Opinion ID: 2230356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Necessity to Ensure Continued Quality and to Further Competition

Text: Qwest argues that in adopting the wholesale service quality standards the MPUC did not make adequate findings of necessity in that the MPUC did not find either Qwest's existing service or the MPAP standards inadequate. Qwest's argument regarding its existing service is misguided. In establishing the wholesale service quality standards, the MPUC's goal was to promote high quality service and the development of competitive local phone markets. Therefore, the question before the MPUC was not whether Qwest's existing service was adequate, but rather what level of wholesale service was necessary to ensure quality and foster competition. Qwest also argues that the MPUC order never specifically found the wholesale service quality standards necessary to ensure quality of service. [A] statutory reference to `necessary' must be construed in a fashion that is consistent with the ordinary and fair meaning of the word, i.e., so as to limit `necessary' to that which is required to achieve a desired goal. GTE Serv. Corp. v. F.C.C., 205 F.3d 416, 423 (D.C.Cir.2000) (interpreting the holding in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 119 S.Ct. 721, 142 L.Ed.2d 835 (1999)). Before the MPUC, the CLECs argued that as new entrants into the local telephone market they tend to serve a disproportionately large number of quality-sensitive customers, while as the incumbent carrier Qwest tends to serve a disproportionately large number of quality-tolerant customers. According to the CLECs, fluctuations in service quality are more likely to cause quality-sensitive customers to change service providers while the same fluctuations would not cause quality-tolerant customers to change. Thus, the CLECs argued that Qwest's ability to manipulate service quality under the MPAP criteria, which require only parity, would have a negative impact on their ability to retain customers. The CLECs, therefore, proposed the fixed minimum performance standards for six quality-sensitive areas, including installation, new service problems, jeopardy notice, service repairs, repeated service problems, and trunk blocking rate. In its order, the MPUC separately discussed each of the six areas, contrasted the parties' arguments, evaluated the relative merits of those arguments, and, in the end, found that although the MPAP would ensure nondiscriminatory service, it would not ensure high-quality service. The MPUC further found that the MPAP simply leaves too much uncertainty about the quality of services to permit the growth of competition, while fixed minimum performance standards would provide stable, predictable quality that consumers can expect from each provider. Finally, the MPUC found that requiring the fixed minimum performance standards in the six identified areas would ensure that wholesale services provided by Qwest to its competitors are of sufficient quality to promote the development of a competitive local telecommunications market. Accordingly, based on those findings, the MPUC concluded that fixed minimum performance standards would provide reliability and consistency in those six areas, ensuring service quality and fostering competition. Even though the MPUC did not couch its findings in terms of being necessary to achieve the dual goals of ensuring high-quality service and fostering competition, given the findings identified above, we are satisfied that the MPUC established that the adoption of the fixed minimum performance standards was necessary to achieve the MPUC's dual goals of ensuring high-quality services and fostering competition.