BEFORE THE - AT&T



Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20554

|In the Matter of |) | |

| |) | |

|Application by SBC Communications Inc., |) | |

|Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and |) |WC Docket No. 03-16 |

|Southwestern Bell Communications Services, |) | |

|Inc. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA |) | |

|Services in Michigan |) | |

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN J. MUHS

REGARDING NETWORK PROVISIONING AND MAINTENANCE/REPAIR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

|SUBJECT |PARAGRAPH(S) |

|PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND |1 |

|EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 2 |

|PROVISIONING |3 |

|LDMI ISSUES |3 |

|MAINTENANCE & REPAIR |4 |

|AT&T ISSUES |4 |

|CLECA/LDMI ISSUES |13 |

|TDS ISSUES |18 |

|REPAIR CODING ACCURACY COMPLIANCE PLAN |32 |

|AREA CODE RELIEF |33 |

|CONCLUSION |35 |

Schedule of Attachments

|Attachment A |Summary of Repair Coding Accuracy Compliance Plan |

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

I, JOHN J. MUHS, being of lawful age and duly sworn upon my oath, do hereby depose and state as follows:

1. My name is John J. Muhs. I am the same John J. Muhs who filed with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”), on behalf of Michigan Bell Telephone Company (“Michigan Bell”), an initial affidavit (“Initial Muhs Affidavit”) (App. A, Tab 18) on January 16, 2003 in this proceeding.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. In this reply affidavit, I will address comments (and where applicable, the supporting affidavits or declarations) filed by AT&T,[1] CLECA,[2] and TDS,[3] regarding the quality of Michigan Bell’s maintenance and repair services provided to competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”). My reply affidavit also responds to the ex parte of LDMI submitted to the FCC.[4]

PROVISIONING

LDMI ISSUES

3. LDMI claims that SBC has not completed an LDMI ISDN-PRI order correctly or on time.[5] Upon review of results posted on the SBC CLEC on-line website for PM 45 (Percent AIT Caused Missed Due Dates - Design - UNE Loop and Port - ISDN), LDMI placed a total of (*** ***) such orders in Michigan in 2002 and the data indicates that (*** ***) of these orders were missed. (i.e. ***

***). Additionally, the results for PM 46 (Percent Trouble Reports within 30 Days (I-30) of Installation), show that only (***

***) had been reported to have trouble after initial installation for 2002. Thus, to the extent that LDMI means to direct its claims to Michigan Bell’s provisioning performance, its claims should be dismissed.

MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ISSUES

AT&T ISSUES

4. AT&T claims that Michigan Bell does not provide CLECs with nondiscriminatory access to maintenance and repair services. See AT&T Comments at 17. AT&T offers two arguments in support of its claim: first, that it submits a much higher volume of trouble tickets to Michigan Bell than it would expect based on AT&T’s experience with other BOCs; and second, that Michigan Bell takes “much longer…than it should” to clear these troubles. See id. AT&T’s arguments are irrelevant to this proceeding and are without substantive merit in any event. Consequently, its claim of discrimination should be rejected.[6]

5. With respect to AT&T’s first argument, the quality of the maintenance and repair services provided by BOCs to AT&T in states other than Michigan is irrelevant to the pertinent issue of whether Michigan Bell provides AT&T and other Michigan CLECs access to maintenance and repair services “in ‘substantially the same time and manner’ as it provides to itself.”[7] In short, the relevant test is parity — how the service provided to wholesale customers fares relative to the service provided to retail customers.

6. In this connection, data drawn from Michigan Bell’s performance results indicate that AT&T has no cause to complain about its trouble report rates. As the below table indicates, the 5-month average (September 2002 through January 2003) trouble report rate for AT&T is very low, and comparable to the trouble report rate for both Michigan CLECs in the aggregate and Michigan Bell’s retail customers.[8]

|PM 37 – Trouble Report Rate |Mi - AT&T |Mi – CLEC |Mi - Retail |

| | |Aggregate | |

|POTS – Res |*** *** |0.023 |0.021 |

|POTS – Bus |*** *** |0.007 |0.007 |

|UNE P – Res |*** *** |0.013 |0.021 |

|UNE P – Bus |*** *** |0.008 |0.007 |

|PM 37.1 – Trouble Report Rate Net of Installation & Repeat |Mi - AT&T |Mi – CLEC |Mi - Retail |

|Reports | |Aggregate | |

|POTS – Res |*** *** |0.013 |0.020 |

|POTS – Bus |*** *** |0.006 |0.008 |

|UNE P – Res |*** *** |0.010 |0.020 |

|UNE P – Bus |*** *** |0.007 |0.008 |

7. In addition, AT&T’s own internal processes are a contributing factor to the number of repeat trouble reports it submits to Michigan Bell; these reports in turn drive an overall higher trouble report rate. For example, in a February 4, 2003 email from Grant Brown, a manager at the AT&T Maintenance Center, to Kate Ewing, SBC Service Manager-LOC Performance, Mr. Brown commented on the matter of AT&T’s repeat trouble reports: “You will be happy to hear that I uncovered an issue on AT&T’s side which has resulted in repeat dispatches. . . . The hypotheses [sic] was that some of our users didn’t understand the meaning of certain information and the misunderstanding resulted in repeat dispatches to the LECs rather than dispatching IW. My hypotheses [sic] was proven true, and we are making significant M&P updates and heightening the awareness through training. We should see improvement as we roll out M&Ps and training…. [O]n a small sample I looked at, 20% were repeats due to the issue mentioned above.”

8. Michigan Bell is committed to helping AT&T resolve its internal issues so that the overall maintenance and repair process can be improved. Currently, there is a steering committee comprised of management personnel from both AT&T and Michigan Bell that meets weekly to resolve operational issues like the one about which Mr. Brown wrote.

9. AT&T’s second argument is no better than its first. Whether AT&T believes Michigan Bell’s maintenance and repair technicians have taken “much longer… than it should” to clear troubles is beside the point. Instead, the test remains one of whether Michigan Bell provides it and other Michigan CLECs nondiscriminatory access (in this case, parity).

10. The table below provides performance data demonstrating that the 5-month average Receipt-to-Clear Duration time (in hours) for AT&T was generally

*** *** for both Michigan CLECs in the aggregate and retail customers.

|PM 39 - Receipt To Clear Duration |Mi - AT&T |Mi - CLEC |Mi – Retail |

| | |Aggregate | |

|POTS - Res - Dispatch – Affecting Service |*** *** |13.46 |25.02 |

|POTS - Res - Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |11.01 |18.60 |

|POTS - Res - No Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |1.65 |4.08 |

|POTS - Res - No Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |2.97 |3.15 |

|POTS - Bus - Dispatch – Affecting Service |*** *** |12.65 |16.78 |

|POTS - Bus - Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |14.15 |16.86 |

|POTS - Bus - No Dispatch – Affecting Service |*** *** |1.09 |4.96 |

|POTS - Bus - No Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |3.38 |2.90 |

|UNE P - Res - Dispatch – Affecting Service |*** *** |12.62 |25.02 |

|UNE P - Res - Dispatch – Out of Service |*** *** |12.59 |18.60 |

|UNE P - Res - No Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |2.21 |4.08 |

|UNE P - Res - No Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |3.34 |3.15 |

|UNE P - Bus - Dispatch – Affecting Service |*** *** |12.68 |16.78 |

|UNE P - Bus - Dispatch – Out of Service |*** *** |11.98 |16.86 |

|UNE P - Bus - No Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |1.27 |4.96 |

|UNE P - Bus - No Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |3.21 |2.90 |

11. It should also be noted that AT&T’s own internal processes sometimes adversely affect overall Receipt-to-Clear duration times. Specifically, the Local Operation Center (“LOC”) often receives trouble tickets of poor quality from the AT&T Maintenance Center. For example, the tickets are miscoded with incorrect data related to the trouble report, or do not contain any narrative as to what the actual trouble is with the end-customer. This causes the LOC to either 1) send the ticket back to AT&T so that the coding can be corrected, or narratives added, or 2) remotely test the telephone line and try to identify the trouble and then fix the end-user trouble with almost no relevant information from AT&T. Moreover, because AT&T was not reviewing the tickets sent back to them via Electronic Bonding / Trouble Administration (EBTA), the LOC resorted to calling the AT&T Maintenance Center, on a ticket-by-ticket basis, in order to get the necessary end-customer information about the nature of the trouble. Receipt-to-Clear times might be shortened if the LOC did not have to engage in this type of additional clarification of trouble.

12. The LOC has been very proactive in dealing with AT&T on the issue of poor quality tickets. As far back as July 2002, managers from the LOC tried to engage AT&T Maintenance Center managers to help improve ticket quality by participating in weekly calls, and sending AT&T examples of poor quality tickets for discussion. However, progress was not being made, and in December 2002, the LOC Service Manager requested that AT&T’s Management team engage the assistance of additional AT&T Team members, to partner with the LOC to improve the process. In January 2003, the AT&T Maintenance Center Managers responded to the request and began working cooperatively with the LOC to address the issues and concerns presented. At present, a steering committee composed of operations personnel from both AT&T and the LOC meets weekly to resolve operational issues related to trouble ticket reporting. These weekly meetings allow for both parties to be engaged in a productive discussion and apply ownership to the service restoration issues.

CLECA/LDMI ISSUES

13. CLECA generally claims that SBC provides “substandard service,”[9] while LDMI claims that Michigan Bell provides “poor” service.[10] These commenters’ claims should be dismissed for two independent reasons. First, the 2001 data on which they rely do not depict Michigan Bell’s (or even SBC’s) current performance. Second, the data they present is retail service quality data; but this section 271 proceeding is to assess Michigan Bell’s wholesale performance.[11] In fact, the Quality of Services Report expressly states that “[t]his data does not include service quality information relating to services provided over facilities leased or contracted by other entities as unbundled network elements.”[12]

14. CLECA’s further claim, that “Michigan Bell takes four times as long to fix a CLEC problem in Michigan as it does on its own repair problems” (and which appears to be the only CLECA claim directed to Michigan-specific performance) is refuted by the available data relating to Michigan Bell’s performance for Michigan CLECs.[13] The results for PM 39 (Receipt to Clear Duration) 5-month average for months September 2002 through January 2003, as shown below, reflect wholesale performance quite comparable to performance for retail operations.

|PM 39 Receipt To Clear Duration |Mi - LDMI |Mi - CLEC |Mi - Retail |

| | |Aggregate | |

|POTS - Res Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |13.46 |25.02 |

|POTS - Res Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |11.01 |18.60 |

|POTS - Res - No Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |1.65 |4.08 |

|POTS - Res - No Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |2.97 |3.15 |

|POTS – Bus – Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |12.65 |16.78 |

|POTS – Bus – Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |14.15 |16.86 |

|POTS - Bus - No Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |1.09 |4.96 |

|POTS - Bus - No Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |3.38 |2.90 |

|UNE P – Res – Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |12.62 |25.02 |

|UNE P – Res – Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |12.59 |18.60 |

|UNE P - Res - No Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |2.21 |4.08 |

|UNE P - Res - No Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |3.34 |3.15 |

|UNE P – Bus – Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |12.68 |16.78 |

|UNE P – Bus – Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |11.98 |16.86 |

|UNE P - Bus - No Dispatch - Affecting Service |*** *** |1.27 |4.96 |

|UNE P - Bus - No Dispatch - Out of Service |*** *** |3.21 |2.90 |

15. Finally, CLECA’s reliance on claims made by LDMI’s CEO is likewise misplaced. According to LDMI, service turn-ups have been delayed, customers have been put out of service, and trouble tickets have been closed out without the problem having been fixed.[14] However, as demonstrated by the data below (reflecting performance, on average, for the last five months concluding in January), LDMI has received generally comparable performance relative to Michigan Bell’s retail operations for the measures most pertinent to its claims.[15]

|PM 29 - % Ameritech Caused Missed Due Dates |Mi - LDMI |Mi – CLEC |Mi - Retail |

| | |Aggregate | |

|POTS - Res – FW |*** *** |0.93% |6.34% |

|POTS - Res - No FW |*** *** |0.10% |0.61% |

|POTS - Bus – FW |*** *** |5.31% |3.62% |

|POTS - Bus - No FW |*** *** |0.64% |0.77% |

|UNE P - Res – FW |*** *** |2.13% |6.34% |

|UNE P - Res - No FW |*** *** |0.05% |0.61% |

|UNE P - Bus – FW[16] |*** *** |6.41% |3.62% |

|UNE P - Bus - No FW |*** *** |0.12% |0.77% |

|PM 35 - % Trouble Reports W/30 Days (I-30) of Installation |Mi - LDMI |Mi – CLEC |Mi - Retail |

| | |Aggregate | |

|POTS - Res – FW |*** *** |3.31% |10.44% |

|POTS - Res - No FW |*** *** |4.76% |4.43% |

|POTS - Bus – FW |*** *** |14.78% |6.45% |

|POTS - Bus - No FW |*** *** |3.68% |3.65% |

|UNE P - Res – FW |*** *** |6.78% |10.44% |

|UNE P - Res - No FW |*** *** |1.33% |4.43% |

|UNE P - Bus – FW |*** *** |9.27% |6.45% |

|UNE P - Bus - No FW |*** *** |2.44% |3.65% |

|PM 37 – Trouble Report Rate |Mi - LDMI |Mi – CLEC |Mi - Retail |

| | |Aggregate | |

|POTS – Res |*** *** |0.0230 |0.0213 |

|POTS – Bus |*** *** |0.0067 |0.0074 |

|UNE P – Res |*** *** |0.0126 |0.0213 |

|UNE P – Bus |*** *** |0.0082 |0.0074 |

|PM 41 - Percent Repeat Reports |Mi - LDMI |Mi - CLEC |Mi - Retail |

| | |Aggregate | |

|POTS – Res |*** *** |5.15% |11.48% |

|POTS – Bus |*** *** |8.62% |9.92% |

|UNE P – Res |*** *** |6.12% |11.48% |

|UNE P – Bus |*** *** |6.15% |9.92% |

16. CLECA also relies on LDMI’s claim that Michigan Bell prematurely closes out trouble tickets,[17] but that reliance is misplaced. Michigan Bell gains nothing by closing trouble tickets when the reported problem has not been fixed. Were it otherwise, the consequence would be that a CLEC would likely simply submit another trouble report that Michigan Bell would have to address. The additional technician time devoted to the second ticket (i.e., the time added to that associated with the first ticket) would almost always surpass the time spent on the first ticket (i.e., the ticket allegedly cleared prematurely). This and other aspects of the maintenance and repair process (assignment efforts, and coordination with other work groups) indicate that Michigan Bell would not benefit from clearing trouble tickets early.

17. Additionally, were CLECA’s or LDMI’s claims true, another consequence one would expect would be an inflated repeat trouble report rate. But the available performance data do not support their claims either. As shown above, the results show that LDMI’s trouble report repeat rate was below *** *** (based on the 5-month average from September 2002 through January 2003) and that this rate is below the rate encountered by Michigan Bell’s retail operations.

TDS ISSUES

18. TDS claims that there is no way to adequately monitor whether field technicians are accurately and properly coding service tickets, and cites alleged examples of this and other conduct related to repair technician field visits.[18] TDS emphasizes in particular that instances of improper coding are important because Michigan Bell’s performance measures exclude reports for events such as “no trouble found” or “customer premise equipment related.”[19] However, Michigan Bell has procedures in place to ensure proper trouble ticket coding, and TDS has not pursued escalation opportunities available to it to substantiate that its concerns are legitimate.

19. Michigan Bell’s LOC and Interexchange Carrier Center (“IECC”)[20] review trouble tickets before closure of the trouble ticket (including the manner of disposition of the trouble) to the CLEC. Reference to either center, since the process is similar, through the remainder of this document center is noted as Overall Control Office (“OCO”). Michigan Bell’s OCO reviews the ticket to determine the final closure to be reported to the CLEC. Any discrepancies or defects between the technician’s field notes and the disposition code used on the ticket are reconciled with the technician before the completed ticket is submitted to the CLEC.

20. The close out process also allows CLECs (including TDS) an opportunity to dispute Michigan Bell’s closeout codes and remarks on trouble reports. All trouble closures are sent to the CLEC with a description of the trouble’s resolution and the findings of the trouble report. To the extent the CLEC may not agree with this closure, it has the opportunity to return the ticket to Michigan Bell within 24 hours of this closure notification, or the CLEC may follow the formal trouble ticket dispute process as defined in the EBTA User’s guide.[21]

21. TDS has used the EBTA dispute process on trouble report tickets. The process is for an OCO technician to review the ticket closure to insure a correct response was given to the CLEC and to have an OCO manager sign off with the corrected ticket closure or the return of the original closure. If still not satisfied with the response from the OCO, the escalation process is available for further investigation. The escalation process can be found in the CLEC on-line handbook.[22]

22. Further, in the Fall of 2001 at the CLEC User Forum, Michigan Bell provided the CLEC community, including TDS, an e-mail address to which CLECs can conveniently e-mail the Michigan Bell Network team concerns regarding any chronic errors involving work functions, trouble reporting, or delays in provisioning or maintenance processes. Michigan Bell had also reminded TDS of this mailbox on November 12, 2002 at an operations meeting. E-mails submitted to the mailbox are investigated and a response is provided to the affected CLEC in a timely manner. Included in each response is any action taken in regards to the resolution of the matter, including, for example, further coaching with technicians. TDS has submitted e-mails with instances of their claims however these examples were for other states within the SBC Midwest region. Each of these e-mails was investigated and a response was returned to TDS.

23. Over the last year, both Network and the Industry Markets (“IM”) Service management teams have met with TDS in operational meetings and conference calls in which both management teams have requested TDS, without success, to provide specific details regarding inappropriate trouble ticket coding so that they can be investigated. The examples TDS now provides do not identify enough information for Michigan Bell to investigate them (e.g., trouble ticket number, address, or circuit identification number). Though Mr. Cox and other TDS managers have escalated trouble tickets to both Network and IM service managers, none of these examples have been among them or, to the best of my knowledge, have been brought to our Network managers’ attention otherwise.

24. SBC continues to update the Methods & Procedures (“M&Ps”) and various job aides to ensure the proper application of trouble resolution codes, so as to assist technicians and OCO on all trouble tickets for both wholesale and retail operations. Michigan Bell requires its technicians to follow these M&Ps when handling cases of troubles.

25. Appropriate coding falls within the scope of SBC’s code of conduct. Any purposeful misrepresentation of information on the trouble report can cause the technician to be held in disciplinary action and could lead to suspension or termination of employment. While Michigan Bell would agree with TDS that “the majority of SBC technicians are honest, knowledgeable and hard working,”[23] there are instances in which technicians have been placed on disciplinary action plans and have been suspended. But, to the best of my knowledge, none of these instances were a result of conduct regarding TDS and none involved technicians about which TDS complained.

26. In sum, these foregoing safeguards address TDS’s claim that there is “no monitoring” of technician trouble report closeouts. The information provided in the examples alleged by TDS and Mr. Cox regarding this and their related claims are insufficient to perform any meaningful investigation within our trouble reporting systems, which require a ticket number, address or circuit i.d. in order to investigate an alleged claim.

27. TDS’s further observations about exclusions present in the performance measurement business rules do not advance its suggestion of inappropriate trouble ticket coding. As James Ehr indicated in his initial affidavit filed in this proceeding, the Michigan Bell Performance Remedy Plan offers a CLEC several vehicles to resolve differences of opinion regarding the application of exclusions, including making available raw data to a requesting CLEC, and the CLEC’s opportunity to request a data reconciliation. If TDS believes that Michigan Bell has inappropriately coded any trouble tickets, it is authorized by the plan to request both Michigan Bell’s raw data and a data reconciliation if that raw data appears inconsistent with its own data. TDS has done neither. To the extent TDS would like to further limit the application of exclusions in the MPSC-approved business rules negotiated among the CLECs and Michigan Bell, the performance measurement collaborative reviews provide a vehicle to do so.

28. TDS further claims that “some” technicians have engaged in anti-competitive or otherwise inappropriate conduct while providing service to its customers.[24] TDS provides virtually no information, however, regarding the instances it means to refer to. The processes in place that I mentioned above provide TDS an avenue by which to raise issues such as these. I am informed that our independent investigation has identified five instances of alleged inappropriate behavior (regarding discussions between technician and a TDS end user) that occurred over the course of the last year. I also understand that in each case the matter was brought to the technician’s attention and, to the extent it was determined that the customer complaint warranted it, appropriate action was taken in accordance with the SBC Code of Conduct.

29. It appears that one of TDS’s disputes with Michigan Bell pertains not to a maintenance or repair matter, but a provisioning matter (in Illinois). Received via the email mailbox, the complaint appeared to involve an SBC technician that held a conversation with TDS’s end-user about SBC’s product and service offerings. TDS claims here that sending two technicians on separate occasions caused confusion for the end user and TDS.[25] Upon investigation, it was determined that Illinois Bell Telephone Company technician and the LOC MA Center had given proper status on the order, and TDS was notified that the end user had refused the service on the initial dispatch. Ms. Vivian Gomez-McKeon of my staff talked with Mr. Cox and Mr. McNally of TDS, and conveyed the results of the investigation. Mr. Cox responded that the status of the order was not his concern, rather, it was the anti-competitive discussion held by the technician with the end user.

30. Ms. Gomez-McKeon then investigated further with the supervisory manager for the area where the service order was completed. The manager assured Ms. Gomez-McKeon that no instructions have been given to the technician to deliver such communication as TDS alleges the technician conveyed. The supervisor spoke with the technician and the technician stated that no conversation was held related to SBC product offerings. He also assured her that he has reminded the technicians that they are not to discuss products or services when completing a wholesale service order as defined in the SBC Code of conduct.

31. Mr. Cox alleges that the increase and improper use of coding of CPE or NTF on the trouble tickets to have increased the amount of Trouble Isolation Charges (“TIC”) assessed to the CLECs.[26] TIC charges are applied by the OCO after review of the trouble resolution and closure is applied to the ticket. An exception to applying a TIC charge when a trouble ticket is closed to CPE or NTF occurs when the outside technician reported that there was no appearance of a Network Interface Device (“NID”). The NID is placed on single or two-line residence or business, where applicable, and allows the end user or CLEC to isolate the trouble to the SBC facility network.

REPAIR CODING ACCURACY COMPLIANCE PLAN

32. On February 13, 2003, Michigan Bell filed with the MPSC a Repair Coding Accuracy Compliance Plan. This plan describes the actions taken by Michigan Bell to improve the accuracy and completeness of closeout codes on completed trouble reports for products of Specials Service and Unbundled Network Elements. The activities defined in the compliance plan consist of: Documentation Updates - M&P, job-aids, news flashes, etc.; Training Review Sessions for technicians, support administration centers; Management Review Activities – random reviews of ticket coding accuracy and timeline for implementation. A copy of the principal features/tasks of the plan and summary of activities can be found in Attachment A to my affidavit.

AREA CODE RELIEF

33. Service providers (such as TDS) are responsible for ensuring that certain implementation activities are performed for each area code relief activity. For area code splits, this includes updating the Location Routing Numbers (“LRN”). LRNs are used to route calls to numbers that have been ported. Service providers update their LRNs during the optional dialing period (for the Michigan 616/269 split, from July 13, 2002 until February 15, 2003). Requests for LRN changes must be made by each service provider to the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) or a contracted vendor. If the LRN changes are not initiated by the service provider, then the customers who are ported to them are not able to receive incoming calls from customers of other service providers.

34. In response to a letter[27] from a CLEC end user, we determined that the LRN for TDS's NPA-NXX 269-343 was not updated until February 17, 2003 two days after the required dialing date for the new area code 269. Therefore, calls to TDS's ported customers from SBC and other service providers would not have routed properly until that date.

CONCLUSION

35. Pursuant to Part II. E. of the Consent Decree entered into between SBC Communications Inc. (“SBC”) and the Federal Communications Commission, released on May 28, 2002, see Order, SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 10780 (2002), the undersigned hereby affirms that he has (1) received the training SBC is obligated to provide to all Michigan Bell FCC Representatives;

(2) reviewed and understand the Michigan Bell Compliance Guidelines;

(3) signed an acknowledgment of training and review and understanding of the Guidelines; and (4) complied with the requirements of the Michigan Bell Compliance Guidelines.

36. This concludes my affidavit.

-----------------------

[1] Comments of AT&T Corp., Application by SBC Communications Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan, WC Docket No. 03-16 (FCC filed February 6, 2003) (“AT&T Comments”); AT&T Comments, Joint Declaration of Sarah DeYoung and Walter W. Willard on Behalf of AT&T Corp. (“DeYoung/Willard Declaration”).

[2] Comments of Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Association of Michigan, the Small Business Association of Michigan, and the Michigan Consumer Federation Opposing Application by SBC for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan, Application by SBC Communications Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan, WC Docket No. 03-16 (FCC filed February 6, 2003) (“CLECA Comments”).

[3] Comments of TDS Metrocom, LLC, Application by SBC Communications Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan, WC Docket No. 03-16 (FCC filed February 6, 2003) (“TDS Comments”); TDS Comments, Affidavit of Rod Cox (“Cox Declaration”).

[4] Ex Parte Letter of Patrick J. Donovan on behalf of LDMI Telecommunications to Marlene Dortch, FCC (January 29, 2003) (“LDMI Ex Parte”), and Attachment thereto.

[5] LDMI Ex Parte, Attachment, at 36.

[6] Elsewhere in its comments, AT&T attempts to draw adverse inferences based on its exchanges of communications with Michigan Bell regarding securing raw data. DeYoung/Willard Declaration, ¶ 108. The matter of AT&T’s raw data requests are discussed in detail in the reply affidavit of James Ehr. (Reply App. A, Tab 7.) Nonetheless, it is important to note that nothing in ¶ 108 of the DeYoung/Willard Declaration provides actual evidence of any discriminatory maintenance and repair nor do AT&T’s Comments cite to a declaration providing any actual evidence.

[7] Application by SBC Communications Inc., et al. for Authorization to Provide In-Region, Inter-LATA Services in California, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 25650 (rel. Dec. 19, 2002) (“California Order”), Appendix C, ¶ 5. Moreover, even in Michigan, the volume of trouble tickets submitted by a CLEC would not necessarily provide any valid assessment of whether Michigan Bell is providing AT&T nondiscriminatory access to maintenance and repair services. Among other things, this volume does not take into account trouble reports ultimately determined to be, for example, CLEC-caused troubles, or troubles due to customer premises equipment (“CPE”) or inside wiring.

[8] Although the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC”) requires that the analog for parity comparison purposes be the better of Michigan Bell Retail or its affiliate for parity performance measures, my affidavit conveys Michigan Bell Retail results. Affiliate volumes are minimal with respect to POTs and UNE-P measures. This is true for all tables shown in my affidavit.

[9] CLECA Comments at 9.

[10] LDMI Ex Parte, Attachment, at 21.

[11] For this reason, likewise not relevant to this proceeding is LDMI’s claim that Michigan Bell’s residential repair times in 2001 were the highest in the nation, LDMI Ex Parte, Attachment, at 21. The same applies to Mr. Todd Gardner’s request that Michigan Bell not be permitted to offer long distance service because of several service outages that occurred at his residence. Comments of Todd Gardner, Application by SBC Communications Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan, WC Docket No. 03-16 (FCC filed February 6, 2003) p.1. Furthermore, these outages date back to late 2001and were related to construction work required by the State of Michigan. Since this construction work was completed in early 2002, there has been no trouble reported by Mr. Gardner (the last reported case of trouble was in March 2002).

[12] Quality of Service of the Local Operating Companies, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, January 2003, at 4. ()

[13] CLECA Comments at 11. CLECA cites “LDMI affidavits” in support of its claim. However, the context of the statement seems to refer to affidavits filed in state proceedings, and my understanding is that LDMI did not file any affidavit with the Commission in this proceeding regarding Michigan Bell’s repair times. LDMI’s Ex Parte does not make the point that CLECA suggests LDMI made in its earlier affidavits.

[14] Id.

[15] Performance for PM 35 (POTs RES FW and POTs BUS FW) reflects volumes of less than ten data points per month.

[16] In my earlier affidavit, Initial Muhs Affidavit, ¶ 14, I referenced a “system defect” as the problem attributable to performance for PM 29-07 (Percent Missed AIT-Caused Missed Due Dates, UNE-P – Bus – FW). Under certain conditions, “assume-as-is” orders (i.e., in which the CLEC assumes the customer with existing services and features) are assigned new pairs as they flow through our FACs assignment systems. For example, if the existing service is working in a pair count reserved for high capacity services, a new pair will be assigned to the CLEC’s customer. The volume associated with this defect accounts for about half of Michigan Bell-caused missed due dates for UNE-P field-visited orders (which are very few in any case. id.). Since these orders are simply changing the customer from Michigan Bell to CLEC service there should be no service impact as a result of the miss.

To eliminate the problem, Michigan Bell plans to use ordering system links in the Service Access Manager system (“SAM”) into the Network assignment system known as Facility Assignment and Control System (“FACS”) to determine when conditions will cause a pair change and the required field visit. Once determined that a field visit is required, the due date for the field visit service order will be scheduled appropriately (generally around 3 days). Subject to successful testing, the plan is targeted for implementation in early March.

Additionally, the Network Service Organization (“NSO”) is manually reviewing field visit orders due on the same date as the application date. Where possible, NSO is attempting to complete the order without the need for a field visit (by determining whether the customer may still be served by means of the original pair assignment). While this may require that a pair change be made at some point in the future, the CLEC’s new customer is receiving service on the date promised. The affidavit of James Ehr provides further information regarding Michigan Bell’s performance for PM 29-07.

[17] CLECA Comments at 11; see also, LDMI Ex Parte, Attachment, at 39.

[18] TDS Comments at 23; Cox Affidavit, ¶¶ 27-39.

[19] TDS Comments at 23; Cox Affidavit, ¶ 28.

[20] The service type determines center routing. UNE Loops POTs type, ISDN or DSL are worked and processed through the LOC. Designed Specials and UNE DS1 and higher are worked and processed through the IECC.

[21] The Close But Dispute Trouble Found process is defined and described in section 4. Working with

Open Trouble Tickets under Accepting and Closing Trouble Tickets.

[22] Escalation procedures for each CLEC are available on the CLEC-specific Reports page, which is accessible from the front page of the SBC CLEC website or from any other page via the “Choose Section” box at the top of the page.

[23] Cox Affidavit, ¶ 27.

[24] TDS Comments at 36; Cox Affidavit, ¶¶ 40-42.

[25] TDS Comments at 37; Cox Affidavit, ¶ 31.

[26] Cox Affidavit, ¶¶ 29-30.

[27] Letter of American Business Equipment to FCC, (February 19, 2003).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download