| STATE FILING
|
|
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the Application of MCI WorldCom to have the Commission Take affirmative steps to promote Local competition Case No. U-12143 THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESELLERS ASSOCIATION The Telecommunications Resellers Association (“TRA”) , on behalf of its members, and pursuant to the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (“Commission”) October 25, 1999 Notice of Opportunity to Comment in the above-captioned proceeding, addresses MCI WorldCom’s September 23, 1999 Application. MCI WorldCom has asked the Commission to order Ameritech to provide the unbundled network element platform (“UNE-P”) to competitors, to immediately deploy operations support systems (“OSS”) in support of the UNE-P, and to require independent third party testing of Ameritech’s OSS. TRA enthusiastically supports MCI WorldCom’s Application and urges the Commission to act in accordance with MCI WorldCom’s request, consistent with the following additional considerations. I. INTRODUCTION As MCI WorldCom aptly states, Commission action is imperative to ensure that a competitive local market develops in Michigan and that Ameritech is not allowed to perpetuate delaying interconnection, providing inferior connections to competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”), or delaying quality of access services or impairing the speed, quality, or efficiency of lines (or services) used by CLECs. Ameritech’s recalcitrance adversely affects all CLECs, and smaller CLECs in particular, such as many TRA members, who rely on the UNE-P, resale, and Ameritech OSS access to enter local markets. Through its actions to date, Ameritech has successfully frustrated competitive entry and stands to impede the development of local competition for the foreseeable future in the absence of Commission action. The need for non-discriminatory OSS access to competitors, whether in support of a UNE-P, interconnection, or resale is particularly crucial for the development of local competition. Ameritech should be directed to expedite OSS upgrades to meet the non- discriminatory OSS access standards established by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), verified through all-inclusive third party testing consistent with MCI WorldCom’s Application, as addressed herein. II. THE STANDARD FOR REGIONAL BELL OPERATING COMPANY DELIVERY OF NON-DISCRIMINATORY OSS ACCESS TO COMPETITIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS HAS BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. Regional Bell operating company (“RBOC”) obligations for the provision of OSS have been well established by the FCC. For Ameritech to be found in full compliance with the Act’s competitive checklist requirements for in-region interLATA market entry, it must provide competitors with fully functional, non-discriminatory OSS access at parity with the OSS Ameritech itself uses. The FCC has determined that a fully functional OSS is an imperative tool for competitive local exchange carriers to enter and effectively compete in local markets. In order for a new entrant to have access to an incumbent LEC's network, the Commission has required that incumbent LECs offer nondiscriminatory access to the systems, information, and personnel that support those network elements or services … Properly functioning operations support systems allow a carrier to receive, process, and install customers' orders promptly and accurately. To ensure that all carriers are able to compete fairly for customers, the Commission has consistently emphasized that the incumbent LEC must give its competitors nondiscriminatory access to the functions of its operations support systems [footnote omitted]. More simply put, new entrants must be able to provide service to their customers at a level that matches the quality of the service provided by the incumbent LEC… A competing carrier that lacks access to operations support systems equivalent to those the incumbent LEC provides to itself, its affiliates, or its customers, "will be severely disadvantaged, if not precluded altogether, from fairly competing" in the local exchange market. According to the FCC: Because the incumbent LEC owns and controls its operational support systems, competing carriers' entry into the local market depends upon the incumbent LEC's willingness and ability to make its OSS available in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Commission consistently has found that nondiscriminatory access to these systems, databases, and personnel is integral to the ability of competing carriers to enter the local exchange market and compete with the incumbent LEC. New entrants must be able to provide service to their customers at a quality level that matches the service provided by the incumbent LEC to compete effectively in the local exchange market. For instance, if new entrants are unable to process orders as quickly and accurately as the incumbent LEC, they may have difficulty marketing their services to end users. The FCC has stressed that non-discriminatory OSS access to competitive local exchange carriers is to be considered a determining factor as to whether RBOCs meet the Act’s specific “competitive checklist” requirements for unbundled network elements, section 271 (c)(2)(B)(ii) and resale section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv). In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the provision of access to OSS functions falls squarely within an incumbent LEC's duty under section 251(c)(3) to provide unbundled network elements 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. In addition, the Commission determined that "operations support systems and the information they contain fall squarely within the definition of 'network element' and must be unbundled upon request under section 251(c)(3). Thus, an examination of a BOC's OSS performance is necessary to evaluate compliance with section 271 (c)(2)(B)(ii) and (xiv)." The duty to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions is embodied in other terms of the competitive checklist as well [footnotes omitted]. The FCC’s findings with respect to RBOC OSS obligations are clear. Ameritech’s delivery of non-discriminatory OSS access is woefully deficient, and must be improved. As Ameritech has not willingly made material upgrades to OSS access, Commission involvement is needed to compel Ameritech to meet its obligations, and to verify the extent to which those obligations have been met through independent third party testing. III. “ALL INCLUSIVE” INDEPENDENT TESTING OF AMERITECH OSS WILL DEMONSTRATE AMERITECH’S FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATIONS MEANT TO OPEN LOCAL MARKETS TO COMPETITION TRA agrees with MCI WorldCom that OSS testing should rely on a neutral independent third party, demonstrate Ameritech’s ability to support all entrants at commercial volumes, provide a full range of products through the UNE-P and test all OSS functions that CLECs will use. MCI WorldCom highlights several key aspects of effective independent third party OSS testing which bear some elaboration. A. OSS Testing Must be State Specific. Ameritech’s operations and OSS in each state are unique and should be evaluated on a stand- alone basis. The Commission should not be persuaded into believing that Ameritech’s pre- ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance, repair, and billing procedures are entirely consistent among all Ameritech states. Assuming arguendo that Ameritech’s OSS and procedures were entirely consistent throughout its operating territory, it should be the independent third party tester’s charge to verify and validate such consistency, rather than to presume it at the onset of OSS testing. Ameritech’s OSS and process capabilities may only be evaluated through rigorous Michigan-specific testing. B. CLECs Should be Actively Involved in OSS Testing. OSS testing must include those competitive local exchange carriers (“CLEC”) who are using Ameritech’s systems and processes daily and are most familiar with the problems and concerns which arise through their interaction with the incumbent. Any OSS testing conducted through a pseudo CLEC, e.g. a fictitious CLEC created by the testing entity for testing purposes, alone will result in an incomplete, slanted picture, which is not fully representative of Ameritech’s actual performance. At least two reasons for the inability of a pseudo CLEC to provide a fully accurate assessment of Ameritech’s OSS should be readily apparent. First, a pseudo CLEC tester cannot test, let alone be aware of, every conceivable type of transaction. CLECs are familiar with the myriad of transactions and that arise through their daily interaction with Ameritech. For example, some CLECs use less common procedures to process “complex” orders where a subscriber’s service includes less frequently used features such as foreign exchange service, or specialized ancillary features such as Caller ID. CLECs have first- hand knowledge of how the Ameritech’s OSS and procedures function for the type of services the CLECs offer, and can assist the testing entity in designing and evaluating a variety of transactions which might not otherwise be included in the testing parameters or closely observed. Second, CLEC involvement reduces the potential for incumbent discrimination in favor of the pseudo CLEC, whose identity is well known to the incumbent. The incumbent has an inherent incentive to provide the necessary resources and support in response to the pseudo CLEC’s requests during the testing period to promote more favorable results. Given the incumbent’s orientation to a pseudo CLEC, the pseudo CLEC alone cannot obtain an honest appraisal of the incumbent’s approach to competitors alone. In the Bell Atlantic - New York OSS testing, for example, involvement of actual CLECs, including some TRA members, revealed additional issues that would have otherwise not been uncovered through pseudo CLEC testing. It became evident to the testers overseeing CLEC interaction with Bell Atlantic that Bell Atlantic’s account management team responded to CLECs with indifference and inconsistency. Bell Atlantic representatives were found to be generally unresponsive, marginally helpful, and fully inconsistent in the responses provided to the TRA members who participated in the test. The attitudes displayed by Bell Atlantic representatives characterize the type of nuances which would not be readily discernable through pseudo CLEC testing, but which are every bit as important in painting a complete picture of Bell Atlantic’s compliance. Active CLEC involvement in OSS testing makes it more difficult for the incumbent to “game” the test process. The testing entity can more readily evaluate incumbent performance on “live” orders under less controlled circumstances. C. All Ameritech OSS Should be Tested. OSS tests should be designed to evaluate all OSS to be used by CLECs rather than only selected OSS. For example, as many smaller and medium-sized CLECs, such as many TRA members, rely on web-based OSS Graphical User Interface (“GUI”), the GUI should receive the same rigorous testing performed on other OSS. UNE-P testing should also be performed as MCI WorldCom urges. With the FCC’s determination that the UNE-P must be made available to competitors, UNE-P testing must become an integral part of Ameritech’s OSS testing to ensure that Ameritech is capable of delivering the UNE-P to CLECs. D. Performance Measures Should be Developed With CLEC Involvement. Just as CLEC involvement in the testing process is crucial, CLECs should be actively involved in the development of a Master Test Plan. Concerns over unilateral development of performance measures and standards by BellSouth have arisen in Florida, as KPMG is completing the design of BellSouth’s OSS Master Test Plan. The entity to be tested should not have exclusive say in how the test plan is developed. Clearly, such exclusive involvement in a test plan design will create test results skewed in favor of the incumbent. CLEC involvement in the test design process will yield a more neutral test and, ultimately, will yield more accurate results. A Master Test Plan should be fully developed prior to the initiation of any testing if the results are to be meaningful. IV. CONCLUSION TRA urges the Commission to take such action as is requested by MCI WorldCom and require Ameritech to offer the UNE-P and immediately upgrade its OSS deployment, subject to extensive, all inclusive independent third party testing consistent with the additional considerations proposed by MCI WorldCom and herein. Respectfully submitted, Telecommunications Resellers Association By: Andrew O. Isar Director – State Affairs 3220 Uddenberg Lane, Suite 4 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 253.851.6700 November 23, 1999 |