Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống
1
/ 27 trang
THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU
Thông tin cơ bản
Định dạng
Số trang
27
Dung lượng
113,5 KB
Nội dung
Before The FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C 20554 In the Matter of Application by SBC Communications Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No 03-16 JOINT REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF CAROL A CHAPMAN AND MARK J COTTRELL REGARDING ACCESS TO UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS FOR THE PROVISIONING OF ADVANCED SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT PARAGRAPH PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT REPLY TO VARIOUS COMMENTS BY AT&T REGARDING LINE SPLITTING Contrary to AT&T’s Assertion, It Has The Ability To Terminate DSL Service In A Line Splitting Arrangement With Minimal Disruption To The Voice Service The MPSC’s October Order Provides No Basis For The Conclusion That Michigan Bell Has Not Acted Timely In Meeting Its Line Splitting Obligations 11 The BearingPoint Testing Provides A Reliable Indication Of The Capability And Capacity Of Michigan Bell’s OSS To Process Line Splitting Orders 15 REPLY TO VARIOUS COMMENTS BY TDS Accuracy of Loop Make-Up Information 19 19 SUBJECT PARAGRAPH Yellow Zone Process 29 Non-Excessive Bridged Tap Removal Policy 30 REPLY TO LDMI’S EX PARTE PRESENTATION REGARDING DISCONNECTION OF DSL SERVICE DURING MIGRATION OF A MICHIGAN BELL CUSTOMER TO LDMI UNE-P 36 REPLY TO NEW EDGE’S COMMENT REGARDING MICHIGAN BELL’S PROVISIONING OF BRI LOOPS USED BY NEW EDGE FOR IDSL SERVICE 38 CONCLUSION 43 Schedule of Attachments Attachment A Copy of DTI Webpage Displaying Terms and Conditions ii We, Carol A Chapman and Mark J Cottrell, being of lawful age and duly sworn upon our oaths, hereby depose and state as follows: PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT My name is Carol A Chapman I am the same Carol A Chapman who previously filed an affidavit in this docket (App A, Tab 5) In this affidavit, I will reply to comments by AT&T Corporation (“AT&T”) alleging (a) that CLECs in a line splitting arrangement cannot terminate DSL service without significant disruption to the voice service,1 and (b) an October 3, 2002 ruling of the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC”) provides a basis for concluding that Michigan Bell has not acted timely in meeting its line splitting obligations.2 I will also reply to comments by TDS Metrocom, LLC (“TDS”) concerning (a) the accuracy of loop make-up information provided by Michigan Bell in response to loop qualification requests,3 (b) the Yellow Zone Process (“YZP”),4 and (c) Michigan Bell’s policy relating to the removal of non-excessive bridged tap In addition, I will reply to the ex parte presentation by LDMI Telecommunications (“LDMI”) concerning the disconnection of DSL service during migration of a customer to Comments of AT&T Corp at 3, 6, 49-54 (“AT&T Comments”); Joint Declaration of Sarah DeYoung and Timothy M Connolly, ¶¶ 4, 20-21 (attached to AT&T Comments) (“DeYoung/Connolly Declaration”) AT&T Comments at 50-51; DeYoung/Connolly Declaration, ¶ (citing Opinion and Order, On the Commission’s Own Motion, to Consider Ameritech Michigan’s Compliance with the Competitive Checklist in Section 271 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Case No U-12320 (MPSC Oct 3, 2002) (“October Order”) (App C, Tab 103)) Affidavit of Rod Cox, ¶¶ 22-25 (attached to Comments of TDS Metrocom, Inc (“TDS Comments”)) (“Cox Affidavit”) TDS Comments at 22; Cox Affidavit, ¶ 26 TDS Comments at 27-28; Cox Affidavit, ¶¶ 69-82 LDMI UNE-P.6 Finally, I will reply to the comment of New Edge Networks, Inc (“New Edge”) regarding Michigan Bell’s provisioning of Basic Rate Interface (“BRI”) loops used by New Edge for IDSL service.7 My name is Mark J Cottrell I am the same Mark J Cottrell who previously filed an affidavit in this docket (App A, Tab 6) In paragraphs 15 through 18 of this affidavit, I will reply to comments by AT&T alleging that the Bearing Point OSS test provides no reliable indication of the capability and capacity of Michigan Bell’s OSS to process line splitting orders.8 REPLY TO VARIOUS AT&T COMMENTS REGARDING LINE SPLITTING Contrary to AT&T’s Assertion, It Has The Ability To Terminate DSL Service In A Line Splitting Arrangement With Minimal Disruption To The Voice Service AT&T contends that Michigan Bell’s “processes effectively preclude a CLEC from continuing to provide voice service via UNE-P for a former line splitting customer who discontinues DSL service.”9 More specifically, AT&T contends that Michigan Bell’s “processes specify that a CLEC voice/DSL customer [served by an AT&T/Covad line splitting arrangement] that drops only the DSL service will lose voice service for up to seven days while the loop is removed from the DLEC’s DSLAM and risks the possibility of facilities shortages that would prevent the customer from being able to be reconnected altogether.”10 As discussed below, this is not correct See January 29, 2003 ex parte presentation to the Commission by LDMI Telecommunications at 31 (“LDMI Ex Parte”) Comments of New Edge Network, Inc d/b/a New Edge Networks at 4-5 (“New Edge Comments”) DeYoung/Connolly Affidavit at 8-12 AT&T Comments at 10 Id at 53-54 In a line splitting arrangement, one CLEC (e.g., AT&T) provides the voice service over the low frequency portion of the loop, while another other CLEC (e.g., Covad) provides DSL service over the high frequency portion of that loop The facilities necessary for line splitting are provided by Michigan Bell to the partnering CLECs under one of several scenarios Under one such scenario, the UNEs involved – an xDSL-capable loop and a switch port – are terminated by Michigan Bell via cross-connects to the voice CLEC’s collocation arrangement The voice CLEC then connects the loop to a splitter, which separates the voice from the data signal, in its collocation arrangement The data signal is then routed to a DSLAM in the data CLEC’s collocation arrangement via collocation-tocollocation connection Under another line splitting scenario – the one that is the subject of AT&T’s comments – Michigan Bell converts an existing UNE-P to a line splitting arrangement whereby the existing switch port and an xDSL-capable loop are both connected to the collocation arrangement of a data CLEC designated by the voice CLEC In the specific situation complained of by AT&T, this data CLEC is Covad AT&T can request this UNE-P to line splitting conversion through a single local service request (“LSR”) process As stated in the initial Chapman affidavit, Michigan Bell rolled out this single LSR process on August 3, 2002.11 Upon receipt of the LSR, where AT&T has an existing UNE-P arrangement, Michigan Bell will disconnect the existing switch port from the existing voice grade loop, and then connect that switch port, and an xDSL-capable loop (reusing the loop facilities if the existing loop is xDSL-capable), to Covad’s collocation 11 Initial Affidavit of Carol A Chapman, ¶ 87 arrangement Within that arrangement, Covad routes the xDSL loop to a splitter that separates the voice from the data signal Covad then routes the data signal to a Covad DSLAM, and the voice signal to the switch port The AT&T voice service would then be provided over the low frequency portion of the loop, and Covad’s DSL service would be provided over the high frequency portion of the loop AT&T’s specific complaint concerns what happens when, after this line splitting arrangement is established, the customer decides to cancel the Covad DSL service but keep the AT&T voice service AT&T claims that it has to submit orders to Michigan Bell in order to preserve the voice service, the voice service may be out for up to seven days, and the customer risks losing his or her phone number None of this is true First, AT&T and Covad clearly have the ability to terminate the DSL service being provisioned over the high frequency portion of the loop with only minimal disruption to the voice service being provisioned over the low frequency of the loop Furthermore, they can so without the voice customer losing his or her telephone number As indicated, once Michigan Bell connects the xDSL-capable loop and switch port to Covad’s collocation arrangement pursuant to AT&T’s instructions, Michigan Bell has no further involvement in either the establishment or cancellation of the DSL service Thus, when the Covad DSL service is terminated, Covad can recombine the loop and switch port – taking out the splitter and DSLAM – within its collocation arrangement There is no need for a new loop or new switch port, and, most importantly, notification to, or involvement by, Michigan Bell is not necessary Because there is no new switch port, the customer keeps his or her telephone number Any voice service disruption when Covad disconnects the splitter and DSLAM should be minimal (i.e., a few minutes at most) If it is more than minimal, that would be the fault of AT&T/Covad, not Michigan Bell Because Covad has the ability to take out the splitter, there is no merit to AT&T’s claim that this process would “tie up a port on the [Covad] DSLAM.”12 This is true even if the splitter is integrated into Covad’s DSLAM; Covad can simply disconnect the switch port and loop from the DSLAM, and connect them directly together.13 AT&T appears, however, to also seek the ability to “convert back” to a Michigan Bell UNE-P for the voice service if the Covad DSL service is terminated In other words, AT&T appears to be seeking a process whereby AT&T could request Michigan Bell to disconnect the switch port and loop from Covad’s cage, reestablish a UNE-P to provide voice service to the customer, so with minimal 12 13 DeYoung/Connolly Declaration, ¶ 21 On page 11 of its January 13, 2003, Opinion and Order in Docket U-12320 (App C, Tab 134), the MPSC stated: “The Commission concludes in the Section 271 report that SBC’s amended compliance plan is in compliance with the Commission’s October 3, 2002 order The pricing is appropriate, and the ordering processes that have been established assure that the customer is protected while providing a workable, albeit not ideal, process for line sharing and line splitting transactions However, WorldCom is correct that other possible scenarios for line sharing/line splitting may occur that have not been envisioned or addressed in SBC’s plan In particular, the Commission is concerned about the process to replace an SBC affiliate splitter with that of a DLEC in a line splitting situation Therefore, the collaborative discussion scheduled for March 4, 2003 shall include discussion of line sharing/line splitting issues that exist at that time The CLECs should identify those issues by February 13, 2003.” With respect to the MPSC’s concern regarding “the process to replace an SBC affiliate splitter with that of a DLEC in a line splitting situation,” I would note that SBC’s affiliate, AADS, provides its own splitters when it line shares with Michigan Bell If this line sharing arrangement is converted to a line splitting arrangement where a CLEC is providing the voice and the xDSL service, either alone or in partnership with another CLEC, one of the partnering CLECs in the new line splitting arrangement will have to provide its own splitter (See above discussion concerning partnering CLEC’s responsibility for connecting the splitter in a line splitting arrangement) In a collaborative session scheduled for March 4-5, 2003, Michigan Bell representatives will be meeting with CLECs to discuss this process, as well as other line sharing/line splitting scenarios (including those scenarios identified by CLECs in response to the MPSC directive to so by February 13, 2003) voice service disruption, and allow the customer to keep his or her telephone number Such a process is, in fact, available to CLECs in Michigan This process allows the voice CLEC (AT&T) to submit a single LSR to Michigan Bell for conversion of the existing switch port used in a line splitting arrangement to UNE-P The voice CLEC submits a “REQ Type M, Activity V” LSR to accomplish this conversion Under this process, if Michigan Bell were to receive such a service order from AT&T, Michigan Bell would establish a new voice grade loop to the customer, disconnect the existing switch port from the data CLEC’s (Covad’s) cage, and then reconnect the switch port to the new voice grade loop Because the existing switch port would continue to be used, the customer would keep his or her telephone number This process should involve minimal service disruption to the voice service A separate request to disconnect the existing xDSL-capable loop used in the line splitting arrangement may be sent if the loop is no longer desired for DSL service.14 10 Finally, AT&T makes the general claim that these processes are “discriminatory.” 15 There is no merit to this claim Michigan Bell does not provide DSL service in Michigan However, as explained in the Affidavit of John S Habeeb (App A, Tab 14), AADS of Michigan (“AADS”), Michigan Bell’s advanced service affiliate, provides Wholesale DSL Transport Service to ISPs in Michigan AADS 14 15 As indicated, the statements made by AT&T in paragraph 20 of the DeYoung/Connolly Declaration not accurately describe the processes available in Michigan It appears that AT&T is attempting to describe an order process that was described by SBC representatives to AT&T in response to questions posed by AT&T pertaining to Texas order processes In any event, to the extent that AT&T was concerned about this issue in Michigan, AT&T had the opportunity to raise this issue in the context of the additional line splitting collaboratives ordered by the MPSC AT&T did not take this opportunity to raise this issue Instead, in a February 13, 2003 e-mail to the MPSC, AT&T stated that it does “not have new scenarios to identify presently.” Nonetheless, Michigan Bell is certainly willing to engage in discussions with AT&T regarding any concerns it has with the process I have described above AT&T Comments at 54; DeYoung/Connolly Declaration, ¶¶ 20-21 offers this service over the high frequency portion of line-shared loops, where Michigan Bell provides the voice service over the same loop.16 When the HFPL of a data CLEC (whether AADS or an unaffiliated CLEC) on a line-shared loop17 is cancelled, Michigan Bell disconnects the loop and switch port from the splitter, and connects them together.18 This occurs with minimal service disruption to the Michigan Bell voice service As indicated above, however, AT&T and Covad, in a line splitting arrangement, also have the ability to disconnect the splitter and combine the loop and port, with minimal disruption to the voice service 16 Affidavit of John S Habeeb, ¶¶ 17-22 17 Based upon performance measure data, as of the end of 2002, Michigan Bell had approximately 73,000 HFPL UNEs in service With respect to line splitting, as indicated CLECs engaging in line splitting arrangements so using stand-alone UNEs (a DSL-capable loop terminated to collocation and, if desired, a switch port with transport terminated to collocation) Michigan Bell provides the requested UNE(s) to the CLEC, but does not know if such stand-alone elements are being used in a line splitting arrangement However, as of February 21, 2003, Michigan Bell had not received any requests via the UNE-P to line splitting single LSR process that was introduced in August 2002 18 Michigan Bell uses the same loop that was used to provide line sharing because it knows it knows it already meets Michigan Bell’s voice service standards In contrast, in the line splitting to UNE-P conversion scenario, Michigan Bell connects the existing switch port to a new voice-grade loop because it has no guarantee that the existing xDSL-capable loop meets Michigan Bell voice service standards The MPSC’s October Order Provides No Basis For The Conclusion That Michigan Bell Has Not Acted Timely In Meeting Its Line Splitting Obligations 11 As described in the initial Chapman affidavit how Michigan Bell has met its line splitting obligations as set forth in various orders of this Commission.19 AT&T, however, claims that “[Michigan Bell] has not established the processes for handling line splitting orders as required by the Commission in the Line Sharing Reconsideration Order.”20 In support of this allegation, AT&T relies on language in the MPSC’s October Order, which addressed several issues regarding line sharing and line splitting.21 Specifically, AT&T cites language from that order indicating that Michigan Bell had not implemented some of the MPSC’s directives concerning the following scenario: “The end user … seeks to add data services from a data CLEC that may or may not be affiliated with the ILEC.”22 The MPSC’s ruling in its October Order regarding this scenario was as follows: The [MPSC] does not agree [with Michigan Bell] that the data CLEC has a prior and superior right to purchase the LFPL or the whole loop when the end user desires to change voice providers … [I]f the data CLEC chooses to cease providing service upon notification of the migration of voice service, or to provide service via a separate loop, it should be responsible to pay the costs associated with terminating its service and to absorb any costs associated with its investment in conditioning the loop Those losses would be realized as a result of the data CLECs’ voluntary decision to abandon service following migration.23 12 As stated in the initial Chapman affidavit, Michigan Bell believes this ruling by the MPSC is inconsistent with, among other things, this Commission’s rulings in 19 Initial Affidavit of Carol A Chapman, ¶¶ 82-88 20 DeYoung/Connolly Declaration, ¶ 21 DeYoung/Connolly Declaration, ¶ (citing October Order) 22 Id ¶ (citing October Order at 23) 23 October Order at 15-16 previously would have resulted when CLECs had to submit three LSRs to convert from UNE-P to line splitting (which are now underlying service orders that Michigan Bell will internally generate if it receives a single LSR to convert UNEP to line splitting) These are a service order to disconnect the UNE-P, a service order for an unbundled xDSL capable loop, and a service order for an unbundled switch port BearingPoint’s detailed results for ordering and provisioning of unbundled xDSL loops and unbundled switch ports are included in the BearingPoint report in both its ordering and provisioning tests Both xDSL capable loops and unbundled switch ports were included in the following ordering and provisioning tests: • TVV1-25 (Timeliness of Mechanized Firm Order Confirmations in Response to Electronically-Submitted Orders).30 • TVV1-26 (Timeliness of Non-Mechanized Firm Order Confirmations in Response to Electronically-Submitted Orders).31 The first timeliness test (TTV 1-25) was satisfied with BearingPoint, the other timeliness test (TTV 1-26) while not achieving a satisfied mark with BearingPoint, it did have a composite result of 94.9% versus a benchmark of 95% See BearingPoint Report at 793-794 17 As part of its testing, BearingPoint had test points directed specifically at the provisioning of xDSL loops: • xDSL circuits were provisioned by completing documented M&P tasks (TVV4-13).32 30 See BearingPoint, Michigan Bell OSS Evaluation Project Report at 793 (Oct 30, 2002) (App C, Tab 114) (“BearingPoint Report”) 31 Id at 793-794 32 Id at 928 • xDSL orders were provisioned on the due date (TVV4-14).33 • xDSL circuits were provisioned accurately (TVV4-15).34 xDSL provisioning test points were all judged Satisfied by BearingPoint 18 In sum, the underlying internal service orders used by Michigan Bell to provision the conversion of UNE-P to line splitting were tested by BearingPoint, and BearingPoint judged Michigan Bell’s provisioning of these service orders satisfactory Thus, contrary to AT&T’s assertion, BearingPoint’s OSS testing does provide a reliable indication of the capability and capacity of Michigan Bell’s OSS to process line splitting orders REPLY TO VARIOUS TDS COMMENTS Accuracy of Loop Make-Up Information 19 TDS claims that “[t]he loop qualification information provided by SBC often is inaccurate.” Cox Affidavit, ¶ 22 20 TDS’s primary support for this claim are examples it provides of alleged “discrepancies between the data reported by the DTI prequalification tool and the Verigate tool…”35 To begin with, it is misleading to suggest that Michigan Bell returns different loop qualification information depending on which “prequalification tool” is used Requests for loop make-up information from CLECs, whether or not affiliated with Michigan Bell, are sent to, and responded to by, a single system – the Loop Qualification system (“LoopQual”) LoopQual provides loop make-up information in response to these requests by retrieving 33 Id 34 Id at 929 35 Cox Affidavit, ¶ 22 information from those back-office systems that store Michigan Bell’s loop records 21 Verigate is one of the interfaces available to CLECs to access LoopQual DTI is not one of these interfaces and, in fact, is not a prequalification tool at all DTI stands for “DSL Tracking Inquiry.” It is a web-based application, available to affiliated and unaffiliated CLECs alike, that provides them with information regarding the general availability, by distribution area, of SBC ILEC facilities that could be used by a CLEC to provide DSL A distribution area (“DA”) is a defined geographic area Generally, a wire center consists of many DAs DTI does not provide, and was not designed to provide, information about specific loops On the contrary, it is a preplanning tool designed to assist CLECs in determining whether a given geographic area is suitable for marketing DSL 22 In brief, a CLEC signing onto DTI can click onto a map of the United States and then “zoom in” to a color-coded map of various geographical areas down to city blocks Each DA is displayed in a single color-code: Dark green means the loops in the DA are probably 12,000 feet or less; yellow means the loops in the DA are probably between 12,000 and 17,500 feet; red means loops in the DA are probably greater than 17,500 feet; and light green means the DA is served by a Pronto remote terminal (The color blue on the map means open water) In addition to clicking on the map, other options available to the CLEC for retrieving displays of specific geographic areas include (a) entering a specific address, which will display the block or several block area containing the address; (b) entering a wire center code, which will display a map of the wire center and surrounding area; and (c) entering a DA code, which will display a map of the DA and surrounding area 23 The DA color codes in DTI were not determined by the retrieval of loop makeup information from LoopQual Rather, they correspond to theoretical determinations by outside plant engineers of the longest loop length in the DA For example, if the maximum theoretical loop length in a DA is 14,250 feet, the entire DA is coded yellow As another example, if the maximum theoretical loop length in a DA is 9500 feet, the entire DA is coded dark green 24 In addition to displaying color-coded maps, DTI allows the CLEC to retrieve certain numerical information about a DA One such item of information is the maximum theoretical loop length calculated by the outside plant engineers for the DA in question As an example, DTI might state that the maximum theoretical loop length of a particular DA is 11,300 feet This would correspond to a dark green color code for the DA, because 11,300 is less than 12,000 This would not mean that all loops in the DA are 11,300 feet; indeed, it would only be happenstance if any particular loop in the DA is that exact length 25 “Exhibit 3” to the Cox Affidavit demonstrates TDS’s misunderstanding of the type of information provided by DTI Exhibit contains a column entitled “DTI Loop Length.” This column lists specific “DTI loop length” figures for each of TDS’s various test cases TDS’s implication, of course, is that DTI returned each of these figures as the “length” of the specific loop at issue As indicated above, nothing could be further from the truth The figures listed by TDS in its “DTI Loop Length” column appear to be maximum theoretical loop lengths reported by DTI for various DAs (ostensibly, the DAs where the loops listed in Exhibit are located) Again, however, the maximum theoretical loop lengths reported by DTI not correspond to actual loop lengths In short, TDS misses the mark entirely in its attempt to disparage the accuracy of Verigate loop qualification responses by pointing to alleged discrepancies between those results and information provided by DTI.36 26 There is no excuse for TDS’s failure to understand that DTI is not a loop qualification tool, nor was it designed to substitute for one CLECs are informed in no uncertain terms of this when they enter the DTI website, where the terms and conditions for the CLEC’s use of DTI are prominently displayed Before being allowed to proceed with DTI, the CLEC representative must click an “Accept” button affirmatively indicating that he or she agrees to DTI’s terms and conditions, including the following statement (which is highlighted in bold on the DTI screen): DTI is a planning tool only based on long range theoretical design and not a qualification tool DTI does not indicate DSL availability but rather theoretical network supportability of DSL Access to Network Disclosure and OCD Disclosure information is available via DTI but is not a part of DTI Network Disclosure and OCD Disclosure are SBC databases, separate from DTI, based on actual and current job completion information Specific loop qualification should be obtained via Loop Qual Loop Qual and Network and OCD Disclosure information may not exactly match DTI and, for the reasons mentioned here, those sources should be considered the rule.37 27 TDS also claims that its “field tests” show significant discrepancies between actual loop lengths and the loop length information returned by Verigate However, of the approximately 125 “test cases” listed by TDS on Exhibit 3, only 36 It is worth noting that in every single one of the approximately 125 examples cited by TDS in its “Exhibit 3,” the figure cited in the “DTI Loop Length” column corresponds precisely with the color code listed for that DA – further demonstrating that each of the figures in the column probably reflect the maximum theoretical loop length provided by DTI for the DA at issue 37 Emphasis supplied A copy of the DTI webpage displaying these terms and conditions is attached hereto as Attachment A 45 actually show a field test result And, of these 45, only a few show a significant discrepancy between the reported field test result and the length returned by Verigate There are many factors, however, that could skew the accuracy of a field test These factors include the type of equipment used to conduct the test, the condition of that equipment (how recently was it calibrated?), the competency of the tester, conditions of the line (faults, house cable, inside wire, etc.), and whether the measure performed was a capacitance measure (which provides raw length) or a frequency measurement (which leads to an approximation of loss that can be converted to an approximation of 26-gage loop length) Given the limited information provided by TDS – TDS provides no information concerning any of the aforementioned factors – it is simply impossible to form any judgment on the accuracy, reliability, or relevance of the information supplied by TDS.38 28 As a final point, Michigan Bell believes that the loop make-up information in its outside plant records is substantially accurate Michigan Bell cannot guarantee, however, that those records are 100% accurate in all respects This Commission, however, has made it clear that ILECs are not required to overhaul their outside plant records to ensure “100% accuracy” of the loop make-up information contained in those records The key requirements are that the CLECs must have access to the same loop make-up information that Michigan Bell has itself, and that Michigan Bell does not discriminate between affiliated and unaffiliated 38 It is interesting that the one example of a discrepancy between the Verigate result and the field test result noted by TDS in the text of the Cox affidavit itself – an alleged instance where Verigate purportedly returned a loop length of less than 6000 feet and the field test showed 23,000 feet – is not even listed in Exhibit CLECs in providing loop make-up information.39 As demonstrated in the initial Chapman affidavit, Michigan Bell fully meets these requirements since the loop make-up information available to it is also available to CLECs, and since its advanced services affiliate, AADS, receives precisely the same loop make-up information that is available to unaffiliated CLECs, through interfaces available to unaffiliated CLECs.40 Yellow Zone Process 29 TDS also claims that Michigan Bell rolled out the yellow zone process (“YZP”) haphazardly and without CLEC input.41 This is false Michigan Bell’s YZP offering began as a voluntary trial process The trial began in July 2001 and continued until the standard YZP offering was rolled out in July 2002 Michigan Bell informed CLECs of the YZP trial at the December 13, 2000 CLEC User Forum.42 Michigan Bell also announced the beginning of the YZP trial via Accessible Letters.43 These Accessible Letters explained that the YZP trial was optional, and they also stated that Michigan Bell would be conducting biweekly conference calls with CLECs during the trial to address any issues In this regard, the Accessible Letters stated: “Any questions or issues pertaining to this voluntary trial can be discussed during the biweekly … CLEC YZP conference call.” Accessible Letters CLECAM01-178 & CLECAM01-179 (App H, Tab 18) Non-Excessive Bridged Tap Removal Policy 39 See Initial Affidavit of Carol A Chapman, ¶ 13 40 Id ¶¶ 15-26 41 See Cox Affidavit, ¶ 26; TDS Comments at p 22 42 See Accessible Letter CLECAM01-008 (App H, Tab 13) 43 Accessible Letters CLECAM01-178 & CLECAM01-179 (App H, Tab 18) Later Accessible Letters extended the dates of the trial Michigan Bell continued the trial until it rolled out the standard YZP process discussed in my direct affidavit 30 TDS also takes issue with Michigan Bell’s policy concerning the removal of nonexcessive bridged tap.44 As discussed below, TDS’s complaint seems to be based on a misconception regarding Michigan Bell’s offerings and positions on this issue 31 Michigan Bell, along with other SBC ILECs, developed standard conditioning options for xDSL-capable loops based upon industry standards, and input provided by data CLECs, concerning the type of conditioning believed to be necessary to provision xDSL over a copper loop These standard conditioning options were for the removal of load coils, repeaters, and/or excessive bridged tap (i.e., bridged tap in excess of 2,500 feet) These standard offerings are documented in Section 4.1.1 of the DSL appendix to TDS’s interconnection agreement, which provides: 2-Wire xDSL Loop: A 2-wire xDSL loop for purposes of this section, is a copper loop over which a CLEC may provision various DSL technologies A copper loop used for such purposes will meet basic electrical standards such as metallic connectivity and capacitive and resistive balance, and will not include load coils, mid-span repeaters or excessive bridged tap (bridged tap in excess of 2,500 feet in length) However removal of load coils, repeaters or excessive bridged tap on an existing loop is optional, subject to conditioning charges, and will be performed at CLEC’s request The rates set forth in Appendix Pricing shall apply to this 2-Wire xDSL Loop.45 32 Thus, the prices, terms, and conditions in TDS’s interconnection agreement for the removal of bridged tap not cover the removal of non-excessive bridged tap This does not mean, however, that Michigan Bell will not remove non-excessive bridged tap, nor does it mean there is no process available to TDS for obtaining prices, terms, and conditions allowing for such removal 44 See Cox Affidavit, ¶¶ 69-82; TDS Comments at 27-28 45 TDS Interconnection Agreement, Appendix DSL, § 4.1.1 (emphasis supplied) 33 In this regard, some time after Michigan Bell’s standard conditioning offering had been developed, SBC ILECs began to receive occasional requests to perform conditioning for the removal of non-excessive bridged tap through the bona fide request (“BFR”) process The SBC ILECs took note of this interest and created a standard offering for the removal of non-excessive bridged tap This standard offer has been available in Michigan since February 28, 2002.46 This standard contract amendment is designed for those CLECs, including TDS, that not have prices, terms, and conditions for the removal of non-excessive bridged tap in their current interconnection agreement 34 TDS claims that Michigan Bell’s non-excessive bridge tap offer is a change that “affects CLECs’ ability to timely provision service to an end user customer.” 47 This is simply false Michigan Bell offers this standard amendment language so that CLECs can obtain prices, terms, and conditions for the removal of nonexcessive bridged tap without going through the BFR process It does not eliminate any of the options covered by the prices, terms, and conditions in TDS’s current interconnection agreement.48 35 In a related vein, TDS complains that Michigan Bell issued its Accessible Letter announcing the availability of the non-excessive bridge removal amendment “without any lead time,” and further suggests that Michigan Bell is forcing the terms of the standard offering upon TDS See Cox Affidavit, ¶¶ 81-82 Again, however, TDS could have requested prices, terms, and conditions for the removal of non-excessive bridge tap when it negotiated its original interconnection 46 The availability of this option was announced in CLECAM02-079 (App H, Tab 26) 47 Cox Affidavit, ¶ 82 48 TDS is thus incorrect in its assertion that Michigan Bell “continues to block the provisioning of DSL loops for customers of TDS.” Cox Affidavit, ¶ 73 agreement, or later through the BFR process (which is what many other CLECs did) If a CLEC seeks different prices, terms, and conditions, Michigan Bell will negotiate with the CLEC in good faith, with the availability of arbitration under Section 252 of the Act to resolve any issues that the parties are unable to resolve themselves In sum, Michigan Bell’s non-excessive bridged tap offering is an attempt on Michigan Bell’s part to accommodate CLEC desires, not thwart them.49 REPLY TO LDMI’S EX PARTE PRESENTATION REGARDING DISCONNECTION OF DSL SERVICE DURING MIGRATION OF A MICHIGAN BELL CUSTOMER TO LDMI UNE-P 36 In a January 29, 2003 ex parte, LDMI complained that “[w]here an Ameritech retail customer has a DSL line (from an Ameritech affiliate) associated with their local service, and migrates local lines to LDMI UNE-P, Ameritech consistently disconnects the DSL during the conversion process Problem began a year ago.” LDMI Ex Parte at 31 This Commission has ruled, however, that ILECs need not continue to provide line sharing when the voice carrier migrates to a CLEC, especially when the migration is to UNE-P.50 The Commission has also held that ILECs (whether themselves or through a separate affiliate) are not obligated to continue providing DSL service when a line-shared loop over which such service 49 Paragraph 80 of the Cox affidavit alleges that Michigan Bell does not currently provide CLECs with the ability to request the removal of non-excessive bridged tap via an LSR in order to avoid performance measures This is simply untrue Michigan Bell rolled out the current process, which allows CLECs to request the removal of non-excessive bridged tap via a trouble ticket, because Michigan Bell did not want to hold up the availability of this offering until an LSR process could be rolled-out 50 Third Report and Order in CC Docket No 98-147; Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No 96-98, Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, et al., 14 FCC Rcd 20912, ¶ 72 (1999) (“Line Sharing Order”) (“[W]e conclude that incumbent LECs must make available to competitive carriers only the high frequency portion of the loop network element on loops on which the incumbent LEC is also providing analog voice service [I]ncumbent carriers are not required to provide line sharing to requesting carriers that are purchasing a combination of network elements known as the platform.”) is provided becomes unavailable because the voice customer has migrated to a CLEC.51 There is no merit, therefore, to LDMI’s claim that the discontinuation of DSL service by AADS52 when line sharing becomes unavailable, because the voice customer has migrated to LDMI UNE-P, supports denial of this 271 application 37 As a final point, LDMI incorrectly stated, during its January 29 ex parte, that the MPSC issued an order in “late June” requiring AADS to continue providing DSL when line-sharing becomes unavailable because the voice customer has migrated to LDMI See LDMI Ex Parte at 31 LDMI is apparently referring to the MPSC’s June 6, 2002 order in Docket U-13193, in which the MPSC stated: “[T]he Commission will require Ameritech Michigan to institute procedures that allow CLECs to obtain the voice service over a LFPL when the same line is already being used to provide DSL service The migration procedures necessary to accomplish this purpose must provide for a seamless migration of the voice service to the CLEC without disruption or disconnection of any other service being taken pursuant to a preexisting line-sharing arrangement…” Opinion and Order at 15, Complaint of the Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Association of Michigan, et al., Against SBC Ameritech Michigan for Anti-Competitive Acts and Acts Violating the Michigan Telecommunications Act, Case No U-13193 (MPSC June 6, 2002) (App L, Tab 42) This statement was not intended, as 51 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 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 Texas, 15 FCC Rcd 18354, ¶ 330 (2000) (“We reject AT&T’s argument that we should deny this application on the basis of SWBT’s decision to deny its xDSL service to customers who choose to obtain their voice service from a competitor that is using the UNE-P Under our rules, the incumbent LEC has no obligation to provide xDSL service over this UNE-P carrier loop.”) 52 As explained in the Affidavit of John S Habeeb, AADS does not provide DSL service to end users Rather, AADS provides Wholesale DSL Transport Service to Internet Service Providers LDMI asserts, to eliminate a data CLEC’s option to discontinue providing Wholesale DSL Transport Service to a particular address when the means it had been using to provide the service – an HFPL – becomes unavailable because the customer has terminated ILEC voice service As explained above, such a ruling would be inconsistent with this Commission’s orders In any event, in its October Order in Docket U-12320, the MPSC provided several clarifications of the above-quoted language Among other things, the MPSC stated: “[T]he Commission is not persuaded that it may require a DSL provider to continue to provide service after a migration from line sharing to line splitting No authority has been cited that would permit the Commission to so.”53 The MPSC further stated: “[T]he Commission finds that when a voice CLEC markets its service to a potential customer with DSL service already in place, it must inform the potential customer that the DSL service may be affected by a switch of voice service providers Customers should be encouraged to check with their DSL providers.”54 REPLY TO NEW EDGE’S COMMENT REGARDING MICHIGAN BELL’S PROVISIONING OF BRI LOOPS USED BY NEW EDGE FOR IDSL SERVICE 38 New Edge complains about the unavailability of cooperative and acceptance testing for a 2-wire digital loop (“Basic Rate Interface loop” or “BRI loop”) when such a loop is used by it for the provisioning of IDSL 55 As stated in the initial Chapman affidavit, SBC developed the new IDSL-capable loop offering because of the challenges CLECs were facing in attempting to provision IDSL over a BRI 53 October Order at 18 54 Id at 19 55 See New Edge Comments at 4-5 New Edge actually uses the term “ISDN/IDSL capable loops” in its comments loop.56 For example, because of differences between IDSL and ISDN technologies, a BRI loop provisioned over certain Digital Loop Carrier (“DLC”) systems may be unable to achieve the level of IDSL service desired by the CLEC Furthermore, Michigan Bell was unable to fully test the capabilities of stand-alone BRI loops provisioned to CLECs over DLC, as opposed to BRI loops used by Michigan Bell to provision a retail, resold, or UNE-P service This is because when Michigan Bell provisions retail, resold, or UNE-P based ISDN, the loop is connected to the Michigan Bell switch and, as such, Michigan Bell tests the digital transmission capabilities of the loop by transmitting a digital signal generated by Michigan Bell’s switch However, in the stand-alone loop situation (i.e., a stand-alone BRI loop leased by a CLEC), the loop is not connected to Michigan Bell’s switch, and, as a result, Michigan Bell was unable to generate a digital signal from its switch to test the BRI loop through to the end user’s equipment 39 In order to resolve these issues, Michigan Bell invested in additional test equipment for 77 central offices and developed a new IDSL-capable loop offering The additional testing associated with IDSL-capable loops is limited to locations where Michigan Bell has invested in the necessary test equipment Michigan Bell’s new IDSL-capable loop offering was announced in Accessible Letter CLECAM01-185 issued on June 28, 2001 (App H, Tab 18).57 40 New Edge proposes two “solutions” to address its concerns First, New Edge argues that cooperative testing of BRI loops used for IDSL should be available in 56 Initial Affidavit of Carol A Chapman at ¶¶ 46-48 57 Id ¶ 49 Michigan Bell has no current plans to expand is IDSL-capable loop offering to more central offices Michigan because it is available in SBC’s Southwest region In actuality, cooperative testing is not a standard offering in either Michigan or the SBC Southwest region on BRI loops used to provide IDSL Cooperative testing is a standard offering, however, in both Michigan and the SBC Southwest region, on the new IDSL-capable loop product 41 New Edge’s second proposal is that Michigan Bell expand the number of central offices where its IDSL-capable loop offering is available to include all of those central offices where New Edge has chosen to collocate New Edge claims that this option is “low-cost and would not require additional capital expenditures by Michigan Bell.”58 This is simply false As indicated, when Michigan Bell initially rolled out the IDSL-capable loop offering, it identified 77 central offices in Michigan where it would invest in the additional equipment necessary to make the product available Michigan Bell chose these central offices based on the historical practices of CLECs ordering BRI loops These central offices are identified in Accessible Letter CLECAM01-185 (App H, Tab 18) The deployment of test equipment for additional offices, contrary to New Edge’s assertion, would require substantial additional capital expenditure 42 In sum, New Edge’s proposed alternatives are not the simple solutions that New Edge portrays them to be Nonetheless, Michigan Bell has been, and continues to be, willing to work cooperatively with New Edge to resolve any provisioning issues related to BRI loops in a mutually acceptable manner CONCLUSION 58 New Edge Comments at 43 Pursuant to Part II E of the Consent Decree entered into between SBC Communications Inc and the Federal Communications Commission, see Order, SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 10780 (2002), both of the undersigned hereby affirm that he or she has (1) received the training SBC is obligated to provide to all SBC FCC Representatives; (2) reviewed and understand the SBC Compliance Guidelines; (3) signed an acknowledgment of my training and review and understanding of the Guidelines; and (4) complied with the requirements of the SBC Compliance Guidelines 44 This concludes our affidavit