|
|
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-9
|
|
|
Ottawa, 30 October 2003
|
|
|
Finalization of the Quality of Service rate adjustment plan for competitors
|
|
|
Reference: 8660-C12-200315095
|
|
|
In this public notice, the Commission initiates a public proceeding to consider the finalization of the Quality of Service rate adjustment plan for competitors established by the Commission in Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002, and Implementation of price regulation for Télébec and TELUS Québec, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-43, 31 July 2002.
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
1.
|
In a series of decisions beginning with Quality of service indicators for use in telephone company regulation, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-16, 24 July 1997 (Decision 97-16), the Commission established a number of competition-related Quality of Service (Q of S) indicators. These indicators permit the Commission to monitor the provision of certain Competitor Services to competitors by the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). Over time, this Q of S monitoring regime has been extended to all of the large ILECs (i.e., Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom), Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc. (MTS), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS), TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. (TELUS Québec) and Société en commandite Télébec (Télébec).
|
|
2.
|
In Regulatory framework for second price cap period,Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34) and Implementation of price regulation for Télébec and TELUS Québec, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-43, 31 July 2002 (Decision 2002-43), the Commission established an interim Q of S rate adjustment plan (RAP) for competitors. The interim RAP was applicable to all of the large ILECs, except SaskTel, and was based on certain competition-related Q of S indicators which had been given final approval at the time Decision 2002-34 was issued.
|
|
3.
|
In Saskatchewan Telecommunications - Applicability of interim quality of service rate adjustment mechanisms and related matters, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-36, 5 June 2003 (Decision 2003-36), the Commission concluded that it was appropriate for SaskTel to be subject to the same Q of S regime and interim RAP for competitors as was applicable to the other large ILECs.
|
|
4.
|
In Finalization of interim competition-related Quality of Service indicators and standards, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-72, 30 October 2003, the Commission finalized all interim competition-related Q of S indicators. The complete set of competition-related Q of S indicators is set out in Appendix A to this Public Notice.
|
|
5.
|
In this Public Notice, the Commission initiates a public proceeding to consider issues relating to the finalization of the RAP for competitors applicable to the large ILECs.
|
|
Scope of the proceeding
|
|
6.
|
In the Commission's view, in order to establish a RAP for competitors on a final basis it is necessary to consider:
|
|
i) which competition-related Q of S indicators the RAP should apply to;
|
|
ii) whether the formulae set out in the interim RAP should be modified and, if so, how;
|
|
iii) whether the Q of S indicators to be used in the RAP should be filed with the Commission on a monthly, quarterly or other basis;
|
|
iv) whether a mechanism should be established to address repeated failures by an ILEC to meet the standard set for a Q of S indicator and, if so, what form such a mechanism should take;
|
|
v) whether a mechanism should be established to address the failure of an ILEC to file a Q of S indicator when required and, if so, what form such a mechanism should take;
|
|
vi) what form any rate adjustment should take (e.g., credit to a competitor's account, payment by cheque or other form of rebate);
|
|
vii) what form of dispute resolution mechanism should be established to deal with disputes between an ILEC and a competitor as to whether the reported results for a Q of S indicator are correct;
|
|
viii) whether there should be any restrictions on who should be entitled to receive the benefit of the RAP;
|
|
ix) what procedure should be followed with respect to the transition from the interim RAP to the final RAP and regarding the application of the interim RAP during the period when it will have been applicable; and
|
|
x) any other matters relating to the establishment of a final RAP for competitors that parties may raise.
|
|
i) Which indicators should be used?
|
|
7.
|
There are two types of competition-related Q of S indicators:
|
|
a) those that are reported on a competitor by competitor basis (Indicators 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.10A, 1.11, 1.11A, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.17, 1.18, 2.7, 2.7A, 2.8, 2.8A and 2.9); and
|
|
b) those that are reported on a company-wide basis (Indicators 1.6, 1.7 and 2.6).
|
|
8.
|
The interim RAP for competitors relies only on Q of S Indicators 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 2.7 and 2.8, all of which are reported on a competitor by competitor basis.
|
|
9.
|
The question of which indicators should be used in a final RAP for competitors requires consideration of at least five issues:
|
|
a) whether all indicators that are reported on a competitor by competitor basis should be used in the RAP and, if not, why not;
|
|
b) whether Indicators 1.6 and 2.6 should be used in the RAP in their present form and, if so, how;
|
|
c) whether Indicators 1.6 and 2.6 should be modified so as to be reported on a competitor by competitor basis so as to be incorporated into the RAP and, if so, how;
|
|
d) whether Indicator 1.7, now included in the list of indicators used to assess the Rebate Plan for Retail Quality of Service, should be transferred to be included with the indicators of the RAP for competitors; and
|
|
e) whether new indicators need to be defined or existing indicators be modified to take into account services provided to competitors such as Competitor Digital Network Access (CDNA), co-location space delivery, or any other service for which a measure of quality of service may be required.
|
|
10.
|
The Commission seeks comments on each of the issues identified in the preceding paragraph, as well as on any other issues regarding the indicators to be used in the final RAP for competitors.
|
|
ii) The RAP formulae
|
|
11.
|
Under the interim RAP for competitors, rate adjustments are mandated in the following three situations:
|
|
a) a competitor is paying for a service that is monitored by means of an indicator and that indicator's standard has not been met;
|
|
b) a competitor is paying for a service that is affected by an indicator whose standard is not met; or
|
|
c) the standard for an indicator is not met, but the indicator does not apply to or affect a specific competitor service.
|
|
12.
|
The formulae for the calculation of the rate adjustments for these three situations are as follows:
|
|
- for case (a) above, the rate adjustment is equal to: (the mandated percentage standard less the achieved percentage) multiplied by the competitor-specific total tariffed charges applied for the affected month for the affected rate element;
|
|
- for case (b) above the rate adjustment is equal to: (the mandated percentage standard less the achieved percentage) multiplied by customer-specific total tariffed charges applied for the affected month for the service in question;
|
|
- for case (c) above the rate adjustment is equal to: (the mandated percentage standard less the achieved percentage) multiplied by (the customer-specific demand for the affected month for the activity in question) multiplied by (the Commission-mandated adjustment amount per event).
|
|
13.
|
For case (c), the formula involves a Commission-mandated adjustment amount per event. It also requires that a demand level be identified for a customer for an activity that has been generally impacted by the failure of the ILEC to satisfy the Q of S standard for the relevant indicator. As neither of these elements were fully specified in Decision 2002-34, the interim RAP for competitors does not implement case (c).
|
|
14.
|
The Commission seeks comments as to which of the specified rate adjustment formulae should apply to each of the competition-related Q of S indicators deemed eligible for the final RAP, as well as comments on any suggested modifications to such formulae.
|
|
15.
|
Where an interested party considers that the case (c) formula should apply to any of the Q of S indicators, the party should provide a proposal, with examples, on the adjustment amount per event to be mandated by the Commission, as well as rationale justifying the suggested amount.
|
|
|
iii) The frequency of reporting
|
|
16.
|
Currently, the large ILECs file competition-related Q of S results on the 45th day after the end of each quarter. The Commission is of the preliminary view that for a RAP for competitors to be efficient, the time span between a failure to meet a Q of S indicator standard and the subsequent rate adjustment should be as brief as reasonably possible. In the Commission's view, this suggests that Q of S indicator results should be filed on a more frequent basis than quarterly.
|
|
17.
|
The Commission seeks comments on the appropriate time frame for filing competition-related Q of S indicator results.
|
|
|
iv) Treatment of repeated failures
|
|
18.
|
The Commission is concerned about the possibility of an ILEC's Q of S indicator failing to meet its approved standard on a recurring basis. In Decision 2002-34, the Commission rejected the suggestion that it would be appropriate to include multipliers in the rate adjustment formulae to take into account the negative competitive effect of such recurring non-compliance. The Commission stated that the use of multipliers could make the rate adjustment punitive.
|
|
19.
|
The Commission seeks comments on what mechanism, if any, should be used to address situations where substandard Q of S results occur on a repeated basis.
|
|
|
v) Late or non-filing of Q of S results
|
|
20.
|
The effectiveness of a RAP for competitors will be dependent upon the timely filing of Q of S results. The Commission seeks comments on what measures, if any, should be adopted to ensure that an ILEC files its competition-related Q of S results in accordance with the approved schedule.
|
|
|
vi) Form of rate adjustment
|
|
21.
|
The interim RAP does not specify how a rate adjustment required by the RAP should be implemented (e.g., payment by cheque, credit to the competitor's account or other method of refund). The Commission seeks comments on the form a rate adjustment should take under the final RAP for competitors.
|
|
|
vii) Dispute resolution
|
|
22.
|
The competition-related Q of S indicator results are generally reported on a competitor by competitor basis. A confidential report is filed with the Commission and a copy is provided to the appropriate competitor. The competitor can then compare reported results with its own data.
|
|
23.
|
Disputes can arise as to the accuracy of an ILEC's Q of S results. The Commission seeks comments on how to resolve such disputes, including specific proposals with respect to any audit process that a party may consider appropriate.
|
|
24.
|
Any proposal for an audit process should discuss:
|
|
|
- the rules for the selection and appointment of a third party auditor;
|
|
|
- the sources of information for the audit, including definitions of the data to be audited;
|
|
|
- the method(s) to be used for auditing;
|
|
|
- the confidence level to be used in the auditing (e.g., the level of variance for each audited item);
|
|
|
- the criteria used to issue an audit report;
|
|
|
- the time frames for the audit processes (e.g. data gathering, analysis, report);
|
|
|
- the confidentiality of the audit report; and
|
|
|
- the recovery of the costs of the audit.
|
|
|
viii) Entitlement under the RAP
|
|
25.
|
The RAP for competitors is intended to provide rate adjustments to competitors in respect of specific Q of S failures by an ILEC. The interim RAP for competitors does not include any restrictions on the type of competitor that may be entitled to a rate adjustment (e.g., only Canadian carriers). The Commission seeks comments on whether any such restrictions should be imposed and, if so, why.
|
|
ix) Finalization of the application of the interim RAP
|
|
26.
|
The Commission seeks comments on any issues that may arise in connection with the transition from the interim RAP for competitors to the final RAP for competitors, including the implementation of any rate adjustments that may be required under the interim RAP.
|
|
|
x) Other matters
|
|
27.
|
The Commission invites comments on the issues identified above, as well as any other matters that a party may identify which are related to the establishment of a final RAP for competitors.
|
|
|
Procedure
|
|
28.
|
Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada, MTS, SaskTel, Télébec, TELUS and TELUS Québec are made parties to this proceeding. Other parties wishing to participate in this proceeding must notify the Commission of their intention to do so by 19 November 2003. They should contact the Secretary General by mail at CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2; by fax at (819) 953-0795; or by email at procedure@crtc.gc.ca. They are to indicate in the notice their email address where available. If parties do not have access to the Internet, they are to indicate in their notice whether they wish to receive disk versions of hard copy filings.
|
|
29.
|
The Commission will issue, as soon as possible after the registration date, a complete list of interested parties and their mailing address (including their email address, if available), identifying those parties who wish to receive disk versions.
|
|
30.
|
Parties may file with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, their evidence on all matters within the scope of this proceeding by 29 December 2003.
|
|
31.
|
The Commission will issue interrogatories to parties by 28 January 2004.
|
|
32.
|
Parties may also address interrogatories to parties that file evidence. Any such interrogatories must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties in question by 28 January 2004.
|
|
33.
|
Responses to interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties by 23 February 2004.
|
|
34.
|
Requests by parties for further responses to their interrogatories, specifying in each case why a further response is both relevant and necessary, and requests for public disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed, setting out in each case the reasons for disclosure, must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties in question by 4 March 2004.
|
|
35.
|
Written responses to requests for further responses to interrogatories and for public disclosure must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties who made the request by 11 March 2004.
|
|
36.
|
A determination with respect to requests for further information and for public disclosure will be issued as soon as possible. Any information to be provided pursuant to that determination must be filed with the Commission and served on all parties by 24 March 2004.
|
|
37.
|
All parties may file argument with the Commission on any matters within the scope of this proceeding, serving copies on all parties by 13 April 2004.
|
|
38.
|
All parties may file reply argument with the Commission, serving a copy on all parties by 28 April 2004.
|
|
39.
|
Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.
|
|
40.
|
Parties can file their submissions electronically or on paper. Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary.
|
|
41.
|
Submissions filed in electronic form should be in the HTML format. As an alternative, those making submissions may use "Microsoft Word" for text and "Microsoft Excel" for spreadsheets.
|
|
42.
|
Where the submission is filed by electronic means, the line ***End of document*** should be entered following the last paragraph of the document, as an indication that the document has not been damaged during electronic transmission
|
|
43.
|
Please note that only those submissions electronically filed will be placed on the Commission's web site and only in the official language and format in which they are submitted.
|
|
44.
|
Each paragraph of your submission should be numbered.
|
|
45.
|
The Commission also encourages interested parties to monitor the record of this proceeding (and/or the Commission's web site) for additional information that they may find useful when preparing their submissions.
|
|
|
Location of CRTC offices
|
|
46.
|
Submissions may be examined or will be made available promptly upon request at the Commission offices during normal business hours:
|
|
|
Central Building
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
1 Promenade du Portage, Room G-5
Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4B1
Tel: (819) 997-2429 - TDD: 994-0423
Fax: (819) 994-0218
|
|
|
Metropolitan Place
99 Wyse Road, Suite 1410
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B3A 4S5
Tel: (902) 426-7997 - TDD: 426-6997
Fax: (902) 426-2721
|
|
|
405 de Maisonneuve Blvd. East
2nd Floor, Suite B2300
Montréal, Quebec H2L 4J5
Tel: (514) 283-6607
Fax: (514) 283-3689
|
|
|
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 624
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2
Tel: (416) 952-9096
Fax: (416) 954-6343
|
|
|
Kensington Building
275 Portage Avenue, Suite 1810
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2B3
Tel: (204) 983-6306 - TDD: 983-8274
Fax: (204) 983-6317
|
|
|
Cornwall Professional Building
2125 - 11th Avenue, Room 103
Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3X3
Tel: (306) 780-3422
Fax: (306) 780-3319
|
|
|
10405 Jasper Avenue, Suite 520
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N4
Tel: (780) 495-3224
Fax: (780) 495-3214
|
|
|
580 Hornby Street, Suite 530
Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6
Tel: (604) 666-2111 - TDD: 666-0778
Fax: (604) 666-8322
|
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|
|
|
APPENDIX A
|
|
|
Indicator 1.6 - Competitor Installation Appointments Met
|
|
|
Definition: The total number of installation appointments booked and the number met, with percentage of those met relative to the total booked for customers who are also competitors.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Completed orders are sorted to determine the actual number and percentage completed on the appointed date.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.6 - Competitor Installation Appointments Met.
|
|
|
Indicator 1.7 - On-Time Activation of PICs for Alternate Providers of Long Distance Service (APLDS)
|
|
|
Definition: PIC activation is the provisioning process whereby the incumbent telephone companies switch a customer's long distance service over to a competitor. Each telephone company with equal access must handle PICs using their own Commission-approved PIC/CARE Access Customer Handbook (company's handbook).
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Completed PIC requests are sorted to determine the actual number and percentage completed in accordance with the company's handbook.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.7 - On-Time Activation of PICs for Alternate Providers of Long Distance Service (APLDS).
|
|
|
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 those 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, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.8 - New Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met.
|
|
|
Numerator: Number of orders for new type A and B unbundled loops that have met the standard interval due date for the month.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of orders for new type A and B unbundled loops for which a standard interval due date has been assigned for the month. Orders for which the requested due date is beyond the applicable standard service interval are excluded from this measure.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
Loop(s) delivered in working condition and according to the loop specifications agreed to by the Industry.
|
|
|
- Include orders that cannot be completed on an agreed to expedited due date. These orders are counted as missed in the calculation of the indicator.
|
|
|
- Include in measurement those orders where confirmed due dates are missed due to a lack of facilities. These orders are counted as missed in the calculation of the indicator.
|
|
|
- Exclude from the measurement, those local service requests (LSRs) where confirmed due dates are missed due to causes attributable to CLECs or their customers per Due Dates Missed Attributable to End Customers or CLECs CISC BPWG consensus report BPRE029a (Report BPRE029a), 21 January 2002, and approved by the Commission in CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee - Consensus Reports, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-26, 22 April 2002 (Decision 2002-26).
|
|
|
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 those 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, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.9 - Migrated Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met.
|
|
|
Numerator: Number of orders for migrated type A and B unbundled loops that have met the standard interval due date for the month.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of orders for migrated type A and B unbundled loops for which a standard interval due date has been assigned for the month. Orders for which the requested due date is beyond the applicable standard service interval are excluded from this measure.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Loop(s) delivered in working condition and according to the loop specifications agreed to by the Industry.
|
|
|
- Include orders that cannot be completed on an agreed to expedited due date. These orders are counted as missed in the calculation of the indicator.
|
|
|
- Include in measurement those orders where confirmed due dates are missed due to a lack of facilities. These orders are counted as missed in the calculation of the indicator.
|
|
|
- Exclude from the measurement, those LSRs where confirmed due dates are missed due to causes attributable to CLECs or their customers per CISC BPWG consensus report BPRE029a, and approved by the Commission in Decision 2002-26.
|
|
|
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 those 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, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.10 - Local Number Portability (LNP) Order (Standalone) Service Interval Met.
|
|
|
Numerator: Number of orders for standalone porting of numbers that have met the standard interval due date for the month.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of orders for standalone porting of numbers for which a standard interval due date was assigned for the month. Orders for which the requested due date is beyond the applicable standard service interval are excluded from this measure.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Include orders that cannot be completed on an agreed to expedited due date. These orders are counted as missed in the calculation of the indicator.
|
|
|
Indicator 1.10A (formerly 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 those that were completed within one working day of their respective confirmed due dates is reported.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 100%.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.10A - Local Number Portability Order (Standalone) Late Completions.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of orders for standalone porting of numbers in the month that missed the confirmed due date, which were completed within one working day of the confirmed due date.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of orders for standalone porting of numbers completed in the month for which a confirmed due date was missed.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Standalone porting of numbers only.
|
|
|
- Include orders not meeting the standard in Indicator 1.10.
|
|
|
- Exclude from the measurement, those orders (ports) where confirmed due dates are missed due to causes attributable to CLECs or their customers per CISC BPWG consensus report BPRE029a, and approved by the Commission in Decision 2002-26.
|
|
|
- Orders are considered completed when the ILEC has created a Subscription Version in the Number Portability Administration Centre / Service Management System (NPAC/SMS) within the applicable interval defined in industry guidelines and placed the 10-digit unconditional trigger on the telephone number in the local switch, where this capability is available.
|
|
|
Indicator 1.11 - Competitor Interconnection Trunk Order Service Interval Met
|
|
|
Definition: The percentage of time that the agreed upon due date for the turn-up of Bill & Keep Interconnection Trunks are met.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Tracking of due dates met. The due date interval is 20 business days when augments to existing trunk groups are required where facilities exist and 35 business days when new trunk groups are required where no facilities exist.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.11 - Competitor Interconnection Trunk Order Service Interval Met.
|
|
|
Numerator: Number of orders for Bill & Keep Trunks that have met the standard interval (agreed upon) due date for the month.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of orders for Bill & Keep Trunks for which a standard interval (agreed upon) due date has been assigned for the month. The due date interval is 20 business days when augments to existing trunk groups are required where facilities exist and 35 business days when new trunk groups are required where no facilities exist.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Trunk(s) delivered in working condition and according to industry specifications.
|
|
|
- Include in measurement those orders where confirmed due dates are missed due to a lack of facilities. These orders are counted as missed in the calculation of the indicator.
|
|
|
- Include orders that cannot be completed on an agreed to expedited due date. These orders are counted as missed in the calculation of the indicator.
|
|
|
- Exclude from the measurement, those LSRs where confirmed due dates are missed due to causes attributable to CLECs.
|
|
|
Indicator 1.11A (formerly 1.16) - Interconnection Trunk Order Late Completions
|
|
|
Definition: The percentage of orders for the turn-up of Bill & Keep Trunks for which the agreed upon due date is missed, but which are completed within five working days of the agreed upon due date.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Completed orders for Bill & Keep Trunks which were not completed on their due dates are compiled, and the percentage of these orders which were then completed within the next five working days of their respective due date is reported.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 100%.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.11A - Bill and Keep Interconnection Trunk Order Late Completions.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of orders for Bill & Keep Interconnection Trunks which were not completed on their due date, but were then completed within the next five working days of the due date.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of completed orders for Bill & Keep Interconnection Trunks for which a due date for that month was missed.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Include all orders captured by Indicator 1.11 that are not completed by the standard service due date set out in Indicator 1.11.
|
|
|
- The due date means the standard service due date, unless the parties have agreed to an earlier due date.
|
|
|
- Exclude from the measurement those LSRs where confirmed due dates are missed due to causes attributable to CLECs or their customers per Report BPRE029a, and approved by the Commission in Decision 2002-26.
|
|
|
Indicator 1.12 - Local Service Request, Confirmed Due Dates Met
|
|
|
Definition: The percentage of instances that the confirmed due date is met for the provisioning of Local Service Requests (LSRs). The due date means the standard service due date, unless the parties have agreed to an earlier due date.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Completed LSRs are compiled, and the percentage of those which were completed by the due date is reported. LSRs are to be counted as complete only if all constituent elements of the LSR order are complete.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.12 - Local Service Request Due Dates Met.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of LSRs completed on the due date during the month.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of LSRs completed during the month.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Expedited orders will be included.
|
|
|
- Include in measurement those LSRs where due dates are missed due to a lack of facilities.
|
|
|
- Exclude from the measurement, those LSRs where confirmed due dates are missed due to causes attributable to CLECs or their customers per CISC BPWG consensus report BPRE029a, and approved by the Commission in Decision 2002-26.
|
|
|
- All constituent elements of an order are to be delivered in working condition.
|
|
|
Indicator 1.13 - Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Late Completions
|
|
|
Definition: The percentage of orders for unbundled type A and B loops and their sub-categories, for which the due date as measured in Indicators 1.8, 1.9 and 1.12 was missed, but which were completed within one working day of the confirmed due date. The due date means the standard service due date, unless the parties have agreed to an earlier due date.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Completed loop orders that are not completed by their due dates are compiled, and the percentage of those which were completed within one working day of their respective confirmed due dates is reported.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.13 - Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Late Completions.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of orders for new and migrated type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories that have been completed within the month, but missed the confirmed due date by one working day.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of orders for new and migrated type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories completed within the month for which a due date has been missed.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Include in measurement those orders where due dates are missed due to a lack of facilities.
|
|
|
- Exclude from the measurement those orders for type A and B loops and their sub-categories where due dates are missed due to causes attributable to CLECs or their customers per BPRE029a, and approved by the Commission in Decision 2002-26.
|
|
|
Indicator 1.14 - Unbundled Type A and B Loops Held Orders
|
|
|
Definition: The number of orders for type A and B loops and their sub-categories that were not completed on the confirmed due date because of a lack of facilities, expressed as a percentage of loop inward movement.
|
|
|
The confirmed due date means the date assigned by the provisioning ILEC and does not necessarily reflect the standard service interval, nor the customer requested due date.
|
|
|
Inward movement means instances in which there is the provisioning of new and the migration of unbundled loops or modifications to existing unbundled loops that require loop facility changes.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Orders for unbundled loops are compiled and the percentage of these orders that were not completed on the due date as a result of the lack of facilities is reported.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 0.25% or less.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.14 - Unbundled Type A and B Loops Held Orders.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of completed orders for type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories (inward movement) that were not completed on their due dates that month due to a lack of facilities together with the total number of orders for the month not yet completed for which confirmed due dates cannot be met due to a lack of facilities.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of orders for type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories (inward movement) completed for the month, together with the total number of orders for the month not yet completed for which due dates cannot be met due to a lack of facilities.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator 1.17 - Local Service Request (LSR) Rejection Rate
|
|
|
Definition: The percentage of LSRs submitted by CLECs that are returned due to errors identified by the ILECs and based on an error that can be objectively demonstrated and that requires some corrective action that warrants the re-issue of an order.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: LSRs received and rejected are tracked and reported.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 5% or less.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.17 - Local Service Requests Rejected.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of LSRs rejected by the ILEC during the month.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of LSRs received by the ILEC during the month.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator 1.18 - Local Service Request (LSR) Turnaround Time Met
|
|
|
Definition: The percentage of instances that the applicable LSR confirmation interval is met, as defined in the Canadian Local Ordering Guidelines (C-LOG), and in accordance with applicable Commission decisions.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Local Service Confirmations (LSCs) are compiled, and the percentage of those which were returned within the applicable standard interval, is reported.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 1.18 - Local Service Request (LSR) Turnaround Time Met.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of Local Service Confirmations (LSCs) returned to the CLEC during the month within the applicable standard interval.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of Local Service Confirmations (LSCs) issued during the month.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Measures by following the specific confirmation intervals related to the standard service as defined in the C-LOG.
|
|
|
- Once an LSC has been issued and a subsequent version of the LSR is issued, the service interval related to the new LSC commences.
|
|
|
Indicator 2.6 - Competitor Repair Appointments Met
|
|
|
Definition: The total number of repair appointments booked and the number met, with percentages of those met relative to the total booked for customers who are also competitors.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Completed orders are sorted to determine the actual number and percentage completed on the appointed date.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 2.6 - Competitor Repair Appointments Met.
|
|
|
Indicator 2.7 - Competitor Out-of-Service Trouble Reports Cleared within 24 Hours
|
|
|
Definition: The total of initial out-of-service trouble reports and those cleared within 24 hours. Percentages of those cleared relative to this total.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Compilation of trouble report data gathered at each repair bureau.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 80%.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 2.7 - Competitor Out-of-Service Trouble Reports Cleared within 24 Hours.
|
|
|
Numerator: Number of initial out-of-service trouble reports cleared within 24 hours of their receipt during the month.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of initial out-of-service trouble reports received during the month.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator 2.7A - Competitor Out-of-Service Trouble Report Late Clearances
|
|
|
Definition: The percentage of trouble reports for type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories that are not cleared within 24 hours (i.e. outside the performance standard of Indicator 2.7), but which are cleared within the subsequent 24 hours.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Trouble reports are compiled for type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories outside the performance standard of Indicator 2.7, and the percentage of these Trouble Reports that are cleared within a subsequent 24-hour period.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 100%.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 2.7A - Competitor Out-of-Service Trouble Report Late Clearances.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of initial out-of-service trouble reports received during the month for type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories cleared within 48 hours, excluding those cleared within 24 hours of their issuance.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of initial out-of-service trouble reports received during the month for type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories, excluding those cleared within 24 hours of their issuance.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Includes out-of-service trouble reports for type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories not meeting Indicator 2.7.
|
|
|
- Excludes a subsequent report related to an open trouble.
|
|
|
Indicator 2.8 - Migrated Local Loop Completion Notices to Competitors
|
|
|
Definition: The total number of completions of migrations of local loops and the number of notifications given on time by the incumbent telephone company to the competitors, notifying that the local loop migration is complete at the facilities of the incumbent telephone company, with the percentage of notifications given on time relative to this total.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: Completions of migrated local loops and the notifications given on time are sorted to determine the actual numbers and the percentage of notifications given on time.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90%.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 2.8 - Migrated Local Loop Completion Notices to Competitors.
|
|
|
Numerator: Number of notifications of local loops migrations completed during the month given on time to the CLEC.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of completions of migrations of local loops scheduled for that month.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator 2.8A - New Loop Status Provided to Competitors
|
|
|
Definition: Percentage of order completion notices and order status reports provided to competitors for new type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories. Completion notices are to be provided to competitors as soon as possible following installation of an unbundled loop. Order status reports are to be provided to the competitor by 5:00 p.m. (in the ILEC serving territory) for uncompleted orders on the day for which the orders are scheduled.
|
|
|
Measurement Method: New loop orders are compiled and the percentage of those is reported for which the required completion notices and/or order status reports were provided to the competitor.
|
|
|
Geographical Basis: Company-wide, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 2.8A - New Loop Status Provided to Competitors.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of orders in the month for new unbundled type A and B loops and their sub-categories for which the required completion notices and/or order status reports were given.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of orders for new unbundled type A and B loops and their sub-categories scheduled to be completed in the month.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Status to be provided by 5:00 p.m. in the ILEC serving territory.
|
|
|
- Measurement includes the count of completion notifications provided on completed new loops and status provided on non-completed new type A and B unbundled loops and their sub-categories.
|
|
|
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, no geographic distinction.
|
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
|
Reporting Format: Indicator 2.9 - Competitor Degraded Trouble Reports Cleared Within 48 Hours.
|
|
|
Numerator: Total number of degraded trouble reports reported by CLEC and cleared within 48 hours of their notification.
|
|
|
Denominator: Total number of degraded trouble reports received from CLEC during the month.
|
|
|
Business Rules:
|
|
|
|
Date Modified: 2003-10-30