1、ESCALATION #44 INTEGRA BINDING POSITION 032009From: Johnson, Bonnie J. mailto:bjjohnson Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 4:50 PMTo: Cmp, Escalation; Redman-Carter, Julia A.; ebalvin; Bloemke, Brenda; loriann.burke; Susan.Franke; Nora Torrez(nora.torrez)Cc: Cox, Rod; Mike Wilker; Isaacs, Kimberly D.; cmp

2、esc; Lybarger, Dildine; Coyne, Mark; Johnson, Bonnie J.Subject: Integra position response - Integra and affiliates (Integra) Escalation PC020409-1EX Denied Integras position response is below and also attached as a document. Escalation #44 Re. CR # PC020409-1EX Position of Integra and its Affiliates

3、March 20, 2009To: Qwest CMPSubject: Position of Integra and its AffiliatesIntegra and its affiliated entities (“Integra”) provide this response in reply to Qwests March 13, 2009 denial of Integras CMP Escalation (Escalation #44) regarding Change Request (CR) PC020409-1EX (“Integras Facilities Assign

4、ment USOC CR”). At least seven CLECs joined Integras escalation. Qwest indicated on the March 18, 2009 CMP call that an error occurred with the Qwest system used to join the escalation, so there may have been other CLECs who joined as well.Integras Facilities Assignment USOC CR presented an opportun

5、ity for Qwest to implement a potential solution for one product (HDSL 2 and 4 wire non loaded loops) to allow Qwest to deliver to CLECs the product they actually order. Qwests facilities assignment process does not select/assign the best (most qualified) loop available for the type of loop ordered b

6、y the CLEC. Instead, it can just as easily assign a loop capable of only voice grade service to fill a CLEC request for a particular type of digital capable loop. Qwest should provide a loop that will actually support the service ordered by the CLEC. The CR focuses on assigning the type of loop requ

7、ested by implementing a Universal Service Ordering Code (USOC) to enable Qwest to distinguish loop type. Unless Qwest assigns the appropriate loop, unnecessary delays and expenses are imposed upon CLECs.To view the technical subject in another context may help in understanding the problem. Consider

8、a customer who has a terrible allergy to onions. The customer specifically orders a pizza with no onions. The pizza is delivered. The customer believes that the pizza is the type ordered so eats a slice. The customer only learns there is a mistake when the customer with the onion allergy goes into a

9、naphylactic shock. It turns out the pizza delivery person delivered a pizza with onions. When the customer calls to complain, the pizza place says it met its obligation to the customer because “hey, we delivered a pizza.” It is a completely unsatisfactory result. The customer did not receive the pro

10、duct ordered and, as a result, the customer is harmed.Background and Stated Relationship to Integras Broader CR #PC082808-1IGXOn February 4, 2009, Integra submitted its Facilities Assignment USOC CR (PC020409-1EX), entitled “Qwest will implement the USOC to correct the facility assignment for HDSL,”

11、 to request implementation of a USOC for HDSL (2 and 4 wire non loaded loops) to correct assignment of facilities. Integra indicated in its CR that Qwest had said that there is a USOC already recognized by Telcordia/industry standards that would help ensure that facilities assigned to CLECs meet the

12、 parameters and industry standards applicable to the specific HDSL product ordered by the CLEC but Qwest has not yet implemented its use for CLECs, and Integra requested that Qwest implement the USOC expeditiously. During the January 21, 2009 monthly CMP call, Qwest said it could implement the USOC

13、in mid-April 2009, so Integra requested an implementation date of mid-April 2009 or soon after. On February 18, 2009, Qwest provided a written Response to Integra in which Qwest denied the CR and therefore denied the request to implement the USOC. On March 5, 2009, Integra submitted its written Esca

14、lation (which is incorporated by reference). On March 13, 2009, Qwest provided its binding response in which Qwest denied the Escalation. Also on March 13, 2009, Qwest provided a written Response denying Integras CR #PC082808-1IGX, entitled “Design, Provision, Test and Repair Unbundled Loops to the

15、Requirements requested by CLEC, including NCI/SECNCI Code Industry Standards” Integras “Provision Loops Per Request CR”. In Integras Facilities Assignment USOC CR (PC020409-1EX), Integra said about its Provision Loops Per Request CR (PC082808-1IGX): “This CR does not replace in any way Integras CR P

16、C082808-1IGX (which is broader), and it should not delay the processing of that CR. Implementation of a USOC was not specifically mentioned in the description of change in that CR, whereas here Integra is specifically requesting USOC implementation for HDSL. Integra reserves its rights as to CR PC08

17、2808-1IGX. It appears from CMP discussions related to PC082808-1IGX that implementation of the USOC may be bogged down by other issues, so Integra has also submitted this CR to attempt to avoid delay in implementing the USOC. If implementation of the USOC assists in resolving some of the issues rais

18、ed in CR PC082808-1IGX, as suggested by Qwest, then the companies may address that situation at the time.” On March 20, 2009, Integra submitted a written Escalation (which is incorporated by reference) of Qwests denial of Integras Provision Loops Per Request CR (PC082808-1IGX). Integras written Esca

19、lation of Qwests denial of CR PC082808-1IGX contains citations to legal and contractual sources. Provisions of the Statements of Generally Available Terms (SGATs) and interconnection agreements (ICAs) that are cited in this document are quoted more fully in Integras written Escalation of Qwests deni

20、al of CR PC082808-1IGX.Reply to Qwests Binding ResponseIn its March 13, 2009 Binding Response, Qwest states: “Qwest disagrees with the claim that it has an obligation to provide an HDSL Capable Loop.” The long-standing obligation is so clearly set out in the SGATs, ICAs, and the law, however, that i

21、t is difficult to understand how Qwest could possibly make such a statement. Please refer to Integras written Escalation of Qwests denial of CR PC082808-1IGX, and in particular the section entitled “Qwests Obligation to Provide xDSL Capable Loops is Clear and Long-Standing,” for specific citations.C

22、ontrary to Qwests claim that Integra is seeking “a guarantee that every xDSL loop can carry HDSL” and asking Qwest to “provide xDSL loops that are able to transmit each of those types of digital signals,” Integra is simply asking that Qwest provide a loop that will actually support the service order

23、ed by the CLEC, which can be accomplished by complying with the NC and NCI codes (see CR PC082808-1IGX). Qwest statements in CMP had led Integra to believe that, for HDSL, implementation of the USOC would have helped to accomplish this goal for HDSL. Using those codes appropriately, the loop will no

24、t have to support every type of digital signal but only the one requested by the CLEC. Although Qwests Binding Response ignores the vast majority of citations provided by Integra, Qwest addresses a single provision of a relatively unique ICA in Oregon. Qwest points out that it states that loops can

25、be used for a variety of services. Integra can only use the loop for the desired type of xDSL service, however, if Qwest assigns a loop capable of carrying that service. Again, please refer to Integras written Escalation of Qwests denial of CR PC082808-1IGX, and in particular the section entitled “Q

26、wests Obligation to Provide xDSL Capable Loops is Clear and Long-Standing,” for specific citations supporting Qwests obligations in this regard.Qwest states that it has made several tools available to CLECs such as the Raw Loop Data tool which depicts the composition of loop, e.g., gauge, length, et

27、c. The CLECs responsibilities regarding loop qualification are already addressed in the SGATs and ICAs (see, e.g., SGAT & Eschelon ICAs ), and Integras CR does not change those responsibilities. Integra uses the loop qualification tools, so it has already done the work to know which qualified facili

28、ties are identified as available when Integra submits its request.The loop qualification tools only provide information at a certain level for a subsection of the loops at an end user customers address (indicating that a loop exists that is within the desired length, for example), however, and do no

29、t provide detailed specific characteristics of the particular loop being delivered. Moreover, Qwest sent a notice to CLECs stating that Qwest would modify its documentation on March 13, 2009 to provide: “When performing Loop Qualification queries using the Resale (HSI) Loop Qualification and/or ADSL

30、 Loop Qualification tools, the following message may be returned: “Because of Power Disparity, Interference may be present or may develop in the future, Central Office Based ADSL service may be degraded or may not work at all. Qwest can not guarantee the feasibility CO Based ADSL.” (See Qwest Notice

31、 PROS. 03.13.09.F.06150.LoopQualCLECJobAid_V25, emphasis added.) Through Qwests Denials of CR PC082808-1IGX and this Escalation both received on the same day (March 13th, 2009) Qwest confirmed that if a CLEC wishes to receive HDSL with a signal that tests at 196 kHz, the CLEC needs to request an ADS

32、L service or a DS1 capable loop. The timing of the three notices on the same day in particular suggests that Qwests objective is to force CLECs into foregoing their right to order HDSL and instead order Qwests more expensive DS1 Capable Loop product, because per Qwest the only other means of getting

33、 the desired HDSL (ADSL) had no certainty of even being a feasible product. Regarding the particular loop being delivered, Qwests facilities assignment process does not select/assign the best (most qualified) loop available for the type of loop ordered by the CLEC. Instead, it can just as easily ass

34、ign a loop capable of only voice grade service to fill a CLEC request for a particular type of digital capable loop. In contrast, for Qwest retail, Qwest automatically assigns the best (most qualified) loop available for the type of loop ordered by Qwest retail. In the December 17, 2008 CMP meeting,

35、 Qwest (Jamal) told CLECs that, for Qwest retail, “Qwest HDSL2 goes through the CSA Carrier Serving Area guidelines.” In other words, Qwest admits that Qwest assigns the appropriate facility for its own retail services. In contrast, for CLECs, Qwest said that its policy is that Qwest will only test

36、and repair the loop to voice transmission parameters, because Qwest cannot differentiate a HDSL qualified non loaded loop from a voice grade loop using its current processes that ignore the NCI code for CLECs (notwithstanding its long-established legal obligations to make that distinction and to not

37、 restrict testing to voice transmission only).In its Binding Response, Qwest confirms that Qwest does not use CSA guidelines for CLEC xDSL capable loop orders, though it uses them for Qwest retail. The CSA guidelines relate to issues such as distances. Because xDSL capable loops are distance-sensiti

38、ve products, distances are significant to delivering the appropriate loop. ANSI Standard T1-417 (cited in ICA ) states, on page 13 in Section , that “HDSL systems are designed to transport 784 kbps over Carrier Serving Area (CSA) distances on a single non-loaded twisted pair” and, in Section , that

39、“HDSL2 is a second generation HDSL loop transmission system that is standardized. The system is designed to transport a 1.544 Mb/s payload on a single non-loaded twisted pair at CSA distances.” Ironically, in its Binding Response, Qwest attempts to portray its failure to comply with the industry sta

40、ndard regarding CSA distances for CLECs as “advantageous to the CLECs” even though these products are distance-sensitive.Qwest also admits in its Binding Response that, even though the ICAs entitle CLECs to at least seven types of xDSL capable loops, Qwests facility assignment process for CLECs is b

41、ased on only one of those types (ADSL). Again, this reflects Qwests failure to differentiate loop types based on the NCI code, even though Qwest is required to comply with the NCI code per the ICAs. Moreover, Qwests choice of ADSL is significant, given that Qwest has grandparented ADSL for its own c

42、ustomers. When announcing the grandparenting of ADSL, Qwest pointed CLECs to its non-loaded loop product, even though Qwest will not comply with the HDSL NCI code to provide a non-loaded loop capable of carrying HDSL. ( HYPERLINK /wholesale/cmp/wholesale/cmp/ archive/CR_PC121106-1.html.) Worse yet,

43、since then, Qwest notified CLECs that its loop qualification tool is unreliable for ADSL, which may not even be feasible at all (as discussed above).In its Binding Response, Qwest withholds any potential willingness to proceed with implementation of the CR as a means to force CLECs into an unnecessa

44、ry agreement to perform “cooperative testing.” Integra addressed this issue in its Escalation, but Qwest does not specifically respond to the bulk of Integras points. Please also refer to Integras Escalation re. CR PC082808-1IGX for a more detailed discussion of this issue. In its Binding Response,

45、Qwest states: “Without testing the end-to-end service provided on the loop as it does for its own retail DS-1 customers, Qwest can not guarantee the loop would support any services.” Qwests insistence on cooperative testing in every case ignores a key distinction between the two distinct products av

46、ailable to CLECs: (1) DS1 Capable Loops, for which Qwest provides the equipment; and (2) xDSL Capable Loops, for which CLECs provide the equipment at both ends. The entire ICA and industry regime of defining different types of xDSL (e.g., HDSL2 at 1.544 Mbps) and assigning the types of loops unique

47、NC/NCI codes (e.g., NC code of LX-N with NCI code of 02QB9.00H and SEC code of NCI 02DU9.00H for HDSL) is designed to address this concern and ensure that Qwest can provide the type of loop requested by CLEC. (See CR PC082808-1IGX & Integras Escalation of its denial.) The problem is that Qwest has n

48、ot implemented it, even though these terms have been in the SGATs and ICAs for many years and Qwests own technical publication 77384 recognizes that the industry NCI codes are designed “to communicate to QWEST the character of the signals the customer is connecting to the network at each end-point o

49、f the metallic circuit” and to tell “a Qwest engineer and the circuit design system, of specific technical, customer requirements.” Qwest can provide the type of loop needed to meet those specific technical customer requirements, if it complies with the ICAs and the NC/NCI code requirements. If impl

50、ementation of a USOC does not address the problems with Qwests facilities assignment process and its ability to deliver the type of loop requested, then another solution needs to be implemented.In addition to its contractual obligations to unbundle xDSL capable loops and comply with the NC/NCI codes

51、, Section of the ICAs (as well as Qwests own negotiations template proposal) requires Qwest to provision digital loops in a nondiscriminatory manner. Qwest has admitted the processes are different. In addition, Qwest has not provided the information regarding Qwests retail facilities assignment proc

52、ess that Integra requested in its CR and in its Escalation. Qwest needs to be forthcoming about its retail process.Qwest statements in CMP discussions of these CRs led CLECs to believe that Qwests retail facilities assignment process used an existing USOC that, if used for CLEC HDSL orders, would al

53、low Qwest to finally differentiate a HDSL qualified non loaded loop from another loop for CLECs. Qwests Denials since then have called Qwests statements about the USOC into doubt. Therefore, Integra went to Qwests Resale Product Database (RPD) to attempt to obtain additional information. About this

54、database, Qwest has said: “InfoBuddy is a system that contains all of Qwests Methods, Practices and policies regarding ordering processes. In addition to that Qwest also has information within the system that is proprietary. In order to comply with the Telecommunications act of 1996 Qwest developed

55、a redaction process which allows CLECs access to the retail product methods and procedures contained in InfoBuddy that are available for Resale. That information is formatted into a WEB based application known as RPD. The redaction process removes only the proprietary information found in InfoBuddy

56、that Qwest is not mandated via the Act to provide to CLECs.” (Qwest email, Ex. BJJ-44 in UT-063061.)Qwests retail ordering processes in RPD state that the “PTW FID Field Identifier is an internal process that is used to provision a 4-wire loop facility as 2-wire using HDSL2 technology. This is trans

57、parent to the customer base because the facility is handed off as a 4-wire interface at the customer premises. In an effort to ensure all DSS facility orders carry the PTW FID, it will be added to the T-1 based products service orders via the MAGIC system (OR or WA only). For all other states, the p

58、rocess is manual.” In contrast to this Qwest retail documentation, in a Qwest (SVP Ken Beck) June 5, 2008 email to Integra, Qwest had said: “HDSL2 is not a service or product offering for Qwest customers.” Qwest failed to mention the FID in CMP discussions.Regardless of whether the mechanism for com

59、plying with the full NC/NCI codes is implementation of a USOC, a FID, or some other process (manual or electronic), ample evidence exists that Qwest can and has assigned and provided HDSL2 technology over a 2-wire facility for itself and its customers. Integra will continue to pursue a resolution of

60、 the problem, including through its Provision Loops Per Request CR (PC082808-1IGX).Bonnie J. Johnson | Director Carrier Relations| direct763.745.8464 | fax763.745.8459 | 6160 Golden Hills DriveGolden Valley, MN 55416-1020 HYPERLINK mailto:bjjohnsonbjjohnsonFrom: Cmp, Escalation mailto:cmpesc2 Sent: