Opinion ID: 186018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Balancing the Billing Factors

Text: 31 As mentioned above, the billing function of the OSS UNE has two components: service usage reporting and wholesale billing. Z-Tel argues the Commission permitted Verizon's questionable performance in the second component to be offset by its strong performance in the first. This is impermissible, Z-Tel claims, because the Order itself stated that the two essential billing functions serve two different purposes and are measured in different ways; Order ¶ 13; it is therefore arbitrary and capricious to make up a shortfall in one with a surplus in the other. 32 In response the Commission defends its authority to engage in the balancing Z-Tel alleges. It cites our decision in AT&T Corp., 220 F.3d at 624, for the proposition that it may perform an overall evaluation of a BOC's performance with respect to a single UNE rather than evaluating each sub-element separately. In AT&T Corp. we deferred to the Commission's interpretation of § 271 to the effect that a BOC need not show that it provides nondiscriminatory access to a particular type of service loop when the BOC had shown that it provided nondiscriminatory access to loops in general. Id. 33 It is not clear whether the reasoning of AT&T Corp. applies here because the Commission has limited its own discretion by setting individual standards for wholesale billing and service-usage reporting. We need not decide whether § 271 permits balancing in this case, however. Z-Tel cites two passages in the Order under review, neither of which convinces us that the Commission in fact balanced a shortfall in Verizon's wholesale billing performance against its service usage performance. 34 The first passage Z-Tel cites (in ¶ 15 of the Order ) provides no support whatsoever for its argument. There the Commission stated it believe[s] that Verizon ultimately satisfies its evidentiary burden for wholesale billing and, in combination with its strong [service usage] performance, complies with the OSS billing requirements. The context makes clear that the Commission independently evaluated Verizon's wholesale billing performance and its service usage performance. In ¶ 13 of the Order the Commission lists the two OSS billing requirements: service usage and wholesale billing. Because Verizon's service usage performance was excellent, the Commission discussed it only in ¶ 14, concluding that Verizon provides its competitors with non-discriminatory access to service usage data. Verizon's wholesale billing performance was a much closer issue, which the Commission discussed at length (in ¶ ¶ 15-42). The Commission provided a preview of the result in ¶ 15, however: Verizon satisfies its evidentiary burden for wholesale billing and, because it had already satisfied its burden for service usage, it complies with the OSS billing requirements. 35 The other passage Z-Tel identifies is in ¶ 37 of the Order: 36 Ultimately, the competitive LECs challenging Verizon's wholesale billing performance contend that, despite improved performance in billing accuracy, Verizon's recent improvements to its BOS BDT billing system have not been sufficiently commercially tested. According to these parties, we should insist on reviewing several months of commercial performance evidence to determine whether Verizon's latest modifications have sufficiently improved the manner in which Verizon bills its wholesale customers. As stated above, although we acknowledge that the evidentiary showing that Verizon relies on makes this issue a close call, we find the evidence minimally sufficient, especially in light of the showing it has made for billing as a whole. 37 Z-Tel argues that by the showing [Verizon] has made for billing as a whole the Commission could only have meant Verizon's showing with regard to the other aspect of the billing function of OSS, namely service usage reporting. Although that is one possible reading of the sentence, we do not think it is a required one. As we explained above, billing is one of the requirements of OSS, and wholesale billing is one of the components of billing. The Commission and the commenters discussed various aspects of wholesale billing: BOS BDT billing versus retail-formatted billing, billing timeliness versus billing accuracy, and so on. The word billing, when used in connection with § 271 proceedings, simply has too many layers of meaning to assume, as Z-Tel does, that by billing as a whole the Commission meant the billing function of OSS. 38 Moreover, the words as stated above can refer only to the Commission's statement in ¶ 15: Although as an evidentiary matter this finding is a close call, we believe that Verizon ultimately satisfies its evidentiary burden for wholesale billing and, in combination with its strong [service usage] performance, complies with the OSS billing requirements. As already discussed, this statement does not support Z-Tel's position at all. In short, although ¶ 37 is not clear when viewed in isolation, the Commission had already stated in ¶ 15 it was evaluating service usage performance and wholesale billing performance independently, just as Z-Tel argues it should have done. No harm, no foul.