July 16, 1999

Docket OfficeCalifornia Public Utilities Commission505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2001San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: R.93-04-003; I.93-04-002; R.95-04-043 &I.905-04-044

Dear Sir/Madam:

On July 15, 1999, Pacific Bell filed its “Brief in Supportof D.98-12-069 Compliance Filing and in Support of Motionfor an Order that Pacific Bell has met the Requirements of§ 271 of the Telecommunications Act and § 709.2 of thePublic Utilities Code.” The Brief as filed did not includea cover sheet, Table of Contents, and Table of Authorities.These documents are attached hereto.

Very truly yours,

L. Nelsonya CausbySenior Attorney

Attachments

cc: 271 Service List

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Rulemaking on the Commission’s Own Motionto Govern Open Access to BottleneckServices and Establish a Framework forNetwork Architecture Development ofDominant Carrier Networks

R.93-04-003

Investigation on the Commission’s OwnMotion into Open Access and NetworkArchitecture Developmentof Dominant Carrier Networks

I.93-04-002

Order Instituting Rulemaking on theCommission’s Own Motion Into Competitionfor Local Exchange Service

R.95-04-043

Order Instituting Investigation on theCommission’s Own Motion Into Competitionfor Local Exchange Service

I.95-04-044

PACIFIC BELL’S (U 1001 C) BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF D.98-12-069COMPLIANCE FILING AND IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDERTHAT PACIFIC BELL HAS MET THE REQUIRMENTS OF § 271 OF THE

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT AND § 709.2 OF THEPUBLIC UTILITIES CODE

_____________________________________________

J. B. YOUNGM. E. GARBERE. KOLTO-WININGERL. N. CAUSBYAttorneys for Pacific Bell

140 New Montgomery St.,Rm. 1617ASan Francisco, CA 94105Tel: (415) 545-9426Fax: (415) 974-1999email: peggy.garber@pactel.com

i

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iv, v, vi,vii, viii

INTRODUCTION 2

DISCUSSION 6

I. PACIFIC MAKES INTERCONNECTION AND NETWORKACCESS AVAILABLE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THECOMPETITIVE CHECKLIST AND ALL REQUIREMENTSOF THE FINAL DECISION 6

A. Pacific Has Satisfied the FinalDecision’s OSS Requirements 6

B. Pacific Has Implemented PerformanceMeasurements and Associated Payments ToEnsure Pacific’s Ongoing Provision ofNondiscriminatory Interconnection andNetwork Access 29

C. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (i) 31

D. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (ii) 50

E Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (iii) 54

F. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (iv) 55

G. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (v) 60

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

H Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (vi) 62

I. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (vii) 66

J. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (viii) 72

K. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (ix) 73

L. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (x) 74

M. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (xi) 77

N. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (xii) 82

O. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (xiii) 83

P. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUCRequirements Associated with ChecklistItem (xiv) 85

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

II. PACIFIC SATISFIES SECTION 271’S TRACK A,STRUCTURAL SEPARATION, AND PUBLICINTEREST REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS THEREQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 709.2 87

A. The Purpose of the Costa Bill Was ToHasten Pacific’s Entry Into LongDistance 92

B. Section 709.2 Does Not ImposeConditions That Exceed Section 271’SRequirements 95

C. Pacific Has Established Its FullCompliance With The CostaRequirements 96

III. CONCLUSION 102

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Ameritech Corp. v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994 (U.S.June 1, 1999) .................................................61

AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 119 S. Ct. 721 (1999) ............50, 97

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

First Report and Order and Further Notice of ProposedRulemaking, Deployment of Wireline Services OfferingAdvanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, 1999 FCC Lexis 1327 (Mar. 31, 1999) ......................34

Declaratory Ruling in CC Docket No. 96-98 and Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-68,Implementation of the Local Competition Provisionsin the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Dkt. No.96-98 FCC rel. Feb. 26, 1999), appeal pending subnom., Bell Atlantic Tel. Cos. v. FCC, No. 99-1094(D.C. Cir. to be argued Nov. 22, 1999) ........................84

First Report and Order, Implementation of the LocalCompetition Provisions in the Telecommunications Actof 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, modified on recon., 11 FCCRcd 13042 (1996), vacated in part, Iowa Utils. Bd.v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part,aff’d in part sub nom. AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd.,119 S. Ct. 721 (1999) .....................................50, 98

First Report and Order and Further Notice of ProposedRulemaking, Implementation of Non-Accounting Safeguardsof Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of1934, as Amended, 11 FCC Rcd 21905 (1996) .....................99

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application of 360°Communications Co. and ALLTEL Corp. for Consent toTransfer Control of 360° Communications Co. andAffiliates, Report No. LB-98-50, DA 98-2637 (FCC rel.Dec. 30, 1998) ................................................90

v

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application ofAmeritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of theCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, To ProvideIn-Region, InterLATA Services In Michigan, 12FCC Rcd 20543 (1997) ..........................................30

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application BellSouthCorporation, et al. Pursuant to Section 271 of theCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, To ProvideIn-Region, InterLATA Services In South Carolina,13 FCC Rcd 539 (1997) .........................................90

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application BellSouthCorporation, BellSouth Telecommmunications, Inc.,and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. for Provision ofIn-Region, InterLATA Services In Louisiana, 13 FCCRcd 20599 (1998) ..........................................passim

Report and Order, Implementation of theTelecommunications Act of 1996; Accounting SafeguardsUnder the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd17539 (1996) ..................................................98

Second Report and Order, Telephone Number Portability,12 FCC Rcd 12281 (1997) .......................................78

Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion andOrder, Implementation of the Local CompetitionProvisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,11 FCC Rcd 19392 (1996) .......................................82

California Public Utilities Commission

Alternative Reg. Frameworks for Local ExchangeCarriers, Decision No. 95-09-072, 61 Cal. P.U.C.2d 489(1995) ........................................................94

Application of Pacific Bell Communications for aCertificate of Public Convenience and Necessity toProvide InterLATA, IntraLATA and Local ExchangeTelecommunications Services Within the State of Cal.,D.99-02-013 (Feb. 4, 1999) ...............................96, 100

vi

Opinion, Order Instituting Rulemaking on theCommission’s Own Motion into Competition for LocalExchange Service, Decision No. 98-10-057, 1998 Cal.PUC LEXIS 875 (Oct. 22, 1998)(application forrehearing pending) ............................................84

Opinion, Rulemaking on the Commission’s Own Motionto Govern Open Access to Bottleneck Services andEstablish a Framework for Network ArchitectureDevelopment of Dominant Carrier Networks, Decision98-12-069 (Dec. 17, 1998) .................................passim

Petition of AT&T Communications Inc. for Arbitration,D.96-12-034, 69 Cal. P.U.C.2d 610 (1996) ......................97

Proposed Decision of ALJ McKenzie, R.93-04-003,I.93-04-002 (May 10, 1999) ................................98, 99

Rules Governing Filings Made Pursuant to theTelecommunications Act of 1996, Resolution ALJ-168(Sept. 26, 1996) ..............................................97

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

47 U.S.C. § 251(c) .............................................3

47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2) .....................................31, 52

47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3) .................................50, 52, 97

47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(4) .........................................85

47 U.S.C. § 251(d)(1) .....................................50, 52

47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(2) .....................................61, 96

47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(3) .........................................85

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(1)(A) ......................................87

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) ..................................50

vii

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iii) .................................54

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iv) ..................................55

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v) ...................................60

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(vi) ..................................63

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(vii) .................................66

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(x) ...................................74

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(xi) ..................................81

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(xiii) ................................83

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv) .................................85

47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(2)(B) .......................................3

47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(3)(B) ......................................88

47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6) .........................................91

47 U.S.C. § 271(j) .............................................2

47 U.S.C. § 272(a)(2) .........................................98

47 U.S.C. § 272(b) ............................................99

47 U.S.C. § 272(c) ............................................99

47 U.S.C. § 272(g) ............................................99

47 C.F.R. § 51.217(a)(2) ......................................70

47 C.F.R. § 51.217(b) .........................................70

47 C.F.R. § 51.319(e)(3) ......................................77

47 C.F.R. § 51.323(b) .....................................33, 34

47 C.F.R. § 51.323(d)(4) ......................................40

47 C.F.R § 51.323(k) ..........................................33

1994 Cal. Stat. Ch. 934 (A.B. 3720) ...........................92

viii

Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 709.2 ..............................passim

Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 709.2(c)(1) ........................96, 97

Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 709.2(c)(2) ...........................101

Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 709.2(c)(3) .......................98, 101

Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 709.2(c)(4) ...........................101

Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110Stat. 89 (1996) ................................................2

OTHER MATERIALS

“Consumers Paying Higher Prices for Long Distance,”San Francisco Chronicle, July 8, 1999, at B-1, B-2 ............92

Senate Rules Committee, Third Reading, A.B. 3720(May 27, 1994) ................................................93

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Rulemaking on the Commission’s Own Motionto Govern Open Access to BottleneckServices and Establish a Framework forNetwork Architecture Development ofDominant Carrier Networks

R.93-04-003

Investigation on the Commission’s OwnMotion into Open Access and NetworkArchitecture Developmentof Dominant Carrier Networks

I.93-04-002

Order Instituting Rulemaking on theCommission’s Own Motion Into Competitionfor Local Exchange Service

R.95-04-043

Order Instituting Investigation on theCommission’s Own Motion Into Competitionfor Local Exchange Service

I.95-04-044

PACIFIC BELL’S (U 1001 C) BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF D.98-12-069COMPLIANCE FILING AND IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT

PACIFIC BELL HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF § 271 OF THETELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT AND § 709.2 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE

_____________________________________________

In Decision 98-12-069, the California Public Utilities

Commission (the “Commission” or “CPUC”) set out “a solid

blueprint for a future 271 request that this Commission could

earnestly and enthusiastically support with the expectation that

the FCC would confirm its assessment and grant Pacific’s

application.” Decision 98-12-069, at 71 (Dec. 17, 1998) (“Final

Decision”). This Brief and the accompanying affidavits describe

Pacific’s implementation of the Commission’s blueprint to date.

2

Pacific is in compliance with all requirements identified in the

Final Decision as being necessary for a favorable recommendation

on Pacific’s application for interLATA authority.1 The

Commission’s review is subject only to completion of the pending

OSS tests. This Brief also notes Pacific’s continued compliance

with other section 271 requirements the Commission already has

deemed satisfied. The local market in California is open in

accordance with this Commission’s and the FCC’s requirements.

The Commission should endorse full competition in interLATA

services as well.

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to section 271(d)(1) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-104, § 151(a), 110 Stat. 89 (“1996 Act” or “Act”), SBC

Communications Inc. (“SBC”) and its subsidiaries Pacific Bell

(“Pacific”) and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc.

d/b/a Pacific Bell Long Distance (“PBLD”) will file with the FCC

for authority for PBLD to provide in-region, interLATA services

(including services treated as such under 47 U.S.C. § 271(j)) in

1 Attachment A to this Brief provides “a separate index . . . that cross-references all material to the specific checklist item and each requirementadopted in [the Final Decision].” Final Decision at 198.

3

the State of California.2 After that federal filing, the

FCC will provide the CPUC an opportunity to comment on Pacific’s

compliance with the local-market requirements of 47 U.S.C.

§ 251(c). See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(2)(B).

This Commission began its “process of developing a record

to support the 271 consultative function” nearly three years

ago, Final Decision at 4, and began considering Pacific’s

proposed application for interLATA authority in California over

a year ago. During these pre-filing proceedings, the CPUC has

developed a comprehensive record addressing every issue that is

even arguably relevant to Pacific’s and PBLD’s interLATA entry.

Through pleadings, affidavits, data submissions, live testimony

and collaborative processes, and ongoing meetings with the

Commission Staff and CLECs, Pacific has established a record of

compliance. In this filing, Pacific shows its satisfaction of

each and every requirement (save successful completion of the

ongoing OSS testing) the Commission has established for a

favorable recommendation on Pacific’s federal section 271

application.

The time is right to endorse Pacific’s application and back

full competition in California’s interLATA market. Based on the

number of resold lines and facilities-based E911 listings, local

2 Pacific intends to offer in-region, interLATA services in California throughPBLD. All references to PBLD, however, should be understood to encompass any

4

competitors have won over 819,000 access lines in Pacific’s

California service areas. See Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 14 &

Attach. A. As Figure 1 shows, these carriers are using all

modes of entry. For example, CLECs serve well over half of

their customers’ lines on a facilities basis. Id. Attach. A.

FIGURE 1: CLEC ACTIVITY IN CALIFORNIA

RESALE FACILITIES-BASED CLEC OrdersProcessed

Bus.Lines

Res.Lines

InterconnectionTrunks

UnbundledLoops

E911Listings

PortedNumbers

125,670 130,731 532,048 68,840 552,827 149,759 1.26 millionSource: Deere Affidavit ¶ 29; Fleming Affidavit ¶ 17; HopfingerAffidavit Attach. A.

The CLECs’ success in entering California’s local markets

reflects Pacific’s success as a wholesale supplier to those

carriers. Pacific is furnishing over 532,000 interconnection

trunks to CLECs for their facilities-based services in

California. Deere Affidavit ¶ 29. As of May 31 1999, Pacific

had constructed and turned over to CLECs nearly 1,000

collocation cages. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 66. Pacific has

ported 149,759 of its telephone numbers to facilities-based

CLECs. Fleming Affidavit ¶ 17. CLECs are ordering and

receiving on a daily basis space on Pacific’s poles and in its

conduits, unbundled loops, transport, and switching, database

access, 911 services, white pages listings, reciprocal

affiliate of Pacific that operates consistent with this filing’srepresentations regarding PBLD’s future activities and statutory compliance.

5

compensation payments, and other facilities and services they

may need to enter the local telephone business.

As a result of a thorough overhaul of Pacific’s Operations

Support Systems (“OSS”), CLECs now have a choice of using the

same electronic systems as Pacific’s retail service personnel,

or other electronic or manual systems that are particularly

suited to the CLECs’ needs. Pacific’s interfaces and support

organizations have substantial excess capacity and can process

all foreseeable CLEC orders with no backlogs or discriminatory

delays. See generally Viveros Affidavit; Murray Affidavit.

Using these OSS, Pacific has processed over 1.2 million service

requests on behalf of its CLEC customers in California. Murray

Affidavit ¶ 7.

Finally, Pacific (and SBC) have negotiated with CLECs, the

CPUC, and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) a

comprehensive set of performance measurements that will allow

CLECs and regulators to confirm that Pacific provides local

facilities and services on a nondiscriminatory basis. See

generally Johnson Affidavit; Gleason Affidavit. These

measurements will provide CLECs with remedies for any meaningful

deficiencies in Pacific’s performance, assuming such

deficiencies were to occur and continue. See id.

Part I of this Brief describes Pacific’s satisfaction of

the specific requirements of the Final Decision. Part II

6

confirms, in summary fashion, Pacific’s continued satisfaction

of the Act’s Track A requirements, the structural separation

requirements of section 272, and the public interest standard.

Part II also discusses Pacific’s satisfaction of section 709.2

of the California Public Utilities Code.

DISCUSSION

I. PACIFIC MAKES INTERCONNECTION AND NETWORK ACCESS AVAILABLEIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPETITIVE CHECKLIST AND ALLREQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL DECISION

A. Pacific Has Satisfied the Final Decision’s OSSRequirements

Pacific provides access to its OSS through several

facilities and organizations established specifically for this

purpose. To provide CLECs a ready point of entry for direct

electronic access to OSS, Pacific established a Remote Access

Facility that accommodates either dial-up or private-line

connections. Viveros Affidavit ¶ 8. For transactions where

human involvement is needed or desired by CLECs, Pacific has

ensured that CLECs have ready access to trained Pacific

personnel. For instance, Pacific’s Help Desk is available to

assist CLECs with questions or problems encountered while

electronically accessing Pacific’s OSS functions. Murray

Affidavit ¶¶ 14-15. The Help Desk supplements Pacific’s on-line

“help” guide. See 1998 Nipps Affidavit ¶¶ 61-64; 1998 Liberman

Affidavit ¶ 32.

7

Pacific’s Facilities Local Service Center (“FLSC”) provides

CLECs a single point of contact for ordering, provisioning, and

billing related to interconnection and UNEs. 1998 Liberman

Affidavit ¶¶ 5, 10-11. The FLSC serves CLECs when they choose

not to use wholly mechanized processes, as well as for complex

transactions that are performed manually in Pacific’s wholesale

and retail operations alike. See generally id. The FLSC is

prepared to receive orders either manually (by mail or

facsimile) or electronically over OSS interfaces. Id. ¶ 19.

Pacific’s Resale Local Services Center (“RLSC”) serves as a

single point of contact for pre-ordering, ordering, and billing

of resold services. See generally 1998 Nipps Affidavit.3

To handle provisioning, maintenance, and repair of

interconnection facilities and UNEs and maintenance and repair

of resold services, Pacific has established its Local Operations

Center (“LOC”). See Tenerelli Affidavit ¶¶ 8-14. The LOC,

which serves as the single point of contact for CLECs in

connection with provisioning and testing, is open every hour of

every day. Id. ¶ 8. The Wholesale Customer Service Center

handles provisioning for all wholesale services. Id. ¶¶ 15-19.

These organizations and facilities have ample capacity to

meet all reasonably foreseeable CLEC demand. See generally 1998

Nipps Affidavit; 1998 Stankey Affidavit. They are tested by

8

processing 1.2 million service requests for Pacific’s CLEC

customers in California. Murray Affidavit ¶ 7. And they have

been continuously improved to anticipate potential problems and

address issues and customer concerns that do arise. These

improvements have provided CLECs in California a level of access

to electronic and manual systems that matches or exceeds the

access available to Pacific’s own retail operations. And, as

described below and in the accompanying affidavits of

Christopher Viveros, Victoria Murray, Sam Tenerelli, and Gwen

Johnson, these improvements have addressed each and every one of

the OSS-related recommendations in the Final Decision.

E911 Issues. In accordance with this Commission’s Final

Decision, Pacific has, through Fix-It Team meetings, resolved

service address validation problems in the E911 Database. See

Final Decision, App. B at 1; Viveros Affidavit ¶ 143. Pacific

shared with CLECs a Job Aid listing all known address validation

discrepancies between Pacific’s E911 Master Street Address Guide

(“MSAG”) and PREMIS systems. Id. Pacific also has provided

CLECs with extensive guidelines for properly entering listing

information into Pacific’s E911 systems. Id. These guidelines

address, among other things, the problems that arose when

addresses would pass SORD edits but not the E911 validation

processes. Pacific informed all CLECs of these guidelines, via

3 The FLSC and RLSC collectively are referred to as “the LSC.”

9

a Fix-It Team meeting, and later in an Accessible Letter and an

update to the CLEC Handbook. Id.

To improve its E911 data entry gateway, Pacific in February

1999 initiated a series of quarterly E911 Database forums. Id.

¶ 151. All CLECs listed in the 911 Database CLEC Contact List

are invited to these forums. Id. & Attach. WW. A broad range

of topics already has been discussed in these meetings,

including E911 Database changes, Database Management

System/Automatic Location Identification Service Adjunct

(“DBMS/ALISA”) conversion, E911 Database support, and useful

material in the CLEC Handbook and the other reference materials

Pacific makes available to CLECs. Id. ¶ 151. Pacific

distributes the minutes of these forums to all CLECs via

Accessible Letters. Id.

Pacific also has developed standards for E911 Database

Enhanced File Transfer, an application-to-application data entry

interface. Id. ¶ 156. Pacific provided all CLECs with advance

notice of the standards in May 1999 via an Accessible Letter,

thus giving CLECs ample time to develop compatible systems.

Deere Affidavit Attach. II. Pacific plans to implement this

interface in the year 2000 through the change management

process, which is discussed below. Viveros Affidavit ¶ 156.

Pursuant to this Commission’s recommendation, Pacific has

integrated CLEC E911 data entry into the new order entry process

10

for UNE orders that will be released in August 1999. Final

Decision, App. B at 1; Viveros Affidavit ¶¶ 130-136. This

integration -- which essentially eliminates the requirement that

CLECs input data into both the Listings Gateway and the E911

Gateway in order to complete a single end-user request -- will

greatly streamline the ordering processes for CLECs that

purchase Pacific’s UNEs. See Viveros Affidavit ¶ 131.

In order to effect this integration, Pacific has mechanized

the entire process for inputting a Local Service Request (“LSR”)

using the EDI and LEX ordering platforms. Id. ¶¶ 130-136.

Although the Commission only required that data entry be

integrated for loop-with-port UNE combinations and for stand-

alone UNE port orders, Pacific also has enhanced the ordering

process for orders involving number portability to allow CLECs

to enter data in an integrated fashion. Final Decision, App. B

at 1; Viveros Affidavit ¶ 134. This system will allow CLECs to

migrate UNE and number portability customers’ listings and E911

records “as is,” even though the end-user’s service may have

been substantially changed and the underlying network elements

altered. Viveros Affidavit ¶ 134.

Pacific’s integrated E911 data and order entry process also

will make it easier for CLECs to change their end-user

customers’ existing listings or to request listings for their

customers on a stand-alone basis (i.e., where no Pacific network

11

services are ordered). Id. Further, because there are fewer

mandatory LSR fields in this integrated process, it will be

easier for CLECs to place disconnect orders. Id.

To assist its wholesale customers, Pacific has developed

many of these improvements and enhancements well ahead of

national standards. Id. ¶ 135. Absent such standards, Pacific

has not been able to implement this integrated process in an

industry-standard manner; Pacific will, however, conform its

processes to applicable national standards when they are

released. Id. ¶ 132.

Far more than simply participating in the Fix-It Team’s

work to resolve E911 issues, Pacific has taken a leading role in

the operations of the Team. Pacific has hosted and chaired

nearly all of the Team meetings; dedicated subject matter

experts to the Team; provided presentations and documentation to

educate the CLEC members of the Team regarding Pacific’s

processes; answered CLECs’ questions; and facilitated the CLECs’

understanding of issues raised and the Team’s data gathering

procedures. Viveros Affidavit ¶¶ 139-144. Seventeen CLECs

participate on the Team. Id. Pacific announces each Fix-It

Team meeting in an Accessible Letter, and e-mails a detailed

agenda and the complete minutes of each meeting to participants.

Id. ¶ 145.

12

Pacific has implemented the suggested measures that have

resulted from the Fix-It Team meetings. See id. ¶ 146. In

addition to the enhancements discussed above, Pacific’s solution

of “retrying” CLEC E911 records that are rejected by the MS

Gateway, enhancement of Pacific’s web-based Listings Lookup

database (discussed below) to make it easier for CLECs to

validate existing listings, and improvements to Pacific’s

Listings Gateway to eliminate erroneous error code generation

for duplicate transactions all arose from Fix-It Team meetings.

Id. At the request of CLEC participants in Fix-It Team

meetings, Pacific also has relaxed edits on Letter of

Authorization inserts made through the Listings Gateway to

reduce the number of rejects. Id.

CLECs have made improvements to their own systems and

processes based on the results of the Fix-It Team meetings. For

example, CLECs currently are implementing measures to ensure

their service representatives are sufficiently trained and are

taking advantage of the assistance Pacific provides. Id. Due

to improvements resulting from Fix-It Team meetings, CLEC

listing errors and rejects fell by more than 20 percent. Id.

¶ 148.

Access to Listings. Pacific also has made numerous system

and process changes to afford CLECs nondiscriminatory access to

directory and white pages listings. First, as discussed above,

13

Pacific has begun to integrate the ordering of UNE combinations

and stand-alone UNEs with the processing of listings. This will

allow facilities-based CLECs (like CLEC resellers) to use one

gateway and one electronic LSR to order listings with their

network orders. Id. ¶ 140. As approved by the Commission and

agreed to by CLECs, Pacific will implement this improvement in

August 1999. Id. ¶ 136; Final Decision, App. B at 1.

In September 1998, in accordance with its Collaborative

Workshop commitment, Pacific introduced (with notice via an

Accessible Letter) access to the Listings Lookup Database. Id.

¶ 153. This Web-based access allows CLECs to verify the

existence of their end-users’ listings, see how their customers’

standard listings will appear in White Pages directories, and

review the directory delivery options chosen for each of their

end-user customers, all at no charge. Id. As of April 8, 1999,

23 CLECs were utilizing this database. Id. ¶ 154.

Integration of Pre-Ordering and Ordering. Pacific provides

CLECs complete and current documentation that allows them to

create an integrated pre-ordering/ordering interface that is

consistent with all relevant Pacific business rules. Pacific

notifies CLECs of the availability of various applications and

the associated documentation through the Accessible Letter

process. Id. ¶ 115. As discussed in the Viveros Affidavit,

Pacific provides CLECs access to an indexed library that

14

contains all the necessary documentation and requirements for

CLECs or independent third parties to develop, implement and

test an interface with Pacific’s OSS. Id. ¶ 116 & Attach. W.

Documentation/Access to Interfaces. Pacific uses industry

standard EDI mapping and business models for EDI ordering

documentation. Id. ¶ 102. In the event Pacific must modify its

business rules or documentation, Pacific promptly issues

Accessible Letters to all CLECs. Id. ¶ 115 & Attach. CC.

Pacific notifies CLECs of system enhancements, as well as their

effects, via the Change Management Process. Id. ¶ 119.

To assist CLECs and third parties as their implementation

progresses, Pacific conducts technical sessions with CLECs’

systems experts and provides one-on-one support from Pacific’s

Account Managers. Id. ¶ 116.

For each interface, Pacific’s side of the CLEC interface is

fully operational and consistent with published business rules.

See generally id. & Attach. A. For example, in addition to

extensive testing of the EDI and DataGate interfaces with CLECs,

Pacific has implemented “live” production through these

interfaces with two CLECs (Covad and NorthPoint). Id. ¶¶ 110-

113. In both cases, Pacific supplied all the necessary

application documentation, business rules, and technical support

to allow Covad and NorthPoint properly to develop integrated

pre-ordering and ordering interfaces that meet their business

15

needs. Id. The readiness of Pacific’s interfaces will be

further demonstrated through Pacific’s third-party testing

process, which is described below in this section. Id.4

Automated Reject and Jeopardy Notification. Pacific has

implemented automated reject and jeopardy notice processes for

both UNE and resale orders. See Final Decision, App. B at 3.

EDI and LEX, deployed in 1998, utilize an automated, real-time

process for returning most LSR reject notifications. Viveros

Affidavit ¶ 184. Ninety-eight percent of the time when there is

a reject, Pacific’s systems automatically detect an error in the

CLEC’s LSR and reject the order in real time. Id. When an LSR

containing an error does pass through the up-front edits and

proceeds to the LSC, a service representative at the LSC will –-

if the error must be corrected and resubmitted by the CLEC –-

electronically notify the CLEC of the rejection via the LASR

graphical user interface (“GUI”). Id. This interface became

operational July 6, 1999. Id.

Pacific’s LSC currently processes jeopardy notifications

manually; the appropriate field personnel notify the LSC of

impending jeopardy situations at regular intervals throughout

the day, and the LSC informs affected CLECs by telephone and

4 As required by this Commission, see Final Decision, App. B at 6, Pacific hasbeen forthcoming in sharing the results of its EDI operational readinesstesting with the CLECs engaged in the test. Viveros Affidavit ¶¶ 104-106.Pacific also shares “key learnings” from this testing with all CLECs. Id.¶ 107.

16

fax. Id. ¶ 185. This provides Pacific’s wholesale customers a

process superior to the process used in Pacific’s retail

operations, where Pacific service representatives generally do

not know that a jeopardy situation exists until after field

personnel have failed to complete the order. Id. ¶ 185.

Nevertheless, based on industry guidelines and in accordance

with the EDI/LSR Change Management Process, the next release of

Pacific’s LASR GUI, planned for the third quarter of 1999, will

permit LSC personnel to notify CLECs of a variety of jeopardy

situations electronically. Id. ¶ 186; see also id. ¶ 189.

Pacific has advised CLECs of its planned implementation of this

capability via an Accessible Letter. Id. ¶ 186.

The Commission has recommended that Pacific either employ

automated loss notifications or provide CLECs with Customer

Account Record Exchange (“CARE”) records that substantially

approximate automated loss notifications. Final Decision, App.

B at 3. Pacific has met this requirement by providing CARE

records that are a proven surrogate for automated loss

notification, as evinced by interexchange carriers’ successful

use of them for fifteen years. Viveros Affidavit ¶¶ 181-184.

As discussed in the Viveros Affidavit, the information supplied

to CLECs in these CARE records is substantially similar to, and

in many respects exceeds, the information available in a loss

notification record. Id. ¶ 182.

17

Flow-Through. During the Collaborative Workshops, Pacific

committed to follow 10 agreed-upon principles in its

implementation of mechanized order flow-through. Id. ¶ 169.

These principles include a recognition that the objective of

flow-through is to mechanize the process of going from an LSR to

a SORD order without disrupting downstream processes. Id.

¶ 169. Internal audits have demonstrated that Pacific is

following these principles. Id. ¶ 172.

For example, to allow orders for xDSL-compatible loops to flow

through Pacific’s systems, Pacific has defined those loops in

cooperation with CLECs or according to industry standards. Id.

¶ 164-165. Pacific developed a plan for implementing flow-

through of orders for xDSL-capable loops (with and without

number portability) in full cooperation with all interested

CLECs, through open meetings announced in Accessible Letters.

Id. ¶¶ 170-172. Implementation will be effected pursuant to

Pacific’s change management process. Id. ¶ 169.

Pacific has implemented flow-through for the ordering of all

POTS loop and port combinations (for conversion-as-specified,

new connect, change, and disconnect activities), designed loop

and port combinations (new connects only), and stand-alone

number portability. Id. ¶ 162. In addition, flow-through is

being implemented for designed loop and port combinations (for

conversion-as-specified, change, and disconnect activities), 2-

18

wire basic and designed loops with and without number

portability, directory service requests, stand-alone number

portability, and resale. Id. ¶ 163.

Pacific has discussed in meetings with CLECs relaxing or

eliminating the project quantity, supplemental order, and

partial account conversion exceptions to flow-through. Id.

¶ 173; see Final Decision, App. B at 3-4. Pacific has provided

the minutes of these meetings to all CLECs via Accessible

Letters. Final Decision, App. B at 4. Flow-through is now

available for orders of as many as 41 loops or loops with number

portability -– up from the prior limit of 20. Viveros Affidavit

¶ 174. For supplemental orders and partial account conversions,

Pacific and the CLECs have agreed to postpone further discussion

pending collection and examination of CLEC data. Id.

Against the backdrop of these flow-through capabilities,

Pacific has made the necessary changes to the LEX and EDI

ordering interfaces to provide real-time processing of CLECs’

orders in a manner equivalent to the processing of Pacific’s own

retail orders. Id. ¶ 179. The December 1998 release of LASR

enables CLECs using LEX and EDI to edit their requests, to have

receipts processed, to obtain Firm Order Confirmations (“FOCs”)

and Service Order Completions (“SOCs”), and to receive Automated

Order Generator (“AOG”) distribution for orders that are

eligible to flow-through –- all in real time. Id. Pacific

19

advised all CLECs of these improvements via Accessible Letters.

Id. ¶¶ 179-180.

Maintenance and Repair. In its Final Decision, this

Commission recommended that Pacific should clearly indicate

which maintenance and repair interfaces are used to place

trouble tickets. Final Decision, App. B at 4. Pacific has

provided this information. Viveros Affidavit ¶ 215. Pacific

also has disaggregated its maintenance and repair measures to

show data for resale, unbundled loops, and UNE combinations.

Id.; Johnson Affidavit ¶ 20.

In further satisfaction of the Commission’s

recommendations, Pacific has responded to CLECs’ needs –- in the

area of maintenance and repair and with respect to all other OSS

issues -– by scheduling numerous joint meetings with CLECs, both

one-on-one and in groups. Pacific always publicizes these

meetings via Accessible Letters. Tenerelli Affidavit ¶¶ 13-14 &

Attach. A.

Billing. One of the Commission’s criteria for satisfaction

of OSS requirements in the billing area was that Pacific

establish “satisfactory billing-performance measures.” Final

Decision, App. B at 4. Pacific satisfies that criterion through

a battery of measures that gauge the quality, timeliness, and

overall effectiveness of Pacific’s billing processes for its

CLEC customers. Johnson Affidavit ¶¶ 24-27. These measures

20

are: Usage Timeliness; Accuracy of Usage Feed; Wholesale Bill

Timeliness; Usage Completeness; Recurring Charge Completeness;

Non-Recurring Charge Completeness; Bill Accuracy; and Accuracy

of Mechanized Bill Feed. Id. ¶ 24. All of these measures are

disaggregated by major service category (e.g., Resale, UNE POTS,

UNE Specials and Facilities/Interconnection), as appropriate.

Id. ¶ 25. For those measures for which an analogue exists in

Pacific’s retail operations, the relevant standard is parity of

service. Id. ¶ 26. Where no retail analog exists, Pacific has

developed benchmarks in cooperation with CLECs and the CPUC in

the OSS OII proceeding, discussed in Part I.B, below. Id.

¶¶ 26, 37-38. These benchmarks were incorporated into Pacific’s

Joint Partial Settlement Agreement. Id. ¶¶ 37-38.

In addition to these performance measurements, Pacific

sponsored and actively participated in focus groups that have

identified and led to solutions for numerous issues regarding

Pacific’s billing systems. Murray Affidavit ¶¶ 65-67

(discussing Billing Forums).

Pacific tracks all billing disputes and reports the results

to CLECs. Id. ¶ 63. Pacific shares all dispute logs with the

relevant CLEC(s). Id. If a particular dispute cannot be

resolved with 30 days, Pacific notifies the CLEC of the status

of the dispute, the expected resolution date, and the date that

any credit will be issued. Id. ¶ 62. Pursuant to this

21

Commission’s recommendation, Pacific allows CLECs to consolidate

the their bill rounds. Final Decision, App. B at 4; Viveros

Affidavit ¶ 238.

For calls originating from a CLEC, Pacific generally bills

the interexchange carrier for access charges on behalf of the

CLEC, and then remits the appropriate payment recovered from the

interexchange carrier to the CLEC. Viveros Affidavit ¶ 243.

However, due to errors in the CLECs’ tandem recordings, Pacific

has had difficulty in properly billing interexchange carriers on

behalf of CLECs that use a single bill/single tariff format.

Id. ¶ 243. Pacific resolved this problem in June 1999 with the

latest release of its CABS billing system. Id. This system

permits Pacific to use its own tandem switch usage recordings

when billing access charges for CLEC-originating traffic. Id.

As a result, Pacific now is capable of billing interexchange

carriers for originating traffic on behalf of all CLECs. Id.

Pacific has paid CLECs all monies that had been withheld due to

this situation, and Pacific has received assurance from the

affected CLECs that no outstanding issues remain. Id. ¶ 246.

Change Management. As discussed in the Viveros Affidavit,

Pacific is committed to the ongoing improvement and refinement

of all of its OSS interfaces. See id. ¶ 35. Pacific is equally

committed to ensuring that this process occurs in as orderly a

manner as possible, with a minimum of confusion and difficulty

22

for Pacific’s wholesale customers. Id. ¶ 37. In the absence of

industry standards for change control, therefore, Pacific has

developed a comprehensive change management process to

accomplish this goal. Id. ¶ 34.

During the Collaborative Workshops, Pacific agreed to host

regular Quarterly Change Management Process (“QCMP”) meetings to

allow both Pacific and interested CLECs to introduce and discuss

changes to Pacific’s OSS interfaces. Id. ¶ 37. Pacific invites

all CLECs to these meetings (the first of which was held in

October 1998) through Accessible Letters. Id. ¶ 39 & Attach. M.

Participants review and discuss all scheduled improvements and

upgrades to Pacific’s systems. Id. ¶ 40. To facilitate this

dialogue, Pacific distributes, prior to each meeting, via

Accessible Letter, a calendar giving all OSS modification and

enhancement projects tentatively scheduled by Pacific for the

succeeding 12 months. Id. CLECs are encouraged to add issues

of their own to the agenda. Id. When issues arise that require

more focused attention, sidebar meetings are held between

interested parties. Id. ¶ 40. Pacific distributes the minutes

of all regular quarterly and sidebar meetings to all CLECs in

Accessible Letters. Id. ¶¶ 43-44.

Also pursuant to the change management process, Pacific

announces all new releases, retirement of old interfaces, and

the availability of new interface protocols via Accessible

23

Letters. Id. ¶ 45. When circumstances dictate modifications to

the notice or testing schedules, a formal Exception Process is

available within the change management rules. Id. ¶ 46.

Pacific’s adherence to the change management process has

yielded practical results, including:

· Implementation of a CLEC’s suggestion that Pacific implementflow-through for xDSL-capable loops longer than 12,000 feet;

· Resolution of ordering process problems for xDSL loops; and

· The opportunity for dialogue with CLECs regarding Pacific’sparticipation in industry forums to establish nationalstandards to address the issue of versioning.

See id. ¶¶ 42-43.

Local Services Centers. Pacific has complied with the

Commission’s recommendations for improving CLEC access to the

LSC, see Final Decision, App. B at 5, and has participated

actively in the LSC issue forum proposed in the Collaborative

Workshops. Murray Affidavit ¶¶ 21-23.

All LSC personnel now have access to the Accessible Letters

that relate to their responsibilities, and have been thoroughly

trained in using these letters when assisting CLECs. Id. ¶ 16.

Also as recommended by the Commission, Final Decision, App. B at

5, Pacific has cross-referenced the LSC’s methods and procedures

to the CLEC Handbook; this further facilitates consistent

responses to CLEC inquiries. Murray Affidavit ¶ 18. To improve

their ability to address CLEC inquiries capably and efficiently,

24

LSC personnel now receive four weeks of instruction in use of

the GUIs Pacific makes available to CLECs. Id. ¶ 15.

When a CLEC calling the LSC requests escalation above its

initial LSC contact, the LSC tracks information on the CLEC

initiating the request, the nature of the request, the root

cause of the request, the time from receipt of the request to

clearing it, and the resolution of the request. Id. ¶ 53. The

LSC uses these data to improve the service it provides to CLECs.

Id. Pacific has notified all CLECs via Accessible Letter that

records of these escalations are available upon request. Id.

¶¶ 54-55.

Finally, the fault-tolerant firewall system between the

wholesale (CLEC) and retail areas of Pacific’s internal systems

is effective, as required by this Commission. Final Decision,

App. B at 5; Viveros Affidavit ¶¶ 46-52. In addition to

protecting Pacific’s network against unauthorized and

potentially harmful modifications, the firewall system protects

CLECs’ data and operations by matching each user to a pre-

established profile that determines which applications and

customer data the user may access. Viveros Affidavit ¶ 47.

OSS Appendix. In order to make it easier for CLECs to

negotiate appropriate contractual language governing OSS access,

Pacific allows CLECs to adopt a revised OSS Appendix negotiation

template (Appendix D to the Final Staff Report). Id. ¶ 19. This

25

template was negotiated in the Collaborative Workshops. Id.

Several CLECs have successfully negotiated OSS appendices to

their agreements using this template. Id.

OSS Training. Independent of the OSS Appendix, Pacific

offers CLECs a Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) which allows

CLECs to reserve seats for their personnel in OSS training

workshops and classes. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. The MOA details the terms

and conditions of training, including available courses, costs,

and what training materials are provided. Id. ¶ 29.

To facilitate continuous improvement in the OSS training it

provides CLECs, the SBC Center for Learning has instituted a

formal feedback process. Id. ¶ 31. Trainers actively solicit

feedback from CLEC participants and administer a Customer

Satisfaction Survey evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency

of each class. Id. The overall CLEC customer satisfaction rate

for all classes at the SBC Center for Learning since January

1998 is 99 percent. Id. In addition, Pacific holds regular

meetings with CLECs to discuss training issues. Id. ¶ 32.

To complement this training, Pacific offers CLECs two 90-

day promotional periods for access to Pacific’s electronic OSS

interfaces. Id. ¶ 20. When a CLEC first implements an

interface, it can obtain full access to the interface free of

charge for a 90-day “practice period.” Id. Additionally, when

the interface is fully implemented and the CLEC is using the

26

interface in live production mode, Pacific will forego billing

the CLEC for its access to OSS for the first 90 days. Id.

These promotions make it less expensive for CLECs to test

connectivity to Pacific’s systems, evaluate system

functionality, and utilize training databases. Id. ¶ 21.

Pacific has notified all CLECs of these two promotions via

Accessible Letter, and has committed not to withdraw either of

these offers without advance notice of at least 14 days. Id.

¶ 22.

Interface Testing. In its Final Decision, this Commission

recommended that Pacific develop a detailed plan for testing its

OSS, covering specific issues of interest to the CPUC and CLECs.

Final Decision at 112, App. B at 6. The Commission set forth

several issues for Pacific to address in its test plan.

Pacific first submitted its Master Test Plan (“MTP”) on

January 11, 1999. The MTP was enhanced and revised over the

course of the ensuing months in collaborative workshops attended

by Pacific, Commission Staff, the Commission’s Technical Advisor

(Telcordia), and interested CLECs. Viveros Affidavit ¶¶ 247-

251. Pacific’s MTP thoroughly addresses every one of the

Commission’s testing requirements. The MTP provides a plan to

demonstrate the operational readiness of Pacific’s OSS; their

performance; and their capability to provide pre-ordering,

ordering, provisioning, repair and maintenance, and billing

27

functionality, where such readiness and capability have not

already been demonstrated through live processing of commercial

volumes of transactions. Id. ¶¶ 254-255.

Pacific has proposed in the MTP to test the pre-ordering,

ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing

functionality of the resale, number portability, UNE, loop-with-

port, basic loop, xDSL loop, and stand-alone Directory Listings

order types. Id. ¶ 258. Pacific will test residential orders

as well as business orders encompassing new orders, conversions

as specified, partial configurations, disconnects,

cancellations, supplemental orders, and suspend and restore

orders. Id. The testing will generate acknowledgements, error

rejections, FOCs, and SOCs, all as though actual commercial

orders were passing through Pacific’s systems. Id. The MTP

also proposes to test several feature combinations, directory

listings, and other services. Id.

Pacific will test these systems and order types for end-to-

end functionality (from pre-ordering through provisioning,

billing, and maintenance and repair), as well as capacity. Id.

¶ 259. All testing will be performed using Pacific’s production

processes and systems, and will be in addition to normal

production volumes. Id. ¶ 256. The testing also will evaluate

the scalability of Pacific’s systems (including the wholesale

service centers), and the ease with which test interfaces can be

28

developed and connected with Pacific’s systems using the

documentation and guidelines Pacific makes available to all

CLECs. Id. ¶ 262.

Benchmarks for testing were developed in the OSS Testing

Workshops held in June 1999; they reflect the collective input

of the CPUC, Pacific, Telcordia, and CLECs. Id. ¶ 266. As

required by the Commission, Pacific has conducted a detailed

comparison of its MTP with Bell Atlantic’s New York OSS testing

plan. Id. ¶ 248 & Attach. VVV.

The testing described in the MTP will be truly independent

and neutral. The Commission Staff has selected Telcordia, an

independent third party with expertise in OSS testing, to serve

as Technical Advisor for the testing. Id. ¶ 249-264.

Telcordia’s function is to assist Commission Staff in its review

of Pacific’s MTP and the testing results. Id. Although Pacific

is paying for the testing and for Telcordia’s evaluation, this

Commission bears ultimate responsibility for “selecting,

directing, monitoring and supervising the testing consultant,”

and for the overall management of the entire testing project.

Id. ¶¶ 264, 266, 277-279; Final Decision at 112. In addition,

an independent Test Administrator will oversee the execution of

the testing and analyze the test results. Id. ¶ 264. An

independent Test Generator will perform the functions of a CLEC

by using Pacific’s documentation and guidelines to develop

29

interfaces and establish connectivity with Pacific’s systems.

Id.

Pacific’s testing plan allows for and encourages CLECs’

participation and input regarding the scope and methodology of

the test. Id. ¶ 265. Pacific expects to complete all testing

and report all results to this Commission for its review by the

end of October 1999. Id. ¶ 266.

B. Pacific Has Implemented Performance Measurements andAssociated Payments To Ensure Pacific’s OngoingProvision of Nondiscriminatory Interconnection andNetwork Access

In compliance with this Commission’s requirements for a

favorable recommendation on Pacific’s section 271 application,

Pacific has committed to using the CPUC’s OSS OII Performance

Measurement Plan. Pacific will negotiate that plan into

existing and new interconnection agreements. Johnson Affidavit

¶ 7 & Attach. B (Settlement Agreement listing performance

measurements). Pacific also compiles performance reports for

facilities and services provided to its own affiliates and will

make such data available to CLECs that sign nondisclosure

agreements. Id. ¶ 40; see Final Decision, App. B at 7. Pacific

reports its performance monthly, on a geographically

disaggregated basis where appropriate, using defined service and

facility categories. Johnson Affidavit ¶¶ 10, 40. Data is

30

available to CLECs and regulators on an Internet website. Id.

¶ 39.

In 1998, the United States Department of Justice determined

that a much more limited set of performance measurements than

Pacific’s current set “would be sufficient, if properly

implemented, to satisfy the Department’s need for performance

measurements for evaluating a Section 271 application filed in

the not-too-distant future.”5 The Commission has nearly

completed its ongoing performance remedies docket and the

parties already have agreed on substantial performance measures

that provide additional incentive for Pacific to provide CLECs

with nondiscriminatory access to OSS interfaces and related

systems. See Id. ¶¶ 43-46 & Attach. C.

Pacific thus has committed to “appropriate, self-executing

enforcement mechanisms” in accordance with the FCC’s expressed

desire.6

Consistent with the Final Decision, Pacific submits with

this filing three months of performance data based on the OSS

5 See Letter from Donald J. Russell, Chief, Telecommunications Task Force, toLiam S. Coonan, Esq., Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel,SBC Communications at 1 (Mar. 6, 1998) (Johnson Affidavit Attach. A).

6 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application of Ameritech MichiganPursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ToProvide In-Region, InterLATA Services In Michigan, 12 FCC Rcd 20543, 20749,¶ 394 (1997) (“Michigan Order”); Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application ofBellSouth Corp., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth LongDistance, Inc. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Louisiana,13 FCC Rcd 20599, 20806, ¶ 364 (1998) (“Second Louisiana Order”).

31

OII Performance Measurement Plan. Johnson Affidavit ¶ 48 &

Attach. C. As required by the CPUC, Pacific has “use[d] the

most robust available measures.” Final Decision, App. B at 7.

Pacific nevertheless is aware that the Commission will want to

base its decision on the most current data when the OSS testing

is complete. Accordingly, Pacific intends to provide the

Commission, in a subsequent submission, three months of then-

current, verified data for its performance measurements.

C. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (i)

In compliance with checklist item (i), Pacific provides

interconnection “at any technically feasible point” within its

network at a level of service that is “at least equal in

quality” to the interconnection that Pacific provides itself;

this interconnection is provided “on rates, terms, and

conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.”

47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2). Pacific details below how it has met

these standards and, in particular, how it is complying with the

specific requirements set forth in the Final Decision and agreed

to by Pacific during the Collaborative Workshops.

Methods of Interconnection. Pacific’s interconnection

agreements with carriers such as AT&T, MCI, Time Warner, and

Brooks Fiber establish three standard methods of

interconnection: mid-span fiber interconnection, collocation,

32

and leased facilities interconnection. Deere Affidavit ¶ 9.

Pacific has made these methods of interconnection available to

CLECs at the trunk side of the local switch, trunk connection

points of the tandem switch, central office cross-connects, out-

of-band signaling transfer points, and points of access to UNEs.

Id. ¶ 14. Pacific also will provide, upon request,

interconnection at the main distribution frame on the line side

of a local switch. Id. ¶ 15.

Mid-span fiber interconnection is available at any mutually

agreeable, economically and technically feasible point between a

CLEC’s premises and a Pacific tandem or end office. Id. ¶ 10.

This arrangement may be used to provide interoffice trunking for

originating and terminating calls between the two networks, or

for transit of calls to or from a third party via Pacific’s

tandem switch. Id. ¶ 11.

Physical collocation of CLECs’ equipment used for

interconnection or access to UNEs in Pacific’s equipment

buildings and structures is available wherever space permits, on

a first-come, first-served basis under the same terms and

conditions available to similarly situated carriers at the time

of such a request. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 68. Pacific makes

available caged and shared physical collocation, cageless

collocation, microwave collocation, and adjacent structure

33

collocation. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶¶ 68-77. See 47 C.F.R.

§ 51.323(k).

Pacific allows physical or virtual collocation of equipment

used and useful for interconnection or access to UNEs,

regardless of whether such equipment includes a switching

functionality, enhanced services capabilities, or offers other

functionalities. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶¶ 81-82; see 47 C.F.R.

§ 51.323(b). CLECs may collocate remote switching modules for

the purpose of accessing UNEs. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 84; see

Final Decision, App. B at 10.

Pacific allows collocated equipment to be used for

interconnection with other collocating carriers in the same

central office. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 115. This arrangement

includes the establishment of cross-connects to other carriers’

collocated equipment, which may be accomplished using either

copper or optical facilities. Id. ¶ 116. Pacific provides

connections between collocation cages leased by different CLECs

within fifteen days of a request. See Final Decision, App. B at

8. CLECs were advised of this policy through a March 1999

Accessible Letter; both Pacific’s physical collocation tariff

and its Collocation Handbook reflect this policy. Hopfinger

Affidavit ¶ 113.

In accord with Workshop Agreement § 6.1.1.1, Pacific

provides the frame equipment and repeaters necessary to extend

34

UNEs into the CLEC’s collocation cage when a CLEC chooses Method

1 of Pacific’s five methods of access to UNEs; under this method

of access, Pacific extends UNEs that require cross-connection to

a Point of Termination (“POT”) frame located inside the CLEC’s

physical collocation space. See Deere Affidavit ¶ 67. Pacific

does not require CLECs to purchase any of the equipment or

facilities used in establishing such cross-connects for UNE

access from Pacific. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 114; First Report

and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Deployment

of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications

Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, 1999 FCC Lexis 1327, at 39-41,

¶ 33 (Mar. 31, 1999) (“Advanced Services First Report and

Order”). These policies are in compliance with the FCC’s

collocation rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(b).

Consistent with the CPUC’s policies, Pacific has made

common cage collocation available as an alternative to other

forms of physical collocation. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 70; see

also Final Decision, App. B at 8; Workshop Agreement § 6.7.1.1.

The CPUC’s requirement for common cage collocation, moreover,

has been subsumed within the shared cage requirement of the

FCC’s Advanced Services First Report and Order. See Hopfinger

Affidavit ¶¶ 70-71; see also id. ¶¶ 72-73 (discussing shared

cage collocation).

35

In central offices where less than 100 square feet of

collocation space is available, CLECs that desire collocation

cages may obtain cages smaller than the customary 100 square

foot size. Id. ¶ 70. Pursuant to the Advanced Services First

Report and Order, caged physical collocation is available in 50

square-foot increments. Id. ¶ 71. Pacific has created a

contract template, which is readily available to CLECs, for

amending an interconnection agreement to provide for various

forms of collocation, including cage-to-cage connections. Id.

¶ 117; see Final Decision, App. B at 8. Pacific likewise has

satisfied the Commission’s recommendations by informing CLECs

that they may sub-lease collocation space with other collocators

and Pacific will deal directly with the sub-leasing carrier for

ordering the UNEs. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 107; see Final

Decision, App. B at 8.

When space inside Pacific “eligible structure” is

exhausted, Pacific will make all reasonable efforts to allow

collocators to physically collocate in adjacent, controlled

environmental vaults or similar structures on Pacific’s

premises. See 1999 FCC Lexis 1327, 56-57, ¶ 44. Pacific

provides power and collocation services and facilities to such

structures. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶¶ 76-77.

Pacific has addressed the Commission’s and CLECs’ concerns

about its Collocation Handbook. See Final Decision, App. B at

36

7. Pacific has solicited input from collocators to ensure that

the Collocation Handbook is a useful reference tool. Pacific

posted a customer survey on-line and issued an Accessible Letter

reminding CLECs of the survey and soliciting feedback on the

Collocation Handbook. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 88. In response to

CLEC comments, Pacific reorganized the Handbook to make it

easier to use. Id.

Pacific incorporated the Collocation Handbook into the CLEC

Handbook on its Internet website and apprised all CLECs of that

Web address. Id. ¶ 89. The Internet version of the Collocation

Handbook is updated regularly, and includes a summary of all

changes made over the past two months. Id. ¶ 90. The

Collocation Handbook now shows, on each section, the date of the

latest change to that section. Id. ¶ 91. Relatedly, Pacific

has distributed Accessible Letters covering changes in its

collocation rules. Id. ¶ 92; see Final Decision, App. B at 8.

Pacific’s practices for provisioning collocation space

likewise conform to the CPUC’s requirements. See Final

Decision, App. B at 8-9. Pacific completes physical collocation

installations within the 120-day provisioning timeframe

established in Pacific’s intrastate tariff, Schedule Cal. P.U.C.

No. 175-T, and in accordance with time frames established in

Pacific’s interconnection agreements. See Hopfinger Affidavit

¶ 111. Pacific’s monthly tracking reports demonstrate this

37

compliance, as does Pacific’s record of meeting all collocation

installation deadlines since October 1998. Id. Pacific has

instituted an internal procedure by which CLECs will receive

weekly status reports if Pacific falls behind in the collocation

process. Id. ¶ 112.

In further conformance with the CPUC’s Final Decision, App.

B at 9, Pacific has offered CLECs the option of submitting a

bond (rather than a direct payment) to cover their 50 percent

collocation pre-payment. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 118. Pacific’s

policy is to cash the bond only if the CLEC does not submit the

required pre-payment within 30 days of the commencement of

construction. Id. Pacific has informed CLECs of these policies

by Accessible Letter and has modified its collocation tariff and

Collocation Handbook accordingly. Id. Although the CPUC

previously suggested that Pacific should not begin construction

work until central office-specific Advice Letters were approved

and became effective, see Final Decision, App. B at 9, Pacific

subsequently demonstrated to the CPUC Staff that construction

delays would result. The Staff accordingly advised Pacific to

maintain its policy of beginning construction as soon as Pacific

receives a CLEC’s completed application and pre-payment.

Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 119.

Pacific also has advised CLECs of its compliance with the

Commission’s recommendation that, to the extent possible,

38

Pacific not fill collocation cages consecutively, but rather

fill cages in a manner that allows contiguous growth. Id.

¶ 121; see Final Decision, App. B at 9. Pacific has further

advised CLECs that if other carriers want to collocate in the

relevant central office and the unassigned contiguous space is

needed, the space will be granted to the first carrier filing an

application and submitting the requisite pre-payment or bond.

Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 121.

CLECs may augment their collocation space when they reach a

60 percent utilization rate and can begin the application

process prior to reaching that threshold. See id. ¶ 106; Final

Decision, App. B at 8-9. CLECs have been informed of these

policies by Accessible Letter, and the new rules are reflected

in Pacific’s tariffs and Collocation Handbook. Id. Pacific has

further adopted and informed CLECs of a policy of refunding

nonrecurring charges for cage installation to carriers that

surrender their collocation space when the space is needed by

another carrier. Id. ¶ 109.

Pacific has satisfied the Commission’s recommendations

regarding reservation of collocation space. See Final Decision,

App. B at 10. Where a Pacific affiliate drops out of a line of

business, the space will be recycled to all requesting

collocators, or Pacific (or its affiliate) will reclaim it, and

a report will be made to the CPUC. See Hopfinger Affidavit

39

¶ 99. Any entity, including Pacific, that wants to reserve

space is required to provide Pacific with a $2,000 nonrefundable

deposit. In the case of CLECs or other unaffiliated companies,

the $2,000 is applied against the collocation construction fee.

If any entity, including Pacific, does not use the reserved

space within the 12-month reservation period, it will forfeit

its deposit. Forfeitures will be credited against the

collocation charges of the next carrier to collocate in that

central office. See id. ¶ 100.

Pacific’s policies regarding exhaustion of space in central

offices are similarly in accord with the CPUC’s requirements.

See Final Decision, App. B at 8-10. Pacific provides the

Commission information on space used in the exhausted office for

provisioning Pacific’s ADSL services. See Hopfinger Affidavit

¶ 96. Pacific also demonstrates to CLECs during all

walkthroughs of exhausted central offices the location of its

own equipment used to provision ADSL service. Id. ¶ 104.

Pacific provides CLECs with floor plans prior to any such

walkthrough; those plans include square footage, note the

location of ADSL equipment, and indicate whether equipment is

idle, in use, or obsolete. Id. ¶ 97.104. Pacific has fulfilled

its commitment, see Workshop Agreement § 6.5.1.1, of reporting

to CLECs and the Commission Staff on the contents of the floor

plans, see Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 97.

40

Pacific posts on its web site a list of central offices in

which the company has determined that no space is available for

physical collocation. Id. ¶ 95. Pacific does not provide

additional space to its affiliates in any central office where

all options for physical collocation have been exhausted. Id.

¶ 103.

Finally, in accordance with Workshop Agreement § 6.4.1.1,

Pacific places CLECs on the waiting list for an exhausted

central office according to the date they submitted their

application, not the date the application was denied. See id.

¶ 98.

Pacific offers virtual collocation and similar leased

facilities interconnection wherever physical collocation space

is unavailable, or at a CLEC’s request. See id. ¶¶ 78-80; 47

C.F.R. § 51.323(d)(4). Pacific’s FCC Tariff No. 128 governs the

rates and terms of Pacific’s virtual collocation arrangements.

Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 78.

Pacific also will provide any CLEC with frame relay

network-to-network interconnection (“NNI”). Deere Affidavit

¶ 17. Pacific notified CLECs of the availability of frame relay

NNI in an Accessible Letter; Pacific also has updated the CLEC

Handbook to include this offering. Id. Pacific has

successfully negotiated with one CLEC thus far (e. Spire) to

41

amend its interconnection agreement to provide access to frame

relay NNI. Id.

INER Process. In addition to these standard offerings,

CLECs may request specially tailored interconnection

arrangements through the Interconnection and Network Element

Request (“INER”) process. Id. ¶ 24; Hopfinger Affidavit ¶¶ 35-

42. Now known as the Bona Fide Request process, this mechanism

allows CLECs to request interconnection arrangements (or UNEs)

that are not specifically addressed in the CLEC’s

interconnection agreement or in the generic appendices that

Pacific has developed in response to the Commission’s

requirements. See Hopfinger Affidavit ¶¶ 35, 44; Final

Decision, App. B at 11.

In accord with the CPUC’s requirements, see Final Decision,

App. B at 10, Pacific has published the exact processes,

timelines, escalation procedures, and response requirements

associated with its INER process. See Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 44.

In further compliance, see Final Decision, App. B at 11;

Workshop Agreement § 2.3.1.1, Pacific has streamlined the INER

order process by providing standardized forms, timelines, and

notification procedures. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 44.

Section 6.4.2 of Pacific’s CLEC Handbook outlines

guidelines for “yes” responses that comply with the CPUC’s

requirements. See id. ¶ 46. Pacific provides “yes” responses

42

to INER requests within 30 days; if wholesale construction is

necessary, Pacific will provide cost support within an

additional 24 days. Id. ¶¶ 45-46. Pacific has met the 30-day

deadline for “yes” responses on all BFRs received since mid-

January. Id. ¶ 47. The cost support information will provide

sufficient detail to allow the CLEC to negotiate for provision

of the UNE. Id.; see Final Decision, App. B at 11; Workshop

Agreement § 2.3.1.3. Pacific also has incorporated the

guidelines for “yes” responses into its Account and Product

Management training materials. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 46.

Pacific likewise has complied with the CPUC’s requirements

regarding “no” responses. See Final Decision, App. B at 11;

Workshop Agreement §§ 2.3.1.2 & 2.3.1.4. Pacific provides such

responses within 15 days. See Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 47. If

Pacific says “no,” citing technical problems, it will provide a

detailed explanation of why the request is not technically

feasible within the same 15-day period. Id. ¶ 45. If Pacific

refers the CLEC to an alternative to the interconnection (or

UNE) requested, Pacific timely provides information regarding

the alternative. Id. Since issuance of the Final Decision,

Pacific missed the “no” deadline on one occasion; the response

was due on a Thursday and was provided the following Monday.

Id. ¶ 47. As the CPUC has requested, Pacific includes with this

filing a CLEC-by-CLEC report regarding INER requests processed,

43

the time elapsed for each INER request, and the status of the

INER requests processed since the Final Decision was issued.

See id. ¶ 48 & Attach. K & L.

Interconnection Trunking Arrangements. Pacific’s ability

to supply interconnection trunks for CLECs is well documented.

Pacific has provisioned over 532,000 interconnection trunks to

CLECs for their facilities-based services in California. Deere

Affidavit ¶¶ 27, 29. The Deere Affidavit discusses

interconnection trunking arrangements from a CLEC to Pacific

(for traffic originated by the CLEC), and from Pacific to a CLEC

(for traffic terminated over the CLEC’s network). Id. ¶¶ 19-22.

Pacific and the CLEC jointly manage the capacity of local

interconnection trunk groups. Id. ¶ 31. Trunk forecasting and

servicing for interconnection trunk groups are based upon the

same industry-standard objectives that Pacific uses for its own

trunk groups. Id. ¶ 30. Pacific also uses standard Bellcore

trunk traffic engineering methods to ensure that interconnection

trunking is managed in the same manner as trunking for Pacific’s

own local services. Id. ¶ 32.

Pacific has instituted a Joint and Cooperative Planning

Process (“JCP”) to coordinate trunk planning with CLECs.

Pacific meets with individual CLECs to discuss issues such as

specific projects, forecasting, and network architecture. Id.

¶¶ 35, 37. Additionally, Pacific and CLECs jointly assess

44

forecasts and other information in Pacific’s construction plans.

Id. ¶ 35. Pacific has published sample forms for

interconnection trunk forecasting (the Local Network

Interconnection Trunk Forecast) and network planning (the

Pacific Bell CLEC Network Information Sheet) in its CLEC

Handbook, with descriptions and instructions. Id. ¶¶ 35, 39-40.

These documents were included in an Accessible Letter to all

CLECs, and they are made available electronically as well. Id.

Pacific has rearranged its own trunking arrangements to

make trunk terminations available for CLECs’ use. Id. ¶ 29.

Pacific also provides a Trunk Group Service Reports (“TGSRs”) to

inform CLECs if interconnection trunks are over-utilized or

under-utilized. Id. ¶¶ 43-44. In blocking situations, Pacific

attempts to call the CLEC prior to issuing the TGSR and accepts

trouble tickets at the LOC. Id. ¶ 44. Pacific subsequently

reports the resolution of the blockage situation to the CLEC.

Id.

CLEC forecasts of demand for trunks often greatly exceed

actual CLEC needs. See id. ¶ 29. Nevertheless, Pacific has

complied with the Final Decision’s requirement that Pacific

consult with the CLEC or send a TGSR before enforcing agreement

provisions that allow Pacific to reclaim under-utilized trunks.

If the CLEC has an adequate reason for keeping trunks

45

operational, Pacific accommodates the CLEC’s preference. Id.

¶ 43.

As recommended by the Commission, see Final Decision, App.

B at 13, Pacific has developed four additional network

utilization reports. These are: 1) monthly common transport

data, which is provided to CLECs via their account managers; 2)

monthly trunk traffic (TIKI) reports to requesting CLECs via

their account managers; 3) weekly electronic exchange data

(DIXC) reports for trunk traffic data, which are provided to

CLECs that make electronic exchange arrangements; and 4) point-

to-point traffic studies for use in the JCP as appropriate.

Deere Affidavit ¶ 41. Pacific provides these traffic reports in

the format presented in the collaborative process. Id. ¶ 42.

Pacific sent an Accessible Letter informing all CLECs of the

availability of these reports, and Pacific has included sample

reports in the CLEC Handbook. Id.

Pacific uses the same processes to provision

interconnection facilities and message trunks for CLECs as it

uses to provision access trunks for interexchange carriers.

Tenerelli Affidavit ¶ 46. Upon receipt of an order, technicians

perform turn-up and testing on the interconnection facilities

and message trunks. Id.

To ensure timely and efficient provisioning of

interconnection trunks, Pacific has implemented methods and

46

procedures to provide FOCs within 4 business days for additions

to existing trunk groups and within 7 business days for new

trunk groups. Murray Affidavit ¶ 45. In the case of an

equipment shortage, Pacific includes, in the Remarks field of

the FOC, relief date status and the cause of the shortage. Id.

If no relief date is available, the FOC gives a further status

due date; Pacific has discontinued use of “9/9/99” in the FOC to

indicate that there is no relief date. Id. Pacific also has

modified its FOC Remarks field so that the field provides, in

addition to an expected status for the relief date, a contact

name and number for the CLEC to review Held-Order status. Id.

Pacific also informs CLECs of Held-Order denials, as

appropriate. Id. If a CLEC’s order for a digital trunk is on

Held-Order status, Pacific will offer the CLEC one-way analog

trunks as an interim measure, and maintain the order in its

place on the Held-Order list, pending completion of switch

replacement. Id.

Pacific has met with numerous CLECs to explain its process

of assigning circuit facility assignment (“CFA”) and Trunk

Carrier Identification Code (“TCIC”) numbers to harmonize CLECs’

and Pacific’s systems. Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 33-34. Pacific

distributed its guidelines for these assignment processes to all

CLECs through an Accessible Letter on March 26, 1999. Id. ¶ 34.

This Letter also invited CLECs to an April 1999 forum in which

47

Pacific helped CLECs map their systems pursuant to these

guidelines. Id.

Following the Commission’s recommendations, Pacific has

revised its procedures for interconnection trunk provisioning in

the event the requesting CLEC is not ready to accept the trunks.

See Final Decision, App. B at 14-15; Final Staff Report at 88-

89; Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 27 Murray Affidavit ¶ 46. When Pacific

Bell has completed its pre-service testing of interconnection

trunks, but the CLEC is unable or not ready to perform

acceptance testing or is otherwise unable to accept the

requested trunks by the established due date, the CLEC may

request a new service date that is no more than 30 days past the

original due date. Alternatively, Pacific and the CLEC may

agree upon a new date outside of 30 days. In either case,

Pacific will provision the trunks on the new date. If the CLEC

requests a revised date that is more than 30 days later than the

original date and Pacific and the CLEC are unable to agree upon

an alternative date, the Access Service Request is canceled.

The CLEC then places another order. These procedures reduce the

occurrence of “stranded trunks,” making these trunks available

to other requesting CLECs and helping to alleviate trunk

blockage problems. Pacific notified all CLECs of these new

procedures via an Accessible Letter dated August 4, 1998.

Murray Affidavit ¶¶ 45-46.

48

NXX Code Openings. Pacific will implement an automated

system for opening NXX codes in August 1999. Deere Affidavit

¶ 46. Pacific currently notifies CLECs of code openings by

posting newly opened codes to the on-line CLEC Handbook on

Pacific’s website within 24 hours of the opening, giving the

date and time the code was opened. Id. ¶ 45. Pacific verifies

new NXX code openings with TruCall testing in the month

following each code opening for all CLECs who provide a

functional test number. Tenerelli Affidavit ¶¶ 34-35.

If Pacific receives a trouble ticket for an NXX code

opening problem, Pacific simultaneously will send the ticket to

the internal work group that can resolve the problem and to the

Automatic Messaging Answering Control Center (“AMACC”) to

initiate TruCall testing. Id. ¶ 35. Pacific has implemented

methods and procedures to resolve the problem within 4 hours if

it involves network translation problems. Id. This is almost

precisely how trouble reports are handled on retail lines when a

Pacific retail customer calls the retail repair center, the only

difference being that Pacific does not conduct TruCall testing

on trouble reports from its own retail customers that relate to

code openings. Id. ¶ 35.

Pacific has designated a single point of contact for

immediate resolution of problems that would prevent Pacific from

completely testing an NXX code opening. Id. ¶ 33. Pacific

49

notifies the affected CLEC within 24 hours if it discovers in

opening a code that the CLEC has no trunking established to the

tandem. Id. ¶ 33. Pacific has notified all CLECs of its NXX

code opening policies through Accessible Letters and updates to

the CLEC Handbook. Id. ¶ 35.

Pricing. Pacific’s interconnection agreements ensure that

CLECs can obtain interconnection at prices that are cost-based,

as determined by the CPUC in accordance with the federal Act.

As described in Pacific’s opening brief in this proceeding, this

Commission established interim prices for interconnection in the

AT&T, MCI, and Sprint arbitrations. [Draft] Brief in Support of

Application by SBC for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA

Services in California at 42 (filed Mar. 31, 1998) (“Draft FCC

Br.”). Pacific has now adopted the rates for interconnection

and UNEs set out in the May 10, 1999 Proposed Decision in the

OANAD proceeding, which are based on CPUC-approved costs. See

Hopfinger Affidavit ¶¶ 6, 19 & Attach. B. Pacific will comply

with the final rates established in that proceeding.

D. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (ii)

The 1996 Act requires Pacific to provide “nondiscriminatory

access to network elements” on an “unbundled basis at any

technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that

are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.” 47 U.S.C.

50

§§ 251(c)(3), 271(c)(2)(B)(ii); see id. § 251(d)(1). Pacific

meets those requirements and thus satisfies item (ii) of the

competitive checklist.

In its Local Competition Order, the FCC required incumbent

LECs to provide seven specific network elements on an unbundled

basis.7 Although the Supreme Court subsequently vacated the FCC

rule that had established this list –- thus removing the

requirement to provide these seven items as UNEs –- Pacific

nevertheless has continued to abide by the UNE requirements of

its existing contracts without seeking to modify them in light

of the Supreme Court’s decision. See Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 49-58;

see also AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 119 S. Ct. 721, 734-36 (1999)

(vacating 47 C.F.R. § 51.319). Thus, Pacific offers each of the

elements designated as UNEs by the FCC. In accord with the

CPUC’s requirements, see Final Decision, App. B at 17, Pacific

has also made available the “extended link” loop/transport

combination, which allows CLECs to serve customers throughout

Pacific’s service area on a facilities basis, without

collocating in every Pacific central office. See Hopfinger

7 These network elements are: (1) local loops; (2) network interface devices;(3) local and tandem switching; (4) interoffice transmission facilities; (5)signaling networks and call-related databases; (6) OSS; and (7) operatorservices and directory assistance. First Report and Order, Implementation ofthe Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11FCC Rcd 15499, 15683, ¶ 366 (“Local Competition Order”), modified on recon.,11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), vacated in part, Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d753 (8th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part, aff’d in part sub nom. AT&T Corp. v. IowaUtils. Bd., 119 S. Ct. 721 (1999).

51

Affidavit ¶¶ 138-140. Pacific will combine unbundled 2-wire or

4-wire analog or digital loops with unbundled voice grade DS1,

or DS3 dedicated transport to provide CLECs access to the

extended link. Id. ¶ 138. Pacific offers the extended link at

cost-based rates set by the CPUC. Id.

Pacific is providing these elements to California CLECs on

a nondiscriminatory basis at a level of quality equal to that

which Pacific provides to itself and to other CLECs. See Deere

Affidavit ¶ 49. Pacific provides access to UNEs at any

technically feasible point. Id. ¶ 51. The UNEs are made

available in a manner that allows CLECs access to all features,

functions, and capabilities of the UNE and that permits CLECs to

provide any telecommunications service that the network element

is capable of providing. Id. ¶¶ 51, 53. Pacific provides

access to the facilities or functionality of a network element

separately from access to other network elements and for a

separate charge. Id. ¶ 52. Requesting CLECs receive exclusive

use of the unbundled network facility, and the use of its

features, functions, and capabilities for a set period of time.

Id. ¶ 55.

Pacific is providing UNEs at prices that comply with the

1996 Act and the FCC’s rules. The May 10, 1999 Proposed

Decision drafted by the CPUC’s Administrative Law Judge

expressly found that Pacific’s monthly recurring and non-

52

recurring charges satisfy sections 251(c)(2), 251(c)(3), and

251(d)(1) of the Act. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 6,19.

Additionally, in accord with the Workshop Agreement § 3.4.1.1,

Pacific and MCI WorldCom have negotiated interim UNE prices to

replace the “TBD” prices in the Pacific/MCI interconnection

agreement. See Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 31.

Pacific also has satisfied the FCC’s requirement that a BOC

“demonstrate that, as a legal and practical matter, it [can]

make access to unbundled network elements available in a manner

that allows competing carriers to combine them.” Second

Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20700, ¶ 163. Pacific provides

existing combinations of network elements to CLECs in accordance

with its interconnection agreements. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 135.

For CLECs that prefer to execute UNE combinations themselves,

Pacific has developed five different ways of accomplishing the

combination. See Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 65-74.

Pacific has satisfied the CPUC’s requirements regarding

UNE-related intellectual property issues. See Final Decision,

App. B at 16. When a CLEC’s access to a UNE requires access to

intellectual property, Pacific provides a list of the vendor(s)

that own the intellectual property as well as a description of

the specific license agreement(s), including permitted uses,

limits on number of users, and/or number of minutes. See

Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 141. Pacific contacts the vendor(s) to

53

determine if the CLEC will be required to sign a nondisclosure

agreement to obtain this information. See id. At the written

request of the CLEC, Pacific will negotiate, on the CLEC’s

behalf, right-to-use agreements that parallel Pacific’s own

agreements with the vendor(s). See id. Pacific does not charge

CLECs for these negotiations or the associated right-to-use

fees. See id.

Pacific also has complied with the Commission’s

requirements concerning equipment used in conjunction with UNEs.

Pacific provides any equipment required to make a UNE function

as specified in the CLEC’s interconnection agreement at no

additional charge. Deere Affidavit ¶ 224. After working with

CLECs to develop a list of the ancillary equipment required to

make UNEs function, Pacific advised CLECs via Accessible Letter

of the availability and pricing of this equipment. Id. ¶¶ 224-

228.

Finally, as discussed above under checklist item (i)

(interconnection), Pacific has complied with the CPUC’s

requirements regarding use of the INER process to obtain access

to new UNEs. See Hopfinger Affidavit ¶¶ 43-51.

E. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (iii)

Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iii) requires a BOC to provide

“[n]ondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and

54

rights-of-way owned or controlled by the [BOC] at just and

reasonable rates in accordance with the requirements of section

224.” 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iii). The Commission found in

its Final Decision that Pacific provides the required

nondiscriminatory access. Final Decision App. B at 17; see also

Draft FCC Br. at 49-50 (discussing pricing).

Marketplace realities confirm that conclusion. Pacific

currently is furnishing telecommunications carriers access to

more than 7.2 million duct-feet (more than 1,370 miles, or

roughly the same distance as four trips between Los Angeles and

San Francisco) of conduit space and more than 370,000 poles in

California. Hopfinger Affidavit Attach. A.

Pacific has implemented the CPUC’s decision D.98-10-058,

which established specific rules for use of Pacific Bell’s

rights-of-way. Pacific will continue providing

nondiscriminatory access to poles, conduits and rights-of-way,

as its CPUC-approved interconnection agreements and CPUC

decisions require.

F. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (iv)

Pacific complies with checklist item (iv), which requires a

BOC to make available local loop transmission from central

offices to customer premises, unbundled from local switching or

other services. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iv). Standard

55

unbundled local loops available under Pacific’s CPUC-approved

interconnection agreements are 2-wire analog loops with no more

than 8db loss, 4-wire analog loops, 2-wire ISDN digital grade

lines, and 4-wire DS-1 digital grade lines. Deere Affidavit

¶ 82; AT&T/MCI/Sprint Agreements Attach. 6, § 3.2. CLECs may

request additional loop types not specified in interconnection

agreements through the INER process described in Part I.C,

above. Deere Affidavit ¶ 86; see AT&T/MCI Agreements Attach. 6,

§ 1.6.1.

Loop Qualification. Pacific has enhanced its OSS to assist

CLECs in obtaining xDSL-qualified loops for their customers.

The enhancements include real-time electronic access to

databases containing information about the suitability of loops

for xDSL service. Murray Affidavit ¶¶ 25-29. CLECs may access

this information through either of two electronic pre-ordering

interfaces -– Verigate or DataGate. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. These

interfaces access PREMIS, the same system Pacific retail

personnel access for xDSL loop qualification. Viveros Affidavit

¶¶ 67-68. When CLECs access PREMIS, they review the same loop

information available to Pacific’s retail personnel. Id. ¶ 5.

PREMIS provides initial xDSL qualification information based on

loop length. Id. ¶¶ 67-68. Pacific has invited CLECs to

identify central offices where they plan to offer xDSL services

56

so that Pacific can load an equivalent loop length indicator for

those offices into PREMIS. Id.

CLECs that choose not to access loop qualification

information electronically, or that desire additional pre-order

qualification information, may submit a K1023 CLEC Request Form

to Pacific’s FLSC. Murray Affidavit ¶¶ 25-29. Pacific will

respond by providing loop length information, whether the loop

is copper or has pair gain information about the presence of

load coils, and an equivalency factor. Id. ¶¶ 27. This

information allows the CLEC to determine whether a particular

xDSL technology will work on a specific loop. Id. ¶ 29.

Pacific is implementing a K1023 e-mail exchange to permit CLECs

to submit the K1023 form by e-mail and to receive electronic

responses. Id. ¶ 28.

Spectrum Management. Pacific assigns loops to minimize

interference among advanced services and between advanced

services and other services. Deere Affidavit ¶ 87.

Regardless of whether the service at issue is provided by a

CLEC or by Pacific, Pacific manages spectrum in a competitively

neutral and nondiscriminatory manner consistent with relevant

industry standards, including ANSI standards for xDSL services.

Id. ¶¶ 90-91, 94. CLECs are informed of these standards. For

example, on March 10, 1999, Pacific issued an Accessible Letter

informing CLECs of an update to its xDSL standards in Technical

57

Publication 76730. Id. ¶ 92. Pacific’s spectrum management

policies and procedures allow for the widest possible deployment

of xDSL services. Id. ¶ 94. Pacific does not deny CLECs’

requests for xDSL deployment on a particular loop because of

spectral interference. Murray Affidavit ¶ 40.

Pacific treats as proprietary to the CLEC any information

it collects from a CLEC in connection with deployment of xDSL

service over unbundled loops (or, indeed, any other use of an

unbundled loop). Id. ¶ 41. Pacific does not use any such

information for its own retail marketing or other retail

purposes. Id.

Integrated Digital Loop Carrier. The FCC and this

Commission have required that CLECs have a means of accessing

unbundled loops where remote concentration is used. See Second

Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20713, ¶ 187; Final Decision at

162 & App. B at 18. Pacific provides CLECs copper or universal

digital loop carrier (“UDLC”) facilities that allow unbundled

access to the very small percentage of end-user loops in

California currently served using integrated digital loop

carrier (“IDLC”) equipment, Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 96-97; Hopfinger

Affidavit ¶ 182. As explained in the Deere Affidavit, the

quality of service offered over loops served by UDLC is at

parity with the quality of service offered over loops served by

IDLC. Deere Affidavit ¶ 100. In the rare instances in which

58

alternative copper or UDLC facilities are not available, Pacific

will, pursuant to the INER process, design, engineer and install

such facilities at the CLEC’s request and expense. Deere

Affidavit ¶ 98.

Pacific has complied with the Commission’s instruction, see

Final Decision, App. B at 19, to provide a report of Pacific’s

deployment of IDLC loops. Attachment W to the Deere Affidavit

provides the required information as of the end of first quarter

1999. Id. ¶ 99.

Loop Installation/Provisioning. Pacific has provisioned

nearly 69,000 unbundled loops in California. Hopfinger

Affidavit Attach. A. In addition to this extensive commercial

experience, Pacific monitors on a monthly basis its ability to

process orders and bill for unbundled loops. See Johnson

Affidavit ¶¶ 14, 24-26. Pacific also has developed procedures

and performance measurements to verify that CLEC orders for

coordinated conversion of unbundled loops with number

portability are processed in a timely manner, with no

unnecessary disruption of service. See id. ¶ 15.

Pursuant to the Staff’s recommendation, see Final Decision

at 42-43 & App. B at 19-20, Pacific has revised its wholesale

processes to resolve and track problems associated with initial

loop installations as provisioning issues, rather than

maintenance issues. Tenerelli Affidavit ¶ 51. Pacific also has

59

split the provisioning and maintenance groups in its LOC, with

the former now responsible for the loop installation process.

Id. ¶ 10. Thus, if a problem with an unbundled loop is

identified on the date of installation, it is resolved through

the LOC provisioning process. Id.

Pacific has provided and published a toll-free number CLECs

can use to report non-functioning loops at installation. Id.

¶ 51. Pacific also has agreed in the collaborative workshops

not to reset a loop’s trouble history when the customer served

by that loop migrates service from Pacific to a CLEC. Id. ¶ 52.

Pacific makes every effort to have a trouble resolved in

four hours if the problem involves network translations. Id.

¶ 35. Pacific informed CLECs of this commitment by Accessible

Letter CLECC 99-204 and has updated the CLEC Handbook. Id.

Pacific also now clearly and visibly tags the demarcation point

at the Subscriber Network Interface or equivalent point of entry

that contains a minimum of 10 loops, to assist CLECs in

identifying the point where the installation will occur. Id.

¶ 36.

Technical Specifications. At the Commission’s request,

Final Decision at 155, Pacific has conducted meetings with

industry participants for the purpose of clearly defining loop

technical specifications using Network Channel codes. Murray

Affidavit ¶¶ 37-38. Pacific participated in four such forums.

60

Id. ¶ 37. Consistent with these meetings, Pacific informed

CLECs of the information that they are required to include in

their xDSL loop orders. Id. ¶ 38. Pacific’s ordering

requirements concerning “dedicated binder group” assignments for

xDSL technology are consistent with the results of Pacific’s

collaborative workshop discussions with CLECs and the various

industry-wide xDSL forums. Deere Affidavit ¶ 93.

G. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (v)

Section 271(c)(2)(B)(v) requires Pacific to offer local

transport unbundled from switching or other services. 47 U.S.C.

§ 271(C)(2)(b)(V). Pacific’s shared and dedicated transport

offerings in California satisfy this checklist item. Deere

Affidavit ¶¶ 101-111.

Shared Transe In accordance with the “shared transport”

requirements of the FCC’s Third Reconsideration Order in Docket

No. 96-98, Pacific makes available shared transport between

Pacific central office switches, between Pacific tandem

switches, and between Pacific tandem switches and Pacific

central office switches.8 See Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 101-103;

AT&T/MCI Agreements Attach. 6 §§ 5.13-14. CLECs using shared

8 On June 1, 1999, the Supreme Court remanded the Commission’s rules regardingshared transport to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, for reconsiderationin light of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the “necessary” and“impair” standards of 47 U.S.C. § 251(d)(2). Ameritech Corp. v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994 (U.S. June 1, 1999). Pacific will comply fully with theterms of its interconnection agreements and with any binding obligations

61

transport have access to the same routing tables Pacific uses

for its retail operations. Deere Affidavit ¶ 103.

Shared transport trunks are engineered to blockage levels

specified in Pacific’s interconnection agreements. Johnson

Affidavit ¶¶ 22-23; see, e.g., AT&T Agreement Attach. 18. This

engineering policy is backed by performance measurements and

performance commitments. Johnson Affidavit ¶¶ 22-23 & Attach. C

at 38.

Dedicated Transport. Dedicated transport is available, at

capacities up to OC-48 (2488.320 Mb/s), between a Pacific tandem

or end office and a CLEC tandem or end office. Deere Affidavit

¶ 109. Cross-connections also are available from Pacific for

use with unbundled dedicated transport. Id. ¶ 80. In addition,

Pacific offers CLECs use of its Digital Cross-Connect System

(“DCS”) –- which allows CLECs to exchange signals between high-

speed digital circuits without returning the circuits to analog

electrical signals -– with the same functionality that Pacific

provides its interexchange carrier customers. Id. ¶ 110.

Pacific has complied with the requirement that it offer

CLECs in California high-bandwidth transport services, including

optical-level bandwidths. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 153. Pacific

developed methods and procedures for ordering these types of

transport and notified CLECs of the availability of these speeds

regarding shared transport that emerge from the remand proceedings.

62

by Accessible Letter. OC-3 and O-C12 facilities have been

offered at cost-based rates based on the Commission’s TELRIC

methodology. Id. ¶ 70.

Pacific offers cross-boundary unbundled dedicated transport

between a Pacific exchange and another LEC’s contiguous

exchange. Deere Affidavit ¶ 105. Pacific notified CLECs via

Accessible Letters CLECC 98-116 and CLECC 99-112 that

interconnection agreements may be modified in order to implement

cross-boundary unbundled transport. Id. ¶¶ 105-108 & Attach. Y &

Z; see Final Decision, App. B at 20. CLECs are able to use

standard contract language or negotiate terms for cross-boundary

capability for dedicated transport facilities. Id. ¶ 108.

Pacific currently provides cross-boundary unbundled transport to

three CLECs. Id. ¶ 107.

63

H. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (vi)

Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vi) requires BOCs to make available

local switching unbundled from transport, local loops, or other

services. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(VI). Pacific’s unbundled

switching offerings fully satisfy the requirements of this

checklist item and of the Final Decision. Deere Affidavit

¶¶ 112-145.

Line-Side and Trunk-Side Facilities of the Switch and Basic

Switching Functions. Pacific provides requesting carriers

access to line-side and trunk-side facilities, plus the

features, functions, and capabilities of the switch. See id.

¶ 113. This includes, among other things, the connection

between a loop termination and a switch line card, id.; the

connection between a trunk termination and the trunk card, id.

¶ 114; analog and ISDN basic rate interface trunk ports, id.

¶ 138; all vertical features of the switch, id. ¶ 115; and any

technically feasible routing features, such as the ability to

route calls to a CLEC’s chosen directory assistance and operator

services facilities over CLEC-designated trunks, id. Pacific

offers three routing configurations for unbundled switching

elements (designated as Options A, B, and C), as well as Resale

64

Operator Alternate Routing (“ROAR”). Id. ¶ 117; see Final

Decision, App. B at 21.

Pacific allows CLECs to designate the features and

functions that are to be activated on a particular unbundled

switch port, provided that such features and functions are

available in the software of that switch. Deere Affidavit

¶ 137. CLECs order these features using the same ordering

process that Pacific uses for its retail operations. Id.

Customized Routing. Consistent with the Final Decision,

App. B at 21, Pacific has performed extensive technical trials

of CLECs’ ability to custom-route their traffic using unbundled

switching Options B (which provides customized routing of 0+, 0-

and/or directory assistance calls) and C (wherein the CLEC

custom-designs its own switch-level routing scheme). Deere

Affidavit ¶¶ 133-135 & Attach. CC.

Pacific has revised the procedures under which it replaces

its older analog switches with new digital ones. See Final

Decision, App. B at 21-22. In accordance with the Final

Decision, Pacific made clear in Accessible Letters that

conditions in a prior letter dated August 15, 1997, will not

apply. These conditions involved “collapse” of an analog switch

in which a CLEC is using unbundled switching capacity into a

digital switch. Deere Affidavit ¶ 126. Further, when Pacific

plans to collapse an analog switch into a digital switch,

65

Pacific will inform a CLEC with a Virtual Telephone Exchange

(“VTE”) in the analog switch of the number of VTEs that will be

available in the digital switch and permit the CLEC to reserve a

VTE in the new switch at no charge. Id. ¶¶ 127-129. If VTEs

are in short supply in the digital switch, a CLEC with an

existing VTE in the analog switch will have the option of

installing its VTE in the digital switch before capacity is

given to another CLEC. Id. ¶ 128. Finally, when Pacific

replaces analog switches outright with digital equipment (“dial-

with-dial”), Pacific will not charge CLECs the cost of re-

establishing their VTEs in the new digital switch. Id. ¶ 129.

Pacific notified CLECs of these policies regarding collapses and

dial-with-dial replacements via Accessible Letters and revisions

to the CLEC Handbook. Id. ¶¶ 126-129.

Overflow of Transport Traffic. For CLECs ordering

unbundled dedicated transport in conjunction with Option C

unbundled switching, Pacific allows the CLEC’s dedicated

transport traffic that exceeds the capacity of the dedicated

trunks to overflow onto Pacific’s shared transport network. Id.

¶ 132, Attach EE & AA.

Terminating Charges for Unbundled Switching, Ordering and

Provisioning of Unbundled Switching, and Tandem Switching.

Pursuant to this Commission’s recommendation, see Final

Decision, App. B at 21, Pacific has developed a factor for

66

estimating terminating charges for CLECs purchasing unbundled

local switching. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶¶ 60-61. Pacific made

this factor available to CLECs on May 6, 1999 via Accessible

Letter CLECC 99-155. Id. ¶ 60 & Attach. A-086. Pacific’s

interconnection agreement with MCI incorporates this method.

Id. ¶ 60.

Pacific has developed detailed, nondiscriminatory methods

and procedures for ordering and provisioning of unbundled

switching, both on a stand-alone basis and in combination with

other UNEs. See Final Decision, App. B at 22; Deere Affidavit

¶ 118; Murray Affidavit ¶¶ 43-44; Viveros Affidavit ¶ 95. These

procedures are commercially proven. As of May 31, 1999, Pacific

was furnishing CLECs 49 Option A unbundled switch ports in

California. Deere Affidavit ¶ 117. Additionally, Pacific has

provisioned ROAR VTEs in 6 different switches. Id. As already

noted, 49 unbundled switch ports are being used in combination

with loops. Deere Affidavit Id. In addition, Pacific offers a

standard switching option and three custom tandem switching

options. Id. ¶ 140.

I. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (vii)

Pacific satisfies the requirements of checklist item (vii),

47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(vii). Pacific’s emergency, directory

assistance (“DA”), and operator services (“OS”) are available to

67

CLECs that want them in accordance with all congressional, FCC,

and CPUC requirements. See generally Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 146-

172; Cain Affidavit.

E911 Service. Pacific provides CLEC customers and its own

retail customers identical access to E911 service.9 Deere

Affidavit ¶ 128; 146 et seq. See, e.g., AT&T/Sprint Agreements

Attach. 5, § 3.5 & Attach. 6, § 4.1.3.3; MCI Agreement Attach.

5, § 3.6 & Attach. 6, § 4.1.3.3; TCG Agreement § IV.A. Pacific

provides E911 service via tariff and interconnection agreements.

As of May 31, 1999, 40 resellers and 20 facilities-based CLECs

were being served by Pacific’s E911 database. Deere Affidavit

¶ 148.

For all requesting CLECs, Pacific will store CLEC customer

information in Pacific’s E911 Database Management System,

transport E911 calls from the CLEC’s chosen switching facilities

to Pacific’s E911 control office, switch those calls through the

control office to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point

(“PSAP”), and transmit the relevant customer information to the

PSAP. Id. ¶¶ 149, 169. Pacific provides and maintains all

equipment necessary for these services. Id. ¶ 170.

9 With Enhanced 911 (“E911”) service, the governmental body responding to anemergency call automatically receives the name and location of the caller,allowing for fast, efficient emergency response. E911 service has beenavailable throughout California since November 1992. Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 147,150.

68

Pacific maintains dedicated E911 circuits according to its

E911 tariff and the specifications of the E911 customer. Id.

¶ 171. Pacific has installed 1193 E911 trunks to serve CLECs in

California. Hopfinger Affidavit Attach. A. Facility-based

CLECs purchase 911 trunks from central offices to the 911

selective router. From there, the CLEC’s 911 call is combined

with Pacific’s 911 traffic and routed to the PSAP. Id. ¶ 169.

CLECs have the ability to enter data about their customers

into several databases known collectively as the “911 database,”

and to receive Pacific’s reports on database accuracy. Id.

¶¶ 142, 151. Pacific provides CLECs the MSAG which ensures

correct street information. The MSAG is available in CD-ROM,

tape, or paper formats. Id. ¶ 168.

Facilities-based CLECs update their own records to the E911

database through the MS Gateway. Id. ¶ 153. CLECs usually

perform error correction on their 911 database records

themselves, although they have the option of retaining Pacific

to correct any errors in their records that fail the built-in

edits. Id. ¶ 153. These improvements ensure that CLECs can

verify E911 orders in real time and correct errors to their 911

database listings before the data is uploaded to Pacific’s back-

end systems. See Viveros Affidavit ¶ 130. All 911 database

updates associated with resold services are processed via the

SORD order and errors are corrected by the Pacific Data

69

Integrity Unit (“DIU”). Id. ¶¶ 153-154. Pacific performs error

correction on all resellers’ records that fail initial edits.

Id. ¶ 154.

In the Commission’s Collaborative Workshops, Pacific made a

number of commitments aimed at improving its 911 database

listings processes. See Section I.A, supra (OSS discussion).

These nondiscriminatory procedures and the associated

performance measurements ensure that CLEC updates are timely and

accurate. See Johnson Affidavit ¶¶ 28-29

Pacific has procedures in place that protect the

confidentiality of the customer-specific information in the E911

database. Id. ¶ 172.

Directory Assistance. Pacific’s DA offerings allow CLECs

(including facilities-based carriers as well as resellers) to

obtain nondiscriminatory access to DA, DA call completion, call

branding, and call rating services. See generally Cain

Affidavit. CLECs may provide DA services to their customers,

route their customers’ DA calls to a third-party provider, or

have Pacific provide these services. Id. ¶ 10. Currently,

Pacific’s unbundled DA services are offered at the interim

discount established by the CPUC in the AT&T arbitration and

found by this Commission to comply with the requirements of the

Act. A decision on the permanent prices for unbundled DA

services is pending in the OANAD proceeding. See id. ¶ 10, n.8.

70

For resale customers, the rates are Pacific’s retail DA rates

less the 17 percent resale discount set by this Commission.

Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 32.

Seven facilities-based CLECs in California currently are

utilizing Pacific’s unbundled DA offerings. Cain Affidavit

¶ 41. DA is provided to 30 resellers. Id. When a CLEC opts to

have Pacific provide DA services, that CLEC’s customers obtain

DA services through the same dialing arrangements used by

Pacific’s own customers, so there is no additional dialing

delay. Cain Affidavit ¶¶ 25, 30, 40; see 47 C.F.R.

§§ 51.217(a)(2), (b).

CLECs that provide their own DA services can obtain direct,

nondiscriminatory access to listing information by searching the

same DA database that Pacific’s DA operators use. Cain

Affidavit ¶¶ 49-54. Pacific also offers directory listings on a

bulk basis (magnetic tape or electronic file transfer). Id.

¶ 42. Pacific provides DA listing information to 6 third-party

providers and 2 CLECs. Id. ¶¶ 42-43. The FCC requires that

Pacific include all available DA listings information for

Pacific and all other incumbent LECs and CLECs when affording

CLECs access to its DA listings. Second Louisiana Order,

13 FCC Rcd at 20705, ¶ 249. Pacific has actively sought

carriers’ written consent to share their listings and complies

with the FCC requirements. Cain Affidavit ¶¶ 44-48.

71

As recommended by this Commission, Pacific has performed a

root cause analysis of errors in CLECs’ DA listings. Viveros

Affidavit ¶¶ 149, 154. To address this issue, moreover, Pacific

established a Listings Error Correction Unit (“LECU”) that

corrects CLEC errors as they occur. Murray Affidavit ¶ 51.

This unit is sufficiently staffed to ensure that CLECs’ customer

listings are maintained with the same accuracy and reliability

as Pacific’s retail customer listings. In fact, Pacific’s LECU

routinely corrects listings errors for CLECs more quickly than

Pacific’s own retail listings errors are corrected. Id.

Operator Services. In the Initial Staff Report, Commission

Staff found that Pacific offers CLECs nondiscriminatory access

to operator call completion services. Initial Staff Report at

58. Pacific continues to comply with all requirements for

nondiscriminatory access to OS.

Pacific’s OS include operator-assisted call processing,

access to alternate billing services, busy line verification,

emergency interrupt, and call rating and reference information.

Cain Affidavit ¶¶ 11-24. Pacific provides nondiscriminatory

access to each of these services. Id. ¶¶ 11-24. OS calls from

Pacific’s retail customers and from CLECs’ customers are

processed by the same OS system and personnel in the order in

which they are received. Id. ¶ 23. CLEC customers therefore

receive the same answer performance as Pacific retail customers.

72

Id. CLECs that purchase unbundled OS are billed UNE rates. For

resale customers, the rates are Pacific’s retail operator

services rates less the Commission-set 17 percent resale

discount. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 32. Pacific provides branding

for DA and OS to any requesting CLEC in California. Cain

Affidavit ¶¶ 19-20, 29, 32-34, 36-37.

J. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (viii)

Pacific makes available White Pages listings for the end-

users of both resellers and facilities-based CLECs. Hopfinger

Affidavit ¶¶ 142-143; see also AT&T/Sprint/ICG Agreements

Attach. 4, § 2; MCI Agreement Attach. 4, § 1; TCG Agreement

§ V.A. These listings are maintained in Pacific’s White Pages

database in the same manner as listings for Pacific’s retail

customers. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 145; Johnson Affidavit ¶¶ 27-

28.

As discussed in Part I.A, above, Pacific has made many

improvements and modifications to its pre-ordering procedures to

ensure that CLECs can efficiently place orders for White Pages

listings, and that these orders flow through Pacific’s systems

in a nondiscriminatory manner. In addition, Pacific maintains a

“White Pages Listings User Guide” that provides CLECs with

instructions for placing orders for White Pages listings.

Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 150. A copy of this guide is available on

73

Pacific’s CLEC website. Id. Pacific also has modified its CLEC

Handbook to provide clearer and more complete instructions

regarding the ordering of Complex Caption listings. Id. ¶ 152;

see Final Decision at 78-79.

Pacific’s directories contain more than 231,000 listings

for customers of facilities-based CLECs and resellers in

California. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 144. Pacific will transmit

facilities-based CLECs’ listings to third-party directory

publishers at a CLEC’s request. Id. ¶ 151.

CLECs may choose to be included, at no charge, in the White

Pages Customer Guide section of Pacific’s directories. Id.

¶ 149. This listing, which may occupy up to 2 full pages

without charge, contains carrier-specific contact information.

Id. CLECs also may purchase additional pages at tariffed rates.

Id. To date, 8 CLECs have made arrangements to appear on

Customer Guide pages, and at least one CLEC appears in 69

California directories. Id.

Pacific delivers White Pages directories to the customers

of resellers and facilities-based CLECs using exactly the same

procedures as for Pacific’s own retail customers. Id. ¶ 143.

Subsequent to the normal directory distribution cycle, CLECs can

obtain additional copies of directories for their customers on

the same terms and conditions as Pacific provides directories to

its own retail customers. Id.

74

K. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (ix)

When CLECs sign up new customers who have not previously

had a telephone number, or serve customers who wish to add a new

number or change their number, CLECs require access to telephone

numbers. Pacific provides this access, in satisfaction of

checklist item (ix), as this Commission has determined. See

Final Decision at 53, 180. Since that determination in July

1998, Pacific has continued to fulfill its responsibilities in

this area and completed the transfer of code administration

functions to Lockheed Martin on March 19, 1999. See Deere

Affidavit ¶¶ 215, 216.

L. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (x)

Pacific also satisfies the checklist’s requirements for

affording CLECs access to signaling and call-related databases.

See 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(x); Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 173-202;

AT&T Agreement Attach. 6, § 6.

Signaling Networks. When a CLEC purchases unbundled

switching from Pacific, it automatically obtains the same access

to Pacific’s signaling network as Pacific provides itself.

Deere Affidavit ¶ 175; AT&T Agreement Attach. 6, §§ 6.1-6.2.

Pacific also makes available as a separate UNE offering access

to its SS7 signaling links (dedicated transmission paths

carrying signaling messages between switches and signaling

75

networks) and signal transfer points (signaling message switches

that interconnect signaling links to route signaling messages

between switches and databases). Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 174-176.

CLECs can use this access to furnish SS7-based services for

their own end-user customers’ calls or the calls of customers of

other carriers. Id. ¶ 174. SS7 signaling is available between

CLEC switches, between CLEC switches and Pacific switches, or

between CLEC switches and the networks of other carriers

connected to Pacific’s SS7 network. Id. CLECs may obtain SS7

interconnection facilities from Pacific or another provider of

their choice. Id. ¶ 176. In compliance with CPUC requirements,

Pacific has instituted and maintained the necessary process

improvements to ensure timely and accurate implementation of

database services. Id. ¶ 195. As of May 31, 1999, 13 CLECs in

California connect their switches to Pacific’s SS7 network. Id.

¶ 174.

Nondiscriminatory Access to Databases. Pacific’s CPUC-

approved agreements offer CLECs nondiscriminatory access to a

variety of call-related databases. See, e.g., AT&T Agreement

Attach. 6, §§ 6.3-7.3.5. This access enables CLECs to provide

the types of sophisticated calling capabilities Pacific’s own

customers receive, without having to duplicate Pacific’s

investment in these technologies. Specifically, Pacific

76

provides access to its Line Information Database (“LIDB”), toll-

free databases, and AIN. See Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 173-202.

Access to Pacific’s LIDB enables CLECs to store their line

and billing records in the LIDB on the same basis as Pacific

stores its records. Id. ¶¶ 179-189; AT&T Agreement Attach. 6,

§ 6.5. Nondiscriminatory access to Pacific’s Calling Name

Delivery Database (“CNAM”) allows CLECs to offer their customers

services such as Caller ID services. Deere Affidavit ¶¶ 179-

180. For completion of toll-free calls, Pacific’s approved

agreements afford CLECs unbundled access to Pacific’s Toll Free

Calling (800 and 888) Database, plus optional translation, call

validation, and call routing features. Id. ¶¶ 190-191; AT&T

Agreement Attach. 6, § 6.4.

AIN services allow CLECs to create their own custom

telecommunications services transmitted by SS7 messages from a

switch to a SCP database. Deere Affidavit ¶ 192; AT&T Agreement

Attach. 6, § 6.6. Pacific makes available to CLECs Bellcore AIN

services that can be supported by Pacific’s network

infrastructure. Deere Affidavit ¶ 201. Pacific does not charge

CLECs for the regulatory costs associated with making AIN

capabilities available. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 28.

Pacific’s processes for CLEC deployment of AIN are fair and

nondiscriminatory. See Final Decision, App. B at 22. Pacific

offers CLECs three options for creating AIN services and

77

provides in its CLEC Handbook an application form for AIN

services and an explanation of the service creation process.

Deere Affidavit ¶ 198. As noted in the CLEC Handbook, Pacific

will make available technical documents describing AIN

functionality upon request. Id. ¶ 199.

All CLECs accessing these data administration databases,

whether using unbundled local switching or other switching

facilities, have access to all the same features and functions

of each database as Pacific. See id. ¶ 179 (LIDB); id. ¶ 185

(CNAM database); id. ¶¶ 190-191 (toll-free calling database);

id. ¶¶ 192-193 (AIN).

SMS. Pacific offers nondiscriminatory access to its

service management systems (“SMS”), which are used to create,

modify, or update information in call-related databases that is

necessary for call routing and completion. 47 C.F.R.

§ 51.319(e)(3); Deere Affidavit ¶ 187 (LIDB and CNAM), id. ¶ 193

(AIN); AT&T Agreement Attach. 6, § 7. Requesting carriers are

provided all the relevant instructions they need to format and

enter information into the appropriate databases. Deere

Affidavit ¶ 187.

CLECs may request additional arrangements for access to

Pacific’s signaling and call-related databases through the INER

process. Id. ¶ 183.

78

M. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (xi)

Pacific makes available number portability in accordance with

checklist item (xi). Number portability enables customers to

retain their existing telephone number when they switch from

Pacific to a facilities-based CLEC.

Long-Term Number Portability. As the Fleming Affidavit

describes, Pacific has implemented long-term number portability

in California using the Location Routing Number (“LRN”) method.

The FCC has identified LRN “as the preferred method for

providing long-term number portability.” Second Report and

Order, Telephone Number Portability, 12 FCC Rcd 12281, 12287,

¶ 8 (1997).

Pursuant to the switch request process established by the

FCC and this Commission, Pacific and the CPUC distributed

surveys to all carriers operating within the 13 California

metropolitan statistical areas (“MSAs”) covered by the CPUC’s

implementation schedule for LNP. Fleming Affidavit ¶ 13. Based

on the carriers’ switch selections, Pacific deployed LNP,

including live commercial porting, in the Los Angeles MSA on

July 19, 1998; in Riverside and San Diego on August 18, 1998; in

Orange County, Oakland, and San Francisco one month later; in

the San Jose, Sacramento, and Fresno MSAs on October 19, 1998;

and in the Ventura, Bakersfield, Stockton, and Vallejo MSAs on

79

December 31, 1998. Fleming Affidavit Attach. B. Each of these

deployments was completed within the period allowed by the FCC.

Id.

As of February 1, 1999, Pacific had made LNP operational in

all of its switches in California. Fleming Affidavit ¶ 15.

Prior to equipping all of its switches with LNP capability,

Pacific received requests to equip 8 switches outside of the top

MSAs in California with LNP capability. Fleming Affidavit ¶ 15

& Attach. C. Pacific responded to all of these requests within

10 business days with switch deployment dates that comply with

the FCC’s established intervals. Id. ¶ 15. Thus far, Pacific

has ported 141,941 former Pacific lines to CLECs using LNP. Id.

¶ 17.

Pacific’s OSS enable CLECs to order LNP with or without an

unbundled loop. Viveros Affidavit ¶ 164; Fleming Affidavit ¶ 18

and Attach E. Pacific conducted extensive intra- and inter-

company testing to ensure its ability properly to support

ordering, maintenance and repair, and billing of LNP with or

without a loop, and these capabilities are now operationally

proven. Fleming Affidavit ¶ 18.

Pursuant to the Commission’s order, Pacific monitored the

performance of its Frame Due Time (“FDT”) process. Final

Decision, App. B at 23; Tenerelli Affidavit ¶¶ 20-21 & Attach.

B. With implementation of LNP, the FDT process has been

80

supplemented by a 10-digit trigger process for most porting

orders. Fleming Affidavit ¶ 21. The trigger process minimizes

the service disruptions associated with coordinated conversions.

Id.; see also Johnson Affidavit ¶ 15 (discussing performance

measurements). Moreover, ongoing monitoring of the To Be Called

Cut (“TBCC”) process (which is described in the Tenerelli

Affidavit) ¶¶23-32 proves that Pacific also is providing

nondiscriminatory number porting where this process is used.

Tenerelli Affidavit ¶¶ 31-32. In a TBCC cut, Pacific does not

make the cut until it receives the CLEC’s “all clear” phone

call. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. For conversions scheduled to occur outside

of normal business hours, Pacific permits CLECs to cancel the

conversion until 3 p.m. the afternoon of the scheduled

conversion, without being charged. Id. ¶ 28.

Pacific adheres to the recommendations issued by the

Operations, Planning and Implementation (“OP/I”) Sub-committee

of the LNP Task Force. See Final Decision, App. B at 24;

Fleming Affidavit ¶ 18. The OP/I report Pacific filed with the

CPUC on February 16, 1999, and Pacific’s simultaneously issued

Accessible Letter on this topic, detailed Pacific’s compliance

with the OP/I recommendations. Fleming Affidavit ¶ 18.

Pacific recovers its costs of LNP via a monthly end-user

charge and a database query service charge assessed on CLECs,

81

pursuant to a tariff approved by the FCC on July 1, 1999. Id.

¶ 31.

Interim Number Portability. Prior to implementing LNP,

Pacific employed Interim Number Portability (“INP”) as a

temporary means of enabling former Pacific customers to retain

their phone numbers when they switch their local service to a

facilities-based CLEC. Deere Affidavit ¶ 205. In accordance

with the orders of this Commission, the FCC, and section

271(c)(2)(B)(xi) of the 1996 Act, Pacific made INP available

through Directory Number Call Forwarding (“DNCF”), Flex Direct

Inward Dialing (“Flex DID”), and Route Indexing (both the Direct

Number or Portability Hub methods), at the CLEC’s option. Deere

Affidavit ¶ 205; see also AT&T Agreement Attach. 15, § 2. As an

alternative to INP, Pacific also would reassign NXX codes where

all numbers covered by the code were served by the same CLEC.

Deere Affidavit ¶ 206.

Generally, Pacific converts lines that were ported using INP

to LNP within 90 days.10 Pacific will negotiate modifications

to this 90-day window on a case-by-case basis, based on

individual CLEC’s needs. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 27. As of May

31, 1999 at the request of the CLECs, Pacific had migrated

about 90% of INP orders to LNP. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 17.

10 Pursuant to the Commission’s direction, see Final Decision, App. B at 23,Pacific does not charge CLECs remote call forwarding tariff rates for numbers

82

N. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (xii)

Local dialing parity ensures that CLECs’ customers are able

to place calls within a given local calling area by dialing the

same number of digits as a Pacific end user. The FCC has held

“that local dialing parity will be achieved upon implementation

of the number portability and interconnection requirements of

section 251.” Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion

and Order, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 19392, 19430,

¶ 71 (1996). In satisfaction of checklist item (xii), Pacific’s

CPUC-approved interconnection agreements provide CLECs

nondiscriminatory access to the services and information that

are necessary to allow local dialing parity. See Deere

Affidavit ¶¶ 209-210; TCG/Brooks Fiber Agreements § VIII;

AT&T/Sprint Agreements Attach. 5, § 2.3 (resale); MCI Agreement

Attach. 5, § 2.4 (resale).

Pacific ensures in its interconnection agreements that

CLECs’ end users will not have to use access codes or dial any

greater number of digits than Pacific end users to complete the

same call. Deere Affidavit ¶ 210. Because CLEC central office

switches are connected to the trunk side of the Pacific tandem

or central office switch in the same manner as Pacific’s own

that remain on INP. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 27.

83

central office switches and the switches of other incumbent LECs

are connected, facilities-based CLECs’ customers do not

experience additional dialing delays or requirements. Id.

In its Final Decision, the Commission found that Pacific

had satisfied this checklist item. Final Decision at 60-61,

188-189. Pacific continues to ensure that local dialing parity

exists between CLECs’ end user customers and Pacific’s own

customers.

O. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (xiii)

Pacific’s reciprocal compensation arrangements satisfy

checklist item (xiii), as this Commission has found. Final

Decision at 189. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiii) requires Pacific to

establish, under section 252(d)(2), just and reasonable terms

and conditions that provide for mutual and reciprocal recovery

by Pacific and the CLEC of the costs associated with

transporting and terminating local calls that originate on the

other carrier’s network. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(xiii).

Pacific's arbitrated interconnection agreements with AT&T,

MCI/WorldCom, and Sprint provide for interim bill-and-keep

compensation for local traffic until the CPUC determines a

permanent rate. See AT&T/ICG Agreements Attach. 8 App. A, 18

§§ III-IV; MCI/Sprint Agreements Attach. 8 App. A, 18 §§ 3-4;

MFS Agreement § VI.B; TCG Agreement § IX. Almost all of

84

Pacific’s interconnection agreements with CLECs employ the bill

and keep method of compensation, which the Commission determined

to be the preferred method. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 36.

In February 1999, the FCC ruled that, although Internet

traffic is “jurisdictionally mixed and appears to be largely

interstate,” incumbent LECs should abide by the terms of their

current interconnection agreements as interpreted in individual

state commissions’ decisions regarding reciprocal compensation,

consistent with federal law.11 This Commission previously had

decided that Internet traffic is “local” and subject to

reciprocal compensation if traffic between an end user’s modem

and an Internet service provider stays within a single local

calling area. Opinion, Order Instituting Rulemaking on the

Commission’s Own Motion into Competition for Local Exchange

Service, D98-10-057, 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 875, *1, 19-20 (Oct.

22, 1998) (application for rehearing pending). Pacific has,

subject to its rights of appeal, complied with all applicable

PUC and court rulings regarding reciprocal compensation for ISP

traffic. Id. ¶ 34. Pacific has satisfied the requirements of

checklist item (xiii). Final Decision at 189.

11 See Declaratory Ruling in CC Docket No. 96-98 and Notice of ProposedRulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-68, Implementation of the Local CompetitionProvisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Dkt No. 96-98, ¶ 1 (FCCrel. Feb. 26, 1999), appeal pending sub nom., Bell Atlantic Tel. Cos. v. FCC,No. 99-1094 (D.C. Cir. to be argued Nov. 22, 1999).

85

P. Pacific Satisfies All FCC and CPUC RequirementsAssociated with Checklist Item (xiv)

Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv) of the Communications Act

requires a BOC to make its retail telecommunications services

available for resale in accordance with sections 251(c)(4) and

252(d)(3). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv). These provisions of

sections 251 and 252 in turn require incumbent LECs to provide

their retail services at wholesale rates, with no unreasonable

or discriminatory conditions or limitations. Consistent with

these requirements, Pacific’s resale offerings allow CLECs to

enter the local market with virtually no investment or delay –--

a fact confirmed by Pacific’s provisioning of more than 267,000

resold lines in California. Hopfinger Attachment A and

Tenerelli Affidavit ¶ 9.

Availability of Wholesale Rates. Pacific’s approved

agreements offer CLECs wholesale rates for any telephone

exchange service Pacific offers its retail customers, other than

services -– such as short-term promotions -– that are excluded

from resale requirements under the FCC’s regulations. See

Hopfinger Affidavit ¶ 52; see also, e.g., AT&T/Sprint/ICG

Agreements Attach. 5, §§ 2.1-2.2; MCI Agreement Attach. 5,

§§ 2.2-2.3. Beyond the requirements of the Act and FCC’s rules,

moreover, Pacific has made available several additional services

for resale, such as split billing. Hopfinger Affidavit ¶¶ 52.

86

Pacific offers retail services for resale at this

Commission’s generally applicable wholesale discount of 17

percent off of the retail rate. Id. ¶ 32. Pacific will replace

this interim rate with the final resale discounts determined in

the Resale Phase of the OANAD proceeding.

Resale Terms. The resale services that Pacific provides

CLECs are equal in quality to the services Pacific furnishes its

own retail customers. Id. ¶ 52. The only restrictions that

Pacific places on the resale of its promotions comply fully with

all Commission and FCC requirements. Id. ¶¶ 55-59 Attach. V.

Pacific offers wholesale discounts on promotional offerings that

have durations of greater than 90 days. Id. ¶¶ 55. With these

offerings and all others, Pacific states clearly in the advice

letter announcing each promotion whether the promotion is

available for resale. Id. ¶ 57 & Attach. S. For promotional

offerings lasting longer than 90 days, Pacific also indicates in

the resale and retail tariff sheets that the promotion is

available for resale. Id. ¶ 57 & Attach. S. For every

promotion, Pacific lists on the 175-T tariff sheet the specific

rates, credits, or waivers and charges that are applicable to

resellers. Id. ¶ 57 & Attach. S. In cases where Pacific

extends a promotion, the memorandum notice announcing the

extension specifies the total length of time the promotion will

have been in effect, including the extension. Id. ¶ 56.

87

While Pacific has not offered a promotion exceeding 90 days

on bundles of telecommunications and non-telecommunications

services since the issuance of the Final Decision, should

Pacific do so in the future, it will make the telecommunications

services in the bundle available for resale by CLECs, and will

clearly identify the services available for resale in its

descriptions of the bundle. Id. ¶ 58.

As discussed in Part I.A, above, Pacific’s OSS allow

resellers to access pre-ordering, ordering and provisioning,

maintenance and repair, and billing functions for resold

services in an efficient and nondiscriminatory manner.

II. PACIFIC SATISFIES SECTION 271’S TRACK A, STRUCTURALSEPARATION, AND PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL ASTHE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 709.2

In addition to the requirements of the fourteen-point

competitive checklist, Pacific satisfies all other requirements

of section 271. Pacific is eligible to file its application for

interLATA authority in California under Track A, 47 U.S.C.

§ 271(c)(1)(A). The Telecommunications Division concluded more

than a year ago that “Pacific has met the requirements of

Section 271(c)(1)(A) for providing service to a facilities-based

competitor.” Initial Staff Report at 78. The Final Decision at

67-69 noted the Staff’s conclusions and did not call for any

further demonstration of compliance.

88

Likewise, Pacific has satisfied the requirements of section

271(d)(3)(B). Pacific will provide interLATA services in

compliance with the requirements of section 272; in fact,

Pacific already is conducting its operations and those of its

section 272 affiliate, PBLD, in accordance with section 272’s

requirements. More broadly, Pacific and PBLD (and their

ultimate parent, SBC) have established structural separation and

nondiscrimination safeguards that will ensure that PBLD does not

have any unfair advantage over competitors when it sells in-

region, interLATA services. Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at

20725, ¶ 347. This Commission rejected the Staff’s

recommendations concerning Pacific’s compliance with section 272

of the Act and did not require Pacific to make any further

demonstration of its fulfillment of the requirements. See Final

Decision at 195.

Finally, PBLD’s interLATA entry will promote competition

and further the public interest. The FCC repeatedly has found

that “competition [in long-distance markets] will increase

further if and when regional Bell Operating Companies are

permitted to enter these markets.” Memorandum Opinion and

Order, Application of 360º Communications Co. and ALLTEL Corp.

for Consent to Transfer Control of 360º Communications Co. and

Affiliates, Report No. LB-98-50, DA 98-2637, ¶ 26 (FCC rel. Dec.

30, 1998); see also Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20741-42,

89

¶ 381 (“BOC entry into the long distance market will further

Congress’ objectives of promoting competition and deregulation

of telecommunications markets.”). As FCC Chairman Kennard has

noted, granting BOCs in-region long distance relief will afford

consumers “a whole new world of choice in local and long

distance service.” Separate Statement of Chairman Kennard,

Second Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20814.

Pacific’s draft FCC filing, submitted to the CPUC on March

31, 1998, demonstrated that residential callers in California

are being denied a real alternative to the major interexchange

carriers’ high basic rates and chimerical “discount” plans. See

Draft FCC Br. at 82-91. Consumers also are being denied

valuable one-stop shopping options. See id. at 93-95. The

State of California and California workers are being denied tens

of thousands of additional jobs. Id. at 95-96.

There is no offsetting public interest justification that

would warrant excluding Pacific and PBLD from the interLATA

market in California. Despite its potential strengths as a

competitor, Pacific has absolutely no ability to impede toll

competition. The 1996 Act, regulatory reforms, and

technological developments have rendered 20-year-old worries

about cross-subsidy and network discrimination obsolete. See

id. at 96-108. Indeed, there is now an extensive record of

competitively beneficial participation by incumbent LECs in

90

intraLATA and interLATA long distance and other markets (such as

wireless services, information services, and CPE) that rely on

interconnection to the local exchange. See id. at 109-11.

SBC’s affiliate Southern New England Telephone, for example,

injected vigorous competition into Connecticut’s toll markets

after it was authorized to provide interstate services in 1994.

See id. at 90.

Even considering only local competition and ignoring the

critical benefits to long distance callers, Pacific’s interLATA

entry still serves the public interest. See id. at 112-14. All

potential entrants will have to compete more intensely for local

business in California once Pacific is able to offer attractive

bundled packages of local and long distance service. This is

especially true for the major interexchange carriers. The fear

of losing long distance profits to Pacific once Pacific is able

to be a one-stop provider “would surely give long distance

carriers an added incentive to enter the local market” in

California.12

Nor could Pacific “backslide” on its firmly established

steps to open the local telephone business. Pacific has made

12 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application of BellSouth Corporation, et al.Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, ToProvide In-Region, InterLATA Services in South Carolina, 13 FCC Rcd 539, 552-553, ¶ 25 (1997) (“South Carolina Order”). In its South Carolina Order, theFCC determined that interexchange carriers might not be able to enter thelocal market because BellSouth had not satisfied all checklist requirements.As explained in Part I of this Brief, however, the same cannot be said ofPacific in California.

91

irreversible investments in opening the local market, has

developed a track record of performance, and has instituted

extensive system changes and performance measurements. In

addition, the substantive requirements of the 1996 Act, as well

as FCC and CPUC orders implementing those sections -– not to

mention the antitrust laws -– will govern Pacific’s local

operations. Section 271(d)(6) also gives the FCC special tools

to ensure Pacific’s continued compliance with the prerequisites

of interLATA relief. 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). In short, there

are no public benefits to delaying Pacific’s interLATA entry in

California, only grave consumer harms.

In that regard, Pacific requests that the Commission,

concurrent with its review of Pacific’s implementation of the

Final Decision, further determine that all requirements of the

Costa legislation (Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 709.2) are satisfied.

As we demonstrate below, those conditions have been shown to be

satisfied in this and related Commission proceedings, and were

addressed specifically in the application of PBLD (formerly

Pacific Bell Communications or “PB Com”) for certification.

Only last week, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a

study by Consumer Action of San Francisco that found monthly

charges for long distance telephone service have increased --

within the past year -- from a high of $4.95 to as much as

$25.00. “Consumers Paying Higher Prices for Long-Distance,”

92

July 8, 1999, at B-1, B-2. When markets are free from

distorting regulation, price increases such as this encourage

competitive entry that, in turn, drives down prices and improves

services. That is what Pacific (and other Bell companies) have

been trying to do: enter the long distance telecommunications

market. Yet the federal government’s response to rising prices

has been to prolong restrictions on competitive entry. There is

something fundamentally wrong with this picture, and the CPUC

can take a major step to fix it.

A. The Purpose of the Costa Bill Was To Hasten Pacific’sEntry Into Long Distance

The Costa Bill (1994 Cal. Stat. Ch. 934 (A.B. 3720)), which

became section 709.2 of the California Public Utilities Code,

was enacted more than a year before the federal Act to promote

“Long Distance Telecommunications Consumer Choice.” See Cal.

Pub. Utils. Code § 709.2, Deering’s Statutory Notes § 1. As is

abundantly clear from the statute and its legislative history,

the Legislature’s intent was to speed removal of the federal

restrictions on Pacific’s ability to provide long distance

service in California and thereby encourage new competition in

that market.13

13 Pacific and the Communications Workers of America strongly supported thebill. It was vigorously opposed by AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and other incumbentlong distance carriers. E.g., Senate Rules Committee, Third Reading, A.B.3720, at 4-5 (May 27, 1994).

93

The supporting legislative findings are detailed and

explicit. The Legislature stated support for the “removal of

federal barriers to open competitive entry into

telecommunications and information markets” and “[i]n

particular, support[ed] efforts to lift the federal restrictions

on long-distance.” Deering’s Statutory Notes, § (2)(a)(2). As

for the benefits to California, the Legislature found that

“California consumers and the state’s economy could benefit”

from “elimination of federal court barriers that prohibit

intrastate interexchange telecommunications service” and the

“increased and enhanced competition in the provision of

intrastate interexchange telecommunications services.” Id. at

§§ (2)(g) and (h).

The Senate Rules Committee’s analysis of the legislation

noted that “long-distance providers will have a competitive

advantage over Pacific Bell if local toll competition is

authorized while Pacific Bell cannot provide long-distance

service due to federal court restrictions.” Senate Rules

Committee, Third Reading, A.B. 3720, at 2. This situation did

in fact develop and persists today. The committee’s analysis

further noted that California’s “economy, consumers and the

state infrastructure” could benefit if Pacific is allowed into

the long distance market, and that the “federal restrictions

94

against allowing Pacific Bell into the long-distance market are

outdated.” Id.

The CPUC was directed to do everything reasonably possible

to open the California long distance market to full competition.

The Commission recognized this fact. In the NRF docket (I.87-

11-033), the Commission responded to section 709.2. After

noting that it “ha[d] already taken the steps preliminarily

necessary to opening all telecommunications markets to full

competition,” the Commission stated that because Pacific was

still subject to the Modification of Final Judgment (“MFJ”),

“any Commission directive” for Pacific to provide long distance

“would be an action incapable of being effectuated.”

Alternative Reg. Frameworks for Local Exchange Carriers, D95-09-

072, 61 Cal. P.U.C.2d 489, 491 (1995). The Commission went on,

however, to do the only thing it could do “in complying with the

California Legislature’s explicit directive” as follows:

We will therefore order Pacific Bell to seek a waiverof the MFJ restriction from the Federal DistrictCourt, District of Columbia and, in the event of anadverse ruling, to appeal that decision to the UnitedStates Court of Appeals and the United States SupremeCourt as necessary. We will also direct theCommission’s General Counsel to undertake such actionsas are reasonable and appropriate to support therequest for this waiver.

Id.

B. Section 709.2 Does Not Impose Conditions that ExceedSection 271’s Requirements

95

AT&T and Pacific’s other potential interLATA competitors

will cite section 709.2 as grounds for additional conditions and

further delay (for example, by arguing that “evidentiary

hearings” are somehow necessary even after years of litigation

in various proceedings, see Final Decision at 9). That is, once

the section 271 process is complete, some carriers will clamor

for the Commission to crank up yet another proceeding allegedly

to satisfy cumulative section 709.2 conditions and delay

Pacific’s entry into interLATA markets in California for another

year or so. This would pervert section 709.2 and the

Legislature’s intent in enacting the California Long Distance

Telecommunications Consumer Choice Act.

As explained below, the detailed requirements and

safeguards of the federal Act (including sections 251, 271, and

272) subsume the more general provisions of section 709.2.

There is no legal basis for interpreting section 709.2 as

imposing additional requirements or obligations on Pacific’s

entry into long distance markets beyond those contained in

section 271. The Commission made this very point in ruling on

PB Com’s application for certification:

There is nothing in the language of the Costa Billsuggesting that it should be interpreted to imposerestrictions on Pacific Bell’s entry into longdistance that are more onerous than federal law. Itis black letter law that the courts and thisCommission should interpret statutes dealing with thesame subject matter in a manner which attempts to

96

harmonize their provisions and avoid potentialconflict. Absent some compelling state interest notpresent here, it makes no sense from a policyperspective for California to adopt rules differentfrom those of other states and from those governinginterstate telecommunications.

Application of Pacific Bell Communications for a Certificate of

Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide InterLATA, IntraLATA

and Local Exchange Telecommunications Services Within the State

of Cal., D.99-02-013, at 51 (Feb. 4, 1999) (footnote omitted).

C. Pacific Has Established its Full Compliance with theCosta Requirements

Fair, Nondiscriminatory Access and Unbundling. Section

709.2(c)(1) requires the Commission to determine that

competitors have “fair, nondiscriminatory” access to facilities,

including “fair unbundling.” Cal. Pub. Utils. Code

§ 709.2(c)(1). With regard to the unbundling requirement, the

Legislature made specific reference to the Commission’s OANAD

proceeding. Id. These statutory requirements will be satisfied

when the Commission determines, in connection with its review of

this compliance filing, performance data, and the final OSS test

results, that Pacific has met the requirements of section 271’s

competitive checklist. Pacific’s current interconnection

agreements make available UNEs at prices approved by the

97

Commission, and the current interconnection prices will be

superseded by the final OANAD prices.14

For purposes of the CPUC’s consideration of Costa, we

assume that reasonable pricing is an inherent element of fair

access, although pricing is not mentioned specifically in

section 709.2(c)(1). Cf. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). The

Commission, in its rulings on arbitrated interconnection

agreements, has resolved “issues consistent with the pricing

standards contained in the Act.” Petition of AT&T

Communications Inc for Arbitration, D.96-12-034, 69 Cal. P.U.C.

2d 610, 613 (1996). The Commission has ruled, moreover, that

for any agreement arbitrated before the OANAD pricing decision,

the rates for unbundled elements “will subsequently be revised

on a forward basis once the OANAD pricing order is issued.”

Rules Governing Filings Made Pursuant to the Telecommunications

Act of 1996, Resolution ALJ-168, at 4 (Sept. 26, 1996). In

OANAD, the Commission has adopted a final cost decision (D.98-

02-106), and the proposed final price decision mailed on May 10,

1999, is on the Commission’s agenda for July 22. Proposed

Decision of ALJ McKenzie (R.93-04-003; I.93-04-002). The fair

14 As a result of the United States Supreme Court’s remand in AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilities Board, 119 S. Ct. 721 (1999), the FCC is revisiting its listof network elements in light of the “necessary and impair” standards ofsection 251(d)(2). The FCC’s definition of “network element,” its rulesregarding combinations of elements, and its interpretation of the 1996 Act’saccess requirements remain in place.

98

access and unbundling requirements are satisfied by OANAD and by

Pacific’s showing of compliance with the Final Decision.

No Anticompetitive Behavior or Improper Cross-Subsidization

and No Substantial Possibility of Harm to Intrastate Long

Distance Markets. In section 709.2(c), the Legislature

generally identified the determinations that the Commission

would have to make in assuring effective competition, including

“nondiscriminatory open access” and no “improper cross-

subsidization.” The 1996 Act addresses these very same issues,

but in much more detail. Thus, for example, section 709.2(c)(3)

provides generally that there should be no “improper cross-

subsidization” and “separate accounting records.” Section 272

of the federal Act addresses this same subject with specific

provisions concerning such matters as the services (including

interLATA services) for which a separate affiliate is required,

47 U.S.C. § 272(a)(2), structural and transactional

requirements, id. § 272(b), nondiscrimination safeguards, id.

§ 272(c), and joint marketing, id. § 272(g).

In implementing the 1996 Act, the FCC has examined all of

these provisions and issued its own comprehensive rules.15 As

15 See, e.g., Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499; Report and Order,Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Accounting SafeguardsUnder the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 (1996)(“Accounting Safeguards Order”); First Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, Implementation of Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, 11 FCC Rcd 21905(1996) (“Non-Accounting Safeguards Order”).

99

even a cursory review of the FCC orders reveals, the purpose of

the Act and the FCC decisions implementing it is to eliminate

perceived economic and operational barriers to competition in

local exchange markets and to foster and safeguard competition

in these and adjacent markets. See generally Local Competition

Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15505-12, ¶¶ 1-20. Pacific’s compliance

with the requirements of section 271, including the competitive

checklist and section 271(b)(3)(B), will ensure satisfaction of

these objectives.

The CPUC, moreover, has already addressed the requirements

of section 709.2. These issues have been raised (in many cases

repeatedly) and addressed in various proceedings, including this

section 271 review, the OANAD proceeding, and the review of PB

Com’s application for a certificate of public convenience and

necessity to provide interLATA services. There is no need for

further relitigation of these issues.

In OANAD, for example, the Commission has established price

floors for what it has concluded are monopoly building blocks.

These price floors are designed to prelude alleged “predatory

pricing,” cross subsidy, and “price squeezes.” Proposed

Decision of ALJ McKenzie at 139-44 (R.93-04-003; I.93-04-002).

Likewise, section 709.2’s requirements were addressed

specifically in the PB Com application proceeding, Application

No. 96-03-007. The parties’ direct testimony addressed section

100

709.2 issues. See, e.g., Pacific’s Witness Jacobsen, Exh. 1, at

12-24; D.99-02-013, at 15-19. In ruling on the Office of

Ratepayer Advocates’ (“ORA”) motion to consolidate the PB Com

application with the SBC/Pacific Telesis merger proceeding,

Administrative Law Judge Walker noted that the “PB Com

application will look to PU Code § 1001 . . . and §709.2 (the

Costa bill safeguards), as well as the Telecommunications Act of

1996.” ALJ Ruling at 2 (June 5, 1996). There was further

debate at the prehearing conference concerning whether section

709.2 issues would be addressed as part of the PB Com

proceeding, which the Administrative Law Judge resolved by

accepting the previously filed testimony addressing section

709.2 issues. Rept. Tr. Vol. 1, Dec. 2, 1996, pp. 13-16.

In the PB Com proceeding, the conditions and restrictions

proposed by ORA and other parties were put forward specifically

to address section 709.2’s requirements. D.99-02-013, at 10.

As the ensuing decision makes clear, the various requirements of

section 709.2 were considered and ruled upon:

PU Code § 709.2(c) requires this Commission, before itauthorizes interLATA long distance competition, todetermine that all competitors have nondiscriminatoryaccess to exchanges; that a local exchange companydoes not make unfair use of subscriber information orcustomer contacts based on the company’s provision oflocal exchange service; that there is no impropercross-subsidization of intrastate service; and thatthere is no substantial possibility of harm tocompetitive intrastate telephone markets.

101

Id. at 67. The Commission analyzed the parties’ proposed

conditions applying the provisions of section 709.2, as well as

the FCC’s Accounting Safeguards Order and Non-Accounting

Safeguards Order. Id. at 41, 44, 55. In considering the

restriction on PB Com providing local exchange service, the CPUC

noted the potential for “violation of the cross-subsidization

prohibition of the Costa Bill, PU Code § 709.2(c)(3).” Id. at

28. In addressing the issue of PB Com’s potential use of

Pacific’s facilities, the Commission analyzed the prohibitions

in the FCC’s Non-Accounting Safeguards Order and concluded that

they would “assure PB Com’s compliance with the

antidiscrimination provisions of the Costa Bill.” Id. at 38-41.

In resolving joint marketing issues, there was an extensive

discussion of the relationship between section 709.2(c)(2)-(3)

and the FCC’s CPNI requirements. Id. at 41-44, 50-52.

Responding to the same concerns, the Commission adopted ORA’s

recommendation for additional audit requirements. Id. at 55-56.

The PB Com decision also resolved section 709.2(c)(4)’s

requirement of “no substantial possibility of harm” to

California’s long distance markets. With regard to the

potential benefits of entry by Pacific Bell’s affiliate into the

interLATA long distance market, the Commission found:

PB Com has shown convincingly in this proceeding thatits entry into the long distance market will bringincreased competition in that market, and will

102

encourage PB Com and its competitors to offer lowerprices and new services to California consumers. PBCom will be a strong competitor, bringing technicalexpertise, a sound financial base, a recognized name,and a reputation for reliable service.

Id. at 37 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Commission made its

order effective immediately “[b]ecause of the public interest in

competitive interLATA and intraLATA services.” Id. at 76. That

same public interest hangs in the balance in this proceeding.

CONCLUSION

In the process of meeting this Commission’s requirements

for a favorable recommendation to the FCC, Pacific has satisfied

the FCC’s requirements for a favorable determination under

section 271. For the reasons stated above, and based on the

extensive evidence submitted with this Brief, the comprehensive

record gathered in this proceeding, and the Commission’s

decisions in related proceedings, the Commission should find --

subject to Pacific’s successful completion of the ongoing OSS

test -- that Pacific has complied with the Final Decision and

has satisfied the requirements for providing interLATA service

in California set forth in section 271 of the federal Act, as

well as the requirements of section 709.2 of the Public

Utilities Code. It is time for interLATA competition in

California to move forward.

103

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES B. YOUNGM.E. GARBERED KOLTO-WININGERL. NELSONYA CAUSBYAttorneys for Pacific Bell

140 New Montgomery StreetRm. 1617ASan Francisco, California 94105Tel: (415) 545-9426Fax: (415) 974-1999

email: peggy.garber@pactel.co