ARCHIVED - Decision CRTC 2001-366

Decision CRTC 2001-366

Ottawa, 20 June 2001

File no.: 8660-C12-05/00

To: Interested parties to Decision CRTC 2000-24 & Public Notice CRTC 2000-17

Re: CISC recommended competition-related Quality of Service indicators - Follow up to Decision CRTC 2001-217

On 9 April 2001, the Commission released Decision CRTC 2001-217; CRTC creates new quality of service indicators for telephone companies (Decision 2001-217). Decision 2001-217 established a new series of quality of service indicators that measures the supply and repair of services provided to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). The Commission believes that there is a continuing need for ILEC regulation of quality of service indicators due to low levels of competition in some areas. Customers are still largely captive to their ILEC and in some cases competitors are dependent on the ILEC for their ability to compete. In setting these new standards of service for ILECs, the CRTC is expecting to foster an environment where CLECs are better able to meet customer expectations and compete in the market more effectively.

Decision 2001-217 requested that two working groups of CISC, Business Process Working Group (BPWG) and Network Operations Working Group (NOWG) assist the CRTC in developing intervals for certain specific indicators. The working groups were required to report back to the Commission with proposed measurement standards within 30 days. The BPWG and NOWG submitted reports on May 11 and May 10 respectively.

CISC Reports

The two working groups filed reports numbered BPRE028a and NORE024c, attached, that, by consensus, recommended the following:

Revised definitions to three indicators;

Three new indicators with service intervals;

Inserting service intervals discussed in the body of Decision 2001-217 into the formal definitions of 9 specific indicators;

A performance standard be set after one year of data collection for a particular indicator.

The reports asked that the Commission determine the intervals for six indicators where the groups' members were unable to agree and that:

All the new intervals be established on an interim basis with a report back to the CRTC on the appropriateness of the intervals after one year.

The Commission determine the technical interpretations for aspects of the new indicators.

Finally, the reports contained the competitors' request that the ILECs report on a CLEC by CLEC basis without combining the data for all CLECs into one report, as the ILECs would prefer.

Conclusion

The Commission notes that within the BPWG and NOWG both ILECs and CLECs were well represented.

In Decision 2001-217, the Commission established a regime that required the ILECs to file reports for indicators that measure quarterly competition-related intervals and standards beginning with the third quarter 2001. The indicators that required the assistance of CISC to develop intervals were not included in the third quarter timeframe schedule. However, the Commission considers that there should be no delay in measuring the new indicators for competition-related intervals and standards and the start date for the reporting of the new indicators should also be set to begin with the third quarter 2001 data.

The Commission considers the consensus-based recommendations of the CISC working groups to be reasonable and approves them as follows:

The revised definitions for indicators 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10 be adopted.

Three new indicators numbered 2.7A, 2.8A and 2.9 with service intervals be created.

Specific service intervals in the formal definitions for 9 specific indicators numbered 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.12, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17 and 1.18 be adopted.

For indicator 1.14, a performance standard be set only after one year of data collection.

For indicators 2.7A, 2.8A, 2.9, 1.12, 1.13 and 1.15, where consensus within the working groups could not be reached the Commission concludes as follows:

Indicator 2.7A - immediate implementation of actual benchmark rather than waiting until data has been collected and reviewed.

Indicator 2.8A - alternative B which requires ILECs to report on the status of all loops by the end of the working day.

Indicator 2.9 - Standard of 90% set for clearing of degraded trouble reports rather than the 80% standard proposed by the ILECs.

Indicator 1.12 - The establishment of a confirmed due date measurement for expedited orders rather than standard service interval which may be longer.

Indicator 1.13 - A measurement of 1 working day after confirmed due date for orders that are late (expedited same as 1.12).

Indicator 1.15 - A measurement of 1 working day after confirmed due date for standalone LNP orders that are late (expedited same as 1.12).

The Commission directs that:

The new indicators are approved on an interim basis.

The working groups are to review all the collected data for a full year that is up to and including 2nd quarter 2002 data and to report to the Commission on the appropriateness and reasonableness of the indicators by 1 December 2002.

The ILECs report the new indicators on a CLEC by CLEC basis in a manner similar to the other competition-related indicators established by the Commission in Decision 2001-217.

With regard to Indicator 1.16 the Commission finds that the due date is to be considered met if the order is completed within the standard service interval.

The Commission will soon issue a document that provides:

a full explanation and commentary with respect to the setting of the intervals and standards;

rationale for Commission determination of non-consensus items and a technical interpretation for each indicator.

Appendix 1 describes the approved wording and definition of each indicator.

Yours sincerely,

Ursula Menke
Secretary General

Attachment

Appendix 1

Synopsis of indicators

Date Modified: 2001-06-20