|
The decision in brief |
|
The Commission continues its quest for stringent quality of
service indicators that are fair to the telcos, their customers and
their competitors. Canadian telcos have been bound by quality of
service indicators since 1982. |
|
This decision introduces new service indicators that fine-tune
customer complaint procedures, directory assistance speed and
accuracy, and other services. Some of the new indicators have been
created to improve the relationship between telcos and their
competitors, who are also customers when they use portions of the
telcos' networks. |
|
This decision also asks working groups of the CRTC
Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) to recommend intervals for
specific service indicators that have been identified. The CISC
working groups have 30 days from the release date of this decision
to report their recommendations to the Commission. |
|
The CRTC is grateful to those that contributed to this
proceeding. This decision directly reflects many of their ideas and
suggestions. |
|
The quality of service evolution |
1. |
Final standards for quality of service indicators for use in
telephone company regulation and other related matters, Decision
CRTC 2000-24,
dated 20 January 2000 directed the telcos to maintain the existing
quality of service standards adopted on an interim basis in Quality
of service indicators for use in telephone company regulation,
Telecom Decision CRTC 97-16,
dated 24 July 1997. |
2. |
In Decision 2000-24,
the Commission:
|
|
a) expressed the preliminary view that three new indicators
should be established and directed the telephone companies to file
comments on:
|
|
(i) Access to Business Office - Hold Time or Call Duration;
|
|
(ii) Directory Assistance (DA) – Speed and Accuracy; and
|
|
(iii) Customer complaints;
|
|
b) directed TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) and Northwestel Inc.
to file comments on the following company-specific matters:
|
|
(i) TCI - Directory accuracy; and
|
|
(ii) Community-level quality of service indicators in
Northwestel's territory; and
|
|
c) directed the telephone companies to file comments on the
following two competitor-related matters:
|
|
(i) The methodology for reporting compliance with intervals and
standards negotiated in CISC and approved by the Commission; and
|
|
(ii) Indicator 2.6 - Competitor Repair Appointments Met and
Indicator 2.2 - Repair Appointments Met.
|
3. |
Appendix 2 to this decision contains a list of the interested
parties in this proceeding.
|
|
New indicators proposed in Decision 2000-24
|
4. |
In this proceeding, the telcos generally suggested that no new
indicators should be required because competition would ensure
adequate levels of service quality. They argued the competitive
market provides a powerful incentive to maintain very high levels
for customer satisfaction and they are sensitive to their customers'
perceptions and needs.
|
5. |
Consumer groups submitted that there is a continuing need for
regulation of telcos' quality of service because local competition
is not sufficient to deliver adequate levels of service quality.
|
6. |
The Commission is satisfied there is a need for continuing telco
regulation on quality of service due to low levels of competition in
some areas and customers are still largely captive to their
incumbent local carriers and in some cases competitors are dependent
on the telcos for their ability to compete.
|
|
Access to business office
|
|
Call duration not reliable indicator
|
7. |
The telcos contend that call duration would not be a useful
measure for gauging customer satisfaction because call length is
dependent primarily on the complexity of the issue being discussed.
|
8. |
The Commission agrees and further notes that such an indicator
may encourage customer service representatives to rush customers,
without addressing all of their concerns. The Commission concludes
that a call duration indicator would not accurately depict the
interaction between the customer and the telco and finds that no
such indicator is required.
|
|
Hold time
|
9. |
The telcos generally were of the view that:
|
|
· Indicator 1.5 - Access Business Office, provides a
representative measurement of customer interaction with the business
office and no new measures are required; |
|
· Given the variation in call complexity, it would not be
possible to establish a meaningful standard for an indicator based
on the length of time a customer is on hold; and |
|
· Not all companies are capable of measuring holding time
duration. Québec-Téléphone stated that it is uncertain that its
system could calculate the hold time period. |
10. |
Consumer groups submitted that Indicator 1.5 only measures the
time taken to answer a call and that it can be easily circumvented
by answering, then putting the customer on hold for an extended
period of time. Consumer groups submitted that it would be
appropriate to measure the total hold time before the customer is
connected to the appropriate service representative. They proposed
that the new indicator would require that a minimum of 90% of calls
are connected to the appropriate service representative within 20
seconds of having been answered.
|
11. |
The companies represented by Bell Canada (see Appendix 2) stated
that: |
|
· it is neither their policy, nor practice, to answer and then
immediately put the customers on hold; |
|
· when a client representative answers a call, the customer is
put on hold only if it is necessary for the client representative to
go off-line to pursue matters related to that customer's inquiry; |
|
· to immediately put a customer on hold would neither be in the
companies' nor their customers' interest; and |
|
· doing so would unnecessarily tie up call centre facilities and
would exacerbate customer frustration. |
12. |
The Commission agrees that the variation in complexity of calls
may affect the time period that customers are on hold after the call
has been answered and while the service representative may be
consulting with other persons. For this reason, it would be
difficult to construct a meaningful indicator of hold time duration.
The Commission considers that the situation which should be
addressed by a new indicator, however, is where the telco responds
to a call and then immediately places the caller on hold, prior to
connecting the caller to a service representative.
|
13. |
The Commission confirms its preliminary view in Decision 2000-24
that a new indicator should be established to measure the total
length of time customers are placed on hold. This duration should
measure the time prior to the beginning of a dialogue with a service
representative. The Commission directs the telcos to report on new
Indicator 1.5 - Access to Business Office - On Hold Duration in
their monthly quality of service reports. This indicator will be
reported in every quarter, commencing with the third quarter of
2001, using the monitoring model in Appendix 3 of this decision.
|
14. |
The telcos may discontinue reporting on Indicator 1.5 - Access to
Business Office which was established in Decision 2000-24,
at the same time they report on the new Indicator 1.5.
|
15. |
The companies represented by Bell Canada and Québec-Téléphone
submitted that it is not possible for all of them to measure total
hold time duration.
|
16. |
The telcos have been able to establish procedures for measuring
other time periods, such as for Indicator 1.5 - Access to Business
Office. The Commission directs the companies represented by Bell
Canada and Québec-Téléphone that consider they are not able to
establish procedures for measuring total hold time duration, to show
cause within 30 days of this decision, why they should not
report on the new Indicator 1.5 - Access to Business Office - On
Hold Duration.
|
17. |
The Commission directs that in Indicator 2.5 - Access to Repair
Bureau, established in Decision 2000-24,
the standard of "80% or more" be changed to "90% or
more". This reflects the Commission's determination of the
minimum performance standard for new Indicator 1.5 - Access to
Business Office - On Hold Duration. The Commission directs the
telcos to report on Indicator 2.5 - Access to Repair Bureau in their
monthly quality of service reports. This indicator will be reported
in every quarter, commencing with the third quarter of 2001, using
the monitoring model in Appendix 3.
|
18. |
The Commission directs the telcos that believe the performance
standard for Indicator 2.5 - Access to Repair Bureau of "90% or
more" may not be appropriate to show cause, within 30 days of
the decision, why they should not report on this basis. |
|
More indicators for directory assistance needed
|
19. |
The companies represented by Bell Canada and Québec-Téléphone
submitted that indicators on DA service would not be appropriate
because, in an increasingly competitive environment, competitive
local exchange carriers (CLECs) can compete with the incumbent
telcos by providing their own DA service and some customers have
alternative access to DA information through the Internet.
|
20. |
The consumer groups submitted that DA service should be subject
to quality of service reporting because it is a tariffed service in
its competitive infancy and market forces are not yet sufficient to
ensure an acceptably high level of service.
|
21. |
The Commission believes competition in local telephone service
and DA service is not sufficiently established to permit reliance on
market forces alone to ensure an acceptably high level of DA
service.
|
22. |
The Commission finds it appropriate to establish new indicators
for DA service and confirms its preliminary view that additional
indicators should be established on DA services. |
|
Directory assistance and speed of answering
|
23. |
TCI submitted that a meaningful indicator of speed of answer is
difficult to structure because of variables that include the number
of rings prior to response and the nature and quality of a
customer's request, all of which can influence the length of a DA
call. Consumer groups submitted that a new indicator to measure the
speed of answer is necessary to ensure an acceptable quality of DA
service.
|
24. |
TCI submitted that only the number of rings prior to a response
should be measured because it is the only factor that is completely
within the company's control. The companies represented by Bell
Canada proposed that, since the DA function is essentially a call
centre operation, a new indicator should be similar to the existing
measures for Indicator 1.5 - Speed of Answer to the Business Office
and Indicator 2.5 - Speed of Answer to the Repair Bureau, where 80%
of calls should be answered in 20 seconds or less. Consumer
groups proposed a standard of at least 90% of calls to
DA service should be answered within 20 seconds.
|
25. |
The Commission believes a telco's speed of answer, which is the
subject of new Indicator 1.5 - Access to Business Office - On Hold
Duration, is an important indicator of quality of service
performance. The Commission is of the view that customer
satisfaction with the speed of answering by DA service is as
important.
|
26. |
The Commission agrees with TCI that the number of rings before a
telco answers is completely within its control and is the
appropriate subject matter to measure.
|
27. |
The Commission confirms, therefore, its preliminary view in
Decision 2000-24
that an additional indicator should be established to measure the
speed of DA. The Commission directs the telcos to report on
Indicator 4.2 - Access to Directory Assistance in their monthly
quality of service reports. This indicator will be reported in every
quarter, commencing with the third quarter of 2001, using the
monitoring model in Appendix 3. |
|
Directory assistance accuracy to be monitored
|
28. |
TCI submitted that only the accuracy of a company's own databases
and customer service representatives should be measured because all
other DA service, including other telephone companies' databases,
are outside a company's control.
|
29. |
The companies represented by Bell Canada submitted that:
|
|
· an accuracy standard of 90% recognizes that there are many
potential causes for a customer being unsatisfied with a number
obtained from DA, including incomplete customer provided
information, inaccurate customer provided information, database
errors, DA operator errors and the customer incorrectly recording or
dialing the number obtained; and |
|
· if a level higher than 90% was established, the methodology
used to determine that standard would have to be adjusted to
eliminate customer-originated errors as well as errors that are not
attributable to the companies represented by Bell Canada.
|
|
TCI submitted that, if such a methodology could be developed, it
would result in a complex process that would involve considerable
work, effort and cost. |
30. |
Consumer groups want a new indicator to ensure an acceptable
quality of DA service and proposed the standard of at least 95% of
DA listings should be provided without error.
|
31. |
The Commission notes that customer satisfaction with directory
accuracy, as noted in existing Indicator 4.1 - Directory Accuracy,
is an important quality of service indicator. The Commission
considers that customer satisfaction with the accuracy of listings
provided orally by DA service is as important. |
32. |
The Commission disagrees with TCI's submission that the accuracy
of listings provided by a company from its own databases and by its
own customer service representatives are the only elements that
should be measured. Since the telcos update each other on DA
listings and DA service includes all such listings, the telcos
should measure the accuracy of all listings provided, whether the
listing is for customers within their own operating territory or
not.
|
33. |
As noted in Decision 2000-24,
an additional indicator should be established to measure accuracy of
listing provided by DA service. The Commission directs the telcos to
report on Indicator 4.3 - Directory Assistance Accuracy in their
monthly quality of service reports. The Commission considers that a
performance standard of 93.8% or more without error is appropriate.
This indicator will be reported in every quarter, commencing with
the third quarter of 2001, using the monitoring model in Appendix 3. |
34. |
The telcos will report to the Commission, no later than 45 days
after the third quarter of 2001, on their methodology for conducting
the customer sampling referred to in new Indicator 4.3 - Directory
Assistance Accuracy.
|
35. |
Consumer groups noted the telcos charge for DA calls that are
unsuccessful, including queries when the requested number is not
found. They proposed a new indicator, for those companies which
charge for such requests, that would measure the rate of
unsuccessful DA requests due to operator or database error. While
acknowledging that this would be difficult, they stated that the new
standard should assess whether the error originated with the
customer or the company.
|
36. |
TCI stated that the proposed indicator for unsuccessful DA
service requests could not be adequately defined because the failure
to provide the requested number may arise for many reasons,
including an error by the service representative, another telco's
database, or the customer. TCI stated that, consequently, it would
be difficult to effectively and consistently implement a performance
standard. |
37. |
When there is an unsuccessful DA service request, it would be
difficult to identify when it originates from a telco or customer
error. It is the Commission's view that it would not be appropriate
to establish an indicator for unsuccessful DA service requests due
to the problem of determining the origin of the error. The
Commission intends to monitor complaints regarding unsuccessful DA
service requests in case follow-up action is required.
|
|
New indicator created for customer complaints
|
38. |
The telcos contend that existing Indicator 5.1 - Customer
Complaints and the complaint process established in section 56(3) of
the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules)
provide sufficient information for the Commission to adequately
monitor the complaint process and that no additional indicator is
required.
|
39. |
TCI submitted that the range and complexity of complaints would
make any measure of the resolution time meaningless as an indicator
of service quality or customer satisfaction. TCI contends that
customers understand that time is required to investigate a
complaint and subscribers care more about the quality of the
resolution than the time it took to reach it. Consumer groups
countered that speed of complaint resolution is critical to customer
satisfaction. |
40. |
The Commission believes customers care about both the ultimate
quality of the resolution achieved and the speed of that resolution.
While Indicator 5.1 - Customer Complaints and the existing complaint
process provide useful information on the number of complaints, it
is important to have a measure of a company's success in resolving
complaints.
|
41. |
The Commission confirms its preliminary view in Decision 2000-24
that an additional indicator should be established to measure the
resolution of customer complaints. The Commission directs the telcos
to report on Indicator 5.2 - Customer Complaints Resolved in their
monthly quality of service reports. The Commission considers that a
performance standard of 90% or more is appropriate. This indicator
will be reported in every quarter, commencing with the third quarter
of 2001, using the monitoring model in Appendix 3. |
42. |
The consumer groups proposed changing the provision in Section
56(3) of the Rules from a 20-day response period to 10 working days.
This addresses an issue that is outside the scope of this proceeding
and the Commission will consider amending Section 56(3) in the
future.
|
|
Directory accuracy compliance for TCI
|
43. |
TCI began reporting for Indicator 4.1 - Directory Accuracy,
commencing with the third quarter of year 2000. The Commission
directs TCI to continue reporting on this indicator on a quaterly
basis. |
|
Community-level quality of service indicators in Northwestel's
territory
|
44. |
Decision 2000-24
directed Northwestel to file a proposal for community level
reporting for quality of service. Long-distance competition and
improved service for Northwestel customers, Decision CRTC
2000-746,
dated 30 November 2000, directed Northwestel to continue reporting
quality of service indicators on an individual community basis. |
45. |
Northwestel submitted that its existing quality of service
reporting provides a representative measurement of service levels
throughout its operating territory. It said that the reporting of
quality of service indicators at a community level that would meet
the corporate standards is not realistic. In the proceeding leading
to Decision 2000-746,
Northwestel identified a number of reasons why it cannot meet the
service indicators for all communities at all times, including its
unique geography, human resources, scheduling, environmental and
weather issues. The Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)
submitted that community-level indicators would be appropriate for
Northwestel.
|
46. |
Northwestel proposed to provide quarterly reports at the
community level similar to the quarterly submissions at the
corporate level containing nine community-level indicators. GNWT
submitted that Northwestel should be required to report at the
community level, unless it can justify otherwise, on the following
existing indicators: 1.5 - Access to Business Office; 1.6 -
Competitor Installation Appointments Met; 1.7 - On-Time Activation
of PICs for Alternate Providers of Long Distance Service (APLDS);
2.5 - Access to Repair Bureau; 2.6 - Competitor Repair
Appointments Met; and 3.1- Dial Tone Delay.
|
47. |
Northwestel's operating territory presents unique challenges.
Services are delivered to a few large communities and a large number
of significantly less populated rural areas. The Commission
believes, however, that reporting on a company-wide basis alone
would not capture Northwestel's delivery of service at the community
level and its conclusions in Decision 2000-24
and 2000-746.
|
48. |
The Commission notes that Northwestel proposed that nine of the
existing 16 quality of service indicators be reported at the
community level. These indicators deal with the delivery of service
at the community level and the Commission agrees they should be
reported. The other seven indicators focus on types of service
delivered on a company-wide basis and it would not be appropriate
for Northwestel to report on them at the community level.
|
49. |
Northwestel has not proposed a performance standard for the nine
community-level indicators. Decision 2000-746
directed Northwestel to report on a new quality of service Indicator
2.1C - Out-of-service trouble reports cleared "remote",
with a standard of 90% or higher within five working days and this
indicator is one of the nine indicators proposed by Northwestel. The
Commission believes that the appropriate performance standards would
be the same as those recently found to be appropriate in Decision 2000-24,
except for Indicator 2.1C - Out-of-service trouble reports cleared
"remote".
|
50. |
In its proposed Indicator 5.1 - Customer Complaints, Northwestel
has excluded "Total Customer Complaints Per 1000 NAS"
(network access service). However, this is one of the eight
categories specified in Decision 2000-24.
The data that Northwestel would provide on the total customer
complaints per 1000 NAS would be an aggregation of the customer
complaints for the other seven categories, namely, Provisioning,
Repair, Local Service, Long Distance Service, Operator Service,
Directory Service and Billing Service. The Commission's view is that
it would be appropriate for Northwestel to include in its reporting
format for Indicator 5.1 (at the community level) all eight
categories established in Decision 2000-24.
|
51. |
The Commission, therefore, determines that Northwestel will
report, at the community-level, on the indicators in Appendix 4.
Northwestel will file quarterly a quality of service monthly
performance report commencing with the third quarter of 2001, using
the monitoring models in Appendix 4.
|
|
Competition-related intervals and standards
|
52. |
The telcos contend that there is a well-established complaint
process that can be used by any carrier if service issues exist that
require the immediate attention of the carriers or the Commission.
|
53. |
The competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) submitted that
indicators for service intervals and standards must be monitored to
assess whether the telcos are meeting their CISC commitments and to
ensure the viability of local competition.
|
54. |
The Commission agrees with the CLECs that monitoring service
intervals and standards is appropriate to foster local telephone
competition. It is therefore appropriate to establish indicators to
monitor certain service intervals and standards negotiated in CISC
and approved by the Commission subsequent to Decision 97-16.
|
55. |
The Commission is creating five indicators on the following
service intervals.
|
|
Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met
|
56. |
The Commission has approved specific intervals to provide new and
migrated unbundled loops (types A and B - which are defined
in Appendix 6) by incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to
CLECs. The interval for the provisioning of new unbundled loops
(types A and B) by ILECs to CLECs, which was approved in a CRTC
letter decision dated 31 October 2000, are service intervals no
greater than those within which the ILECs provide loops to
themselves, at least 90% of the time. The interval for the
provisioning of migrated unbundled loops (types A and B) by ILECS to
CLECs, in the operating territories of former BC TEL and TELUS, was
approved in a letter decision dated 8 October 1998, wherein the
interval was established at 90% or more completed within five
working days. Bell Canada and the other ILECs subsequently agreed to
the same standard for all urban areas in their operating
territories.
|
57. |
In light of the different service intervals for the provisioning
of new and migrated unbundled loops, the Commission believes it is
appropriate to establish a separate indicator for each.
|
58. |
It is appropriate to measure the percentage of occasions that the
due dates for provisioning of new and migrated Type A and B local
loops are met. The Commission is creating Indicator 1.8 - New
Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met and
Indicator 1.9 - Migrated Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service
Intervals. The Commission directs the telcos to file quarterly a
quality of service monthly performance report commencing with the
third quarter of 2001, for these Indicators, using the monitoring
model in Appendix 5 of this decision. The telcos will report on each
of these indicators on a CLEC by CLEC basis, without combining the
data for all CLECs into one report.
|
59. |
The Commission agrees with Optel Communications Corporation that
it would be appropriate to require that the loop be delivered in
working condition and according to the loop specifications agreed to
by the industry. Therefore, in Indicator 1.8 - New Unbundled Type A
and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met and Indicator 1.9 - Migrated
Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met, "due
dates … met" means the above conditions have been met.
|
60. |
Call-Net Enterprises Inc. proposed the creation of an indicator
to measure and report the average provisioning time for the
agreed-upon migration date.
|
61. |
Decision 2000-24
indicated the Commission intends to consider establishing the
appropriate methodology for service intervals and standards
negotiated in CISC which it approved. The interval submitted by
Call-Net, however, was not negotiated in CISC or approved by the
Commission.
|
62. |
New Indicator 1.9 measures the percentage of time that due dates
for providing migrated unbundled local loop (Type A and B) orders
are met. It would report whether the time period was met in
accordance with the performance standard. This indicator would not,
however, capture data on the actual length of the provisioning time
taken by the telcos for occurrences that do not meet the performance
standard. In light of the specific focus of Indicator 1.9, this
criterion, while known to the telcos and the CLECs, would not be
reported to the Commission.
|
63. |
The Commission considers that Call-Net's proposal has merit
because it would measure and report on the average provisioning time
for the agreed upon migration date which would capture the
actual length of time for occurrences that are outside the
performance standard.
|
64. |
The Commission believes an indicator on the average provisioning
time for the agreed-upon migration dates for unbundled local loop
(Type A and B) orders as proposed by Call-Net or an alternate
interval that would achieve the same goal would be appropriate.
Accordingly, the Business Process Working Group of CISC (BPWG) is
directed to establish, within 30 days of this decision, an interval
the Commission can use to create an indicator that would capture the
actual length of time for occurrences that are outside the
performance standard of Indicator 1.9.
|
65. |
The companies represented by Bell Canada submitted that the CLECs
should also file an equivalent quality of service indicator. While
CLECs are responsible for steps within the loop migration, the
Commission finds that the purpose of establishing a methodology for
reporting compliance with service intervals and standards is to
measure ILEC, and not CLEC, compliance. It would not therefore be
appropriate to require CLECs to also file equivalent quality of
service indicator measurement results.
|
|
Local Number Portability (LNP) Order (Standalone) Service
Interval Met
|
66. |
A CRTC letter decision issued 8 April 1999 approved intervals for
the porting of standard telephone numbers at five business days for
the first telephone number within an NXX, and at three business days
for subsequent telephone numbers within an NXX.
|
67. |
The Commission concurs with the companies represented by Bell
Canada and Optel's submissions that, while recognizing there is a
five-day interval for first port in an exchange, the measurement of
initial ports will become less important as competition expands and
the focus should be on day-to-day porting activities.
|
68. |
It is appropriate therefore to measure the percentage of
occasions that the agreed-upon due date is not met for the
standalone porting of numbers. This includes the provisioning
interval for porting telephone numbers at three business days for
day-to-day, and not initial porting, of telephone numbers within an
NXX. The Commission directs the telcos to report on Indicator 1.10 -
Competitor LNP Order (Standalone) Service Interval Met in their
monthly quality of service reports. This indicator will be reported
in every quarter, commencing with the third quarter of 2001, using
the monitoring model in Appendix 5. The telcos will report on this
indicator on a CLEC by CLEC basis, without combining the data for
all CLECs into one report.
|
69. |
Call-Net proposed an indicator that would measure and report on
the average provisioning time for standalone porting of numbers, but
it is not based on an interval negotiated in CISC or approved by the
Commission.
|
70. |
The Commission notes that Indicator 1.10 - Competitor LNP Order
(Standalone) Service Interval Met, would measure the percentage of
occasions that the agreed-upon due date for standalone porting of
numbers are met. It would report whether the due dates were met in
accordance with the performance standard. This indicator would not,
however, capture data on the actual length of the time taken by the
telcos companies for occurrences that do not meet the performance
standard. In light of the specific focus of Indicator 1.10, this
criterion, while known to the telephone companies and the CLECs,
would not be reported to the Commission.
|
71. |
Call-Net's proposal has merit because it would measure and report
the average provisioning time for standalone porting of numbers to
show the actual length of time for occurrences that are outside the
performance standard.
|
72. |
An indicator on the average provisioning time for standalone
porting of numbers as proposed by Call-Net, or an alternate interval
that would achieve the same goal, would be appropriate. The
Commission therefore directs the BPWG to establish within 30 days of
this decision an interval which the Commission could use to
establish an indicator that would show the actual length of time for
occurrences that are outside the performance standard of Indicator
1.10.
|
|
Interconnection Trunk Order Service Interval Met
|
73. |
The CISC Ordering and Billing Sub-Working Group (OBSWG) Consensus
Report BORE003b, dated 23 October 1998, and approved in a CRTC
letter decision issued 8 April 1999, established service
intervals for the ongoing installation of (bill and keep)
interconnecting trunks between local exchange carriers. The
intervals are 20 business days where facilities exist and 35
business days where facilities are required.
|
74. |
The Commission finds that the indicator proposed by the companies
represented by Bell Canada on the percentage of occasions that the
agreed-upon due date for the turn-up of bill and keep
interconnection trunks are met, with a standard of 90% or more,
would effectively measure and report on the service intervals for
the provisioning of (bill and keep) interconnection trunks.
|
75. |
The Commission directs the telcos to report on Indicator 1.11 -
Competitor Interconnection Trunk Order Service Interval Met in their
monthly quality of service reports. This indicator will be reported
in every quarter, commencing with the third quarter of 2001, using
the monitoring model in Appendix 5. The telcos will report on this
indicator on a CLEC by CLEC basis, without combining the data for
all CLECs into one report. |
76. |
The Commission agrees with Optel's submission that it would be
appropriate to require that the trunk be delivered in working
condition and according to industry specifications. Therefore, in
Indicator 1.11 - Competitor Interconnection Trunk Order Service
Interval Met, "due date met" means the above conditions
have been met.
|
77. |
Call-Net proposed an indicator that would measure and report on
the average provisioning time for bill and keep interconnection
trunks. However, Call-Net's proposal is not based on an interval
negotiated in CISC or approved by the Commission.
|
78. |
Indicator 1.11 - Competitor Interconnection Trunk Order Service
Interval Met would measure the percentage of time that the
agreed-upon due date for the turn-up of bill and keep
interconnection trunks are met. It would report whether the due
dates were met in accordance with the performance standard. This
indicator would not, however, capture data on the actual length of
the time taken by the telephone companies for occurrences that do
not meet the performance standard. In light of the specific focus of
Indicator 1.11, this criterion, while known to the telephone
companies and the CLECs, would not be reported to the Commission.
|
79. |
Call-Net's proposal has merit because it would measure and report
on the average provisioning time for bill and keep interconnection
trunks, to show the actual length of time for occurrences
that are outside the performance standard.
|
80. |
The Commission considers that an indicator on the average
provisioning time for bill and keep interconnection trunks as
proposed by Call-Net, or an alternate interval that would achieve
the same goal, would be appropriate. The Commission therefore
directs the BPWG to establish within 30 days of this decision an
interval the Commission can use to create an indicator to show the
actual length of time for occurrences that are outside the
performance standard of Indicator 1.11.
|
|
Unbundled Loop Trouble Reports Cleared Within 24 Hours
|
81. |
The CISC Network Operations Working Group (NOWG) Consensus Report
NOCO006L, dated 18 October 1999, and approved in a letter decision
issued 18 January 2000, established a service interval wherein ILECs
are to endeavour to provide the CLECs' unbundled loop trouble
reports with a repair service level comparable to that which the
ILECs provide to their end-customers.
|
82. |
The companies represented by Bell Canada maintain that
information relating to repair intervals for facilities provided to
competitors is already included in existing Indicator 2.1 -
Out-of-Service Trouble Reports Cleared Within 24 Hours. They say
that unbundled loop repair intervals should not be subject to new
quality of service reporting requirements.
|
83. |
The Commission believes that combining the percentage of
occasions that CLECs' and ILECs' end-customers' initial unbundled
loop trouble reports are cleared within 24 hours does not
sufficiently break out the data. It fails to identify shortfalls in
the quality of the ILEC repair service to competitors.
|
84. |
The Commission therefore considers it appropriate to measure the
percentage of occasions that the repair interval for unbundled loops
provided to competitors are met. The Commission directs the telcos
to report on Indicator 2.7 - Competitor Out-of-Service Trouble
Reports Cleared within 24 Hours in their monthly quality of service
reports. This indicator will be reported in every quarter,
commencing with the third quarter of 2001, using the monitoring
model in Appendix 5. The telcos will report on this indicator on a
CLEC by CLEC basis, without combining the data for all CLECs into
one report. |
85. |
Optel proposed an indicator that would measure and report on mean
time to repair local loops, but the interval submitted by Optel was
not negotiated in CISC or approved by the Commission.
|
86. |
Indicator 2.7 - Competitor Out-of-Service Trouble Reports Cleared
within 24 Hours, would measure the percentage of trouble reports
that are cleared in accordance with the performance standard.
This indicator would not, however, capture data on the actual length
of time taken by the telcos for occurrences that do not meet the
performance standard. In light of the specific focus of Indicator
2.7, this criterion, while known to the telephone companies and the
CLECs, would not be reported to the Commission.
|
87. |
Optel's proposal has merit because it would measure and report on
the mean time to repair local loops which would capture the actual
length of time for occurrences that are outside the performance
standard.
|
88. |
The Commission considers that an indicator on the mean time to
repair local loops as proposed by Optel, or an alternate
interval that would achieve the same goal, would be appropriate. The
Commission therefore directs the NOWG within 30 days of this
decision to establish an interval which the Commission can use to
create an indicator to show the actual length of time for
occurrences outside the performance standard of Indicator 2.7.
|
|
Completion Notifications Received
|
89. |
Call-Net proposed an indicator that would measure the percentage
of completion notifications received by the CLEC from the ILEC,
notifying the CLEC that the local service migration or completion of
new service is complete at the ILEC end.
|
90. |
A service standard was approved in a CRTC letter decision dated 8
December 1998. It provides that, after an ILEC has completed the
cutover of migrated loops at its own end, it is required to
immediately notify the CLEC. The cutover is to be completed within
15 minutes, with a standard of 90% or more.
|
91. |
It would be appropriate to measure the percentage of completion
notifications received by the CLEC from the ILEC for migrated loops.
The Commission directs the telcos to report on Indicator 2.8 -
Migrated Local Loop Completion Notices to Competitors in their
monthly quality of service reports. This indicator will be reported
in every quarter, commencing with the third quarter of 2001, using
the monitoring model in Appendix 5. The telcos will report on this
indicator on a CLEC by CLEC basis, without combining the data for
all CLECs into one report. |
92. |
There is currently no approved service standard that requires an
ILEC to notify a CLEC when it has cutover a new loop at the ILEC
end.
|
93. |
Notification of new service is an integral step in the
relationship between ILEC and CLEC. Call-Net's proposal to measure
the percentage of notifications received by the CLEC from the ILEC,
and notifying the CLEC of completion of new service at the ILEC end,
would be a useful measure. |
94. |
The Commission therefore directs the NOWG to establish within 30
days an interval the Commission can use to create an indicator to
address the above criteria for new loops. |
|
Call-Net's other proposals |
95. |
Call-Net proposed four other indicators that would measure the
following: |
|
a) Trouble Reports Cleared Within 48 Hours - the percentage of
CLECs degraded trouble reports cleared by ILECs within 48 hours of
notification, with a proposed standard of 90%. |
|
b) Rate of Reject of Loop Service Request (LSR) - the LSR
rejection rate; that is, the percentage of LSRs submitted by
CLECs that are returned due to errors perceived by the ILECs.
Call-Net stated that this measurement would indicate any biases by
certain ILECs in rejecting LSRs. |
|
c) LSR 48-Hour Turnaround Time - either the percent of occasions
when the 48-hour turnaround time is met by ILECs in response to LSRs
submitted by CLECs; or the average turnaround time, with a standard
of 90% or greater. |
|
d) Firm Order Commitment (FOC) Met - the percentage of firm order
commitments met by the ILECs, for each type of local service request
where the CLEC and the ILEC have agreed to a date for completion,
with a standard of 90% or greater. |
96. |
The Commission recognizes that there are no service standards or
intervals that have been approved for Call-Net's proposed
indicators, but it agrees that these would be useful measures. |
97. |
The Commission therefore directs the NOWG to establish within 30
days of this decision an interval for Call-Net's first proposed
indicator listed above, Degraded Trouble Reports Cleared Within 48
Hours, which the Commission can use to create an indicator. The
Commission directs the BPWG to establish within 30 days intervals
for Call-Net's three other proposed indicators which the Commission
can use to create indicators. |
|
Indicator 2.6 - Competitor Repair Appointments Met and Indicator
2.2 - Repair Appointments Met |
98. |
Decision 2000-24
directed the telcos to report progress on their efforts to separate
data for Indicator 2.6 from Indicator 2.2 as part of the fourth
quarter 2000 quality of service quarterly report filed with the
Commission. In the interim, the telcos were allowed to report the
combined data for all customers, including competitors, in Indicator
2.2 and show N/A (not available) in the reporting of Indicator 2.6.
At this juncture, the telcos have not filed their fourth quarter
2000 quality of service quarterly reports. |
99. |
To expedite the telcos' reports on the indicators, the Commission
believes it would be not be appropriate to await their fourth
quarter 2000 quality of service quarterly reports before making a
determination. The telcos will therefore file quarterly a quality of
service monthly performance report commencing with the third quarter
of year 2001, separately for Indicator 2.2 - Repair Appointments Met
and Indicator 2.6 - Competitor Repair Appointments Met. |
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request
and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca |
|
|
|
Community-level quality of service indicators in Northwestel's
territory
|
|
Indicator 1.1 - Provisioning Interval
|
|
Definition: Number of days required to provide service from the
date of customer's request.
|
|
Measurement Method: Completed rural orders are each sorted to
determine the actual number and percentage completed in 10 working
days or less.
|
|
Geographical Basis: Community
|
|
Standard: 90% or more completed within 10 working days.
|
|
Reporting Format: 1.1C - Provisioning Interval - Community
|
|
Indicator 1.2 - Installation Appointments Met
|
|
Definition: The total number of appointments booked and the
number met, with percentage of those met relative to the total
booked.
|
|
Measurement Method: Completed orders are sorted to determine the
actual number and percentage completed on the appointed date.
|
|
Geographical Basis: Community
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
Reporting Format: 1.2C - Installation Appointments Met -
Community
|
|
Indicator 1.3 - Held Orders per 100 Network Access Services
Inward Movement
|
|
Definition: The number of outstanding requests for NAS which were
not met on the due date because of facility shortages, expressed as
a percentage of 100 NAS Inward Movement (Orders).
|
|
Measurement Method: The compilation of orders for NAS outstanding
at the end of the month, which were not met on the due date.
|
|
Geographical Basis: Community
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
Reporting Format: 1.3C - Held Orders per 100 Network Access
Services Inward Movement - Community
|
|
Indicator 1.4 - Held Upgrades per 100 Upgrade Requests - Rural
|
|
Definition: The number of rural outstanding requests for higher
grades of service (e.g., from 4-party to 2-party service) unfilled
for more than 30 days.
|
|
Measurement Method: A count of rural held upgrades (i.e.,
unfilled requests for upgrades) is taken at the end of each month,
and those held over 30 days are calculated as a percentage of all
upgrade requests (new requests plus requests unfilled from previous
month).
|
|
Geographical Basis: Community
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
Reporting Format: 1.4C - Held Upgrades per 100 Upgrade Requests -
Community
|
|
Indicator 2.1 - Out-of-Service Trouble Reports Cleared
"Remote"
|
|
Definition: The total of initial out-of-service trouble reports
and those cleared within 24 hours. Percentages of those cleared
relative to this total.
|
|
Measurement Method: A compilation of trouble report data gathered
at each repair bureau.
|
|
Geographical Basis: Community
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
Reporting Format: 2.1C - Out-of-Service Trouble Reports Cleared
"Remote" - Community
|
|
Indicator 2.2 - Repair Appointments Met
|
|
Definition: The actual number and percentage of repair
appointments met.
|
|
Measurement Method: Completed repair orders are compiled and the
number and percentage of appointments met are reported.
|
|
Geographical Basis: Community
|
|
Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
Reporting Format: 2.2C - Repair Appointments Met - Community
|
|
Indicator 2.3 - Initial Customer Trouble Reports per 100
Network Access Service
|
|
Definition: A report of a trouble from a customer indicating
improper functioning of service on which there is no outstanding
trouble report.
|
|
Measurement Method: The total number of initial trouble reports
(excluding duplicate/multiple reports of the same outage) and
calculated as a percentage of NAS in service.
|
|
Geographical Basis: Community
|
|
Standard: 5% or less.
|
|
Reporting Format: 2.3C - Initial Customer Trouble Reports per 100
NAS - Community
|
|
Indicator 2.4 - Community Isolation
|
|
Definition: Community isolation resulting from trunk failure that
lasts one hour or more.
|
|
Measurement Method: Actual incidents that occurred and the
communities affected. Count each occurrence.
|
|
Geographical Basis: Community
|
|
Standard: Not applicable.
|
|
Reporting Format: 2.4C - Community Isolation - Community
|
|
Indicator 5.1 - Customer Complaints
|
|
Definition: The number of complaints addressed (in written or
verbal form) to Officers and Department Heads of the telephone
companies and the Commission.
|
|
Measurement Method: This indicator categorizes complaints into
the seven interfaces and totals all customer complaints divided by
NAS. To facilitate comparison between telephone companies,
complaints per 1000 NAS will be reported.
|
|
Geographical Basis: Community
|
|
Interim Standard: 90% or more.
|
|
Reporting Format: 5.1C - Total Customer Complaints Per 1000 NAS -
Community
|
|
5.1C1 - Provisioning Customer Complaints Per 1000 NAS - Community
|
|
5.1C2 - Repair Customer Complaints Per 1000 NAS - Community
|
|
5.1C3 - Local Service Customer Complaints Per 1000 NAS -
Community
|
|
5.1C4 - Long Distance Service Customer Complaints Per 1000 NAS -
Community
|
|
5.1C5 - Operator Service Customer Complaints Per 1000 NAS -
Community
|
|
5.1C6 - Directory Service Customer Complaints Per 1000 NAS -
Community
|
|
5.1C7 - Billing Service Customer Complaints Per 1000 NAS -
Community
|