Finnegan  Decl.,  para.  8  (stating  that  the  test  environment  offered  by  Qwest  differs  significantly  from  its 
 production  environment);  MCI  Reply  at  2  (stating  that  high  reject  rates  are  the  result  of  Qwests  inadequate  documentation);  MCI  June  13  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1-  2;  see  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  paras.  55-  62;  Qwest  9-  State  Order, 


 17  FCC  Rcd  at  26388-  89,  para.  139  (finding  that  Qwests  Stand  Alone  Test  Environment  (SATE)  is  designed  to  ensure  that  competitive  LECs  EDI  interfaces  can  communicate  with  Qwests  systems  regarding  key  functionalities 
 and  allow  real-  world  orders  to  be  tested);  see  also  Qwest  Notarianni/  Doherty  Reply  Decl.,  para.  7.  Additionally,  AT&  T  states  that  Qwest  has  not  implemented  more  than  20  of  AT&  Ts  change  requests  (CRs),  encompassing 
 various  OSS  functions  from  pre-  ordering  through  billing.  AT&  T  Finnegan  Decl.,  para.  10.  The  record  shows  that  in  processing  AT&  Ts  change  requests,  Qwest  has  followed  the  change  management  process  designed 
 collaboratively  by  competitive  LECs  (including  AT&  T)  and  Qwest.  Qwest  Reply  at  10.  Specifically,  the  record  shows  that  Qwest  has  not  delayed  in  processing  AT&  Ts  CRs  or  implementing  those  that  have  been  approved. 
 Qwest  Reply  at  10.  Many  of  the  pending  AT&  T  CRs  were  submitted  after  January  1,  2003    including  each  of  the  CRs  specifically  mentioned  by  AT&  T.  Qwest  Reply  at  10-  11;  see  AT&  T  Finnegan  Decl.,  para.  10  &  nn.  8-  10; 
 Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President    Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Ms.  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  at  1  (filed  May  16,  2003)  (Qwest  May  16B  Ex  Parte 
 Letter). 
 121  See  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  paras.  55-  58. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 21 
 2.  UNE  Combinations 
 40.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  Qwest  meets  its  obligation  to  provide  access  to  UNE  combinations  in  compliance  with  Commission  rules.  122  In  order  to 


 satisfy  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii),  a  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  network  elements  in  a  manner  that  allows  requesting  carriers  to  combine  such  elements 
 and  that  the  BOC  does  not  separate  already  combined  elements,  except  at  the  specific  request  of  the  competing  carrier.  123  Although  Qwest  missed  the  benchmark  for  EELs  installation 
 commitments,  124  we  find  that  the  performance  disparities  do  not  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance,  given  the  comparatively  low  volumes  and  the  lack  of  complaints  by  competitors 
 regarding  EELs  provisioning.  125  Recognizing  the  difficulty  of  drawing  meaningful  conclusions  from  relatively  low  volumes,  126  we  note  that  in  Colorado  where  Qwest  experienced  significantly 
 higher  volumes  of  competitive  LEC  orders  for  EELs,  127  it  performed  at  or  near  the  benchmark  during  the  relevant  months  for  this  metric.  128 


 122  See  Qwest  Application  at  27-  31;  Appendix  B;  see  also  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  9  (explaining  that 
 the  Minnesota  Commission  did  not  reach  a  decision  regarding  checklist  item  2,  but  not  citing  EELs  as  an  outstanding  issue).  Issues  raised  by  the  Minnesota  Commission  regarding  UNE-  Platform  orders  are  discussed  in 


 Section  III.  A.  1.  e  (Billing)  supra. 
 123  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii);  47  C.  F.  R.    51.315.  On  May  13,  2002,  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court  upheld  sections 
 51.315(  c)-(  f)  of  the  Commissions  rules,  which,  subject  to  certain  limitations,  require  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  combinations  of  unbundled  network  elements  not  ordinarily  combined  in  the  incumbent  LECs  network  and  to 


 combine  unbundled  network  elements  with  the  elements  possessed  by  the  requesting  telecommunications  carrier.  Verizon  Communications,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  535  U.  S.  467,  539  (2002).  In  a  prior  decision,  the  Supreme  Court  upheld  the 
 Commissions  authority  to  adopt  sections  51.315(  a)-(  b)  of  the  Commissions  rules,  which  establish  the  general  obligation  of  an  incumbent  LEC  to  provide  combinations  of  network  elements  and  require  an  incumbent  LEC  not  to 
 separate  requested  elements  that  it  currently  combines,  except  upon  request.  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366,  385,  393-  95  (1999).  We  note  that  other  unbundled  network  elements  are  required  pursuant  to  the 
 checklist,  but  we  discuss  them  in  the  context  of  other  checklist  items. 
 124  See  OP-  3  (Installation  Commitments  Met)  for  EELs  in  Minnesota,  indicating  missed  benchmarks  in 
 December,  January,  February,  and  March.  In  these  months,  the  rates  of  installation  commitments  met  for  competitive  LECs  were  79.  41%,  85.  00%,  85.  71%,  and  70.  21%,  compared  to  the  90%  benchmark.  The  competitive 


 LEC  volumes  in  these  months  were  34,  40,  56,  and  47.  See  id. 
 125  See  Qwest  Application  at  30-  31;  Qwest  Williams  Decl.,  para.  230  (explaining  that  this  metric  is  particularly 
 sensitive  to  a  small  number  of  misses  due  to  the  low  volumes  ordered);  Qwest  Reply,  App.  at  A-  4;  see  also  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26401,  para.  162. 


 126  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26401,  para.  162  n.  608. 
 127  Volumes  for  OP-  3  (Installation  Commitments  Met)  for  EELs  in  Colorado  were  (236,  210,  206,  207,  198)  for 
 November  2002  to  March  2003.  See  Letter  from  Melissa  E.  Newman,  Vice  President    Federal  Regulatory,  Qwest,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  Apr.  30, 


 2003)  at  Attach.  1  (containing  November  2002  -  March  2003  Statewide  Performance  Summary  for  Colorado). 
 128  Qwest  missed  the  benchmarks  for  OP-  3  (Installation  Commitments  Met)  for  EELs  in  Colorado  in  November 
 and  January.  In  these  months,  the  rates  of  installation  commitments  met  for  competitive  LECs  were  88.  14%  and  89.81%,  compared  to  the  90%  benchmark.  See  id. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 22 
 3.  Pricing  of  Unbundled  Network  Elements 
 a.  Introduction 
 41.  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.  129  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.  130  Section  252(  d)(  1)  provides  that  a  state  commissions  determination  of  the  just  and  reasonable  rates  for 
 network  elements,  must  be  nondiscriminatory,  based  on  the  cost  of  providing  the  network  elements,  and  may  include  a  reasonable  profit.  131  Pursuant  to  this  statutory  mandate,  the 
 Commission  has  determined  that  prices  for  unbundled  network  elements  must  be  based  on  the  total  element  long  run  incremental  cost  (TELRIC)  of  providing  those  elements.  132 


 42.  In  applying  the  Commissions  TELRIC  pricing  principles  in  this  application,  we  do  not  conduct  a  de  novo  review  of  a  states  pricing  determinations.  133  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.  134  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. 


 43.  In  its  application,  Qwest  relies  on  a  benchmark  comparison  to  its  unbundled  network  element  rates  in  Colorado  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  its  unbundled  network  element 
 rates  in  Minnesota  fall  within  the  range  that  a  reasonable  application  of  TELRIC  principles  would  produce.  135  Based  on  a  benchmark  comparison  of  Qwests  unbundled  network  element 


 129  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii). 
 130  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  3). 
 131  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  d)(  1). 
 132  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  in  determining  the  costs  of  unbundled  network  elements.  Verizon  Communications,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  122  S.  Ct.  1646,  1679  (2002). 


 133  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17453,  para.  55  (citations  omitted).  See  also  Sprint  v.  FCC,  274 
 F.  3d  549,  556  (D.  C.  Cir.  2001)  (  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.). 
 134  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17453,  para.  55  (citations  omitted). 


 135  Qwest  Application  at  100-  101;  Qwest  Thompson  Decl.,  paras.  2,  14-  20. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 23 
 rates  in  Minnesota  to  its  unbundled  network  element  rates  in  Colorado,  we  find,  as  discussed  more  fully  below,  that  Qwests  unbundled  network  element  rates  in  Minnesota  fall  within  the 
 range  that  a  reasonable  application  of  TELRIC  principles  would  produce  and  therefore  satisfy  checklist  item  two. 


 b.  Background 
 44.  Arbitration  and  Generic  Cost  Docket.  Prices  for  unbundled  network  elements  were  first  established  by  the  Minnesota  Commission  on  December  2,  1996,  in  an  order 


 approving  the  first  arbitrated  interconnection  agreement  between  AT&  T  and  Qwest  in  Minnesota.  136  In  that  order,  the  Minnesota  Commission  initiated  a  generic  cost  docket  to 
 establish  prices  for  interconnection  and  unbundled  network  elements.  137  On  November  17,  1998,  the  ALJ  issued  a  report  in  the  generic  cost  docket  recommending  adoption  of  the  HAI  model, 
 with  modifications  to  engineering  and  expense  inputs,  to  establish  prices  for  unbundled  network  elements.  138  The  Minnesota  Commission  adopted  the  ALJs  recommendations  on  May  3, 
 1999.  139  On  March  15,  2000,  the  Minnesota  Commission  issued  an  order  on  reconsideration  establishing  additional  rates  not  addressed  in  the  prior  order,  and  directing  Qwest  to  make  a 
 compliance  filing  within  30  days  to  set  the  resulting  rates.  140 
 45.  Deaveraging  and  Line  Sharing  Dockets.  The  Minnesota  Commission  examined  the  issues  of  geographic  rate  deaveraging  and  line  sharing  in  separate  dockets.  The  Minnesota 


 Commission  issued  an  order  deaveraging  loop  rates  into  four  geographic  zones  on  July  10,  2000, 
 136  See  generally  Qwest  Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  2,  Tab  2,  Docket  Nos.  P-  422,  421/  M-  96-  855;  P-  5321,  421/  M-96- 
 909;  P-  3167,  421/  M-  96-  729;  P-  421/  CI-  01-  1375    In  the  Matter  of  Consolidated  Petitions  of  AT&  T  Communications  of  the  Midwest,  Inc.,  MCImetro  Access  Transmission  Services,  Inc.  and  MFS  Communications 


 Company  for  Arbitration  with  US  West  Communications,  Inc  Pursuant  to  Section  252(  b)  of  the  Federal  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Order  Resolving  Arbitration  Issues  and  Initiating  a  US  West  Cost  Proceeding  (rel. 
 Dec.  2,  1996)  (December  2,  1996  Arbitration  Order).  The  Minnesota  Commission  consolidated  the  interconnection  arbitration  proceedings  between  Qwest  and  each  of  AT&  T,  MCImetro  and  MFS  into  one  proceeding. 


 137  See  id.  at  60,  78. 
 138  Qwest  Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  2,  Tab  6,  Docket  No.  P-  442,  5231,  3167,  466,  421/  C1-  96-  1540    In  the 
 Matter  of  a  Generic  Investigation  of  US  West  Communications,  Inc.  s  Cost  of  Providing  Interconnection  and  Unbundled  Network  Elements,  ALJ  Report  (rel.  Nov.  17,  1998)  (ALJ  Generic  Cost  Docket  Report).  See  also  Qwest 


 Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  2,  Tab  23,  Docket  Nos.  P-  421/  CI-  01-  1375    In  the  Matter  of  the  Commissions  Review  and  Investigation  of  Qwests  Unbundled  Network  Element  (UNE)  Prices,  ALJ  Findings  of  Fact,  Conclusions  of 
 Law,  and  Recommendation  at  6  (rel.  Aug.  5,  2002)  (ALJ  Long-  Term  Rate  Recommendation). 
 139  Qwest  Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  2,  Tab  8,  Docket  No.  P-  442,  5231,  3167,  466,  421/  C1-  96-  1540    In  the 
 Matter  of  a  Generic  Investigation  of  US  West  Communications,  Inc.  s  Cost  of  Providing  Interconnection  and  Unbundled  Network  Elements,  Order  Resolving  Cost  Methodology,  requiring  Compliance  Filing,  and  Initiating 


 Deaveraging  Proceeding  (rel.  May  3,  1999)  (Generic  Cost  Docket  Order). 
 140  Qwest  Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  2,  Tab  9,  Docket  No.  P-  442,  5231,  3167,  466,  421/  C1-  96-  1540    In  the 
 Matter  of  a  Generic  Investigation  of  US  West  Communications,  Inc.  s  Cost  of  Providing  Interconnection  and  Unbundled  Network  Elements,  Order  Granting  Reconsideration,  Setting  Prices  and  Ordering  Compliance  Filing  (rel. 


 Mar.  15,  2000)  (Generic  Cost  Docket  Order  on  Reconsideration). 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 24 
 and  affirmed  this  order  on  reconsideration  on  October  5,  2000.  141  The  Minnesota  Commissions  line  sharing  proceeding  culminated  in  the  issuance  of  an  order  on  July  24,  2001,  which 
 established  a  zero  rate  for  the  high-  frequency  portion  of  the  loop  and  positive  rates  for  related  elements.  142 


 46.  Section  271  Cost  Docket.  On  September  11,  2001,  the  Minnesota  Commission  initiated  proceedings  relating  to  Qwests  application  for  section  271  approval  with  this 
 Commission.  The  proceeding  was  divided  into  several  specialized  dockets,  including  a  cost  docket  established  to  develop  prices  for  new  unbundled  network  elements  in  accordance  with 
 TELRIC  principles.  143  Independent  of  this  docket,  on  December  21,  2001,  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  filed  a  complaint  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  seeking  adjustment  of  Qwests 
 rates  for  certain  unbundled  network  elements,  particularly  those  elements  that  comprise  the  UNE-  Platform.  144  Subsequently,  this  complaint  proceeding  and  the  issues  raised  therein  were 
 consolidated  with  the  section  271  cost  docket.  145  On  April  4,  2002,  the  Minnesota  Commission  issued  an  order  declaring  all  rates  under  review  in  the  section  271  cost  docket  interim  subject  to 
 true-  up.  146  On  August  5,  2002,  after  months  of  pre-  filed  testimony,  hearings  and  briefs,  including  significant  participation  by  competitive  LECs  in  Minnesota,  the  ALJ  issued  its  recommendation 
 concerning  long-  term  rates.  147  The  ALJ  recommended  adoption  of  the  HAI  cost  model  5.2a  to  establish  recurring  rates,  the  loop  related  inputs  favored  by  the  competitive  LECs,  non-  usage 
 sensitive  rates  for  local  switching,  as  urged  by  AT&  T,  and  the  switching  and  transport  assumptions  proposed  by  competitive  LECs.  148  For  non-  recurring  charges,  the  ALJ 
 recommended  adoption  of  the  non-  recurring  cost  model  proposed  by  Qwest,  with  certain 
 141  See  Qwest  Thompson  Decl.,  para.  5.  See  also  Qwest  Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  2,  Tab  10,  Docket  No.  P-999/ 
 CI-  99-  465    In  the  Matter  of  Implementing  the  Geographic  Deaveraging  Requirements  of  47  C.  F.  R.    51.507(  f),  Order  Deaveraging  Unbundled  Network  Element  Rates  (rel.  July  10,  2000)  (Deaveraging  Order);  See 


 also  Qwest  Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  2,  Tab  12,  Docket  No.  P-  999/  CI-  99-  465    In  the  Matter  of  Implementing  the  Geographic  Deaveraging  Requirements  of  47  C.  F.  R.    51.507(  f),  Order  on  Reconsideration  (rel.  Oct.  5,  2000) 
 (Deaveraging  Order  on  Reconsideration). 
 142  See  Qwest  Thompson  Decl.,  para.  5. 


 143  See  Qwest  Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  2,  Tab  25,  Docket  Nos.  P-  421/  CI-  01-  1375  and  P-  442,  421,  3012/  M-  01- 
 1916    In  the  Matter  of  the  Commissions  Review  and  Investigation  of  Qwests  Unbundled  Network  Element  Prices  and  the  Commissions  Review  and  Investigation  of  Certain  Unbundled  Network  Element  Prices  of  Qwest,  Order 


 Setting  Prices  and  Establishing  Procedural  Schedule  at  1  (rel.  Oct.  2,  2002)  (Long-  Term  Rate  Order). 
 144  See  id. 


 145  See  id.  at  1-  2. 
 146  Qwest  Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  2,  Tab  20,  Docket  Nos.  P-  421/  CI-  01-  1375  and  P-  442,  421,  3012/  M-  01-  1916 
   In  the  Matter  of  the  Commissions  Review  and  Investigation  of  Qwests  Unbundled  Network  Element  Prices  and  the  Commissions  Review  and  Investigation  of  Certain  Unbundled  Network  Element  Prices  of  Qwest,  Order 


 Establishing  Interim  Rates  (rel.  Apr.  4,  2002)  (Interim  Rate  Order). 
 147  See  Long-  Term  Rate  Order  at  2.  See  also  ALJ  Long-  Term  Rate  Recommendation. 


 148  See  ALJ  Long-  Term  Rate  Recommendation  at  8-  37.  See  also  Qwest  Thompson  Decl.,  paras.  7-  9. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 25 
 adjustments.  149  For  collocation  rates,  the  ALJ  recommended  adoption  of  the  collocation  model  proposed  by  AT&  T  and  MCI  in  the  prior  generic  cost  proceeding  and  adopted  by  the  Minnesota 
 Commission  in  that  proceeding.  150  For  certain  new  collocation  elements,  however,  the  ALJ  recommended  adoption  of  Qwests  proposed  collocation  model,  with  certain  adjustments, 
 because  it  was  the  only  model  under  consideration  that  estimated  costs  for  these  elements.  151  The  Minnesota  Commission  adopted  the  ALJs  recommendations,  with  minor  modifications,  on 
 October  2,  2002,  152  and  denied  reconsideration  of  this  order  on  November  26,  2002.  153  Qwest  submitted  an  SGAT  in  compliance  with  the  Minnesota  Commissions  long-  term  rate  order  on 
 February  18,  2002.  On  March  24,  2003,  the  Minnesota  Commission  issued  an  order  accepting  Qwests  compliance  filing  and  establishing,  as  a  final  matter,  the  rates  Qwest  may  charge 
 competitive  LECs  for  unbundled  network  elements  at  issue  in  the  section  271  cost  proceeding.  154  On  April  23,  2003,  Qwest  filed  an  appeal  of  the  Minnesota  Commissions  March  24,  2003  order 
 in  federal  district  court  in  Minnesota.  That  proceeding  remains  pending.  155 
 c.  Benchmark  Analysis 
 47.  In  its  application,  Qwest  relies  on  a  benchmark  comparison  to  its  unbundled  network  element  rates  in  Colorado  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  its  unbundled  network  element 


 rates  in  Minnesota  fall  within  the  range  that  a  reasonable  application  of  TELRIC  principles  would  produce.  156  None  of  the  parties  has  challenged  Qwests  benchmark  analysis  for 
 Minnesota,  including  its  decision  to  use  Colorado  rates  as  the  basis  for  the  comparison.  Nonetheless,  we  perform  our  own  benchmark  analysis  of  Qwests  Minnesota  unbundled  network 
 element  rates  to  determine  whether  those  rates  comply  with  TELRIC  and  satisfy  checklist  item  two.  To  determine  whether  a  comparison  is  reasonable,  the  Commission  will  consider  whether 
 the  two  states  have  a  common  BOC;  whether  the  two  states  have  geographic  similarities;  whether  the  two  states  have  similar,  although  not  necessarily  identical,  rate  structures  for 
 comparison  purposes;  and  whether  the  Commission  has  already  found  the  rates  in  the 


 149  See  ALJ  Long-  Term  Rate  Recommendation  at  42-  49.  See  also  Qwest  Thompson  Decl.,  para.  11. 
 150  See  ALJ  Long-  Term  Rate  Recommendation  at  49-  57.  See  also  Qwest  Thompson  Decl.,  para.  12. 
 151  See  id.  Qwest  was  the  only  party  in  the  section  271  cost  docket  to  propose  a  collocation  cost  model.  See  ALJ 
 Long-  Term  Rate  Recommendation  at  51. 
 152  See  Long-  Term  Rate  Order.  Most  notably,  the  Minnesota  Commission  adopted  the  HAI  5.2a  default 
 backbone  and  branch  loop  distribution  methodology  instead  of  the  right-  angled  Minimum  Spanning  Tree  approach  recommended  by  the  ALJ.  See  id.  at  6-  8.  The  Minnesota  Commission  also  declined  to  adopt  the  price  for 


 cageless  collocation  recommended  by  the  ALJ  and  instead  adopted  a  price  of  $0.  See  id.  at  8-  9. 
 153  See  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  5. 


 154  See  id.  See  also  Minnesota  Commission  Reply,  Supplemental  Appendix  B  at  11. 
 155  See  Minnesota  Commission  Reply  at  2-  3  &  Supplemental  Appendix  B. 
 156  See  Qwest  Application  at  100-  101;  Qwest  Thompson  Decl.,  paras.  2,  14-  20. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 26 
 comparison  state  to  be  TELRIC-  compliant  or  an  appropriate  benchmark.  157  Applying  this  standard  to  Qwests  rates  in  Minnesota,  we  find  that  Colorado  is  a  permissible  state  for 
 unbundled  network  element  rate  comparison  purposes  here.  158 
 48.  Having  determined  that  the  Colorado  rates  are  appropriate  rates  for  the  benchmark  comparison,  we  compare  Qwests  Minnesota  rates  to  the  Colorado  rates  under  our 


 benchmark  analysis,  using  our  standard  assumptions  for  weighting  rates.  159  We  compare  the  difference  between  the  rates  in  Minnesota  and  the  rates  in  Colorado  to  the  difference  between  the 
 costs  in  Minnesota  and  the  costs  in  Colorado  according  to  the  Synthesis  Model.  160  We  compare  rates  and  costs  for  loops  and  for  aggregated  non-  loop  elements.  161  Taking  a  weighted  average  of 
 Qwests  loop  rates  in  Minnesota  and  Colorado,  we  find  that  Qwests  Minnesota  loop  rates  satisfy  our  benchmark  analysis  and  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  2.  162  We  also  conduct  a 
 benchmark  analysis  of  Qwests  Minnesota  non-  loop  rates.  We  compare  Qwests  Minnesota  non-loop  rates  to  the  Colorado  non-  loop  rates  using  our  benchmark  analysis  and  find  that  Qwests 
 Minnesota  non-  loop  rates  satisfy  our  benchmark  analysis.  163  Thus,  we  find  that  Qwest  has 
 157  See  Verizon  New  Jersey  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  12295-  96,  para.  49;  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  Rhode  Island,  CC  Docket  No.  01-  324,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  3300,  3320,  para.  38  (2002)  (Verizon  Rhode  Island  Order);  Joint  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc., 
 Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company,  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  Arkansas  and  Missouri,  16  FCC  Rcd  20719,  20746,  para.  56  (2001)  (SWBT  Arkansas/  Missouri  Order);  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17457,  para.  63.  In  the  Verizon 
 Pennsylvania  Order,  the  Commission  found  that  several  of  the  criteria  should  be  treated  as  indicia  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  comparison.  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17457,  para.  64;  see  also  Verizon 
 Massachusetts  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  9002,  para.  28;  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6276,  para.  82. 


 158  Colorado  shares  geographic  similarities,  is  served  by  the  same  BOC,  has  a  similar  rate  structure,  and  the 
 Commission  has  already  found  Colorados  rates  to  be  TELRIC-  compliant  on  their  own  merits.  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26467-  69,  paras.  302,  305. 


 159  See  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17458,  para.  65  (describing  our  standard  assumptions). 
 160  The  Commission  cannot  rely  on  the  [synthesis]  model  to  provide  guidance  in  examining  non-  recurring  rates, 
 because  it  does  not  examine  these  costs.  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17457  n.  248. 
 161  We  note  that  although  the  Commission  only  benchmarks  non-  loop  elements  in  the  aggregate,  Qwests 
 Minnesota  rates  for  switching  and  transport  would  independently  satisfy  a  benchmark  test. 
 162  Qwests  Minnesota  loop  rates  are  19%  lower  than  Colorado  loop  rates.  Comparing  the  weighted  average  costs 
 per  the  Synthesis  Model,  we  find  that  the  Minnesota  loop  costs  are  6%  lower  than  the  Colorado  loop  costs.  Because  the  percentage  by  which  Minnesota  loop  rates  fall  below  Colorado  loop  rates  exceeds  the  percentage  by  which 


 Minnesota  loop  costs  fall  below  Colorado  loop  costs  per  the  Synthesis  Model,  we  conclude  that  Qwests  Minnesota  loop  rates  satisfy  our  benchmark  analysis. 


 163  Qwests  Minnesota  non-  loop  rates  are  40%  lower  than  Colorado  non-  loop  rates.  Comparing  the  weighted 
 average  costs  per  the  Synthesis  Model,  we  find  that  Qwests  Minnesota  non-  loop  costs  are  10%  lower  than  Qwests  (continued.) 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 27 
 demonstrated  that  its  Minnesota  unbundled  network  element  rates  satisfy  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  two. 
 d.  Appeal  of  the  Minnesota  Commissions  Rate  Order 
 49.  As  noted  above,  on  April  23,  2003,  Qwest  filed  an  appeal  in  federal  district  court  in  Minnesota  of  the  Minnesota  Commissions  March  24,  2003  order  accepting  Qwests 


 compliance  filing  and  establishing,  as  a  final  matter,  the  rates  Qwest  may  charge  competitive  LECs  for  unbundled  network  elements  at  issue  in  the  section  271  cost  proceeding.  In  its  reply 
 comments,  AT&  T  criticizes  Qwest  for  seeking  section  271  approval  based  on  the  unbundled  network  element  rates  adopted  by  the  Minnesota  Commission,  while  simultaneously  appealing 
 those  rates  and  seeking  much  higher  unbundled  network  element  rates.  164  In  this  case,  we  do  not  believe  that  the  existence  of  a  pending  appeal,  without  more,  should  affect  our  review  of  the 
 currently  effective  rates  submitted  with  Qwests  application.  The  Commission  decides  the  merits  of  Qwests  section  271  application  based  on  its  present  rates.  165  Qwest  is  not  seeking  a 
 stay  of  its  present  rates  during  the  period  that  its  appeal  is  pending  in  federal  district  court.  166  Further,  Qwest  has  committed  that,  to  the  extent  it  is  successful  on  appeal,  it  will  not  seek 
 additional,  retroactive  payments  from  competitive  LECs  for  interconnection  services  provided  by  Qwest  during  the  period  from  March  24,  2003  to  the  date  of  the  federal  courts  decision.  167 
 This  clarifies  that  the  rates  currently  before  the  Commission  in  this  application  will  not  be  retroactively  replaced  by  higher  rates  that  have  not  been  subject  to  analysis  and  comment  in  this 
 section  271  proceeding.  168  Under  these  circumstances,  we  conclude  that  Qwests  pending  appeal  before  the  federal  district  court  in  Minnesota  does  not  preclude  us  from  finding  that  Qwest 
 satisfies  checklist  item  2. 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  Colorado  non-  loop  costs.  Because  the  percentage  by  which  Minnesota  non-  loop  rates  fall  below  Colorado  non-  loop 
 rates  exceeds  the  percentage  by  which  Minnesota  non-  loop  costs  fall  below  Colorado  non-  loop  costs  per  the  Synthesis  Model,  we  conclude  that  Qwests  Minnesota  non-  loop  rates  satisfy  our  benchmark  analysis. 


 164  See  AT&  T  Reply  at  10  n.  17.  See  also  Minnesota  Commission  Reply  at  2-  3  (noting  that  Qwests  appeal  of  the 
 Minnesota  Commissions  rate  order  is  currently  pending  in  federal  district  court  in  Minnesota). 
 165  See  In  the  Matter  of  Joint  Application  by  BellSouth  Corp.,  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,  9067,  paras.  97-  98  (2002)  (BellSouth  Georgia/  Louisiana 


 Order). 
 166  See  Letter  from  Melissa  E.  Newman,  Vice  President-  Federal  Regulatory,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  03-  90  at  1  (filed  May  21,  2003)  (Qwest  May  21A  Ex  Parte  Letter). 


 167  See  id. 
 168  Moreover,  as  we  have  pointed  out  in  the  past,  to  the  extent  prices  in  the  future  are  not  set  in  accordance  with 
 our  rules  and  the  Act,  as  a  result  of  Qwests  appeal  in  federal  district  court  or  otherwise,  we  retain  the  ability  going  forward  to  take  appropriate  enforcement  action,  including  action  pursuant  to  section  271(  d)(  6).  See  Verizon 


 Massachusetts  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  9003,  para.  30;  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6). 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 28 
 IV.  OTHER  ITEMS 
 A.  Checklist  Item  1    Interconnection 
 50.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  i)  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  equal-  in-  quality  interconnection  on  terms  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory  in 


 accordance  with  the  requirements  of  sections  251  and  252.  169  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude,  as  did  the  Minnesota  Commission,  170  that  Qwest  complies  with  the 
 requirements  of  this  checklist  item.  171  In  reaching  this  conclusion,  we  have  examined  Qwests  performance  in  providing  collocation  and  interconnection  trunks  to  competing  carriers,  as  we 
 have  done  in  prior  section  271  proceedings.  172 
 51.  We  disagree  with  AT&  Ts  argument  that  Qwest  does  not  satisfy  this  checklist  item  because,  under  Qwests  Statement  of  Generally  Available  Terms  (SGAT)  in  Minnesota, 


 Qwest  may  refuse  to  build  new  interconnection  trunks  for  a  competitive  LEC.  173  Specifically,  AT&  T  alleges  that,  under  the  SGAT,  Qwest  may  build  to  its  own  lower  forecast  of  the 
 competitive  LECs  needs,  if  the  competitive  LECs  usage  on  a  statewide  basis  is  less  than  50  percent  of  the  competitive  LECs  trunks  in  service,  which  may  cause  competitive  LECs  to  risk 
 trunk  blocking.  174 
 52.  We  do  not  find  that  Qwests  trunk  forecasting  and  utilization  policies  in  the  SGAT  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance.  Qwest  has  a  continuing  obligation  to 


 provision  interconnection  trunks  ordered  by  competitive  LECs  on  terms  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory.  175  If  Qwests  forecast  policy  causes  it  to  fail 
 performance  standards  with  regard  to  interconnection,  it  will  be  subject  to  penalties  pursuant  to 


 169  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  i);  see  also  Appendix  C,  paras.  17-  24. 
 170  See  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  8-  9. 
 171  See  Qwest  Application  App.  A.,  Tab  3,  Declaration  of  Thomas  R.  Freeberg,  paras.  13-  67.  We  also  conclude 
 that  Qwest  provides  legally  binding  terms  and  conditions  for  collocation  in  its  interconnection  agreements  and  SGAT.  See  Minnesota  SGAT    8;  see  also  Qwest  Application  App.  A.,  Tab  4,  Declaration  of  Margaret  S. 


 Bumgarner,  paras.  13-  91. 
 172  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26473-  74,  para.  312  (citing,  e.  g.,  BellSouth  Georgia/  Louisiana 
 Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  9133-  37,  paras.  201-  06;  Verizon  Massachusetts  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  9092-  95,  9098,  paras.  183-  87,  195).  We  find,  based  on  the  record,  that  Qwests  performance  for  interconnection  satisfies  its  statutory 


 obligations  regarding  interconnection  quality  and  timeliness.  See  also  Qwest  Williams  Decl.,  paras.  72-  83.  See  generally  Appendix  B. 


 173  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  25;  AT&  T  Reply  at  7  n.  6. 
 174  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  25;  Minnesota  SGAT    7.2.2.8.6;  see  also  Qwest  Reply  at  6  (explaining  that   
 7.2.2.8.6  of  the  Minnesota  SGAT  has  been  approved  by  the  Minnesota  Commission  and  has  been  part  of  the  Minnesota  SGAT  since  October  2001). 


 175  See  Qwest  Reply  at  6. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 29 
 the  PAP.  176  Therefore,  we  find  that  Qwest  has  an  incentive  to  ensure  that  its  network  is  functioning  appropriately.  Qwests  performance  on  interconnection  metrics  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  interconnection  in  response  to  competitive  LEC  orders  in  compliance  with  this  checklist  item.  Moreover,  interconnection  agreement  provisions  that  include  alternatives  to  the 
 SGATs  forecasting  provision  are  available  for  opt  in  by  competitive  LECs.  177  Finally,  AT&  T  has  provided  no  evidence  that  Qwests  policies  here  result  in  decreased  trunk  blockage 
 performance.  178 
 B.  Checklist  Item  4    Unbundled  Local  Loops 
 53.  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.  179  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude,  as  did  the  Minnesota  Commission,  180  that  Qwest  provides  unbundled  local  loops  in  accordance  with  the  requirements 
 of  section  271  and  our  rules.  181  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,  xDSL-capable 
 loops,  and  high  capacity  loops    as  well  as  hot  cut  provisioning  and  our  review  of  Qwests  processes  for  line  sharing  and  line  splitting.  182  As  of  December  31,  2002,  competitors 
 have  acquired  from  Qwest  and  placed  into  use  approximately  106,827  stand-  alone  unbundled  loops  in  Minnesota.  183  We  note  that  no  commenter  raises  issues  related  to  Qwests  provision  of 
 unbundled  loops  in  Minnesota. 
 54.  Consistent  with  the  Commissions  prior  section  271  orders,  we  do  not  address  every  aspect  of  Qwests  loop  performance  where  our  review  of  the  record  satisfies  us  that 


 176  See  Qwest  Application,  App.  E,  Minnesota  Performance  Assurance  Plan,  App.  A  at  1  (Minnesota  PAP); 
 Qwest  Reply  at  8. 
 177  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  Application  App.  L,  Vol.  1,  Tab  11  (AT&  T  Interconnection  Agreement,  App.  A,  Attach.  3,   
 4.1.3.1);  Qwest  Reply  at  7-  8;  see  also  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18390,  para.  78  (explaining  that  section  252(  i)  entitles  any  requesting  carrier  to  seek  the  same  terms  and  conditions  as  those  contained  in  an  interconnection 


 agreement). 
 178  See  NI-  1  (Trunk  blocking);  see  also  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26477-  78,  para.  320. 


 179  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iv);  see  also  Appendix  C,  paras.  48-  52  (regarding  requirements  under  checklist  item 
 4). 
 180  See  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  10-  11. 


 181  See  Qwest  Application  at  34-  42.  See  generally  Appendix  B. 
 182  Our  review  encompasses  Qwests  performance  and  processes  for  all  loop  types,  but  as  noted  below,  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. 


 183  See  Qwest  Application  at  35.  In  Minnesota,  as  of  December  31,  2002,  Qwest  had  in  service  98,577  unbundled 
 voice-  grade  analog  loops,  6,928  xDSL-  capable  loops,  1,322  high  capacity  loops,  and  2,389  unbundled  shared  loops.  See  id.  at  35,  41. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 30 
 Qwests  performance  is  in  compliance  with  the  parity  and  benchmark  measures  established  in  the  state.  184  Instead,  we  focus  our  discussion  on  those  areas  where  the  record  indicates 
 discrepancies  in  performance  between  Qwest  and  its  competitors.  In  making  our  assessment,  we  review  performance  measurements  comparable  to  those  the  Commission  has  relied  upon  in 
 prior  section  271  orders,  primarily  those  associated  with  measuring  the  timeliness  and  quality  of  loop  provisioning  and  loop  maintenance  and  repair.  185  As  in  past  section  271  proceedings,  in 
 the  course  of  our  review,  we  look  for  patterns  of  systemic  performance  disparities  that  have  resulted  in  competitive  harm  or  that  have  otherwise  denied  new  entrants  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete.  Isolated  cases  of  performance  disparity,  especially  when  the  margin  of  disparity  is  small,  generally  will  not  result  in  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance.  186  We 
 generally  find  that  disparity  in  one  or  two  months  out  of  the  five-  month  reporting  period  is  isolated  and  therefore  not  competitively  significant.  187 


 55.  xDSL-  Capable  Loops.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  Qwest  demonstrates  that  it  provides  xDSL-  capable  loops  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  188  Although 
 Qwest  does  not  achieve  parity  under  the  trouble  rate  measure  of  maintenance  and  repair  quality  for  ISDN-  capable  loops  in  Minnesota,  189  we  find  that  these  disparities  are  not  competitively 
 significant,  given  the  relatively  low  competitive  LEC  trouble  rate.  190  We  take  further  comfort  in  Qwests  implementation  of  a  plan  to  improve  trouble  rate  performance,  including  weekly 
 meetings  to  perform  ongoing  root-  cause  analyses  to  identify  and  implement  appropriate  corrective  actions.  191  Thus,  we  find  that  Qwests  performance  with  respect  to  ISDN-  capable 
 loops  does  not  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance. 


 184  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  94;  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26485-  86,  para.  336. 
 185  See  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  94;  Verizon  Massachusetts  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  9078-  79,  para.  162. 
 186  See  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  94;  Verizon  Massachusetts  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  9055-  56,  para.  122. 
 187  See  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  94;  see,  e.  g.,  OP-  5  (New  Service  Installation  Quality)  for  DS1-  capable  loops; 
 MR-  3  (Out  of  Service  Cleared  within  24  Hours)  for  line  shared  loops;  MR-  6  (Mean  Time  to  Restore)  for  line  shared  loops;  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  line  shared  loops  (failing  to  achieve  parity  in  two  of  the  five  relevant  months). 


 188  See  Qwest  Application  at  36-  38;  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  10-  11. 
 189  See  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  ISDN-  capable  loops  showing  (0.76%,  0.72%,  0.56%,  0.55%,  1.05%)  for 
 competitive  LECs  versus  (0.30%,  0.25%,  0.28%,  0.28%,  0.37%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers  for  November  2002  to  March  2003. 


 190  In  Minnesota,  the  five-  month  average  for  the  competitive  LEC  trouble  rate  is  0.73%.  All  relevant  months  and 
 the  five-  month  average  for  this  metric  are  below  3%,  which  the  Commission  has  found  to  be  acceptable  in  past  section  271  orders.  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26488,  para.  340  n.  1237;  Verizon  Maine  Order,  17 


 FCC  Rcd  at  11691,  para.  49  n.  209. 
 191  See  Qwest  Application  at  37;  Qwest  Williams  Decl.,  para.  240. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 31 
 56.  In  addition,  we  recognize  that  Qwest  does  not  meet  parity  with  respect  to  installation  commitments  met  for  conditioned  loops  in  Minnesota.  192  Although  Qwest  missed 
 the  benchmark  in  three  of  the  relevant  months,  competitive  LEC  performance  improved  each  month,  with  Qwest  achieving  parity  in  the  most  recent  months  of  performance  data.  193 
 Therefore,  we  do  not  find  that  these  performance  disparities  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance. 


 57.  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.  194  Qwest, 
 however,  does  not  achieve  parity  under  the  trouble  rate  measure  of  maintenance  and  repair  quality  for  DS1-  capable  loops.  195  Although  troubles  for  competitive  LECs  were  reported 
 slightly  more  often  than  for  Qwests  retail  customers,  we  find  that  these  disparities  are  not  competitively  significant  given  the  relatively  low  competitive  LEC  trouble  rate.  196  We  take 
 further  comfort  in  Qwests  implementation  of  a  plan  to  improve  trouble  rate  performance  for  DS1-  capable  loops,  including  additional  testing  during  provisioning  and  repair  and  additional 
 training  for  field  technicians.  197  Thus,  we  find  that  Qwests  performance  with  respect  to  high  capacity  loops  does  not  warrant  a  finding  of  checklist  noncompliance. 


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


 section  251(  c)(  4)  and  section  252(  d)(  3).  198  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  Qwest  satisfies  the  requirements  of  this  checklist  item.  199  In  reaching  this  conclusion,  we 
 recognize  that  the  Minnesota  Commission  did  not  make  a  collective  determination  with  regard  to 
 192  See  OP-  3  (Installation  Commitments  Met)  for  conditioned  loops  showing  (54.55%,  77.42%,  87.88%,  94.12%, 
 96.00%)  for  competitive  LECs  versus  the  90%  benchmark  for  Qwest  for  November  2002  to  March  2003. 
 193  See  Qwest  Application  at  38;  Qwest  Williams  Decl.,  para.  241. 


 194  See  Qwest  Application  at  38. 
 195  See  MR-  8  (Trouble  Rate)  for  DS1-  capable  loops  showing  (2.41%,  1.34%,  2.29%,  1.38%,  2.07%)  for 
 competitive  LECs  versus  (1.22%,  1.25%,  1.30%,  1.34%,  1.32%)  for  Qwest  retail  customers  for  November  2002  to  March  2003. 


 196  The  five-  month  average  for  the  competitive  LEC  trouble  rate  is  1.89%.  All  relevant  months  and  the  five-month 
 average  for  this  metric  are  below  3%,  which  the  Commission  has  found  to  be  acceptable  in  past  section  271  orders.  See  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  97;  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26488,  para.  340  n.  1237;  Verizon 


 Maine  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  11691,  para.  49  n.  209. 
 197  See  Qwest  Reply,  App.  at  A-  3. 


 198  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiv);  see  also  Appendix  C. 
 199  Qwest  recognizes  that  it  has  a  concrete  and  specific  legal  obligation  through  its  SGAT  and  state-  approved 
 interconnection  agreements  to  make  its  retail  services  available  for  resale  to  competing  carriers  at  wholesale  rates.  Qwest  Application  at  66-  70. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 32 
 this  checklist  item  because  the  Commissioners  were  unable  to  agree  on  how  the  unfiled  agreement  docket  affects  checklist  item  14.  200  Unfiled  agreements  are  discussed  in  the  Public 
 Interest  Section,  below.  201  The  Minnesota  Commission  concluded  that  Qwest  had  resolved  all  other  issues  related  to  compliance  with  checklist  item  14,  and  no  other  parties  raised  issues 
 related  to  Qwests  compliance  with  checklist  item  14.  202 
 D.  Remaining  Checklist  Items  (3,  5-  13) 
 59.  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  3  (access  to  poles,  ducts,  and  conduits),  203  item  5  (unbundled  transport),  204  item  6  (unbundled  local  switching),  205  item  7  (911/  E911  access  and  directory  assistance/  operator 
 services),  206  item  8  (white  pages  directory  listings),  207  item  9  (numbering  administration),  208  item  10  (databases  and  associated  signaling),  209  item  11  (number  portability),  210  item  12  (local  dialing 
 parity),  211  and  item  13  (reciprocal  compensation).  212  Based  on  the  evidence  in  this  record,  we  conclude,  as  did  the  Minnesota  Commission,  213  that  Qwest  complies  with  the  requirements  of  all 


 200  Id. 
 201  See  Section  VII.  B  (Unfiled  Interconnection  Agreements),  infra. 
 202  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  14.  See  also  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Statement  of 
 Chairman  Koppendrayer;  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Reha  at  26;  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Joint  Statement  of  Commissioners  Scott/  Johnson  at  33.  In  an  ex  parte 


 letter  filed  June  18,  2003,  AT&  T  raises  issues  relating  to  UNE-  Star  as  a  checklist  item  14  violation.  UNE-  Star  issues  are  addressed  in  our  checklist  item  2  discussion.  See  Section  III.  A.  (Checklist  Item  2)  at  n.  30,  infra;  AT&  T 
 June  18  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1-  4. 
 203  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iii). 


 204  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  v). 
 205  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vi). 
 206  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii). 
 207  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  viii). 
 208  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ix). 
 209  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  x). 
 210  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xi). 
 211  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xii). 
 212  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiii). 
 213  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  7-  14. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 33 
 of  these  checklist  items.  214  None  of  the  commenting  parties  challenges  Qwests  compliance  with  these  items. 
 V.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  SECTION  271(  c)(  1)(  A) 
 60.  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).  215  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.  216  In  addition,  the  Act  states  that  "such  telephone  exchange  service  may  be  offered  .  .  .  either  exclusively  over  [the 
 competitor's]  own  telephone  exchange  service  facilities  or  predominantly  over  [the  competitor's]  own  telephone  exchange  service  facilities  in  combination  with  the  resale  of  the 
 telecommunications  services  of  another  carrier."  217  The  Commission  has  concluded  that  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A)  is  satisfied  if  one  or  more  competing  providers  collectively  serve  residential  and 
 business  subscribers,  218  and  that  unbundled  network  elements  are  a  competing  provider's  "own  telephone  exchange  service  facilities"  for  purposes  of  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A).  219  Furthermore,  the 
 Commission  has  held  that  a  BOC  must  show  that  at  least  one  competing  provider  constitutes  an  actual  commercial  alternative  to  the  BOC,  220  which  a  BOC  can  do  by  demonstrating  that  the 
 provider  serves  more  than  a  de  minimis  number  of  subscribers.  221  Finally,  the  Commission  has  held  that  Track  A  does  not  require  any  particular  level  of  market  penetration,  and  the  D.  C. 


 214  See  Qwest  Application  at  31-  34  (checklist  item  3),  42-  46  (checklist  item  5),  47-  48  (checklist  item  6),  48-  49 
 (checklist  item  7),  52-  54  (checklist  item  8),  54-  56  (checklist  item  9),  56-  58  (checklist  item  10),  58-  60  (checklist  item  11),  60-  62  (checklist  item  12),  62-  65  (checklist  item  13). 


 215  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  1);  Appendix  C  at  paras.  15-  16. 
 216  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  1);  Appendix  C  at  paras.  15-  16. 
 217  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  1)(  A). 
 218  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,  20585,  para.  85  (1997)  (Ameritech  Michigan  Order);  see  also  Application  by  BellSouth 


 Corporation,  et  al.,  Pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  Amended,  to  Provide  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). 
 219  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20598,  para.  101. 


 220  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)  (SWBT  Oklahoma  Order). 


 221  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6257,  para.  42;  see  also  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20585,  para.  78. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 34 
 Circuit  has  affirmed  that  the  Act  imposes  no  volume  requirements  for  satisfaction  of  Track  A.  222 
 61.  We  find  that  each  of  five  carriers    AT&  T,  McLeod,  HickoryTech,  and  NorthStar  Access    serves  more  than  a  de  minimis  number  of  business  and  residential  end  users 
 predominantly  over  its  own  facilities  and  each  represents  an  actual  commercial  alternative  to  Qwest.  223  Specifically,  AT&  T  provides  telephone  exchange  service  to  residential  subscribers 
 over  its  own  facilities,  UNE-  Loops,  and  the  UNE-  Platform  and  serves  business  subscribers  through  UNE-  Loops  and  the  UNE-  Platform.  224  McLeod  provides  telephone  exchange  service  to 
 business  subscribers  predominantly  through  UNE-  Loops  and  the  UNE-  Platform  and  serves  residential  customers  primarily  through  UNE-  Loops.  225  HickoryTech  provides  telephone 
 exchange  service  to  business  and  residential  subscribers  predominantly  through  its  own  facilities  and  UNE-  Loops.  226  NorthStar  Access  provides  telephone  exchange  service  to  business  and 
 residential  subscribers  predominantly  through  its  own  facilities  and  UNE-  Loops.  227  We  reject  Sprints  argument  that,  because  it  believes  that  Qwests  estimation  of  competitive  LEC 
 customers  for  Sprint  operations  is  inadequate,  this  calls  into  question  Qwests  estimation  of  competitive  LEC  customers  as  well.  228  Because  Qwest  provides  several  methods  for  estimating 
 the  number  of  competitive  LEC  residential  and  business  customers  involving  numerous  carriers,  we  find  that  Sprints  concerns,  even  if  warranted,  do  not  rise  to  the  level  of  challenging  the 
 overall  conclusion  that  more  than  a  de  minimis  number  of  business  and  residential  customers  are  being  served  by  competitive  LECs  over  their  own  facilities.  229 


 222  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.)  (SBC  v.  FCC). 


 223  Qwest  Teitzel  Decl.,  paras.  17-  30;  Qwest  Teitzel  Decl.,  Ex.  MN-  1  (citing  confidential  information);  Qwest 
 Teitzel  Decl.,  Ex.  MN-  4  at  1-  6,  9-  15,  26-  34,  57-  59. 
 224  AT&  T  Broadband  provides  telephone  exchange  service  to  residential  subscribers  predominantly  over  its  own 
 facilities  and  AT&  T  Local  Services  provides  telephone  exchange  service  to  business  and  residential  subscribers  through  UNE-  Loops  and  the  UNE-  Platform.  Qwest  Teitzel  Decl.,  Ex.  MN-  4  at  1-  6. 


 225  Id.  at  26-  34. 
 226  Id.  at  9-  15. 
 227  Id.  at  57-  59.  Qwest  estimates  that  competing  LECs  now  serve  at  least  25%  of  access  lines  in  Minnesota. 
 Qwest  Teitzel  Decl.,  paras.  39-  40. 
 228  Sprint  Comments  at  9-  11. 


 229  Sprint  Comments  at  10.  We  note  that  the  methods  that  Qwest  uses  to  estimate  the  number  of  lines  served  by 
 competitors  are  the  same  methods  used  in  section  271  applications  that  the  Commission  has  previously  approved.  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26314-  19,  paras.  21-  32;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  paras.  15-  17. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 35 
 VI.  SECTION  272  COMPLIANCE 
 62.  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.  230  The  Commission  set  standards  for  compliance  with  section  272  in  the  Accounting  Safeguards  Order 
 and  the  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order.  231  Together,  these  safeguards  discourage,  and  facilitate  the  detection  of,  improper  cost  allocation  and  cross-  subsidization  between  the  BOC  and 
 its  section  272  affiliate.  232  In  addition,  these  safeguards  ensure  that  BOCs  do  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  their  section  272  affiliates.  233  As  the  Commission  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.  234 
 63.  Based  on  the  record,  we  conclude  that  Qwest  Corporation  (QC)  and  Qwest  LD  Corp.  (QLDC),  its  section  272  affiliate,  have  demonstrated  compliance  with  the  requirements  of 


 section  272.  235  Further,  as  discussed  below,  we  conclude  that  we  need  not  address  issues  related  to  the  possible  provisioning  of  in-  region,  interLATA  services  through  Qwest  Communications 
 Corporation  (QCC)  because  Qwest  has  not  made  an  affirmative  showing  to  certify  QCCs 


 230  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  B);  see  also  Appendix  C. 
 231  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). 
 232  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. 
 233  See  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21914,  paras.  15-  16;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12 
 FCC  Rcd  at  20725,  para.  346. 
 234  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20725,  para.  346;  see  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18549, 
 para.  395. 
 235  QLDC  is  a  switchless  reseller  which  is  a  wholly-  owned  subsidiary  of  Qwest  Services  Corporation,  which  in 
 turn,  is  a  wholly  owned  subsidiary  of  QCII.  QLDC  was  formed  in  the  face  of  a  number  of  accounting  difficulties  which  prevented  Qwest  from  certifying  whether  certain  of  its  financial  statements  were  in  compliance  with  GAAP. 


 Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26514,  paras.  382-  383.  As  we  noted  in  approving  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  the  Commission  has  allowed  BOCs  considerable  flexibility  in  how  they  structure  their  section  272  affiliates.  Id.  at 
 26517,  para.  386. 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 36 
 financial  statements  pursuant  to  section  272(  b)(  2),  nor  is  Qwest  relying  on  QCC  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  section  272.  236 
 64.  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.  237  Specifically,  our  task  is  to  determine  whether  Qwests  section  272  affiliate,  QLDC,  will  be  complying  with  this  requirement  on  the  date  of  authorization,  and  thereafter.  238 


 65.  We  conclude  that  Qwest  has  adequately  demonstrated  that  QLDC  will  be  the  entity  providing  in-  region,  interLATA  service  originating  in  Minnesota.  239  Qwest  provides 
 support  for  its  assertion  that  QLDC  complies  with  the  requirements  set  forth  in  section  272.  240  Qwest  states,  however,  that  it  intends  to  eventually  designate  QCC  as  its  active  section  272 
 affiliate  and  to  begin  providing  in-  region  interLATA  services  on  a  facilities  basis  through  QCC.  241  Qwest  states  that  it  intends  to  do  this  as  soon  as  it  is  able  to  certify  QCCs  financial 


 236  The  Minnesota  Commission  does  not  identify  any  issues  related  to  Qwests  compliance  with  section  272. 
 Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  18. 
 237  Several  courts  have  addressed  the  Commissions  discretion  to  make  predictive  judgments.  In  different 
 contexts,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  recognized  that  the  Commission  must  necessarily  make  difficult  predictive  judgments  in  order  to  implement  certain  provisions  of  the  Communications  Act.  See  FCC  v.  WNCN 


 Listeners  Guild,  450  U.  S.  582,  594-  96  (1981)  (recognizing  that  the  Commissions  decisions  must  sometimes  rest  on  judgment  and  prediction  rather  than  pure  factual  determinations)  (citing  FCC  v.  Natl  Citizens  Comm.  for 
 Broadcasting,  436  U.  S.  775,  813-  14  (1978));  NAACP  v.  FCC,  682  F.  2d  993  (D.  C.  Cir.  1982)  (  greater  discretion  is  given  administrative  bodies  when  their  decisions  are  based  upon  judgmental  or  predictive  conclusions);  see  also 
 Pub.  Util.  Commn  of  State  of  Cal.  v.  F.  E.  R.  C.,  24  F.  3d  275,  281  (D.  C.  Cir.  1994)  (acknowledging  that  predictions  regarding  the  actions  of  regulated  entities  are  the  type  of  judgments  that  courts  routinely  leave  to  administrative 
 agencies).  Indeed,  we  note  that  determining  whether  a  BOCs  section  271  application  meets  the  requirements  of  the  competitive  checklist,  the  requirements  of  section  272,  and  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  convenience  and 
 necessity  requires  the  Commission  to  engage  in  highly  complex,  fact-  intensive  analyses.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3). 
 238  Qwest  Application  at  153-  163;  see  also  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  26303,  26517-  27  paras.  393-  405. 
 In  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  in  the  Qwest  3-  State  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.  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26517-  27,  paras.  393-  405;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  paras.  112-  115. 
 239  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  is  the  entity  that  will  be  providing 
 originating  in-  region,  interLATA  service. 
 240  Qwest  Application  at  102-  111. 


 241  Id.  at  103-  04. 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 37 
 statements.  242  In  the  context  of  this  record,  however,  we  need  only  consider  QLDC.  Given  that  we  have  previously  approved  an  application  by  Qwest  using  QLDC  as  its  section  272  affiliate,  it 
 is  clear  that  QLDC  can  serve  as  the  section  272  affiliate  here.  In  the  event  that  Qwest  does  merge  QLDC  with  another  entity  in  the  future,  Qwest  must,  of  course  comply  with  all  of  the 
 Commissions  rules. 
 VII.  PUBLIC  INTEREST  ANALYSIS 
 66.  Apart  from  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.  243  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).  244  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.  245 


 67.  We  conclude  that  approval  of  this  application  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest.  246  From  our  extensive  review  of  the  competitive  checklist,  which  embodies  the  critical 
 elements  of  market  entry  under  the  Act,  we  find  that  barriers  to  competitive  entry  in  Minnesotas  local  exchange  markets  have  been  removed,  and  that  these  local  exchange  markets  are  open  to 
 competition.  We  find  further  that  the  record  confirms  the  Commissions  view  that  BOC  entry  into  the  long  distance  market  will  benefit  consumers  and  competition  if  the  relevant  local 
 exchange  market  is  open  to  competition  consistent  with  the  competitive  checklist.  247 
 68.  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 


 242  Id. 
 243  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  C);  Appendix  C,  paras.  70-  71. 
 244  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  4). 
 245  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). 
 246  We  note  that  Sprint  refers  to  price  squeeze  but  does  not  state  a  specific  claim  supported  by  pricing  or  other 
 evidence  in  order  to  establish  such  a  violation.  Sprint  Comments  at  3. 
 247  See  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18558-  89,  para.  419. 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 38 
 to  competition,  despite  checklist  compliance.  248  Specifically,  Sprint  argues  that  the  level  of  residential  competitive  LEC  entry  in  Minnesota  is  low,  indicating  that  granting  the  current 
 section  271  application  is  not  in  the  public  interest.  249  We  note  that  Congress  specifically  declined  to  adopt  a  market  share  or  other  similar  test  for  BOC  entry  into  long  distance.  250 
 Moreover,  we  note  that  according  to  Qwest,  competitive  LECs  serve  at  least  25  percent  of  the  local  market.  251  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,  such  as  individual  competitive  LEC  entry  strategies,  can  explain  low  levels  of  residential  competition.  252 


 A.  Assurance  of  Future  Compliance 
 69.  As  set  forth  below,  we  find  that  the  PAP  that  will  be  in  place  in  Minnesota  provides  assurance  that  the  local  market  will  remain  open  after  Qwest  receives  section  271 


 authorization  in  this  state.  253  We  find  that  this  plan  will  likely  provide  incentives  that  are  sufficient  to  foster  post-  entry  checklist  compliance.  In  prior  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.  254  Although  it  is  not  a  requirement  for  section  271  authority  that  a  BOC  be  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.  255  The  Minnesota  PAP,  in  combination  with  the  Minnesota  Commissions  active  oversight  of  that  PAP,  and  provisions  for  comprehensive  review 


 248  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.  Sprint  Comments  at  4-  7. 
 249  Sprint  Comments  at  7-  9. 


 250  See,  e.  g.,  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20585,  para.  77;  Sprint  v.  FCC,  274  F.  3d  at  553-  54. 
 251  Qwest  Teitzel  Decl.,  paras.  39-  40. 
 252  See  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  17487,  para.  126. 
 253  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  16. 
 254  See,  e.  g.,  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  17487-  88,  para.  127. 
 255  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  generally  administered  by  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). 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 39 
 to  determine  whether  modifications  are  necessary,  provide  additional  assurance  that  the  local  market  in  Minnesota  will  remain  open. 
 70.  The  Minnesota  PAP  closely  resembles  the  PAPs  the  Commission  reviewed  in  the  recently  approved  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  Qwest  3-  State  Order.  256  The  Minnesota  PAP 
 incorporates  the  key  elements  in  the  Colorado  Plan.  257  After  an  open  proceeding  including  Qwest  and  competitive  LECs,  on  June  20,  2002,  the  Minnesota  Commission  decided  to  adopt  the 
 Colorado  Plan  with  modifications.  After  further  proceedings,  on  November  26,  2002,  the  Minnesota  Commission  ordered  Qwest  to  file  the  PAP  consistent  with  new  approved  language.  258 
 On  March  17,  2003,  Qwest  submitted  a  revised  PAP  incorporating  commission-  ordered  language  and  two  additional  provisions.  The  Minnesota  Commission  and  Qwest  mutually  agreed  on  the 
 remaining  new  language  changes  on  April  8,  2003.  259  Qwest  filed  the  revised  agreement  on  April  30,  2003  with  the  PAP  becoming  effective  on  the  date  of  section  271  approval  for 
 Minnesota.  260 
 71.  We  conclude  that  the  Minnesota  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.  261  The  structure  of  these  plans  is  similar  to  tiered  plans  that  the  Commission 
 approved  in  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order.  262  The  PAP  places  at  risk  about  40  percent  of  Qwest  Minnesota  local  operating  service  net  income,  which  puts  it  in  line  with  those  the  Commission 
 has  previously  considered.  263  The  PAP  includes  provisions  for  continuing  review  of  the  PAP  by  the  Minnesota  Commission.  264 


 256  Qwest  Application  at  115-  17;  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26546-  48,  para.  442;  Qwest  3-  State  Order, 
 paras.  120-  21. 
 257  Qwest  Application  at  115. 


 258  Qwest  Application,  App.  A,  Tab  26,  Declaration  of  Mark  S.  Reynolds  (Qwest  Reynolds  Decl.),  paras.  2-  18. 
 259  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  16. 
 260  Minnesota  PAP,  para.  18.1;  Qwest  Reply  at  24,  n.  19;  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President  -  Federal 
 Regulatory,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  May  22,  2003)  at  1  &  Attach.  (Qwest  May  22F  Ex  Parte  Letter)  (attaching  a  revised  Minnesota  PAP). 


 261  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26546-  48,  para.  442. 
 262  Id. 
 263  The  Minnesota  cap  is  set  at  40%  of  ARMIS  Net  Return  from  local  services.  Qwest  Application  at  116-  17  and 
 Qwest  Reynolds  Decl.,  para.  20  &  n.  8. 
 264  Minnesota  PAP,  Section  18. 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 40 
 72.  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.  265  In 
 addition  to  the  monetary  payments  at  stake  under  each  plan,  we  believe  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 
 73.  We  agree  with  the  Department  of  Justice  that  Qwests  previous  failure  to  file  certain  interconnection  agreements  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  does  not  warrant  a  denial  of 


 this  application.  266  We  conclude,  as  in  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  that  concerns  about  any  potential  ongoing  checklist  violation  (or  discrimination)  are  met  by  Qwests 
 submission  of  agreements  to  the  Minnesota  Commission  pursuant  to  section  252  and  the  Minnesota  Commission  acting  on  Qwests  submission  of  those  agreements.  267  In  reaching  our 
 conclusion,  we  note  that  the  Minnesota  Commission  did  not  reach  consensus  agreement  on  how  its  public  interest  analysis  should  take  account  of  past  unfiled  agreements.  268 


 74.  Although  this  record  does  not  demonstrate  ongoing  discrimination,  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.  269  Further,  to  the  extent  past  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.  270 


 1.  Background 
 75.  Declaratory  Order.  On  October  4,  2002,  the  Commission  released  a  memorandum  opinion  and  order  granting  in  part  and  denying  in  part  Qwests  petition  for 


 declaratory  ruling  on  which  types  of  negotiated  contractual  arrangements  between  incumbent  LECs  and  competitive  LECs  are  subject  to  mandatory  filing  and  state  commission  requirements 


 265  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. 
 266  Department  of  Justice  Evaluation  at  9-  10. 


 267  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26553-  77,  paras.  453-  86;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  paras.  124-  42. 
 268  Minnesota  Commission  Comments  at  17.  We  note  that  this  is  not  the  first  section  271  application  that  the 
 Commission  has  granted  without  the  approval  of  the  relevant  state  commission.  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26310,  para.  15  &  n.  31  (noting  that  the  Montana  Public  Service  Commission  did  not  approve  Qwests 


 section  271  application  in  Montana). 
 269  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26554,  para.  453. 


 270  Id. 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 41 
 of  section  252(  a)(  1).  271  In  the  Declaratory  Order,  the  Commission  found  that  an  agreement  that  creates  an  ongoing  obligation  pertaining  to  resale,  number  portability,  dialing  parity,  access  to 
 rights-  of-  way,  reciprocal  compensation,  interconnection,  unbundled  network  elements,  or  collocation  is  an  interconnection  agreement  that  must  be  filed  pursuant  to  section  252(  a)(  1).  272 
 The  Commission  also  found  that,  unless  the  information  is  generally  available  to  carriers,  agreements  addressing  dispute  resolution  and  escalation  provisions  relating  to  the  obligations  set 
 forth  in  sections  251(  b)  and  (c)  are  appropriately  deemed  interconnection  agreements.  273  Further,  the  Commission  stated  its  belief  that  the  state  commissions  should  be  responsible  for  applying, 
 in  the  first  instance,  the  statutory  interpretation  set  forth  in  the  Declaratory  Order.  274 
 76.  State  Proceeding.  On  February  14,  2002  the  Minnesota  Department  of  Commerce  (MDOC)  filed  a  complaint  against  Qwest  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  alleging 


 that  Qwest  acted  in  a  discriminatory  and  anticompetitive  manner,  in  violation  of  state  and  federal  law,  by  entering  into  and  failing  to  file11  interconnection  agreements  for  state  approval.  275  An 
 Administrative  Law  Judge  (ALJ)  held  a  hearing  on  April  29  and  May  2,  2002.  276  On  May  24,  2002,  the  MDOC  filed  a  motion  to  reopen  the  record  to  submit  evidence  of  an  additional,  oral 
 agreement.  277  The  ALJ  held  a  hearing  on  the  twelfth  agreement  on  August  6,  2002.  278  The  ALJ  issued  his  recommended  decision  on  September  20,  2002,  finding  that  Qwest  had  entered  into  11 
 written,  and  one  oral,  interconnection  agreements  with  competitive  LECs,  including  Eschelon 


 271  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26558,  para.  459,  citing  Qwest  Communications  International,  Inc. 
 Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling  on  the  Scope  of  the  Duty  to  File  and  Obtain  Prior  Approval  of  Negotiated  Contractual  Arrangements  Under  Section  252(  a)(  1),  WC  Docket  No.  02-  89,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  17 


 FCC  Rcd  19337  (rel.  Oct.  4,  2002)  (Declaratory  Order);  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26555,  para.  456,  citing  Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling  of  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.,  WC  Docket  No.  02-  89  at  3 
 (2002)  (Qwest  Section  252  Petition).  In  the  Declaratory  Order,  the  Commission  stated  the  types  of  contractual  arrangements  that  need  not  be  filed:  (1)  settlement  agreements  that  simply  provide  for  backward-  looking 
 consideration  that  do  not  affect  an  incumbent  LECs  ongoing  obligations  relating  to  section  251;  (2)  forms  completed  by  carriers  to  obtain  service  pursuant  to  terms  and  conditions  set  forth  in  an  interconnection  agreement; 
 and  (3)  agreements  with  bankrupt  competitors  that  are  entered  into  at  the  direction  of  a  bankruptcy  court  or  trustee  and  that  do  not  otherwise  change  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  underlying  interconnection  agreement.  See  Qwest 
 9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26558,  para.  459;  Declaratory  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  19341-  43,  paras.  9-  14. 
 272  Declaratory  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  19340-  41,  para.  8. 


 273  Id.  at  19341,  para.  9. 
 274  Id.  at  19340,  para.  7. 
 275  Minnesota  Comments,  App.  D,  Order  Adopting  ALJs  Report  and  Establishing  Comment  Period  Regarding 
 Remedies,  Minnesota  Docket  No.  P-  421/  C-  02-  197  (rel.  Nov.  1,  2002)  at  1. 
 276  Id. 


 277  Id.  at  1-  2. 
 278  Id.  at  2.  The  oral  agreement  was  with  McLeod  for  discounts  of  6.5%  to  10%  for  all  services  McLeod 
 purchased  from  Qwest  from  Oct.  2000  through  Dec.  2001.  Minnesota  Comments,  App.  E,  Order  Assessing  Penalties,  Minnesota  Docket  No.  P-  421/  C-  02-  197  (rel.  Feb.  28,  2003)  at  43,  46. 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 42 
 and  McLeod,  in  violation  of  state  and  federal  regulations.  279  The  ALJ  found  that  the  agreements  should  have  been  filed  for  Minnesota  Commission  review.  280 
 77.  The  Minnesota  Commission  adopted  the  ALJs  recommendation  on  November  1,  2002.  281  Of  the  12  specific  interconnection  agreements  identified  by  the  MDOC,  eight  were 
 subsequently  canceled,  superseded  or  terminated.  282  Qwest  subsequently  filed  the  other  four  interconnection  agreements  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  immediately  prior  to  filing  the 
 instant  application.  283  The  record  indicates  that  the  written  and  oral  unfiled  agreements  identified  in  the  complaint  have  either  been  terminated  or  were  approved  by  the  Minnesota  Commission 
 under  section  252(  e)  and  are  available  for  opt-  in  by  competitive  LECs.  284  No  commenter  identifies  additional  current  unfiled  agreements. 


 78.  In  addition  to  the  four  unfiled  interconnection  agreements  that  were  the  subject  of  the  complaint  proceeding,  on  March  25  and  26,  2003,  Qwest  also  filed  30  other  previously 
 unfiled  interconnection  agreements  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  for  section  252  review.  285  Qwest  asserts  that  each  agreement  had  been  provided  to  the  MDOC  during  its  complaint 
 investigation,  but  was  not  included  in  the  February  14,  2002  complaint  filed  with  the  Minnesota 


 279  Minnesota  Comments,  App.  D  at  4-  6. 
 280  Id.  at  4. 
 281  Id.  at  7. 
 282  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President  -  Federal  Regulatory,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal 
 Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  May  13,  2003)  at  3  (Qwest  May  13A  Ex  Parte  Letter).  We  note  that  all  eight  of  these  agreements  were  terminated  prior  to  filing  of  the  instant  application,  with  the 


 exception  of  Qwests  unfiled  agreement  with  Covad  which  was  canceled  on  April  29,  2003.  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President  -  Federal  Regulatory,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications 
 Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  May  23,  2003)  at  1,  n.  1  (Qwest  May  23A  Ex  Parte  Letter). 
 283  Qwest  May  13A  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3.  These  four  agreements  were  filed  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  on 
 March  25  and  26,  2003  and  included  one  each  with  Small  Minnesota  CLECs  and  USLink,  and  two  with  McLeod.  Id. 


 284  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  App.  E,  Order  Assessing  Penalties,  Minnesota  Docket  No.  P-  421/  C-  02- 
 197  (rel.  Feb.  28,  2003)  at  6,  20;  Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President  -  Federal  Regulatory,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  June  20,  2003)  at  1-  2 


 (Qwest  June  20B  Ex  Parte  Letter).  On  June  12,  2003,  the  Minnesota  Commission  approved  13  of  the  agreements  and  approved  in  part  and  rejected  in  part  the  other  21  previously  unfiled  agreements.  Id.,  Attach.  at  1-  6.  The 
 provisions  that  were  rejected  by  the  Minnesota  Commission  are  not  available  to  any  competitive  LEC  in  Minnesota.  Id.  at  1-  2. 


 285  Qwest  Application  at  121-  22;  Qwest  Application,  App.  P,  Vol.  1,  Tab  16.  These  30  agreements  were  with  17 
 different  competitive  LECs. 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 43 
 Commission.  286  Qwest  asserts  that  these  interconnection  agreements  are  either  order  form  contracts  exempt  from  section  252  or  are  settlement  agreements.  287 
 79.  On  February  28,  2003,  the  Minnesota  Commission  issued  an  Order  Assessing  Penalties.  288  Qwest,  Eschelon  and  McLeod  filed  petitions  for  reconsideration  on  March  20, 
 2003.  289  The  Minnesota  Commission  met  on  April  8  and  14  to  consider  the  petitions.  290  On  April  30,  2003,  the  Minnesota  Commission  issued,  on  its  own  motion,  modifications  to  the  February 
 28,  2003  penalties  order,  clarifying  and  modifying  certain  sections  of  that  order.  291  Qwest  filed  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  on  May  13,  2003  for  reconsideration  of  the  April  30,  2003 
 order.  292  The  Minnesota  Commission  denied  Qwests  motion  for  reconsideration  on  May  21,  2003.  293  Qwest  filed  a  complaint  with  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  District  of 
 Minnesota  on  June  19,  2003,  alleging  violations  of  the  Act,  due  process  and  Minnesota  law  with  respect  to  the  Minnesota  Commissions  findings  on  liability,  restitutional  remedy  and  monetary 
 penalty.  294 
 2.  Discussion 
 80.  Consistent  with  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  we  find  that  Qwests  failure  to  file  certain  interconnection  agreements  in  Minnesota  does  not  warrant  a  denial 


 of  this  application.  295  We  conclude  that  concerns  about  any  potential  ongoing  checklist 
 286  Qwest  Application  at  121-  22;  Qwest  Application,  App.  P,  Vol.  1,  Tab  16;  Qwest  May  13A  Ex  Parte  Letter; 
 Letter  from  Melissa  Newman,  Vice  President  -  Federal  Regulatory,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  May  23,  2003)  at  1  (Qwest  May  23A  Ex  Parte  Letter). 


 287  Qwest  Application  at  123  n.  81.  Qwest  filed  the  settlement  agreements  that  had  ongoing  obligations  although 
 the  MDOC,  in  its  complaint,  did  not  require  Qwest  to  file  these  settlement  agreements.  Id. 
 288  Minnesota  Comments,  App.  E. 


 289  Minnesota  Reply,  App.  A,  Order  After  Reconsideration  on  Own  Motion,  Minnesota  Docket  No.  P-  421/  C-  02- 
 197  (rel.  Apr.  30,  2003)  at  1. 
 290  Id. 


 291  Id.  at  1-  14. 
 292  Letter  from  Karen  Finstad  Hammel,  Assistant  Attorney  General  for  the  Minnesota  Commission,  to  Marlene  H. 
 Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  May  22,  2003)  (attaching  Minnesota  Public  Utilities  Commission  Order  Denying  Qwests  Second  Request  for  Reconsideration  (rel.  May  21, 


 2003))  (Minnesota  Commission  May  22  Ex  Parte  Letter),  Attach.  at  2. 
 293  Id. 


 294  Letter  from  Karen  Finstad  Hammel,  Assistant  Attorney  General  for  the  Minnesota  Commission,  to  Marlene  H. 
 Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  (filed  June  23,  2003)  (attaching  Complaint  for  Declaratory  Judgment  and  Injunctive  Relief  to  Prevent  Enforcement  of  Public  Utilities  Commission 


 Orders  (filed  June  19,  2003))  (Minnesota  Commission  June  22  Ex  Parte  Letter). 
 295  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26567-  75,  paras.  473-  81;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  paras.  138-  42. 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 44 
 violations  (or  discrimination)  are  met  by  Qwests  submission  of  agreements  to  the  Minnesota  Commission  pursuant  to  section  252  and  by  the  state  acting  on  Qwests  submission  of  those 
 agreements.  296  The  possibility  of  noncompliance  with  section  252  on  a  going-  forward  basis,  therefore,  was  eliminated  by  the  Minnesota  Commissions  approval  of  these  agreements  which 
 enables  competitive  LECs  to  opt-  in  to  them.  297 
 81.  Based  on  the  record,  we  also  are  not  persuaded  that  the  unfiled  agreement  issue  warrants  denial  of  the  current  section  271  application.  First,  we  reject  AT&  Ts  contention  that, 


 because  Qwest  has  not  yet  agreed  to  pay  the  penalties  assessed  by  the  Minnesota  Commission,  no  remedy  for  past  harm  has  been  made  and  continuing  harm  exists.  298  At  the  outset,  we  note 
 that  this  situation  is  no  different  than  that  presented  in  the  prior  Qwest  applications.  299  In  the  decisions  addressing  those  applications,  we  concluded  that  approval  of  the  application  was 
 warranted  notwithstanding  the  pendency  of  state  enforcement  proceedings.  300  In  our  view,  completion  of  these  state  enforcement  proceedings,  and  payment  of  any  penalties  assessed,  is  not 
 a  pre-  condition  to  section  271  approval.  301 
 82.  The  Minnesota  Commission  provides  extended  discussion  concerning  the  issue  of  Qwests  unfiled  agreements  in  its  comments  on  the  instant  application.  The  Minnesota 


 Commission  Chair  believes  that  matters  regarding  any  prior  discrimination  are  being  fully  and  appropriately  addressed  at  the  state  level.  302  One  Commissioner  states  that  until  Qwest  has 
 agreed  to  ordered  restitution,  it  has  not  yet  fully  satisfied  her  that  section  271  approval  is  in  the  public  interest.  303  Two  other  Commissioners  state  that  until  Qwest  implements  the  ordered 
 penalties  and  admits  to  wrong-  doing,  Qwests  conduct  at  issue  is  current  and  cannot  be  said  to  be  in  the  past.  304  The  latter  three  Commissioners  believe  that  Qwests  actions  regarding  unfiled 
 agreements  have  been  sufficiently  egregious  to  conclude  that  granting  section  271  approval  at 


 296  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26567-  75,  paras.  473-  81;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  paras.  138-  42. 
 Pursuant  to  section  252(  e)(  4),  these  agreements  were  available  for  opt-  in  on  June  23,  2003.  Qwest  June  20B  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1-  2.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  e)(  4).  On  June  12,  2003,  the  Minnesota  Commission  issued  orders 


 approving,  or  approving  in  part  and  rejecting  in  part,  each  of  the  34  previously  unfiled  agreements.  Qwest  June  20B  Ex  Parte  Letter,  Attach.  at  1-  6. 


 297  Similarly,  there  is  no  ongoing  discrimination  for  agreements  that  were  canceled,  superseded  or  terminated. 
 298  AT&  T  Reply  at  11-  12. 
 299  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  26559-  60,  para.  461;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  128. 
 300  The  Minnesota  Commission  rendered  its  penalty  order  on  February  28,  2003  and,  on  reconsideration,  amended 
 that  penalty  decision  on  April  30,  2003.  Minnesota  Comments,  App.  E;  Minnesota  Reply,  App.  A,  Order  after  Reconsideration  on  Own  Motion,  Minnesota  Docket  No.  P-  421/  C-  02-  197  (rel.  Apr.  30,  2003). 


 301  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  26559-  60,  para.  461;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  128. 
 302  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Statement  of  Chairman  Koppendrayer  at  24. 
 303  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Reha  at  28. 
 304  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Joint  Statement  of  Commissioners  Scott/  Johnson  at  36. 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 45 
 this  time  is  not  in  the  public  interest.  305  We  note  that  the  statute  does  not  require  the  Commission  to  consult  with  the  relevant  state  commission  regarding  the  public  interest  requirements  of 
 section  271(  d)(  3).  306 
 83.  We  recognize  that  the  Minnesota  Commission  failed  to  reach  consensus  on  whether  Qwests  discrimination  was  in  the  past  or  remained  ongoing,  citing  Qwests  appeal  of 


 Minnesota  Commission-  assessed  penalties  and  the  unfiled  interconnection  agreement  provisions  not  yet  being  available  for  competitive  LEC  opt-  in.  The  Minnesota  Commission  has  approved 
 the  previously  unfiled  agreements,  however,  and  competitive  LECs  can  now  opt-  in  to  previously  unfiled  agreements.  Consistent  with  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  307  we 
 find  that  no  ongoing  discrimination  exists  now,  in  light  of  these  actions.  The  Minnesota  Commission  appears  to  apply  a  standard  that  differs  from  the  standard  we  have  previously  used 
 in  reviewing  section  271  applications,  which  is  to  consider  whether  all  effective  agreements  with  section  251(  b)  or  (c)  obligations  have  been  made  available  for  opt-  in,  thus  ensuring  that  there  is 
 no  ongoing  discrimination  in  violation  of  the  statute.  308  We  do  not  require  the  penalty  phase  of  the  state  proceeding  to  be  complete  before  we  can  find  no  discrimination  on  a  forward-  looking 
 basis.  We  take  notice  that  some  of  the  Minnesota  Commissioners  have  determined  that  Qwests  actions  have  been  so  egregious  as  to  warrant  a  denial  of  section  271  authorization.  We  reach  a 
 different  conclusion,  however,  and,  in  light  of  its  present  compliance  and  all  other  circumstances  discussed  in  this  section,  find  that  Qwest's  past  conduct  does  not  warrant  denial  of  this 
 application  on  public  interest  grounds. 
 84.  Second,  we  reject  AT&  Ts  argument  that  because  the  Minnesota  Commission  has  not  approved  the  recently  filed  unfiled  agreements  in  question,  that  Qwests  discriminatory 


 practices  continue.  309  As  we  found  in  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  the  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  Qwests  filing  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  prior  to  the  filing  of  the  instant  section  271 
 application  coupled  with  the  Minnesota  Commissions  disposition  of  those  filed  agreements,  eliminate  the  possibility  of  ongoing  discrimination.  310  Moreover,  we  are  not  persuaded  by  the 


 305  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Reha  at  27-  30;  Minnesota 
 Commission  Comments,  Separate  Joint  Statement  of  Commissioners  Scott/  Johnson  at  34-  38. 
 306  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  2)(  B). 


 307  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  26553-  54,  para.  453;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  124. 
 308  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  b)-(  c);  252  (a),  (d),  (e),  (i);  271(  c)(  2)(  B). 
 309  AT&  T  Comments  at  15-  16;  AT&  T  Reply  at  2.  We  note  that  at  the  time  AT&  T  filed  its  comments  and  reply 
 comments,  the  Minnesota  Commission  had  not  acted  on  the  34  previously  unfiled  agreements  Qwest  filed  immediately  prior  to  filing  the  instant  application.  The  Minnesota  Commission  has  since  issued  orders  approving, 


 or  approving  in  part  and  rejecting  in  part,  each  of  the  34  previously  unfiled  agreements.  Qwest  June  20B  Ex  Parte  Letter,  Attach.  at  1-  6. 


 310  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  26568-  69,  para.  474;  Qwest  3-  State  Order  at  para.  132.  Qwest  has 
 persuasively  explained  that  all  previously  unfiled  agreements  were  either  filed,  expired,  terminated,  superseded,  did  not  contain  ongoing  section  251(  b)  or  (c)  obligations,  or  simply  provide  for  backward-  looking  consideration  that  do 


 not  affect  an  incumbent  LECs  ongoing  obligations  relating  to  section  251.  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  May  13A  Ex  Parte  (continued.) 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 46 
 record  in  the  instant  application  that  there  is  any  evidence  of  additional  unfiled  agreements,  either  written  or  oral.  311  The  Minnesota  Commission  has  thoroughly  investigated  this  issue  and 
 has  not  found  any  other  unfiled  agreements. 
 85.  We  recognize  that  the  Minnesota  Commission  has  aggressively  pursued  the  issue  of  unfiled  interconnection  agreements,  and  we  believe  that  it  will  continue  its  diligent 


 monitoring.  Based  on  the  demonstrated  vigorous  attention  given  the  unfiled  agreements  issue  by  the  Minnesota  Commission  and  lack  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  reject  AT&  Ts  argument 
 that  non-  written  agreements  may  still  be  in  effect.  312  Should  allegations  of  additional  unfiled  agreements  arise  in  the  future,  we  are  confident  that  these  issues  can  be  addressed  through 
 federal  or  state  complaint  or  investigatory  proceedings. 
 86.  Third,  we  reject  AT&  Ts  contention  that  we  should  deny  this  application  because  the  state  record  was  compromised  by  the  existence  and  application  of  provisions  in  the  unfiled 


 agreements.  313  Specifically,  AT&  T  contends  that  both  Eschelon  and  McLeod  refrained  from  participating  in  the  state  section  271  proceeding,  per  written  and  oral  unfiled  agreements,  and 
 that  they  were  the  only  two  competitive  LECs  providing  service  through  UNE-  Star.  314  Because  commercial  UNE-  Star  OSS  performance  data  was  used  by  Qwest  to  demonstrate  checklist 
 compliance,  AT&  T  contends  the  state  record  is  compromised.  315  The  Minnesota  Commission  itself  did  not  reach  a  collective  decision  that  the  state  record  was  compromised  by  unfiled 
 agreements.  316  We  note,  however,  that  UNE-  Star  is  being  converted  to  UNE-  Platform  in  Minnesota  and  that  current  commercial  performance  data  Qwest  provided  in  support  of  the 
 instant  application  does  not  predominately  rely  on  UNE-  Star.  317  Moreover,  we  note  that  the  facts  concerning  unfiled  agreements  in  Minnesota  are  essentially  the  same  as  those  that  were 
 examined  by  the  12  other  state  commissions  upon  which  we  relied  in  approving  Qwests  section 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  Letter  (containing  a  matrix  of  the  12  previously  unfiled  agreements  subject  to  the  state  penalty  order);  Qwest  May 
 23A  Ex  Parte  Letter,  Attach. 
 311  AT&  T  contends  that  because  Qwest  has  maintained  no  oral  agreements  existed  in  Minnesota,  contrary  to  state 
 findings,  Qwest  must  prove  (not  just  assert)  that  it  has  no  outstanding  oral  secret  deals.  AT&  T  Comments  at  16. 
 312  AT&  T  Comments  at  9-  10,  16.  We  note  that  it  is  unclear  what  evidence  AT&  T  proposes  Qwest  provide  to 
 prove  additional  unfiled  agreements  do  not  exist  beyond  the  assertion  under  oath  that  Qwest  has  made  to  date. 
 313  AT&  T  Reply  at  14-  15. 


 314  Id.  at  4. 
 315  Id.  at  15. 
 316  In  a  separate  statement,  two  commissioners  expressed  concern  that  not  having  Eschelon  and  McLeod  in  the 
 state  proceedings  was  detrimental.  Minnesota  Commission  Comments,  Separate  Joint  Statement  of  Commissioners  Scott/  Johnson  at  35. 


 317  See  supra  n.  275. 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 47 
 271  applications  in  the  Qwest  9-  State  Order  and  the  Qwest  3-  State  Order.  318  We  are  not  persuaded  to  take  a  different  approach  here. 
 87.  We  do  not  address  past  alleged  violations  of  section  251  that  may  have  occurred  as  a  result  of  Qwests  delay  in  filing  certain  previously  unfiled  agreements.  Although  we 
 conclude  that  this  record  does  not  demonstrate  ongoing  discrimination,  parties  remain  free  to  present  other  evidence  of  such  discrimination,  for  example,  through  state  or  FCC  enforcement 
 processes.  319  Further,  to  the  extent  any  past  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.  320 
 88.  Complete-  as-  Filed  Rule.  We  waive  the  complete-  as-  filed  requirement  on  our  own  motion  pursuant  to  section  1.3  of  the  Commissions  rules  321  to  the  limited  extent  necessary  to 


 consider  the  Minnesota  Commissions  disposition  of  Qwests  submission  of  previously  unfiled  agreements.  322  Additionally,  we  waive  the  complete-  as-  filed  rule  on  our  own  motion  to  consider 
 the  termination  of  Covads  unfiled  agreement  on  April  29,  2003.  323  The  complete-  as-  filed  rule  requires  a  BOC  to  include  in  its  application  all  factual  evidence  on  which  it  would  have  the 
 Commission  rely  in  making  its  section  271  determination.  324  As  of  the  date  Qwest  filed  its  section  271  application,  it  had  not  demonstrated  compliance  with  the  non-  discriminatory 
 requirements  of  section  271  because  it  had  not  yet  received  section  252  approval  of  all  interconnection  agreements.  Further,  it  had  an  outstanding  unfiled  interconnection  agreement 


 318  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26553-  77,  paras.  454-  86;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  paras.  124-  37. 
 319  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26554,  para.  466.  See  also  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd 
 at  6355,  para.  230  (  As  we  have  found  in  past  section  271  proceedings,  the  section  271  process  simply  could  not  function  if  we  were  required  to  resolve  every  interpretive  dispute  about  the  precise  content  of  an  incumbent  LECs 


 obligations  to  its  competitors,  including  fact-  intensive  interpretive  disputes.);  SWBT  Kansas/  Oklahoma  Order  16  FCC  Rcd  at  6246,  para.  19  ([  T]  here  will  inevitably  be,  in  any  section  271  proceeding,  new  and  unresolved 
 interpretive  disputes  about  the  precise  content  of  an  incumbent  LECs  obligations  to  its  competitors    disputes  that  our  rules  have  not  yet  addressed  and  that  do  not  involve  per  se  violations  of  self-  executing  requirements  of  the  Act. 
 The  section  271  process  simply  could  not  function  as  Congress  intended  if  we  were  generally  required  to  resolve  all  such  disputes  as  a  precondition  to  granting  a  section  271  application.)  (citing  American  Tel.  and  Tel.  Co.  v.  FCC, 
 220  F.  3d  607,  631  (D.  C.  Cir.  2000);  SWBT  Texas  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  18366-  18367,  paras.  25-  26;  Verizon  Pennsylvania  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  17487,  para.  126. 


 320  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26553,  para.  453;  Qwest  3-  State  Order,  para.  124. 
 321  47  C.  F.  R.    1.3. 
 322  We  refer  to  the  contracts  Qwest  filed  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  on  March  25  and  26,  2003.  Qwest 
 Application  at  121  n.  78;  Qwest  May  13A  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3.  See  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26571-  72,  para.  478  n.  1746. 


 323  Qwest  May  13A  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3;  Qwest  May  23A  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1  n.  1. 
 324  Comments  Requested  in  Connection  with  Qwests  Section  271  Application  for  Minnesota,  Public  Notice,  WC 
 Docket  No.  03-  90,  DA  03-  1019  at  3-  4  (rel.  Mar.  28,  2003). 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 48 
 with  Covad.  In  order  for  this  Commission  to  consider  the  Minnesota  Commissions  actions  on  the  agreements  pursuant  to  section  252,  a  waiver  of  the  complete-  as-  filed  rule  is  necessary. 
 89.  The  Commission  maintains  this  procedural  requirement  to  ensure  that  interested  parties  have  a  fair  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  BOCs  application,  the  state  commission  can 
 fulfill  its  statutory  consultative  role,  and  the  Commission  has  adequate  time  to  evaluate  the  record.  325  The  Commission  can  waive  its  procedural  rules,  however,  if  special  circumstances 
 warrant  a  deviation  from  the  general  rule  and  such  deviation  will  serve  the  public  interest.  326  We  conclude,  based  on  the  circumstances  presented  here,  that  special  circumstances  warrant  a 
 waiver  of  our  rule,  and  that  such  waiver  will  serve  the  public  interest. 
 90.  We  conclude  that  the  special  circumstances  before  us  here  warrant  a  deviation  from  the  general  rules  for  consideration  of  late-  filed  information  or  developments  that  take  place 


 during  the  application  review  period.  327  In  particular,  as  we  discuss  below,  we  find  that  the  interests  our  normal  procedural  requirements  are  designed  to  protect  are  not  affected  by  our 
 consideration  of  Minnesotas  disposition  of  Qwests  previously  unfiled  agreements  or  of  the  timing  of  the  termination  of  the  Covad  agreement.  In  addition,  we  conclude  that  consideration  of 
 the  states  disposition  of  Qwests  filed  agreements  will  serve  the  public  interest. 
 91.  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  Commission  has  not  established  a  set  of  factors  that  must  be  met  in  order  for  the  Commission  to  waive  this  procedural  rule.  Indeed,  by  the  very  term 


 special  circumstances  it  is  understood  that  the  facts  surrounding  new  information  provided  in  any  given  application  would  be  unique.  Consequently,  it  is  within  our  discretion,  taking  into 
 account  any  special  circumstances,  not  to  afford  greater  weight  to  a  particular  factor  used  by  the  Commission  in  a  previous  section  271  order.  The  grant  of  this  waiver  permits  the  Commission 
 to  act  on  this  section  271  application  quickly  and  efficiently.  In  this  proceeding,  no  purpose  would  be  served  by  restarting  the  90-  day  procedural  clock.  On  the  day  Qwest  filed  the  instant 
 application  it  was  evident  that  by  day  88  of  our  90-  day  section  271  review  period,  the  Minnesota  Commission  would  have  completed  its  section  252  review.  Thus,  there  is  no  longer  ongoing 
 discrimination  with  respect  to  Qwests  previously  unfiled  agreements.  Given  these  circumstances  and  the  fact  that  interested  parties  have  had  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  comment 
 on  these  previously  unfiled  agreements,  we  do  not  believe  the  public  interest  would  be  best  served  in  this  instance  by  strict  adherence  to  our  procedural  rules.  As  discussed  below,  however, 
 this  waiver  of  our  section  271  procedural  requirements  in  no  way  should  be  viewed  as  a  conclusion  that  such  matters  do  not  warrant  further  investigation. 


 92.  Furthermore,  the  concrete  and  limited  nature  of  the  Minnesota  Commissions  action  with  respect  to  each  interconnection  agreement,  while  critical  to  the  Commissions  section 
 271  approval  (because  it  allows  competitors  to  opt-  in  to  previously  unfiled  interconnection 


 325  Qwest  9-  State  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  26575,  para.  482. 
 326  Id. 
 327  Id.  at  26576,  para.  483. 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 49 
 agreements),  places  no  additional  analytical  burden  on  commenters  or  the  Commission  because  the  analysis  of  the  interconnection  agreements  was  performed  by  the  Minnesota  Commission. 
 93.  For  these  reasons,  we  find  that  the  circumstances  present  in  this  instance  warrant  waiver  of  our  procedural  requirements,  and  allow  consideration  of  the  termination  of  the  Covad 
 agreement  and  the  disposition  of  Qwests  previously  unfiled  agreements  by  the  Minnesota  Commission.  We  conclude  that  the  grant  of  this  waiver  to  permit  consideration  of  the 
 termination  of  the  Covad  agreement  and  approval  of  the  Minnesota  Commission  of  the  34  previously  unfiled  interconnection  agreements  is  preferable  to  requiring  Qwest  to  refile  this 
 section  271  application  and  restart  the  90-  day  clock.  At  the  same  time,  we  are  seriously  troubled  by  Qwests  decision  to  delay  filing  34  agreements  with  the  Minnesota  Commission  until  March 
 25-  26,  2003,  and  refer  this  matter  to  the  Enforcement  Bureau  for  investigation  and  appropriate  enforcement  action.  The  Commission  clarified  the  incumbent  LECs  obligation  to  file 
 interconnection  agreements  under  section  252(  a)(  1)  in  a  Declaratory  Ruling  on  October  4,  2002,  nearly  six  months  before  Qwest  filed  the  Minnesota  agreements.  328  We  note  that  Qwest  has 
 provided  no  explanation  in  the  record  for  this  delay  in  filing  the  interconnection  agreements.  Given  that  it  had  adequate  notice  of  its  legal  obligations  under  section  252(  a),  we  intend  to 
 review  with  careful  scrutiny  any  explanation  that  Qwest  may  provide  in  the  context  of  a  potential  enforcement  action. 


 VIII.  SECTION  271(  d)(  6)  ENFORCEMENT  AUTHORITY 
 94.  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.  329  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.  330 


 95.  Working  in  concert  with  the  Minnesota  Commission,  we  intend  to  closely  monitor  Qwests  post-  approval  compliance  for  Minnesota  to  ensure  that  Qwest  does  not  cease 
 []  to  meet  any  of  the  conditions  required  for  [section  271]  approval.  331  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  these  states.  We  are  prepared  to 


 328  See  Declaratory  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  19340-  41,  para.  8  (stating  that  the  Commission's  standard  for  the  types  of 
 agreements  that  must  be  filed  recognizes  the  statutory  balance  between  the  rights  of  competitive  LECs  to  obtain  interconnection  terms  pursuant  to  section  252(  i)  and  removing  unnecessary  regulatory  impediments  to  commercial 


 relations  between  incumbent  and  competitive  LECs.). 
 329  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6). 


 330  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. 
 331  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6)(  A). 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 50 
 use  our  authority  under  section  271(  d)(  6)  if  evidence  shows  market  opening  conditions  have  not  been  maintained. 
 96.  We  require  Qwest  to  report  to  the  Commission  all  Minnesota  carrier-  to-  carrier  performance  metrics  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  Minnesota.  332 
 IX.  CONCLUSION 
 97.  For  the  reasons  discussed  above,  we  grant  Qwests  application  for  authorization  under  section  271  of  the  Act  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services  in  Minnesota. 


 X.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 98.  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  Minnesota  filed  on  March  28,  2003,  IS  GRANTED. 


 99.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  this  Order  SHALL  BECOME  EFFECTIVE  July  7,  2003. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 


 332  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,  File  No.  EB-  00-  IH-  0085,  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  5413  (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  specified  performance  standards  and  weekly  reporting  requirements  to  gauge  Bell  Atlantics 
 performance  in  correcting  the  problems  associated  with  its  electronic  ordering  systems). 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 APPENDIX  A 
 Commenters  in  WC  Docket  No.  03-  90  Qwest    Minnesota 


 Commenters  Abbreviation  AT&  T  Corporation  AT&  T 
 Communications  Workers  of  America  CWA  Minnesota  Public  Utilities  Commission  Minnesota  Commission 
 Sprint  Communications  Company  L.  P.  Sprint  WorldCom,  Inc.  (d/  b/  a  MCI)  MCI 


 Reply  Commenters  Abbreviation  AT&  T  Corporation  AT&  T 
 Minnesota  Public  Utilities  Commission  Minnesota  Commission  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.  Qwest 
 WorldCom,  Inc.  (d/  b/  a  MCI)  MCI 
51
 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 FCC 
 03-  142 


 Appendix 
 B 


 Minnesota 
 Performance 


 Metrics 


 The 
 data 


 in 
 this 


 appendix 


 are 
 taken 


 from 
 the 
 Minnesota 


 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 


 nor 
 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, 


 making 
 it 
 difficult 


 to 
 compare 


 the 
 data 


 over 
 time. 
52
 Metric  Number 
 Metric 
 Name 


 Metric  Number 
 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-  142 


 PERFORMANCE 
 METRIC 
 CATEGORIES  B-  2 
53
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 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 


 1.1 
 4.11 


 1.13 
 4.36 
 1.25 
 3.84 
 4.62 
 3.95 
 1.08 
 3.81 


 BI-  1B 
 Jointly-  provided 
 Switched 
 Access, 
 % 


 99.99% 
 99.99% 
 99.99% 
 99.99% 
 99.99% 


 BI-  2 
 Invoices 
 Delivered 


 within 
 10 
 Days 


 BI-  2 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 BI-  3 
 Billing 
 Accuracy 


 - 
 Adjustments 


 for 
 Errors 


 BI-  3A 
 UNEs 
 and 
 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 98.47% 
 98.95% 
 96.00% 
 99.30% 
 98.72% 
 99.51% 
 98.81% 
 99.21% 
 98.30% 
 99.52% 


 BI-  3B 
 Reciprocal 
 Compensation, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 BI-  4 
 Billing 
 Completeness 


 BI-  4A 
 UNEs 
 and 
 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 93.04% 
 88.61% 
 96.24% 
 96.11% 
 96.34% 
 96.55% 
 97.90% 
 97.62% 
 96.81% 
 97.69% 


 BI-  4B 
 Reciprocal 
 Compensation, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.97% 


 100% 


 BI-  5 
 Billing 
 Accuracy 


 & 
 Claims 


 Processing 


 BI-  5A 
 Acknowledgment, 


 All, 
 % 


 99.60% 
 100% 
 99.36% 


 97.66% 
 99.66% 


 BI-  5B 
 Resolution, 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 98.54% 


 100% 
 98.60% 


 COLLOCATION  CP-  1  Collocation 
 Completion 
 Interval 
 when 
 Scheduled 


 Interval 
 is 


 CP-  1A 
 90 
 Calendar 


 Days 
 or 
 Less, 


 All, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 75.75 
 72.75 
 68.83 


 78.5 


 73 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 CP-  1B 
 91 
 to 
 120 


 Calendar 


 Days, 
 All, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 91 
 81.5 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 CP-  1C 
 121 
 to 
 150 


 Calendar 


 Days, 
 All, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 130.38 
 82 
 116 


 109 
 118 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 CP-  2 
 Collocations 
 Completed 
 within 
 Scheduled 


 Intervals 


 CP-  2B 
 Non-  Forecasted 
 & 
 Late 


 Forecasted 


 Collocations, 


 All, 
 % 


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


 c 
 d 


 e 


 CP-  2C 
 with 
 Intervals 


 Longer 
 than 
 120 
 Days, 


 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 CP-  3 
 Collocation 
 Feasibility 
 Study 
 Interval 


 CP-  3 
 All, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 7.29 
 5.83 
 8.83 
 8.74 
 8.36 
 a 
 b 


 c 


 CP-  4 
 Collocation 
 Feasibility 
 Study 
 Commitments 


 Met 


 CP-  4 
 All, 
 % 


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


 c 


 DIRECTORY 
 ASSISTANCE 
 DA-  1 


 Speed 
 of 
 Answer 


 - 
 Directory 


 Assistance 


 DA-  1 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 8.51 
 8.24 
 7.69 
 8.78 
 8.18 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 DATABASE 
 UPDATES 
 DB-  1 


 Time 
 to 
 Update 


 Databases 


 DB-  1A 
 E911, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 1:  12 
 1:  02 
 1:  18 
 0:  58 
 1:  18 


 DB-  1B 
 LIDB, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.46 
 1.47 
 1.42 
 1.74 
 1.42 


 DB-  1C- 
 1 
 Directory 


 Listing, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.05 
 0.1 
 0.34 


 0.13 
 0.15 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 B-  3 
54
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 DB-  2 
 Accurate 
 Database 
 Updates 


 DB-  2C- 
 1 
 Directory 


 Listing, 
 % 


 99.02% 
 98.26% 
 97.01% 
 97.93% 
 97.97% 


 ELECTRONIC 
 GATEWAY 
 AVAILABILITY 


 GA-  1 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 IMA-  GUI 


 GA-  1A 
 All, 
 % 


 99.44% 
 99.67% 
 96.69% 
 99.89% 
 99.98% 


 GA-  1B 
 Fetch-  n- 
 Stuff, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 GA-  1C 
 Data 
 Arbiter, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 GA-  1D 
 SIA, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.91% 


 100% 


 GA-  2 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 IMA-  EDI 


 GA-  2 
 All, 
 % 


 99.39% 
 99.69% 
 96.69% 
 99.89% 


 100% 


 GA-  3 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 EB-  TA 


 GA-  3 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 99.86% 


 100% 
 100% 


 GA-  4 
 System 
 Availability 


 - 
 EXACT 


 GA-  4 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 GA-  6 
 Gateway 
 Availability 


 - 
 GUI 


 - 
 Repair 


 GA-  6 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 97.82% 


 100% 
 99.88% 


 GA-  7 
 Timely 
 Outage 
 Resolution 


 following 
 Software 
 Releases 


 GA-  7 
 All, 
 % 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MAINTENANCE 
 AND 
 REPAIR 


 MR-  2 
 Calls 
 Answered 


 within 
 Twenty 


 Seconds 


 - 
 Interconnect 


 Repair 
 Center 


 MR-  2 
 All, 
 % 


 92.43% 
 90.44% 
 89.25% 
 87.11% 
 88.46% 
 83.51% 
 89.21% 
 83.90% 
 88.70% 
 85.36% 


 MR-  3 
 Out 
 of 
 Service 


 Cleared 


 within 
 24 
 Hours 


 MR-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


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


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 100% 
 98.04% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 94.87% 


 100% 
 96.88% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.34% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.56% 


 100% 
 99.34% 


 100% 
 99.30% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 96.69% 


 100% 
 98.34% 


 95.45% 
 98.03% 


 100% 
 97.22% 


 90.48% 
 96.83% 


 MR-  3 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 92.31% 


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


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 96.15% 


 100% 
 97.53% 


 100% 
 97.40% 


 100% 
 98.73% 


 100% 
 97.75% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 90.48% 


 100% 
 90.00% 


 60.00% 
 92.16% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 94.12% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 90.91% 


 98.17% 


 100% 
 99.83% 


 91.30% 
 97.20% 


 100% 
 99.56% 


 90.00% 
 99.42% 


 b 
 e 


 MR-  3 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 0.00% 


 96.55% 


 87.50% 
 97.15% 
 93.75% 
 96.41% 
 83.33% 
 96.15% 
 60.00% 
 95.12% 


 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 90.70% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.25% 


 100% 
 100% 


 b 


 MR-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 91.43% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 92.00% 


 100% 
 96.67% 


 100% 
 89.66% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 100% 
 94.82% 


 100% 
 96.40% 


 100% 
 95.19% 


 100% 
 93.06% 


 100% 
 93.44% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  4 
55
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 MR-  3 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 98.03% 


 100% 
 99.81% 


 100% 
 96.98% 


 100% 
 99.59% 


 96.00% 
 99.43% 


 MR-  3 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 97.77% 


 96.54% 
 95.16% 
 97.03% 
 97.83% 
 96.25% 
 96.34% 
 96.04% 
 96.50% 
 94.98% 


 MR-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 100% 
 99.15% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.11% 


 100% 
 98.59% 


 MR-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 100% 
 94.82% 


 96.40% 
 95.19% 
 50.00% 
 93.06% 


 93.44% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 98.62% 
 96.82% 
 98.27% 
 97.57% 
 99.38% 
 96.53% 
 98.53% 
 96.66% 
 98.95% 
 95.58% 


 MR-  3 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 100% 
 99.15% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.11% 


 100% 
 98.59% 


 c 
 d 


 MR-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 ND 
 97.14% 


 98.17% 
 96.15% 
 99.83% 
 92.59% 
 97.20% 


 100% 
 99.56% 


 96.88% 
 99.42% 


 MR-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 96.55% 


 97.33% 
 97.15% 
 94.32% 
 96.41% 
 99.17% 
 96.15% 
 95.36% 
 95.12% 


 MR-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 92.31% 


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


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 96.15% 


 100% 
 97.53% 


 100% 
 97.40% 


 100% 
 98.73% 


 96.15% 
 97.75% 


 a 


 MR-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 96.15% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 93.75% 


 90.48% 
 95.24% 
 90.00% 
 96.83% 
 92.16% 
 94.83% 


 100% 
 95.83% 


 94.12% 


 MR-  4 
 All 
 Troubles 


 Cleared 
 within 
 48 
 Hours 


 MR-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


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


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 100% 


 100% 


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


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.74% 


 100% 
 99.70% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.42% 


 100% 
 99.70% 


 MR-  4 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 97.90% 


 100% 
 98.93% 


 96.43% 
 98.23% 
 96.77% 
 99.30% 
 96.97% 
 98.74% 


 MR-  4 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 97.94% 


 100% 
 98.91% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.12% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 97.83% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.21% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 95.59% 


 100% 
 96.97% 


 100% 
 96.30% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 96.61% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.74% 


 100% 
 99.73% 


 100% 
 99.85% 


 100% 
 99.92% 


 90.00% 
 99.74% 


 b 
 e 


 MR-  4 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 100% 
 98.24% 


 100% 
 98.19% 


 93.75% 
 98.69% 


 100% 
 98.35% 


 100% 
 98.41% 


 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  4 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 MR-  4 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 96.67% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 97.22% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 100% 
 98.41% 


 100% 
 99.28% 


 100% 
 98.40% 


 100% 
 96.74% 


 94.12% 
 96.54% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 MR-  4 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.74% 


 100% 
 99.74% 


 100% 
 99.82% 


 100% 
 100% 
 98.53% 


 99.74% 


 MR-  4 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 99.15% 


 98.27% 
 98.79% 
 98.13% 
 99.22% 
 98.74% 


 100% 
 98.26% 


 97.75% 
 98.38% 


 MR-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 MR-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 100% 
 98.41% 


 99.28% 
 98.40% 
 100% 
 96.74% 


 96.54% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  4 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 99.38% 
 98.61% 


 100% 
 98.55% 


 100% 
 98.99% 


 100% 
 98.70% 


 100% 
 98.63% 


 MR-  4 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 c 
 d 


 MR-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.74% 


 100% 
 99.73% 


 100% 
 99.85% 


 100% 
 99.92% 


 99.19% 
 99.74% 


 MR-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 D 
 98.46% 


 98.24% 


 100% 
 98.19% 


 100% 
 98.69% 


 99.36% 
 98.35% 
 97.66% 
 98.41% 


 MR-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 B-  5 
56
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 MR-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 97.94% 


 100% 
 98.91% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.12% 


 MR-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 96.00% 


 97.83% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.21% 


 100% 
 100% 


 MR-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 100% 
 95.59% 


 98.80% 
 96.97% 


 100% 
 96.30% 


 98.65% 


 100% 
 98.28% 


 96.61% 


 MR-  5 
 All 
 Troubles 


 Cleared 
 within 
 4 
 Hours 


 MR-  5 
 DS0, 
 % 


 87.50% 
 78.97% 
 75.00% 
 78.52% 
 78.57% 
 84.94% 
 50.00% 
 81.71% 
 85.71% 
 79.84% 


 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  5 
 DS1, 
 % 


 73.33% 
 84.13% 
 76.47% 
 85.11% 
 92.31% 
 88.30% 
 76.00% 
 84.83% 
 63.64% 
 84.65% 


 MR-  5 
 DS3, 
 % 


 97.14% 
 91.30% 
 96.00% 


 100% 
 96.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 E911, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 88.03% 
 76.42% 
 88.15% 
 89.52% 
 85.83% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 100% 
 92.00% 


 71.79% 
 100% 
 90.48% 


 87.50% 
 82.76% 


 100% 
 92.00% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 100% 
 88.24% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 92.31% 


 100% 
 100% 
 88.89% 


 b 
 c 


 MR-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 84.13% 
 85.11% 
 88.30% 
 84.83% 
 84.65% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 90.32% 
 84.13% 
 83.33% 
 85.11% 
 93.75% 
 88.30% 
 80.00% 
 84.83% 
 80.65% 
 84.65% 


 MR-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 97.14% 
 91.30% 
 96.00% 


 100% 
 96.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 100% 
 97.14% 


 88.89% 
 91.30% 


 100% 
 96.00% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 96.00% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  5 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 100% 
 84.13% 


 100% 
 85.11% 


 100% 
 88.30% 


 100% 
 84.83% 


 100% 
 84.65% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Mean 
 Time 
 to 
 Restore 


 MR-  6 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 2:  44 


 1:  58 
 0:  53 
 2:  16 
 5:  23 
 1:  51 
 2:  05 
 1:  24 
 1:  10 
 2:  13 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 4:  24 


 5:  23 


 5:  27 
 6:  01 
 3:  54 
 5:  18 
 6:  47 
 2:  35 
 5:  36 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Business, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 1:  54 


 2:  48 
 1:  12 
 2:  42 
 1:  22 
 2:  33 
 0:  36 
 2:  46 
 2:  42 
 2:  51 


 MR-  6 
 Business, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 11:  23 


 12:  02 
 15:  46 
 10:  18 
 11:  55 
 10:  47 
 12:  28 
 11:  33 
 13:  20 
 11:  15 


 MR-  6 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 1:  13 


 2:  37 
 1:  16 
 2:  18 
 4:  41 
 2:  11 
 0:  59 
 2:  36 
 2:  09 
 2:  29 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 13:  23 


 10:  21 


 7:  59 
 10:  07 


 14:  42 


 9:  57 
 5:  51 
 10:  41 


 11:  18 


 9:  01 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Centrex, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 1:  51 


 4:  11 
 2:  33 
 4:  34 
 15:  43 


 3:  53 
 1:  04 
 6:  18 


 5:  29 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Centrex, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 14:  53 


 14:  07 
 11:  18 
 10:  26 
 22:  59 
 13:  33 
 16:  24 
 11:  55 
 14:  17 
 12:  18 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 DS0, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 2:  53 
 2:  45 
 2:  13 
 2:  58 
 2:  47 
 2:  33 
 4:  16 
 2:  46 
 2:  02 
 2:  47 
 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  6 
 DS1, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  16 
 2:  13 
 2:  58 
 2:  24 
 1:  40 
 2:  02 
 2:  51 
 2:  17 
 4:  54 
 2:  26 


 MR-  6 
 DS3, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 1:  26 
 1:  26 
 1:  29 
 1:  11 
 1:  13 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 E911, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  35 
 0:  04 
 1:  15 


 1:  05 
 0:  18 


 0:  04 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 2:  02 
 3:  06 
 2:  22 
 2:  09 
 2:  06 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 1:  40 
 1:  38 


 5:  16 
 1:  20 
 1:  27 
 1:  42 
 3:  04 
 0:  55 
 1:  49 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 7:  22 


 4:  01 
 3:  18 
 3:  44 
 7:  15 
 4:  08 
 6:  10 
 3:  32 
 12:  40 


 4:  21 
 b 
 e 


 MR-  6 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 1:  29 
 13:  27 


 18:  34 
 13:  13 
 16:  31 
 13:  02 
 16:  55 
 14:  12 
 20:  47 
 13:  55 
 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  6 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  43 
 2:  16 
 0:  59 
 0:  46 
 1:  39 
 0:  52 
 1:  29 
 1:  05 
 1:  14 
 1:  16 
 b 
 c 


 MR-  6 
 PBX, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 1:  43 


 2:  37 
 1:  50 
 5:  28 
 1:  21 
 2:  23 
 1:  10 
 2:  27 
 2:  15 
 2:  52 


 B-  6 
57
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 MR-  6 
 PBX, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 14:  07 


 15:  55 


 8:  41 
 9:  29 
 4:  42 
 13:  10 


 5:  42 
 9:  26 
 18:  22 


 13:  54 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  54 
 5:  33 
 2:  04 
 4:  18 
 0:  02 
 6:  00 
 0:  31 
 8:  44 
 9:  46 
 7:  46 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 MR-  6 
 Residence, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 2:  43 


 4:  11 
 3:  58 
 3:  54 
 4:  23 
 4:  25 
 3:  05 
 3:  39 
 4:  25 
 4:  34 


 MR-  6 
 Residence, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 11:  16 


 13:  34 
 12:  42 
 13:  27 
 12:  36 
 13:  14 
 13:  18 
 14:  27 
 12:  49 
 14:  08 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 2:  03 
 3:  26 
 3:  11 
 3:  46 
 2:  40 
 2:  34 
 3:  04 
 3:  19 
 5:  13 
 3:  44 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 2:  13 
 2:  24 
 2:  02 
 2:  17 
 2:  26 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  26 
 5:  33 


 4:  18 
 6:  00 
 13:  12 


 8:  44 


 7:  46 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  10 
 2:  13 
 2:  12 
 2:  24 
 2:  00 
 2:  02 
 2:  53 
 2:  17 
 2:  59 
 2:  26 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 1:  26 
 1:  26 
 1:  29 
 1:  11 
 1:  13 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 5:  17 
 11:  10 


 5:  28 
 11:  01 


 4:  35 
 10:  45 


 5:  38 
 11:  49 


 5:  38 
 12:  18 


 MR-  6 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  07 
 3:  26 
 2:  25 
 3:  46 
 2:  26 
 2:  34 
 3:  14 
 3:  19 
 3:  19 
 3:  44 
 c 
 d 


 MR-  6 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  46 
 1:  26 
 1:  30 
 1:  26 
 0:  29 
 1:  29 
 1:  28 
 1:  11 
 0:  51 
 1:  13 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 2:  07 
 2:  13 
 2:  06 
 2:  24 
 1:  05 
 2:  02 
 1:  26 
 2:  17 
 1:  14 
 2:  26 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  6 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 3:  14 


 4:  01 
 2:  51 
 3:  44 
 3:  37 
 4:  08 
 2:  04 
 3:  32 
 4:  11 
 4:  21 


 MR-  6 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 11:  09 


 13:  27 
 10:  05 
 13:  13 
 11:  55 
 13:  02 
 11:  39 
 14:  12 
 13:  16 
 13:  55 


 MR-  6 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 2:  49 


 2:  37 
 2:  12 
 2:  18 
 1:  57 
 2:  11 
 2:  23 
 2:  36 
 2:  44 
 2:  29 


 MR-  6 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 12:  48 


 10:  21 


 7:  57 
 10:  07 


 10:  04 


 9:  57 
 10:  04 


 10:  41 


 8:  26 
 9:  01 


 MR-  6 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 ND 
 3:  20 


 4:  11 
 7:  06 
 4:  34 
 4:  09 
 3:  53 
 1:  56 
 6:  18 
 2:  38 
 5:  29 


 MR-  6 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 D 
 10:  54 


 14:  07 
 15:  00 
 10:  26 
 13:  58 
 13:  33 
 12:  39 
 11:  55 
 13:  27 
 12:  18 


 MR-  7 
 Repair 
 Repeat 
 Report 
 Rate 


 MR-  7 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 0.00% 


 21.13% 


 0.00% 
 7.41% 
 0.00% 
 14.67% 


 0.00% 
 6.85% 
 0.00% 
 7.59% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 0.00% 


 13.21% 


 12.50% 
 0.00% 
 9.76% 
 50.00% 


 5.00% 
 50.00% 


 6.25% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 22.22% 


 12.96% 
 23.08% 
 11.38% 


 8.70% 
 11.14% 


 13.33% 


 9.33% 
 6.67% 
 10.06% 


 MR-  7 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 6.25% 


 10.26% 


 15.38% 


 9.30% 
 7.14% 
 8.94% 
 6.06% 
 12.79% 


 18.18% 
 10.18% 


 MR-  7 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 30.77% 


 14.86% 


 0.00% 
 6.41% 
 50.00% 


 19.12% 
 16.67% 
 14.29% 


 0.00% 
 19.40% 


 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 40.00% 


 7.61% 
 25.00% 


 7.22% 
 0.00% 
 17.02% 


 0.00% 
 13.40% 


 12.50% 
 11.30% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 33.33% 


 8.33% 
 0.00% 
 8.70% 
 0.00% 
 11.11% 


 0.00% 
 7.14% 


 10.87% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 25.00% 


 6.76% 
 0.00% 
 8.33% 
 20.00% 


 6.78% 
 20.00% 


 2.08% 
 0.00% 
 4.92% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 DS0, 
 % 


 12.50% 
 16.59% 


 0.00% 
 13.84% 


 0.00% 
 14.88% 


 0.00% 
 15.68% 


 0.00% 
 17.00% 


 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  7 
 DS1, 
 % 


 6.67% 
 11.24% 


 23.53% 
 14.72% 


 7.69% 
 12.17% 


 12.00% 
 11.68% 


 9.09% 
 15.97% 


 MR-  7 
 DS3, 
 % 


 5.71% 
 4.35% 
 20.00% 


 7.14% 
 16.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 E911, 
 % 


 12.50% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 0.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 EELs, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 11.11% 


 18.18% 


 5.26% 
 13.33% 


 a 
 b 


 MR-  7 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 13.38% 
 16.98% 
 13.33% 
 10.48% 
 13.39% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 8.00% 


 5.13% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 13.79% 


 33.33% 
 12.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  7 
58
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 MR-  7 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 27.27% 


 16.18% 
 11.11% 
 14.10% 
 30.77% 
 12.69% 
 17.65% 
 18.06% 
 54.55% 
 15.37% 


 b 


 MR-  7 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 0.00% 


 14.58% 


 50.00% 
 18.18% 
 43.75% 
 17.31% 
 14.29% 
 23.02% 
 16.67% 
 20.80% 


 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  7 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 17.65% 


 12.50% 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 15.38% 


 0.00% 
 7.14% 
 0.00% 


 b 
 c 


 MR-  7 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 7.14% 


 12.12% 


 15.38% 
 10.91% 


 4.00% 
 9.80% 
 15.00% 


 10.14% 


 5.56% 
 4.44% 


 MR-  7 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 0.00% 


 25.00% 


 0.00% 
 25.64% 


 0.00% 
 29.03% 


 0.00% 
 15.63% 


 0.00% 
 13.89% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 15.87% 


 0.00% 
 14.75% 


 0.00% 
 13.46% 


 0.00% 
 19.16% 


 23.53% 
 16.38% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 MR-  7 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 14.29% 


 10.86% 
 12.68% 


 8.07% 
 3.57% 
 9.85% 
 8.77% 
 8.04% 
 10.29% 


 8.80% 


 MR-  7 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 11.60% 


 10.78% 
 10.55% 


 9.74% 
 8.27% 
 9.39% 
 12.82% 


 9.12% 
 8.29% 
 10.23% 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 17.74% 


 5.56% 
 9.80% 
 0.00% 
 12.93% 


 7.14% 
 6.19% 
 13.33% 


 6.99% 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 11.24% 
 14.72% 
 12.17% 
 11.68% 
 15.97% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 15.87% 


 14.75% 
 13.46% 
 0.00% 
 19.16% 


 16.38% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 16.13% 
 11.24% 


 5.56% 
 14.72% 


 6.25% 
 12.17% 


 15.00% 
 11.68% 


 3.23% 
 15.97% 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 5.71% 
 4.35% 
 20.00% 


 7.14% 
 16.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 7.04% 
 10.83% 


 7.48% 
 9.44% 
 9.66% 
 9.52% 
 6.07% 
 9.16% 
 7.48% 
 10.02% 


 MR-  7 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 17.74% 


 0.00% 
 9.80% 
 10.00% 


 12.93% 
 10.00% 


 6.19% 
 10.53% 


 6.99% 


 c 
 d 


 MR-  7 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 5.71% 
 0.00% 
 4.35% 
 0.00% 
 20.00% 


 0.00% 
 7.14% 
 0.00% 
 16.00% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 11.24% 


 0.00% 
 14.72% 


 0.00% 
 12.17% 


 0.00% 
 11.68% 


 0.00% 
 15.97% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 ND 
 19.39% 


 11.12% 
 14.44% 


 8.49% 
 7.95% 
 10.04% 


 14.66% 


 8.22% 
 13.71% 


 8.96% 


 MR-  7 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 D 
 11.03% 


 10.74% 
 11.50% 


 9.71% 
 13.82% 


 9.36% 
 9.15% 
 9.41% 
 12.23% 


 10.22% 


 MR-  7 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 22.58% 


 14.86% 
 16.67% 


 6.41% 
 9.09% 
 19.12% 


 10.34% 
 14.29% 


 9.09% 
 19.40% 


 MR-  7 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 12.50% 


 7.61% 
 7.69% 
 7.22% 
 15.38% 


 17.02% 
 23.33% 
 13.40% 
 19.51% 
 11.30% 


 MR-  7 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 16.95% 


 8.33% 
 22.00% 


 8.70% 
 6.45% 
 11.11% 


 4.76% 
 7.14% 
 16.00% 


 10.87% 


 MR-  7 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 8.64% 


 6.76% 
 10.23% 


 8.33% 
 18.52% 


 6.78% 
 13.92% 


 2.08% 
 4.92% 
 4.92% 


 MR-  7* 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 0.00% 


 20.45% 


 3.03% 
 0.00% 
 21.15% 


 0.00% 
 8.33% 
 0.00% 
 8.93% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 0.00% 


 12.77% 


 8.89% 
 0.00% 
 10.53% 


 50.00% 


 5.88% 
 50.00% 


 5.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 33.33% 


 12.14% 
 10.00% 
 11.62% 
 12.50% 
 12.20% 
 12.50% 
 11.94% 


 9.09% 
 12.02% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 MR-  7* 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 7.14% 


 10.52% 


 12.00% 


 8.09% 
 8.00% 
 9.04% 
 6.90% 
 12.14% 


 13.79% 
 10.35% 


 MR-  7* 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 33.33% 


 17.78% 


 0.00% 
 8.33% 
 57.14% 


 18.92% 


 0.00% 
 17.74% 


 0.00% 
 23.68% 


 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 50.00% 


 5.88% 
 28.57% 


 8.33% 
 0.00% 
 16.87% 


 0.00% 
 13.64% 


 12.50% 
 13.13% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 10.81% 


 11.43% 
 0.00% 
 5.71% 
 0.00% 
 6.82% 


 11.11% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 25.00% 


 7.69% 
 0.00% 
 10.00% 


 20.00% 


 7.41% 
 0.00% 
 2.50% 
 0.00% 
 6.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 DS0, 
 % 


 14.29% 
 16.51% 


 0.00% 
 13.62% 


 0.00% 
 12.98% 


 0.00% 
 15.58% 


 0.00% 
 17.16% 


 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  7* 
 DS1, 
 % 


 7.69% 
 12.14% 


 27.27% 
 13.94% 


 6.67% 
 12.33% 


 18.75% 
 12.22% 


 6.67% 
 15.74% 


 MR-  7* 
 DS3, 
 % 


 4.35% 
 0.00% 
 22.22% 


 5.56% 
 7.14% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 E911, 
 % 


 16.67% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 0.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  8 
59
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 MR-  7* 
 EELs, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 14.29% 


 0.00% 
 5.56% 
 7.69% 
 a 
 b 


 c 


 MR-  7* 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 13.00% 
 18.75% 
 13.08% 
 10.53% 
 14.58% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 9.52% 


 7.14% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 13.04% 


 100% 
 15.00% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 25.00% 


 15.97% 


 0.00% 
 14.20% 


 33.33% 
 13.13% 
 25.00% 
 18.51% 
 25.00% 
 15.83% 


 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 0.00% 


 0.00% 
 66.67% 


 22.22% 
 35.71% 
 22.73% 


 0.00% 
 26.52% 


 0.00% 
 23.57% 


 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 MR-  7* 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 16.67% 


 16.67% 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 20.00% 


 0.00% 
 7.69% 
 0.00% 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 MR-  7* 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 7.69% 


 8.70% 
 0.00% 
 8.33% 
 0.00% 
 9.68% 
 13.33% 


 11.11% 


 6.67% 
 4.88% 


 b 


 MR-  7* 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 0.00% 


 23.08% 


 0.00% 
 21.43% 


 0.00% 
 28.57% 


 0.00% 
 14.81% 


 0.00% 
 16.13% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 13.01% 


 14.29% 
 0.00% 
 19.90% 


 33.33% 
 17.19% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 MR-  7* 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 24.24% 


 11.97% 
 22.22% 


 8.63% 
 0.00% 
 10.52% 


 7.69% 
 9.26% 
 7.69% 
 9.41% 


 MR-  7* 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 11.90% 


 10.63% 
 10.66% 


 9.55% 
 8.40% 
 9.23% 
 12.94% 


 9.01% 
 7.14% 
 10.08% 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 16.48% 


 6.67% 
 6.41% 
 0.00% 
 16.67% 


 7.69% 
 7.32% 
 16.67% 


 a 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 12.14% 
 13.94% 
 12.33% 
 12.22% 
 15.74% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 13.01% 


 15.00% 
 14.29% 
 0.00% 
 19.90% 


 17.19% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 16.67% 
 12.14% 


 0.00% 
 13.94% 


 7.41% 
 12.33% 


 6.67% 
 12.22% 


 0.00% 
 15.74% 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 4.35% 
 0.00% 
 22.22% 


 5.56% 
 7.14% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 6.22% 
 10.80% 


 7.60% 
 9.40% 
 10.15% 


 9.45% 
 5.66% 
 9.31% 
 7.43% 
 10.07% 


 MR-  7* 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 16.48% 


 0.00% 
 6.41% 
 10.00% 


 16.67% 
 10.00% 


 7.32% 
 11.11% 


 c 
 d 


 MR-  7* 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 4.35% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 22.22% 
 0.00% 
 5.56% 
 0.00% 
 7.14% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 12.14% 


 0.00% 
 13.94% 


 0.00% 
 12.33% 


 0.00% 
 12.22% 


 0.00% 
 15.74% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 - 
 P, 


 POTS, 


 % 


 ND 
 17.91% 


 11.99% 
 16.95% 


 9.11% 
 8.20% 
 10.86% 


 17.11% 


 9.73% 
 9.64% 
 9.78% 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 - 
 P, 


 POTS, 


 % 


 D 
 11.11% 


 10.62% 
 11.65% 


 9.45% 
 12.62% 


 9.22% 
 9.27% 
 9.26% 
 12.98% 


 10.10% 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 28.57% 


 17.78% 
 10.00% 


 8.33% 
 12.50% 


 18.92% 
 10.53% 
 17.74% 
 14.29% 
 23.68% 


 b 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex 


 21, 
 % 


 D 
 7.14% 


 5.88% 
 8.00% 
 8.33% 
 5.00% 
 16.87% 


 23.08% 
 13.64% 
 13.89% 
 13.13% 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 8.57% 


 7.69% 
 10.84% 


 10.00% 
 18.92% 


 7.41% 
 14.10% 


 2.50% 
 5.26% 
 6.00% 


 MR-  7* 
 UNE 
 P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 19.05% 


 10.81% 
 21.21% 
 11.43% 


 6.25% 
 5.71% 
 6.25% 
 6.82% 
 5.56% 
 11.11% 


 MR-  8 
 Trouble 
 Rate 


 MR-  8 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 0.64% 
 0.30% 
 0.13% 
 0.25% 
 0.74% 
 0.28% 
 0.86% 
 0.28% 
 1.31% 
 0.37% 


 MR-  8 
 Business, 
 % 


 0.48% 
 0.42% 
 0.41% 
 0.37% 
 0.53% 
 0.38% 
 0.52% 
 0.40% 
 0.52% 
 0.49% 


 MR-  8 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 0.73% 
 0.40% 
 0.62% 
 0.43% 
 0.64% 
 0.40% 
 0.82% 
 0.48% 
 1.12% 
 0.47% 


 MR-  8 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 0.64% 
 0.13% 
 0.87% 
 0.08% 
 0.58% 
 0.11% 
 0.84% 
 0.10% 
 0.22% 
 0.11% 


 MR-  8 
 DS0, 
 % 


 0.43% 
 0.44% 
 0.21% 
 0.42% 
 0.76% 
 0.56% 
 0.43% 
 0.43% 
 0.39% 
 0.51% 


 MR-  8 
 DS1, 
 % 


 1.65% 
 1.22% 
 1.84% 
 1.25% 
 2.74% 
 1.30% 
 2.61% 
 1.34% 
 2.23% 
 1.32% 


 MR-  8 
 DS3, 
 % 


 0.00% 
 1.01% 
 0.00% 
 0.66% 
 0.00% 
 0.72% 
 0.00% 
 0.81% 
 0.00% 
 0.72% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 E911, 
 % 


 1.03% 
 0.00% 
 0.13% 
 0.07% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.37% 
 0.34% 
 0.00% 
 0.07% 


 B-  9 
60
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 MR-  8 
 EELs, 
 % 


 1.86% 
 2.15% 
 2.37% 
 3.56% 
 2.63% 


 MR-  8 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 1.54% 
 1.15% 
 1.52% 
 1.21% 
 1.51% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 0.10% 
 0.03% 
 0.00% 
 0.04% 
 0.09% 
 0.02% 
 0.35% 
 0.03% 
 0.12% 
 0.03% 


 MR-  8 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 0.71% 
 0.84% 
 0.95% 
 0.74% 
 2.32% 
 0.68% 
 1.28% 
 0.74% 
 0.84% 
 1.05% 


 MR-  8 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.00% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.00% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 
 0.01% 


 MR-  8 
 PBX, 
 % 


 0.15% 
 0.14% 
 0.13% 
 0.12% 
 0.22% 
 0.10% 
 0.20% 
 0.13% 
 0.17% 
 0.11% 


 MR-  8 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 1.30% 
 0.99% 
 5.00% 
 1.12% 
 2.38% 
 1.28% 
 0.27% 
 1.84% 
 2.13% 
 1.77% 


 MR-  8 
 Residence, 
 % 


 0.91% 
 0.93% 
 0.68% 
 0.82% 
 0.68% 
 0.74% 
 0.70% 
 0.82% 
 1.04% 
 1.17% 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 0.25% 
 0.30% 
 0.38% 
 0.25% 
 0.39% 
 0.28% 
 0.29% 
 0.28% 
 0.30% 
 0.37% 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 1.22% 
 0.00% 
 1.25% 
 0.00% 
 1.30% 
 0.00% 
 1.34% 
 0.00% 
 1.32% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 0.85% 
 0.99% 
 0.00% 
 1.12% 
 0.00% 
 1.28% 
 1.87% 
 1.84% 
 0.00% 
 1.77% 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 2.41% 
 1.22% 
 1.34% 
 1.25% 
 2.29% 
 1.30% 
 1.38% 
 1.34% 
 2.07% 
 1.32% 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 1.01% 
 0.66% 
 0.72% 
 0.81% 
 0.72% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 0.50% 
 0.84% 
 0.40% 
 0.74% 
 0.38% 
 0.68% 
 0.40% 
 0.74% 
 0.59% 
 1.05% 


 MR-  8 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 0.76% 
 0.30% 
 0.72% 
 0.25% 
 0.56% 
 0.28% 
 0.55% 
 0.28% 
 1.05% 
 0.37% 


 MR-  8 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 1.23% 
 1.01% 
 5.42% 
 0.66% 
 0.60% 
 0.72% 
 3.36% 
 0.81% 
 0.92% 
 0.72% 


 MR-  8 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 0.54% 
 1.22% 
 0.55% 
 1.25% 
 1.10% 
 1.30% 
 1.12% 
 1.34% 
 1.64% 
 1.32% 


 MR-  8 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 0.69% 
 0.84% 
 0.56% 
 0.74% 
 0.56% 
 0.68% 
 0.72% 
 0.74% 
 0.84% 
 1.05% 


 MR-  8 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 0.47% 
 0.40% 
 0.43% 
 0.43% 
 0.45% 
 0.40% 
 0.54% 
 0.48% 
 0.58% 
 0.47% 


 MR-  8 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 0.49% 
 0.13% 
 0.52% 
 0.08% 
 0.44% 
 0.11% 
 0.47% 
 0.10% 
 0.42% 
 0.11% 


 MR-  9 
 Repair 
 Appointments 


 Met 


 MR-  9 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 100% 
 66.67% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 94.44% 


 98.94% 


 100% 
 98.20% 


 100% 
 97.97% 


 100% 
 99.13% 


 100% 
 99.41% 


 MR-  9 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 95.24% 


 100% 
 95.49% 


 92.86% 
 96.46% 
 96.97% 
 97.04% 
 90.91% 
 96.33% 


 MR-  9 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 97.30% 


 100% 
 98.72% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.51% 


 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 80.00% 


 93.48% 


 100% 
 95.88% 


 100% 
 92.55% 


 100% 
 93.81% 


 100% 
 95.65% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 96.61% 


 100% 
 93.48% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 97.50% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 88.73% 


 100% 
 91.43% 


 80.00% 
 91.38% 


 100% 
 88.37% 


 100% 
 98.28% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 96.77% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 95.83% 


 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 85.00% 


 66.67% 


 100% 
 100% 
 96.15% 


 100% 
 96.15% 


 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 MR-  9 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 98.70% 


 99.01% 


 100% 
 99.34% 


 100% 
 98.43% 


 100% 
 99.77% 


 100% 
 99.45% 


 MR-  9 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 97.51% 


 95.29% 
 94.14% 
 95.25% 
 97.74% 
 96.00% 
 97.07% 
 94.93% 
 97.56% 
 96.11% 


 MR-  9 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 ND 
 96.94% 


 99.00% 
 98.89% 
 99.19% 
 97.73% 
 98.36% 
 99.14% 
 99.68% 
 97.58% 
 99.44% 


 MR-  9 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 D 
 96.32% 


 95.28% 
 97.35% 
 95.27% 


 100% 
 96.03% 


 97.56% 
 95.10% 
 96.51% 
 96.13% 


 B-  10 
61
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 MR-  11 
 LNP 
 Trouble 


 Reports 
 Cleared 


 MR-  11B 
 Volumes 
 0-  20, 
 LNP, 
 Days 


 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 


 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 NETWORK 
 PERFORMANCE  NI-  1  Trunk  Blocking  NI-  1A  to  Qwest  Tandem 


 Offices, 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.00% 
 0.03% 
 0.00% 
 0.22% 
 0.05% 
 0.00% 
 0.01% 
 0.00% 
 0.02% 
 0.00% 


 NI-  1B 
 to 
 Qwest 


 End 
 Offices, 


 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


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


 NI-  1C 
 to 
 Qwest 


 Tandem 


 Offices, 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.73% 
 0.03% 
 0.47% 
 0.22% 
 1.69% 
 0.00% 
 0.74% 
 0.00% 
 0.19% 
 0.00% 


 NI-  1D 
 to 
 Qwest 


 End 
 Offices, 


 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 0.06% 
 0.00% 
 0.03% 
 0.00% 
 1.55% 
 0.00% 
 0.13% 
 0.04% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 NP-  1 
 NXX 
 Code 
 Activation 


 NP-  1A 
 All, 
 % 


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


 c 
 d 


 e 


 ORDER 
 ACCURACY  OA-  1  All,  % 


 99.75% 
 99.90% 
 99.55% 
 99.43% 
 99.43% 


 ORDERING 
 AND 
 PROVISIONING 


 OP-  2 
 Calls 
 Answered 


 within 
 Twenty 


 Seconds 


 - 
 Interconnect 


 Provisioning 
 Center 


 OP-  2 
 All, 
 % 


 98.19% 
 77.80% 
 98.92% 
 84.04% 
 98.17% 
 75.49% 
 99.30% 
 83.16% 
 98.57% 
 80.84% 


 OP-  3 
 Installation 
 Commitments 


 Met 


 OP-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 66.67% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 D 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 91.67% 
 92.11% 
 83.33% 
 84.59% 
 66.67% 
 93.87% 


 100% 
 87.89% 


 100% 
 95.58% 


 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Business, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.45% 


 100% 
 94.63% 


 100% 
 97.60% 


 100% 
 97.07% 


 100% 
 99.08% 


 OP-  3 
 Business, 
 % 


 D 
 93.75% 


 90.41% 
 93.75% 
 92.34% 


 100% 
 93.54% 


 100% 
 94.87% 


 100% 
 97.02% 


 OP-  3 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 95.52% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 94.29% 


 100% 
 97.30% 


 OP-  3 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 89.90% 


 80.00% 
 93.00% 


 100% 
 95.19% 


 100% 
 94.51% 


 100% 
 92.31% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 70.83% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 D 
 96.79% 


 99.43% 
 97.60% 
 97.83% 
 98.25% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 DS0, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 50.00% 


 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 0.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 DS0, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 80.00% 
 0.00% 


 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 DS0, 
 % 


 100% 
 55.56% 


 100% 
 61.90% 


 83.33% 
 69.23% 


 100% 
 84.21% 


 80.00% 
 76.92% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 DS1, 
 % 


 100% 
 86.23% 


 100% 
 85.53% 


 100% 
 88.62% 


 83.33% 
 90.66% 
 75.00% 
 92.02% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 DS3, 
 % 


 86.36% 
 89.47% 
 75.00% 
 100% 
 68.09% 


 87.95% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 E911, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 EELs, 
 % 


 92.00% 
 79.41% 
 85.00% 
 85.71% 
 70.21% 


 OP-  3 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 85.37% 
 88.51% 
 95.41% 
 90.16% 
 82.09% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 D 
 50.00% 


 0.00% 
 100% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  11 
62
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 OP-  3 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 75.00% 
 78.79% 
 93.33% 
 70.49% 
 71.43% 
 78.18% 


 100% 
 70.59% 


 81.82% 
 62.03% 


 a 
 c 
 d 


 OP-  3 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.55% 


 100% 
 99.26% 


 100% 
 99.56% 


 100% 
 99.54% 


 100% 
 99.66% 


 OP-  3 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 D 
 90.80% 


 91.66% 
 93.82% 
 95.69% 
 97.70% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 87.93% 
 96.67% 
 99.29% 
 85.71% 


 100% 
 96.67% 


 95.88% 
 89.66% 
 98.31% 
 84.62% 


 OP-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 88.89% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 87.50% 


 100% 
 100% 
 66.67% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 D 
 86.49% 
 0.00% 
 88.46% 


 100% 
 91.67% 


 100% 
 91.30% 


 89.47% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 PBX, 
 % 


 94.87% 
 74.36% 
 96.15% 
 37.50% 


 100% 
 76.00% 


 100% 
 81.82% 


 68.92% 
 64.29% 


 OP-  3 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 ND 
 98.48% 


 99.45% 
 97.80% 
 99.23% 


 100% 
 99.09% 


 98.70% 
 99.39% 


 100% 
 99.24% 


 OP-  3 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 D 
 80.00% 


 96.62% 


 100% 
 97.24% 


 100% 
 97.75% 


 100% 
 96.88% 


 90.91% 
 95.25% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 OP-  3 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 90.48% 


 100% 
 92.31% 


 87.50% 
 83.33% 


 100% 
 94.74% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 OP-  3 
 Residence, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 99.55% 


 99.83% 
 99.38% 
 99.87% 
 99.60% 
 99.79% 
 99.60% 
 99.81% 
 99.67% 


 OP-  3 
 Residence, 
 % 


 D 
 94.51% 


 90.91% 
 94.07% 
 91.48% 
 94.47% 
 93.90% 
 96.93% 
 95.94% 
 97.98% 
 97.90% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 99.43% 
 93.75% 
 98.16% 
 86.73% 
 98.86% 
 94.25% 
 99.37% 
 88.26% 


 100% 
 95.85% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 100% 
 86.23% 


 85.53% 
 88.62% 
 90.66% 
 92.02% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 100% 
 96.62% 


 100% 
 97.09% 


 100% 
 97.75% 


 100% 
 96.91% 


 100% 
 95.32% 


 a 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 92.16% 
 86.23% 
 89.58% 
 85.53% 
 93.55% 
 88.62% 
 89.58% 
 90.66% 


 100% 
 92.02% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 86.36% 
 89.47% 
 75.00% 
 68.09% 
 87.95% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 D 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 98.60% 
 90.80% 
 98.44% 
 91.66% 
 98.60% 
 93.82% 
 98.75% 
 95.69% 
 99.22% 
 97.70% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 Conditioned, 


 % 


 54.55% 
 77.42% 
 87.88% 
 94.12% 
 96.00% 


 OP-  3 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 85.00% 
 93.75% 
 97.56% 
 86.73% 
 93.55% 
 94.25% 
 94.12% 
 87.89% 
 90.48% 
 95.58% 


 OP-  3 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 100% 
 86.36% 


 89.47% 
 100% 
 75.00% 


 100% 
 68.09% 


 0.00% 
 87.95% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 100% 
 86.23% 


 100% 
 85.53% 


 88.62% 
 100% 
 90.66% 


 77.78% 
 92.02% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 ND 
 99.73% 


 99.55% 
 99.51% 
 99.26% 
 99.64% 
 99.56% 
 99.80% 
 99.54% 
 99.89% 
 99.66% 


 OP-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 D 
 96.81% 


 90.80% 
 95.79% 
 91.66% 
 98.43% 
 93.82% 
 96.41% 
 95.69% 
 97.08% 
 97.70% 


 OP-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 ND 
 100% 
 95.52% 


 96.15% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 95.08% 


 94.29% 
 94.12% 
 97.30% 


 OP-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 D 
 100% 
 89.90% 


 95.00% 
 93.00% 


 100% 
 95.19% 


 100% 
 94.51% 


 95.00% 
 92.31% 


 OP-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 ND 
 100% 


 100% 
 97.78% 


 70.83% 
 97.50% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 OP-  3 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 D 
 98.25% 


 96.79% 
 89.74% 
 99.43% 
 98.25% 
 97.60% 
 94.64% 
 97.83% 
 97.78% 
 98.25% 


 OP-  4 
 Installation 
 Interval 


 OP-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2 
 3.11 


 3 
 3 
 3.5 


 2 


 2.5 
 4 
 3 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 2.25 


 1 
 3 
 2 
 0 


 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 7.73 
 10.89 


 7 
 10.65 


 7.5 
 8.91 


 3 
 8.75 


 3.5 
 7.59 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 1.57 
 1.91 
 1.94 
 2.82 


 2.5 
 2.21 


 2.24 
 1.84 
 2.33 
 3.11 


 B-  12 
63
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 OP-  4 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 3.91 
 6.03 


 4.5 
 5.39 


 3.3 
 4.8 
 5.26 


 4.93 
 2.56 
 4.84 


 OP-  4 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 
 3.22 
 5.26 


 5 
 3.19 


 3 
 3.29 


 2 
 2.64 


 5.5 
 3.37 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 4 
 7.8 


 4.8 
 4.84 


 5.33 
 4.93 
 2.33 


 5.3 


 4 
 7.14 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 5 
 5.57 


 3.51 
 4.57 
 4.84 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 7.96 
 7.54 
 6.11 
 5.88 
 7.19 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 5 
 2 
 7 
 7 
 5 
 3.5 


 4 
 5 
 9 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 4 
 4.8 
 8.8 


 5.5 
 4.67 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 6.57 
 10.77 


 8.7 
 13.56 


 6 
 6.65 


 7 
 9.8 


 8.6 
 10.38 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 4.5 
 11.85 


 7 
 13.84 


 8 
 12.12 


 13.25 
 11.88 


 16.6 
 11.88 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 DS3, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 18.94 
 18.06 
 17.11 
 12 
 14.58 


 13.6 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 E911, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 9 
 27 


 8.6 
 35 
 61.25 


 92 
 32 
 15 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 e 


 OP-  4 
 EELs, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 5.29 
 9.33 
 5.62 
 6.67 


 7 
 a 
 b 


 d 
 e 


 OP-  4 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 10 
 21 


 13 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 3.57 
 3.33 


 2 
 8 
 8 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 4 


 10 
 3 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 8.14 
 15.57 


 5.92 
 17.99 


 5.4 
 28.28 


 8.22 
 13.31 


 6.06 
 20.95 


 a 
 c 
 d 


 OP-  4 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.95 
 3.03 


 3 
 2.83 


 2.99 
 2.49 
 2.94 
 2.39 


 3 
 2.48 


 OP-  4 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.79 
 5.41 
 4.75 
 4.87 


 4.9 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 16.61 
 20.66 
 10.82 
 14.43 
 11.49 
 15.35 
 11.82 
 12.65 
 17.31 
 16.45 


 OP-  4 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 5.33 
 2.88 


 6 
 2 
 4.8 


 1.8 
 1.6 
 2.17 


 5.67 
 1.38 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 8.41 
 7 
 9.38 


 3 
 5.83 


 6.5 
 6.78 


 3 
 4.37 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 6.76 
 12.11 


 6.49 
 17.27 


 5.9 
 16.83 


 6.97 
 11.05 


 9.22 
 13.55 


 OP-  4 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 4.83 
 4.92 
 4.68 
 4.95 
 4.68 


 4.9 
 4.7 
 4.95 


 5.12 
 4.95 


 OP-  4 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 6 
 5.53 


 5.17 
 5.54 
 6.29 
 5.42 


 6 
 5.35 


 6.55 
 5.58 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 OP-  4 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 5.75 
 6 
 5.5 


 7.55 


 6.75 
 4.67 
 7.67 
 6.81 


 5 
 4.39 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.12 
 3.05 
 2.43 
 2.83 


 2.3 
 2.5 
 2.25 


 2.4 
 1.87 


 2.47 


 OP-  4 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 3.71 
 5.72 
 3.23 
 5.41 


 3.3 
 4.73 


 3.12 
 4.86 
 3.04 
 4.91 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 4.04 
 10.04 


 4.15 
 10.28 


 3.82 
 8.76 
 4.33 
 8.66 
 4.05 
 7.36 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5 
 11.85 


 13.84 
 12.12 
 11.88 
 11.88 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 4 
 5.52 


 4.78 
 5.53 
 4.38 
 5.43 
 4.25 
 5.37 


 3.5 
 5.55 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 6.5 
 11.85 


 6.37 
 13.84 


 5.14 
 12.12 


 7.91 
 11.88 


 5.68 
 11.88 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 18.94 
 18.06 
 17.11 
 14.58 


 13.6 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5.09 
 5.79 
 5.26 
 5.41 
 5.19 
 4.75 
 5.39 
 4.87 
 5.14 


 4.9 


 B-  13 
64
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 Conditioned, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 9.76 
 7.05 
 7.32 
 5.72 
 5.56 


 OP-  4 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5.23 
 10.04 


 4.26 
 10.28 


 4.53 
 8.76 
 4.25 
 8.75 
 4.57 
 7.59 


 OP-  4 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 4.5 
 18.94 


 7.5 
 18.06 


 9 
 17.11 


 9 
 14.58 


 18.5 
 13.6 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 7.57 
 11.85 


 7 
 13.84 


 12.12 
 11 
 11.88 


 7.56 
 11.88 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 2.29 
 3.03 
 2.58 
 2.83 
 2.34 
 2.49 
 2.55 
 2.39 
 2.14 
 2.48 


 OP-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 3.79 
 5.79 
 4.52 
 5.41 
 3.53 
 4.75 
 4.31 
 4.87 
 4.25 


 4.9 


 OP-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 
 2.54 
 5.26 


 2.8 
 3.19 


 2.25 
 3.29 
 5.67 
 2.64 


 3.5 
 3.37 
 b 
 c 
 e 


 OP-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 3.86 


 7.8 
 7.1 
 4.84 


 4.27 
 4.93 
 4.56 


 5.3 
 6.8 
 7.14 


 OP-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 4.43 


 5 
 5.11 


 5.57 


 5 
 3.51 


 5.26 
 4.57 
 4.91 
 4.84 


 OP-  4 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5.67 
 7.96 
 5.59 
 7.54 


 5.3 
 6.11 


 6.93 
 5.88 
 7.15 
 7.19 


 OP-  5 
 New 
 Service 


 Installation 


 Quality 


 OP-  5 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 % 


 100% 
 98.76% 


 100% 
 98.19% 


 100% 
 97.83% 


 84.62% 
 97.21% 


 100% 
 95.69% 


 a 
 e 


 OP-  5 
 Business, 
 % 


 97.83% 
 95.00% 
 94.81% 
 94.16% 
 96.00% 
 94.58% 
 90.91% 
 94.65% 
 94.12% 
 94.04% 


 OP-  5 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 86.21% 
 94.48% 


 100% 
 93.45% 


 94.59% 
 94.16% 


 100% 
 90.37% 


 96.43% 
 91.87% 


 OP-  5 
 Centrex, 
 % 


 99.42% 
 98.59% 


 100% 
 98.62% 


 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 DS0, 
 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 96.88% 


 100% 
 87.88% 


 100% 
 96.77% 


 100% 
 73.33% 


 d 


 OP-  5 
 DS1, 
 % 


 100% 
 95.99% 


 100% 
 96.74% 


 100% 
 96.32% 


 100% 
 96.58% 


 100% 
 95.83% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 DS3, 
 % 


 98.18% 
 94.44% 


 100% 
 100% 
 91.03% 


 100% 
 93.83% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 E911, 
 % 


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


 c 


 OP-  5 
 EELs, 
 % 


 100% 
 92.11% 


 95.45% 
 94.44% 
 98.28% 


 OP-  5 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 % 


 93.90% 
 96.55% 
 95.10% 
 95.94% 
 96.08% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 % 


 100% 
 95.65% 


 91.67% 
 94.90% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 95.29% 


 100% 
 96.43% 


 a 
 d 


 OP-  5 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 % 


 95.90% 
 92.40% 
 93.72% 
 92.17% 
 90.50% 
 92.24% 
 94.42% 
 92.04% 
 96.64% 
 90.77% 


 OP-  5 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 98.44% 
 97.83% 
 98.18% 


 100% 
 98.15% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.64% 


 100% 


 OP-  5 
 PBX, 
 % 


 94.44% 
 94.38% 
 97.96% 
 94.25% 
 93.33% 
 96.55% 
 98.11% 
 96.34% 
 98.31% 
 94.37% 


 OP-  5 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 % 


 99.17% 
 99.97% 
 97.78% 
 99.93% 
 99.00% 
 99.97% 
 98.91% 
 99.94% 
 98.98% 


 100% 


 OP-  5 
 Residence, 
 % 


 96.16% 
 92.15% 
 96.57% 
 91.98% 
 96.12% 
 92.01% 
 95.15% 
 91.78% 
 94.20% 
 90.45% 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 % 


 97.25% 
 97.51% 
 96.05% 
 96.37% 
 95.98% 
 95.67% 
 97.08% 
 97.21% 
 98.59% 
 95.69% 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 % 


 100% 
 95.99% 


 100% 
 96.74% 


 96.32% 
 96.58% 
 95.83% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 % 


 66.67% 
 99.82% 


 100% 
 99.61% 


 100% 
 99.83% 


 100% 
 99.64% 


 100% 
 100% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 % 


 91.36% 
 95.99% 
 95.16% 
 96.74% 
 94.12% 
 96.32% 
 94.12% 
 96.58% 
 88.57% 
 95.83% 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 % 


 98.18% 
 94.44% 


 100% 
 91.03% 


 93.83% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 % 


 98.01% 
 76.76% 
 98.53% 
 75.93% 
 98.59% 
 75.76% 
 97.61% 
 74.74% 
 98.11% 
 71.10% 


 OP-  5 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 % 


 98.00% 
 97.51% 
 97.67% 
 96.37% 
 97.44% 
 95.67% 
 97.06% 
 97.08% 
 95.12% 
 95.47% 


 OP-  5 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 % 


 100% 
 98.18% 


 100% 
 94.44% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 91.03% 


 100% 
 93.83% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  14 
65
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 OP-  5 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 % 


 100% 
 95.99% 


 100% 
 96.74% 


 100% 
 96.32% 


 100% 
 96.58% 


 100% 
 95.83% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  5 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 96.49% 
 92.40% 
 96.43% 
 92.17% 
 95.86% 
 92.24% 
 95.53% 
 92.04% 
 97.60% 
 90.77% 


 OP-  5 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 % 


 95.69% 
 94.48% 
 98.81% 
 93.45% 
 97.09% 
 94.16% 
 96.26% 
 90.37% 


 100% 
 91.87% 


 OP-  5 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 % 


 99.19% 
 98.85% 


 100% 
 97.18% 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 98.62% 


 100% 
 100% 


 OP-  6A 
 Delayed 
 Days 
 for 
 Non-  Facility 


 Reasons 


 OP-  6A 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 16.15 
 12 
 6.81 


 3 
 5.82 


 4.33 
 3.17 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 12.67 


 11.74 


 7.78 
 13.11 


 4.33 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 2 
 4.65 


 5.13 
 1 
 4.52 


 5.54 
 4.26 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 
 21.25 


 3 
 8 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 28.14 
 1 
 1 


 2.75 


 1.67 


 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 7 
 1 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 30.25 


 17.89 


 5 
 3.75 


 6 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 1 
 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 1 
 1 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 10 
 10.56 
 1 
 6 


 18.33 
 4 
 15.5 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 14.02 
 12.69 
 14.68 
 15 
 10.9 


 3 
 6.86 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 DS3, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 32.25 
 37 
 24 


 6 
 19.88 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 E911, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 EELs, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 6.8 
 13 
 14 
 2.25 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 21.25 
 5.29 
 7.57 


 7.8 
 10.44 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 1 


 4 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5.5 
 15.83 


 2 
 16.69 


 1 
 34.77 


 17.87 
 1.25 
 17.63 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 3.65 
 4.46 
 4.42 
 5.25 
 5.02 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 4.48 
 2 
 3.96 


 4.07 
 4.65 
 3.69 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 19.5 
 4 
 5 
 5 
 12 


 23 
 4.67 


 2.5 
 11 


 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 12 


 4 
 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 25 
 3 
 2 


 2 
 1 
 6a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 1 
 10.73 


 1 
 10.57 


 17.28 
 12.88 
 4.26 
 13.53 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 OP-  6A 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 1 
 9.14 


 1.5 
 6.95 


 6.63 
 1 
 9.43 


 10.22 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 1 
 3.81 


 2.67 


 3 
 3.36 


 6.22 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 2.5 
 21 
 3 
 2.67 


 3 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 3.2 
 1 
 2.64 


 1 
 3.73 


 1 
 3.6 


 2 
 5.07 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  15 
66
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 OP-  6A 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 2.5 
 4.41 


 2.83 
 3.53 
 7.67 


 3.9 


 2 
 4.29 


 2 
 3.46 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 4 
 16.15 


 6.81 
 1 
 5.82 


 4.33 
 3.17 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 14.02 
 12.69 
 14.68 


 10.9 
 6.86 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 3.81 
 2.75 


 3 
 3.36 


 6.22 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 7.67 
 14.02 


 12.69 
 1.5 
 14.68 


 13 
 10.9 


 13 
 6.86 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 32.25 
 37 
 24 


 6 
 19.88 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 3.45 
 4.48 
 3.39 
 3.96 
 4.43 
 4.07 


 6.2 
 4.65 


 8.36 
 3.69 


 OP-  6A 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5.5 
 16.15 


 6.81 
 4.5 
 5.82 


 4.5 
 4.33 


 3.17 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 32.25 
 37 
 24 


 6 
 19.88 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 14.02 
 12.69 
 14.68 


 10.9 
 6.86 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 6.5 
 3.65 


 1.67 
 4.46 


 2 
 4.42 


 7.33 
 5.25 
 1.75 
 5.02 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 3 
 4.48 


 4.67 
 3.96 


 5 
 4.07 


 2 
 4.65 


 3.89 
 3.69 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 
 21.25 
 2.5 


 1.33 
 3 
 1.5 


 8 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 28.14 
 11 
 1 


 2.75 


 1.67 
 2 
 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 3 
 7 
 2 
 1 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6A 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 30.25 
 1.8 
 17.89 


 5 
 1 
 3.75 


 6 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Delayed 
 Days 
 for 
 Facility 


 Reasons 


 OP-  6B 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 17 
 25.25 


 9.25 
 3.5 
 11 


 28.63 


 11.75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 8 
 11.53 


 6.5 
 10.16 


 8.62 
 9.49 
 8.08 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 3 
 8.8 


 5 
 5 
 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 9.5 


 7 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 10.67 
 9 
 8 
 2 
 5 
 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 12.81 
 13.18 
 10.19 
 13.38 
 21.89 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 DS3, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 94.5 
 37 
 32.33 


 35.25 
 38.75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 EELs, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 11 
 7.75 


 6.4 


 2 
 8.2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 15.13 
 8 


 7.25 
 17.8 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 17.5 
 40.5 
 10.5 


 10 
 54.6 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 5 
 4.45 


 9 
 3 
 1.5 


 5.82 


 3 
 2.78 


 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 8.4 
 6.31 
 3 
 5.91 


 6.05 
 7.87 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 4 
 21 
 4 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 10.5 


 4 
 12 


 54 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  16 
67
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 OP-  6B 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 18 
 35 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Qwest 
 DSL, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 13.5 


 3 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 4.45 
 3 
 3 


 5.82 
 1 
 2.78 


 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 6.67 
 7.59 
 5.78 


 5.6 
 4.44 


 5.2 
 2.25 


 4.79 


 3.5 
 7.76 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 25.25 
 4.67 
 9.25 


 4 
 11 
 10.5 


 28.63 


 10 
 11.75 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 12.81 
 13.18 
 10.19 
 13.38 
 21.89 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 ADSL 


 Qualified, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 13.5 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 7 
 12.81 


 6.8 
 13.18 


 2.75 
 10.19 


 5.4 
 13.38 


 21.89 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 94.5 
 37 
 32.33 


 35.25 
 38.75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5.09 
 8.4 
 8.88 


 6.31 
 8.45 
 5.91 
 4.71 
 6.05 
 4.83 
 7.87 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 3.75 
 25.25 


 4 
 9.25 


 11 
 28.63 
 5.5 
 11.75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 94.5 
 37 
 32.33 


 35.25 
 19 
 38.75 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 12.81 
 13.18 
 10.19 
 13.38 
 7 
 21.89 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 
 5 
 4.45 


 3 
 5.82 


 2.78 


 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 5 
 8.4 


 5.29 


 6.31 


 5 
 5.91 


 6.5 
 6.05 


 3 
 7.87 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 D 
 3 
 8.8 


 5 
 5 
 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 ND 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  6B 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 D 
 1 
 9.5 


 4.67 


 1 
 7 
 3 


 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  7 
 Coordinated 
 "Hot 
 Cut" 
 Interval 


 - 
 Unbundled 


 Loop 


 OP-  7 
 Analog, 
 Hrs:  Min 


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


 OP-  7 
 Other, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  01 
 0:  26 
 0:  03 
 0:  05 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 OP-  8 
 Number 
 Portability 


 Timeliness 


 OP-  8B 
 with 
 Loop 
 Coordination, 


 % 


 99.46% 
 99.78% 
 99.88% 


 100% 
 99.71% 


 OP-  8C 
 without 
 Loop 
 Coordination, 


 % 


 94.62% 
 99.88% 
 99.87% 
 99.62% 
 99.70% 


 OP-  13 
 Coordinated 
 Cuts 
 - 
 Unbundled 


 Loop 


 OP-  13A 
 Analog, 
 % 


 99.41% 
 99.60% 
 99.83% 
 99.44% 
 99.68% 


 OP-  13A 
 Other, 
 % 


 98.21% 
 97.37% 
 98.72% 
 98.53% 
 99.07% 


 OP-  13B 
 Coordinated 
 Cuts 
 Started 


 Without 


 CLEC 
 Approval 


 - 
 Unbundled 


 Loop 


 OP-  13B 
 Analog, 
 % 


 0.15% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 OP-  13B 
 Other, 
 % 


 0.89% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 OP-  15A 
 Interval 
 for 
 Pending 


 Orders 
 Delayed 


 Past 
 Due 
 Date 


 B-  17 
68
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 OP-  15A 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 135.37 
 163.25 
 158.98 
 160.17 
 189.92 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Business, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 381 
 103.27 


 203 
 107.1 


 432 
 121.66 


 233 
 144.9 


 482 
 163.67 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 187.36 
 207.5 
 225.33 


 250.57 
 254.28 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Centrex, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 270 
 40.38 
 104.67 


 130.4 
 182.75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 DS0, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 158.62 
 155 
 186.5 
 209.91 
 6 
 243.2 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 41.71 
 50.79 
 0 
 64.08 


 62.8 


 75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 DS3, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 58.24 
 83.53 
 130.88 


 113.1 
 82.54 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 EELs, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 10.67 
 5.5 
 13.25 


 12.63 


 0 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Frame 
 Relay, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 71.57 
 114.44 


 84.86 


 106 
 219.67 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 ISDN 
 Primary, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 337 
 56.17 


 358 
 52.05 


 380 
 166 
 400 
 59.33 


 421 
 144.57 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Line 
 Sharing, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 1.33 
 1.6 
 2.67 


 3.67 


 9 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5 
 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 PBX, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 143.33 
 200.87 


 250 
 298.33 


 306.6 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 Residence, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 217.13 
 65.99 
 216.12 


 80.06 
 283.33 


 71.74 
 206.52 


 74.99 
 221.16 


 92.39 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 8.57 
 135.37 


 13.88 
 163.25 


 10.4 
 158.98 


 8.83 
 160.17 


 9.73 
 189.92 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 41.71 
 50.79 
 64.08 


 62.8 


 75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 1.5 
 41.71 


 1 
 50.79 


 9.67 
 64.08 


 3.33 
 62.8 
 6.29 


 75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 58.24 
 83.53 
 130.88 


 113.1 
 82.54 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 Analog, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 46.2 
 88.88 


 30.24 
 106.43 


 61.5 
 116.57 


 121.57 
 132.51 
 103.11 
 156.35 


 d 
 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UBL 
 ISDN 
 Capable, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 6 
 135.37 


 3 
 163.25 


 158.98 


 96.24 
 8 
 117.55 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 58.24 
 83.53 
 130.88 
 12.5 
 113.1 


 82.54 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UDIT 
 DS1, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 41.71 
 50.79 
 64.08 


 62.8 


 75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 37.5 
 81.7 
 52.11 


 93.72 


 78 
 97.32 


 32.26 
 111.36 


 40.58 
 131.58 


 b 
 c 


 OP-  15A 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21, 
 Avg 


 Days 


 3.5 
 187.36 


 0 
 207.5 


 0 
 225.33 


 250.57 
 254.28 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15A 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 2 
 270 


 5 
 40.38 


 0.33 
 104.67 


 130.4 
 182.75 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Pending 
 Orders 
 Delayed 


 for 
 Facilities 


 Reasons 


 OP-  15B 
 Basic 
 Rate 
 ISDN 


 16 
 15 
 17 
 16 
 16 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Business 


 0 
 47 


 0 
 57 


 0 
 39 


 0 
 32 


 0 
 16 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Centrex 


 1 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 3a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Centrex 
 21 


 2 
 0 
 2 
 1 
 1a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 DS0 


 3 
 2 
 4 
 3 
 0 
 2 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 DS1 


 42 
 27 
 0 
 19 


 27 
 19 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 DS3 


 1110 
 3 
 6 
 8a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 EELs 


 3 
 2 
 4 
 8 
 1a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Frame 
 Relay 


 5 
 3 
 5 
 4 
 3a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 B-  18 
69
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 OP-  15B 
 ISDN 
 Primary 


 0 
 23 


 0 
 3 
 0 
 1 
 0 
 10 


 0 
 0 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Line 
 Sharing 


 3 
 4 
 3 
 2 
 2a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 LIS 
 Trunk 


 3 
 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 PBX 


 9 
 2 
 1 
 0 
 0a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 Residence 


 5 
 229 


 6 
 177 


 3 
 102 


 3 
 68 


 0 
 45 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 - 
 2-  wire 


 6 
 16 


 8 
 15 


 5 
 17 


 6 
 16 


 11 
 16 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 - 
 4-  wire 


 42 
 27 
 19 
 27 
 19 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS1 


 Capable 


 2 
 42 


 1 
 27 


 3 
 19 


 2 
 27 


 6 
 19 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 - 
 DS3 


 Capable 


 11 
 10 


 3 
 6 
 8a 
 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 Analog 


 6 
 158 


 8 
 140 


 5 
 78 


 1 
 54 


 3 
 34 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UBL 
 ISDN 


 Capable 


 1 
 16 


 0 
 15 


 17 
 16 
 2 
 16 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UDIT 
 Above 


 DS1 
 Level 


 11 
 10 


 3 
 2 
 6 


 8 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UDIT 
 DS1 


 42 
 27 
 19 
 27 
 19 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS 


 2 
 276 


 2 
 234 


 1 
 141 


 1 
 100 


 1 
 61 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 


 1 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 2 


 3 
 3 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  15B 
 UNE-  P, 
 Centrex 
 21 


 0 
 2 
 0 
 0 
 0 
 2 


 1 
 1 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 OP-  17 
 Timeliness 
 of 
 Disconnects 


 associated 
 with 
 LNP 
 Orders 


 OP-  17A 
 LNP, 
 % 


 99.99% 
 99.97% 


 100% 
 99.99% 


 99.99% 


 OPERATOR 
 SERVICES 
 OS-  1 


 Speed 
 of 
 Answer 


 - 
 Operator 


 Services 


 OS-  1 
 All, 
 Avg 


 Sec 


 8.2 
 8.25 


 9.03 
 8.98 


 8.3 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PRE-  ORDER/ 
 ORDER 
 PO-  1 


 Pre-  Order/ 
 Order 
 Response 


 Times 


 PO-  1A- 
 1(  a) 


 Appt. 
 Sched, 


 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.44 
 0.3 
 0.34 


 0.31 
 0.37 


 PO-  1A- 
 1(  b- 
 c) 


 Appt. 


 Sched, 


 IMA 
 Resp/  Accept, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.47 
 1.43 
 1.55 
 1.37 
 1.35 


 PO-  1A- 
 10(  a) 


 Meet 
 Point 
 Inquiry, 


 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.36 
 0.29 
 0.31 


 0.3 
 0.34 


 PO-  1A- 
 10(  b) 


 Meet 
 Point 
 Inquiry, 


 IMA 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 4.96 
 4.91 
 4.81 
 4.78 
 4.94 


 PO-  1A- 
 10Total 


 Meet 
 Point 
 Inquiry, 


 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.32 
 5.2 
 5.12 


 5.08 
 5.28 


 PO-  1A- 
 1Total 


 Appt. 
 Sched, 


 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.91 
 1.73 
 1.89 
 1.68 
 1.72 


 PO-  1A- 
 2(  a) 


 Service 
 Avail, 
 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.41 
 0.37 
 0.44 
 0.34 
 0.48 


 PO-  1A- 
 2(  b) 


 Service 
 Avail, 
 IMA 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.25 
 7.49 
 7.71 
 8.21 


 8.4 


 PO-  1A- 
 2Total 


 Service 
 Avail, 
 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.66 
 7.86 
 8.14 
 8.55 
 8.88 


 PO-  1A- 
 3(  a) 


 Facility 
 Check, 
 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.55 
 0.41 
 0.57 


 0.4 
 0.73 


 PO-  1A- 
 3(  b) 


 Facility 
 Check, 
 IMA 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.33 
 6.89 


 7 
 6.71 


 6.68 


 PO-  1A- 
 3Total 


 Facility 
 Check, 
 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.88 
 7.3 
 7.57 


 7.11 
 7.41 


 B-  19 
70
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 PO-  1A- 
 4(  a) 


 Address 
 Validation, 


 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.09 
 0.81 
 0.83 
 0.78 
 0.91 


 PO-  1A- 
 4(  b) 


 Address 
 Validation, 


 IMA 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 4.37 
 3.82 
 3.89 
 3.71 


 4.1 


 PO-  1A- 
 4Total 


 Address 
 Validation, 


 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.47 
 4.64 
 4.72 
 4.49 
 5.01 


 PO-  1A- 
 5(  a) 


 Get 
 CSR, 


 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.61 
 0.67 
 0.89 
 0.54 
 0.89 


 PO-  1A- 
 5(  b) 


 Get 
 CSR, 


 IMA 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.71 
 6.22 
 6.55 
 6.31 


 6.8 


 PO-  1A- 
 5Total 


 Get 
 CSR, 


 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.32 
 6.89 
 7.44 
 6.85 
 7.69 


 PO-  1A- 
 6(  a) 


 TN 
 Reserv, 


 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.61 
 0.29 
 0.33 
 0.29 
 0.38 


 PO-  1A- 
 6(  b) 


 TN 
 Reserv, 


 IMA 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 4.83 
 5.05 
 4.78 
 4.27 
 4.47 


 PO-  1A- 
 6(  c) 


 TN 
 Reserv, 


 IMA 
 Accept, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.66 
 0.72 
 0.72 
 0.64 
 0.64 


 PO-  1A- 
 6Total 


 TN 
 Reserv, 


 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.11 
 6.06 
 5.83 


 5.2 
 5.49 


 PO-  1A- 
 7(  a) 


 Loop 
 Qual 
 Tools, 


 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.94 
 0.74 
 0.78 
 0.63 
 0.74 


 PO-  1A- 
 7(  b) 


 Loop 
 Qual 
 Tools, 


 IMA 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.74 
 6.88 
 6.94 
 7.88 
 7.97 


 PO-  1A- 
 7Total 


 Loop 
 Qual 
 Tools, 


 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.68 
 7.62 
 7.72 
 8.51 
 8.71 


 PO-  1A- 
 8(  a) 


 Resale 
 of 
 Qwest 


 DSL 
 Qual, 


 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.72 
 0.8 
 0.47 


 0.34 
 0.78 


 PO-  1A- 
 8(  b) 


 Resale 
 of 
 Qwest 


 DSL 
 Qual, 


 IMA 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 8.14 
 6.94 


 7.4 
 6.54 


 6.44 


 PO-  1A- 
 8Total 


 Resale 
 of 
 Qwest 


 DSL 
 Qual, 


 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 8.86 
 7.74 
 7.87 
 6.88 
 7.22 


 PO-  1A- 
 9(  a) 
 Connecting 


 Facility 
 Assign, 
 IMA 
 Req, 
 Avg 
 Sec 


 0.36 
 0.27 
 0.27 
 0.28 
 0.27 


 PO-  1A- 
 9(  b) 
 Connecting 


 Facility 
 Assign, 
 IMA 
 Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 8.89 
 8.79 
 8.45 
 8.38 
 8.38 


 PO-  1A- 
 9Total 
 Connecting 


 Facility 
 Assign, 
 IMA 
 Aggregate, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 9.25 
 9.06 
 8.73 
 8.66 
 8.66 


 PO-  1B- 
 1 


 Appt. 
 Sched, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 3.34 
 3.36 
 3.39 
 3.47 
 3.83 


 PO-  1B- 
 10 


 Meet 
 Point 
 Inquiry, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.54 
 5.28 
 5.06 
 5.23 
 6.04 


 PO-  1B- 
 2 


 Service 
 Avail, 
 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.2 
 6.9 
 7.09 


 8.56 
 8.61 


 PO-  1B- 
 3 


 Facility 
 Check, 
 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.65 
 6.37 


 6.5 
 6.01 


 6.76 


 PO-  1B- 
 4 


 Address 
 Validation, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 2.57 
 2.54 
 2.56 
 2.61 
 3.13 


 PO-  1B- 
 5 


 Get 
 CSR, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 3.05 
 3.14 
 3.25 
 3.41 
 3.65 


 PO-  1B- 
 6 


 TN 
 Reserv, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 5.41 
 5.46 
 5.24 
 4.86 
 5.25 


 PO-  1B- 
 7 


 Loop 
 Qual 
 Tools, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 7.09 
 6.84 
 7.12 
 8.64 
 8.98 


 PO-  1B- 
 8 


 Resale 
 of 
 Qwest 


 DSL 
 Qual, 


 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 6.51 
 5.79 
 6.96 
 5.56 
 6.67 


 PO-  1B- 
 9 


 Connecting 


 Facility 
 Assign, 
 EDI 
 Req/  Resp, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 8.51 
 8.4 
 8.1 
 8.41 


 8.77 


 PO-  1C- 
 1 


 Timeout, 


 IMA 
 Total, 


 % 


 0.48% 
 0.26% 
 0.28% 
 0.22% 
 0.14% 


 PO-  1C- 
 2 


 Timeout, 


 EDI 
 Total, 


 % 


 0.05% 
 0.01% 
 0.07% 
 0.13% 
 0.19% 


 PO-  1D- 
 1 


 Rejected 
 Query, 
 IMA 
 Total, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.33 
 1.32 
 1.31 
 1.31 
 1.32 


 PO-  1D- 
 2 


 Rejected 
 Query, 
 EDI 
 Total, 


 Avg 
 Sec 


 1.88 
 1.87 
 1.78 


 1.8 
 2.27 


 PO-  2 
 Electronic 
 Flow-  through 


 PO-  2A- 
 1 


 IMA, 
 LNP, 
 % 


 51.28% 
 56.32% 
 59.50% 
 58.46% 
 61.80% 


 B-  20 
71
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 PO-  2A- 
 1 


 IMA, 
 Resale 


 Aggregate 


 w/  o 
 UNE-  P- 


 POTS, 
 % 


 62.21% 
 66.55% 
 62.33% 
 66.43% 
 65.99% 


 PO-  2A- 
 1 


 IMA, 
 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 45.46% 
 49.64% 
 50.54% 
 45.95% 
 46.43% 


 PO-  2A- 
 1 


 IMA, 
 UNE-  P, 


 POTS, 
 % 


 50.85% 
 46.16% 
 39.93% 
 43.62% 
 50.93% 


 PO-  2A- 
 2 


 EDI, 
 LNP, 


 % 


 67.78% 
 74.93% 
 73.48% 
 76.80% 
 77.00% 


 PO-  2A- 
 2 


 EDI, 
 Resale 


 Aggregate 


 w/  o 
 UNE-  P- 


 POTS, 
 % 


 74.80% 
 75.71% 
 75.87% 
 80.90% 
 77.78% 


 PO-  2A- 
 2 


 EDI, 
 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 59.94% 
 58.94% 
 55.36% 
 62.03% 
 60.60% 


 PO-  2A- 
 2 


 EDI, 
 UNE-  P, 


 POTS, 
 % 


 73.55% 
 88.68% 
 74.02% 
 92.05% 
 90.54% 


 PO-  2B- 
 1 


 All 
 Eligible 


 LSRs, 
 IMA, 
 LNP, 
 % 


 97.92% 
 98.18% 
 95.83% 
 95.60% 
 96.29% 


 PO-  2B- 
 1 


 All 
 Eligible 


 LSRs, 
 IMA, 
 Resale 


 Aggregate 


 w/  o 
 UNE-  P- 


 POTS,% 


 91.10% 


 95.04% 
 91.42% 
 94.17% 
 95.55% 


 PO-  2B- 
 1 


 All 
 Eligible 


 LSRs, 
 IMA, 
 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 89.84% 
 91.70% 
 90.37% 
 85.96% 
 85.78% 


 PO-  2B- 
 1 


 All 
 Eligible 


 LSRs, 
 IMA, 
 UNE-  P, 


 POTS, 
 % 


 83.57% 
 83.49% 
 77.06% 
 87.43% 
 90.19% 


 PO-  2B- 
 2 


 All 
 Eligible 


 LSRs, 
 EDI, 
 LNP, 


 % 


 98.19% 
 98.09% 
 98.24% 
 98.71% 
 97.75% 


 PO-  2B- 
 2 


 All 
 Eligible 


 LSRs, 
 EDI, 
 Resale 


 Aggregate 


 w/  o 
 UNE-  P- 


 POTS, 
 % 


 93.90% 


 99.02% 
 98.26% 
 98.18% 
 98.23% 


 PO-  2B- 
 2 


 All 
 Eligible 


 LSRs, 
 EDI, 
 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 92.96% 
 97.00% 
 94.75% 
 97.31% 
 96.63% 


 PO-  2B- 
 2 


 All 
 Eligible 


 LSRs, 
 EDI, 
 UNE-  P, 


 POTS, 
 % 


 91.44% 
 99.11% 
 97.43% 
 97.91% 
 96.95% 


 PO-  3 
 LSR 
 Rejection 


 Notice 
 Interval 


 PO-  3A- 
 1 


 IMA 
 - 
 Rejected 


 Manually, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 4:  05 
 18:  02 


 7:  27 
 3:  51 
 3:  03 


 PO-  3A- 
 2 


 IMA 
 - 
 Auto-  Rejected, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 Min:  Sec 


 0:  03 
 0:  03 
 0:  07 
 0:  03 
 0:  03 


 PO-  3B- 
 1 


 EDI 
 - 
 Rejected 


 Manually, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 3:  24 
 7:  47 
 2:  20 
 1:  44 
 1:  53 


 PO-  3B- 
 2 


 EDI 
 - 
 Auto-  Rejected, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 Min:  Sec 


 0:  03 
 0:  03 
 0:  01 
 0:  03 
 0:  03 


 PO-  3C 
 Manual 
 and 
 IIS, 
 Product 


 Aggregate, 


 Hrs:  Min 


 17:  13 
 9:  54 
 6:  17 
 12:  36 


 13:  38 


 PO-  4 
 LSRs 
 Rejected 


 PO-  4A- 
 1 


 IMA 
 - 
 Rejected 


 Manually, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 2.67% 
 2.82% 
 3.19% 
 2.81% 
 3.04% 


 PO-  4A- 
 2 


 IMA 
 - 
 Auto-  Rejected, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 32.61% 
 31.18% 
 31.23% 
 32.41% 
 29.47% 


 PO-  4B- 
 1 


 EDI 
 - 
 Rejected 


 Manually, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 3.81% 
 4.01% 
 3.27% 
 3.62% 
 3.15% 


 PO-  4B- 
 2 


 EDI 
 - 
 Auto-  Rejected, 


 Product 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 27.14% 
 26.33% 
 48.51% 
 38.07% 
 49.16% 


 PO-  4C 
 Facsimile 
 , 
 Product 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 34.05% 
 13.94% 
 24.66% 
 27.39% 
 29.53% 


 PO-  5 
 Firm 
 Order 
 Confirmations 


 (FOCs) 
 On 
 Time 


 PO-  5A- 
 1(  a) 


 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 IMA, 


 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 99.88% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.97% 


 99.88% 


 PO-  5A- 
 1(  b) 


 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 IMA, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 99.65% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.63% 


 100% 


 PO-  5A- 
 1(  c) 


 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 IMA, 


 LNP, 
 % 


 99.78% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  5A- 
 2(  a) 


 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 99.94% 
 99.95% 


 100% 
 99.91% 


 99.97% 


 PO-  5A- 
 2(  b) 


 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 99.96% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.93% 


 99.92% 


 PO-  5A- 
 2(  c) 


 Fully 
 Elec 
 LSRs 


 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 LNP, 


 % 


 100% 
 99.93% 


 99.94% 
 99.43% 
 99.92% 


 PO-  5B- 
 1(  a) 


 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 IMA, 


 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 95.58% 


 95.67% 
 97.09% 
 95.79% 
 96.91% 


 B-  21 
72
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 PO-  5B- 
 1(  b) 


 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 IMA, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 98.51% 
 97.47% 
 99.65% 
 98.72% 
 98.16% 


 PO-  5B- 
 1(  c) 


 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 IMA, 


 LNP, 
 % 


 99.73% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 99.64% 


 PO-  5B- 
 2(  a) 


 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 Resale 


 Aggregate, 


 % 


 99.69% 
 99.66% 


 100% 
 99.86% 


 99.78% 


 PO-  5B- 
 2(  b) 


 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 99.52% 
 99.44% 
 99.91% 
 99.84% 
 99.92% 


 PO-  5B- 
 2(  c) 


 Elec/  Manual 


 LSRs 
 Rec'd 
 Via 
 EDI, 


 LNP, 


 % 


 99.91% 
 99.92% 


 100% 
 100% 
 99.80% 


 PO-  5C-( 
 a) 
 Manual, 
 Resale 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 93.75% 
 94.12% 
 75.00% 


 100% 
 94.12% 


 d 


 PO-  5C-( 
 b) 
 Manual, 


 UBL 
 Aggregate, 


 % 


 100% 
 96.67% 


 94.44% 


 100% 
 98.72% 


 PO-  5C-( 
 c) 
 Manual, 


 LNP, 
 % 


 96.77% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  5D 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 98.88% 


 100% 
 100% 


 PO-  6 
 Work 
 Completion 


 Notification 
 Timeliness 


 PO-  6A 
 GUI, 
 All, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  23 
 0:  29 
 0:  42 
 0:  24 
 0:  27 


 PO-  6B 
 EDI, 
 All, 
 Hrs:  Min 


 0:  22 
 0:  24 
 0:  19 
 0:  25 
 0:  25 


 PO-  7 
 Billing 
 Completion 


 Notification 
 Timeliness 


 PO-  7A- 
 C 


 GUI 
 / 
 Billing 


 System 
 Posting 
 Completions, 


 All, 
 % 


 96.91% 
 96.41% 
 96.15% 
 95.68% 
 97.33% 
 98.32% 
 96.92% 
 97.12% 
 97.35% 
 98.81% 


 PO-  7B- 
 C 


 EDI 
 / 
 Billing 


 System 
 Posting 
 Completions, 


 All, 
 % 


 96.41% 
 95.68% 
 98.32% 
 97.12% 
 100% 
 98.81% 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  8 
 Jeopardy 
 Notice 
 Interval 


 PO-  8A 
 Non-  Designed 
 Services, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 3 
 5.28 


 3.32 
 5.49 
 1.48 
 5.04 
 3.47 
 6.65 
 2.08 
 5.15 


 PO-  8B 
 UBLs 
 and 
 LNP, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 5.39 
 5.28 
 6.64 
 5.49 
 5.57 
 5.04 
 5.03 
 6.65 
 6.15 
 5.15 


 PO-  8C 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 Avg 
 Days 


 18.5 
 21 


 18 
 15 
 17 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  8D 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 Avg 
 Days 


 3.95 
 5.28 
 3.29 
 5.49 
 3.55 
 5.04 


 3.5 
 6.65 


 6.73 
 5.15 


 d 


 PO-  9 
 Timely 
 Jeopardy 


 Notices 


 PO-  9A 
 Non-  Designed 
 Services, 
 % 


 45.45% 
 31.00% 
 40.91% 
 25.14% 
 55.56% 
 21.88% 
 30.00% 
 20.75% 
 33.33% 


 8.63% 
 d 
 e 


 PO-  9B 
 UBLs 
 and 
 LNP, 


 % 


 73.68% 
 31.00% 
 62.50% 
 25.14% 
 41.94% 
 21.88% 
 47.73% 
 20.75% 
 43.75% 


 8.63% 


 PO-  9C 
 LIS 
 Trunk, 


 % 


 66.67% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 0.00% 


 0.00% 
 0.00% 
 33.33% 


 100% 
 0.00% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  9D 
 UNE-  P, 
 POTS, 
 % 


 30.77% 
 31.00% 
 25.00% 
 25.14% 
 20.00% 
 21.88% 


 0.00% 
 20.75% 


 22.22% 


 8.63% 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 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 


 0.05 
 0.03 
 0.06 
 0.03 
 0.06 
 0.03 
 0.04 
 0.03 
 0.04 
 0.03 


 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, 
 % 


 97.61% 
 98.28% 


 100% 
 99.62% 


 99.36% 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 10.0, 


 % 


 97.42% 
 98.46% 


 100% 
 99.49% 


 99.49% 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 11.0, 


 % 


 98.17% 
 97.25% 


 100% 
 99.55% 


 100% 


 B-  22 
73
 FCC 
 03-  142 


 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 
 CLEC 
 Qwest 


 Metric 
 Description 


 Federal 
 Communications 


 Commission 


 MINNESOTA 
 PERFORMANCE 


 METRIC 
 DATA 


 Metric  Number 
 NOV 
 2002 


 MAR 
 2003 


 FEB 
 2002 


 JAN 
 2002 


 DEC 
 2002 


 Notes 


 DR 
 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 12.0, 


 % 


 99.58% 
 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 8.0, 
 % 


 a 
 b 


 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 9.0, 
 % 


 95.77% 


 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  19A 
 Rel. 
 VICKI, 


 % 


 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 100% 
 97.54% 


 PO-  19B 
 All, 
 % 


 97.06% 


 b 
 c 
 d 


 e 


 PO-  20 
 Manual 
 Service 
 Order 
 Accuracy 


 PO-  20 
 Resale 
 POTS 
 and 
 UNE-  P, 


 POTS, 
 % 


 95.20% 
 94.40% 
 93.98% 
 95.63% 
 96.21% 


 PO-  20 
 UBLs, 
 Analog 


 & 
 NL 


 2-  wire, 


 % 


 96.47% 
 97.38% 
 96.36% 
 98.75% 
 97.62% 


 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 
 November 


 2002 


 b 
 = 
 Sample 


 size 
 less 
 than 


 or 
 equal 


 to 
 10 


 in 
 December 


 2002 


 c 
 = 
 Sample 


 size 
 less 
 than 


 or 
 equal 


 to 
 10 


 in 
 January 


 2003 


 d 
 = 
 Sample 


 size 
 less 
 than 


 or 
 equal 


 to 
 10 


 in 
 February 


 2003 


 e 
 = 
 Sample 


 size 
 less 
 than 


 or 
 equal 


 to 
 10 


 in 
 March 


 2003 


 B-  23 
74
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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). 
75
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
76
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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). 
77
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
78
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
79
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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)). 
80
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
81
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
82
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
83
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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  provisioning  collocation  space,  help  the  Commission  evaluate  a  BOCs  compliance  with  its 
 collocation  obligations.  54 


 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),  petition  for  recon.  pending. 
 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. 
 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. 
84
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  11 
 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 
 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 


 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. 


 62  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4091,  para.  260. 
85
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  12 
 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  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 


 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.  FCC  Adopts  New  Rules  For  Network  Unbundling  Obligations  Of  Incumbent  Local  Phone  Carriers,  News  Release,  (rel.  Feb.  20,  2003)  (announcing  adoption  of  an  Order  on  Remand  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed 
 Rulemaking  in  CC  Docket  No.  01-  338,  Review  of  the  Section  251  Unbundling  Obligations  of  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers)  (Triennial  Review  News  Release).  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. 
 66  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3990,  para.  83. 


 67  Id. 
86
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  13 
 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  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 


 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. 
 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. 
87
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  14 
 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 
 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 


 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  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. 
88
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  15 
 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  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 


 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. 
89
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  16 
 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  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 


 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. 
90
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  17 
 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 
 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 


 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). 
 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. 
91
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  18 
 (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 
 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 


 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. 


 111  Id. 
92
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  19 
 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 


 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 


 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. 
 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. 
93
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  20 
 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  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 


 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. 


 123  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3999,  para.  102. 
94
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  21 
 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 
 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 


 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. 
 132  Id.  at  4002,  para.  108. 
 133  Id.  at  4002-  03,  paras.  109-  10. 
95
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  22 
 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 
 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 


 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. 
96
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 C-  23 
 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). 
97
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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.) 
98
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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). 
99
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
100
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
101
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
102
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
103
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
104
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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). 
105
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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). 
106
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
107
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
108
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
109
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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). 
110
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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. 
111
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 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). 
112
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 


 Re:  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International,  Inc.,  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Minnesota  (WC  Docket  No.  03-  90) 
 I  vote  to  approve  the  Qwest  application  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services  in  the  state  of  Minnesota.  The  record  before  us  reflects  that  Qwest  has  taken  significant 
 strides  toward  opening  its  local  markets  to  competition  and  has  met  its  checklist  obligations.  Nevertheless,  todays  decision  is  not  without  challenge  and  difficulty. 


 It  is  my  practice  and  custom  when  reviewing  section  271  applications  to  accord  significant  deference  to  the  relevant  state  commission.  In  a  circumscribed  90-  day 
 process,  the  FCC  cannot  practically  develop  the  familiarity  with  local  market  conditions  that  our  partners  in  the  states  have  developed.  Here  there  was  reluctance  on  the  part  of 
 state  commissioners  to  approve  an  application.  This  puts  an  even  more  serious  than  usual  responsibility  on  us  to  delve  into  the  factual  record  underpinning  the  application  in 
 question.  This  we  have  done  and  I,  for  one,  am  satisfied  that  the  competitive  checklist  obligations  that  we  are  charged  to  find  have  indeed  been  found.  Therefore,  and 
 notwithstanding  the  unwillingness  of  a  majority  of  the  Minnesota  Public  Utilities  Commission  to  support  this  application,  I  feel  confident  in  voting  to  approve  todays 
 Order. 
 This  Order  finds  that  the  record  does  not  demonstrate  that  there  are  ongoing  violations  that  call  into  question  the  current  openness  of  the  local  market  in  Minnesota.  I 
 believe  that  moving  ahead  now  is  the  right  thing  to  do,  and  that  our  approval,  combined  with  essential,  rigorous  and  sustained  follow-  through,  can  well  serve  the  public  interest. 


 I  do  not  take  lightly  allegations  that  Qwest  previously  failed  to  file  certain  interconnection  agreements.  However,  I  continue  to  believe  that  charges  of  past 
 violations  are  best  resolved  through  separate  federal  and  state  investigations  and  enforcement  actions.  I  commend  the  Minnesota  Public  Utilities  Commission  for  working 
 so  diligently  to  address  this  problem  in  state  proceedings.  I  am  concerned  that  Qwest  chose  to  file  some  of  its  agreements  with  the  state  commission  just  prior  to  filing  its 
 application  at  this  Commission,  but  expect  that  by  referring  this  issue  to  a  possible  enforcement  proceeding,  we  can  investigate  this  situation  in  a  more  appropriate  setting 
 and  as  expeditiously  as  possible. 
113
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  142 
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 


 Re:  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International,  Inc.,  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Minnesota  (WC  Docket  No.  03-  90) 
 Today  we  grant  Qwest  authority  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  service  originating  in  the  state  of  Minnesota.  I  approve  this  Order  and  commend  the  Minnesota  Public  Utilities 
 Commission  and  our  Wireline  Competition  Bureau  for  all  of  their  hard  work.  I  also  congratulate  Qwest  on  achieving  this  goal. 


 Although  I  approve  authorization  for  Qwest  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services  in  Minnesota,  I  must  express  concern  about  the  previously  unfiled  agreements  that  have 
 been  brought  to  our  attention  in  this  proceeding. 
 The  Telecommunications  Act  anticipated  transparency  in  the  relationships  between  the  competitive  LECs  and  the  ILECs.  If  we  dont  know  what  arrangements  are  being  made 
 among  the  carriers  for  the  purposes  of  interconnection,  we  do  not  have  the  transparency  that  is  integral  to  one  of  the  purposes  of  the  Act. 


 Section  271(  d)(  6)  of  the  Communications  Act  is  meant  to  ensure  that  each  carrier  that  is  granted  Section  271  approval  continues  to  satisfy  the  requirements  on  which  such 
 approval  is  based.  We  will  not  be  reticent  about  using  our  enforcement  authority  to  ensure  that  all  carriers  remain  compliant. 
114