ARCHIVED - Decision CRTC 2001-636
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Decision CRTC 2001-636Ottawa, 5 October 2001 Reference: 8660-C12-05/00 To: Interested parties to Decision CRTC 2000-24 and Public Notice CRTC 2000-17
On 9 April 2001, the Commission released Decision CRTC 2001-217, CRTC creates new quality of service indicators for telephone companies. 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). Decision 2001-217 requested that two working groups of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (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 11 May and 10 May respectively. On 20 June 2001, the Commission issued Decision CRTC 2001-366. In order to establish the new quality of service indicators as quickly as possible, Decision 2001-366 did not fully explain the Commission's determinations, stating that reasons would follow. This decision provides the basis for the Commission's finding in Decision 2001-366, a rationale for Commission determination of non-consensus items, and a technical interpretation for each indicator. In certain items, it also provides further direction. Indicators 1.8 and 1.9 The BPWG recommended that Indicators 1.8 and 1.9 exclude from measurement those orders where due dates are missed due to facilities shortages or causes attributable to CLECs or their customers. The Commission directs that Indicators 1.8 and 1.9 shall be so applied. The revised Indicators 1.8 and 1.9 are set out in Appendix 1. Indicator 1.10 The BPWG recommended applying Indicator 1.10 as follows:
The Commission directs that Indicator 1.10 shall be so applied. The revised Indicator 1.10 is set out in Appendix 1. Indicator 1.12 The BPWG recommended that the definition in Indicator 1.12 be revised and that orders be excluded from measurement where due dates are missed due to facility shortages; or causes attributable to CLECs or their customers. The Commission notes that the BPWG did not reach a consensus on the treatment of expedited orders, that is, where the due date requested requires an interval less than the standard interval. The following two positions were considered with respect to expedited orders, namely:
In Decision 2001-366, the Commission determined that position 1 was appropriate. The Commission notes that, while there was BPWG consensus for position 2 in Indicators 1.8 and 1.9, there was no consensus in this case. The Commission notes that in Indicators 1.8 and 1.9, the focus is on service intervalsmet. Therefore, the issue of expedited due dates is essentially irrelevant, which the BPWG consensus recognized in recommending that there should be no specific provision for expedited due dates. By contrast, Indicator 1.12 focuses on confirmed due datesmet. Thus, the due date itself, rather than the service interval, became the issue. Accordingly, the Commission's view is that the ILEC should be measured on the due date missed, expedited or otherwise. The Commission directs that Indicator 1.12 shall be so applied. The revised Indicator 1.12 is set out in Appendix 1. Indicator 1.13 In Decision 2001-217, the Commission requested the BPWG to recommend a standard for an indicator to measure the lengths of time to fill orders that do not meet the standards in Indicators 1.8 and 1.9 for new loop orders and loop migration orders. The BPWG recommended measuring the "lateness" of orders for new loops (Indicator 1.8) and loop migrations (Indicator 1.9) as in Indicator 1.13 defined below. The Commission accepted the consensus and approved Indicator 1.13 as amended, based on the following discussion. The Commission notes that the BPWG failed to reach a consensus on the time interval for completion of late orders. The BPWG reported that it had considered two positions. First, the CLEC position which was the following: measure based on completion within one working dayof the confirmed due date; missed orders are largely attributable to ILEC technician workload and should be completed within the one working day. An interim standard of one day could be changed in the final standard, if warranted. Second, the ILECs position, which was to measure based on completion within two working days of the confirmed due date. In Decision 2001-366, the Commission found for the interval of one working day. The Commission's reason was that, based on the record, one day is appropriate as an interval. The BPWG failed to reach a consensus on the treatment of expedited orders, i.e. orders where the due date results in an interval shorter than the standard service interval. The BPWG said that the treatment of expedited orders in this indicator would depend on the treatment of expedited orders in Indicator 1.12 - Local Service Request Confirmed Due Dates Met. In Decision 2001-366, the Commission approved a measurement for expedited orders based on a confirmed due date. This decision is based on the same rationale as the one expressed for Indicator 1.12 above. As with Indicators 1.8, 1.9 and 1.12, the BPWG recommended excluding from measurement orders where due dates are missed due to facilities shortages or causes attributable to CLECs or their customers. The Commission directs that Indicator 1.13, set out in Appendix 1, be so applied. Indicator 1.14 The BWPG recommended that Indicator 1.14 be defined as set out in Appendix 1 to measure loop orders not completed due to facilities shortages and the development of a performance standard after a review of a year's worth of statistics on held loop orders. In Decision 2001-366, the Commission accepted the consensus and approved Indicator 1.14. It stated that the fixing of a performance standard would need one year of data collection. The Commission directs the BPWG to review one year (ending second quarter of 2002) of data and to report by end of fourth quarter of 2002. New Indicator 1.14 is set out in Appendix 1. Indicator 1.15 In Decision 2001-217, the Commission requested the BPWG to recommend a standard for an indicator to measure of lengths of time for filling orders that do not meet the standard in Indicator 1.10, standalone local number portability (LNP) orders. The BPWG recommended the following:
The BPWG failed to reach a consensus on what time period to choose for measuring late-order completion; and treatment of expedited orders. On measuring late-order completion, the BPWG was unable to reach agreement on whether missed orders completed should be tracked based on one or two working daysof the confirmed due date. In Decision 2001-366, the Commission found in favour of an interval of one day, consistent with Indicator 1.13. This decision is based on the same rationale as the one expressed for Indicator 1.13. On expedited orders, the BPWG submitted that a Commission ruling should be consistent with its findings on Indicator 1.12. In Decision 2001-366, the Commission found in favour of measuring based on confirmed (expedited) due dates, consistent with its findings for Indicators 1.12 and 1.13. This decision is based on the same rationale as the one expressed for Indicator 1.13. New Indicator 1.15 is set out in Appendix 1. Indicator 1.16 In Decision 2001-217, the Commission requested the BPWG to recommend a standard for an indicator to show the actual length of time for ILEC filling of orders that do not meet the performance standard of Indicator 1.11. Indicator 1.11 measures adherence to standard service intervals for filling Bill & Keep Interconnection Trunk orders.
The BPWG recommended:
The Commission directs that Indicator 1.16 shall be so applied. New Indicator 1.16 is set out in Appendix 1. Indicator 1.17 In Decision 2001-217, the Commission requested the BPWG to recommend a standard for an indicator to measure the percentage of local service requests (LSRs) submitted by CLECs that are returned due to errors perceived by the ILECs. The BPWG recommended Indicator 1.17 set out in Appendix 1. The Commission accepted the consensus and approved the proposed Indicator. Indicator 1.18 In Decision 2001-217, the Commission requested the BPWG to recommend a standard for an indicator to measure either the percent of occasions when the 48-hour turnaround time is met by ILECs in response to LSRs submitted by CLECs, or the average turnaround time, with a standard of 90% or greater. In this context, turnaround time refers to the time the ILEC takes to respond to the order with an agreement to a due date; a statement of an inability to fill the order; an alternative due date, etc. The BPWG proposed Indicator 1.18 set out in Appendix 1. The BPWG noted that the turnaround time is not always two business days and that the time interval depends on the type of service requested (e.g. loop type, firm order or service inquiry). The Commission accepted the BPWG's recommendation and approved new Indicator 1.18. New Indicator 1.18 is set out in Appendix 1. Indicator 2.7A In Decision 2001-217, the Commission asked the NOWG to recommend a standard for an indicator to show the actual length of time for clearing trouble reports where Indicator 2.7 has not been met. Indicator 2.7 measures the percentage of trouble reports that are cleared in accordance with the performance standard, i.e. 80% or more of troubles cleared within 24 hours. The NOWG recommended Indicator 2.7A set out in Appendix 1. The NOWG noted that the CLECs requested that the Commission immediately establish a standard as part of the Indicator against which the ILEC's performance would be measured, whereas the ILECs suggested establishing a standard after the Commission had the opportunity to review a sufficient number of ILEC reports. The Commission accepted the NOWG's consensus for the definition of the Indicator and approved it. The Commission also decided to proceed with setting a standard immediately. The Commission considers that the presence of a standard to work will likely make the data collected more useful. The Commission notes that, in Decision 2001-366, the standard was not specified. The working group was not able to agree and asked the Commission to specify a standard, if it decided to establish one right away. Accordingly, the Commission, noting that Indicator 2.7 has a standard of 80% or more to measure trouble reports cleared within 24 hours, considers that a more stringent standard for troubles that fall outside of Indicator 2.7 would encourage the process of clearing trouble reports and therefore, sets a standard of 90% for Indicator 2.7A. New Indicator 2.7A is set out in Appendix 1. Indicator 2.8A In Decision 2001-217, the Commission requested the NOWG to recommend a standard for an indicator to measure percentage of completion notices for new loop activations that a CLEC receives from an ILEC. This would complement existing Indicator 2.8, which measures the percentage of completion notifications received by the CLEC from the ILEC for migrated loop activations. The service standard is 15 minutes with a standard of 90% or more. The NOWG proposed two alternatives:
The Commission approved the second alternative as part of the Indicator defined below. The Commission is of the view that the second alternative, which provides more useful information to the customer, would be of greater use. New Indicator 2.8A is set out in Appendix 1. Indicator 2.9 In Decision 2001-217, the Commission requested the NOWG to recommend a standard for an indicator on trouble reports cleared within 48 hours, with a proposed standard of 90%. The NOWG submitted Indicator 2.9 set out in Appendix 1. NOWG failed to reach consensus on the standard in the indicator. The CLECs proposed a standard of 90% or more, stating that this is already being met or exceeded by the ILECs. The ILECs recommended a standard of 80% or more, arguing that there is insufficient data to substantiate an appropriate standard. They also proposed adjusting the standard once a reasonable amount of data has been accumulated. The Commission considered that a standard 90% or more was appropriate and created new Indicator 2.9 set out in Appendix 1. As with Indicator 2.7A above, the Commission considers that a standard of 90% or more would encourage the clearing of troubles reported. Yours sincerely,
Ursula Menke APPENDIX 1 Indicator 1.8 - New Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met Definition: The percentage of time that the due dates for the provisioning of new unbundled type A and B local loop orders are met within the applicable standard service interval. Measurement Method: Completed new loop orders are compiled, and the percentage of these that were completed within the applicable standard service interval is reported. Orders for which the requested due date is beyond the applicable standard service interval are excluded from this measure. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.8 - New Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met. Indicator 1.9 - Migrated Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met Definition: The percentage of time that the due dates for the provisioning of migrated unbundled type A and B local loop orders are met within the applicable standard service interval. Measurement Method: Completed loop migration orders are compiled and the percentage of these that were completed within the applicable standard service interval is reported. Orders for which the requested due date is beyond the applicable standard service interval are excluded from this measure. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.9 - Migrated Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met. Indicator 1.10 - Local Number Portability (LNP) Order (Standalone) Service Interval Met Definition: The percentage of time that due dates relating to orders for the standalone porting of numbers are met within the applicable standard service interval. Measurement Method: Completed standalone LNP orders are compiled and the percentage of these that were completed within the applicable standard service interval is reported. Orders for which the requested due date is beyond the applicable standard service interval are excluded from this measure. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.10 - Local Number Portability (LNP) Order (Standalone) Service Interval Met. Indicator 1.12- Local Service Request Confirmed Due Dates Met Definition: The percentage of time that the confirmed due dates are met for the provisioning of Local Service Requests (LSRs). Measurement Method: Completed LSRs are compiled, and the percentage of these which were completed by the confirmed due date is reported. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.12- Local Service Request Confirmed Due Dates Met. Indicator 1.13 - Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Late Completions Definition: The percentage of orders for unbundled type A and B loops that missed the confirmed due date, which are completed within one working day of the confirmed due date. Measurement Method: Completed loop orders that missed their confirmed due dates are compiled, and the percentage of these which were completed within one working day of their respective confirmed due dates is reported. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.13 - Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Late Completions. Indicator 1.14 - Unbundled Type A and B Loops Held Orders Definition: The number of orders for type A and B loops that were not completed on the confirmed due date because of facility shortages, expressed as a percentage of loops not completed. Measurement Method: Orders for unbundled loops are compiled and the percentage of these that were not completed on the confirmed due date as a result of facility shortages is reported. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: To be determined. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.14 - Unbundled Type A and B Loops Held Orders. Indicator 1.15 - Local Number Portability Order (Standalone) Late Completions Definition: The percentage of orders for standalone porting of numbers that missed the confirmed due date, which are completed within one working day of the confirmed due date. Measurement Method: Completed (standalone) local number portability orders that missed their confirmed due dates are compiled, and the percentage of these that were completed within one working day of their respective confirmed due dates is reported. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.15 - Local Number Portability Order (Standalone) Late Completions. Indicator 1.16 - Bill & Keep Interconnection Trunk Order Late Completions Definition: The percentage of orders for the turn-up of Bill and Keep interconnection trunks, which missed the confirmed due date, that are completed within five working days of the confirmed due date. Measurement Method: Completed Bill and Keep Interconnection trunk orders which missed their confirmed due dates are compiled, and the percentage of these which were completed within five working days of their respective confirmed due dates is reported. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.16 - Bill & Keep Interconnection Trunk Order Late Completions. Indicator 1.17 - Local Service Request (LSR) Rejection Rate Definition: The percentage of LSRs submitted by CLECs that are returned due to errors perceived by the ILECs. Measurement Method: Local Service Requests received and rejected are tracked and reported. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: Not applicable. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.17 - Local Service Requests Rejected. Indicator 1.18 - LSR Turnaround Time Met Definition: The percentage of occasions that the applicable LSR confirmation interval is met. Measurement Method: Local Service Confirmations (LSCs) are compiled, and the percentage of these, which were returned within the applicable standard interval, is reported. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 1.18 - LSR Turnaround Time Met. Indicator 2.7A - Mean Time to Clear Competitor Out-of-Service Trouble Reports Outside The Performance Standard of Indicator 2.7 Definition: The ILECs will measure and report on the mean time to repair local loops capturing the actual length of time for occurrences that are outside the performance standard of Indicator 2.7. Measurement method: Compilation of the total number of trouble reports outside the performance standard of Indicator 2.7 and the mean time to repair. Geographical basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 2.7A - The total number of reports outside of Indicator 2.7 and the mean time to repair. Indicator 2.8A - New Loop Status provided to Competitors Definition: Report to the competitor on completion notices or status of all new loop service orders scheduled for that day by 5:00 p.m. (telephone company local time). Measurement method: Compilation of all new loop orders on a given day and status provided by 5:00 p.m. (telephone company local time). Geographical basis:Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 2.8A - New Loop Status provided to Competitors. Indicator 2.9 - Competitor Degraded Trouble Reports Cleared Within 48 Hours Definition: The total number of CLECs degraded trouble reports cleared by ILECs within 48 hours of notification. Measurement Method: Total degraded trouble reports are sorted to determine the actual numbers and the percentage of reports cleared. Geographical Basis: Company-wide. Standard: 90% or more. Reporting Format: Indicator 2.9 - Competitor Degraded Trouble Reports Cleared Within 48 hours. Date Modified: 2001-10-05 |
- Date modified: